In today’s world, cities with a population of more than 10 million people are known as megacities, and often act as points of congestion: ever-growing, expanding, and looking for solutions to their main problems as a result. To some extent, these ‘meagcities’ have outgrown the de! nition of the city, but are still not as ‘powerful’ without the mandate of the state. " eir economic, political and cultural in# uence extends far beyond their administrative boundaries, while these boundaries de! ne the limits for the city administration. Nowadays there is no consensus on how the planning and development policy of megacities could overcome the contradictions arising at the borders. However, in case of Moscow, a radical political decision to expand the administrative boundaries of the city was adopted. For this reason, could Moscow be the perfect testing bed for the right solution of how to plan a megacity?

With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the establishment of a new state regime in Russia, Moscow is experiencing dramatic changes.. As a state, the “new” Russia is trying to establish itself on the global political landscape through a policy of centralization. As a result, Moscow has been enhancing its power, pulling the economic resources from all over Russia. According to

experts , by 2025, 30 million Russians or about 20%will live in Moscow. " e share of Moscow in Russia GDP will be around 30%. " us, about third of entire economic and human potential of Russia will concentrated on its territory. Moscow in the near future is a unique global Megacity located between Europe and Asia, far away from other major cities.

O$ cially , 11.6 million people live in Moscow, which is 12,4% of Russian population. However, various estimates suggest that 14-15 million is the actual population of Moscow, which means Moscow features even higher on the list of Megacities . As might be expected, Moscow is not only the richest Russian city but one of the richest cities in the world:its GDP at PPP is 321 billion dollars, ranking 15th ranking place globally. " e GDP of Moscow corresponds to the national

>

" e city of Khimki on the border with Moscowsourse: Frost & Sullivan. Russia of the future, 31 May 2012

>

Population by Moscow districts and cities of Moscow Regionsourse: Rosstat, 2012

THE LIMITS OF PLANNING

" e Limits Of Planning

100

$K$K

<

GDP per captia in 2008 ($K at PPP),Source: Pricewaterhouse Coopers

GDP per captia Russia (K$ in current prices)Source: Rosstat

GDP of countries such as United Arab Emirates (315$BN) and Argentina (326$BN).

Naturally, the economic in# uence of Moscow spreads beyond the city’s administrative borders well into the territory of Moscow Oblast . " is is even more force migration from Russia and CIS countries to the Moscow Metropolitan Area, as well as local labor migration from Oblast to Moscow. According to the chairman the Moscow City Duma Vladimir Platonov , the number of illegal immigrants in Moscow is close to3 million. In addition, about 1.6 million people commute every day by train and near 1 million by their own car from Oblast into the city. Strong spatial, economical and cultural links will enhance the mutual dependence of Moscow and Moscow Oblast, perhaps even to the point that the two entities could become a single integrated region - Moscow Megacity.

Moscow is a region of Russia on the same level as Moscow Region, consisting of municipal entities. If you look on Moscow from this point of view, it is made up of 125 “cities” with population of up to 243 thousand people, which also corresponds to the size of cities in Moscow region. " ere are historical reasons for this; in place of the current Moscow districts, previously were located towns and villages of Moscow Region, which after were taken by Moscow. " erefore we can conclude that Moscow is already polycentric

As far as Moscow is becoming such a Megacity, the questions arise: how to manage it, how to solve speci! c problems of the big cities as a housing, transport, waste disposal etc.? In Russian tradition the management of the capital of Russia is a political subject rather than a practical subject. " e decision about Moscow’s expansion to 2.5 times its current size, adopted in 2011 by President Medvedev, re# ects the government’s continued desire to impose their opinions and directions onto Moscow’s future development.

>

“..IN FACT, MOSCOW IT IS NOT JUST A CITY, IT IS REGION OF RUSSIA.. .”

New York Chicago LA Paris Tokyo Osaka Moscow BuenosAires

MexicoCity

SanPaulo

Istanbul Rio deJaneiro

Shanghai MumbaiLondon0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2001 2002

Russia (average) Moscow Region Moscow

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

10

0

20

Since Soviet times residential development in Moscow carried out by means of mass housing construction or “microrayons.” " ey were built on the free areas, usually near the borders of the city, which was Moscow Ring Road (MKAD). Gradually the density and altitude of microrayons increased, reaching values 25-30 thousands sqm/ha. Eventually, the majority of the population has accumulated on the outskirts; so, there was a reversal the city. If we have a look to the density map of Moscow we will see the most populated areas are in proximity to the MKAD and relatively low in the city center.

