Regional and City Planning in the Russian Empire by Hans Blumenfeld
Regional and City Planning in the Russian Empire by Hans Blumenfeld.
-An article of 1920s from the TASK magazine - published by architecture students from Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Smith College- highlighting the radical developments of city planning born from the five-year plans in Imperial Russia during the government of Nicholas II and Premier Stalin.
*Growing Cities.
Before the industrial modernization in the country, everyone saw Russia as a peasant country. Even today some people describe the unflinching heroism of the Russian Army to the mushik's (мужи́к - mužík, "peasant") 'mystical' love for his soil.
However, even the most 'mystical' soil cannot produce armored vehicles and airplanes; they are the product of industries and cities that, after their growth, have been planned in detail.
By 1920, at least 114 million people in the Russian Empire lived in cities, outnumbering the entire population of the islands of Great Britain and outnumbering just over 94.6 million people living in cities or metropolitan districts in the United States. Less than a quarter of those 114 million inhabitants (27.4 million), lived in 82 cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants; cities comparable to 108 metropolitan districts of the same class in the United States.
Approaching 1930, cities of this type have only increased or expanded. Russian city builders have had to accommodate more and more citizens over time.
*Organization of City Planning.
Russian medieval cities were nothing more than big villages; the ancient urban culture of Transcaucasia and Central Asia left behind great monuments, but hardly a living tradition. For Peter's new capital on the Neva, the great art of city planning of the baroque period created his masterpiece on a gigantic scale; meaning that well into the 19th century, the best architects in the country controlled urban development through the means of the State and following the tradition or influence of this great Baroque tradition.
Briefly there was a fracture in the country with the abolition of Serfdom under Alexander II and the early days of Alexander III. There was an accelerated and rather chaotic growth of cities, developments similar to the United States in the same time period.
Industrial modernization in the country evoked a new interest in city planning, drawing inspiration from ideas popular or accepted in Europe at the time (such as those of pre-revolutionary Spain). New industrial settlements were built in the pattern of garden cities (satellite communities surrounding the central city and separated with greenbelts).
The first of these settlements were in some of the country's growing power plants, such as Shatur/Shaturstroy (modern day Shatura), in the peat bogs 100 miles south of Moscow.
In pre-existing cities, a new zoning was established, which brought with it many improvements; new parks, extension and widening of streets, new residential and industrial quarters, schools, sanitary services, sports and recreation, etc. Though of course, some can argue that in the early days of these urban development, this was done more as the need arose than 'true' planning.
These developments of the so-called Alexandrian Period demonstrated some characteristics of the new capitalist socio-economic order that was being adopted in the country, while maintaining traditional characteristics of the Russian state.
Although private property spread widely among the lower-middle class, the municipality (deriving its powers from the state) has the power to dispose of the Russian land in its entirety, according to the interest of the citizenry and the central government. This public power carried out developments that would be impossible in other capitalist countries, where private property had a historical prominence far superior to that of Alexandrian Russia.
As a consequence, the urban plans show a neat and clear designed pattern, and a wide provision of public green space (irregular in many developments in other countries of the time). In this pattern, a civil center stands out, which formed the strong nucleus of the new reality of urban populations (mostly members of the working class and different types of bourgeois).
Baku reclaimed its waterfront for splendid parks, and Tiflis built grand avenues connecting the historic city centers with the new suburbs, and so on.
The content of urban development reflected the new Russian socio-economic and political realities, but in method, it remained essentially unchanged throughout the despotic period of Tsar Alexander III.
The new urban citizens - whether Russian workers or industrialists (public or private) - with increasing civic and economic freedoms in the XX century (evolving until the first Duma), moved rather by instinct, interpreting what they understood from central government currents and similar developments in other parts of the world.
City planners did the same, basing their forecasts on the designs of the State and on a continuation of previous developments (of an indefinite period of time, generally trends of up to 100 years - or more, if you consider the influence of the Orthodox religion in the structures of city planning).
The first semi-democratic governments of the Russian Empire, the governments from Witte to Balashov (1905-1920), continued the Alexandrian tendencies.
But a fundamental change was brought about in the government of Nicholas II, with the arrival of the government of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party under Stalin. After the internal rebellions were beaten and the practical work got under way.
The five-year plans of the RSDLP brought a fundamental change, for the first time in Russian history, forecasting of what people might be expected to do was replaced by a co-ordinated plan of what they intended to do. And this radically changes city planners in the Russian Empire.
The work was no longer based on expectations of what might happen.
