Post-Soviet Transformations on Krasnaya Street, Krasnodar, Russia: an Issue-Based Case Study (First 3 Sections)

Post-Soviet Transformations on Krasnaya Street, Krasnodar, Russia: An Issue-based Case Study (first 3 sections)

Corinna Welzenbach Master of Landscape Architecture candidate University of Washington

Thesis Advisors: Lynne Manzo (chair), Department of Landscape Architecture Jeff Hou, Department of Landscape Architecture James West, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures

INTRODUCTION

Fall 1997: Arriving at the dilapidated tram stop, I feel a panic that I may not remember the way home. I cross the street and pass a brownfield on the way to my two-story apartment building. I memorize every detail so I won’t lose my way. I pass a market where a cow head covered in flies is for sale. The solid pink buildings surrounding me, staring, hoping I will lose my way. Fall 2009: I return to Zavodskaya (Factory) tram stop. The brownfield is now a huge parking lot, mall and movie theater with an English name:“City Center”. Blue mirrored walls of the mall and a large yellow sign invite visitors to the high-end stores and movie theater with reclining seats. The “character” I remembered, from a time when Russia was in the middle of economic collapse, was paved over very quickly. I feel a sadness thinking of the soul of a place and how it can be covered over by uncontrolled development.

The research conducted in Krasnodar sought to the story of the transformation of a city, as it struggles to define itself in the post-Soviet era. This descriptive story in itself has historic value as the physical changes are an important aspect of history. I believe many of the changes caused by piecemeal free market construction have been negative. In Krasnodar, there has been an overall reduction of open space and many historic buildings have been destroyed. However, a renewed interested in cultural history has also been expressed in public spaces. Beyond just tracking the physical changes, I sought to understand the complexities of the urban space transformation in Krasnodar. My conclusions about the post-Soviet transformations in Krasnodar are based on observations of public spaces here and how life-time residents of the city feel about these changes. This resident-based approach to public space has been advocated for by The Project for Public Places which states “The Community is the Expert”.

Conceptions of public and public space are culturally specific. This research will address a prejudice many people from the U.S. still have towards Russian cities. For example, I lived in 10 story gray apartment building, that most foreign would consider oppressive. However, it is half a block from a school, at most times of the day retirees are sitting on the benches at the entryway talking, and the small play area in front of the building is often filled with young mothers and their children. Most people live in these pedestrian priority “microraions”. Policies in the Soviet era, such as the lack of private property, pedestrian priority zone development, and required public work parties and demonstrations contributed to the public’s feeling of ownership of public space in Krasnodar. While many of the policies have changed, people’s use and sense of place developed in a time when these policies were in place.

As a future landscape architect, I have a consciousness about the value of public space. I believe places can have soul and tell the story of time. Open space should be viewed as a historical and cultural asset. Krasnodar without a doubt has an extremely vibrant public realm in the city center. The government, developers, and citizens should fully recognize the value of this, and the importance of supporting and preserving it with policies and development projects. In a time of political and economic flux, decisions made by the city can greatly influence the future of public life in the city center. An analysis of the changes on Krasnaya St. revealed the deep cultural significance of this place. Future changes ought not disrupt the cultural significance, but be carried out with great consideration of the role of this place in the life and the hearts of residents.

The following document contains the first three sections of my thesis: the Literature Review, Research Methods, and a History of Soviet Planning. Additional sections will include a History of Krasnaya Street, Results and Analysis with particular emphasis on the citizen interviews.

LITERATURE REVEIW

We crossed the large square newly paved with yellow, burgundy, and gray pavers in a fan pattern, past the statue of Pushkin, and to Krasnodar’s A.S. Pushkin Library. This light yellow historic building, at the beginning of Krasnaya Street, with large windows and high ceilings, possesses a majestic quality. Ira was kind enough to come with me, although she had not been to the library in years. She suggested I do research on the internet since libraries were a pain. (I was afraid to go alone because my friend from England who had gone to the library returned in tears telling me the librarian told her she actually didn’t want to look at the book she requested.) We entered the large doors, and passing through a metal detector, proceeded downstairs to the bag and coat check, where we left all our belongings except wallet and notebooks as we weren’t allowed to bring anything large inside. The process of looking at a book in the library was elaborate. First, we signed up for a library card. Luckily the people working there were surprisingly helpful and we were even allowed to present a copy of a picture to put on the card to substitute for an original (which we made when we went downstairs to pay at the cashier). Then we passed the control point where we received a form on which would be used to track all books we looked at, as we could not take books home. We found the card catalogue section on Krasnodar Region and on Architecture. There were many applicable resources and most significantly the book by Galina Shakhova on the history of Krasnaya Street, which I was looking for. I walked up to the third floor to the book storage counter and filled out two forms with the title and call number of the book. The woman at the counter told me to come back in twenty minutes. I waited on an old brown couch outside the door impatiently messing with my electronic translator. Then, I went back in the room, got my book, and brought it into the large sunny reading hall with rows of tables each with an individual lamp. After a couple hours of translation, I returned my book and checked out of the library showing the paper verifying I had returned all books.

I share this story as an example of how the process of research in another country imposes barriers but at the same time constantly presents an opportunity to learn about the culture. Likewise, many barriers exist to understanding the creation of public space in Russia and the countries of the former USSR. It is worthy to face these barriers in order to gain understanding of the complexities of culturally specific place meaning. The extension of the iron curtain into academia largely remains today. On the surface many Russian cities seem oppressive and perhaps therefore unworthy of examination. However, a rich public life exists on the street which was supported by development policies. In the book “Plans, Pragmatism, and People: The Legacy of Soviet Planning for Today’s Cities,” R. Antony French writes “ Given the objectives of the Soviet system, it is perhaps a matter of considerable surprise that the overwhelming bulk of Western literature on town planning, urban sociology, and urban geography totally ignores the largest-scale experiment in history to bring about a new form of town ” (1995, 5). My research seeks to be a modest addition to breaking the divide in knowledge by examining design and planning in Russia.

While the research on post-Soviet towns is also limited when compared with that on its Western counterparts, several case studies have provided in-depth descriptions of post-Soviet planning. In 1995, Blare Ruble, current director of the Kennen Institute and the chair of the Comparative Urban Studies Project of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, researched post Soviet planning in Yaroslavl, Russia by interviewing planners and developers who were involved in the privatization process. Oleg Golubchikov’s (2003) more general article looks at the transformations of the planning profession, using examples from Moscow. In 2007, Sasha Tsenkova presented a case study of experiments with new planning methodology in Sofia, Bulgaria. All of these case studies address the difficulties of developing a new planning system in post-Soviet times, an era of massive change. The specific dates of post-Soviet studies are extremely significant. From 1990-1999 the area of developed land in Russia (excluding roads) expanded from 30,000 to 54,000 square kilometers (80% increase!) (Golubchikov, 2003). This expansion occurred in a period before Russia fully recovered from the economic collapse in the perestroika period and before the main economic/construction boom of the last 10 years began. In Krasnodar, four mega-malls and an IKEA have been constructed in the last 8 years alone. Cities are developing with the market, and more quickly than the institutions of planning.

The research of Ruble, Tsenkova, Golubchikov and others use the example of one city to speak of the changes occurring over the vast territory of the former Soviet Union. Research based in one city has a drawback because each region is unique and the research does not reflect the complexity of the entire territory of the Soviet Union. However, researching in one city allows for an in-depth understanding of specific changes which could not be captured by looking broadly at the country as a whole. Ruble calls this a “snapshot” which must be combined with events in other cities to create an overall understanding of the post-Soviet transformation period. This research should also be conducted over a period of years in order to gain a fuller understanding of what Golubchikov terms the “dynamism of this colourful institutional mosaic” in a time of transition. As Maria Taylor (2009) notes in her thesis many researchers make assumptions about what is happening in the whole territory of the former Soviet Union based on what is happening specifically in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. More research is required in all the provinces and countries of the former Soviet Union. Research including each place’s history and specific transition process provide unique case studies in themselves, which when added together create an understanding of complex transformations country-wide.

