Abstract The transition from the Soviet to the

post-Soviet period in and near Moscow mani-

fested itself in increasing production of segregated

space both in the urban core and suburban areas

outside of the beltway to accommodate the pref-

erences of the new Russian business and govern-

mental elite. This paper focuses on the residential

single-family housing inside old and new settle-

ments, which are frequently gated. Approximately

260 of such suburban communities have been

developed within 30 km of the beltway during the

past few years, of which a majority have some

form of exclusion mechanism in place, typically

tall solid fences, gates, closed-circuit video sur-

veillance and guarded entry checkpoints. The

difference in exclusivity varies from the most

exclusive older communities inside Moscow

Serebryany Bor enclave and Rublevskoe highway

mansions to less exclusive new developments

along Novorizkhskoe and Dmitrovskoe highways.

Despite high rates of construction, based on

sociological 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 detached

homes in villages and small towns. Therefore, not

all the needs have been accommodated and more

development is certain to take place. The envi-

ronmental impact of such developments is pro-

found. Based on preliminary LANDSAT image

analysis, 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 will

likely lower air quality and water quality available

for the city. Ironically, the new developments

advertise themselves as ‘‘clean and green’’ with

massive investments in unnatural landscaping

(seeded lawns, exotic shrubs, river and lake shore

‘‘improvements’’). This investment highlights the

well-known paradox of development in which

people move out of town to live near nature, while

destroying the wild nature they come to enjoy.

Keywords Environmental impacts Æ Gated

communities Æ Land use change Æ Russia

M. Blinnikov (&)Geography Department, St. Cloud State University,St. Cloud, MN 56301, USAe-mail: mblinnikov@stcloudstate.edu

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

123

ORIGINAL PAPER

Gated communities of the Moscow green belt: newlysegregated landscapes and the suburban Russianenvironment

Mikhail Blinnikov Æ Andrey Shanin ÆNikolay Sobolev Æ Lyudmila Volkova

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

‘‘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 not

new for Russia. As underscored in the famous

joke song of Gennady Shpalikov, the Soviet no-

menklatura chiefs had a habit of perpetually

erecting fences in the attempt to separate them-

selves from the controlled masses and veil the

very fact of the existence of their ‘‘hidden ruling

class’’ (Voslensky, 1984). In the 19th century, the

country palaces of the Russian nobility were

equally well secured behind impressive fences

and gates (Rodoman, 2002). The profound chan-

ges of the last fifteen years, however, have created

a distinct new kapitalist (sensu Brady, 1999)

landscape of the suburban Russia, which is now

segregated along a different principle of con-

nectedness to the new post-socialist elite. While

the precise analysis of the elite sociological posi-

tion and the associated host of economic and

political changes are well beyond the scope of this

paper, we attempt to show some of the most

egregious examples of the post-Soviet transfor-

mation of suburban space and their impact on the

regional environment by using Moscow as an

example.

Moscow is unique in many ways, both in the

global sense and within Russia proper, which

makes its study both interesting and challenging.

First of all, it is the largest city in Europe, by

population size, at 10.4 million people in 2002

(second is London and third is Paris, if conven-

tional metropolitan areas are used). It is also

third in size after London and St. Petersburg in

terms of its spatial extent as evidenced from

administrative documents and from satellite

images (1,081 km2 in Moscow versus 1,700 km2 in

London and 1,390 km2 in St. Petersburg). It is the

primate city of Russia capturing about 8% of the

country’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 foreign

investments and tax receipts for Russia as a

whole (World Bank, 2005). Moscow was one of

only four cities in Russia with over 1,000,000

inhabitants that grew between the 1989 and 2002

censuses, the other three are St. Petersburg,

Samara, and Volgograd (Heleniak, 2003). While

the population of the country as a whole plunged

a whopping six million people, Moscow added

over two million residents in those 14 years.

Moscow is also a northern city, with less than 190

frost-free days as compared to 315 for Paris. Gi-

ven all of the above, Moscow is the least typical

city in Russia and a unique one within Europe,

which also makes it all the more interesting

because 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 traditional

interpretation according to Blakely and Snyder

(1999) suggests that they started in the sunbelt

states to accommodate a new lifestyle choice of

the wealthy, mobile, upper middle class retir-

ees and post-industrial professionals who had

become increasingly fearful of the inner city

crime (Luymes, 1997). Thus, the main factor of

segregation was mainly one of economics, but

also age, social status and, to a lesser extent,

race. In Indonesia, segregation broadly occurs

along the cultural and ethnic lines, e.g., Chris-

tian Chinese versus Muslim Indonesians (Lei-

sch, 2002). In China itself, the main enclosed

group is comprised of foreign specialists, who

have to be segregated from the Chinese citizens

in 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 very

well 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 some

insights into the uniqueness of their urban

dynamics. Urban sprawl in East Germany,

including rise of private enclaves in suburbia, is

less driven by purely economic factors as in the

West but more by a combination of political,

66 GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81

123

social and economic realities of the post-socialist

world. East Germany’s sudden planning vacuum

and powerlessness of local authorities created

more incentive for haphazard development by

mid-1990s, but the lack of state funding hampered

this process at the same time, counterbalancing

the lack of authority.

