Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DOI 10.1007/s10708-006-9017-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
Received: 18 April 2006 / Accepted: 5 May 2006 / Published online: 27 September 2006
Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006
Nikolay Sobolev
Biodiversity Conservation Center, Moscow, Russia
L. Volkova
Severtsov Institute of Ecological & Evolutional
Problems, Moscow, Russia
M. Blinnikov (&)
Geography Department, St. Cloud State University,
St. Cloud, MN 56301, USA
e-mail: mblinnikov@stcloudstate.edu
A. Shanin
Graduate School, London School of Economics,
London, Great Britain
123
66
We left city for the weekend,
It was raining, saw no stars,
There were fences everywhere,
Our chiefs behind the bars.
Gennady Shpalikov
123
67
123
68
landscape will of course depend on the size, trophic level and systematic position of the organism
in question, which makes such research all the
more exciting.
123
While the radical plans of the early Soviet urbanists were never implemented, some neighbourhoods of inner Moscow today contain elements of
these early models. For example, the general area
near Kievsky train station along the Moscow river
west of downtown and the campus of Moscow
State University on Leninsky (Vorobyevy) Hills,
both which developed in the early 1950s, afford
spacious views of natural elements (e.g., river
embankments, ravines, old trees in parks) interspersed with more utilitarian and urbane green
space (e.g., playgrounds, flowerbeds and numerous sport facilities). These features approximated
the green designs of the early Soviet dreamers.
The first General Plan of Moscow (Genplan
1935) explicitly acknowledged the need for
adequate green space envisioned as a green belt
around the whole city. Ostensibly, this space
would benefit the citizens by providing clean air
from the surrounding parks reaching deeply into
the city centre. The important remnants of this
early model in Moscow today are Losiny Ostrov
National Park and Sokolniki park in the northwest, Izmailovsky and Kuskovsky parks in the
east, Tsaritsyno-Birulevsky park in the southeast,
Bitsevsky park in the south and Kuntsevsky and
69
123
70
1991
2001
Water
Trees
Grass
Impervious and bare soil
2.2
51.2
12.0
34.6
2.6
40.0
10.6
46.8
123
71
Table 2 Size and security levels promised in the suburban developments (existing* and under construction) in all directions
within 50 km of the Moscow Beltway
Development name
Area,
ha
Access highway
(direction)
Security provided
Alpijski
Avrora
Barvikha-Club
11
NA
6.28
Novorizhskoe (NW)
Egoryevskoe (SE)
Rublevo-Uspenskoe (W)
Belgijskaja dervenya
28
Kaluzhskoe (SW)
Benilux
Bor
Chigasovo-2
Domik v lesu
Evropa
107
8.09
9
10.3
NA
Novorizhskoe (NW)
Starokashirskoe (S)
Rublevo-Uspenskoe (W)
Dmitrovskoe (N)
Ilyinskoe (W)
Finskaya Derevnya-2
Fortuna
Grafskaya usadba
Knyazhye ozero
10
NA
NA
80
Novorizhskoe (NW)
Dmitrovskoe (N)
Kaluzhskoe (SW)
Novorizhskoe (NW)
Lapino-grad
10
Rublevo-Uspenskoe (W)
Lazurny bereg
8.15
Dmitrovskoe (N)
Lesnye prostory-2
Medvezhi ozera
Nikolina gora*
Novoarhangelskoe
Novoglagolevo
Rasskazovka
Sareevo
Sosnovy bor
Staraya Riga
Turovo
U lesnogo ozera*
Velich
15
12.82
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.5
30
6
7.23
NA
20
Rublevo-Uspenskoe (W)
Shchelkovskoe (NE)
Rublevskoe (W)
Novorizhskoe (NW)
Kaluzhskoe (SW)
Kievskoe (SW)
Rublevo-Uspenskoe (W)
Yaroslavkoe (N)
Novorizhskoe (NW)
Volokolamskoe (NW)
Volokolamskoe (NW)
Novorizhskoe (NW)
Waldorf
Zelenograd
Andreevka*
Zeleny Mys
23.5
NA
Yaroslavskoe (N)
Leningradskoe (NW)
80
Dmitrovskoe (N)
* Indicates older, established subdivisions; the rest are being planned, under active construction or partially occupied
Source: Based on Zagorodnaya realtor agency current online listings (all new developments listed at http://www.zagorodnaya.ru as of April 2005)
lots, about half were listed as located in guarded settlements. An amusing characteristic of
many properties seems to be presence of reputable (solidnye) neighbours, which obviously
implies exclusivity and should convey a sense of
security to the prospective buyers.
