1. Radial-ring layout
2. Checkerboard layout
3. Stripe or linear structure
4. Multi-beam or star structure
5. Multi-core or petal structure
6. Irregular (spontaneous) structure
Which one is better for the city of the future?
Before answering this question, it is necessary to consider the current forms of urban organization and take into account two methods of city formation:
a) self-developing city form
b) organized formation of the city.
Today's cities are formed according to the type of self-developing forms. A center appears in some place and more and more microdistricts begin to form around it. Depending on the landscape, terrain features and location of production, cities self-develop in one form or another, from radial (Moscow) to “one street” cities (Krivoy Rog).
Radial-ring layouts(Moscow), are formed mainly at the intersection of transport routes and river branches. The advantages of such cities are uniform growth and improved spatial expansion capabilities, as well as greater accessibility to the city center. Today, the radial-ring form is considered the most “mobile” form of city structure.
MOSCOW:
Checkerboard or cross layout(Chicago, Beijing, Kyoto) arises mainly at the intersection of two land routes, which determine the future layout of the streets. As such a city grows, it begins to shape the functional characteristics of a particular microdistrict, dividing them into rectangles (sleeping sector, industrial sector, recreation area...). This order is more demanding in terms of social calculations, but easier to plan.
CHICAGO:
Stripe or linear structure(Rotterdam, Volgograd, San Francisco) occurs mainly where there is some kind of obstacle to the concentric city (for example, a mountain range, a wide river bed or the sea coast). Also, there are production reasons for the formation of linear cities, for example, as mines or quarries are developed (Krivoy Rog). The linear structure is the least attractive for development, since transportation within the city, to various functional parts of the city, takes a long time and requires additional costs.
VOLGOGRAD:
Multi-ray or star structure(Paris) is a kind of radial construction, but the street intersections in it become Y-shaped forms. Most often this happens due to the desire to preserve areas of nature. This structure is more typical of old cities (districts) with sparse buildings and may not have clearly defined ring-shaped routes. The formation of such cities occurs in the same way as radial ones. The disadvantages of such cities are low population density and large sizes such cities.
PARIS:
Multinucleate or petal structure(Stockholm, Bryansk, Kyiv) arises in those cities that were united from several small settlements. Thus, creating several centers (nuclei) in the city, around which further development takes place. This construction has a lower population concentration (compared to radial ones), and also leads to uneven development.
BRYANSK:
Irregular (spontaneous) structure(Istanbul) most often arose in third world countries in which cities began “from barracks”. The barracks were erected spontaneously, and as the city developed, they were rebuilt into permanent structures, creating disorderly structures of streets and districts.
ISTANBUL:
If you noticed, up to this point we have been looking at types of cities that developed independently, starting with a small settlement or group of settlements.
If we talk about the cities of the future, they will be created in an organized manner, with a pre-planned infrastructure and form of development. This approach will allow us to initially plan everything necessary - social structure, communications, life support systems and capacities, transport networks and energy production.
Today there are two opinions:
1. Current cities need to be developed further while maintaining their original layout.
2. It is necessary to build new cities from scratch, resettle residents to them, and completely reconstruct old cities.
The first opinion is based on preserving the cultural and historical value of the old city. Although, if you look at it carefully, it is rare that buildings remain untouched for more than 100 years.
Also, the first approach also has significant disadvantages - for example, the fact that new city buildings must be carried out in cultural combination with the previous ones, which leads to constant territorial expansion of cities with a low concentration of residents, concreting as many unused areas as possible, which ultimately leads to the proliferation of concrete “deserts”.
Take for example the city of Paris. I just want to say the phrase “And before there was a forest here...”.
Now it is a concrete "desert".
On the one hand, one can defend historical values, which will lead to even greater depletion of soils and cutting down the last remaining forest areas. Don't be lazy, go to satellite map Google or another, open your city in it, and see how much forest is left around your city and neighboring cities. But the forest is the lungs of the planet. This is our oxygen, which is becoming less and less every year. You and I are increasingly suffocating, and the planet is increasingly turning into a concrete desert.
But you can simply build a city with high density (about 10-20 thousand people per km²), move Paris there, for example, and reconstruct the old place, restoring forests and significantly increasing the density (leaving the most important cultural values), and then move it to his next city. And if you use the technologies of the Vega-Prime project, then such a city will cease to be a concrete desert and will harmoniously coexist with nature.
Think for yourself, what kind of apartment would you like to live in? - from these two options:
a) nine five-story buildings around yours, all in concrete and asphalt, cars under the windows...
b) or a detached 50-story building, and around your house, within a radius of 70-100 meters, nature, trees, grass... fresh air!