Since 1999 Russia has experienced a strong

improvement in its macroeconomic conditions, on

the other hand, and this is nowhere more appar-

ent than in Moscow. Here the chaotic mismatch

between the existing tight spatial constraint of the

planned model socialist capital (Saushkin &

Glushkova, 1983) and the desires of a burgeoning

and increasingly mobile and wealthy population is

apparent everywhere. The streets are crowded

with almost three million cars, the public spaces

are increasingly claustrophobic, and the degra-

dation of the city air, water and soils has seriously

impacted major areas within and outside the

beltway (Department of Nature Use..., 2002). The

old and new elites and the emerging ‘‘middle

class’’ (Gorshkov & Tikhonova, 2004), while rel-

atively understudied and small in numbers,

increasingly clamor for more space, greenery and

solitude, all prized and indeed rare commodities

in the new megalopolis’ spatial marketplace.

Suburbs, understood here as areas beyond the

Moscow beltway and outside of direct Moscow

city governmental control, act as a magnet for the

newly restless, affluent Muscovites. In itself, this is

nothing new as former Soviet bosses, top Army

brass and privileged engineering and artistic

intelligentsia have enjoyed the perk of a free state

dacha since the end of the Civil War and the

establishment of the firm Soviet rule in the 1920s

(Bulgakov, 1969; Voslensky, 1984).

The changes considered here focus primarily

on the new style of the emerging geographic

landscape, which fully reflects the paradoxes of

the new Russian kapitalism (Brady, 1999). This

new society is different from its Soviet predeces-

sor on a few important counts. First, the new

elites are increasingly distant from their Soviet

archetypes’ modus operandi as the direct agents

of the state. Today’s elite settlements may house

governmental employees as well as business

leaders, but the housing itself is privatized and not

directly provided by the state (except in the case

of the upper levels of Presidential administration,

governors and Duma members). It is unfortunate

that the level of governmental control over the

environmental impacts of such developments has

been low. Second, the new communities have

boldly embarked on a new experimentation path

with diverse architectural and landscape design

styles that are no longer under central planning

scrutiny. These range from the early 1990s ‘‘im-

proved Soviet dacha designs,’’ to grotesque and

chaotic styles of the ‘‘new Russians’’ mansions of

the mid-1990s (so-called ‘‘shanghais’’ which for a

Russian ironically connotes hopeless backward-

ness). They also include more advanced and

visually pleasing designs of the post-Yeltsin peri-

od, including imported cookie-cutter Canadian

town homes, Scandinavian and Western Euro-

pean designs and some genuine Russian brick or

wood homes of the most recent period (Fig. 1).

Third, an important distinction is in the change in

the infrastructure. Cars are now ubiquitous and

more affordable than ever, and all of the presti-

gious new developments are firmly connected to

Moscow by new blacktop highways, including the

most popular Novorizhskoe highway, which has

become since the early 2000s the most popular,

albeit second in price, destination for the subur-

ban developers.

Our study is primarily concerned with the

interplay between the gated communities’ exter-

nal designs, their organization of space, and the

impacts they have on the suburban landscape and

biological components of it. The authors have

many decades of experience working with pro-

tected natural areas of Moscow and the Moscow

oblast. We all share the desire to perceive,

investigate and understand the ongoing change in

the immediate surroundings of our great mother-

city. The study of human perception of natural

environment is a paradigm well familiar to

many geographers (Tuan, 1974), which we believe

deserves much better coverage than it has re-

ceived to date. Our ultimate goal is to probe the

connections between the human and the natural,

to inform ourselves and the readers about what

has been happening, from the canopy and ground

level perspective of the other, i.e., non-human,

inhabitants of the region. Their sense of spatial

enclosure, gatedness or connectivity of a

GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81 67

123

landscape will of course depend on the size, tro-

phic level and systematic position of the organism

in question, which makes such research all the

more exciting.

Green belt idea and early dachas

Early socialist Moscow was conceived as a model

capital 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 the

green belt of B. Sakulin (ca. 1918), envisioned a

healthy 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 endeavors

like bathing, biking and strolling. Buses and sub-

ways were the means to deliver loads of workers

to the factories, which would occupy less promi-

nent positions than it later came to be in the

reality 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 area

near Kievsky train station along the Moscow river

west of downtown and the campus of Moscow

State University on Leninsky (Vorobyevy) Hills,

both which developed in the early 1950s, afford

spacious views of natural elements (e.g., river

embankments, ravines, old trees in parks) inter-

spersed with more utilitarian and urbane green

space (e.g., playgrounds, flowerbeds and numer-

ous sport facilities). These features approximated

the green designs of the early Soviet dreamers.

The first General Plan of Moscow (‘‘Genplan

1935’’) explicitly acknowledged the need for

adequate green space envisioned as a green belt

around the whole city. Ostensibly, this space

would benefit the citizens by providing clean air

from the surrounding parks reaching deeply into

the city centre. The important remnants of this

early model in Moscow today are Losiny Ostrov

National Park and Sokolniki park in the north-

west, Izmailovsky and Kuskovsky parks in the

east, 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

123

Filevsky parks in the west. In addition there are

scores of smaller, more urban parks and boule-

vards closer to downtown and green areas left

along the Moscow River and valleys of its tribu-

taries, many of which are now recognized as

nature monuments by the city of Moscow. The

immediate tension is obvious if one considers how

reality compared to the plan: the documents of

the Soviet period are notorious for their utter lack

of concrete references to the specific beneficiaries

outside of the vague mention of the ‘‘public’’ or

‘‘people’’ at large. In fact, most of the green

spaces in the inner city were early on eyed by the

Soviet governmental elite for the understandable

purpose of creating enclosures for the new mas-

ters of the people, who had to be sheltered from

the 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. Green

spaces are common inside the Kremlin and are

zealously maintained, complete with lawns,

shrubs, trees, gardens and a falcon squad keeping

the pigeons in check.

