(Application to the Russian Architectural Strategy)
Centralization, or (in this case) the concentration of the most important processes for the state in one settlement, played a definitely positive role throughout human history.
For example, such a typical situation feudalism as feudal fragmentation, leading to a decrease in the ability to resist external aggression, ethnic group, can be corrected only by delegating the main administrative and economic functions having a relatively large population center.
Here are two situations in the history of Russia, describing the difference between centralized and decentralized structure.
The first situation - XIII century. State decentralized. The core, which could have an impact on the entire territory of the country is virtually absent. Principality of more or less equal, resources are distributed more or less evenly. The permanent representatives of the various provinces struggle with each other, ending with the loss of independence of the whole country, which is expressed in submission to the Golden Horde.
The second situation - XV century. State is centralized. Moscow Prince Ivan III, who was able to highlight and strengthen the Centre, in a military confrontation takes for the independence of their possessions.
After considering these two situations may give the impression that it is always better centralization of decentralization. But the methods of forming the structure of the territory is directly dependent on the specific conditions in which they are used.
Let's try to look at our contemporary Russia.
The huge territory, characterized by extreme centralization. In the capital, it concentrated all the important and necessary - the basic political structure, basic financial resources, better health, educational and scientific institutions, the best enterprises of trade and catering industry, a central transport hub.
The center has all the competitive advantages of the region. Therefore, the most active part of the country somehow exposed to the centripetal tendencies that seriously upset the balance of the settlement.
The number of inhabitants of Moscow, long exceeded acceptable value is constantly increasing. Also growing area of the city, its budget and the number of floors of buildings under construction in the city.
At that time, both in the capital takes place uninterrupted growth in most regions we are seeing the reverse process.
The number of localities in the province is decreasing, the most active population of small settlements in general, tends to live in the nearest metropolis, and then - in the capital.
When the outflow of the population in the center (metropolitan or regional), among other resources, the periphery deprived of the main resource - the human race. Often, to solve the problem of his native region, no one gets out of the constant migration to megacities.
The issue before us migration negatively affects both the residents of the center (when excessively increasing population, a number of known problems listed below), and on the inhabitants of the regions (with a strong reduction of the population and have serious complications).
We do a conclusion: under current conditions centralization plays a very negative for society (ie for most of the inhabitants of the center, and for most people in the periphery) role. Since The centralization / decentralization of administrative processes are managed, it should bring the existing upravlenchenskuyu model changes, allowing to bring the whole system into a decentralized, uniform state.
An example of the negative impact of centralization: Region
As an example, the regions affected by the outflow of the population in big cities, give the Pskov region.
According to the 2002 census of the 8393 villages of the region in 1073 no one lives (13% in 2002), in 2191 live for only 1-5 people. (26%) 1 568 - 6-10 persons. (19%) in 1917 villages - for 11-25 people. (23%) and 793 - by 26-50 people. (9%), 353 - at 51-100 people. (4%), 240 - by 101-200 persons. (3%), in the village of 191 - for 201-500 people. (2%), 50 - from 501 to 1 000 inhabitants (0.6%), 12 - from 1 001 to 2 000 people., 4 - from 2 001 to 3 000 people. and only one village - more than 3 000 inhabitants (Seredka, 3831 resident, October 9, 2002) *. Thus, the number is really populated rural settlements with a population of SNP) in 7320 was in 2002 *
According to the 2010 census of the 8351 villages of the region in 1919 no one lives (23% in 2010), in 2599 live for only 1-5 people. (31%) 1 295 - 6-10 persons. (15.5%), in 1 373 villages - for 11-25 people. (16%), 501 - by 26-50 people. (6%) 234 - for 51-100 people. (2.8%), 224 - by 101-200 persons. (2.7%), in the village of 158 - 201 of 500 people. (1.9%), 35 - from 500 to 1 000 inhabitants (0.4%), 8 - from 1 000 to 2 000 people., 3 - from 2 000 to 3 000 people. and 2 - for more than 3 000 inhabitants (Motherland (3382 inhabitants) and Seredka (3253 inhabitant, October 14, 2010) **. Thus, the number is really populated rural settlements (SNP with a population) in the region is 6432 in 2010
During 2002-2010, the proportion of deserted villages in the Pskov region increased from 13% to 23% of the total number (from 1 073 to 1 919 SNP), the proportion of villages with a population of 1 to 10 residents - from 45% to 47% ( from 3759 to 3894), from 11 to 50 residents - fell from 32% to 22% (from 2710 to 1874), from 51 to 100 people - from 4% to 3% (353 to 234), more than 101 person - from 6% to 5% (from 498 to 430).
