Микрорайон

Microrayon (definition)
By Nat Chamaeva

1. Definition of microrayon
Microrayon is a relatively closed spatial unit bounded by highways, with a developed system of internal driveways. It provides a system of public services to satisfy daily needs of citizens. It is a primary unit of contemporary urban residen- tial development in Russia (mostly on the free territories).

Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary gave the following definition: “Microrayon is a complex of apartment buildings and systems of institutions of cultural and community services that meet the daily needs of the population. It is located on the territory adjacent to the highways, but which has no transit roads. Micro- rayon includes kindergartens, nurseries, schools, stores of essential goods, gardens and sports grounds.”

=== 2. Origins of concept === The problem of improvement of residential areas has received considerable attention before the war. Already in the 30s, architects and builders were able to raise and resolve such problems as the creation of houses with beautification, land- scaped yards and gardens.

In the prewar period, a number of research institutes was working on hygienic requirements. Together with archi- tectural and design workshops they were researching the organization and improvement of residential areas in terms of creating there the best conditions of ventilation, insula- tion and so on.

In the postwar years, the question of the most appropri- ate organization of residential development and establish- ment of certain service facilities in a systematic way was raised in a very urgent manner. This was caused by terrible housing conditions in the postwar cities.

In 1945 – 46, the Committee for Architecture at the Council of Ministers of the USSR held a competition for the projects of residential neighborhoods. The very idea of the contest was born in the atmosphere of liberalization of social life in the last years of the war. One of the motives of liber- alization was a stream of information about mass housing in Britain and the United States. At that time, some domestic experience was re-evaluated. In fact, most English-speaking sources referred to the development of integrated residential quarters, carried out by Giprogor, Institute of Communal Hygiene and Kharkov’s Giprograd in the early 30’s. The term “microrayon” was chosen as a symbol of a new principle of urban design. Its goal was to provide comfortable services to all population groups”. The term was borrowed from old Giprograd studies, where it was used as a replacement of an English concept of «neighborhood unit».

All publications about foreign city planning were severely criticized. A debate unfolded in 1945 - 46 around the competition for the preparation of pilot projects of resi- dential areas. It was the first post-war attempt to approach the creation of a wholesome living environment. From the beginning it was marked by a desire to move away from the Anglo-American theory of neighborhood and to fit it into the overall concept of the Soviet city. During 1947, the word “microrayon” gradually disappeared from the professional vocabulary, because it was perceived, as a semantic analog of “neighborhood”, if not as an exact translation. Attempts to use the idea of microrayon at the XII Plenum of the Union of Soviet Architects board, held in July-August 1947, was also received negatively. Reference to Western city design- ers, who spoke about the priority of Soviet architects in the development of a residential neighborhood at the end of the war, were now considered as a scandalous political provoca- tion. Soviet experience of the late 20s - early 30s, which really had a lot of value, went into oblivion again, and referring to

it became dangerous. Along with the ban on the study and use of Anglo-American practice of housing construction, the search for new social and functional basis for the urban envi- ronment was interrupted. Despite the urgency of the public service districts organisation, these ideas were not in favor when the practice of building, city design and more generally, the future of postwar Moscow were discussed.

The exception was made for an experimental construc- tion of 4-8-storey type houses at Peschanye streets in 1947 - 1948. This new district included large parade square, parks, cinemas, schools, medical institutions, shops and other businesses services, which were placed in the ground floors of houses. The district of Peschanye streets preceded the creation of microrayons. This innovative project was even awarded with the Stalin’s Prize.

As for the majority of new construction in the postwar period of 1945-49, most of it was done using a method of “ribbon-like” construction, or just individual “fragments” inserted along the existing highways and streets. Multi- storey houses were built along red lines. They played a role of barriers, protecting the street from inner yards, or vice versa. During these years, improvement of internal spaces became quite formal, in reality. Design of buildings, yards and public areas was carried out independently.