123
72
123
channel was artificially streamlined via Khoroshevskoe cut-off, which placed the forested area
on an artificial island surrounded by the river
meander (Fig. 1). During the Stalin period about
200 dachas were constructed here, of which 11
were owned by the MVD (Police), 5 by the KGB
and 20 by Moscow city council members. In
addition to members of the federal government,
many theater directors, actors, newspaper editors
and radio news anchors lived in the area before
and after World War II. Foreign embassies had
their estates here as well, for example, Argentina,
Bulgaria, Japan, France, UK, Korea and Lebanon. Nixon dubbed it Russian Coney Island
and suggested further development during his
historical visit to Moscow in May of 1972 (Business Olymp, 2005).
It is a unique natural complex that contains
approximately 328 ha total with 80 ha under forest, including some 150200-years-old pines and
many hardwoods, 52 ha of built-over urban areas
(large Soviet-era apartment homes) and 70 ha of
VIP dachas, which are the subject of our research.
Recently, the area received some attention as the
government of Moscow passed a new executive
order on the nature monument territory (Moscow, 2005) and eradicated some illegal homesteads in the area (RSN, 2004). The official
control over the nature monument territory
belongs to Moscow city government, specifically
its Department of Nature Use. The real estate of
the old state dachas is likewise mainly under city
control (OAO Mosdachtrest) that is partially
owned by AFK Systema, with close ties to the
current mayor of Moscow and the Department of
State and Municipal Property; this comprises
about 2/3 of the total acreage of the territory.
Other long-term users of the dachas in the park
include the Administration of the President, State
Duma, Moscow Oblast administration, Bolshoi
Theater, Moscow Military District, Federal
Committee on State Property and a few obscure
private organizations apparently representing
very high profile business leaders with good
governmental connections (Note ..., 2001).
ZAO Business Olymp which is a realtor and
developer specializing in VIP-class estates lists
cottages in Serebryany Bor as super-VIP real
estate in the historical natural preserve not far from
73
123
74
well-intentioned, but poorly implemented, landscaping. The mean size of a dacha plot in Serebryany Bor is .4 ha, of which up to 20% can be
occupied by buildings. Based on our direct
observations, this norm is frequently exceeded.
The result has been a patchwork of forest cover
with patches of about .3 ha in size, and which
negatively impacts many small, but mobile, carnivores (e.g., weasels), insectivores (e.g., European hedgehogs) and amphibians (toads), all
affected by landscape fragmentation. Outright
construction has already destroyed the meadow
habitat of the rare blue-winged grasshopper
(Oedipoda coerulescens) listed in the Red Data
Book of Moscow. Another major impact has been
the construction of concrete fences without gaps
or gates for animals to travel through. Thus,
exclusivity for humans tends also to exclude
middle sized mammals, amphibians and insects as
well.
The impacts of heavy recreation in the area
are obvious and profound. Most affected are
public recreation spaces on the southern shore of
the island (including the infamous nudist area, the
best known such area in Moscow) and the shores
of Lake Bezdonka that house a childrens camp
and multiple recreational facilities. The trampling
of vegetation, spontaneous trail construction and
music blaring from loudspeakers create difficult
conditions for terrestrial small mammals, birds
and amphibians. The official forestry guidelines
for the pine forest suggest a maximum concentration of humans at 12/ha, while in reality 130/ha
is common. Some areas along the beachfront have
lost most of their topsoil which precludes building
of nests by burrowing wasps and bees. Wet
meadows and fens along the lake shore and willow thickets along the Moscow river, on the other
hand, experience much less use. Another problem
is the dumping of trash, which now includes nonbiodegradable plastic beverage containers, disposable diapers and other litter characteristic of
the newly affluent society.
Another group of impacts has more to do with
the permanent inhabitants, including residents of
the elite cottages. One of the many pastimes of
the Muscovites, both rich and poor, is dog ownership and the associated pleasures of walking the
pet in a local park (gated in case of the elite).
123
Walking unleashed dogs in the local forest harasses birds, mammals and other small animals.
Stray dogs and cats are unfortunately not only
common but are in fact fed by compassionate
local residents who even provide makeshift shelters to facilitate dogs life in the wild. As a result,
six to seven pups in one stray dog litter have been
observed in the area. Another example of the
misdirected love of nature is the introduction of
squirrels by the Moscow forestry department.