And if we are talking about the Vega-Prime project, then all the houses stand on six-meter supports, and under the houses there are lawns or playgrounds. In other words, if you look around, nature will be visible everywhere. The access roads to the house are of a mesh (cellular) type, raised one meter from the ground, under which grass also grows. The city is a park!
Minimum harm to nature = maximum fresh air for you and me.
Therefore, Vega-Prime adheres to the second opinion, that it is necessary to build new cities from scratch, resettle residents in them, and completely reconstruct old cities into environmentally friendly and harmless ones for the environment.
So, for our developments we chose concentric cities with a radial ring shape. This is the most ideal form for the organized construction of the city and future communications.
As has been customary since ancient times, vital facilities are located in the city center, and facilities to which require daily mass access. In the old days, such objects were defensive fortresses and trading areas (markets). Today, these are enterprises shopping malls, educational establishments, medical and others social institutions. This is kind of the core of the city. The second ring contains residential areas. And in the last ring - the production of food and life support.
This construction ensures maximum accessibility of necessary facilities, reduces the average travel time for residents to essential facilities, and also increases the speed of interaction between enterprises. In addition, the time of delivery of goods to the consumer is reduced, the mileage of utility lines is reduced, and the cascading of redundancy systems is increased at the lowest cost. Public transport systems are becoming more efficient than private transport, resulting in a significant reduction in individual vehicle traffic.
But again, it is worth noting that such a construction is not possible with self-developing forms of cities, but only with a pre-planned city infrastructure, built from scratch and entirely (or sectorally).
The outer ring houses wind, sound, wave and other barriers to create the necessary microclimate, as well as food production buildings - multi-storey hydroponic farms and multi-storey livestock farms (including multi-storey poultry farms and fish farms).
Thus, a city resident is located between two rings containing the objects he most needs, and the speed of access to them is reduced as much as possible.
From all of the above there is only one conclusion -
Cities of the future are cities with pre-planned infrastructure, built from scratch and entirely. And for such cities, the most ideal shape is radial-ring.
Chapter 2. Socialist resettlement. Urban planning concepts. Construction of new cities
40. Planning scheme of a dynamic city - N. Ladovsky’s “parabola” (rocket city) and the problem of Moscow reconstruction
Among the works of N. Ladovsky there is one project that is known to almost every Soviet architect (in the 1930-1950s it was often used by critics as an example of extreme formalism in urban planning). It's about about the famous “parabola” of Ladovsky - the fundamental planning scheme for the development of the city that he developed. The most curious and at the same time tragic thing is that this project of N. Ladovsky was never properly appreciated by his contemporaries, although it was one of the master’s most major theoretical discoveries.
Only after almost 30 years later, Ladovsky’s “parabola” was rediscovered by the famous Greek city planner K. Doxiadis and, under the name of “dynapolis” (dynamic city), was widely published in the world architectural press (as component his urban planning theory - ekistics), we finally remembered N. Ladovsky’s project.
When did Ladovsky’s “parabola” appear and how was it theoretically justified?
The development by N. Ladovsky of a conceptual diagram of a developing city was preceded by a preparatory stage of searches and reflections. At the end of the 20s, at VKHUTEIN in the workshops of N. Ladovsky and N. Dokuchaev, a number of urban planning topics were carried out, among which it is necessary to note the work of a group of graduate students on the “problem of the new city” in 1928 (these projects have already been discussed above). For this topic, two projects are of greatest interest, which reflected different approaches to the search for the structure of a developing city: the city-line project of V. Lavrov (one of the first projects of this kind in Soviet architecture) and the project of T. Varentsov, in which an original planning plan was proposed diagram of a rational ring system.
N. Ladovsky, having analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of the rational-ring and linear “he considered the old one to be an extreme manifestation of a rectangular planning structure) city planning schemes, proposed a fundamentally new planning scheme. Figuratively speaking, Ladovsky’s “parabola” can be considered either as broken in one place radially ring system, or as Milyutin's flow-functional diagram bent into an arc.As a result, the resulting new planning scheme seemed to combine the advantages of the radial-ring and linear schemes and at the same time did not have their disadvantages.
