From 'Soviet' to 'European' Yaroslavl: Changing Neighbourhood Structure in Post-Soviet Russian Cities

Abstract

Sum m ary. T he absence of a m ark et m ean t that Soviet cities evolved in fundam entally differen t w ays from W estern cities, but econ omic reform prom ises to tran sform them . D raw ing from 1993 survey data from the city of Y aroslavl , the paper analyses how Russian citizens look at their Soviet-m ade city. It ® nds that R ussian s of diverse back grou nd appear to be draw n to a historica lly`Europ ean ' model of urban develop m ent in which the central city becom es hom e to the m onied class and the socially correct , while poorer social grou ps are pushed tow ard the perip hery. To understan d the dynam ics of the early stages of post-S oviet city develop m ent, a regress ion m odel con tain ing dem ograp hic, life-stag e and housing-con dition variab les is develop ed w hich predicts 52 per cent of the varianc e in movin g intention s.After describ ing the initial im pact of the housing privatisa tion process, the paper exam ines the reason s behind and the sign i® can ce of the precip itou s declin e in housing privatisa tion since 1993.

Housing Estates in the Baltic Countries: The Legacy of Central Planning in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania

“…Each housing unit included 'modern' conveniences-kitchens, washrooms and toilets, central heating, large windows. As the design process matured and mechanisms within it advanced during subsequent iterations, the height of residential buildings increased and the size of individual dwelling units expanded (Lehmann and Ruble 1997;Smith 1996).…”

Post-Coal Fantasies: An Actor-Network Theory-Inspired Critique of Post-Coal Development Strategies in the Jiu Valley, Romania

“…After 1968, localities classified as fulfilling industrial, mining or tourism functions were given city status [45]. As in the case of other former socialist states, "company towns" [46] emerged around factories or mining areas. These towns developed in the context of rapid industrialization in areas where natural resources were available.…”

Divided post‐soviet small cities? residential segregation and urban form in leninogorsk and zyryanovsk, kazakhstan

“…As with the availability of resources for the expansion and improvement of urban infrastructure, the power of the city administration's planning department was deeply influenced by the city's administrative rank and by the ministerial subordina-tion of its industrial enterprises. In smaller cities planners were in a very weak position, since the industrial enterprises were, in practice, the only actors that would have been able to afford building any housing at all, leading to a sensation of 'company town' (Goodrich Lehmann and Ruble, 2000). Therefore, even though the general plans (genplany), which established legal land uses and future development zones, were supposed to be legally coercive, they were seldom followed in their entirety, or even partially.…”

“…A significant amount of high-quality dwellings were erected in attractive locations with specific future tenants in mind, such as KGB officers or members of the writer's union (French, 1995, pp. 135-136;Hamilton and Burnett, 1979;Morton, 1980;Smith, 1996, see also Goodrich Lehmann andRuble, 2000). Second, segregation is more or less induced by the tyranny of urban-bound migration restrictions and the propiska system (see Matthews, 1993;Morton, 1980).…”

“…Third, there is demographic segregation induced by the preferential allocation of new apartments to younger couples during various periods of housing construction. Given the difficulty in changing apartments, neighbourhoods have had the tendency to age together with their inhabitants (Goodrich Lehmann and Ruble, 2000). This entails a certain degree of socio-professional segregation as well, given that the earlier cohorts were allocated housing in an atmosphere of greater competition where social merit was more important than during the later years of Soviet power (Gentile, 1999).…”