Joseph Stalin’s dacha complex ‘‘Kuntsevs-

kaya’’ exemplifies the more suburban trend:

strategically located at mid-point (about 5 km

west 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 year

period to make the object as inconspicuous as

possible (Gamov, 2003). Stalin, paranoid for his

security, rarely had guests, and when he did, he

would 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 and

Yeltsin all had numerous, state-provided, shel-

tered residences of note. A few of these were

located in the near Moscow western suburbs

immediately across the beltway or on Leninsky

(Vorobyevy) Hills. The CIA-produced city plan

of Moscow (1974), which one of the authors had

seen as a bewildered kid, provided the immediate

thrill of identifying the locales of those super-elite

residences detectable by obvious driveways de-

picted to scale above the Vorobyevskaya

embankment in the leafy area across the river

from the Olympic stadium ‘‘Luzhniki.’’ The offi-

cial Soviet city maps of the time would of course

omit the driveways and conceal the entire

inhabited presence with the monotone green

color of a city park. Today, Putin’s rule continues

the trend with over two dozen ‘‘presidencies’’

listed in various sources, including at least three in

the immediate vicinity of Moscow. None are

obviously marked on the new, now-to-scale city

plan.

The old Soviet communities were gated and

well guarded day and night. In fact, anyone

approaching the driveway from any direction was

under immediate threat of being shot on the spot

by the security officers of the elite KGB unit. The

only mode of exit and entry was via chlenovozy,

the Soviet copycat of the ponderous limos of the

western godfathers. The fact that most of such

residences were well concealed by the trees, fen-

ces and lack of signage increased the threat to the

unsuspecting passerby.

Green belt under siege

Since the beginning of perestroika, the green belt

has come under siege. As early as 1970s a well-

known Russian geographer Rodoman (1974)

noted that in order to preserve the idea of the

continuous green belt it had to be adjusted to the

reality of discontinuous ‘‘green wedges’’ that

could still support a quality inner urban environ-

ment, albeit being interrupted by the existing

infrastructure of railroads, highways, pipelines,

electric transmission lines and suburban settle-

ments. Some of the late Soviet developments

immediately outside of the beltway were quite

extensive; Khimki, Lyubertsy, Balashiha and

Mytischi are all cities that exceeded 100,000

dwellers each by the 1990s. Our ongoing analysis

of the remotely sensed images for the early 1990s

vs. 2000s suggests that in the immediate zone of

the greenbelt about 11% of the available tree

space had been lost to development during the

last 10 years (Blinnikov, Shanin, Sobolev, &

Volkova, 2005). Much of this is a permanent loss

GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81 69

123

to actual settlements, which include seasonal

dachas and permanent suburban homes, official

and unofficial vegetable plots (ogorody). Some

space is also lost to roads, parking lots, big-box

retail (defined as buildings over 10,000 m2) and

strip-mall types and some post-Soviet industry

(e.g., food processing, printing, and furniture

factories). Gravel pits and concrete mixing

plants, landfills and chaotic garage developments

complement the picture.

Table 1 provides basic land use conversion

assessment based on the supervised classification

of two LANDSAT images (one from 1991 and

the other from 2001). The area included is outside

the city proper and inside the bounding rectangle

which covers the area approximately south of the

northern 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 the

loss of tree cover, about 12% of the area covered

with trees in 1991 had been replaced with bare

soil or impervious surfaces by 2001, a very high

land cover conversion rate.

We must stress that new residential suburban

developments are characterized as extensive,

leapfrogging and yet relatively compact; most

only occupy 18–25 ha. How many of these new

development are gated communities? The official

statistics are unavailable, but most new suburban

poselki (planned developments) advertise some

form 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 were

being actively advertised as new and additional

properties were available in three existing devel-

opments, all from one realtor. The median size of

the development was 10 ha, the range was from

2.5 to 80 ha. The prevalent direction is north and

northwest of Moscow (17 out of 30), which cor-

roborates the recent report (IRN, 2004). IRN

examined all available new developments (260)

outside the beltway; 41.9% were found along the

western and northwestern highways. Out of 30

currently available, all but 2 poselki had some

form of protection listed (Table 2). At the mini-

mum, a fenced perimeter and ‘‘guarded entry’’ or

checkpoint were mentioned. At the maximum,

more than five types of protective equipment or

methods were listed, including in one example

‘‘close connection to the local police station and

canine unit,’’ ‘‘3-meter high concrete or metal

fences along the perimeter,’’ ‘‘smart card entry/

exit’’ and ‘‘guards experienced in police and FSB

methods.’’ The latter point is particularly ger-

mane, because, as described by Volkov (1999), a

good share of protective services in the late

Yeltsin period had been captured by ex-police

and ex-KGB employees. Other commonly listed

methods include video surveillance, in-house

alarms and 24-h roving units, that are actively

engaged in ‘‘paying particular attention that the

security of the settlers and their guests’’ is en-

sured.

