The main phobia of the inhabitants of Russian megacities was revealed

Residents of cities still want to have as many shops, sports centers as possible near their homes and, in principle, are set for an active life in society. At the same time, people begin to strain living in the same type of skyscrapers. Someone feels like a faceless creature, someone suffers because of the accompanying transport problems.

A large-scale study on the feelings of a small person in a big city was conducted at the end of October by scientists from the Higher School of Economics.

Most of all, in the development of their city, the Russians are afraid of the active construction of the so-called human hills – the same type of 20-30-story skyscrapers in densely populated sleeping areas (by analogy with anthills). In such houses, people can wait for an elevator for 10–20 minutes; public transport during rush hour can hardly cope with the influx of passengers; a plumber from the management company can come after the application in a week or two.

All these claims were not born out of nowhere. Such troubles can be encountered not only in economy segment houses, but also in high-class projects.

– We recently gathered with colleagues for a round table in Moscow City. With industry experts, we waited 30 minutes for the elevator to go up to the 60th floor. It was, to put it mildly, not good,” says Yevgeny Mikhailenko, dean of the Faculty of Urban and Regional Development at the Higher School of Economics, one of the authors of the study.

No less trouble is the psychological perception of themselves. The inhabitants of human settlements feel impersonal and insignificant cogs in a huge mechanism. “Especially clearly depressive feelings are manifested among residents of the regions – Muscovites have long been accustomed to living in houses above 12 floors,” explains Evgeny Mikhailenko. – If a residential complex consists of several buildings of different heights – relatively speaking, 30-, 15- and 6-storey buildings, people are much more pleasant. There is something for the eye to rest.

A separate block of questions was devoted to assessing the comfort and aesthetics of the urban environment. Interestingly, the majority of Russians (85%) like to live in their city, but do not like (68%) in their home.

How to reduce the dissatisfaction of citizens? There are two main approaches to planning. The first one was described in the early 2010s by urbanist Alexander Vysokovskiy, the author of the concept of local urban cores, when all services (social, household, entertainment) necessary in everyday life are within walking distance (15 minutes) for residents of the area. In Moscow, according to experts, there are 120 such nuclei, but this is extremely small, at least one and a half times more is required, says Mikhailenko.

Another approach that has gained popularity in the West was developed by the Colombian scientist Carlos Morena in 2016. We are talking about the fact that in the city all objects are ideally distributed evenly. Whatever fragment of the territory we take within walking distance, it should have grocery stores that people need every day, and theater-museums where citizens go several times a year, and even unique elements – for example, circuses or cultural – nature reserves such as “Tsaritsyn”, “Kolomenskoye”, “Kuskov”.

The easiest way to determine if a city fits Carlos Morena’s concept is to put a coin on the map with the radius of the distance that a person walks in 15 minutes. Under this coin, ideally, there is everything a person needs. If you move a coin a few centimeters in any direction on the map, the same rule must be observed.

It is very difficult to achieve this principle in the capital, if only because no one needs a huge number of circuses and museum and protected areas. Losses will be borne either by businessmen or government officials who have found it necessary to subsidize the educational and entertainment sector. But in Europe, where many cities are quite compact, this prescription is exactly the place to be, but again, not in the capitals.

Now let’s talk about the most important objects of urban infrastructure, according to the respondents. Muscovites’ undisputed priority was polyclinics-hospitals, kindergarten schools and playgrounds – three out of four respondents considered them extremely important (it was possible to choose from almost two dozen options).

The next most important were supermarkets and public transport stops (66%). However, even if the metro station is close to home, the travel time to the service can still be significant. Two-thirds of Muscovites spend 30 minutes to two hours on a one-way trip to work or school. Of course, the respondents would like that this time did not exceed half an hour (60%). But even with a perfectly functioning transport system, this is unrealistic due to the large distances.

The top ten objects that Muscovites want to have near their place of residence include well-maintained squares, children’s clubs, sports clubs, post offices, multifunctional centers and points for issuing goods ordered via the Internet. In many other Russian cities, the availability of schools and distribution points is of much less importance – perhaps, again, because of the not so great distances as in the capital.

Of the seemingly non-obvious desires of Muscovites, it is worth noting the presence of an atelier next to their home (52% of respondents want it), a swimming pool and a food market (39% each).

“If the market and the studio near the place of residence are directly related to the savings that are relevant in our time, then the need for the capital’s residents in the pool, which in a strange way causes a wow effect in people, surprised us a lot,” the expert comments. – If a Muscovite is going to buy or change an apartment, he will most likely choose a house next to which there is a swimming pool. And when the pool is located directly in the residential complex, the attractiveness of the apartments is incredibly increased.

The last question that the researchers asked the respondents was how satisfied they are with life “here and now”. About 40% admitted that they were completely or largely dissatisfied or found it difficult to answer.

“In the current agenda in the situation in our country and in the world, there are fewer and fewer opportunities to preserve the social well-being of people,” Evgeny Mikhailenko states. “So the urban environment remains one of the last powerful factors that can support and improve the condition of society.