This thesis seeks to provide another snapshot, examining the issue of pre-Soviet, Soviet, and post-Soviet planning. The case study in Krasnodar contributes to a fuller picture of post-Soviet town planning and development.

The additional value of this particular research project is that, instead of examining the planning process, this study looks at the physical changes in a particular place: the city center of Krasnodar, Russia. Studying specific places is important because, “it is the end product on the ground that counts, rather than theories that brought it about.” (French, pub date). I would expand on this by saying that the meaning and use of these end products on the ground is the final judge of plan’s success. This study seeks to add a dimension to what other post-Soviet case studies do not fully address: how Soviet planning and post-Soviet development looks on the ground, and what these changes mean to people. Krasnodar is a particularly interesting and valuable case study because it has long been considered a city with both a rural and provincial character. In historic literature and memoirs it is referenced as a city of dogs with the mud on the streets up to your knees. As every city, Krasnodar has its own specific history and culture which makes it unique, providing an on-the-ground snapshot of post-soviet transitions, will show clear differences from what is occurring in Moscow or St.Petersburg, where the majority of research is centered.

Much research has been done on the history of Krasnodar. This research reflects a revival in Kuban Cossack culture which was repressed during the Soviet era. Extensive research has also been done on Krasnodar’s historic architecture which is unique in its diversity (from Stalinist Gothic to Ukrainian baroque). This research, however, does not address either public space or public opinion. For example, the Russian scholar B.B. Bondar conducted research related to the question of post-Soviet historic preservation in Krasnodar. His DATE book, “Krasnodar: Fate of the Old Center,” discusses the architectural history of Krasnodar and examples of already destroyed buildings, as well as proposed projects on sites of historic buildings. His book relates to my topic because it addresses physical changes in the cityscape as a result of privatization and development in the post-Soviet period. My research builds upon the architectural research of Bondar by addressing public spaces and public opinion, offering important new dimensions to our understanding of public space and spatial practices in this evolving city. One of the hallmarks of Soviet planning was open space preservation, this made the uniform Soviet city livable. In post-Soviet times where public property is rapidly privatized, this open space has often been diminished, in this regard reducing the quality of life in the city.

History and Place

In Krasnodar I believe the connection of people to place is deepened by the expression of history through place. Krasnaya Street didn’t begin changing in 1991; in fact, it has been in a constant state of transformation since the beginning of the 1800’s when it was the main road through a Kuban Cossack war settlement, on the literal edge of imperial expansion. Traces of each period remain. The question of how history is transmitted by a place was largely inspired by the anthropologist Tanya Richardson’s recent book “Kaleidoscopic Odessa.” She writes:

“Although I did not consciously seek out Odessa’s streets, looking more carefully for a venue where the city’s history was transmitted inevitably took me to them. Anna Misiuk, a tour guide, journalist, and literature museum employee, offered another piece of advice. When I asked how she had learned about the city’s past during the Soviet period, at a time when a limited amount of literature was available, she paused, looked at me quizzically, and answered as if I ought already know: “The streets speak!” Although she did not elaborate, I take her as meaning something similar to Julie Cruikshank (2005, 76) regarding the cultivating of the capacity to listen for stories, not just to them (we might add watch for stories, in that details of the pre-revolutionary architecture, though seemingly mute, also tell their stories.) One of the best ways to listen and watch for stories, Odessans taught me, is to walk the city’s streets. “ (35)

People can learn about history through experiencing a place. This historical aspect of place, deepens place meaning to individual. The majority of newly built monuments in Kransnodar directly express a historic element or story (for example the rebuilding of the Arch of Triumph). These less subtle references to history (often with political undertones) along with historic elements provide opportunities for people to connect with the place and their history at once. Discussing the expression of history in a place is especially poignant now, as Russia as a nation with a newly formed government is trying to define and understand itself, and people often feel conflicted about the past, perhaps much like in post-war Germany.

In addition, individuals have personally experienced recent history and historical place changes. The places which have historic meaning also have personal meaning, for people who have experience that history. Stories of personal experiences of this history, brings out richness to a list of architectural periods. My friend Irina Vodonos’s interview of her father (Yakov) on housing in Moscow, was influential in my seeking out personal experiences of politically-based spatial transformations. His description of his family’s move in 1963 from a tiny shack without plumbing into a new microregion, provided a greater understanding of Khrushchev period housing plans, than what was presented in historical descriptions. His life , along with millions in the Soviet Union, was significantly affected by greater political planning decisions.

Complementary to this is the connection to place, people build over time (memories from their life being tied to the place). They are living in a place that is a expression of their history, but perhaps they have not experienced this history. Shu-Yi Wang’s (DATE) research entitled “Traditional Anchor Elements, Sense of Place and the Cultural Continuity in Historic World Heritage city, the Ancient City of Pingyao, China,” discusses the importance of understanding this connection to a living place which has historical elements:

“a meaningful place to local people is a place that brings up unique memories or that formulates a sense of place for an individual or group. The unique memories of the place and the sense of place emerging from the unique place are the media to sustain local culture.”

Wang conducted a survey of 50 people to study the importance of historic places to people in the city. The research did not seek to understand people’s knowledge of historical events but to document their personal memories in a historic place. The physical environment has the potential to provide a place for local culture and a connection to their history through historic elements.

The research of anthropologist Setha Low also addresses culturally specific connection to place. Her research conducted over 25 years in Costa Rica provided an example of using multiple methods to provide a “nuanced” understanding of the societal meaning of urban plazas. She held impromptu interviews in the plazas, mapped behavior in two different plazas, and reviewed literature about plazas. Her research and analysis of culturally specific public spaces sought to address the larger “on-going conversation of public space and culture in everyday life”(33). These studies suggest that doing research in one place for a length of time is a valid way to understand in-depth culturally specific connections to place. Both Low and Wang studies also address how urban land management decisions have the potential to disturb cultural activities.

Public Space

Much of the post-Soviet research is done by historians, anthropologists, and geographers. I believe there is a gap in addressing post-Soviet public space transitions. Other authors (French, Starr) who described the Soviet dictate to preserve open space (a positive aspect of grandiose Soviet planning) do not fully explain the significance of this open space to people, and to the public realm. Two prominent leaders in the promotion of quality public space, Gehl Architects and Mark Francis, have described criteria for evaluating public spaces, characteristics of meaningful public opens space and their value to society. In this research I hope to build on the research of those examining post-Soviet planning, evaluating the changes on the ground in Krasnodar by the standards put forth by Gehl and Francis. I will also supplement this by interviewing professional architects and planners in the city, to gain their view of the changes. This will supplement the primary analysis of culturally specific meanings and uses, which will be gained by interviewing citizens about the meaning of changes on Krasnaya Street to them. Conveying and interpretation of how place change resonates with Krasnodartzi combined with analysis of physical changes as a professional critic will provide an integrated report of post-Soviet changes in the city center from a landscape architecture perspective.

RESEARCH METHODS

I traveled to Krasnodar from October 10 th to December 15 th , 2009 to conduct research on post-Soviet public space in the city. Krasnodar is the capital of Krasnodar Region, a southwestern province in Russia. I studied the main street of Krasnodar, Krasnaya Street, through the lense of the larger issue of post-soviet open space transformations. Krasnaya Street was chosen because it is a vibrant pedestrian zone that is the heart of public life in the city. Parks and buildings from several eras are located on Krasnaya Street and have undergone significant transformation with post-Soviet reconstruction.