Only starting from 1951-1952, a shift in the practice of residential construction became marked by a shift towards a more complex planning. The most progressive aspect of con- struction in 1951-52 was this transition from “fragments” and ribbons to a quarter-baced city design. Residential areas of 6 to 12 hectares with houses built mostly aroung the perimeter became basic units of city planning. As a rule, first floors of houses were used for food, retail,

community and cultural services, such as cafeterias and restaurants, food stores and manufactured goods shops, fashion studios and repair shops, hospitals, cinemas, muse- ums, childcare centers, etc. Actually, it was more like “what you want and however you want”, often regardless of people’s real needs and negative side of placing many of these types

of facilities in residential buildings. The non-systematic placement of these commercial and public enterprises and in- stitutions, together with the poor quality of their operation, led to a decrease of comfort of living in such houses. Some- times, special standalone units with cultural and educational services was built in the quarters. But since these services were mostly episodic, their location did not follow any law- governed system. Public life also put forward the need for clubs located near residential areas (for discussions, lectures, etc.). Usually such “red corners” were arranged somewhere in the quarter, but they didn’t have enough space to accom- modate all. In fact, they were intended to serve no more than one house or very few of them.

An early example of complex beautification were hair- dressing saloons built everywhere around the city. Architects presented the project: a green glass cube with several doors.

Municipal authorities liked the idea, so it was decided to build such a cube in each district. These two-storey buildings appeared everywhere. They housed more than just beauty sa- loons: repair shops, consumer services centers, savings banks, post offices, shops of every kind, restaurants, laundries, kitchens, bars, fashion studios, libraries and small executive committees were located in these community centers.

Still, the mechanical planning of city quarters resulted in a number of disadvantages, most of all – the division of a single community by a network of transit streets. It was nec- essary to find a better solution for the city planning, and that was the concept of microrayon.

=== 3. Establishment of microrayons === In mid 50s, finding a fast solution for the urgent housing problem became the main concern for policy makers and experts. The turning point was the All-Union Conference of Builders in December 1954, where the existing practice of building cities was severely criticized. In particular, it was noted that architects do not pay enough attention to create a rational system of public services within residential areas, and “a number of projects feature unsatisfactory approach to the deployment of cultural institutions and community services.”

After 1954, city design bureaus and research institutes began to work on new principles of planning and develop- ment of residential areas and creating a rational network of cultural and community services there. A number of new urban challenges emerged, such as: • Typization of housing and service facilities; • Enlargement of residential areas and creation of micro-

rayons with favorable conditions for cultural institutions and and community services, landscaping and beautifica- tion;

• Concentration of new construction in large housing blocks with simultaneous construction of buildings for cultural and community purposes;

• Mixed-use of houses of various height, based on ful- fillment of sanitary requirements and fitting into the landscape;

• A clear classification of streets, removal of highways outside from residential microrayons, construction of parking lots near public places, such as entertainment, administration or trade institutions.

There was a number of factors that needed to be addressed in a very short period of time for mass construction of micro- rayons to begin. Typization of housing required for industri- alization of construction methods, production of building

equipment and machinery, such as tower cranes, heavy-load transport, production lines at DSK house production facto- ries, elevators, large panels and blocks. Not to mention con- struction standards and regulations and a number of research institutes and design bureaus that needed to adapt to the new goals extremely quickly.

In 1955, industrialization, typisation and standardization of housing construction were officially accepted as the states’ policy in the resolution of the Communist Party Central Committee “On measures towards further industrialization, improvement of quality and reduction of costs of construc- tion”.

In 1960s, the term “microrayon” was widely used in “Arkhitektura SSSR” magazine about Soviet architecture. It was recognized as the basic element for city planning. Micro- rayon was regarded as a residential complex with a uniform architecture, all kinds of amenities and public servicest, lo- cated at a certain territory surrounded by major highways and public transport routes was established. Construction within microrayon followed the principles “svobodnaya planirovka” - “free” (or “open”) planning. It meant that standalone build- ings were arranged in compositions with elements of sym- metry and open spaces between them. The main requirement was to observe sanitary norms for insolation by making sure that the distance between any neighboring buildings is equal to double the height of the highest of them.