Ladovsky's "Parabola" made it possible to develop a citywide center while maintaining its role as a planning core. The center developed along the axis of a parabola, adjacent to it were residential areas, behind which there were industrial and green zones.
| N. Ladovsky. Analytical graphic diagrams and texts for the Moscow reconstruction project. 1929-1930. Scheme of Greater Moscow: “The outdated ring-shaped planning structure of the city creates impossible conditions for growth in general and, first of all, for the growth of its center. The center, trying to grow, encounters the resistance of the rings, developing reverse centripetal forces.” | N. Ladovsky. Analytical graphic diagrams and texts for the Moscow reconstruction project. 1929-1930. Scheme of Greater Moscow: “Scheme for the growth of a new socialist Moscow: “To guide growth, it is necessary to create new centers of gravity in the form of exemplary socialist construction. The closest of them are indicated by arrows 1 and 2 (Khodynka and Ostankino). The area of the triangle between points 1, 2 and A, due to the formation of new centers of gravity, will quickly begin to be built up, reorganizing the city and, first of all, its center. The center will begin to move along the resultant between new points of gravity, forming the axis of a new socialist Moscow. The “rings” of old Moscow in this place will be torn apart, and their bent branches will follow the new Moscow, forming its periphery. Further layers around Moscow in the form of holiday towns, given the growth of Moscow, will have to develop according to the indicated pattern, forming an “open horseshoe shape” |
This is how N. Ladovsky assessed the radial-ring system in this article: “The territories of the rings, in terms of organizational content, represent a vague conglomerate, unrelated to the shape of the rings, the growth of which is not foreseen at all and is not connected with the general shape of the ring. Such disconnection is natural, since geometric the nature of the ring territory predetermines its spatial staticity, while the physical nature of its construction, at best, allows only compaction.”
About the projects of city lines N. Ladovsky wrote: “Being an expression of maximum dynamism, these planning structures will inevitably turn out to be weak organisms, since they reduce three-dimensional space to “one-dimensional”, placing emphasis on linearity. All modern material culture and technology make it possible to solve urban planning problems in three dimensions, placing emphasis on “horizontal two-dimensionality.”
Ladovsky viewed the existing city as an interconnected urban environment, and not as a conglomeration of streets, ensembles and squares. This was evident at all levels of his approach to the structure of the city - from the design of a single building to the reconstruction project.
It is no coincidence that it was Ladovsky who turned out to be the author of the theory of a flexible, dynamic city. He, for example, saw Moscow as a complex growing urban organism with its own laws that should not be neglected. In the approach to the reconstruction of Moscow, as is known, there were many concepts: it was proposed to radically rebuild the entire structure of the city, develop it in new territories, preserve the center, etc. (more on this below). The winning point of view was aimed at preserving the radial-ring planning structure of Moscow while simultaneously saturating the center with new socio-political functions.
Moscow had not been the capital of Russia for more than 200 years, and it lacked a huge number of those buildings that were necessary for a capital city. It was clear that large amounts of construction would be required in the city center. At the same time, it was in Moscow that the unique spatial planning structure of the pre-Petrine capital of Russia turned out to be preserved. It is important to emphasize that not only the city’s planning system was of value, but also its volumetric-spatial structure. Many people understood this then, but few imagined what needed to be done to preserve this structure. It was Ladovsky, realizing the internal patterns of city growth, who warned that it was impossible, while maintaining the planning system, to oversaturate the city center with new functions. Such “new blood,” in his opinion, will overflow the “vessels” of the planning system and, not finding a way out, will tear them apart. As a result, the city's planning scheme will be preserved, but its volumetric-spatial structure will be destroyed, and the most architecturally valuable building fragments facing the red lines will suffer. (And so it happened: the volumetric-spatial structure of the central part of Moscow in short term was radically damaged). To prevent this from happening, N. Ladovsky proposed diverting part of the flow of “new blood” along the axis of the “parabola” - the conceptual diagram of a dynamic city he developed.
In 1929, at a meeting of members of the ARU, Ladovsky made a report “Historical and Socialist Moscow,” which was then published. The report substantiated the fundamental scheme for the growth of the new Moscow.
“The concept of city growth,” said Ladovsky, “cannot be reduced to a simple mechanical increase in territory, width of passages, number of storeys, etc. Growth must be understood as organic, at different stages of its development representing a different organism not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively Meanwhile, all of the “Greater Moscow” projects existing so far consider the issue exclusively from the quantitative side and therefore suffer from the main flaw - “mechanism”. "
Medieval fortified city, Howard's garden city, system of satellite cities of Unwin (R. Enwin - S.H.) and Corbusier’s proposal for the redevelopment of Paris - all these planning structures, despite their apparent difference in form and purpose, can be classified as one category of static forms... Grafting these systems into growing and vital cities must inevitably cause painful phenomena during their growth ...
A specific sign of their mechanistic nature is the position that these systems can only make sense for an instantaneous period of time, provided that they are implemented holistically, and in the next moment of growth they will need to begin to be destroyed - in short, they do not provide for growth from a “cell” into a system, from a lower system to a higher one, etc. If during the Middle Ages, with the predominance of “static” moments over dynamic ones, i.e. Given the relatively slow pace of life and insufficient consideration of the coordinates of time, the ring system could still remain in the planning for some time, but with the development of capitalism, with the growth of cities, it was broken everywhere.
