by Andrius Ropolas written as a part of Critical urban theory course at K.U.

Leuven, Sint Lucas School of Architecture, Brussels, 2013

This paper attempts to analyze Russia’s closed cities ("closed administrative-territorial formations" or ZATO for short) through the social point of view, compare past and present situations and introduce concepts of “The Right to the City”, gated community and heterotopia in them. Two main stand points are overlooked: how and why people were and are fighting for their right to the city and what was architects role in this fight in the past and what it could be today. Paper is divided three main parts. In “Introduction”, history of Russian closed cities and situation of life, rights and freedoms meets concepts “The Right to the City”, gated community and heterotopia. It is explained how we can see closed cities and processes in them through these concepts. In the part “The right to the city, gated communities, heterotopia and ZATOs” it is explained how and why people were fighting for the right to the city before and in recent days. It is discussed if they failed or succeeded in doing that and what was the outcome of their failure or success. In addition, other concepts are elaborated - what does it mean for people to live in gated communities and heterotopian spaces, how these concepts influence their life. In the last part “Architecture and planning in restricted areas” it is explained what was the role of architects in the past in fight for the right to the city. In addition it is discussed what architects can do today to engage in this fight. Moreover Henri Lefebvre’s idea about power of proletariat is challenged in context of closed cities. Paper concludes that because of specific nature of these formations, in the past people managed to fight for their right to the city and architects involvement was not necessary, however today situation is opposite and moreover, involvement from government is necessary.

On February 11, 1943 Soviet Union started their nuclear research and development program as a response to information that other countries are also researching possibilities of nuclear power (Bukharin et al., 1999, p. 2). This led to construction of almost 100 entirely new closed cities or ZATOs across Soviet Union (Eidel, 2009b). Those cities were designed just for one main function – production of elements or objects necessary for soviet army to keep up in their race for power against United States of America (USA). Some of the closed cities were working on nuclear program, others manufacturing war machines or focusing on space programs, but all of them shared some common things – secrecy, isolation and exclusivity. The secrecy in cities was at top level, as it is mentioned in article by Michael R. Gordon (1998): “for the first few years, none of the residents were allowed to leave”. However after first satellites appeared, secrecy diminished greatly. From 1960 to 1972 USA did over one hundred satellite missions to uncover depths of these cities (Bukharin et al., 1999, p. 9). Cities often were built in distant areas, away from bigger cities to keep people and more importantly information isolated. Primary access to the cities was railway, some cities also had airfields or helicopter 1