Early examples of Moscow microrayons can be found at Khoroshevo-Mnevniki district 75 with prefabricated large- block houses, integrated infrastructure and service facilities; or Cheryomushki area, including Cheryomushki district

9C with its experimental construction. Very soon the name “Cheryomushki”, promoted by a popular 1963 movie, became a popular symbol of a new housing concept and a new life- style of Soviet people. Almost each fast-growing Soviet city of the time had a microrayon called Cheryomushki, where speedy industrial construction was taking place.

From the very beginning of mass construction, transport problem was considered a crucial one. Usually, housing was built first, while transport and social infrastructure followed with big delays, causing a lot of discomfort to residents who were cut of from existing service centers and had no new ones built in time. In 1962, a new subway line connected city center with the new suburban areas at Yugo-Zapad and Novye Cheryomushki. “When we build up Cheryomushky, we then need to stretch out the subway to its final frontier. Construction

of new metro lines should go ahead of housing construction. In that case, the subway can be built in the open ground. Is anyone bothering you from building this way? It’s easier and cheaper”,

- Khrushchev said in 1963, in a conversation with senior of- ficials of the Moscow City Council and the City Committee of Communist Party.

Microrayon-based system of construction was confirmed as a priority for urban development in 1969, at the VI ses- sion of the USSR Academy of Construction and Architecture. Experience of Novye Cheryomushky was used in many cities across the country.

=== 4. Step-by-step service system === Next step of microrayons development was made in 1959, when the principle of functional zoning and step-by-step service system were consolidated in the “Rules and regula- tions for planning and development of cities” by the Institute for Urbanism (Institut Gradostroitel’stva). New regulations required microrayons to be compact, located mainly in free areas on the outskirts of cities, following the principles of “free planing” and consist of prefabricated industrial housing.

In reality, industrialization and typization of housing was not really connected to industrialization and typiza- tion of service facilities. The state’s primary concern was square meters of housing, not supporting institutions of trade, culture and services, which remained scarce and fragmented. When Khrushchev was getting acquainted with new residential areas of Moscow in 1958, he raised the question of improving the beautification of residential areas and, in particular, of improving conditions for pedestrians in microrayons. But delays continued to disrupt the simultane- ous development of wholesome living areas. Usually, it took months, if not years, for objects of trade, services and culture to appear near new housing. Beautification of yards and public spaces also happened with significant delays.

=== 5. Towards a more diverse typology === In late 1960s, a series of harsh and justified criticism in the press caused complicated discussions among architects, who now intended to overcome the inexpressiveness of mass architecture. The shortcomings of functional zoning and lack of flexibility in uniform masterplans of microrayons were criticized among experts. A series of harsh and justified criticism in the press caused complicated discussions among architects, who now intended to overcome the inexpressive- ness of mass architecture.

The practice of uniform five-story buildings construc- tion in new areas was criticized at the Plenum of the Moscow City Committee of Communist Party in 1965. The Plenum considered it necessary to accelerate the transition to the mass construction of high-rise buildings. As of 1966, the city had 43.9% of five-storey buildings. 27.9% were 6-9-storey and above. In spite of this change, the uniformity of microrayons didn’t change much after DSKs started to produce taller and more diverse series. A higher-rise urban landscape appeared in new microrayons, but monotony remained. Attempts to personalise the appearance of buildings and their spatial arrangement rarely brought any fruit, with a few succesful exceptions, such as Severnoe Chertanovo.

Another important change in approach to microrayons was associated with the introduction of the Unified catalog of standard parts and elements of buildings in 1970. This gave Moscow architects a chance not only to use a series of model projects, as well as a variety of spatial arrangement techniques, but also to design non-standard housing, cultural and service facilities on an industrial basis. This opportunity was used to create individual spatial compositions in such microrayons of Moscow as Orekhovo-Borisovo, Veshnyaki- Vladychino, Yasenevo, Matveevskoe, Troparevo, Teply Stan, Strogino, Lianozovo, etc. Their appearance was strikingly different from the appearance of our first areas of industrial construction, particularly in quality of residential build- ings. They now featured a variety of heights and shapes, had greater plasticity, used colors more actively, and so on.