To analyze Krasnaya Street in the context of cultural meaning and change over time, I utilized multiple data collection strategies. Each of these methods sought to bring forth a different layer of information which would build upon each other. These layers were combined to both describe and analyze the physical changes and societal implications. By layering complimentary methods I sought to capture a whole host of nuanced cultural, historical, and personal meanings of place in Krasnodar. The methods utilized were archival research, observation, and interviews ; established case study methodology. Archival research sought to capture the historic context, local academic analysis of place change in Krasnodar, and ideas from popular media about post-Soviet urban form transformations. Observation of space recorded the current physical characteristics of spaces and how people are using these spaces. Two types of interviews were conducted, citizen and professional. In citizen interviews I asked local residents to evaluate the changes on Krasnaya Street. Professional interviews aimed to capture the process of development and also professional analyses of these changes. In this section I will describe my research collection strategies and in the next sections of the thesis I will share my findings about Krasnaya Street and the rich meanings evoked.

Archival research

In Krasnodar, I searched for locally published material on the history of Krasnodar and specifically Krasnaya Street. I sought sources that were unavailable in the United States or even in other cities in Russia. A variety of written material and photographs was collected from several locations. Originally I attended the Pushkin Library for material they on Architecture in Krasnodar. I also gained permission to visit the archive at the Felitzina Museum of History and Archeology. There with the help of the staff I found numerous historic photographs of Krasnaya Street. Throughout my stay in Krasnodar, I visited book stores, the used book market, and stores on Cossack culture to find resources related to Krasnaya Street. During the professional interviews, I requested copies of documents as appropriate. In addition, I monitored local internet news sites for editorials and articles related to reconstruction. From these sources, I found a wealth of written information in Russian pertaining to Krasnaya St. Local authors and scholars recognize the significance of Krasnaya Street to the city and the region and have thoroughly documented its history. Their work validated my research on the post-Soviet changes. From these sources I was able to understand the historical development process on Krasnaya Street as well as the place of the street in the history and culture of the city.

Observation

In order to describe the current characteristics, features and uses of Krasnaya Street, I spent a significant time on the street itself. Recognizing that my personal experience of Krasnaya Street would deepen my formal observation as a researcher, I used formal and informal methods. The main informal method was simply walking on the street. I walked on different parts of the street several times a week at different times of the day. I used photography to capture the physical characteristics of space and users.

To supplement my informal observation of use patterns, I mapped behavior patterns at Zhukovo Square. The behavior mapping method sought to capture the the types of users (age, gender) and the variety of uses (group size, alone, walking, sitting, etc.). This augmented the interviews by providing data on use of the space by a larger sample size. Zhukovo Square was chosen as a site for mapping because it is located in a central location along Krasnaya Street, it was mentioned by initial interviewees as their favorite place on Krasnaya Street, and it has been impacted by privatization in the post-Soviet era. Initially I created a base map and found points from where I could conduct observation. Because the park is large, I chose to make observations sitting on both the north and south side of the park. Over a period of two Tuesdays and two Saturdays in October, I observed the site at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 3:00 PM, 5:00 PM, and 7:00 PM. On each visit I spent 15 minutes at the north side and 15 at the south. During the observation period I tracked the gender and age of the users and their movement path. Specific observations were recorded including unusual uses of the space in my notes. Later I combined this data set to create a snapshot of users at the site and patterns of pedestrian flow.

I also conducted a complete inventory of buildings, public spaces, construction projects and monuments on the street to describe their features and understand current uses. To gain a full picture of the streets character, scale, and pedestrian amenities I recorded building height, architectural style, type of use (i.e. clothing store, café, bank), and particular features of each block.

Interviews

Citizen interviews were my principal form of primary research. The citizen interviews investigated individual recollections, uses, and perspectives of Krasnaya Street. Personal memories and opinions of public space give insight into Soviet and post- Soviet planning, the cultural significance of the Krasnodar city center, and personal connections to a changing place. The process of preparing for the interview was conducted in the summer of 2009, before I traveled to Krasnodar. This included developing the interview script and strategies. In addition, I gained Human Subjects Review Exemption status from the University of Washington which verified the non- harmful nature of the research and allowed me to interview the participants with no formal permission process.

Interview Development

The process of interview development involved defining the information hoped to be gained and addressing the cultural/linguistic setting. I began by posing the larger questions I was evaluating and then developed interview questions which addressed these issues. My larger research questions were: What meaning does Krasnaya Street have to residents? And What is their experience of the many changes to the street since 1991?. Through the process of interview development a third factor emerged related to the interview process itself. In developing my interview I found it necessary to address the following question: How can I as an outside researcher conduct the interview in the most culturally appropriate way to gain open answers from partipants?. (See Appendix for Interview Script.) All research involving interviews can show the reaction of the interviewee to the researcher. This is especially true when conducting research in another culture. Specific challenges in Russia exist because many people have a remaining sense of fear of speaking openly about political topics. In Krasnodar as opposed to less provincial Russian cities, most local people have had very little contact with foreigners from countries outside the former Soviet Union. United States citizens specifically are rare and for many people, I was the first American that they had met. Many people wanted to know why I was interested in their city and even if I was a spy. It was imperative to address this cultural context in the preparation and conduct of my interviews.

In order to help interviewees feel comfortable, in the beginning of the interview I prepared a clear introduction explaining who I was and the purpose of my research. This sought to answer any questions the interviewee had about why a foreigner was researching their city. Overall because the interviewees had experienced the drastic changes on Krasnaya Street, they often understood the motivation of the research. The interview was structured to gradually draw out answers from the interviewees. It began with factual question and led to questions about the interviewees’ opinions. The first questions asked about the interviewee’s neighborhood. I then asked a few broader questions about general post-soviet changes in Krasnodar. After this, I posed several questions about their use of Krasnaya Street and then more in-depth questions about their personal connection to Krasnaya Street and their opinion of overall and specific changes.

The majority of interviews were conducted in Russian and therefore both an English and a Russian version of the interview were prepared. The interview script in Russian and English is included in the appendix. Language nuances were navigated with the help of many native Russian speakers who reviewed my interview questions. I originally wrote the questions in English. In the process of translating them to Russian and asking native speakers to review the questions I found some question did not translates well. For example the question, How do you feel about Krasnaya Street? , was unclear when translated into Russian. Instead I asked a few questions which were more specific such as: What are your memories of Krasnaya Street?, What do you like that relates to Krasnaya Street?. I field tested the interviews and altered the questions in order to receive more full answers. For a few difficult questions I tried a few wording variations. For each question I monitored if it was understandable to my interviewee and if I was gaining a full answer. Some questions addressed abstract issues and were more difficult for some people to answer. I worked to make the questions as clear as possible while at the same time not avoid addressing deeper issues related to place meaning.

Character of Interviews

Interviews were conducted in the location most convenient to the interviewee. Locations included cafes on Krasnaya Street, interviewees’ homes, and my place of employment (a language school two blocks from Krasnaya Street). Interviews were conducted either individually or in pairs (colleagues, husband and wife). While participants’ answers may have been altered by the presence of another interviewee, the pair interviews promoted a feeling of comfort, and perhaps lessoned peoples fear of speaking openly to a foreigner. Interview length ranged from half an hour to two hours. The average interview lasted 45 minutes to an hour. If the interview was conducted in a location that was conducive, I asked permission and recorded the interview. In all interviews, I took notes while the interviewee was speaking. While I followed the interview script, if someone did not fully answer or understand a question, I often asked probes to further understand their opinion. I sought to maintain a level of comfort with the interviewee and conducted the interview as a conversation.