9) cities were fenced and protected by KGB (Lemaitre. When in the rest of Soviet Union there were queues for products. longer holidays. The space which is here and at the same time not here is a clear example of heterotopian space. However these harsh conditions had their advantages for workers. Although already in 1980s government understood that there is no need to keep the same production pace as before (Bukharin et al. as system of heterotopian spaces.facilities (Bukharin et al. In 1996 director of the nuclear design center Chelyabinsk-70 killed himself. A program “Reorganization of Nuclear Industry Enterprises” had to release 30 000 workers from nuclear complexes and at the same time to create same amount of workplaces by reorienting released personnel to work in civil production and supporting development of private enterprises from period 2002 until 2010 (Rumyantsev and Kholdov p.. Although their research is focusing on South Africa. in these cities people could get everything without any trouble (Eidel. just codes. Isolation from outside world made these cities heterotopias of time. p. create new work places and use existing knowledge for civil purposes. As stated by Oleg Bukharin and others (2000. closed cities were often more spacious and green compared to similar open cities. After fall of Soviet Union and new disarmament agreements between Russia and USA. Their existence was hidden from public and closed cities often did not have proper names. Closed cities because of their mix of different functions (civil and military) in one space are heterotopias of crises. because he could not pay salaries to his workers (Gordon. 1998) was accepted. protecting people inside from reality outside. “The Right to the City” as described by Henri Lefebvre (1968) was clearly not fulfilled. so in the structure of the cities it was already programmed that citizens would not have any power in decision making. People working in these cities had higher than average salaries. common pride was also very high. In conversation about ZATO at Van Alen Institute. the rules and sometimes even political situation inside was different from outside. 174). 1999. p. It means that almost every 100th person in Russia lives in a closed city under special regulations. 10) government funding in 1999 was only one-seventh as it was in 1990.. This could be compared to gated communities. As it was reported by European Human Rights Advocacy Center in 2011 Maxim Kurpachev could 2 . p. local government together with USA started conversion and reorganization projects in these sensitive areas to create new products. there was almost no unemployment. main conditions are the same in ZATOs. 1998). Latest movies were shown one day after their premiere in Moscow movie theaters (Gordon. there was virtually no crime. 2009). 62). they were planned by small group of people and built by prisoners (Gordon.3 million. professor Jean-Louis Cohen referred to military. nor they appeared on maps. Without having freedom of movement and speech it was hard to make any impact for people themselves. Today visitors in closed cities mention the feeling that time in these places has stopped for last 30 years (Eidel. after 1991 the importance of production in these cities diminished even more. Privacy and freedom of people living and working in these structures is limited. 1998). As described by Hook and Vrdoljak (2002) gated communities are symbol of prestige and places of higher security. Phone lines had direct connection just with main officials in Moscow. Today there are 47 closed cities with a population of around 1. territorial. Most of the world and even Russians did not know about the existence of those kind of structures. situation started to change dramatically. 2009). At the same time the idea of these places came roughly from up. Although presence of these cities is no longer denied they are still kept in secrecy. People in closed cities had certain special privileges. 1998). scientific complexes. As elaborated by Michel Foucault (1986) there are different types of heterotopian spaces. 2005). Funding from the government decreased creating social issues. To prevent specialists from leaving closed cities and Russia for better paid jobs in Iran or North Korea. because people felt that their work is very necessary. until in 1992 a law governing “closed administrative-territorial formations” or ZATO (Lappo and Polian. such as ZATOs. 2000. nor sometimes live with their relatives. they cannot freely change their residence location.

“ (Kutepova. that 89% of interviewed people of city of Norilsk did not want their city to be opened (Lappo and Polian. so hippies arrested. 667). 2009). Bigger spread of western music led to events organized by Baptists around the city with western music and radio shows (p. forty more. an independent military analyst (Nemtsova. Youth were buying copies of western music on black market. Often easiest way to get access is to have relatives living there (Eidel. None of independent pressmen are allowed to visit longer live with his mother. According to Roemer Lemaitre (2005) these restrictions violate freedom of movement and other international human rights. Here it is stated that the fight for rights to the city. 662). of course it differs depending on the city and how heavily it is secured. because he was convicted for some criminal offenses and after release from prison. but also changes in ideological system and traditional 3 . it shows how the tastes and activities of the new youth culture created new values and demands for cultural consumption that gradually transformed and replaced traditional Soviet values and Communist ideological practices”. However more cities are planned to be opened. It is easy to find stories of journalists who got their access denied in last minute (Hodge. “Federal and local mass media have no access to closed cities. p. especially Moscow. Nostalgia and old feeling of prestige is such a strong factors playing big role for older residents. As emphasized by Zhuk (2008). 1998. although they were later banned people always found away how bypass restrictions. but also people. In some cases not only people struggle for the right to the city. it is inevitable that most of these cities will open up” says Alexander Golts. there is information about attempts to fight for the rights to the city. On the other hand it is not only government who wants these cities to be closed. 672). which at that time was the site of biggest missile factory in Soviet Union. He even mentions some arrests. among youth. where his mother lives. This just demonstrates that sometimes system was fighting against itself. It is extremely difficult for foreigner to get inside these cities. As researched by Sergei I. However often only people from Soviet elite could afford buying these records. Special limitations to get to closed cities makes these spaces heterotopias of purification. 2009). not only led to changes in the city. “With the military reform transforming the Russian army and the market economy booming. were children of some high officers (p. the record of Jesus Christ Superstar played a big role of spreading new ideas among young people and made headaches for KGB (p. he could no longer get permanent residence at closed city of Ozersk. 47) although younger people often strive for possibilities in bigger open cities. when in 1970 ten young hippies were arrested and later. 2006). forbidden things like religion and “westernization” were spreading. Although information and processes inside closed cities are protected and in the past were protected even more. Zhuk (2008) in closed city of Dnepropetrovsk in 1970s. Same difficulties applies to media.” At the same time. Often they look with suspicion about plans to open city they live in. but also cities themselves: “The Primorskii Krai government has used the threat of dumping waste in international waters as leverage for more funding in Moscow” (Whittenton). 2003). In his text Zhuk makes an important conclusion: “The story of “popular religiosity” and “Western mass culture” in Dnepropetrovsk during the Brezhnev era highlights the complete failure of Soviet ideologists and the KGB to protect the youth of this strategically important center of the Soviet military-industrial complex from “ideological pollution. Existing restrictions confronted with Henri Lefebrve’s “Right to the city” ideas raises question if people living in closed cities have any rights and power at all to make any impact on their environment. Also for Russians it is also a serous task.