The 'General Plan' of the Russian Empire outlined an integrated and all-inclusive program of industrial, cultural and economic growth some 15-to-20 years in advance, in fairly detailed quantitative terms for every industry, every region, and every city.
The city planner had to design the physical framework for this definite socio-economic program, as a framework to be built during this definite time.
New organizations were created to solve the problems arising from this fundamental change. State city planning institutes were created in federal and other major cities of the Empire: 'Giprogor' in Moscow, 'Giprograd' in Kharkov and Kiev, 'Byelgorod' in Minsk; and similar institutes in Tiflis, Tashkent or Vladivostok to continue the example.
After these institutes trained enough city planners to stand on their own feet, planning became much more decentralized for a new generation of planners, without the advice or supervision of a few specialists concentrated in a few big centers like St. Petersburg or Moscow (and inspired solely by the great traditions of the past). In its place planning organizations were established in the great cities and provinces of the empire.
The ministries concerned with matters of the national economy also created organizations charged with planning the settlements of workers in connection with the new factories, mines, etc. And since these enterprises were in accordance with the size and number of people of the country, they involved tens of thousands of workers, these settlements were usually full-size cities.
An example of centers built from scratch is Magnitogorsk, built for the workers of the iron mines, blast furnaces and steel mills of the great metallurgical combine in the steppes of the Ural River.
The city-planning organizations of the Ministries concentrated on the planning of new cities [nis-called ghost cities abroad on various occasions], while state, provincial and local institutes specialized in the reconstruction and extension of the old cities. But still, there is no hard and fast division between these two groups or the fields of the various local organizations.
Industry administrators and city councils have some leeway when it comes to choosing which organization they want to entrust the planning of their city.
While this sometimes leads to duplication of work or irrational distribution of forces, there is competition within the birdcage economy that has prevented planning organizations from falling into dead routine or complacency.
At first, many industries proposed to build their factories and settlements independently, but this was soon rejected by the central government of the Russian Empire due to its impracticality after the first experiments (such as Opticogorsk or Avio-Gored in the Moscow area).
Independent planning results in lack of connectivity between settlements, irrational land use, complicated and expensive communications, unsuitable territory for housing, air and water pollution, and duplication of public utilities.
This gave greater importance to regional planning, where usually the leading industries or industrial combines took the lead when it came to the priorities of the planners.
Some therefore thought that urban planning was rather an extension of regional planning of industrial combines, dedicated simply to the development of 'inhabited points'.
But this trend that tried to divorce urban planning and regional planning was short-lived, with the development of comprehensive methods of regional planning.
*Social Planning and Physical Planning.
Here the Russian Empire and the European Socialist Union arrived at essentially the same approach to regional development at similar times, one completely opposite to the development in previously capitalist Europe, the Imperial Federation and the United States of America.
Even with the great Fordist ambitions, the concept and planning approach was always focused on going from the smallest to the largest (and in that same sense, more based on American idealism than on American economic realities). From the individual building to the block, from the block to the city, and from the city to the region.
At this point however, the planners had to face reality, physical planning is directly linked to economic planning.
Unfortunately, planners outside the communist or Eurasian Russian space only began to venture into the space of industrial distribution, when they found themselves mostly restricted to the space of theoretical discussion (outside of practice).
While there are trends from minor to major unit in the European Socialist Union and the Covenant of Nations, the main trend was in the opposite direction: from the whole to the part.
In this way, the physical planning of the region began on the solid foundation of the State Plan for the economic and social life of the entire nation. Similar to how during the government of Tsar Alexander III the electrification of the country was established based on the direction of the state plans.
From this starting point, all the resources of the Russian Empire and its neighbors have been gradually explored.
Thus, the plans are worked in both directions, 'vertically' by the industries and 'horizontally' by the territorial units of the country. And these plans are not limited only to the economy, but also include cultural activities, education, art and science.
All this planning is called 'planirovanya' (планированя), while the planning of a block or city is called 'planirovka' (планировка). And it is no accident that the Russian language has two distinctive terms for what we call 'planning'.
Planirovanya may be translated as 'social planning', while planirovka roughly translates to 'physical planning'.
Planirovanya determines the quantity and time, as well as the point of any construction: a refinery with the assumed production of X tons, with Y workers, is to be built in the Z oilfields in 1930; it will have to receive a peak load of A tons by railroad and will consume B gallons of water daily, etc.
With the end of planirovanya, planirovka begins with the alloting of a definite piece of land, with definite boundaries to the refinery and to the settlement (determining the layout of streets, railways, water, and sewer mains).
