Gated Communities in Moscow

8/19/2019 Gated Communities in Moscow

1/17

Abstract The transition from the Soviet to thepost-Soviet period in and near Moscow mani-fested itself in increasing production of segregatedspace both in the urban core and suburban areasoutside of the beltway to accommodate the pref-erences of the new Russian business and govern-mental elite. This paper focuses on the residentialsingle-family housing inside old and new settle-ments, which are frequently gated. Approximately260 of such suburban communities have been

developed within 30 km of the beltway during thepast few years, of which a majority have someform of exclusion mechanism in place, typicallytall solid fences, gates, closed-circuit video sur-veillance and guarded entry checkpoints. Thedifference in exclusivity varies from the most

exclusive older communities inside MoscowSerebryany Bor enclave and Rublevskoe highwaymansions to less exclusive new developmentsalong Novorizkhskoe and Dmitrovskoe highways.Despite high rates of construction, based onsociological surveys in 2003, only about 11% of Russia’s upper class claimed to live in such new‘‘cottages,’’ with the rest owning condos and lux-ury apartments in the inner city or older detachedhomes in villages and small towns. Therefore, not

all the needs have been accommodated and moredevelopment is certain to take place. The envi-ronmental impact of such developments is pro-found. Based on preliminary LANDSAT imageanalysis, almost 22% of suburban ‘‘green belt’’forested land within 30 km zone has been con-verted to new construction from 1991 to 2001.New construction is now focusing on the remain-ing fragments of natural vegetation, which willlikely lower air quality and water quality availablefor the city. Ironically, the new developments

advertise themselves as ‘‘clean and green’’ withmassive investments in unnatural landscaping(seeded lawns, exotic shrubs, river and lake shore‘‘improvements’’). This investment highlights thewell-known paradox of development in whichpeople move out of town to live near nature, whiledestroying the wild nature they come to enjoy.

Keywords Environmental impacts Æ Gatedcommunities Æ Land use change Æ Russia

M. Blinnikov (&)Geography Department, St. Cloud State University,St. Cloud, MN 56301, USAe-mail: [email protected]

A. ShaninGraduate School, London School of Economics,London, Great Britain

Nikolay SobolevBiodiversity Conservation Center, Moscow, Russia

L. VolkovaSevertsov Institute of Ecological & EvolutionalProblems, Moscow, Russia

GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81

DOI 10.1007/s10708-006-9017-0

1 3

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

Gated communities of the Moscow green belt: newly

segregated landscapes and the suburban Russianenvironment

Mikhail Blinnikov

Andrey Shanin

Nikolay Sobolev Lyudmila Volkova

Received: 18 April 2006 / Accepted: 5 May 2006 / Published online: 27 September 2006 Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006


2/17

‘‘We left city for the weekend, It was raining, saw no stars,There were fences everywhere,Our chiefs behind the bars.’’Gennady Shpalikov

Gated Kapitalist landscapes of the early 21st

century

The phenomenon of gated communities is notnew for Russia. As underscored in the famous joke song of Gennady Shpalikov, the Soviet no-menklatura chiefs had a habit of perpetuallyerecting fences in the attempt to separate them-selves from the controlled masses and veil thevery fact of the existence of their ‘‘hidden ruling

class’’ (Voslensky, 1984). In the 19th century, thecountry palaces of the Russian nobility wereequally well secured behind impressive fencesand gates (Rodoman, 2002). The profound chan-ges of the last fifteen years, however, have createda distinct new kapitalist (sensu Brady, 1999)landscape of the suburban Russia, which is nowsegregated along a different principle of con-nectedness to the new post-socialist elite. Whilethe precise analysis of the elite sociological posi-tion and the associated host of economic and

political changes are well beyond the scope of thispaper, we attempt to show some of the mostegregious examples of the post-Soviet transfor-mation of suburban space and their impact on theregional environment by using Moscow as anexample.

Moscow is unique in many ways, both in theglobal sense and within Russia proper, whichmakes its study both interesting and challenging.First of all, it is the largest city in Europe, bypopulation size, at 10.4 million people in 2002

(second is London and third is Paris, if conven-tional metropolitan areas are used). It is alsothird in size after London and St. Petersburg interms of its spatial extent as evidenced fromadministrative documents and from satelliteimages (1,081 km2 in Moscow versus 1,700 km2 inLondon and 1,390 km2 in St. Petersburg). It is theprimate city of Russia capturing about 8% of thecountry’s population in the most recent Census(Brade, Nefedova, & Treivish, 1999; Goskomstat,

2002), but nearly 29% of all retail sales, 14% of GDP and close to 30% of all direct foreigninvestments and tax receipts for Russia as awhole (World Bank, 2005). Moscow was one of only four cities in Russia with over 1,000,000inhabitants that grew between the 1989 and 2002

censuses, the other three are St. Petersburg,Samara, and Volgograd (Heleniak, 2003). Whilethe population of the country as a whole plungeda whopping six million people, Moscow addedover two million residents in those 14 years.Moscow is also a northern city, with less than 190frost-free days as compared to 315 for Paris. Gi-ven all of the above, Moscow is the least typicalcity in Russia and a unique one within Europe,which also makes it all the more interestingbecause many new phenomena in Russia appear

to start there.In regards to gated communities worldwide,

studies suggest different reasons for their exis-tence. In the United States the traditionalinterpretation according to Blakely and Snyder(1999) suggests that they started in the sunbeltstates to accommodate a new lifestyle choice of the wealthy, mobile, upper middle class retir-ees and post-industrial professionals who hadbecome increasingly fearful of the inner citycrime (Luymes, 1997). Thus, the main factor of

segregation was mainly one of economics, butalso age, social status and, to a lesser extent,race. In Indonesia, segregation broadly occursalong the cultural and ethnic lines, e.g., Chris-tian Chinese versus Muslim Indonesians (Lei-sch, 2002). In China itself, the main enclosedgroup is comprised of foreign specialists, whohave to be segregated from the Chinese citizensin oases of western lifestyle and security (Wu& Webber, 2004). In Argentina, gated com-munities tend to exacerbate the level of

inequality (Pirez, 2002), which also may verywell be the case in Russia.Studies of such communities in the post-socialist

economies are rare (see this volume), however,Nuissl and Rink’s paper (2005) provides someinsights into the uniqueness of their urbandynamics. Urban sprawl in East Germany,including rise of private enclaves in suburbia, isless driven by purely economic factors as in theWest but more by a combination of political,

66 GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81

1 3


3/17

social and economic realities of the post-socialistworld. East Germany’s sudden planning vacuumand powerlessness of local authorities createdmore incentive for haphazard development bymid-1990s, but the lack of state funding hamperedthis process at the same time, counterbalancing

the lack of authority.Since 1999 Russia has experienced a strong

improvement in its macroeconomic conditions, onthe other hand, and this is nowhere more appar-ent than in Moscow. Here the chaotic mismatchbetween the existing tight spatial constraint of theplanned model socialist capital (Saushkin &Glushkova, 1983) and the desires of a burgeoningand increasingly mobile and wealthy population isapparent everywhere. The streets are crowdedwith almost three million cars, the public spaces

are increasingly claustrophobic, and the degra-dation of the city air, water and soils has seriouslyimpacted major areas within and outside thebeltway (Department of Nature Use..., 2002). Theold and new elites and the emerging ‘‘middleclass’’ (Gorshkov & Tikhonova, 2004), while rel-atively understudied and small in numbers,increasingly clamor for more space, greenery andsolitude, all prized and indeed rare commoditiesin the new megalopolis’ spatial marketplace.Suburbs, understood here as areas beyond the

Moscow beltway and outside of direct Moscowcity governmental control, act as a magnet for thenewly restless, affluent Muscovites. In itself, this isnothing new as former Soviet bosses, top Armybrass and privileged engineering and artisticintelligentsia have enjoyed the perk of a free statedacha since the end of the Civil War and theestablishment of the firm Soviet rule in the 1920s(Bulgakov, 1969; Voslensky, 1984).