Another prominent realtor, MIEL, does not

provide listings by poselok, however, individual

home listings are available on their website based

on a specified highway/direction and distance

from the Moscow beltway. A random search of a

few specific destinations confirms the point made

above, viz., the vast majority of the new devel-

opments are not only gated, but tightly secured by

professional private guards who stay at the site

24 h per day. For example, a search for property

for sale along Novorizhskoe, Pyatnitskoe, Volo-

kolamskoe and Ilyinskoe highways (all west or

northwest direction) and less than 30 km away

from the beltway, yielded 366 listings. We ran-

domly examined 140 in detail, 70 of which were

listed 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

123

homes (dachas) and the rest as lots available for

development. Among the 70 cottages, 40 were

listed as located in explicitly gated or ‘‘guarded’’

communities. It must be stressed that there was

no way to independently confirm whether the rest

were 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 obviously

implies 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 guardsBarvikha-Club 6.28 Rublevo-Uspenskoe (W) Centralized guards, 24-h patrols, video & IR around

the perimeterBelgijskaja dervenya 28 Kaluzhskoe (SW) Centralized guards, 24-h patrols, video sensors, in-house

alarms, gated entry with guards on dutyBenilux 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 territoryStaraya 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

123

The total amount of such developments in

Moscow 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 previous

decade. Of these, 171 were on the market in 2004.

The average development had 61 lots on about

18 ha of land (about .24 ha or .5 acres per lot).

The average cottage was 374 m2 in size with the

average asking price of $1581/m2 and a price of

just short of $600,000. The total value in this real

estate of about 10,000 homes approaches $6.2

billion, which would be a little over 1% of Rus-

sia’s GDP for 2004, assuming a GDP of $578

billion calculated based on 29 RUB/$ 1 average

2004 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 gated

communities that continue to exist inside the city

of Moscow. These are reserved for the most

exclusive super-elite. Under normal rules, the city

of Moscow does not allow single-family detached

housing (‘‘cottages’’) within its limits (current

Moscow Genplan 2020). The planned develop-

ments for 2010 call only for multi-floor apartment

buildings within the city limits. However, some of

the Soviet-era nomenklatura estates have been

grandfathered into the existing city fabric and

continue to be occupied. Limited construction of

new VIP dachas, largely for rent, could be

authorized by the city government based on per-

ceived need or political expediency. We examine

the 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 regional

importance.

Serebryany Bor, which literally means ‘‘Silver

pine forest,’’ has been known as a prime hunting

estate since the 17th century (Gorbanevsky,

2005). It is famous for its old growth pines.

Summer homes first appeared in the area in the

early 20th century. In 1937, the Moscow river

channel was artificially streamlined via Khoro-

shevskoe cut-off, which placed the forested area

on an artificial island surrounded by the river

meander (Fig. 1). During the Stalin period about

200 dachas were constructed here, of which 11

were owned by the MVD (Police), 5 by the KGB

and 20 by Moscow city council members. In

addition to members of the federal government,

many theater directors, actors, newspaper editors

and radio news anchors lived in the area before

and after World War II. Foreign embassies had

their 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 his

historical visit to Moscow in May of 1972 (Busi-

ness Olymp, 2005).

It is a unique natural complex that contains

approximately 328 ha total with 80 ha under for-

est, including some 150–200-years-old pines and

many 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 the

government of Moscow passed a new executive

order 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 territory

belongs to Moscow city government, specifically

its Department of Nature Use. The real estate of

the old state dachas is likewise mainly under city

control (OAO ‘‘Mosdachtrest’’) that is partially

owned by AFK ‘‘Systema,’’ with close ties to the

current mayor of Moscow and the Department of

State and Municipal Property; this comprises

about 2/3 of the total acreage of the territory.

Other ‘‘long-term users’’ of the dachas in the park

include the Administration of the President, State

Duma, Moscow Oblast administration, Bolshoi

Theater, Moscow Military District, Federal

Committee on State Property and a few obscure

private organizations apparently representing

very high profile business leaders with good

governmental connections (Note ..., 2001).

ZAO ‘‘Business Olymp’’ which is a realtor and

developer specializing in VIP-class estates lists

cottages in Serebryany Bor as ‘‘super-VIP real

estate in the historical natural preserve not far from

72 GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81

123

the centre of the city’’ (Business Olymp, 2005).

Who lives in them now? ZAO lists ‘‘well-known

governmental figures, State Duma deputies,

ambassadors, famous actors and artists’’ as their

clients, for example, Oleg Gazmanov and Alla

Pugatcheva, both pop musicians and Mikhail

Zhvanetsky, a famous stand-up comedian and

writer. It is interesting that one of the recent

development projects in the area is the gasifica-

tion of the cottages in Serebryany Bor under the

explicit directive of the Moscow city government

to ‘‘improve the ecological situation in the elite

residential area’’ by eliminating coal or fuel oil

heating.

Even condos here are super-elite: a square

meter 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 dacha

unit 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 recent

report in Kommersant business daily suggested

that only a handful of properties are available at

any given time for rent, and even fewer are for

sale. In 2003 the minimum asking price for homes

in Serebryany Bor was at least $1.5 million with

land lot values approaching $45,000 per 1/100 of a

hectare (Timashova, 2003).

