Sobyanin and his brothers

The second summer in Moscow in the center changes asphalt to tiles, tiles for granite. In poverting Russia, more than 100 billion rubles will be so refracted. There are also those who want to justify this "authoritarian modernization" by Sergey Sobyanin - his spiritual brothers in the system.

The article by Grigory Revzin is amazing with the frank apologetics by the City Hall of the City Hall in the city center and the arrogant cut the budget of Moscow. My attempt to direct dialogue with the author failed. Nevertheless, the conversation is important, which shows a violent reaction to the text on social networks. Forced to add to the discussion his "2000 words". I do not believe in the disinterested motives of the partner of the Architectural Bureau "Strelka", which serves the Moscow city hall. I faced too many times the fact that big crazy money sharply changed the consciousness of previously decent and very professional people.

Unlike Yuri Luzhkov, either ignoring his critics, or unexpectedly grabbed their individual proposals, the Sobyanin team methodically incorporates the opponents in the system without sparing resources. At the same time, they become the spiritual brothers of Sobyanin: they act as the carriers of some higher knowledge, do not notice signals from below, saying that they know better, “how to lead the herds of Pasimi Putin’s“ sheep ”regime, without any self -government, referenda and public hearings there. We see that all these highly educated people hired by the mayor have been telling us about the pedestrian "Historical Center" for several years and methodically and purposefully destroy the possibility of using cars without flashing lights there, while parallel to destroying public transport.

Forced to inform them of the banal: the real center of Moscow, as in their favorite Western cities - the Kremlin. He has been busy with the highest authorities, the barracks of the presidential troops, the FSO and several museums for a hundred years. Entrance to the Kremlin territory - only by tickets and in certain day hours, not as under Stalin, but worse than with Khrushchev and Brezhnev. In a normal non -current society, the entire territory should have long been open to the public around the clock, like the Prague City, for example. By tickets - the entrance inside palaces and museums.

Now China-Gorod is already more than half a closed zone: captured by the presidential administration, closed by the fence. Entrance by passes. This cancerous bureaucratic tumor that seized the real center of the capital of Russia must be removed from there, to return this historical space to citizens of the country. For hiking, new restaurants, cafes, museums "Wednesdays" will be more than enough.

But the "court urbanists" to contact Putin poorly. Although there was a wretched initiative of Dmitry Medvedev about the departure of most of the power in New Moskva. One could work hard in this not too profitable direction. It would be good to listen to the people: the city has several hundred points of indignation. This is the demolition of historical monuments and the development of squares, now an attempt to conduct high -speed chords through historical parks like the Kuskovo estate. But it is much easier to be in the trend of the city hall, to tell the people about the need for wide sidewalks, literally gold at the price of granite borders, draw projects of new pedestrian streets, invent new budgets on the tile for the system and turquoils, and then, clicking over the people, which they compare with the rams, consider their fraction to the led from the budget.

I note that outside the center, life in the sleeping areas of Moscow is somewhat better than in the center of the province, but for the third ring, the authorities of the capital’s authorities are not eager to invest in such volumes: there is no way to create a sample Potemkin village there.

If in the province they knew the truth, they would realize that in Moscow there was an impudent feast during the plague, and at their expense

I will answer those "intellectuals" who "do not pass their own" and write that it is indecent to indicate who pays an outstanding architectural critic. In general, it is not so important whether the expert was bribed in the past and he prostitutes to the joy of the Biryukov brothers or now he is happily surrendered to the Moscow authorities for purely artistic reasons and solely for the sake of intellectual pleasure. We will naively assume that the urbanist with all my heart is ideologically and disinterestedly just grabbed onto the wonderful opportunity, decided to realize his long -standing plans and betray Moscow with corrupt officials who put tiles and granite according to his patterns. But in this case, reasonable questions arise.

Does the urbanist consider the priority of 123 billion rubles (almost $ 2 billion!) From the budget for expanding sidewalks and laying tiles instead of asphalt, and asphalt instead of tiles on several dozens of streets of the Moscow Center, How does this “game game” look in a situation where “there is no money”, when in rich Moscow, the authorities close clinics and hospitals, dismiss doctors and nurses, cut social expenses, refuse to index pensions, raise taxes, tariffs and rents? Will the apologet of Sobyanin record premature deaths and severe diseases that have arisen due to a deficiency of medical care and drugs, at his personal account or will he dismiss this reality? I'm not even talking about a real catastrophe of the social sphere in the province. Know the truth there, they would understand that in Moscow there is an impudent feast during the plague, and at their expense.

Does the idealist-urbanist believe that the holy goal of decorating the center of the capital with wide sidewalks justifies the wild enrichment of a small group of businessmen close to mayor officials? Connoisseurs of the "schemes" and the estimates have already calculated that at least half of the amount of 123 billion rubles allotted for decorating the Putin capital will go into the rollback. This is the question, is the intellectual who has long claimed for the role of the ruler of the Duma to act as a beautiful screens for an organized group of tender, involuntarily (or free?) Playing the role of the subject that distracts the audience while experimental forceps rummage through the pockets of the gaping fellow citizens? Finally, is it decent to consider the proof of the faithful Sobyaninsky path now the lack of mass street protests in Moscow, in a situation where the authorities easily “rolls into asphalt” even small manifestations of discontent and firmly plants even for single pickets?

Judging by the nervous reaction to criticism, the architectural critic who taught the people of life is slightly different from those technocrats who served the Bolsheviks in the 1920-30s, carried out criminal industrialization and collectivization with them, and then to their surprise-came to Lubyanka in 1937. It is clear that the Urbanist wants to draw out the happy ticket of Boris Jofan, who built the Palace of Soviets on the site of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and supposedly crossed out by Stalin from the execution list. But, as the story tells us, the probability of an accomplice in the crimes of the 30s to get out of the then terror alive, and from the current mayor's mud-clean and staying with an unfinished reputation is not very great.

All of the above is an occasion for a great discussion. But the party in the conversation had long been no longer the intellectual service of the city hall, but the elected power of Moscow, the mayor of Sergei Sobyanin, who completely ignores the issues of society, and his closest environment: vice-mayors of Rakov, Liksutov, Biryukov, Khusnullin, who were lined under the force cover of Putin's regime. Apparently, in the distant future, such a dialogue will take place, but then the authors of the current cut of Moscow all the same questions will answer, I'm afraid, already from the bench of the defendants.

Mikhail Sokolov - Radio Observer Freedom

Opinions expressed under the heading "Law" may not reflect the point of view of the editorial office