The changes considered here focus primarilyon the new style of the emerging geographic

landscape, which fully reflects the paradoxes of the new Russian kapitalism (Brady, 1999). Thisnew society is different from its Soviet predeces-sor on a few important counts. First, the newelites are increasingly distant from their Sovietarchetypes’ modus operandi as the direct agentsof the state. Today’s elite settlements may housegovernmental employees as well as businessleaders, but the housing itself is privatized and notdirectly provided by the state (except in the case

of the upper levels of Presidential administration,governors and Duma members). It is unfortunatethat the level of governmental control over theenvironmental impacts of such developments hasbeen low. Second, the new communities haveboldly embarked on a new experimentation path

with diverse architectural and landscape designstyles that are no longer under central planningscrutiny. These range from the early 1990s ‘‘im-proved Soviet dacha designs,’’ to grotesque andchaotic styles of the ‘‘new Russians’’ mansions of the mid-1990s (so-called ‘‘shanghais’’ which for aRussian ironically connotes hopeless backward-ness). They also include more advanced andvisually pleasing designs of the post-Yeltsin peri-od, including imported cookie-cutter Canadiantown homes, Scandinavian and Western Euro-

pean designs and some genuine Russian brick orwood homes of the most recent period (Fig. 1).Third, an important distinction is in the change inthe infrastructure. Cars are now ubiquitous andmore affordable than ever, and all of the presti-gious new developments are firmly connected toMoscow by new blacktop highways, including themost popular Novorizhskoe highway, which hasbecome since the early 2000s the most popular,albeit second in price, destination for the subur-ban developers.

Our study is primarily concerned with theinterplay between the gated communities’ exter-nal designs, their organization of space, and theimpacts they have on the suburban landscape andbiological components of it. The authors havemany decades of experience working with pro-tected natural areas of Moscow and the Moscowoblast. We all share the desire to perceive,investigate and understand the ongoing change inthe immediate surroundings of our great mother-city. The study of human perception of natural

environment is a paradigm well familiar tomany geographers (Tuan, 1974), which we believedeserves much better coverage than it has re-ceived to date. Our ultimate goal is to probe theconnections between the human and the natural,to inform ourselves and the readers about whathas been happening, from the canopy and groundlevel perspective of the other , i.e., non-human,inhabitants of the region. Their sense of spatialenclosure, gatedness or connectivity of a

GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81 67

1 3


4/17

landscape will of course depend on the size, tro-phic level and systematic position of the organismin question, which makes such research all themore exciting.

Green belt idea and early dachas

Early socialist Moscow was conceived as a modelcapital city along the lines of the ‘‘urban garden’’movement of the early 20th century new urban-ism of Western Europe, but with a socialist twist.The utopian plans of the ‘‘green city’’ deurban-ization project of N. Ladovsky (1920s) or thegreen belt of B. Sakulin (ca. 1918), envisioned ahealthy metropolis of perhaps a few million with

workers concentrated in a few relatively homog-enous areas that would be surrounded by garden–park landscapes allowing for plenty of recreation,sports activities and healthy outdoor endeavorslike bathing, biking and strolling. Buses and sub-ways were the means to deliver loads of workersto the factories, which would occupy less promi-nent positions than it later came to be in thereality of the 1930s or post-World War II recon-struction efforts (Saushkin & Glushkova, 1983).

While the radical plans of the early Soviet urba-nists were never implemented, some neighbour-hoods of inner Moscow today contain elements of these early models. For example, the general areanear Kievsky train station along the Moscow river

west of downtown and the campus of MoscowState University on Leninsky (Vorobyevy) Hills,both which developed in the early 1950s, affordspacious views of natural elements (e.g., riverembankments, ravines, old trees in parks) inter-spersed with more utilitarian and urbane greenspace (e.g., playgrounds, flowerbeds and numer-ous sport facilities). These features approximatedthe green designs of the early Soviet dreamers.The first General Plan of Moscow (‘‘Genplan1935’’) explicitly acknowledged the need for

adequate green space envisioned as a green beltaround the whole city. Ostensibly, this spacewould benefit the citizens by providing clean airfrom the surrounding parks reaching deeply intothe city centre. The important remnants of thisearly model in Moscow today are Losiny OstrovNational Park and Sokolniki park in the north-west, Izmailovsky and Kuskovsky parks in theeast, Tsaritsyno-Birulevsky park in the southeast,Bitsevsky park in the south and Kuntsevsky and

Fig. 1 Residential areason Serebryany Bor Islandin western Moscow(2005). Source:M. Blinnikov

68 GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81

1 3


5/17

Filevsky parks in the west. In addition there arescores of smaller, more urban parks and boule-vards closer to downtown and green areas leftalong the Moscow River and valleys of its tribu-taries, many of which are now recognized asnature monuments by the city of Moscow. The

immediate tension is obvious if one considers howreality compared to the plan: the documents of the Soviet period are notorious for their utter lackof concrete references to the specific beneficiariesoutside of the vague mention of the ‘‘public’’ or‘‘people’’ at large. In fact, most of the greenspaces in the inner city were early on eyed by theSoviet governmental elite for the understandablepurpose of creating enclosures for the new mas-ters of the people, who had to be sheltered fromthe vagaries of the ‘‘common life.’’ At the top of

the list is the Kremlin itself, a gated urban resi-dence of the General Secretaries and later Presi-dent of Russia and his administration. Greenspaces are common inside the Kremlin and arezealously maintained, complete with lawns,shrubs, trees, gardens and a falcon squad keepingthe pigeons in check.

Joseph Stalin’s dacha complex ‘‘Kuntsevs-kaya’’ exemplifies the more suburban trend:strategically located at mid-point (about 5 kmwest of the Kremlin) between the downtown and

the western distant suburbs (now Moscow belt-way), it is a two-storey compound of 1,000 m2

seated on over 100 ha of woody terrain in one of the cleanest areas of the city; it was built in 1932.Over 70,000 trees were planted over a 20 yearperiod to make the object as inconspicuous aspossible (Gamov, 2003). Stalin, paranoid for hissecurity, rarely had guests, and when he did, hewould not stay in or near the guest rooms’ area;he slept at a different place every night.