Participant Selection

Because street surveys are not culturally accepted in Russia, interview participants were found through a typical snowball sampling technique. As discussed earlier in Russia and specifically in Krasnodar there can be an inherent distrust of foreigners. In 2007, I lived in Krasnodar for eight months and during this time established a trusting relationship with many co-workers and developed many friendships. This project would not have been possible had I not already established strong personal connections in Krasnodar. The snowball technique intended to utilize the level of trust which I developed in order to find interview participants and gain open and honest answers from them. To find interviewees, I explained my project to my co-workers, students, and friends and asked them for recommendations of people who they knew to interview. At the end of each interview, I asked if the interviewee knew anyone else who would have time to meet with me. I prepared a sheet which explained the interview and gave this to my interviewees.

Interview subjects were selected who had lived in Krasnodar for several years and were over 20 years of age. Residents over 20 were selected because they had seen the changes on Krasnaya St. associated with development in the last 10 years. I sought to interview people from a variety of age groups. After a month of conducting interviews I specifically sought people in their 40’s and over 60 because the majority of my interview at that point were with people in their 20’s, 30’s and 50’s. Originally I suspected the older interviewees who had spent all of their life Krasnodar would be most able to speak to the changes. However, I found that young people also had a strong sense of the changes.

Professional/Academic Interviews

Professional interviews investigated post-Soviet planning and architecture. Interviews of professional planners and architects working for the city government in Krasnodar sought to provide insight into the privatization and development process in post-Soviet Krasnodar. I contacted several experts working in the field and at the university. The interviews were based on the availability and willingness of experts in the field. These interviews were more difficult to set up than the citizen interviews because of the time constraints on the professionals. Many people agreed to do the interview with me but later were unable to find the time. As with the citizen interviews, a level of trust was established when I shared a mutual acquaintance with the professional and they were very open to speak with me. The professional interviews were semi-structured. For each interview I prepared a set of questions specific to each professional’s area of expertise, but I often explained my project and let them share with me what they thought it would be important for me to know. Because of the in-depth nature of these interviews I brought a co-worker with me who helped translate any difficulties I had in understanding. Once I met with the professionals, I found that we shared a common professional language. I interviewed one landscape architect, two architects, and two historians.

Professional Interviewees:

Irina Savelevna Velichko Director “Studio of Landscape Architecture” Former Professor Department of Architecture Kuban State University

Irina Velichko runs her own landscape architecture firm, one of the first in the city, which works on commercial, residential and public projects. She formerly worked as a professor of Architecture at Kuban State University with a specialization in landscape design. 1 I posed questions to Irina about the field of Landscape Architecture in Russia, the project her company works on, and her design process. I asked her professional opinion about changes in green spaces in Krasnodar and specific monuments. She was the lead designer for the initial redesign of the boulevard at the end of Krasnaya St . I conducted a walk-through of the boulevard with Irina and posed many questions about her design process for the site. She critiqued her design and the design of future projects on the boulevard.

Alexsander Vyacheslavovich Kusnetsov Director Regional Alliance of Kuban Planners and Designers Former Head Architect City of Krasnodar

Alexsander Kusnetsov worked in the last ten years as the Head Architect for the city of Krasnodar. This position is the director of all design projects including urban planning and landscape architecture in the city. Currently he works in private practice but many of his projects are closely allied with the government. He instigated three major monument projects on Krasnaya Street and was heavily involved in making the general plan for Krasnodar. While I prepared several questions for Alexsandar related to development processes in the city he was very

1 In Soviet times, the separate field of Landscape Architecture did not exist and was combined with in the field of Architecture. Today in most universities, if landscape design is offered it is a specialization with the Architecture Department. eager to share with me and I did not pose many of the questions I prepared. Alexsander told me about the history of Krasnaya Street. He discussed the ideas behind the New Ark, the statue of the dogs, and the bronze of the Repin painting . He also discussed the transition from a controlled system to a free market system of development.

Victor Ivanovich Bragin Architect City of Krasnodar President Union of Builders General Director Krasnodar Region Self-regulating Organization of Builders

Victor Bragin is a member of a team who is involved in creating a general plan for the city. He works with developers to gain input on and support for the city’s general plan. He also works with his sons who run an architecture firm. I asked him questions related to the city’s general plan especially for areas of the city center.

Vitali Byacheslavovich Bondar Architectural Historian Director Western Kavkaz Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage Author “Fate of the Old Center”

Vitali Bondar is a leading historical preservationist in Krasnodar. He is working to study, preserve, and restore historical buildings in the city center. I asked him questions related to the process of historic preservation and the process of destruction of places with historical meaning.

Boris Befimovich Frolov Historian Felitzina Museum of History and Archeology

Boris Frolov is an expert on the history of Krasnodar. I asked him questions related to the changes in the architectural character of the city.

All of the professionals were very helpful and generous with their time. While in the citizens interviews my status as a foreigner from the United States posed several barriers, it may have contributed beneficially to the professional interviews, as the professionals were interested in teaching an outside researcher about the transformations in Krasnodar.

Through observation, archival research, and interviews I gained a broad set of information which all addressed the drastic changes that have occurred on Krasnaya Street. In the next sections, I will share the specific findings and analyze the information gathered to discover how the data harmonizes. Form this information I will draw a picture of the in-depth meaning of the changes on Kransaya St.

SOVIET PLANNING (the physical and social framework)

Today most urban planners in the US support the idea of enforceable master plans limiting growth and preserving green space. They argue that by doing so they can increase the quality of life in the city, preserve the environment, and support local agriculture. Of course in the US these plans are difficult to pass because proponents of property rights strongly influence the political debate. Urban quality of life and rural existence (that there even is a rural) are significantly influenced by the ability of planners to plan the urban environment. In the Soviet era, there were no private property rights activists. Although Soviet cities are often criticized, many Soviet planning ideas and built cities have characteristic components which planners almost universally believe contribute to a high urban quality of life.

In the Soviet era, cities throughout the USSR were rebuilt to fill the demands of the socialist society. These demands were both practical (housing, factories) and social (pedestrian blocks, open space). Architecture and urban planning in the USSR were unified professions. Urban development and architectural form, therefore, followed three distinct stages based on the politics of the time. 2 In the early Soviet idealist period from 1917-1932, socialist architects matched the zealous ideology of

2 These stages are described in detail by William Brumfield (1993) and Antony French (1995) who respectively produced comprehensive works on Russian architecture and planning. Lenin with their plans; then from 1932 to 1956, the Stalinist neo-classical and industrialization period, creativity was repressed and factories were built throughout the cityscape; from 1956-1991, starting with Khrushchev’s leadership, housing and neighborhood development became the priority of planners who struggled to address the housing crisis, an original promise of the revolution. Today, the framework of these cities remains. The goal of this thesis is to understand post-Soviet changes on the cityscape in Krasnodar and the political and cultural meaning associated with these transformations. In order to understand post-Soviet urban transformations, it is necessary to understand the Soviet period, the ideas and practical constraints which drove urban development and the forms which were built uniformly in cities throughout the enormous territory of the USSR.

The pre-revolutionary urban environment in Russia was inequitable. In 1913, 80% of urbanites in Russia still lived in wooden houses, often in poor conditions without the water and waste infrastructure, already built in other European cities (Zhukov & Fyodorov, 1974). General infrastructure problems, a result of poor distribution of government income, left cities with a lack of services which would have provided for the health and advancement of the population. Hamm argued that these poor urban conditions contributed to the 1917 revolution (1976). The working and lower classes’ desperation and discontent as a result of poor living conditions led to their support for the socialist plan. 3 The new socialist plan appealed to the poor by proposing an equitable distribution of wealth and infrastructure services. Having won the Civil War, the newly formed communist government promised to fix the infrastructure and housing problems which were a legacy of the imperial era characterized by inequality.