While dogs impact the ground-nesting species,
squirrels exterminate birds in tree cavities and
under shrubs.
Yet another impact that has been accelerating in
recent years is introduction of intensive lawn care,
both by the city park managers and by private
companies on elite dacha lots. With the advent of
more American-style landscaping since mid-1990s,
lawnmowers, pesticides, and mixtures of imported
grass seed have brought about a homogenous and
toxic environment and facilitated the spread of
weeds throughout the island (60 species of introduced plants already occur here, including some
planted shrubs and trees). While most native
perennial grasses can tolerate mowing for a long
period of time, butterflies, beetles and bees are
immediately impacted. New flowerbeds full of
exotic flowers can also lead to more weed penetration into the woods. Timber harvesting, on the
other hand, is practiced responsibly, with less than
5% of trees cut for sanitary purposes in a given year
in selected areas. This practice does not present a
problem in the long run. Some wildflowers are
being collected by visitors, but overall practice
seems to have low impact.
Serebryany Bor is clearly a unique example in
the context of Moscow city. With rising land and
estate prices, the increasing exclusivity will assure
a greater degree of segregation in the future.
However, given the desire of the VIPs not to be
disturbed on the one hand and the popularity of
the Moscow river and Bezdonka beaches on the
other, the future winner is not assured. The more
numerous and less regulated crowds may ultimately have a bigger impact on the local ecosystem, but it is the new concrete fences, mansions,
and exotic planting stock and lawns of the rich
that present the biggest long-term threat based on
landscape impact.
75
Direction Number of
Percentage
from
developments
Moscow
Novorizhskoe
Rublevo-Uspenskoe
Dmitrovskoe
Pyatnitskoe
Kaluzhskoe
Yaroslavskoe
Volokolamskoe
Leningradskoe
Minskoe
Mozhaiskoe
Subtotal
Total for Oblast
NW
W
N
NW
SW
N
NW
NW
W
W
40
36
17
15
14
10
5
5
4
4
150
171
23.4%
21.1%
9.9%
8.8%
8.2%
5.8%
2.9%
2.9%
2.3%
2.3%
87.6%
100.0%
123
76
123
77
Category
B High
Category
C Business
Category
D Cottage
123
78
123
to a pseudo-antique Russian theme. The promotional materials use Russian decor, Slavic-styled
fonts and a deliberately archaic vocabulary are
designed to appeal to the targeted audience (the
word for architect they use is old Russian
zodchii). The main entrance to the development
resembles a gateway to the medieval Russian
fortress (Fig. 4). The development is clearly
positioned to appeal to family-oriented, patriotic
clients with somewhat lower incomes than those
customary for settlers along the Rublevskoe
highway.
The development is located in ecologically
clean Istrinsky rayon within the green belt of
Moscow. Ironically, as in Serebryany Bor and
despite the presence of the relatively unspoiled
natural forest of the green belt nearby, the
intensive lawn care (mowing, pesticides), planting
of exotic shrubs and improvements to the
nearby lakes (water impoundments, cleaning of
the bottom, artificial beach construction) are expected to take place. Of course, the paradox of
this exclusive suburban development is precisely
the same as in U.S. or European countries, viz.,
the desire to live close to nature destroys the very
nature people come to enjoy.
79
123
80
immediate vicinity of Moscow to the land speculators will be imminent. The scope of the ensuing
destruction belt will dwarf even the biggest
projects of today.
Conclusions
The phenomenon of gated communities is not
new for Russia and is firmly rooted in the historical tradition of the wealthy elite secluding
itself away from the underprivileged and frequently landless masses. High value suburban
developments, a majority of which are gated, are
taking over the Moscow oblast countryside. While
inside the city proper only very few such communities exists, largely grandfathered from the
Soviet period and owned/operated by either federal (Administration of the President) or city
government, the surrounding area outside of the
beltway has lost about 12% of forested land to
such developments in the past 1215 years. While
many of the settlements now are much better
planned than in the mid-1990s and are built by
serious companies with international reputations,
few are built with an adequate environmental
review and even fewer do a good job providing
for genuine nature conservation in and around
such communities. Most of them exist as selfcontained gated enclaves with complete infrastructure to promote U.S.-inspired car-oriented
commuter lifestyle quite disconnected from the
reality outside the secured and gated perimeter.