The later Soviet and early post-Soviet leaders

continued the dacha living. Khrushchev, Brezh-nev, Andropov, Chernenko, Gorbachev andYeltsin all had numerous, state-provided, shel-tered residences of note. A few of these werelocated in the near Moscow western suburbsimmediately across the beltway or on Leninsky(Vorobyevy) Hills. The CIA-produced city planof Moscow (1974), which one of the authors hadseen as a bewildered kid, provided the immediatethrill of identifying the locales of those super-elite

residences detectable by obvious driveways de-picted to scale above the Vorobyevskayaembankment in the leafy area across the riverfrom the Olympic stadium ‘‘Luzhniki.’’ The offi-cial Soviet city maps of the time would of courseomit the driveways and conceal the entire

inhabited presence with the monotone greencolor of a city park. Today, Putin’s rule continuesthe trend with over two dozen ‘‘presidencies’’listed in various sources, including at least three inthe immediate vicinity of Moscow. None areobviously marked on the new, now-to-scale cityplan.

The old Soviet communities were gated andwell guarded day and night. In fact, anyoneapproaching the driveway from any direction wasunder immediate threat of being shot on the spot

by the security officers of the elite KGB unit. Theonly mode of exit and entry was via chlenovozy,the Soviet copycat of the ponderous limos of thewestern godfathers. The fact that most of suchresidences were well concealed by the trees, fen-ces and lack of signage increased the threat to theunsuspecting passerby.

Green belt under siege

Since the beginning of perestroika, the green belthas come under siege. As early as 1970s a well-known Russian geographer Rodoman (1974)noted that in order to preserve the idea of thecontinuous green belt it had to be adjusted to thereality of discontinuous ‘‘green wedges’’ thatcould still support a quality inner urban environ-ment, albeit being interrupted by the existinginfrastructure of railroads, highways, pipelines,electric transmission lines and suburban settle-ments. Some of the late Soviet developments

immediately outside of the beltway were quiteextensive; Khimki, Lyubertsy, Balashiha andMytischi are all cities that exceeded 100,000dwellers each by the 1990s. Our ongoing analysisof the remotely sensed images for the early 1990svs. 2000s suggests that in the immediate zone of the greenbelt about 11% of the available treespace had been lost to development during thelast 10 years (Blinnikov, Shanin, Sobolev, &Volkova, 2005). Much of this is a permanent loss

GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81 69

1 3


6/17

to actual settlements, which include seasonaldachas and permanent suburban homes, officialand unofficial vegetable plots (ogorody). Somespace is also lost to roads, parking lots, big-boxretail (defined as buildings over 10,000 m2) andstrip-mall types and some post-Soviet industry

(e.g., food processing, printing, and furniturefactories). Gravel pits and concrete mixingplants, landfills and chaotic garage developmentscomplement the picture.

Table 1 provides basic land use conversionassessment based on the supervised classificationof two LANDSAT images (one from 1991 andthe other from 2001). The area included is outsidethe city proper and inside the bounding rectanglewhich covers the area approximately south of thenorthern tip of the Pestovskoe reservoir, east of

the confluence of the Istra and the Moscow rivers,north of the Pakhra and west of the confluence of the Pakhra and the Moscow rivers. Based on theloss of tree cover, about 12% of the area coveredwith trees in 1991 had been replaced with baresoil or impervious surfaces by 2001, a very highland cover conversion rate.

We must stress that new residential suburbandevelopments are characterized as extensive,leapfrogging and yet relatively compact; mostonly occupy 18–25 ha. How many of these new

development are gated communities? The officialstatistics are unavailable, but most new suburban

poselki (planned developments) advertise someform of protection. A search on a leading subur-

ban realtor website reveals the following picture(Table 2).

As of the end of April 2005, 30 poselki werebeing actively advertised as new and additionalproperties were available in three existing devel-opments, all from one realtor. The median size of

the development was 10 ha, the range was from2.5 to 80 ha. The prevalent direction is north andnorthwest of Moscow (17 out of 30), which cor-roborates the recent report (IRN, 2004). IRNexamined all available new developments (260)outside the beltway; 41.9% were found along thewestern and northwestern highways. Out of 30currently available, all but 2 poselki had someform of protection listed (Table 2). At the mini-mum, a fenced perimeter and ‘‘guarded entry’’ orcheckpoint were mentioned. At the maximum,

more than five types of protective equipment ormethods were listed, including in one example‘‘close connection to the local police station andcanine unit,’’ ‘‘3-meter high concrete or metalfences along the perimeter,’’ ‘‘smart card entry/exit’’ and ‘‘guards experienced in police and FSBmethods.’’ The latter point is particularly ger-mane, because, as described by Volkov (1999), agood share of protective services in the lateYeltsin period had been captured by ex-policeand ex-KGB employees. Other commonly listed

methods include video surveillance, in-housealarms and 24-h roving units, that are activelyengaged in ‘‘paying particular attention that thesecurity of the settlers and their guests’’ is en-sured.

Another prominent realtor, MIEL, does notprovide listings by poselok, however, individualhome listings are available on their website basedon a specified highway/direction and distancefrom the Moscow beltway. A random search of afew specific destinations confirms the point made

above, viz., the vast majority of the new devel-opments are not only gated, but tightly secured byprofessional private guards who stay at the site24 h per day. For example, a search for propertyfor sale along Novorizhskoe, Pyatnitskoe, Volo-kolamskoe and Ilyinskoe highways (all west ornorthwest direction) and less than 30 km awayfrom the beltway, yielded 366 listings. We ran-domly examined 140 in detail, 70 of which werelisted as suburban homes (cottages), 30 as summer

Table 1 Approximate conversion rates for various landtypes for the Green belt zone as inferred from supervisedland cover classification of two LANDSAT images*

Land cover, % of image 1991 2001

Water 2.2 2.6Trees 51.2 40.0Grass 12.0 10.6Impervious and bare soil 34.6 46.8

* Estimated overall accuracy (Kappa) is .9 based on visualmap checks and the authors’ knowledge of the area. Nodirect field verification was undertaken and some changein the bare soil amount may be due to seasonal cropremoval (1991 image is from mid-May, while the 2001image is from early October, image analysis by authors)

Source: Blinnikov et al. (2005)

70 GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81

1 3


7/17

homes (dachas) and the rest as lots available fordevelopment. Among the 70 cottages, 40 werelisted as located in explicitly gated or ‘‘guarded’’communities. It must be stressed that there wasno way to independently confirm whether the restwere not guarded as well. Among the available

lots, about half were listed as located in ‘‘guar-ded’’ settlements. An amusing characteristic of many properties seems to be presence of repu-table ( solidnye) neighbours, which obviouslyimplies exclusivity and should convey a sense of security to the prospective buyers.