Let us now turn to the projects of “Greater Moscow”. For all these projects, Moscow is presented as a central core surrounded by two rings, and with the growth of suburbs, which are not linked into the system by any project, naturally, a third ring will form in the near future.
All projects of "Greater Moscow" were based basically on the situation of population growth and, as a consequence, the growth of territory. But they accept this growth without analyzing the individual components and interacting forces, but only formally, as the rounding of the generally anarchically growing organs of the city into a geometrically shaped territory. After all, we have no right to consider a snowball, rolling and increasing in volume, to be growing organically. The same increase is observed in all projects of “Greater Moscow” and the increase in its area. Organic growth of a city should be called one that, with the growth of the whole, ensures the growth of its individual differently functioning parts - organs united in a space-time economic system...
If we imagine complete coordination in form, i.e. if the rings mean different organs, different purposes of the territory, then the growth of one of them will occur at the expense of the death of the other. If we discard the different functional significance of each ring and accept their functional uniformity, then, due to the economy of the dynamo-geometric principle, all other things being equal, a centripetal force will develop. which can be imagined as the pressure of the rings on each other in the direction of the center, while the central circle, trying to grow, thus encounters the enormous and insurmountable resistance of the rings (Fig. 3). This takes place in modern Moscow...
The picture given in Fig. 3, suggests that with the ring layout of Moscow, the center, striving for natural development in a horizontal projection, encounters difficult to overcome resistance from the rings, and the resolution of the most fundamental moment in the life of the city - the dialectical process of its growth is not provided for by this plan design, since growth without crushing neighbors (presumably also the vital organs of the city) is impossible. And, indeed, we are already seeing this picture in reality in the capital of the USSR at the present time...
We offer, first of all:
Break the ring system in one of the areas and allow the center to grow freely(Fig. 5). A center in the form of a planning point, even if it is the diameter of ring “A,” is generally unacceptable, both theoretically and practically. The city center should be able to grow not only upward in the third dimension, but also in a horizontal projection forward. Hence, the center of the city should not be a static point, but a dynamic line - an axis. By tearing the rings and bending them in the form of a horseshoe, we will allow the center, as well as the corresponding branches of the former rings, to grow. The city center takes on the shape of a fan. This form is most consistent with the function of the center, since as the city grows and its dynamics increase and the organization becomes more complex, the center does not remain squeezed, but unfolds freely due to the fan area. According to this design, the entire city and center are like a stream, gradually expanding."
N. Ladovsky, proposing to use his planning scheme for a developing city for the reconstruction of Moscow, believed that the highway Tverskaya Street - Leningradskoye Shosse should be taken as the axis of the “parabola”. He also used his “parabola” in a competition project for the idea of reconstructing Moscow (1932). The project aroused interest. They argued with him, but noted the originality of his thoughts.
“As a virtue,” wrote P. and B. Goldenberg, “one should note the dynamism of the urban whole and the possibility of implementing the highway system proposed by N.A. Ladovsky not by breaking the Moscow highway system, but by revealing its internal capabilities.”
V. Semenov wrote: “The simplest type of connection of urban zones can be considered the design of zones in the form of parallel stripes; taking into account the extreme schematism and uneconomical nature of the flow city, Ladovsky folds the flow city in half, so that the strips of planning zones go around the city center (the “head”) and form a row arcs open to the west...
The project is clear, interesting and original."
1. Radial-ring layout
2. Checkerboard layout
3. Stripe or linear structure
4. Multi-beam or star structure
5. Multi-core or petal structure
6. Irregular (spontaneous) structure
Which one is better for the city of the future?
Before answering this question, it is necessary to consider the current forms of urban organization and take into account two methods of city formation:
a) self-developing city form
b) organized formation of the city.
Today's cities are formed according to the type of self-developing forms. A center appears in some place and more and more microdistricts begin to form around it. Depending on the landscape, terrain features and location of production, cities self-develop in one form or another, from radial (Moscow) to “one street” cities (Krivoy Rog).
Radial-ring layouts(Moscow), are formed mainly at the intersection of transport routes and river branches. The advantages of such cities are uniform growth and improved spatial expansion capabilities, as well as greater accessibility to the city center. Today, the radial-ring form is considered the most “mobile” form of city structure.