Much of the construction during the 1990s was

done without an adequate city review, and in

violation of existing environmental and con-

struction norms. A local prefecture check in 2003

revealed that 45 houses were built without ade-

quate permits (Timashova, 2003). Recently, the

city announced that it plans to build a general

checkpoint for the whole area near the entrance

in an apparent attempt to introduce more security

and maintain better control over access (Ros-

balt..., 2005). A transportation tunnel under the

island is also nearing completion to facilitate

connections from Moscow’s downtown to the

west side, which will help traffic in bypassing the

island.

The Biodiversity Conservation Center has

carried out a special investigation on the state of

nature in Serebryany Bor under the sponsorship

of OAO ‘‘Mosdachtrest.’’ The environmental

impacts of gated communities and new develop-

ments in general on the local city biota are

numerous, ranging from the obvious destruction

of the habitat due to dacha and infrastructure

construction to recreational impacts and some

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

GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81 73

123

well-intentioned, but poorly implemented, land-

scaping. The mean size of a dacha plot in Sere-

bryany Bor is .4 ha, of which up to 20% can be

occupied by buildings. Based on our direct

observations, this norm is frequently exceeded.

The result has been a patchwork of forest cover

with patches of about .3 ha in size, and which

negatively impacts many small, but mobile, car-

nivores (e.g., weasels), insectivores (e.g., Euro-

pean hedgehogs) and amphibians (toads), all

affected by landscape fragmentation. Outright

construction has already destroyed the meadow

habitat of the rare blue-winged grasshopper

(Oedipoda coerulescens) listed in the Red Data

Book of Moscow. Another major impact has been

the construction of concrete fences without gaps

or gates for animals to travel through. Thus,

exclusivity for humans tends also to exclude

middle sized mammals, amphibians and insects as

well.

The impacts of heavy recreation in the area

are obvious and profound. Most affected are

public recreation spaces on the southern shore of

the island (including the infamous nudist area, the

best known such area in Moscow) and the shores

of Lake Bezdonka that house a children’s camp

and multiple recreational facilities. The trampling

of vegetation, spontaneous trail construction and

music blaring from loudspeakers create difficult

conditions for terrestrial small mammals, birds

and amphibians. The official forestry guidelines

for the pine forest suggest a maximum concen-

tration of humans at 12/ha, while in reality 130/ha

is common. Some areas along the beachfront have

lost most of their topsoil which precludes building

of nests by burrowing wasps and bees. Wet

meadows and fens along the lake shore and wil-

low thickets along the Moscow river, on the other

hand, experience much less use. Another problem

is the dumping of trash, which now includes non-

biodegradable plastic beverage containers, dis-

posable diapers and other litter characteristic of

the newly affluent society.

Another group of impacts has more to do with

the permanent inhabitants, including residents of

the elite cottages. One of the many pastimes of

the Muscovites, both rich and poor, is dog own-

ership and the associated pleasures of walking the

pet in a local park (gated in case of the elite).

Walking unleashed dogs in the local forest har-

asses birds, mammals and other small animals.

Stray dogs and cats are unfortunately not only

common but are in fact fed by compassionate

local residents who even provide makeshift shel-

ters to facilitate dogs’ life in the wild. As a result,

six to seven pups in one stray dog litter have been

observed in the area. Another example of the

misdirected love of nature is the introduction of

squirrels by the Moscow forestry department.

While dogs impact the ground-nesting species,

squirrels exterminate birds in tree cavities and

under shrubs.

Yet another impact that has been accelerating in

recent years is introduction of intensive lawn care,

both by the city park managers and by private

companies on elite dacha lots. With the advent of

more American-style landscaping since mid-1990s,

lawnmowers, pesticides, and mixtures of imported

grass seed have brought about a homogenous and

toxic environment and facilitated the spread of

weeds throughout the island (60 species of intro-

duced plants already occur here, including some

planted shrubs and trees). While most native

perennial grasses can tolerate mowing for a long

period of time, butterflies, beetles and bees are

immediately impacted. New flowerbeds full of

exotic flowers can also lead to more weed pene-

tration into the woods. Timber harvesting, on the

other hand, is practiced responsibly, with less than

5% of trees cut for sanitary purposes in a given year

in selected areas. This practice does not present a

problem in the long run. Some wildflowers are

being collected by visitors, but overall practice

seems to have low impact.

Serebryany Bor is clearly a unique example in

the context of Moscow city. With rising land and

estate prices, the increasing exclusivity will assure

a greater degree of segregation in the future.

However, given the desire of the VIPs not to be

disturbed on the one hand and the popularity of

the Moscow river and Bezdonka beaches on the

other, the future winner is not assured. The more

numerous and less regulated crowds may ulti-

mately have a bigger impact on the local ecosys-

tem, but it is the new concrete fences, mansions,

and exotic planting stock and lawns of the rich

that present the biggest long-term threat based on

landscape impact.

74 GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81

123

Across the beltway: western and northwestern

suburbs

Based on a recent report (IRN, 2004), the top 10

directions (highways) out of Moscow that expe-

rience the biggest development of (mostly gated)

suburban planned communities are listed in

Table 3. Western and northwestern destinations

clearly predominate, while southwestern and

northern ones are becoming more popular, with

southern and especially eastern directions trailing

far behind. Why these destinations? Not surpris-

ingly, environmental quality plays a role, second

in importance only to ease of access to the city

(IRN, 2004). Novorizhskoe highway has been

particularly popular precisely because of the

newly completed road upgrade, which is now a

six-lane road approaching European standards,

correspondingly short commute times, and a

reputation for clean air, water and woods.

