No abstract

No abstract

This paper investigates major lines of research in socioeconomic and spatial analysis of major urban centers. After thorough investigation of previous research in the fields of spatial economics, proximity analysis and using the phenomenological field concepts, authors propose to consider sociospatial development as foundation of urban economic security. In order to measure the state of urban security, authors suggest distinguishing between three phenomenological axes: axis of socioeconomic development, axis of quality of urban environment, axis of crime rates, and to use methodology of proximity analysis. Using the data on St.-Petersburg authors demonstrate degrees of proximity along distinguished axes. Comparative analysis is performed via STATISTICA packages for cluster analysis, grouping major urban centers using agglomerative cluster-method. Indicators relating to phenomenological axes are chosen as a result of previous studies analysis in the areas of quality of urban environment, urbanization rates and conflicts in major urban centers, as well as through expert evaluation of relative importance of indicators for livability provision.

The paper presents main findings of the research on Russian major urban centers differentiation according to rates of investment in comprehensive urban development. Thorough investigation of current research on the nature of comprehensive urban development allows authors to define main indicators that determine the demand for residents’ vital needs satisfaction through public amenities provision. A review of global trends in Smart urban development resulted in proposing several hypotheses on contemporary conditions of comprehensive urban development in major urban centers. These hypotheses are aimed at integrating available statistical data on residents’ vital needs satisfaction. Comparative analysis is conducted via STATISTICA software package with the use of hierarchical agglomerative clustering method. The clusters of Russian cities are formed using differences in the variables of investment rates in principle areas of comprehensive urban development. As a result of comparative analysis, authors describe two clusters of Russian major urban centers: urban centers that are showing high rates of investment in public amenities like kindergartens, schools, medical clinics; and cities that are clearly lacking sufficient investment in comprehensive urban development.

Abstract. The article considers the issues of social infrastructure planning. The purpose of the study is to draw up the list of social infrastructure facilities that provide favorable and secure conditions of living, differentiation of placement of these facilities in the territory and interpretation of priorities in planning sustainable development of the city. The authors have analyzed the researches of global cities development problems, the characteristics of life quality of population and the characteristics of the most demanded facilities of social infrastructure. On the base of a general methodological approach, random decomposition and induction methods, taxonomic analysis and expert evaluation, the authors constructed models for planning the placement of social infrastructure facilities. Comparative analysis of the models allowed describing three levels of social facilities placement that provide favorable living conditions and life quality for population. The authors have systemized the indicators of social infrastructure that is significant for the sustainable urban development, largely ensuring the good quality of the urban environment, secure and favorable living conditions. The results of the research can be used as a methodological basis for studying problems of sustainable development of global cities, good quality of urban environment. The authorities can use the results of the research to develop standards for urban planning.