Table 2 Size and security levels promised in the suburban developments (existing* and under construction) in all directionswithin 50 km of the Moscow Beltway

Development name Area,ha

Access highway(direction)

Security provided

Alpijski 11 Novorizhskoe (NW) Common fence, centralized guardsAvrora NA Egoryevskoe (SE) Centralized guards

Barvikha-Club 6.28 Rublevo-Uspenskoe (W) Centralized guards, 24-h patrols, video & IR aroundthe perimeter

Belgijskaja dervenya 28 Kaluzhskoe (SW) Centralized guards, 24-h patrols, video sensors, in-housealarms, gated entry with guards on duty

Benilux 107 Novorizhskoe (NW) Common fence, gate, video surveillance, in-house alarmsBor 8.09 Starokashirskoe (S) Fenced perimeter, guardsChigasovo-2 9 Rublevo-Uspenskoe (W) Fenced perimeter, guards, videoDomik v lesu 10.3 Dmitrovskoe (N) Gated entry, checkpointEvropa NA Ilyinskoe (W) Fenced perimeter, gated entry, checkpoint, radio-equipped

patrolsFinskaya Derevnya-2 10 Novorizhskoe (NW) Gated perimeter, checkpointFortuna NA Dmitrovskoe (N) Guarded settlementGrafskaya usadba NA Kaluzhskoe (SW) Fenced perimeter, checkpoint, in-house alarmsKnyazhye ozero 80 Novorizhskoe (NW) checkpoint, video surveillance, 24-h patrols of the perimeter,

magnetic keys, electronic surveillance, local police station,canine unit

Lapino-grad 10 Rublevo-Uspenskoe (W) checkpoint, 2-level armed guards, video surveillance,3-m concrete fenced perimeter

Lazurny bereg 8.15 Dmitrovskoe (N) Guarded perimeter, 24-h high-tech surveillance, usingadvanced police and FSB methods

Lesnye prostory-2 15 Rublevo-Uspenskoe (W) ‘‘Double security’’Medvezhi ozera 12.82 Shchelkovskoe (NE) Fenced perimeter, check-point, 24-h guards on dutyNikolina gora* NA Rublevskoe (W) Guarded territoryNovoarhangelskoe NA Novorizhskoe (NW) Checkpoint, guards’ stations, patrols, Video surveillanceNovoglagolevo NA Kaluzhskoe (SW) None specifiedRasskazovka NA Kievskoe (SW) Fence, checkpoint, guards, alarms, videoSareevo 2.5 Rublevo-Uspenskoe (W) Checkpoint, fence, videoSosnovy bor 30 Yaroslavkoe (N) Guarded territory

Staraya Riga 6 Novorizhskoe (NW) Checkpoint, 24-h patrols, videoTurovo 7.23 Volokolamskoe (NW) None listedU lesnogo ozera* NA Volokolamskoe (NW) Fenced perimeter, checkpoint, video, alarmVelich 20 Novorizhskoe (NW) 3-m metal fenced perimeter, video, guards, alarms,

24-h surveillance, patrolsWaldorf 23.5 Yaroslavskoe (N) Gated, fenced, guards, entry permits, videoZelenograd–

Andreevka*NA Leningradskoe (NW) Fenced with ‘‘good guards’’

Zeleny Mys 80 Dmitrovskoe (N) Fenced perimeter, smart-card entry/exit, computer-control,24-h guards

* Indicates older, established subdivisions; the rest are being planned, under active construction or partially occupied

Source: Based on Zagorodnaya realtor agency current online listings (all new developments listed at http://www.zag-orodnaya.ru as of April 2005)

GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81 71

1 3


8/17

The total amount of such developments inMoscow is rather large. The recent IRN report(2004) estimated that there were about 300 cot-tage developments in the vicinity of Moscow(55 km from the beltway) built in the previousdecade. Of these, 171 were on the market in 2004.

The average development had 61 lots on about18 ha of land (about .24 ha or .5 acres per lot).The average cottage was 374 m2 in size with theaverage asking price of $1581/m2 and a price of just short of $600,000. The total value in this realestate of about 10,000 homes approaches $6.2billion, which would be a little over 1% of Rus-sia’s GDP for 2004, assuming a GDP of $578billion calculated based on 29 RUB/$ 1 average2004 exchange rate (World Bank, 2005).

Inside the beltway: Serebryany Bor

We looked into specific examples of gated set-tlements both within and outside the city. Of considerable interest are examples of gatedcommunities that continue to exist inside the cityof Moscow. These are reserved for the mostexclusive super-elite. Under normal rules, the cityof Moscow does not allow single-family detachedhousing (‘‘cottages’’) within its limits (current

Moscow Genplan 2020). The planned develop-ments for 2010 call only for multi-floor apartmentbuildings within the city limits. However, some of the Soviet-era nomenklatura estates have beengrandfathered into the existing city fabric andcontinue to be occupied. Limited construction of new VIP dachas, largely for rent, could beauthorized by the city government based on per-ceived need or political expediency. We examinethe specific example of Serebryany Bor neigh-bourhood, which is notorious for its gated dachas

and adjacent nudist beach, and is also a historical-natural park established by Moscow City gov-ernment as a natural monument of regionalimportance.

Serebryany Bor, which literally means ‘‘Silverpine forest,’’ has been known as a prime huntingestate since the 17th century (Gorbanevsky,2005). It is famous for its old growth pines.Summer homes first appeared in the area in theearly 20th century. In 1937, the Moscow river

channel was artificially streamlined via Khoro-shevskoe cut-off, which placed the forested areaon an artificial island surrounded by the rivermeander (Fig. 1). During the Stalin period about200 dachas were constructed here, of which 11were owned by the MVD (Police), 5 by the KGB

and 20 by Moscow city council members. Inaddition to members of the federal government,many theater directors, actors, newspaper editorsand radio news anchors lived in the area beforeand after World War II. Foreign embassies hadtheir estates here as well, for example, Argentina,Bulgaria, Japan, France, UK, Korea and Leba-non. Nixon dubbed it ‘‘Russian Coney Island’’and suggested further development during hishistorical visit to Moscow in May of 1972 (Busi-ness Olymp, 2005).

It is a unique natural complex that containsapproximately 328 ha total with 80 ha under for-est, including some 150–200-years-old pines andmany hardwoods, 52 ha of built-over urban areas(large Soviet-era apartment homes) and 70 ha of VIP dachas, which are the subject of our research.Recently, the area received some attention as thegovernment of Moscow passed a new executiveorder on the nature monument territory (Mos-cow, 2005) and eradicated some illegal home-steads in the area (RSN, 2004). The official

control over the nature monument territorybelongs to Moscow city government, specificallyits Department of Nature Use. The real estate of the old state dachas is likewise mainly under citycontrol (OAO ‘‘Mosdachtrest’’) that is partiallyowned by AFK ‘‘Systema,’’ with close ties to thecurrent mayor of Moscow and the Department of State and Municipal Property; this comprisesabout 2/3 of the total acreage of the territory.Other ‘‘long-term users’’ of the dachas in the parkinclude the Administration of the President, State

Duma, Moscow Oblast administration, BolshoiTheater, Moscow Military District, FederalCommittee on State Property and a few obscureprivate organizations apparently representingvery high profile business leaders with goodgovernmental connections (Note ..., 2001).

ZAO ‘‘Business Olymp’’ which is a realtor anddeveloper specializing in VIP-class estates listscottages in Serebryany Bor as ‘‘super-VIP real estate in the historical natural preserve not far from

72 GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81

1 3


9/17

the centre of the city’’ (Business Olymp, 2005).Who lives in them now? ZAO lists ‘‘well-knowngovernmental figures, State Duma deputies,ambassadors, famous actors and artists’’ as theirclients, for example, Oleg Gazmanov and Alla

Pugatcheva, both pop musicians and MikhailZhvanetsky, a famous stand-up comedian andwriter. It is interesting that one of the recentdevelopment projects in the area is the gasifica-tion of the cottages in Serebryany Bor under theexplicit directive of the Moscow city governmentto ‘‘improve the ecological situation in the eliteresidential area’’ by eliminating coal or fuel oilheating.