By the end of the 20th century economic environment has changed. Moscow has experienced an economic boom especially in the ! eld of real estate development. Due to demand construction and development become the most pro! table business. Since 1991, the average price of apartments in Moscow has increased 78 times , from 5 000 to 390 000$. " e most dramatic rise in prices was recorded in 1996 and 2000, when the value of square meter of apartment has increased by about 150 percent per year.

Finally, real estate market faced with two issues: - no more free land for development within the boundaries of Moscow;- high price threshold forced demand of housing outside of Moscow.Despite Moscow’s GRP per capita and average income about 3 times higher than the average in Russia and comparable with Western cities such as Barselona ($32 300), the provision of living area per person is one of the lowest in Russia – 18,7 sqm/person. It is on the same level as poorest regions such as Buratya (19,2) or Karachaevo-Cherkesiya (18,8).

In addition to a physical shortage of land, Moscow investment climate in Moscow is worse than in the Moscow Oblast. " e reasons for that: the high price of land, high wages to employees, high risks of management, as well as administrative barriers, which includes long negotiations with the Moscow administration and high rates of corruption. According to “Rating of investment attractiveness of Russian regions” for 2011 made by Russian rating agency “Expert” , to Moscow Region assigned the highest investment grade (1A) versus relatively risky Moscow (1B) ." e high risk of doing business in Moscow illustrates the fact of the freezing of construction contracts after Sobyanin came. Shortly after Sergei Sobyanin headed to Moscow in 2011, he canceled about 200 investment projects with total area of 7 sqm, in the amount of $ 35 billion . As the same time he said: “We have decided to prohibit construction in the center of Moscow“ and called the “Moscow City” business center as an “urban planning mistake”. " e Association of Russian Builders calculated the average cost of construction and sale of one square meter in Moscow and the Moscow Oblast. " e greatest di% erence between the cost of construction of houses and prices in the primary housing market recorded in Moscow : 66 thousand rubles construction, 138 thousand rubles sales, versus Moscow Oblast: 55 thousand and 61 rubles respectively. More than double di% erence in the price of construction and selling of living area of mass housing in practice means 10-30% revenue of developer . " e rest of the sum is administrative costs, especially in the allocation of land in Moscow (the high price of apartments is usually laid at the stage of the auction for the land), including the corruption component that estimates 10-30% of entire budget. Risks of corruption and opacity of the Moscow real estate market dramatically reduce the level of its development and the advent of global investments. Here is how the analyst of the center “Real Estate Market Indicators” IRN Oleg Repchenko commented on the situation :“In housing construction the main problem - corruption. Foreigners for the most part do not understand and do not like things like transfer money in a suitcase in a steam bath with the head of the administration. In their understanding, it is corruption and political risks, they prefer it not to get involved”.

As the same time due to lower cost threshold and less strict bureaucracy the Moscow Oblast becomes more attractive, especially in the complex development; the investment potential has been accumulating near to the borders of Moscow. As a result, Moscow Oblast is an absolute leader in new residential construction and living area per person and; the gap between other regions is gradually increasing every year. Five cities near Moscow, the leaders in residential construction: Odintsovo, Balashikha, Lybertsy, Poldsk, Krasnogorsk, with total population 1,7 million of people, together bring 2.8 million sqm per year of new housing. It is more than 1 million sqm than in whole Moscow. " ese cities are located in di% erent directions around Moscow. " ere was a full merge of housing markets in Moscow and Moscow region, where the regional market is a continuation of Moscow. " is supports the logical process of growth of the periphery of Moscow Megacity, which represented by development of cities of Podmoskovye. Ironically, housing within the MKAD jumped to the price category of “business class” which is actually the same generic microrayons, and push people with low incomes outside MKAD into Oblast. " is is a long-term trend that will only increase. According to the Ministry of Construction of Moscow region, in the region up to 2016 is planned to implement 90 projects with a total area of 35.8 million sqm of housing .