A reputation for environmental quality can be

a bigger motivator than the actual quality. In the

Soviet period, it was widely taught in schools that

‘‘the wind [at mid-latitudes] blows from the

west,’’ and hence the powerful elite would delib-

erately construct their dachas west of downtown.

Correspondingly, eastern rayons of Moscow and

suburbs would house factories and worker class

populations, and today they still have a poor

reputation for environmental quality. However,

overlooked seems to be the geographical fact that

much of the former industry is no longer in

business, so the main source of air pollution is car

traffic. Thus northern and southern sections could

be equally attractive for long term suburban life.

The belated recent boom along the southwestern

Kaluzhskoe highway is proving this point.

The physical terrain and vegetation of Moscow

region has always played a role in development,

in addition to water and air quality. Areas north

and west of Moscow contain part of the Valdai

glaciation terminal moraine complex known as

Smolensko-Dmitrovskaya gryada. This feature

dramatizes the otherwise flat terrain and adds

glacial lakes to the landscape. Also, many

important reservoirs, e.g., Pestovskoe, are located

along 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 less

attractive because of the lack of trees. Moscow

oblast is about 41% forested, but in its southern

half much of the historically forested landscape

long ago gave way to agriculture. Some rayons

have less than 20% forest land, which of course is

not an attractive setting for the exclusive gated

communities that prefer sheltered existence in the

shadow 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, built

since mid-1990s, although some important VIP

residencies date from the late Soviet or early

Yeltsin period (e.g., Novo-Ogarevo and Gorki

dachas of the Administration of the President

along the Rublevo-Uspenskoe highway). Second,

most of the gated communities today are built

explicitly as suburban first homes, not dachas,

which traditionally would be seasonal homes and/

or summer cabins. Some of the new homes are in

fact rented year-round. Third, the ownership

pattern of the oblast communities is likely to

reflect the more recent, transitory character of

their residents. For example, both foreign and

domestic petroleum companies must place their

upper level employees in desirable homes near

Moscow somewhere. Few of these people have

historic connection to Moscow city and enough

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

Highway DirectionfromMoscow

Number ofdevelopments

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

123

relational capital (sensu Gaddy and Ickes, 2002)

necessary to break through the city red tape.

Therefore, they may end up living in relatively

inconvenient suburban locations, while a well

connected Moscow and federal governmental

elite 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 predominant

buyers of the suburban properties are, since

developers keep lists of their clients confidential.

However, much can be gauged by looking at the

asking price for homes and also the distribution of

the income among Moscow families (Schetinin &

Baranov, 2005). It is clear with the average asking

price for home in the neighbourhood of $300,000

in 2004 (prices have risen 30–40% in 2005) and an

average household income (family of three) in

Moscow in July of 2004 of about $24,000 per year,

that it would require more than an average salary

to afford any suburban detached housing. In fact,

only so-called ‘‘very rich’’ and ‘‘simply rich’’

classes of Gorshkov and Tikhonova (2004) would

be able to afford such individual homes (‘‘cot-

tages’’). Some in their ‘‘upper middle class’’ will

be able to afford condos and newer, larger

apartments in the city, but not individual houses

in any of the developments discussed here.

Who comprises the top two groups? The first

group is the super-elite, similar to the people

living 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 annual

household income of at least $100,000 per year.

Based on the Gorshkov and Tikhonova (2004)

data, such people comprise less than 2% of the

total population of the country, 5% if we also add

the ‘‘upper middle’’ group with incomes above

$24,000 per year. The average household size in

Russia for all classes is three members. Even

among the top two classes, in 2003 only 11% in

fact owned modern suburban cottages that they

used as their primary residence, and an additional

7% had ‘‘single detached homes,’’ which could

have been older dachas or village homes. The rest

owned 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., a

chief 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 for

state companies, 12% for recently privatized

companies, 39% for newly created private com-

panies and 6% for foreign companies and joint

ventures. With the private sector clearly in the

lead, it is unclear how many of these people

worked for partially state-owned rich companies

(like Unified Energy Systems and Gazprom) or

state bureaucracies at various levels. An interview

with a developer in Odintsovsky rayon suggested

that a relatively large minority of new cottage

owners in the area are in fact local police, land

management and rayon government bureaucrats.

To evaluate how the gated communities of

Moscow suburbia differ from Serebryany Bor, we

specifically looked at examples of communities

located in the prestigious western and north-

western directions that are currently available on

the 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 over

54% of available developments are concentrated

on just three highways: Rublevo-Uspenskoe

(west), Novorizhskoe (northwest), and Dmit-

rovskoe (north). Of these, the first one is by far

the 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 $1

million), 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, or

over $5,000,000 per hectare. (Samarina, 2005).