The energy and zealousness of the revolution flowed directly into city building. In the 1920’s, planning and design ideas reflected a strong environmental determinist philosophy; the space could shape people’s lives. The socialist city was to be not only constructed of ideas but in physical form that supported and facilitated these ideas. The linkage between ideology and the plans was explicit. In 1922, the Russian architect Aleksey Gan wrote constructivism “ is actively and consciously fighting for

3 As the Putin era illustrates, an increase in the standard of living outweighs other factors in public support for its political leaders, and the inverse is also true. communism ” (French 1995, 30, citing Cooke). This idealism stimulated a period of great creativity in planning and modernist architecture which was supported by a new ability to look at the city as a whole (as the government was in control of property). In Soviet times the urban framework was organized and planned as a city unit, in stark contrast to the post-Soviet development era. On August of 1918 the forming Soviet government made a decree withdrawing private ownership of urban property (Brumfield, 1993). A main communist ideology to remove private ownership gave full control of planning and development to the government. The state was to provide for all the needs of the people, creating a more equitable society free of urban problems of poverty. As a result, there was no market and primary housing decisions were made by government officials. The new government intended to improve housing conditions and Lenin spoke of “building cheap and hygienic dwellings” for all citizens (Zhukov & Fyodorov, 1974, 12). These ideas would be translated into the urban form.

Art, architecture and urban planning professionals formed a radical collective and used their respect forms (art, buildings, the cityscape) to express socialist ideas. The ideas of Constructivism, functionalism, and supremetism developed. Modern architecture focused on function and buildings were aesthetically simplified. Architects paid attention to details such as the orientation of the building towards the sun and sought ways to increase density (Brumfield, 1993).

Because the social life takes place in the cityscape, urban designs sought to form a new city which supported communal society. Urban planners were glad of the greater opportunities afforded by the public property state which expanded the idea of a site to the whole city scape. Urban designs produced during the 1920’s were more radical than the plans for modernist buildings. The two main schools of urban design were the urbanists and the deurbanists (sometimes called the disurbanists). Both deurbanists and urbanists argued to preserve open space and green the city (ibid 1995). Starr traced the foundation of the Soviet green city movement to pre-Soviet interest in the Garden City movement (1976). The urbanists were influenced by and influenced Le Corbusier. Le Corbusier (the most well-known socialist architect) traveled to the USSR three times and created a proposed plan for Moscow (Bliznakov, 1976, French, 1995). Through professional connection the socialist modernist ideas spread worldwide and the Soviet designers were associated with movements, such as the Bauhaus in Germany. The deurbanists developed matchless notions of the ideal socialist city. For example, Nikolai Miliutin’s Linear city proposed to spread the town out in a long row which would be connected by public transportation.

Other planners went beyond spatial planning and proposed housing all people in communal complexes, separating the family unit. Radical ideas like this which sought to replace the family unit with a communism were impractical and received criticism from the moment of their creation. However, the idea of the superblock, which later drastically reshaped the cityscape, was developed in the communal housing competitions in the early Soviet period (French, 1995). It originated as the idea to create zhilkompleks (living region) which had four sides and an interior courtyards, and some services. This idea was expanded upon by SG Strumlin and others to create the designs for larger neighborhood complexes which included all services (ibid 1995).

In the Soviet era, the unlimited power of the state and lack of private construction allowed planners to set limits on urban growth and preserve green space as they pleased. Based on this new power the fundamental characteristics of Soviet planning including urban growth limits, the superblock, industry close to housing (to limit the commute), greening the city, and open space preservation developed in the 1920’s (Bliznakov 1976, French, 1995). These ideas were translated into uniform codes which were applied to all new development across the Soviet Union. Coinciding with Soviet economic development policy, planning became formulaic. Formulaic planning resulted in uniform cities across the USSR. The Rules for the Planning and Building of Towns from the 1930’s included the following provisions, “Ten percent of residential area must be left for parks and recreation. No unit of housing further than 2,000 feet from a park Each industrial zone must be separated from the rest of the town a green belt with a minimum width of 300 feet.” (Bliznakov 1976, 245, citing Vekhazanova) In the 1930’s, the most fantastical plans of early Soviet idealist were laid aside and town planning became based on economic planning. Beginning in 1928, Five Year Plans were created to dictate goals for economic development. These plans called for rapid industrialization. Because of the planning philosophy which sought to limit commute, many factories were built in city centers or directly on the edge of cities. Throughout the Soviet era these factories heavily polluted the urban environment. On the other hand, public transportation networks were created to bring people to work and the automobile ownership was greatly limited by government planning. Cities were essentially not built for automobiles.

The promise of addressing the housing shortage took a lower priority to creation of factories and projects which projected the monumental power of the state. According to Stalin’s government, monumental power was represented in the past, and it called for a return to classicism in architecture. 4 Architecture was born again with classic undertones. Many architects preferred this more ornate style, to the minimalist functionalism. The architect I. Zholtovsky translated Four Books on Architecture by Andrea Palladio into Russian, thereby providing his contemporaries with ideals from the Italian Renaissance (Zhukov, 1974). This new architecture is called Stalinist monumentalism or Stalinist gothic. The construction projects were no longer primarily focused on function and sought to symbolized power and the making of history. Massive projects like Moscow State University, House of the Soviets, Moscow metro and the proposed Palace of Soviets used up extensive resources to present the grandeur of the Soviet state. Many city centers retained their pre-Soviet layout which expressed elements of imperialism (French, 1995). The era of centralized planning began with Catherine the Great. In 1785 she created a Charter of Rights and Privileges of cities in the Russian empire (ibid). According to French, “It was expressed in extravagant use of space and vistas, with broad prospects flanked by buildings in Palladian or baroque styles.”(16) The monumentalism in public space in the city center supported the Soviet desire to create a politically activated city. New cities were planned with open areas for demonstrations, and plazas in older cities were expanded. All party members were required to attend two demonstrations a year, on November 7 th - Great October Socialist Revolution Day, and May 1 st - International Labor Day. These demonstrations activated the public space with parades and speeches. Today parades still takes place for University students in their first course in September.

4 This return to classicism was also enforced with the favor of Soviet Realist art over semi-abstract constructivist. The industrialization that drew many people to urban areas to work failed to provide them with housing. The housing shortage was compounded by the destruction caused during World War II and the Nazi occupation of large parts of Western Russia. World War II left millions of Russians and Ukrainians homeless. The Nazi army destroyed an estimated 100 million square meters of housing (Zhukov & Fyodorov, 1974). At Stalin’s death the lack of attention to housing and destruction of World War II had created slum conditions in many urban areas. When Khrushchev took power, he sought to remedy this severe urban problem and directed extensive amount of resources to housing the population. He and others criticized Stalin for failing to address the needs of the people. From this point forward, housing construction became the primary focus of urban planning in the Soviet Union. Planners sought the most efficient methods of construction and neighborhood planning that could substantially address the housing crisis over the broad territory of the Soviet Union. The apartment house emerged as the typical dwelling in Russia, symbolic of Soviet ideology and in contrast with the American ideal of a single family home. The Soviet government prioritized apartment building construction and density. After 1961 construction of single family housing was not permitted in cities with over 100,000 people (Ruble, 1993).