In the late 2000s before the crisis of 2008, in development a new phenomenon appeared called “Megaprojects”. " ere was no clear de! nition of what it is, however, it can be considered as development projects with more than 1 billon of dollars of investments with gross area more than 1 million square meters. In the wake of the euphoria of rising real estate market and overall economic growth in the Moscow region was announced about a dozen such projects. Usually they were large residential complexes, considered as new “cities”, at a distance of 10-25 km from MKAD. " e most signi! cant in scale were the projects “A101” on the 350 000 and the “Great Domodedovo” on 450 000 people.However, after 2008 with the beginning of the economic crisis, the development of Megaprojects have been declining dramatically; many private developers have begun to sell o% their assets. In particular, the project “Rublevo-Arkhangelskoye” near Moscow, conceived as the “city for billionaires”, in the end went to the state “Sberbank”. Interestingly, the lands intended of implementation for these projects, were purchased by private business from the former kolkhozes, mostly in the South and the South-West part of Moscow region, traditionally agriculture part of Moscow Oblast. " us, we can say that these projects have created the preconditions for the emergence of the expansion project of Moscow. " is is con! rmed by the fact that mega-projects “A101” , “Rublevo-Arkhangelskoye” and “Skolkovo” have become cores of Moscow expansion.

DEVELOPMENT

“...SINCE 1991, THE AVERAGE PRICE OF APARTMENTS IN MOSCOW HAS INCREASED 78 TIMES.. . .”

" e Limits Of Planning

mln

. sqm

per

yea

r

9 5009 0008 5008 0007 5007 0006 5006 0005 5005 0004 5004 0003 0002 5002 000

Top Left: Amount of new housing construction in 2011, mln. sqm per year. Right: Density, thousands of people per sq. km., 2011. Bottom Left: Living area, sqm per person. Sourse: Rosstat.

Left: A typical advertisement for the sale of new apartments is cities of Moscow Region. Right: apartment price, K$ per sqm in 2011, source: IRN.ru.

30,0 - 27,527,5 - 25,025,0 - 22,522,5 - 20,020,0 - 17,517,5 - 15,015,0 - 12,512,5 - 10,0

10,0 - 7,57,5 - 5,05,0 - 2,52,5 - 0,0

Moscowoblast

Krasnodarkray

St.Peterburg

Tatarstan Bashkor-tostan

Rostovoblast

Sverdlovoblast

Moscow0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

20012000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Russia (average) Moscow Region Moscow

10

20

30

sqm

per

per

son

thousands of people/sq. km

K$/sqm

00 1010 kkmmm

0 10 20

Since the early 20th century, after the October Revolution of 1917 until the early 21th century, Moscow has increased its area from 203 sq km (border of Moscow rail ring) up to 1091 square kilometers, or by 5,4 times; moreover, at the same period the population grew from 1 million to 11,5 million of people. During the growth a lot of settlement and villages were absorbed by Moscow, their names stored in Rayon’s names. " e major increase in the 20th century occurred in 1960 when the Moscow’s boundaries were extended to the Moscow Ring Road (MKAD). " e present expansion of the boundaries is 2.5 times, committed on the instructions of President Medvedev, makes the area of Moscow equal to Luxembourg. In Soviet times, Moscow’s expansion of the boundaries was approved by Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR . In fact, in August 18, 1960 followed by a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR “On the extension of city limits, changing the administrative-territorial division of Moscow and the transfer of administrative and economic subordination to the Moscow City Soviet of People’s Deputies of protective forest-park zone”, by which the jurisdiction of Moscow went beyond the MKAD and seized the forest belt along with the major cities of Moscow region: Krasnogorsk, Balashikha, Lyubertsy and Mytischi . However, by November 1961, these cities

had returned back to the Oblast. Subsequently, ambiguous decisions of Supreme Soviet of RSFSR resulted in a series of con# ict on the borders between Moscow and Moscow region after the fall of the Soviet Union. Since the Soviet Union all the land belonged only to the state, the administrative transfer of lands from one to another state entity had no any problems. With the emergence of the Russian Federation in 1991, the attitude to the territory is fundamentally changed. " ere was an understanding that some areas are particularly important as economic resources. Such problems was mostly acute for Moscow, where the ground suddenly turned into a treasure. In addition, since Moscow began extend beyond MKAD, it borders began to take bizarre forms subsequently became the causes of serious con# icts and numerous of territorial claims. Let us examine main ones.