* - The results of the census of 2002; ** - Results of the 2010 population census.
In fact, non-existent or close to that status as of 2010 are approximately 70% of all settlements in the area. It is important to note that the original, underlying cause of the extinction of settlements here was not a natural decline in population, namely the migration - the number of citizens in the country as a whole over the period (2002-2010 gg.) Has changed slightly - former residents of the Pskov region for most of the increased size megacities.
In addition to increasing the number of extinct settlements in settlements functioning tends to decrease the number of inhabitants. As for 2015 of 31 settlements with a number of inhabitants more than 2,000 people., Only 4 showed an increase. This number includes the regional center - Pskov, to the inhabitants of the surrounding areas and to sharpen the most populated and unpopulated uneven areas within the boundaries of the region.
From the data it can be concluded that the Pskov region is a victim of centralization occurring at two levels:
Level I - the outflow of people from the Pskov region in the mega-cities, especially in Moscow.
Level II - the outflow of people from the region - Pskov region - the regional center - Pskov.
Given that this is only a particular instance, it should be noted compliance with the situation in the Pskov region the situation in most Russian regions. Of course, the qualitative and quantitative assessment of centripetal migration and its effects may vary from region to region, that does not eliminate the need for decentralization in the cities and surrounding areas.
An example of the negative impact of centralization: Metropolis
Bigger and better in economic terms of the people who left in the ground (if we consider internal migration), it migrates to the most active geographical point of the country - to Moscow. By focusing on a fairly small area population, able to properly organize economic activity in the capital have no problem with the work and access to finance.
But there are the following number of issues missing in a small town:
1. Increased noise.
2. Wednesday, is not conducive to close social contacts, disunity.
3. The density of the population, are not consistent with the natural human needs.
5. Inconsistency scale human scale of the city.
6. The potential danger of destruction concentrated in one place a large number of people as a result of natural disasters, wars and man-made disasters.
7. Traffic jams resulting in increased time spent on travel.
8. Increased density of passengers on public transport.
9. air pollution.
10. water pollution.
11. The lack of "green zones".
12. The high level of crime.
13. As a rule, the absence of the beautiful view from the window.
14. The increased epidemiological risk
15. Needless to high speed of life, leading to disturbances in the body.
16. Increased risk of stress.
17. Paid car parking.
18. Increased expenditure on public transport because of the large distances.
19. Increased property values - and the purchase and leasing, and construction.
20. Increased cost of services and range of products.
To reduce the impact of these negative factors, the metropolis should be reduced to a manageable size. Based on international experience, we can accurately claim that the optimal maximum for the population of the city and its metropolitan area is the mark of 1 million people. With such a population will be provided with all the advantages of the metropolis and to reduce to a minimum its drawbacks.
With a decrease in megacities will be a simultaneous increase in small settlements, allowing evenly distribute resources on the territory of a comfortable accommodation.
Carry out maintenance of the described processes enable the decentralization policy.
Decentralization is expected in two levels:
Level I: Moscow - Regions
Level II: Regional center - Region
On the first level is reduced the excess flow of resources to the regions in the territory of Moscow.
On the second level there is a similar process in relation to the large regional centers and administrative areas dependent on them.
Methodologically decentralization policy level I is as follows:
1. Prohibition of road construction, ie, new roads, bridges, tunnels, subway tracks, etc.
2. Prohibition on painting any surface (except where painting affects the security)
3. Prevent the installation of elements of improvement - decorative fences, benches, urns, lamps, etc.
4. The ban construction within a radius of 100 km from the Moscow Kremlin (except regeneration Formations past (see. Development Strategy Russian settlement), and except for the construction of new buildings on the site of the old (not related to the Formation of the Past) while maintaining the same construction volume) .