Normally the social planning must be completed before the physical planning sets in, but very often the physical planning work leads to proposals that end up modifying the original socio-economic plan.
Eventually this leads to a close collaboration between both branches of planning, a completely different development than in the West.
We are just now differentiating between both methods of social and physical planning, while in the Russian Empire both tendencies developed separately have been integrated into a far advanced regional planning.
*Distribution of Productive Forces.
Most of the advanced capitalist countries show a distribution of the productive forces characteristic of Imperialism. Manufacturing industries are concentrated in the capital of the dominant nations, while the territory of the subject nations function as sources of raw materials and markets for metropolitan industry.
And Russia for much of the early development of its capitalism fulfills these imperialist characteristics: Raw cotton from Central Asia goes to Moscow or Ivanovo-Vosnyessensk, and cotton clothes go to Tashkent. Ukrainian iron and steel goes to St. Petersburg and Moscow, and machinery and tools go back to the Ukraine.
Only the most accessible energy sources were used: wood, oil from the Caucasus, and coal. They were carried great distances and to some extent used wastefully, while other sources remained largely untouched.
But all this was changing with the modernization and development of the country's productive forces.
The Russian Empire carried out an inventory of the national wealth, in a vast and systematic exploration of at least one sixth of the Earth. Resulting in the discovery of deposits of coal, oil and minerals of all kinds at least 8 times larger than those previously known.
Resulting in new principles during the governments of Tsar Alexander III and Nicholas II, for the redistribution of industry, agriculture and population.
Principles used of course in the aforementioned five-year plans.
1. Develop industries close to sources of raw materials and energy.
2. Distribute the industry in a more or less equal manner throughout the country, to create industrial and cultural centers in various regions of the Empire. In the process seeking to eliminate the historical antagonism between the countryside and the city.
3. Development of the industry of all non-Russian regions of the Empire, so that there is parity with the development of the Russian nation, not only in the field of law.
4. Development of specialized industry according to the natural and cultural resources of each region, but
5. Still provide a variety of industries to achieve some 'wholeness' in the territory (still deeply interconnected with other parts of the Empire).
Of course with certain considerations or peculiarities in certain fields or aspects, such as imperial integration, integration with its neighbors or national defense issues.
Russia effectively sought to balance its productive forces throughout the country with developments such as the high-speed rail, but it continues to be a centralist country with great weight concentrated in certain regions (Moscow and Petrograd are simply too important to be displaced).
Who is going to convince the great masses of workers and specialists concentrated in the cities of Petrograd or Moscow to move to move to the more peasant heritage regions (factories whose skills and location were directly linked to the particular skills developed due to peasant handicraft)? Nobody really.
The most specialized industries during the Alexandrian era only began to decentralize when the educational reforms of the Russian Empire began to give millions of new workers to the plants, before the factories of the most 'complicated' industries only found workers in Moscow or St. Petersburg.
Similar phenomena occur in the period of government of Tsar Nicholas II, with some science or development centers from which innovative industries emerge or take over more peripheral innovations, which later spread to other areas of the country.
That is in part why most planners accepted that they could not freeze the growth of the old capitals, at best, they could do was try to keep it within reasonable limits (only a small minority thought of the idea of reducing these historic centers, but that was not in the plans of the Russian leaders). However, currently the population of Moscow and Petrograd continues to grow at the same rate as the general urban growth.
In the period 1910-1920, each city grew by just over 5 million inhabitants, even despite the Second World War. And the Russian civil war did not stop urban growth either.
*Creation of Industrial Nuclei.
Russians under the RSDLP, in a Russian Marxist analysis, believe that the existing antagonism between the countryside and the city can be overcome through the constant revitalization and development of the country's productive forces.
This entails the creation of 'industrial nuclei' that can serve as centers of urban culture, surrounded by more rural or underdeveloped regions.
This is achieved by building or expanding the industrial capacities of commercial or administrative centers, or by directly creating new cities.
The Russian experts found that under existing conditions, cities under 50,000 inhabitants do not develop the desired municipal services, public facilities or cultural life. Resulting in the Russians determining cities between 50,000 and 1,000,000 inhabitants as the most desirable.
As the following table shows, they have succeeded in making these class of cities the dominant type in the urban environment in the Empire.
(Figures of the U.S.A given for comparison, refer to cities under 50,000 and to Metropolitan Areas over 50,000 inhabitants)
Percentage of Urban Population Living in Cities of Varying Size.