>

" e growth of the territory of Moscow

BORDER CONDITIONS

17th Century - Historic core

1917 - Railway Ring

1935

1960 - MKAD

before 2012

proposed after July 2012

" e Limits Of Planning

<

MKAD Ring Roadsource:http://igor113.livejournal.com

" e con# ict in Scherbinkasource: “Russia” Television

MKAD

MKAD has long been the boundary between Moscow and Moscow region. However, the question remained of what distance from the outer side of the road Moscow ends and starts Oblast. It was the major dispute, because a lot of restaurants, shopping centers, gas stations and advertisement billboards were built there. During this period, in the 1990s and 2000s MKAD changed its meaning from bypass road to the busy main road, a link between Moscow and the Oblast. Moscow demanded 45-meter zone outside of the ring, claiming that these areas since the Soviet times Moscow were allocated for the maintenance of the road. Oblast insisted only for 1 meter. Despite extremely small length, from it depended on substantial tax revenues to the budget especially of Moscow Oblast. In order to resolve the dispute was a commission consisting of Moscow and the Regional deputies, but the decision has not been found over the years.

SCHERBINKA

Podolsky District of Moscow RegionIn 2006 Moscow authorities and the Moscow construction company “SU155” started to build social housing for moscovites on disputed territories 3000 ha in another city Scherbinka near Moscow’s border, relied on the decision of the CC CPSU and USSR Council of Ministers of April 17, 1987. According it, the part of the farm “Lenin’s Way” is passed to Moscow for the construction residential area for MVTU University, which was never built. Authorities of Scherbinka did not recognize that decision and regarded such activity as seizure its territory by Moscow with armed troops of the Moscow police and private security guards. In this way, between Moscow and the neighboring town had occurred a local armed con# ict. Here is the comment beginning of construction an eyewitness, the deputy of the

>

MOSCOW

KHIMKI KHIMKI

SHEREMETYEVOAIRPORT

KHIMKINSKYFOREST

“.. .ON FRIDAY MORNING, THE MOSCOW POLICE SEIZED A HECTARE OF LAND NEAR THE TOWN OF SCHERBINKA.. .”

Moscow Regional Duma, Nikolai Cherkasov :“On Friday morning, the Moscow police seized a hectare of land near the town of Scherbinka, Podolsky District of Moscow Region. More than a hundred police o! cers and private security have taken down the fence, installed by us, and in its place erected new one. Moscow police strengthened its forces in the area. " eir sta# is sitting on the building blocks of every meter.”

“.. .SCHERBINKA - NECESSARY LAND RESOURCE FOR MOSCOW, WHICH IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE PROVISION OF SOCIAL HOUSING FOR MOSCOVITES.. .”

As the same Deputy Mayor of Moscow Vladimir Resin said:“Scherbinka - necessary land resource for Moscow, which is essential for the timely provision of social housing for Moscovites”.In 2007 the authorities of the Moscow region were asked for help President Putin and made lawsuit to the Constitutional Court in 2008. Finally the authorities in Moscow and Moscow region have agreed to the withdrawal of the mutual claims against each other and end litigation over the disputed territory. " e con# ict in Shcherbinka example of the aggressive policy of the Moscow authorities, when the territory of a neighboring city is viewed solely as a resource for the growth of Moscow. Subsequently Shcherbinka will be absorbed during the expansion of Moscow.

KHIMKINSKY FOREST

" e City of Khimki the second largest in the Moscow Region with 215 000 inhabitance has become painful point, where the clash of interests of di% erent levels of power: Moscow, Regional and Federal. If we look to the borders of Khimki we will see how are they are ridiculous and self evident: like a “puzzle” Moscow invaded into the city with their districts and Molzhaninovo and Kurkino, almost dividing Khimki into two parts. " ese districts were joined Moscow in 1984 by the decision of Soviet of the RSFSR. In addition it is the least populated areas of Moscow, e.g. in Molzhaninovo live only 3.5 thousand of people.

Khimki has become known due to scandalous story of the lining of the federal highway Moscow - St. Petersburg through forest (Khimkinsky les) near Sheremetyevo Airport, which was widely publicized in the press. In order to lay the road it took to cut down a signi! cant amount of protected forest, cutting it in half. To the defense forests has raised active social movement “Defenders of Khimki Forest” together with “Greenpeace” and WWF, which organized the camps and hindered deforestation. Environmentalists insist on alternatives routes around the Khimki forest. Both alternative ways are partially passed through the territory of Moscow, Molzhaninovsky rayon. It should be emphasized that Luzhkov had a personal

" e general plan of the city of Khimki

>

" e Limits Of Planning

Variants of the federal road Moscow - St. Petersburg. Options passing through the territory of Moscow were rejected. Approved the variant passing through the Khimkinsky forest.