MOSCOW:
Checkerboard or cross layout(Chicago, Beijing, Kyoto) arises mainly at the intersection of two land routes, which determine the future layout of the streets. As such a city grows, it begins to shape the functional characteristics of a particular microdistrict, dividing them into rectangles (sleeping sector, industrial sector, recreation area...). This order is more demanding in terms of social calculations, but easier to plan.
CHICAGO:
Stripe or linear structure(Rotterdam, Volgograd, San Francisco) occurs mainly where there is some kind of obstacle to the concentric city (for example, a mountain range, a wide river bed or the sea coast). Also, there are production reasons for the formation of linear cities, for example, as mines or quarries are developed (Krivoy Rog). The linear structure is the least attractive for development, since transportation within the city, to various functional parts of the city, takes a long time and requires additional costs.
VOLGOGRAD:
Multi-ray or star structure(Paris) is a kind of radial construction, but the street intersections in it become Y-shaped forms. Most often this happens due to the desire to preserve areas of nature. This structure is more typical of old cities (districts) with sparse buildings and may not have clearly defined ring-shaped routes. The formation of such cities occurs in the same way as radial ones. The disadvantages of such cities are the low population density and large size of such cities.
PARIS:
Multinucleate or petal structure(Stockholm, Bryansk, Kyiv) arises in those cities that were united from several small settlements. Thus, creating several centers (nuclei) in the city, around which further development takes place. This construction has a lower population concentration (compared to radial ones), and also leads to uneven development.
BRYANSK:
Irregular (spontaneous) structure(Istanbul) most often arose in third world countries in which cities began “from barracks”. The barracks were erected spontaneously, and as the city developed, they were rebuilt into permanent structures, creating disorderly structures of streets and districts.
ISTANBUL:
If you noticed, up to this point we have been looking at types of cities that developed independently, starting with a small settlement or group of settlements.
If we talk about the cities of the future, they will be created in an organized manner, with a pre-planned infrastructure and form of development. This approach will allow us to initially plan everything necessary - social structure, communications, life support systems and capacities, transport networks and energy production.
Today there are two opinions:
1. Current cities need to be developed further while maintaining their original layout.
2. It is necessary to build new cities from scratch, resettle residents to them, and completely reconstruct old cities.
The first opinion is based on preserving the cultural and historical value of the old city. Although, if you look at it carefully, it is rare that buildings remain untouched for more than 100 years.
Also, the first approach also has significant disadvantages - for example, the fact that new city buildings must be carried out in cultural combination with the previous ones, which leads to constant territorial expansion of cities with a low concentration of residents, concreting as many unused areas as possible, which ultimately leads to the proliferation of concrete “deserts”.
Take for example the city of Paris. I just want to say the phrase “And before there was a forest here...”.
Now it is a concrete "desert".
On the one hand, one can defend historical values, which will lead to even greater depletion of soils and cutting down the last remaining forest areas. Don’t be lazy, go to a Google satellite map or another, open your city in it, and see how much forest is left around your city and neighboring cities. But the forest is the lungs of the planet. This is our oxygen, which is becoming less and less every year. You and I are increasingly suffocating, and the planet is increasingly turning into a concrete desert.
But you can simply build a city with high density (about 10-20 thousand people per km²), move Paris there, for example, and reconstruct the old place, restoring forests and significantly increasing the density (leaving the most important cultural values), and then move it to his next city. And if you use the technologies of the Vega-Prime project, then such a city will cease to be a concrete desert and will harmoniously coexist with nature.
Think for yourself, what kind of apartment would you like to live in? - from these two options:
a) nine five-story buildings around yours, all in concrete and asphalt, cars under the windows...
b) or a detached 50-story building, and around your house, within a radius of 70-100 meters, nature, trees, grass... fresh air!
And if we are talking about the Vega-Prime project, then all the houses stand on six-meter supports, and under the houses there are lawns or playgrounds. In other words, if you look around, nature will be visible everywhere. The access roads to the house are of a mesh (cellular) type, raised one meter from the ground, under which grass also grows. The city is a park!
Minimum harm to nature = maximum fresh air for you and me.
Therefore, Vega-Prime adheres to the second opinion, that it is necessary to build new cities from scratch, resettle residents in them, and completely reconstruct old cities into environmentally friendly and harmless ones for the environment.
So, for our developments we chose concentric cities with a radial ring shape. This is the most ideal form for the organized construction of the city and future communications.
As has been customary since ancient times, vital facilities are located in the city center, and facilities to which require daily mass access. In the old days, such objects were defensive fortresses and trading areas (markets). Today, these are enterprises, shopping malls, educational institutions, medical and other social institutions. This is kind of the core of the city. The second ring contains residential areas. And in the last ring - the production of food and life support.