One frequently mentioned example of a well-

advertised elite community is Benelux developed

by the Russian water, milk and juice producing

76 GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81

123

giant Wimm-Bill-Dan on Novorizhskoe highway

(RBC, 2005; http://www.bnl.su). Benelux twice

received the prestigious ‘‘Poselok of the year’’

grand-prix award from kottedj.ru realty in 2004

and 2005 out of 38 competing developments in

and near Moscow and St. Petersburg. It is classi-

fied as a class A residence within 17 km from

Moscow and is accessed by a 3.2 km private road

(Table 4) with houses priced over $750,000 in

2004 (and over $1 million in 2005). By 2006 the

development will have 250 homes on about 80 ha,

of which 50% have already been sold in the

construction stage (Fig. 2). The unified Euro-de-

sign concept appeals to the upper-crust business

elite: the settlement is divided into three areas

named 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 in

diversity’’ and ‘‘openness’’ principles of the

European Union and is apparently chosen to

appeal to the internationally conscious clients

(RBC, 2005). One of the hallmarks of the devel-

opment is low fences inside the development

providing for an open feel and plenty of facade

viewing opportunities once you get in (Fig. 3).

However, the ‘‘most strict security on many

levels’’ is assured to exclude all the undesired

elements from the outside and of course you will

have to have a car to get in.

The development also has a common area

called ‘‘Amsterdam’’ featuring a fitness and rec-

reation complex, administrative and utility

buildings, playgrounds, shops and restaurants,

and even a house of children’s creative arts

adjacent to the ‘‘Wild West’’ sector of over 30 ha

of residual woods. In her interview, VP Mel-

nichenko (RBC, 2005) proudly emphasized the

environmental benefits of the project. The

developers chose to avoid construction in (some)

of the forest, and in the sensitive floodplain zone

of the Sinichka river (such encroachments are

unfortunately common elsewhere in Moscow ob-

last and are illegal). They will embark on creating

an ‘‘embankment and recreation zone’’ along the

river. Evidently, the river is to be deepened and

widened to accommodate boats. The latter com-

ment is ironic from the animals’ perspective as

concrete embankments and developed beaches

are not compatible with preserving the wild

character of the river and will surely eliminate

many native plants and animals.

Another famous and even larger development

is 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 ofthe 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 suspicioustypes, 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

123

homes about 25 km away from Moscow on

Novorizhskoe that is developed by Sapsan Corp.

(http://www.ozero.sapsan.ru). It claims to be the

largest ‘‘deluxe’’ grade development in the Mos-

cow region and has even more amenities to

accommodate a more diverse base of clients.

These include a roller skating place, bowling,

aquapark, pet hospital, a school and an Orthodox

church (‘‘Services? We have everything you

need’’). Its security includes soundproof fencing

of the perimeter, CCTV surveillance, patrols,

gates, magnetic key passes and electronic alarms

inside the homes. Not everyone is welcome: a

‘‘principle of social [presumably income-authors]

homogeneity’’ is observed by the company in

approving prospective buyers. The price of an

average home here is a bit more affordable,

$300,000 in 2004 compared to over $750,000 for

Benelux. The architecture is developed according

to a pseudo-antique Russian theme. The promo-

tional materials use Russian decor, Slavic-styled

fonts and a deliberately archaic vocabulary are

designed to appeal to the targeted audience (the

word for ‘‘architect’’ they use is old Russian

zodchii). The main entrance to the development

resembles a gateway to the medieval Russian

fortress (Fig. 4). The development is clearly

positioned to appeal to family-oriented, patriotic

clients with somewhat lower incomes than those

customary for settlers along the Rublevskoe

highway.

The development is located in ‘‘ecologically

clean Istrinsky rayon’’ within the green belt of

Moscow. Ironically, as in Serebryany Bor and

despite the presence of the relatively unspoiled

natural forest of the green belt nearby, the

intensive lawn care (mowing, pesticides), planting

of exotic shrubs and ‘‘improvements’’ to the

nearby 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 precisely

the same as in U.S. or European countries, viz.,

the desire to live close to nature destroys the very

nature people come to enjoy.

Overall environmental impacts of the gated

communities in Moscow suburbs

The sheer degree of development, the amount of

potential investment (estimated at more than $6

billion in the past few years), combined with

rapidly changing laws and regulations, failing

‘‘administrative reform’’ of the federal govern-

ment and an uncertain future beyond the 2008

presidential elections places the suburban Mos-

cow oblast environment at a tremendous risk,

even compared to Moscow city proper. Moscow

city and oblast are two different subjects of fed-

eration with parallel governmental structures,

including separate departments of nature use and

environmental protection, and separate commit-

tees on architecture and development. The Mos-

cow city government is a power player in its own

category at the federal level, while the oblast

government is considerably weaker politically

and 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

123

powerful city and federal elites coming from

Moscow city). While the Moscow city Genplan

2020 contains provisions for expanding the spe-

cially protected natural areas in the city to about

21.8% from the existing 14% today, no such

document exists for the Oblast.