Attack of radicals against the Khimki mayor’s o$ ce, 28.07.2010

interest in the Molzhaninovo, because in 2004, the construction company of Luzhkov’s wife “Inteko” got right to the construction of two land plots with total area of 225 hectares in Molzhaninovo, and was planned to build about one million square meters of housing . So these alternatives were rejected by the Mayor of Moscow Luzhkov, as he openly spoke as in his article, where he expressed as a proponent of building the road through the forest. Luzhkov said the following: “lining the road through Molzhaninovka, we throw out 200,000 square meters of housing, preparing for construction. 3-4 thousand families remain for a long time without improvement of housing conditions”.

“LINING THE ROAD THROUGH MOLZHANINOVKA, WE THROW OUT 200,000 SQUARE METERS OF HOUSING, PREPARING FOR CONSTRUCTION.. .”

Moratorium adopted by the President of Russia, did not a% ect the implementation of the project, which followed the original plan. " us, the border of Moscow and interests of the Moscow Mayor became the determining factor lining road through the forest. An example of the con# ict in the Khimki forest shows how inadequate planning policy due to the presence of odd-shaped boundaries, as well as self-interest the mayor of Moscow leads to social protests and provocations. " e culmination of the con# ict has become a neo-Nazi attack to the mayor’s o$ ce of Khimki, attended by about 700 people, which took place 28 of July, 2010.

KHIMKINSKYFOREST

MOSCOW MOSCOW

KHIMKI

REJECTED WAYS

APPROVED WAY

“PLANS ARE NOTHING, PLANNING IS EVERYTHING.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower

" e decision about expansion was done without any announcements or public discussions; the whole country was just placed before the fact. " e General Plan of Moscow, which is intended to determine the plan of development of the city till 2025, had not mentioned the dramatic annexation of the territory. " is political ad hoc solution totally neglect the planning, shows the worthless of the General Plan, its limits and inadequacy. Moscow is an example where the policy actually is planning.

With the Moscow’s expansion to the borders of Kaluga region, Moscow constitutes “independence” from Moscow Oblast by forming the “Capital federal okrug” and ceased to be an enclave. As the same time, Moscow region becomes “cut” by another region of Russia. " e idea of “agglomeration”, which means ! rst of all socio-economic convergence and joint development together with neighboring cities was refuted. Instead, the project of “extending the boundaries” was proposed. In other words, set a course for the further disintegration of the region along the border: “Moscow - not Moscow”.In regard with the decision of expansion, which means the complete recon! guration Moscow and Oblast, the natural question arise is how to govern such Megacity. As we have observed from previous chapters, the opposition and development of one region over another, especially establishment of the boundaries, inevitably leads to disintegration and con# icts in the future. " e existing administrative system of governance of Moscow, inherited from the Soviet times and which incorporates the features of capitalism, is not capable to e% ectively develop the territory otherwise than on the colonial principle. Such administrative-command mode will spread into new territory. Mayors of towns and heads of settlements will lose much of its authority due to fall under the law of Moscow “about local government”, and will be built into the system of executive power of Moscow. Despite the declaration to preserve certain rights to municipalities, Moscow authorities proclaimed the monopoly of the disposal of lands of new territories in favor of mayor and city government. Deputy of the Moscow City Duma Anatoly Petrov said to take away the rights to dispose of land from municipalities on the annexed territories and to give it to the City.

Although, the city of Moscow is the subject of Russian Federation, therefore Moscow’s mayor like any other governor is responsible only for regional duties, such as planning and maintenance of regional objects (facilities of transportation, energy, etc). " e issues of local importance, including city planning, development of the territory addressed at the municipal level - mayors of cities and settlements.At the highest state level, Russia recognizes the need for the development of municipalities. In March 20, 1998 the State Duma rati! ed the European Charter of Local Self-Government . " en, based on the statements of the Charter, in 2002 came the Federal law � 131 guarantees the rights of local self-governments throughout territory of the Russian Federation. According to the law, the range of local responsibilities includes: - establishment, modi! cation and cancellation of local taxes and duties of the municipal district;- possession, use and disposal of property in the municipal ownership of the municipal district; - maintenance and construction of public roads between settlements, - organization and implementation of environmental management of industrial and social facilities in the municipal area - recycling of household and industrial waste; - urban design, environmental improvements and protection of urban forests located within the municipal district;- planning, zoning of city areas, establishment of the Rules of land use; the removal of land within the urban county for municipal purposes, including through the purchase, implementation of land control of land use urban district, cadastre and land management planning documentation.