Apartments were primarily constructed of concrete panels because this was the most efficient method. In 1954, the year after Stalin’s death, the USSR Council of Ministers created a plan to industrialize housing production (Zhukov & Fyodorov, 1974). Engineers’ and architects’ prime objective was efficiency: determining the lowest cost and quickest methods for construction. Efforts to build a brick laying machine had failed, brick houses took too long to build and required too much labor. Concrete pre- fabrication and large block construction techniques had been experimented with in the 20’s and 30’s. In the beginning of the Khrushchev era, these became the chosen method of efficient apartment construction. With the same zealousness it had used to create an industrial state, the Soviet government tackled the housing crisis. Four hundred and two factories and two-hundred outdoor plants were proposed for concrete production (ibid). Soviet architect A Burov stated, “ If modern ships had retained sails simply for beauty’s sake, they would have been impeded in their movements; similarly, the old orders and false columns impede the progress of architecture ”(ibid, 44). The reduction of material pallet was based on the uniformity of apartment construction plans. Functionalist designs were created and built with only slight adjustments across the nations of the Soviet Union. The construction program was also based directly on communist ideology. In a book on planning published in the Soviet Union it stated:

“It is precisely this nation-wide Soviet planning that has permitted the Soviet Union to venture upon the solution of the housing problem on such an unprecedented scale. We are witnessing how the ideas of the founders of Marxism-Leninism- to the effect that the housing problem can be solved only in a socialist society- are being realized in practice.” (ibid, 21)

The explicit connection between the physical space in the city and ideology continued to be prominent. In 1961, Khrushchev set the goal to finish building communism by 1981.

Because the constructed spaces were meant to support communist society, while housing was viewed as a scientific engineering problem, the space and life between the apartment buildings was not ignored. Ruble states that “apartment buildings were merely smallest part of an all encompassing system” (1993). This system was the superblock or microregion. A microregion could in modern planning terms be called a complete community or a transit oriented community . The microregion or superblock became the primary form of efficient neighborhood high density development. Soon the microregion would become the neighborhood style where the majority of the population in the USSR lived. It consists of several multi-story apartment buildings with open space areas in between. Each microregion has a school and a pre-school as well as other services like a post office, pharmacy, and small grocery stores.

Many microregions were built at urban edges or in new factory cities, which gave architects more freedom to think about the space around the buildings in their plans. Standards were set to address issues of comfort. For the health and well-being of residents, buildings were required to have sunlight for at least 2 hours a day (Zhukov & Fyodorov, 1974). This resulted in large open space between the tall apartment blocks. As early as the 20’s the People’s Comissariat for Internal Affairs decreed that 10% of residential land should be preserved as parks and all housing units should be within 2000 feet of a park (Bliznakov 1976). “Schools, shops, crèches, kindergartens, and medical and communal centers” were required in new neighborhoods of apartments (Zhukov & Fyodorov, 1974, 46). Microregions provided for all the needs of the people on a neighborhood level and were developed along with public transportation networks. The microregion was a pedestrian priority area and quite difficult to drive through at any speed, due to winding roads and speed bumbs. They were walkable with open space and playgrounds, separated from the industry and roads. The microregion compensated for the uniformity of the modernist apartment.

Oral History, Yakov Vodonos Personal Meaning of microregion construction Novoe Chernomoskoe, Moscow

To achieve a richer understanding of history, it is important to ask how transformation of urban space affected the life of the common man and woman in that period. Because the Soviet period did not end that long ago, the oral histories of people offer a great wealth of information. To answer this question I am lucky enough to have a friend whose father, Yakov Vodonos, grew up in Moscow when these changes were taking place. My friend, Irina, given an excuse to find out more about her family history, interviewed her father and passed this story on to me. His story illustrates the living conditions at the beginning of the Khrushchev era, an example of some of the first full microregions built in Russia, and how government housing program impact the life of a citizen. Personal histories, such as Yakov’s, impress how macro- structural changes influence people’s lives. Yakov Vodonos’s parents got married in 1946 when his father was discharged from the army. In 1947, they bought a tiny one room shack in Moscow, part of a group of privately built row houses. Yakov was born in the fall of that year. Their house, partially sunken in the ground, was only about 9 square meters. It was located in an area called Selo Alekseevskoe (near Ostankino), a village eaten up by the growing Moscow. The conditions of their house were rather poor for that era and they had little furniture. Their house had electricity but no running water. They heated their house with a wood stove and cooked with kerosene. They collected water from a neighborhood shared water pump. The Vodonoses used a chamber pot, dumped this into a slop pail, and then took it to the outhouse, which they shared with about 100 people. They bathed at a banya about once a month. (At this time in the Soviet Union they only had Sundays off and didn’t want to waste it waiting in line at the banya every week.) Living conditions like this would not be so bad in a rural area but were slum-like in the growing metropolis. 5

5 From 1897 to 1970 population in urban areas with over 100,000 people grew from 4.1% to 31.7% in the USSR. (Lewis & Rowland 1976) At the beginning of the Khrushchev era as the Soviet government tried to seriously address the poor urban living conditions, such as those of the Vodonos family, construction began of numerous pyati-etazhki (five story apartment buildings) neighborhoods. A first major project, Novye Cheryomushki, was in the southwestern edge of Moscow. People who lived in poor conditions were eligible for a free new apartment with contemporary amenities. In 1961, the Vodonos family, along with those in their neighborhood, were contacted by the authorities and offered an apartment. They had the choice to look at three different apartments, but not exactly choose between three. After looking at one and deciding they didn’t like it, they couldn’t change their mind. New pytietazhki neighborhoods were built in Novye Cheryomushki, Kuz’minki (southeastern Moscow), and Mar-yina Roshcha (north- central Moscow). The Vodonos family chose to look at an apartment in Novye Cheryomushki first because it “was well-known as a symbol of new housing construction”. (Kuz’minki was very far from the center and the subway did not yet reach it and the apartments in Mar’yina Roshcha were smaller). When they saw the new 32 square meter apartment with hot and cold water, a real kitchen, a balcony, built in closets, central heating, and an oak parquet floor, they were very impressed. In the fall of 1961, when Yakov was 14, they moved into their new apartment. A year later in 1962 the Novye Cheryomushki metro station opened in the neighborhood.

Outside the microregion

Microregions are also called sleeping regions (spalni raions). Large roads surrounded the microregion provided thoroughfares of public transportation, taking people from these sleeping regions to work. In contrast to the walkable microregion, these roads are very wide and difficult to cross. In the Soviet era, automobile ownership was regulated. Consciousness about the effect of cars on the cityscape existed at the highest levels of government. French described Khrushchev’s opinion on this matter: “Khrushcev declared bluntly that this position (domination of urban environment by cars would not be permitted to exist; he envisioned every town having its park of hire cars…” (1995, 163). The government regulated all imports and production and therefore even in 1988 only 17% of household owned cars (French 1995, citing Sarkisyan). Designing a city for the car has proven to significantly reduce the public realm. In the Soviet city pedestrian neighborhoods and car thoroughfare were separated, preserving the public realm in islands.

In addition to demonstrations in the city center, obligatory activation of public space occurred in neighborhoods. The primary form of this is the Subbotinik, or Saturday Work Party. This occurs in April around the time of Lenin’s Birthday. On a Subbotnik, people in their apartment building or school gather together to clean up the yard and garden around their building. Benches and play equipment are painted bright colors. Lenin strongly supported this idea which only later began to occur on a neighborhood scale. He wrote about the first Russia-wide Subbotnik which was held on May 1 st , 1920:

“We are not deceiving ourselves in the least about the little that has yet been done and about the infinite amount of work that has yet to be done; however, only malicious enemies of the working people, only malicious supporters of the bourgeoisie, can treat the May 1 subbotnik with disdain; only the most contemptible people, who have irrevocably sold themselves to the capitalists, can condemn the utilization of the great First of May festival for a mass-scale attempt to introduce communist labour.