5. The ban on the construction includes the prohibition of social facilities: schools, kindergartens, social housing, etc.
6. The ban on citywide celebrations by the city budget.
7. cancellation of government subsidies in the payment of utility bills (except for vulnerable groups of citizens).
8. The introduction of paid parking in all localities within a radius of 100 km from the Moscow Kremlin.
9. Blocking the development of public transport.
10. Deprivation of Moscow's capital status.
11. The uniform distribution of the presence in Moscow of the best medical, financial, educational, and other important institutions in the country.
12. Complete withdrawal of the industry from the Moscow region (excluding undertakings necessary for life support engineering systems of the city).
13. Strengthening the tax burden on organizations and individuals.
These restrictive measures and the reduction of the budget should not threaten the security of citizens and, in principle, can be specified by various exceptions to remove such a threat.
Such actions serve three objectives:
1. Capital Region is no longer attractive to potential migrants.
2. There will be an outflow of population from the Moscow region.
3. There will be a reduction in the budget of Moscow, and a corresponding increase in the budgets of provincial towns.
4. Settlers from the Moscow region and the people of the province, remaining as a result of decentralization on the ground will make it possible to progress in the development of the built environment outside the largest cities.
5. Moscow for Muscovites to reach optimum size.
It is important to note that, despite the apparent radical nature of the measure, decentralization is beneficial to all - and the provinces and the capital. The capital will be deprived of the surplus population, and as a result the quality of the remaining life of Muscovites will improve (restrictive measures, in addition to fixing the maximum number of people, set just before reaching an acceptable level of population - 1 million). At the same time, the province will be able to develop at the expense of increasing the budget, investments and obtaining the missing active population.
Decentralization Level II (Regional Center - Region) depends on local conditions, and such sharp as in Moscow, the action in most cases does not imply.
But, nevertheless, the vector activity remains the same - strongly stimulated at the same time comfortable and uniform settlement of the region and partially blocked the development of the overbuilt center.
Blocking of the regional center is primarily aimed at the city (and agglomeration) with a population of more than 1 million people., Such as: St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Samara, Chelyabinsk, Omsk, Rostov-on-Don, Ufa, Krasnoyarsk, Perm, Volgograd, Voronezh.
Regional centers with a smaller population (including the previously discussed Pskov) must adhere to Decentralization II levels only partially, some of them (eg, Gorno-Altaisk with a population of 62,309 people., Anadyr with a population of 14,326 people., Etc.) Decentralization is contraindicated due to its irrelevance in these specific cases. Decentralization in regional centers with a small population will play a negative role for the development of the region, as large cities on the current stage of development of human society are important and necessary for the country as a whole, and for the province in particular.
The desire to move in a metropolis - is quite natural, and, of course, it can be understood. For migrant metropolis actually has a number of advantages associated with the possibility of interesting work, finances, cultural life. But at the same time, it is harmful to human nature - their noise, fragmentation, overcrowding, traffic jams, ecological imbalance, high crime, and - most importantly - it blocks the development of remote areas of it. Large city attracts the most educated, energetic, able-bodied people, depriving small settlements development opportunities, turning them into archaeological material.
Mega city is inevitable for the densely populated small countries, where land resources do not allow live dispersed. But in Russia, a lack of such resources does not. If you do not take extreme residential areas, such as land above the Arctic Circle, some parts of Siberia and the Far East, the space for the development of truly enormous.
Has control structures measures relating to the reduction of migration to Moscow? Unfortunately no.
In 2011, the plan was adopted "Big Moscow", to strengthen the policy of the degradation of the regions and the capital city. The territory of Moscow was officially increased by about 2.4 times. In the future, it means fold increase of population, budget and the problems specific to the cities of this scale, and according to all this increase in blocking development of the regions.
In addition, in Moscow subway stations are under construction, roads, real estate, investments, and actively involved in creating jobs. Of course, under these conditions, quantitative (but not qualitative) development of the capital will continue, as well as the reverse process of the rest of the state.
Decentralization only be able to normalize the process of forming the structure of urban planning in Russia and provide an effective, uniform and balanced use of land resources.