Even condos here are super-elite: a squaremeter would cost over $5,000, as compared to

$1,800 for Moscow city as a whole by the end of 2004 (MIAN, 2005). The average rent on a dachaunit would be between $6,500–$10,000 per month(Penny Lane Realty data as cited in Timashova,2003); only a few of these are available. A recentreport in Kommersant business daily suggestedthat only a handful of properties are available atany given time for rent, and even fewer are forsale. In 2003 the minimum asking price for homesin Serebryany Bor was at least $1.5 million with

land lot values approaching $45,000 per 1/100 of ahectare (Timashova, 2003).

Much of the construction during the 1990s wasdone without an adequate city review, and inviolation of existing environmental and con-

struction norms. A local prefecture check in 2003revealed that 45 houses were built without ade-quate permits (Timashova, 2003). Recently, thecity announced that it plans to build a generalcheckpoint for the whole area near the entrancein an apparent attempt to introduce more securityand maintain better control over access (Ros-balt..., 2005). A transportation tunnel under theisland is also nearing completion to facilitateconnections from Moscow’s downtown to thewest side, which will help traffic in bypassing the

island.The Biodiversity Conservation Center hascarried out a special investigation on the state of nature in Serebryany Bor under the sponsorshipof OAO ‘‘Mosdachtrest.’’ The environmentalimpacts of gated communities and new develop-ments in general on the local city biota arenumerous, ranging from the obvious destructionof the habitat due to dacha and infrastructureconstruction to recreational impacts and some

Fig. 2 Plan of theBenelux Residenciesdevelopment (2005).Source: BeneluxResidencies

GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81 73

1 3


10/17


11/17

Across the beltway: western and northwestern

suburbs

Based on a recent report (IRN, 2004), the top 10directions (highways) out of Moscow that expe-rience the biggest development of (mostly gated)

suburban planned communities are listed inTable 3. Western and northwestern destinationsclearly predominate, while southwestern andnorthern ones are becoming more popular, withsouthern and especially eastern directions trailingfar behind. Why these destinations? Not surpris-ingly, environmental quality plays a role, secondin importance only to ease of access to the city(IRN, 2004). Novorizhskoe highway has beenparticularly popular precisely because of thenewly completed road upgrade, which is now a

six-lane road approaching European standards,correspondingly short commute times, and areputation for clean air, water and woods.

A reputation for environmental quality can bea bigger motivator than the actual quality. In theSoviet period, it was widely taught in schools that‘‘the wind [at mid-latitudes] blows from thewest,’’ and hence the powerful elite would delib-erately construct their dachas west of downtown.Correspondingly, eastern rayons of Moscow andsuburbs would house factories and worker class

populations, and today they still have a poorreputation for environmental quality. However,overlooked seems to be the geographical fact that

much of the former industry is no longer inbusiness, so the main source of air pollution is cartraffic. Thus northern and southern sections couldbe equally attractive for long term suburban life.The belated recent boom along the southwesternKaluzhskoe highway is proving this point.

The physical terrain and vegetation of Moscowregion has always played a role in development,in addition to water and air quality. Areas northand west of Moscow contain part of the Valdaiglaciation terminal moraine complex known asSmolensko-Dmitrovskaya gryada. This featuredramatizes the otherwise flat terrain and addsglacial lakes to the landscape. Also, manyimportant reservoirs, e.g., Pestovskoe, are locatedalong the famous Volga–Moscow canal north of the city. The recent pull of development to

Dmitrovskoe and other northern highways high-lights the desirability of scenery. Southern desti-nations, on the other hand, are relatively lessattractive because of the lack of trees. Moscowoblast is about 41% forested, but in its southernhalf much of the historically forested landscapelong ago gave way to agriculture. Some rayonshave less than 20% forest land, which of course isnot an attractive setting for the exclusive gatedcommunities that prefer sheltered existence in theshadow of the big woods, preferably near water

(Samarina, 2005; STK, 2004).The gated communities of the near Oblast

differ from Moscow city in a few important re-spects. First, most of them are brand new, builtsince mid-1990s, although some important VIPresidencies date from the late Soviet or earlyYeltsin period (e.g., Novo-Ogarevo and Gorkidachas of the Administration of the Presidentalong the Rublevo-Uspenskoe highway). Second,most of the gated communities today are builtexplicitly as suburban first homes, not dachas,

which traditionally would be seasonal homes and/or summer cabins. Some of the new homes are infact rented year-round. Third, the ownershippattern of the oblast communities is likely toreflect the more recent, transitory character of their residents. For example, both foreign anddomestic petroleum companies must place theirupper level employees in desirable homes nearMoscow somewhere. Few of these people havehistoric connection to Moscow city and enough

Table 3 Distribution of new suburban developmentsbased on highway directions away from Moscow

Highway DirectionfromMoscow

Number of developments

Percentage

Novorizhskoe NW 40 23.4%Rublevo-Uspenskoe W 36 21.1%

Dmitrovskoe N 17 9.9%Pyatnitskoe NW 15 8.8%Kaluzhskoe SW 14 8.2%Yaroslavskoe N 10 5.8%Volokolamskoe NW 5 2.9%Leningradskoe NW 5 2.9%Minskoe W 4 2.3%Mozhaiskoe W 4 2.3%Subtotal 150 87.6%Total for Oblast 171 100.0%

Source: IRN (2004)

GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81 75

1 3


12/17

relational capital (sensu Gaddy and Ickes, 2002)necessary to break through the city red tape.Therefore, they may end up living in relativelyinconvenient suburban locations, while a wellconnected Moscow and federal governmentalelite are able to acquire more premium locales

inside the city or in the closest suburbs (Samarina,2005).

It is difficult to find out who the predominantbuyers of the suburban properties are, sincedevelopers keep lists of their clients confidential.However, much can be gauged by looking at theasking price for homes and also the distribution of the income among Moscow families (Schetinin &Baranov, 2005). It is clear with the average askingprice for home in the neighbourhood of $300,000in 2004 (prices have risen 30–40% in 2005) and an

average household income (family of three) inMoscow in July of 2004 of about $24,000 per year,that it would require more than an average salaryto afford any suburban detached housing. In fact,only so-called ‘‘very rich’’ and ‘‘simply rich’’classes of Gorshkov and Tikhonova (2004) wouldbe able to afford such individual homes (‘‘cot-tages’’). Some in their ‘‘upper middle class’’ willbe able to afford condos and newer, largerapartments in the city, but not individual housesin any of the developments discussed here.