Despair of people about the future is visible in dramatically dropping birth rates. was probably most radical. There are exceptions.Soviet values. Government understands seriousness of these issues. What still keeps people in these cities are advantages of being in gated community and a heterotopian space. Suicide of director of Chelyabinsk-70 in late 1996 for inability to pay salaries to his workers. but nowadays protects people and city inside the walls from organized crime (Bunn et al. for inability to fight for their right to the city. 46). 2006). Freedom of culture. Main reasons of slow changes are that very big changes in system and big amount of finance are needed to accomplish goals (Bukharin et al. Even with limited rights. The walls keeping work and information safe inside the city does not necessarily apply to people living inside. Initiatives between USA and Russia. Lack of experience in market economy also keeps cities dependent on government funding (Ball. Zelenogorsk. led to new forms of protest and fights for rights.” says Olga Sibiyato. “one striking plant mechanic said he could see "only one way out – to go to a nuclear submarine and do something. In closed city of Tomsk birthrates compared to years 1965 and 1990 dropped by 20%. As research in closed city of Ozersk (Kozlov. Another feature of gated communities is that they often are symbol of status and prestige. 2000. people always found tools to fight for their rights and make change. younger people leave their closed cities: “We live here under a magnifying glass – every step to the left or right is noticed and discussed. Isolation of cities by walls and checkpoints not only protects information inside from foreign spies and sabotage. Nuclear defense sector did not benefit from opening up economy (Kaser. 2008." adding that it would not be hard to cause a "tragedy worse than Chernobyl" (Whittenton). medical assistance. religion were no more restricted. p. Former Atomic Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov was “lecturing authorities in the nuclear cities not to pay plumbers and common laborers more than nuclear scientists” (Gordon. however changes are happening very slowly. music. Troubles with finance and inability to change anything by people themselves. As an outcome. tries to help closed cities to reorient their knowledge to civil production and create new private enterprises. “About 300 workers from one nuclear submarine factory blocked the Trans-Siberian railroad. Russian crises of 1999 also did no leave those areas untouched. p. because of isolation and direct financial dependence from Moscow. 10). At the same time population in ten cities in control of Ministry of Atomic Energy grew by 57 000 residents from period 1989 to 1998 (Kaser. 1998). These are just few examples of people trying to influence decisions related to their rights. My friends and I plan to move to Moscow right after graduation. 10). in Seversk by 41% and compared with years 1975 and 1995 birthrate in all Russian Federation dropped by 49% (Oleynichenko et al.. like Nuclear Cities Initiative and a program “Reorganization of Nuclear Industry Enterprises”. 2009). but not only way of expressing despair. 2001). public services and social security. p. an 11th-grader at High School No 235 in closed city of Znamensk (Nemtsova. 2005. However overall situation is unkind. Declining need of production from closed cities led to declining financial support for them. It means that highly classified status of city and work being done inside can be separated from people and their right to the city. and Ozersk) have been doing relatively well because they have been able to market uranium-enrichment and other fuel-cycle services to foreign nuclear-power utilities and have been blending-down excess weapons uranium for sale…” (Bukharin et al. 1998). p. 159) shows people are not happy with welfare. “For 4 . people feel unappreciated. 2006). At least I will see people from other countries there. After crash of Soviet Union and introduction of market economy needs of people changed. however market economy forced to face new challenges. 2000. without help from up. Despite all attempts to change situation. not all closed cities are struggling with finance: “The nuclear facilities in three cities (Novouralsk. demanding wages that were nearly ten months overdue”.