This construction ensures maximum accessibility of necessary facilities, reduces the average travel time for residents to essential facilities, and also increases the speed of interaction between enterprises. In addition, the time of delivery of goods to the consumer is reduced, the mileage of utility lines is reduced, and the cascading of redundancy systems is increased at the lowest cost. Public transport systems are becoming more efficient than private transport, resulting in a significant reduction in individual vehicle traffic.
But again, it is worth noting that such a construction is not possible with self-developing forms of cities, but only with a pre-planned city infrastructure, built from scratch and entirely (or sectorally).
The outer ring houses wind, sound, wave and other barriers to create the necessary microclimate, as well as food production buildings - multi-storey hydroponic farms and multi-storey livestock farms (including multi-storey poultry farms and fish farms).
Thus, a city resident is located between two rings containing the objects he most needs, and the speed of access to them is reduced as much as possible.
From all of the above there is only one conclusion -
Cities of the future are cities with pre-planned infrastructure, built from scratch and entirely. And for such cities, the most ideal shape is radial-ring.
Planning structure of cities
When designing cities, it is important to know the structural features and patterns of formation and development of urban formations.
Structure(lat. structura- structure, arrangement) in urban planning is considered as a certain composition of system elements with a set of stable connections between these elements. The concept of “structure” is interconnected with the concepts of “system” and “planning organization”: structure expresses what is stable, relatively unchanged during various transformations of the system; planning organization - ordering structural elements systems
Complex systems have many structures. Thus, in a city as a system, a distinction is made between planning, functional, compositional, etc.
City planning structure- a schematized model in which the most important and stable elements of urban space are identified: the planning framework and planning areas (zones) of the city, in their interrelation, hierarchical dependence and integrity. The planning frame includes urban and natural frame elements - planning centers and axes (color Fig. IV-1-1).
Planning frame(Italian carcassas- skeleton) is the main structure-forming element of the city. The urbanized components of the city's planning framework are public centers, transport hubs (urban planning centers), main streets and roads (urban planning axes) that form urbanized frame of the city. The natural components of the city's planning framework are green areas and water areas (natural planning centers), linear parks, river valleys, streams, ravines (natural planning axes) that form natural-ecological framework of the city.
Interframe territories located between the planning axes and centers form "textile" - filling the planning frame. The filling is heterogeneous and includes areas of different functional use and urban planning significance. Within the “fabric”, frame elements of the next hierarchical level can be identified.
The planning structure of the city has inertia and resistance to transformation. The layout of the network of main streets of cities may not change for centuries.
When developing master plans for urban development, it is important to rank city streets and squares, parks according to architectural and urban planning significance, and determine the location of representative buildings.
Types of urban planning structures. Various combinations of planning axes and nodes form planning structures of different types.
According to the shape of the frame elements, the most frequently repeated types of urban planning structures are: strip (linear), multi-beam (star-shaped, radial, fan), mesh (regular), ring (radial-ring) (Fig. 4.1.1).
Bandpass (linear) planning structures are formed during the development of cities along big rivers, sea coast, transport routes.
Multi-beam (star, radial) planning structures are formed in cities developing at intersections of transport communications. Fan planning structures are a type of multi-beam; they are usually formed during the development of cities near bridges over large rivers.
Mesh (regular) planning structures are the result of the purposeful formation of cities based on regular plans.
Ring (radial-ring) planning structures are the result of a relatively uniform territorial growth of cities from the center in different directions.
There are many other forms of drawing frame elements of city planning structures.
Based on the compactness of the layout, the planning structures of cities are divided into compact and dispersed. Compact the planning structure is most typical for small towns. In the process of territorial growth of cities, they “step over” natural obstacles (rivers, ravines, wetlands, etc.); for other reasons, they develop dispersed
Rice. 4.1.1.
As a result, cities with dispersed planning structure (see table 2.1.2).
Complication and transformation of the planning structure of cities. As cities grow and develop, their planning structure becomes more complex and changes. The quantitative growth of the city, the increase in its size is accompanied by an increase in the number of objects of public importance - the planning framework of the city is expanding. The phase of quantitative growth of the urban planning system with a certain periodicity is replaced by a phase of structural reorganization (Fig. 4.1.2).
The life processes of the population are changing, which creates a need for transformation of urban planning formations. In post-industrial
Rice. 4.1.2.
In local cities, the service sector, science and scientific services, education and other types of activities are being developed, which can be implemented within multifunctional urban developments. As a result, there is no need for functional zoning of urban areas.
When developing master plans for urban development, the need arises to create new public centers, lay transport communications, and form landscape and recreational areas, which can transform their planning structure.