Who comprises the top two groups? The firstgroup is the super-elite, similar to the peopleliving in Serebryanny Bor. Their level of house-hold income approaches several hundred thou-sand dollars, millions for some. The other group(‘‘simply rich’’) includes people with annualhousehold income of at least $100,000 per year.Based on the Gorshkov and Tikhonova (2004)data, such people comprise less than 2% of thetotal population of the country, 5% if we also addthe ‘‘upper middle’’ group with incomes above

$24,000 per year. The average household size inRussia for all classes is three members. Evenamong the top two classes, in 2003 only 11% infact owned modern suburban cottages that theyused as their primary residence, and an additional7% had ‘‘single detached homes,’’ which couldhave been older dachas or village homes. The restowned large modern apartments in Moscow itself and second summer homes. Professionally, 37%of such upper class owners would be entrepre-

neurs owning companies with many employees,22% directors and vice-directors of private com-panies and 9% highly paid professionals (e.g., achief accountant working for a gas or oil com-pany). In addition, 7% were self-employed(attorneys, retail trade, etc.), 7% students, 4%

middle-level managers and 3% Army members,police and ‘‘protective services’’ employees(Gorshkov and Tikhonova, 2004).

With respect to ownership, 12% worked forstate companies, 12% for recently privatizedcompanies, 39% for newly created private com-panies and 6% for foreign companies and jointventures. With the private sector clearly in thelead, it is unclear how many of these peopleworked for partially state-owned rich companies(like Unified Energy Systems and Gazprom) or

state bureaucracies at various levels. An interviewwith a developer in Odintsovsky rayon suggestedthat a relatively large minority of new cottageowners in the area are in fact local police, landmanagement and rayon government bureaucrats.

To evaluate how the gated communities of Moscow suburbia differ from Serebryany Bor, wespecifically looked at examples of communitieslocated in the prestigious western and north-western directions that are currently available onthe market in terms of their positioning to the

clients and their potential environmental impact.Other directions away from Moscow are becom-ing popular too (Table 3), but at present over54% of available developments are concentratedon just three highways: Rublevo-Uspenskoe(west), Novorizhskoe (northwest), and Dmit-rovskoe (north). Of these, the first one is by farthe most prestigious and expensive direction,since it is close to the super-elite federal govern-mental properties, including home of the Presi-dent and top governmental officials. In 2004, one

1 m2

of housing on Rublevskoe was priced at$2,450 per m2 (most homes cost upward of $1million), while on Dmitrovskoe and Novorizhs-koe rates were merely $1,640 and $1,550 per m2

(RBC, 2004). In late 2004 on Rublevskoe high-way, land was valued at $50,000 per 1/100 ha, orover $5,000,000 per hectare. (Samarina, 2005).

One frequently mentioned example of a well-advertised elite community is Benelux developedby the Russian water, milk and juice producing

76 GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81

1 3


13/17

giant Wimm-Bill-Dan on Novorizhskoe highway(RBC, 2005; http://www.bnl.su). Benelux twicereceived the prestigious ‘‘Poselok of the year’’grand-prix award from kottedj.ru realty in 2004and 2005 out of 38 competing developments inand near Moscow and St. Petersburg. It is classi-

fied as a class A residence within 17 km fromMoscow and is accessed by a 3.2 km private road(Table 4) with houses priced over $750,000 in2004 (and over $1 million in 2005). By 2006 thedevelopment will have 250 homes on about 80 ha,of which 50% have already been sold in theconstruction stage (Fig. 2). The unified Euro-de-sign concept appeals to the upper-crust businesselite: the settlement is divided into three areasnamed respectively Belgium (modern style),Holland (Dutch themes, e.g., windmills and wil-

lows) and Luxemburg (largest lots of .4 ha each)(Fig. 3). Such a concept highlights the ‘‘unity indiversity’’ and ‘‘openness’’ principles of theEuropean Union and is apparently chosen toappeal to the internationally conscious clients(RBC, 2005). One of the hallmarks of the devel-opment is low fences inside the developmentproviding for an open feel and plenty of façadeviewing opportunities once you get in (Fig. 3).However, the ‘‘most strict security on many

levels’’ is assured to exclude all the undesiredelements from the outside and of course you willhave to have a car to get in.

The development also has a common areacalled ‘‘Amsterdam’’ featuring a fitness and rec-reation complex, administrative and utility

buildings, playgrounds, shops and restaurants,and even a house of children’s creative artsadjacent to the ‘‘Wild West’’ sector of over 30 haof residual woods. In her interview, VP Mel-nichenko (RBC, 2005) proudly emphasized theenvironmental benefits of the project. Thedevelopers chose to avoid construction in (some)of the forest, and in the sensitive floodplain zoneof the Sinichka river (such encroachments areunfortunately common elsewhere in Moscow ob-last and are illegal). They will embark on creating

an ‘‘embankment and recreation zone’’ along theriver. Evidently, the river is to be deepened andwidened to accommodate boats. The latter com-ment is ironic from the animals’ perspective asconcrete embankments and developed beachesare not compatible with preserving the wildcharacter of the river and will surely eliminatemany native plants and animals.

Another famous and even larger developmentis Knyazhye Ozero (‘‘Duke’s Lake’’) with 600

Table 4 Typology of suburban developments in Moscow region

CategoryA Highest

< 15 km from the beltway, on Rublevo-Uspenskoe or Novorizhskoe highways, on river bank orlake shoreline, forest of I group (protected, pines), homes > 800 m2, lot size > .5 ha, all centralutilities, Moscow phone number, Internet access, on territory or within 1 km: fitness, spa,restaurant, supermarket, clinic, children playgrounds and sports facilities. Brick construction,high-quality design by a well-known architect. Homogenous social milieu, very wealthy neighbours,no suspicious types, face control. High quality landscaping. Private utility service. Private armedguards near entrance, CCTV surveillance and alarms of the perimeter. Unified architectural style of the development, selection of a few house types.

CategoryB High

< 25 km in W, NW and SW direction. Forested (mixed forest), homes > 450 m2, Lot size> .2 ha, all central utilities, Moscow phone number, Internet access, within 3 km: fitness, spa,

restaurant, supermarket, clinic, children playgrounds and sports facilities. Brick, wood orsandwich panel construction. Homogenous social milieu, very wealthy neighbours, no suspicious

types, face control. Some common landscaping: lighting, paths, flowerbeds. Private utility service.Private armed guards near entrance. Unified architectural style of the development, selection of afew house types.

CategoryC Business

< 40 km in any direction, except E and SE. Open field. Homes > 250 m2, Lot size > .1 ha.Central water and gas, septic sewer. Regional phone number, within 10 km: fitness, spa,restaurant, supermarket, clinic, children playgrounds and sports facilities. Brick, wood or sandwichpanel construction. Homogenous social milieu, wealthy neighbours. Lighting, good roads. Hiredcontractors for utility service. Guards near entrance

CategoryD Cottage

Unregulated cottage developments more than 50 km away from the beltway and isolated cottagesin villages and settlements with no infrastructure.