This is the very first time since the overthrow of the tsars, the landowners and the capitalists that the ground is being cleared for the actual building of socialism, for the development of new social links, a new discipline of work in common and a new national (and later an international) system of economy of world-historic importance. This is a matter of transforming the very habits of the people, habits which, for a long time to come, have been defiled and debased by the accursed private ownership of the means of production, and also by the entire atmosphere of bickering, distrust, enmity, disunity and mutual intrigue that is inevitably generated—and constantly regenerated—by petty individual economy, the economy of private owners in conditions of “free” exchange among them…. In the main we have broken irrevocably with this “freedom” of the property-owner to be a property-owner, with this “freedom” of capital to exploit labour, and we shall finish the job. We are combating its remnants ruthlessly, with all our might.”

The Sutbotinik represented the communalization of both work and property. Subbotniks are still carried out today. They are a way for the community to gather together and look after general property: paint benches, take away trash, plant flowers. While they were originally obligatory, the practice of working with neighbors to take care of the space may have spurred feeling of ownership of public property. In addition the Soviet government awarded the “dom obrazuobovo coderzhanie” or the most well-taken care of house or apartment. On apartments and private homes which showed strong signs of care a plaque was placed. People were proud to be awarded these plaques and it provided motivation for others to take better care of the area around their house. Through policies, therefore the government also promoted a feeling of ownership.

I have described the average elements of the Soviet City, but is the typical Soviet City really a city for people, as the ideology intended? Despite the intentions of the architects the Soviet city is often criticized. These critiques come from both in and outside of Russia. The film, The Irony of Fate - one of the most popular Soviet films, mocks the similarities, down to the street name, in different Russian cities. Ruble describes one person’s reaction to Soviet apartments as “high rise barracks” (1993, 111). Michael Epstein describes the contradiction of the vastness of Russia versus the density of the city:

“Reigning over the entire area of the nation is a barely assimilated emptiness whereas in the settled regions density attains an improbable concentration, typified by the Bolshevik innovation, the concentration camp. Congestion, density, the overcrowding of communal apartments and second class train cars, jam-packed public transportation, people jostling over flowing with groceries, objects piled up in warehouses, even the communist idea of the maximum collectivization of property and of the way of life – all this can be seen as the nation’s response to the disproportionate superiority and emptiness of the surrounding space.” (279)

Soviet cities are extreme, especially when contrasted to the sprawling masses of American cities. Despite the satirical criticisms from within and without of Russia, there is a wide disconnect between how Russians view the cities where they live and how outsiders analyze them. The uniformity and aesthetic qualities disturb western viewers. Perhaps this occurs because so far the superblock concept has failed in the U.S. In landscape architecture school one of our first lessons was about Pruitt Igoe. This public housing development in St. Louis designed by Minoru Yamasaki sought to solve all urban problems with design. It was completed in 1955 and looks remarkably similar to a microregion. It was hugely unsuccessful and people with few other options chose not to live there. The stairwells became places for crime and there was no feeling of ownership. In the early 70’s it was demolished, and is used as an exemplar of the failure of modernist architects to address human needs.

It is easy to find valid criticism with top-down, massive-scale public housing projects. Soviet architects responded to such criticisms saying they were a product of the inequities inherent in capitalist societies. The failure of Pruitt Igoe was in fact influence by many contextual issues such as segregation and poverty, and not only a product of failed design. Many consider the abandon of historical character in modernist architecture to be a shame, contributing to the lack of individual feeling of ownership of space. While one cannot deny the uniformity and lack of human scale in Soviet cities, Soviet designers recognized this early and the 1960’s efforts were made to “humanize” apartment buildings by changing facades, texture, color and balconies (Ruble 1993). New apartments use higher-quality construction methods and have larger floor plans. Regional variations, such as open stairways, were made to help keep apartment buildings in the south cooler. Some microregions are appealing with open spaces and large trees that have grown up in between them, benches and playgrounds. In cities such as Ulan-Ude with a dry climate, trees did not grow in the open spaces between buildings, leaving barren grassy patches.

The most successful in balancing the uniformity were the people themselves. The typical Russian apartment has several entrances and stairways. Often old people sit outside the entrance and talk to each other. A little play equipment is usually located in the center of a square of several apartment buildings. Children are often playing here and do not have to worry about traffic. Irina Vodonos described her experience coming home from school to their 12 story apartment building in southeastern Moscow in the late 1980’s, her experience as a child in a modern Russian apartment house offers an alternate evaluation of the Soviet city:

My grandmother (mom's mom, who lived with us) was usually sitting outside the pod'ezd (entrance) on the bench chatting with her friends. She would either give me the keys and I would let myself into the apartment and have a snack, or she would come upstairs with me and feed me. I can't remember if I did homework right after school or later, but when the weather was nice I spent a lot of time each afternoon/evening playing with my friends until my parents got home (which was fairly late because they had a long commute, especially my dad). We would sometimes visit each other's apartments and play board games, dolls, etc but mostly we hung out in the playground or the school stadium or near each other's pod'ezd (all my friends from school lived in my building, but none of them lived in my pod'ezd). If we played by the pod'ezd, the old women could keep an eye on us. It is difficult to determine where a sense of community stemmed from in Soviet cities, but perhaps this is not a coincidence that urban planning in the Soviet era overtly sought to create a non-individualistic society. Actual ownership is different than the feeling of ownership. Opposing theories exist about the effect of lack of private property on a society. As the Gorbachev era saying goes “property that belongs to everyone belongs to no one” (Ruble 1993, 257). Therefore, people have no reason to care for something which isn’t theirs. Ryklin states the opposing position, “In those countries (France, Germany, England, and America), the formation of the individual had come long before through ownership of property, and so significantly less value was assigned to objects of collective property.”(267) People have a desire to feel ownership of their living place. They express this individuality and ownership behind the doors of their apartment and in the public space, even if it is not legally in their ownership. As apartment buildings were primarily mixed-income, a relatively wealthy family could furnish their apartment with velvet couches and chandeliers, while their neighbor, a pensioner, stored potatoes from their dacha on the balcony. A sense of community often develops in these buildings and neighborhoods. The sense of ownership is often expressed and developed through care. Soviet policy from the very outset tried to create a sense of collective care for public space in the minds of people. People themselves sought a sense of ownership and connection to the land. In 1935 women fought and won for the right for a household garden plot (Kingston-Mann). This resulted in the proliferation of dachas (or small garden plots and cabins) outside the city where, people could go on the weekends, to relax and grow vegetables. In the city outside of the apartment, personalization of public space occurred as people reclaimed the political ideas of the subbotnik to a tradition of everyday life. This took the form of tending a rose garden outside the apartment entrance, creating a planter out of painted tires, setting up a table in the communal yard to play chess.

The urban framework related to public space left at the end of the Soviet period is both physical and social. The Soviet government preserved open space (an achievement that should not be overlooked in its contribution to quality of life in a high density urban environment), but it was the people would made the space for the community by developing a sense of ownership. The feeling of ownership of public space is a legacy of the Soviet Union.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bondar, B.B. Krasnodar: Fate of the Old Center (Краснодар: Судьба Старого Центра). Krasnodar. 2007.

Bliznakov, Milka. Urban Planning in the USSR: Integrative Theories . In Ed. Michael F. Hamm. The City in Russian History . The University of Kentucky Press: Lexington, Kentucky. 1976

Brumfield, William Craft. A History of Russian Architecture . Cambridge University Press. New York: 1993. Center for Transit Oriented Development. www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/tod. 6/10/09.

Francis, Mark. A Case Study Method for Landscape Architecture. Landscape Architecture Foundation. Sept 1999.