To ensure sustainable development of cities, it is important to take a differentiated approach to stable and changeable elements of their planning structures.
The most stable and difficult to change is the planning framework of the city, which includes urbanized and natural elements.
Abstract on Moscow studies
"Folding the radial-ring layout of Moscow"
student of 9 "D" class of school No. 1061
Demenkova Ilya.
Moscow. 1997
1. Introduction. Layout of Moscow.
2) History of folding rad.-col. Moscow layouts:
a) Economic and geographical location of ancient Moscow and the Kremlin;
b) China Town;
c) White City and Zemlyanoy City;
d) Kamer-Kollezhsky Val;
e) District Railway;
3) Features of Moscow in connection with its layout.
4) Problems and Prospects.
Introduction.
One of the most important factors influencing the development of the capital Russian Federation, the city of Moscow is its layout - radial-ring or branch-fan. This layout is typical for ancient European cities and represents a structure similar to that shown in Fig. 1:
This layout is beneficial for settlements, performing simultaneously the roles of a transport-industrial hub and a military-tactical center, which were the majority of ancient Russian cities, not excluding Moscow, with the only difference being that Moscow performed more of a transport function, since it was originally located at the intersection several trade routes, and later itself became a major transport hub.
The radial-ring planning system is a synthesis of the radial layout, ideal for transport hubs (Fig. 2) and the classical chain of fortifications (Fig. 3).
Fig.2 Fig.3
The undoubted advantages of the radial-ring layout include its compactness, speed of intra-city movement and unlimited growth opportunities in everyone directions. The main disadvantage of this layout is the inevitability of traffic congestion in the central part of the city.
Along with Moscow classic examples radial-ring layouts are represented by cities such as Paris and Vienna. It is less pronounced in Berlin and Brussels.
The current radial-ring layout did not take shape in Moscow right away. How the structure of Moscow developed over the centuries is described in the second paragraph.
History of radial-circular folding
Moscow planning.
The prerequisites for the formation of a radial-ring structure appeared in Moscow initially, from the moment the city was founded. The reason for this was that Moscow was founded at the intersection of several trade routes: Torzhok-Tver-Moscow-Ryazan, Uglich-Tver-Moscow-Kursk, etc. But in those days Moscow was not yet “round”, that is, it did not have a radial --ring layout: Kremlin walls- from the first wooden ones to those erected by Ivan Kalita - they looked like a triangle located on a cape between the Moscow and Neglinnaya rivers. A small trading town, such as Moscow at that time, had neither the opportunity nor the need to overcome any obstacles to its growth, especially water ones.
On the contrary, the river provided better protection than many fortress walls, and it would have been unwise to settle beyond its line. Even after the construction of strong stone walls that consolidated the size of the Kremlin, the city continued to grow mainly to the east, where at the beginning of the 16th century, under Ivan Kalite, the wall of Kitay-Gorod arose, incorporating into the city the settlements that arose during the first Kremlin walls.
But the moment came when Moscow grew so large that first the small Neglinnaya and then the large Moscow River ceased to be an obstacle to its growth. Two new lines of city fortifications, erected at the end of the 16th century, recorded the gradual rounding of the city's borders. The first line - the walls of the White City - resembled a strongly curved horseshoe, the ends of which rested on the Moscow River. The wall that ran along the river connected the ends of the horseshoe with the walls of the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod. In general, the White City was almost a complete ring. When its walls were broken down a hundred and fifty years later, wide boulevards were laid out in the vacant space. Together they make up, then what we now call the Boulevard Ring.
And the first completely closed ring around the city was formed by the walls of Zemlyanoy City, which “stepped over” the Moscow River, covering Zamoskvorechye. Now the famous Garden Ring lies on the site of the walls of Zemlyanoy City.
The next ring of the “city fence” - Kamer-Kollezhsky Val - was built in the middle of the 18th century not for defensive purposes, but as a customs border of the city - the shaft limited the territory in which the alcohol monopoly of farmers who acquired the right to exclusive trade in alcohol within Moscow operated. This “ring” was about 37 km long and had an irregular shape. It retreated especially far from the center to the northeast, where the important and populous suburbs of Preobrazhenskoye and Lefortovo lay, and in the northwest and southwest it came close to the center, as if it was “pressed in.”
Kamer-Kollezhsky Val actually became the border of the city, but the tsarist government did not recognize this for a long time. For example, in 1806 it was announced that the Moscow city police could control the entire Kamer-Kollezhsky Val, but the Garden Ring was still considered the official border of the city. The Moscow Duma many times appealed to the government with a request to establish a border corresponding to the true size of the city, but every time she was refused. The opportunity to establish new city boundaries appeared only in 1917.