SIZE OF CITY Russian Empire
1900 Russian Empire
1920 USA
1920
Under 50,000 47.2 37.9 33.3
50,000 - 999,999 38.7 48.0 30.8
1,000,000 and over 14.1 14.1 35.9
Total 100. 100. 100.
[OOC: This is based on an article of 1942 about Soviet planning. If you people like it I will continue in other update because this thing is long, like, there are still 12 pages of material to use and that cover things like: Water power, agriculture, regional planning, about city planners and city planning, who takes part in city planning, parks and culture, etc.]
*******
[Climate change.]
"The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it add about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries".
"COAL CONSUMPTION AFFECTING CLIMATE" Science Notes and News of The Rodney & Otamatea Times - Waitemata & Kaipara Gazette, August 14, 1912.
Not completely accurate based on current knowledge, but it demonstrates a rather important point. Human societies have a great impact on their geographical and climatic environment.
Including of course pre-industrial societies, although modern science and discussions usually talka about this theme in the context of industrial societies.
People in the early 20th century already understood this well, which is precisely why environmental engineering developed as a scientific field and was relatively popular in the first half of the XX century.
Very famous is the case of the green wall in Central Asia or the Pleistocene Park in the Russian Empire, but during the period of First Stalinism other equally important projects were started.
Probably less famous due to its less 'greatness', but with much more impressive results in the short-medium term for the steppe belt and the deserts of Central Asia.
After the second world war and the Russian civil war, the RSDLP government would establish plans to avoid sequels that would pose problems in times of war or post-war.
These plans started in 1928 (rule of the Fourth Duma) and were established as a system in 1932 (under the rule of the Fifth Duma).
This one wasn't quite as impressive at first glance as greening the desert with the Alexandrian green wall or reviving the mammoth steppe, but still quite impressive in terms of scale for the time. The RSDLP government plan was designed to permanently protect fertile agricultural lands from destructive dry winds, dust storms, moisture deficiency and soil erosion with forest belts.
The plan involved planting strips of forest in an area of 120 million hectares, equivalent to the territories of France, Italy, Flanders (in 1928), England (then part of the Imperial Federation) and the Netherlands - this would block the dry winds and change the climate on the area for the purposes of the State and the country. +
*There were also 570 forest protection stations created in the years of 1929-1935.
This resulted in several positive effects for the Russian Empire before (and after) World War III.
At an immediate level, we can list the following:
The quality and yields of agricultural lands protected by forest belts increased.
Soil erosion decreased due to the forest belts.
The water balance in the agricultural land improved.
Overall productivity of these lands grew: Grain yields by 25-30%, vegetables by 50-75%, and herbs by 100-200%.
And after such successes, the preparation of thousands of ponds and reservoirs for fish farming began in the Russian Empire.
kubuqi-desert-satellite-images.jpg
Success of the greening of the Kubuqi desert of the region of Inner Mongolia, Russian Empire.
It all sounds great, and of course it has its social and economic benefits, but we can't just talk about Russia's successes in its efforts to green up or maintain parts of its territory.
Environmental engineering and climate change is a widely talked about issue, since it has important connotations.
The most ethical questions of environmental engineering began to be discussed more in the middle of the 20th century, when the use of nuclear weapons for environmental engineering was proposed, the catastrophic failures of some of these projects and the problems of climate change were brought to attention.
Discussions that have their important connotations:
Russia and India dominate the markets for green technologies, or possess the necessary resources for the sustainable energy projects of other countries such as the European Socialist Union (not only much of the gas, coal and oil is Russian, but also the uranium and metals or necessary parts for nuclear power plants, solar panels, windmills, etc. is Russian too).
Greatly impacting economic and political relations in a world that aspires to eco-friendly technologies.
Developing countries, mainly in Africa and Latin America, cannot be held to the same standards in enviromental matters as developed countries (in terms as emissions).
And for the moment in their industrial development, one way or another they will end up increasing their climatic-geographical impact (they of course could resolve this later since countries have managed to reverse the effects of environmental pollution to some extent, but we can't know if people in the future would do it).
Geo-political relations related to large projects, such as the dams of rivers shared by several countries (for example, the Nile issues, which affect the Ethiopia-East African Federation and the Emirate of Ha'il).
And a very important one is that climate change is in the interests of some groups. We are no longer talking about economic interests that may result in climate-environmental change such as the oil industry, but political ones.
The great powers of the world have been able to justify interventions in certain regions due to geo-environmental issues such as droughts.
In a sense, climate change and refugees from environmental catastrophes benefit them