Source: According to poselki.ru

GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81 77

1 3


14/17

homes about 25 km away from Moscow onNovorizhskoe that is developed by Sapsan Corp.(http://www.ozero.sapsan.ru). It claims to be thelargest ‘‘deluxe’’ grade development in the Mos-cow region and has even more amenities toaccommodate a more diverse base of clients.These include a roller skating place, bowling,aquapark, pet hospital, a school and an Orthodoxchurch (‘‘Services? We have everything you

need’’). Its security includes soundproof fencingof the perimeter, CCTV surveillance, patrols,gates, magnetic key passes and electronic alarmsinside the homes. Not everyone is welcome: a‘‘principle of social [presumably income-authors]homogeneity’’ is observed by the company inapproving prospective buyers. The price of anaverage home here is a bit more affordable,$300,000 in 2004 compared to over $750,000 forBenelux. The architecture is developed according

to a pseudo-antique Russian theme. The promo-tional materials use Russian dé cor, Slavic-styledfonts and a deliberately archaic vocabulary aredesigned to appeal to the targeted audience (theword for ‘‘architect’’ they use is old Russianzodchii). The main entrance to the development

resembles a gateway to the medieval Russianfortress (Fig. 4). The development is clearlypositioned to appeal to family-oriented, patrioticclients with somewhat lower incomes than thosecustomary for settlers along the Rublevskoehighway.

The development is located in ‘‘ecologicallyclean Istrinsky rayon’’ within the green belt of Moscow. Ironically, as in Serebryany Bor anddespite the presence of the relatively unspoilednatural forest of the green belt nearby, the

intensive lawn care (mowing, pesticides), plantingof exotic shrubs and ‘‘improvements’’ to thenearby lakes (water impoundments, cleaning of the bottom, artificial beach construction) are ex-pected to take place. Of course, the paradox of this exclusive suburban development is preciselythe same as in U.S. or European countries, viz.,the desire to live close to nature destroys the verynature people come to enjoy.

Overall environmental impacts of the gatedcommunities in Moscow suburbs

The sheer degree of development, the amount of potential investment (estimated at more than $6billion in the past few years), combined withrapidly changing laws and regulations, failing‘‘administrative reform’’ of the federal govern-ment and an uncertain future beyond the 2008presidential elections places the suburban Mos-cow oblast environment at a tremendous risk,

even compared to Moscow city proper. Moscowcity and oblast are two different subjects of fed-eration with parallel governmental structures,including separate departments of nature use andenvironmental protection, and separate commit-tees on architecture and development. The Mos-cow city government is a power player in its owncategory at the federal level, while the oblastgovernment is considerably weaker politicallyand is greatly influenced by outside forces (i.e.,

Fig. 3 Villa in Benelux Residences. Photo: BeneluxResidencies

Fig. 4 Entrance to the Knyazhye Ozero development.Photo: Sapsan Corp

78 GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81

1 3


15/17

powerful city and federal elites coming fromMoscow city). While the Moscow city Genplan2020 contains provisions for expanding the spe-cially protected natural areas in the city to about21.8% from the existing 14% today, no suchdocument exists for the Oblast.

The existing system of specially protectednatural areas for the Moscow Oblast (Sobolev,1998) is not adequate in size. It covers only about5.7% of the oblast and most large areas are morethan 30 km away from the beltway. What doesexist is not well protected. Outside of these lim-ited territories, almost no protection is currentlyafforded, except in the forests of the First Cate-gory of protection. In the past 10 years thenumber of incidents of direct violation of theprotected areas’ regime have increased due to a

lack of control from the state and conflicting andcompeting mandates given to various enforce-ment agencies at the federal, oblast and locallevel. In fact, in many cases, local and regionalgovernmental agencies themselves are the viola-tors of the existing norms. Private developmentplans are approved at the local level frequently byan insider deal involving under-the-table pay-backs (bribes) and no public environmentalreview. Recently, development along northern(Dmitrovskoe, Yaroslavskoe) and western (Nov-

orizhskoe, Rublevskoe) highways have come un-der more scrutiny in the media because in bothcases sensitive floodplains are involved: theMoscow, the Klyazma and the Istra rivers, as wellas Pestovskoe, Uchinskoe and other reservoirsalong the Moscow–Volga canal. These are criticalcomponents of the Moscow river water supply. Arecent water quality report (Department of Nat-ure Use..., 2002) from the City of MoscowDepartment of Nature Use and Nature Conser-vation suggested that while the water quality

within the city has been slightly improving, theriver is now more contaminated than ever whereit enters the city downstream from the mostegregious development along Novorizhskoe andother western highways. Common contaminantsinclude lawn and agricultural fertilizers, pesticidesand petroleum compounds from highway runoff (fuel and oil spills).

If Rodoman (2002) is primarily concernedabout the chaotic vegetable garden developments

– 600,000 of such exist in Moscow region –(Kachan, 2003), the much bigger threat is nowposed by enclosed permanent home develop-ments built along lake shorelines and riverbanksand in the forest green belt, even when appro-priate engineering solutions are used (septic

tanks, water wells, graded slopes, etc.), misguidedlandscape design, unnecessary pavement in sen-sitive riparian areas, and logging of surroundingforests contribute to a major negative environ-mental change. The fact that most of such com-munities are private and elitist, built withoutpermits and appropriate environmental review onpublic lands should be of a grave concern.

In the early months of 2005, a new threatemerged, as a new draft of the recently adoptedForest Code has been released by the Ministry of

the Economic Development (MED). If fullyadopted, the document would essentially abolishthe main protective designation of the forests inthe Moscow green belt, that of the Forests of theFirst Category (protected during the Soviet peri-od as sensitive woodlands along streams andwaterways and near big cities). Currently about62,000 ha of such forests still exist of which8,000 ha are inside Moscow and are relativelysecure, but 54,000 ha are in the Oblast and arevulnerable (Fedorova, 2005). Official data suggest

that only 233 ha have been converted from forestland within the green belt to built over areas be-tween 1993 and 2000 (Department of NatureUse... 2002), but based on our assessment of LANDSAT imagery from 1991 and 2001, at least12% of the 1991 forest cover was lost outside of Moscow, but within the forest belt, this wouldrepresent a loss of approximately 6,000 ha(Blinnikov et al., 2005). This political develop-ment is clearly driven by the need of the rich tograb more land. According to a report (Gover-

dovskaya, 2004), little demand exists at presentfor homes more than 50 km away from the belt-way, where land prices can be 5–10% of the levelwithin 30 km zone. Within the latter, however,only 5% of the land is presently available fordevelopment, the rest is tied up in pre-existingland deals and much of it is still forested (thegreen belt). Should the new Forest Code (MEDversion of 2005) become a reality, a massivesellout of the remaining 48,000 ha of forests in the

GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81 79

1 3


16/17

immediate vicinity of Moscow to the land specu-lators will be imminent. The scope of the ensuingdestruction belt will dwarf even the biggestprojects of today.