By this time, another ring had arisen around Moscow - the Circular Railway. It was not intended for urban traffic and very poorly corresponded to the real boundaries of the city, but, nevertheless, it was recognized as the official border of Moscow. The ring road became a kind of feature that summed up the growth of the city over seven and a half centuries - until the October Revolution.
But within six months the Duma was replaced by the Moscow Council, and it was forgotten within the city’s borders for a long time.
They remembered this issue only in the late 20s - early 30s.
And so, in 1935, a grandiose Master Plan for the development and reconstruction of Moscow was developed. Similar Plans were created later - in 1971, for example - but they were rather a continuation of the thoughts set out in the 1935 General Plan. The plan was supposed to identify promising directions for the development of the capital and prevent spontaneous, unorganized development. He proposed “preserving the historical layout of the city and simultaneously introducing new elements into it” - such as long straight avenues (mainly in the southern part of the capital) and large green areas. In accordance with the Plan, a Central semi-ring was laid along the borders of the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod, consisting of a chain of squares connected by wide avenues. The Garden Ring was expanded and improved along its entire length, and transport interchanges were built at intersections with radial highways. Work began on the construction of the Third and Park rings. The full implementation of the Plan was prevented by the war, but individual sections of the rings were built. Later, in the General Plan of 1971, the idea of relieving the Center from traffic flows was further developed. It seemed that a correction to the age-old flaw in Moscow's planning scheme was just around the corner, but this did not happen. Laying new streets among the existing buildings, constructing numerous transport interchanges - tunnels, overpasses, bridges turned out to be a long and expensive task. In addition, the implementation of the work encountered stubborn resistance from “zealots of antiquity”, who denied any possibility of reconstructing old Moscow streets.
True, Moscow still received one new ring. It was the Moscow Ring Road (MKAD), built in the late 50s as an expressway, all of whose barriers were arranged on different levels. Initially, this 109-kilometer ring was intended only to allow transit vehicles to bypass the city, but today its role for intra-city traffic has greatly increased.
Moscow has long gone beyond the Moscow Ring Road, but it served as the administrative border of Moscow for a whole quarter of a century.
Features of Moscow in connection with its layout.
The “rings” around Moscow were built at different times for different purposes: those built before the Kamer-Kollezhsky Wall were fortifications, after that they were attempts to relieve traffic congestion in the Center. In general, the issue of traffic congestion in the central part of the city in cities with a radial-ring layout is very acute. For example, the center of Paris handles a flow of 15,000 cars every day during rush hour. In Moscow the situation is almost worse.
But Moscow also has some pleasant features: for example, the radial-ring layout contributed to the architectural diversity of the capital. The Moscow metropolitan region is one of the most popular recreational areas in the world, and it owes this not to any individual attractions, but to the layout of Moscow.
Moscow quickly overcame the only obstacles on its way - the Neglinnaya and Moskva rivers, so the advantages of the radial-circular layout were most fully demonstrated - you can quickly move around the city, which is especially noticeable when using the metro. By the way, the Moscow metro is unique in its own way; its layout is practically the only one that has such a pronounced radial-ring structure.
In general, the main feature of Moscow is that
that it most strongly expressed the features of a radial-ring layout.
Problems and Prospects.
The main problem of Moscow - transport congestion in the Center - is now close to being resolved. The Moscow ring road is expanding, and more and more Moscow motorists prefer it to intracity highways.
But there will never be too few problems. Moscow is growing and soon - in a dozen or two years - there will be a need to build a new ring around the city. However, this is not given sufficient importance: the newest Moscow territories, the so-called “outbursts” outside the Moscow Ring Road, arise and grow almost spontaneously, growing in those directions in which Moscow is already “stretched” - in the northern and southern parts of the capital; there is no hint of a radial-ring layout in them. We need to think about the next ring highway now and develop “emissions” accordingly.
With the growth of Moscow and, accordingly, the complication of movement within the city, the role of the metro will have to increase. And the moment will come when the Circle Line of the metro, roughly corresponding to the Garden Ring, will no longer be enough. The same situation is observed here as with “emissions” - they have not yet thought about a new ring and are building “branches” of the metro without taking into account the fact that soon - in 50-60 years - it will become necessary.
In general, after solving the problem of transport congestion in the Center, the main issue in the development of the capital of the Russian Federation, the city of Moscow, will be the planning of new urban areas.
List of used literature .
1) Moscow. Encyclopedia. 1980
"Soviet Encyclopedia", 1980
2) "Moscow. Man-City-Nature. Experimental tutorial for high school.
Rogachev A.V. "Bustard", 1994