Many adversely impact local wildlife by increased
levels of landscape disturbance, including intensive lawn care, cutting of brush and trees, creation
of linear impervious concrete fences, artificial
embankments, dredging and damming of lakes
and creeks, and overall fragmentation due to road
and power line construction. The fact that some
of these communities advertise environmental
quality in your backyard does little to mitigate
the actual negative impacts. Many such developments now begin to include schools and churches
in addition to shops and gyms suggesting that the
long-term occupation by families is the desired
goal. This ensures that the current pattern of
increasing segregation based on income and
123
References
Blinnikov, M., Shanin, A., Sobolev, N., & Volkova, L.
(2005). Green lungs of Moscow. In Abstracts of the
Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting, April 610, 2005. CD-ROM, Washington, DC:
Association of American Geographers.
Brade, I., Nefedova, T. G., & Treivish, A. I. (1999).
Changes in the system of Russian cities in the 1990s.
Izvestiya RAN, Geography series, 4, 6474.
Brady, R. (1999). Kapitalizm: Russias struggle to free its
economy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bulgakov, M. (1969). Master and Margarita. Frankfurt,
West Germany: Posev.
Business Olymp. (2005). Online at: http://www.businessolymp.ru. Accessed April 2005.
Department of Nature Use and Nature Conservation of
the City of Moscow. (2002). State Report on the
Status of the Quality of Moscow Environment in
20002001. Online at: http://www.moseco.ru/doklad2000/
Fedorova, L. (2005). Russians will be equated with cockroaches. RBC Daily, March 23.
Gaddy, C. G., & Ickes, B. W. (2002). Russias Virtual
Economy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
Gamov, A. (2003). The spirit of Stalin roams his three
favorite dachas. Komsomolskaya Pravda Dec. 23.
Gorbanevsky, M. V. (2005). Serebryany Bor. Online at:
moscow.gramota.ru. Accessed April 2005.
Gorshkov, M. K., & Tikhonova, N. Y. (Eds.). (2004). In
The new social reality of Russia: The rich, the poor, the
middle class. Nauka, Moscow, Russia.
Goskomstat (Federal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation). (2002). Official Results of the Russian Census 2002.
Goverdovskaya, O. (2004). Dacha near Moscow becomes
an alternative to the city flat. Feb. 2, 2004. Online at:
http://www.kottedj.ru
Heleniak, T. (2003). The 2002 census in Russia: Preliminary results. Eurasian Geography and Economics,
44, 430442.
IRN (Indicators of Realty Markets). (2004). Investigation
of the market of the cottage developments in Moscow
region-2004. Online at http://www.irn.ru/research2/
81
Rosbalt News Agency. (2005). http://www.rosbalt.ru/2005/
02/22/197504.html Accessed April 2005.
RSN (Russkaya Sluzhba Novostej) Newswire. (2004).
Illegal sporting center will be torn down in Serebryany Bor. Online at: http://www.rusnovosti.ru. Accessed August 26, 2004.
Samarina, N. (2005). Springsummer 2005: Settlements
haute couture. Mir i Dom, 5, 41.
Saushkin, Y. G., & Glushkova, V. G. (1983). Moskva sredi
gorodov mira. [In Russian: Moscow among the cities
of the world.] Mysl, Moscow.
Schetinin, Y. V., & Baranov, I. S. (2005). Analysis of
accessibility of housing in the Moscow region in June
of 2005. STK Company, Moscow. Online at: http://
www.monolit.org/s2005_04.html
Sobolev, N. (1998). Specially protected natural areas and
nature conservation of Moscow region. In Proceedings of 4th conference dedicated to celebration of the
850th anniversary of Moscow city (pp. 2656). Moscow: MNEPU.
STK (Sovremenyye Technologii Konsaltinga), 2004: Market of suburban real estate north-west of Moscow.
Analytical report. Moscow. http://www.stk.ru
Timashova, N. (2003). Kommersant 101, June 11.
Tuan Y. F. (1974). Topophilia. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Volkov, V. (1999). Violent entrepreneurship. EuropeAsia
Studies, 51(5), 741754.
Voslensky, M. S. (1984). Nomenklatura: The Soviet ruling
class. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
World Bank. (2005). Russian Economic Report 2005.
Online at 194.84.38.65/mdb/upload/RER10_eng.pdf
Wu, F., & Webber, K. (2004). The rise of foreign gated
communities in Beijing: Between economic globalization and local institutions. Cities, 21(3), 203213.
Zagorodnaya.ru Realty (2005). Online at: http://
www.zagorodnaya.ru. Accessed April 2005.
123