So the main question arises how to provide a coherent planning policy to ensure the common interests regardless of administrative frontiers. " e story of the General Plan shows that the plan itself does not really matter, because the reality will require us to change course during their implementation. " us, the main thing is the planning framework, ensuring the implementation of policy objectives and # exible enough to allows changes.

“.. .THE STORY OF THE GENERAL PLAN SHOWS THAT THE PLAN ITSELF DOES NOT REALLY MATTER.MAIN THING IS THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK.. .”

Despite the di% erent interests, at the regional level between Moscow and Moscow region there is some positive changes. First, is to create a “Joint Board of the executive bodies of state power of Moscow and Moscow Region”. " is commission is a consultative body, and its decision has recommendatory character. It is clear that such body is able to deal with general issues of regional importance, at the strategic level. However for speci! c issues it is necessary to involve the self-government entity at municipal level, which is under the control of inhabitants, how is written in the Constitution. Otherwise, in a situation where senior government o$ cials as the mayor of Moscow or Moscow Region Governor, impose its decisions on the basis of personal interests, there are violent con# icts a% ecting the entire region, as happened in the history of the Khimki Forest.

" e Federal law allows to municipalities can work jointly to defend the common interests and develop its territory. So, for municipal entities available:- to create Municipal councils and association- to create multi municipal commercial (like Joint Stock Company) organizations or non-commercial organizations- to enter into contracts and agreements on joint activityMoreover, various municipalities, such as municipalities of Moscow and the cities of Moscow Region may organize joint ventures, which take over certain functions in the development of common area (such as the construction and service of local roads, parks etc.). In fact, these enterprises will be the PPP, in which business may join, and share responsibilities.

GOVERNANCE

" e Limits Of Planning

THE METROPOLITAN COUNCILProposal

With the growth of the city and the distance from the centre, the hierarchical relationships of administrative controls will inevitably weaken. Ultimately, to provide e% ective policy framework they should be replaced by cooperation and agglomeration ties based on the principle of federalism and intercommunality, in which are participating numerous of urban entities across the entire region.

Summing up, in Moscow and Moscow region have already established the prerequisites for creating a full-# edged Metropolis based on partnership and shared interests. Despite there is no legal de! nition of “Metropolitan area” or “agglomeration” in Russian legislation, there is certain legal basis that allows to build it up in case of Moscow:1) Joint Board of the executive bodies of state power of Moscow and MoscowRegion – on regional level;2) Federal law “about local self-governments” providing intercommunality.

Hence, on the territory of the Moscow Megacity regional and municipal entities can create a joint body called “Metropolitan Council”. It consists of two levels:

1) Regional Council - consisting of the same composition as the “Joint Boardof the executive bodies of state power of Moscow and Moscow Region”, implementing joint policies on a regional level;

30 50100

2) Municipal Council - consisting of municipalitiesof Moscow and Moscow region, i.e. mayors of cities and heads of settlements, implementing governance on the municipal territories.Municipalities from the Moscow and Moscow Oblast join together on a voluntary basis for the conduct of joint activities and issues of local signi! cance, co-manage services and to implement joint economic activities on the territory which forms the Metropolitan area. Financing the budget of the Metropolitan Council comes from municipal and regional budgets, also transferred part of the local and regional taxes. Municipalities with the approval of Regional Council can provide common planning policy, services and collect of local taxes on the territory of Metropolitan area.

" e main advantage of the Metropolitan Council is that it removes the contradiction on the borders between two di% erent subjects of the Russian Federation. So, it is possible to create a joint government system, that allows solving problems of development, attracting investment without violating the interests of the residents and avoiding such con# icts, as occurred in Shcherbinka, and especially in the Khimki forest.

Map of municipal entities on the territory of Moscow and Moscow Region. Color indicates a possible area of the Moscow metropolitan area.