The existing system of specially protected

natural areas for the Moscow Oblast (Sobolev,

1998) is not adequate in size. It covers only about

5.7% of the oblast and most large areas are more

than 30 km away from the beltway. What does

exist is not well protected. Outside of these lim-

ited territories, almost no protection is currently

afforded, except in the forests of the First Cate-

gory of protection. In the past 10 years the

number of incidents of direct violation of the

protected areas’ regime have increased due to a

lack of control from the state and conflicting and

competing mandates given to various enforce-

ment agencies at the federal, oblast and local

level. In fact, in many cases, local and regional

governmental agencies themselves are the viola-

tors of the existing norms. Private development

plans are approved at the local level frequently by

an insider deal involving under-the-table pay-

backs (bribes) and no public environmental

review. Recently, development along northern

(Dmitrovskoe, Yaroslavskoe) and western (Nov-

orizhskoe, Rublevskoe) highways have come un-

der more scrutiny in the media because in both

cases sensitive floodplains are involved: the

Moscow, the Klyazma and the Istra rivers, as well

as Pestovskoe, Uchinskoe and other reservoirs

along the Moscow–Volga canal. These are critical

components of the Moscow river water supply. A

recent water quality report (Department of Nat-

ure Use..., 2002) from the City of Moscow

Department of Nature Use and Nature Conser-

vation suggested that while the water quality

within the city has been slightly improving, the

river is now more contaminated than ever where

it enters the city downstream from the most

egregious development along Novorizhskoe and

other western highways. Common contaminants

include lawn and agricultural fertilizers, pesticides

and petroleum compounds from highway runoff

(fuel and oil spills).

If Rodoman (2002) is primarily concerned

about the chaotic vegetable garden developments

– 600,000 of such exist in Moscow region –

(Kachan, 2003), the much bigger threat is now

posed by enclosed permanent home develop-

ments built along lake shorelines and riverbanks

and in the forest green belt, even when appro-

priate engineering solutions are used (septic

tanks, water wells, graded slopes, etc.), misguided

landscape design, unnecessary pavement in sen-

sitive riparian areas, and logging of surrounding

forests contribute to a major negative environ-

mental change. The fact that most of such com-

munities are private and elitist, built without

permits and appropriate environmental review on

public lands should be of a grave concern.

In the early months of 2005, a new threat

emerged, as a new draft of the recently adopted

Forest Code has been released by the Ministry of

the Economic Development (MED). If fully

adopted, the document would essentially abolish

the main protective designation of the forests in

the Moscow green belt, that of the Forests of the

First Category (protected during the Soviet peri-

od as sensitive woodlands along streams and

waterways and near big cities). Currently about

62,000 ha of such forests still exist of which

8,000 ha are inside Moscow and are relatively

secure, but 54,000 ha are in the Oblast and are

vulnerable (Fedorova, 2005). Official data suggest

that only 233 ha have been converted from forest

land within the green belt to built over areas be-

tween 1993 and 2000 (Department of Nature

Use... 2002), but based on our assessment of

LANDSAT imagery from 1991 and 2001, at least

12% of the 1991 forest cover was lost outside of

Moscow, but within the forest belt, this would

represent a loss of approximately 6,000 ha

(Blinnikov et al., 2005). This political develop-

ment is clearly driven by the need of the rich to

grab more land. According to a report (Gover-

dovskaya, 2004), little demand exists at present

for homes more than 50 km away from the belt-

way, where land prices can be 5–10% of the level

within 30 km zone. Within the latter, however,

only 5% of the land is presently available for

development, the rest is tied up in pre-existing

land deals and much of it is still forested (the

green belt). Should the new Forest Code (MED

version of 2005) become a reality, a massive

sellout of the remaining 48,000 ha of forests in the

GeoJournal (2006) 66:65–81 79

123

immediate vicinity of Moscow to the land specu-

lators will be imminent. The scope of the ensuing

destruction belt will dwarf even the biggest

projects of today.

Conclusions

The phenomenon of gated communities is not

new for Russia and is firmly rooted in the his-

torical tradition of the wealthy elite secluding

itself away from the underprivileged and fre-

quently landless masses. High value suburban

developments, a majority of which are gated, are

taking over the Moscow oblast countryside. While

inside the city proper only very few such com-

munities exists, largely grandfathered from the

Soviet period and owned/operated by either fed-

eral (Administration of the President) or city

government, the surrounding area outside of the

beltway has lost about 12% of forested land to

such developments in the past 12–15 years. While

many of the settlements now are much better

planned than in the mid-1990s and are built by

serious companies with international reputations,

few are built with an adequate environmental

review and even fewer do a good job providing

for 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-oriented

commuter lifestyle quite disconnected from the

reality outside the secured and gated perimeter.

Many adversely impact local wildlife by increased

levels of landscape disturbance, including inten-

sive lawn care, cutting of brush and trees, creation

of linear impervious concrete fences, artificial

embankments, dredging and damming of lakes

and creeks, and overall fragmentation due to road

and power line construction. The fact that some

of these communities advertise ‘‘environmental

quality in your backyard’’ does little to mitigate

the actual negative impacts. Many such develop-

ments now begin to include schools and churches

in addition to shops and gyms suggesting that the

long-term occupation by families is the desired

goal. This ensures that the current pattern of

increasing segregation based on income and

relational capital will continue to be perpetuated

well into the middle of this century, just as the last

wild patches of suburban Moscow forest succumb

to the another successful experiment in creating

socially 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 ofthis research.

References

Blinnikov, M., Shanin, A., Sobolev, N., & Volkova, L.(2005). Green lungs of Moscow. In Abstracts of theAssociation 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 ofthe 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 VirtualEconomy. 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

123

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 sredigorodov mira. [In Russian: Moscow among the citiesof the world.] Mysl’, Moscow.

Schetinin, Y. V., & Baranov, I. S. (2005). Analysis ofaccessibility 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.ru

Timashova, 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.pdfWu, 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

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.