Francis, Mark. Urban Open Space: Designing for User Needs. Island Press. Washington DC. 2003

French, R. Antony. Plans, Pragmatism, &People: The Legacy of Soviet Planning for Today’s Cities . University College London Press. London. 1995.

Golubchikov, Oleg. Urban Planning in Russia: Towards the Market. European Planning Studies. Vol 12 # 2. March 2004. Received 2002.

Hamm, Michael F. The Breakdown of Urban Modernization: A Prelude to the Revolutions of 1917. In Ed. Michael F. Hamm. The City in Russian History. The University of Kentucky Press: Lexington, Kentucky. 1976

Lenin, VI, Lenin’s Collected Works , 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 31, pages 123-125Translated: Julius Katzer . Written: 2 May, 1920 First Published: Pervomaisky Subbotnik, May 2, 1920; Published according to the newspaper text

Lenta.ru, На месте ветхих домов в Москве построят 50 миллионов квадратных метров жилья. http://realty.lenta.ru/news/2009/06/09/snos/ . 11.06.2009

Lewis, Robert A. & Richard H. Rowland. Urbanization in Russia and the USSR, 1897- 1970. In Ed. Michael F. Hamm. The City in Russian History. The University of Kentucky Press: Lexington, Kentucky. 1976

Low, Setha. On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture. University of Texas Press. Austin. 2006

Paperny,Vladimir. Architecture in the Age of Stalin. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 2002.

Richardson, Tanya. Kaleidoscopic Odessa: History and Place in Contemporary Ukraine . University of Toronto Press. Toronto. 2008

Ruble, Blair A. From Khrushcheby to Korobki . Ch 8 in Ed. William Craft Brumfield & Blair A. Ruble. Russian Housing in the Modern Age: Design and Social History. Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University Press. New York: 1993. Ruble, Blair. Money Sings: the changing politics of urban space in post-Soviet Yaroslavl . Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington D.C. 1995.

Starr, Fredrick S. The Revival and Schism of Urban Planning in Twentieth-Century Russia . In Ed. Michael F. Hamm. The City in Russian History . The University of Kentucky Press: Lexington, Kentucky. 1976

Taylor, Maria. Constructing A Profession: Urban Design Discourse in Krasnoyarsk, Russia. University of Washington Landscape Architecture. Thesis. Draft May 2009

Tsenkova, Sasha. Reinventing Strategic Planning in Post-socialist Cities: Experiences from Sofia. European Planning Studies Vol. 15 No 3, April 2007.

Vodonos, Irina. Interview with Yakob Vodonos. May 27, 2009.

Wang, Shu-Yi. Traditional Anchor Elements, Sense of Place and the Cultural Continuity in Historic World Heritage city, the Ancient City of Pingyao, China.

Zhukov, K and V. Fyodorov. Housing Construciton in the Soviet Union. Progress Publishers. Moscow: 1974.

APPENDIX

Krasnaya Street Interview Script

Introduction I am a student at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington in the United States. As part of the research for my thesis, I am studying Krasnaya Street – its history, how the street may have changed over time, how people use it and what they think about it. Can I learn your opinion about this question? Interview Questions:

Residential Background.

First I’d like to start with a few questions about your residential history.

1. How long have you lived in Krasnodar? 2. Were you born in Krasnodar? (Have you lived your whole life in Krasnodar?) 3. Which neighborhood do you live in? How long have you lived in this neighborhood? 4. What do you like best about your neighborhood?

Changes in Krasnodar

5. How did the city change after fall of the Soviet Union? Probes: How did the stores change? How did the parks change? How did the streets change?

Krasnaya Street

6. How often do you go to Krasnaya St? 7. When do you go there most often? 8. Why do you go there? 9. How do you travel to Krasnaya St.? (On the tram, by foot, on the bus, on car) 10. Would you want to live on Krasnaya St.? 11. What is your favorite place on Krasnaya St.? 12. What is the most interesting story/history you know about Krasnaya St.? 13. What personal memories do you have about Krasnaya St.? 14. What do you like that is related to Krasnaya St.? 15. If you could change anything about Krasnaya Street what would it be? 16. How has it changed in the last 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? your lifetime? a. How do you feel about the changes you’ve observed? b. What do you like about the changes? c. What do you dislike about the changes? 17. Do these changes have use for people? 18. Do you like that there are many stores on Krasnaya Street? 19. Do you think anything was removed from Krasnaya Street that was valuable or memorable? 20. What is there on the street now, that wasn’t there before the fall of the Soviet Union? 21. What do you think about the new memorial to Catherine the Great? 22. What do you think about the new Ark de Triumph? 23. What do you think about the memorial to Saint Catherine? 24. Do you think the government spends more or less attention to public spaces then before in the time of the Soviet Union? 25. Do you know examples of privatization of public places which were important to the people? 26. Who makes decisions about development of the city? 27. Do you trust them? 28. Do you have any ideas related to the improvement of Krasnaya Street design/planning? What about the city design/ planning?

Demographics

29. What is your profession? 30. How old are you?

Thank you very much for your time.

Russian Interview Script: Я студентка в университете Вашингтона в соединенных штатах. (Я в Краснодаре припадаю английский язык и за одно пишу диссертацию.) Как часть моего исследования для мой диссертации, я изучаю Красную улицу- ее историю, как она изменилась после распада Советского Союза, и как люди это оценивают. Могу ли я знать ваше мнение про этому вопросу?

Теперь я хочу задать вам несколько вопросов о вашем месте проживания. 1. Сколько лет вы проживали в Краснодаре? 2. Вы родились в Краснодаре? (Вы все жизнь прожили в Краснодаре?) 3. В каком районе вы живете? Как долго вы проживаете в этом районе? 4. Что вам больше всего нравится в вашем районе? 5. Как изменился город после распада Советского Союза? Probes: Как изменились магазины? Как изменились парки? Как изменились улицы?

Красная Улица

6. Как часто вы ходите на Красную улицу? 7. Когда чаще всего вы идете на Красную улицу? 8. С какой целью вы идете на Красную улицу? 9. Как вы добираетесь до Красной улицы? На трамвае, пешком, на автобусе, на машине, на маршрутке? 10. (Хотели бы вы жить на улице Крацной?) 11. Расскажите, какое ваше любимое место на Красной? 12. Какую самую интересную историю вы знаете о Красной улице? 13. Какие у вас памяти о Красной улицы? 14. Что вам нравится, что связано с улицей Красной? 15. Если бы вы могли изменить эту улицу, чтобы это было? 16. Как она изменились за последние пять лет? 10 лет? 15 лет? на протяжении вашей жизни? А. Как вы оценивайте эти изменение на улице? B. Что вам больше всего нравится из этих изменений? C. Что вам не нравится? 17. Это изменения имеют пользу для людей? 18. Нравится ли вам то, что на улице Красной так много магазинов? 19. Как вы считаете, не убрали ли с Красной улицы что-то ценное и памятное? 20. Что сейчас на улице есть, чего до распада Советского Союза не было? 21. Что вы думаете о новом памятнике Екатерине Великой? 22. Что вы думаете о новом Арке? 23. Что вы думаете о памятнике святой Екатерине? 24. Вы думаете правительство более или менее обращает внимание на общественные места чем раньше во время Советского Союза? 25. Знаете ли вы примеры о приватизации государственных мест, ценных для народа? 26. Кто принимает решение об устройстве города? 27. Доверяете ли вы людям, которые руководят городом? 28. Если у вас какие-либо идеи относительчо улучшение планировка улице...города?

29. Какая у вас профессия? 30. Кокой ваше возраст?

Большое спасибо за ваше время .