Conclusions

The phenomenon of gated communities is notnew for Russia and is firmly rooted in the his-torical tradition of the wealthy elite secludingitself away from the underprivileged and fre-quently landless masses. High value suburbandevelopments, a majority of which are gated, aretaking over the Moscow oblast countryside. Whileinside the city proper only very few such com-munities exists, largely grandfathered from theSoviet period and owned/operated by either fed-eral (Administration of the President) or citygovernment, the surrounding area outside of thebeltway has lost about 12% of forested land tosuch developments in the past 12–15 years. Whilemany of the settlements now are much betterplanned than in the mid-1990s and are built byserious companies with international reputations,few are built with an adequate environmentalreview and even fewer do a good job providingfor genuine nature conservation in and around

such communities. Most of them exist as self-contained gated enclaves with complete infra-structure to promote U.S.-inspired car-orientedcommuter lifestyle quite disconnected from thereality outside the secured and gated perimeter.Many adversely impact local wildlife by increasedlevels of landscape disturbance, including inten-sive lawn care, cutting of brush and trees, creationof linear impervious concrete fences, artificialembankments, dredging and damming of lakesand creeks, and overall fragmentation due to road

and power line construction. The fact that someof these communities advertise ‘‘environmentalquality in your backyard’’ does little to mitigatethe actual negative impacts. Many such develop-ments now begin to include schools and churchesin addition to shops and gyms suggesting that thelong-term occupation by families is the desiredgoal. This ensures that the current pattern of increasing segregation based on income and

relational capital will continue to be perpetuatedwell into the middle of this century, just as the lastwild patches of suburban Moscow forest succumbto the another successful experiment in creatingsocially fragmented consumer society.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to express sincerethanks to Klaus Frantz and Stanley Brunn for inviting usto submit the manuscript to this special issue. We alsowish to thank Megan Dixon, Melanie Feakins, DmitrySidorov and David Wall for comments on the subject of this research.

References

Blinnikov, M., Shanin, A., Sobolev, N., & Volkova, L.(2005). Green lungs of Moscow. In Abstracts of the Association of American Geographers Annual Meet-ing, April 6–10, 2005. CD-ROM, Washington, DC:

Association of American Geographers.Brade, I., Nefedova, T. G., & Treivish, A. I. (1999).

Changes in the system of Russian cities in the 1990s. Izvestiya RAN, Geography series, 4, 64–74.

Brady, R. (1999). Kapitalizm: Russia’s struggle to free itseconomy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bulgakov, M. (1969). Master and Margarita. Frankfurt,West Germany: Posev.

Business Olymp. (2005). Online at: http://www.business-olymp.ru. Accessed April 2005.

Department of Nature Use and Nature Conservation of the City of Moscow. (2002). State Report on theStatus of the Quality of Moscow Environment in2000–2001. Online at: http://www.moseco.ru/dok-

lad2000/Fedorova, L. (2005). Russians will be equated with cock-

roaches. RBC Daily, March 23.Gaddy, C. G., & Ickes, B. W. (2002). Russia’s Virtual

Economy. Washington, DC: Brookings InstitutionPress.

Gamov, A. (2003). The spirit of Stalin roams his threefavorite dachas. Komsomolskaya Pravda Dec. 23.

Gorbanevsky, M. V. (2005). Serebryany Bor . Online at:moscow.gramota.ru. Accessed April 2005.

Gorshkov, M. K., & Tikhonova, N. Y. (Eds.). (2004). InThe new social reality of Russia: The rich, the poor, themiddle class. Nauka, Moscow, Russia.

Goskomstat (Federal State Statistics Service of the Rus-sian Federation). (2002). Official Results of the Rus-sian Census 2002.

Goverdovskaya, O. (2004). Dacha near Moscow becomesan alternative to the city flat. Feb. 2, 2004. Online at:http://www.kottedj.ru

Heleniak, T. (2003). The 2002 census in Russia: Pre-liminary results. Eurasian Geography and Economics,44, 430–442.

IRN (Indicators of Realty Markets). (2004). Investigationof the market of the cottage developments in Moscowregion-2004. Online at http://www.irn.ru/research2/

80 GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81

1 3


17/17

Kachan, A. (2003). Status and future trends of the natureconservation in Moscow Oblast. A report of theMinister of Ecology and Nature Use of Moscow Ob-last Government for 2003. Online at: http://www.mosreg.ru. Accessed April 2005.

Leisch, H. (2002). Gated communities in Indonesia. Cities,19, 341–350.

Luymes, D. (1997). The fortification of suburbia: Investi-gating the rise of enclave communities. Landscapeand Urban Planning, 39, 187–203.

MIAN Realty. (2005). Website http://www.mian.ru. Ac-cessed April 2005.

Moscow. (2005). Moscow Government Executive Order N86–PP ‘‘About nature monument Serebryany Bor.’’February 15, 2005.

Note on Khoroshevsky Forest Park Land Use. (2001).Krasnogorsky Special Forest District, Moscow.

Nuissl, H., & Rink, D. (2005). The ‘production’ of urbansprawl in eastern Germany as a phenomenon of post-socialist transformation. Cities, 22, 123–124.

Pirez, P. (2002). Buenos Aires: Fragmentation and priv-

atization of the metropolitan city. Environment andurbanization, 14(1), 145–158.RBC (RosBusinessConsulting). (2004). The most expen-

sive cottage developments in Moscow oblast. Onlineat: http://www.rbc.ru. Accessed September 2004.

RBC (RosBusinessConsulting). (2005). Rublevka is soyesterday Interview with A. Melnikova, VP of ‘‘Be-nilux Residencies’’ company.Online at: http://www.rbc.ru. Accessed May 25, 2005.

Rodoman, B. B. (1974). Polarization of landscape as ameans to protect the biosphere and recreational re-sources. In Resursy, Sreda, Rasselenie [In Russian:Resources, Environment, Settlement] (pp. 150–162).Moscow.

Rodoman, B. B. (2002). Velikoe prizemlenie. [The greatlanding.] Otechestvennye zapiski, 6(7), 40.

Rosbalt News Agency. (2005). http://www.rosbalt.ru/2005/02/22/197504.html Accessed April 2005.

RSN (Russkaya Sluzhba Novostej) Newswire. (2004).Illegal sporting center will be torn down in Serebry-any Bor. Online at: http://www.rusnovosti.ru. Ac-cessed August 26, 2004.

Samarina, N. (2005). Spring–summer 2005: Settlementshaute couture. Mir i Dom, 5, 41.

Saushkin, Y. G., & Glushkova, V. G. (1983). Moskva sredi gorodov mira. [In Russian: Moscow among the citiesof the world.] Mysl’, Moscow.

Schetinin, Y. V., & Baranov, I. S. (2005). Analysis of accessibility of housing in the Moscow region in Juneof 2005. STK Company, Moscow. Online at: http://www.monolit.org/s2005_04.html

Sobolev, N. (1998). Specially protected natural areas andnature conservation of Moscow region. In Proceed-ings of 4th conference dedicated to celebration of the850th anniversary of Moscow city (pp. 26–56). Mos-cow: MNEPU.

STK (Sovremenyye Technologii Konsaltinga), 2004: Mar-

ket of suburban real estate north-west of Moscow.Analytical report. Moscow. http://www.stk.ruTimashova, N. (2003). Kommersant 101, June 11.Tuan Y. F. (1974). Topophilia. Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ.Volkov, V. (1999). Violent entrepreneurship. Europe–Asia

Studies, 51(5), 741–754.Voslensky, M. S. (1984). Nomenklatura: The Soviet ruling

class. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.World Bank. (2005). Russian Economic Report 2005.

Online at 194.84.38.65/mdb/upload/RER10_eng.pdf Wu, F., & Webber, K. (2004). The rise of ‘‘foreign gated

communities’’ in Beijing: Between economic global-ization and local institutions. Cities, 21(3), 203–213.

Zagorodnaya.ru Realty (2005). Online at: http://www.zagorodnaya.ru. Accessed April 2005.

GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81 81

1 3

Documents

Gated Communities in Moscow