In late 1960s, the shortcomings of functional zoning and lack of flexibility in uniform masterplans of microrayons were critisizes harshly and broadly in the press. It caused complicated discussions among architects, who now intended to overcome the inexpressiveness of mass architecture. Excessive standardization of buildings and impersonality of new microrayons caused increasing concern in the society. Speaking at a meeting with voters in the Bauman district of Moscow, Leonid Brezhnev said: “At the time when millions of

people have improved their living conditions, it is possible to pay more attention to quality of construction, convenience ofapart- ment layouts, appearance of streets and public spaces in microray- ons. Our architects can and should put an end to the monotony of buildings and expressionless architectural solutions”.

New series were introduced and a more diverse spatial organization. Some of these attempts are now considered by some experts more successful than the others, such as Troparyovo-Nikulino, Yuzhnoye and Severnoye Butovo, Strogino, and some others. However, all attempts to build at a more human scale didn’t prevent some microrayons of turning into the so-called “sleeping districts”, for example, Bibirevo, Medvedkovo, Novogireevo, Maryino, etc.

New residential construction caused by expansion of Moscow went farther and farther away from the city center. The city was rapidly decomposing into the public center and separates suburbs.

1 период
датируется 1957—1962 гг.

Первый период датируется 1957—1962 гг., когда в Москве в большом количестве возводились панельные пятиэтажки, называемые в народе «хрущёвками». Это было время, когда одной из самых острых проблем являлась нехватка жилья. Именно тогда и было решено взять на вооружение технологию возведения жилых домов из готовых панелей, которая позволяла в рекордные по сравнению с кирпичным домостроением сроки возводить сравнительно дешёвое и достаточно качественное жильё. Благодаря внедрению индустриального домостроения многие тысячи семей в нашей стране впервые после революции получили возможность обрести свой отдельный, независимый «домашний очаг». К этому периоду относятся серии домов К-7, II-32, 1605-АМ, 1 МГ-300, II-35 и другие.

2 период
В Москве впервые в истории СССР руководство города столкнулось с проблемой нехватки территории. В ходе застройки «хрущёвками» были освоены территории на юго-западе, севере и юге столицы и встал вопрос об определении новой административной границы Москвы. Определилась новая административная граница города в 1960 году, одновременно с появлением МКАД, ставшей своеобразным вещественным олицетворением пределов Москвы.

3 период
После изменения границ возникла необходимость в разработке нового Генплана Москвы, который и был разработан и утверждён в 1971 году. Одной из его основных предпосылок было признание нецелесообразности дальнейшего территориального роста города и значительного роста его населения. Поэтому одним из путей решения задач нового Генплана было выбрано увеличение этажности городской застройки. Это обусловило массовое экспериментальное строительство в 60-х. При этом уже к середине 1960-х годов уже был разработан ряд типовых проектов 9—12-этажных жилых домов. Массовое распространение получили серии II-49П и I-515, 1-605.

Поздние 60-е постройка микрорайонов Troparyovo-Nikulino, Yuzhnoye and Severnoye Butovo, Strogino

1970 Единый каталог строительных деталей

После него больше нетипового жилья. Orekhovo-Borisovo, Veshnyaki-

Vladychino, Yasenevo, Matveevskoe, Troparevo, Teply Stan,

Strogino, Lianozovo, etc.

В третьем периоде (1970—1985 гг.) в жилищном строительстве лидирующим стал «метод Единого каталога». В него входили жилые дома таких серий как: П3, П22, П30, П31, П42, П43, П44, П46 («П» — «панельный»). В массовое строительство пошёл десяток этих серий.

The emergence of mikroraion was of a piece with CyberSovietica as a scientific solution to the problem of spatial control within an immense planning system of the Soviet state.

вместо единого центра, появляется иерархическая система

структура, которая могла бесконечно расширяться

микрорайон - включение инфраструктуры

In 1963, the mikroraion was officially accepted as the basis of all new construction in the USSR.

In the 1980s, The Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary defined the mikroraion in the following fashion:

Mikroraion, a complex of housing and a system of cultural and lifestyle amenities, which satisfy the everyday needs of inhabitants, is located on territories adjacent to transportation routes but containing no internal roads for thoroughfares. A mikroraion includes preschools, nurseries, schools, supply stores, gardens and athletic facilities. A mikroraion is the fundamental unit of urban housing construction (primarily occurring on unoccupied land.)65