Today situation is different. Typical building system. Construction boom of closed cities was happening from 1940s to 1960s as mentioned by Xenia Vytuleva at Van Alen Institute conversation (2012). As it was discussed before. only patriotism prevented from wide selling nuclear weapons and technologies from closed cities on black market. “The wall is not to make us close-minded. At the same time.many. People see closeness as a special feature of their city rather than downside. 1998). or isolated. no difference if it was open or closed city. that as space of privilege. as Russian government can no longer support them and production from them is not as necessary as before. conversion and private enterprises in closed cities must be encouraged and not only because Russia can no longer afford these complexes (Bukharin . market economy bypassed them. cultural. but to provide us with a special status. where presence of reality and contemporary world is most appreciable and visible. 60). ''People in the closed cities are like children. Opening up to the world is another side of the medal. It means that closed cities today have same structure as they had 30 years ago. conditions were even better in closed cities. but the meaning and pride of their lives” says Anna Nemtsova (2009) about people in closed city of makes things to have meaning. the lock on the gate and secretiveness of their hometown is not a Soviet relic. As Matthew Bunn and others (1998) think. people successfully managed to fight for their rights to the city in these conditions. closed cities were more green and spacious (Gordon. As a reason of economical declination and inability to fight for their rights to the city. but also because it will create better environment for people. These processes of reorientation. p. Moreover. there is a tendency for youth to leave closed cities. As being places of heterotopia of time and deviation closed cities creates strong nostalgic and patriotic approach. which is very strong in these places. For some cities is inevitable to open up. no newly built area differed too much in style from other. Across all Soviet Union typical housing. Typical planning was also big advantage for fast building. Only difference. the commander of the anti-terror unit at Znamensk military range (Nemtsova. ideological approach and extreme secrecy of closed cities meant that architects had limited possibilities to be involved in fight with people for the right to the city. Despite of distance. striving for more possibilities in Russia’s biggest cities. 2009). 2009). the gap between ordinary cities and the free market is quite big. 1998). At that time soviet modernistic ideas of architecture were already defined.” says mayor of Znamensk Victor Likh (Nemtsova. This planning ideology is visible in closed cities (pe-international. Remembrance of past. “Thousand of missiles have gone through our hands… If not us. medical projects were being realized. the elite of the Russian army”. 1998) 5 . fromer Atomic Energy Minister (Gordon. 89% of people from Norilsk said that they do not want their city to be opened (Lappo and Polian. industrial. And here is the place where architects can play their role in help for people to fight for their city. then who is going to keep Russia safe?” says Aleksei Prudnikov. the only way of survival is opening up and contributing to market economy. conversion of closes cities and opening of some of them leads to massive changes in cities structure and economy. there was no need of architects to be involved – structure and ideology was all over the same. Housing blocks in Georgia or Lithuania were almost the same. closed cities did not follow contemporary trends. 2000. but the gap between people who lived in a closed city and a market economy is enormous'' . “We are rocket specialists. Being heterotopias of time. old ideological presence and structure are not reflecting what is happening outside the walls.Yevgeny Adamov. It is clear that ongoing changes of restructurization.

However without changes initiated and supported by Russian government. architects have no power.In these new conditions architects can help to understand better and plan processes of change. national security. 6 . changes are happening. Otherwise situation where people are either leaving. Ofcourse we have to remember that closed cities in Russia is unique example of mix of freedom rights. by reclaiming and fighting for their rights to the city. even city government has no power. however they are also hostages of government. Only because of changes triggered by government. 2012). It is impossible for people to influence these issues. social classes and class fractions of revolutionary initiative can take over and realize to fruition solutions to urban problems. although people are fighting for their rights to the city. so it is natural that widely accepted philosophies work differently in these conditions. Although similar rules apply to all closed cities. When the fight for the city was about culture. without involvement from up. or accepting existing setting and being passive is inevitable. needs. Smart visions would make it easier for people to shape city themselves. dress up as they wanted. Eventually this fight had an outcome and changed all traditional Soviet values. with difference in size. It is ironical example which opposes Henri Lefebvre’s idea of power of proletariat: “Only groups. so it is very important to have visions how these cities can see themselves in the future. people managed to find their ways to gain their rights and city. They still managed to buy desired records. social structure. in depth they are very different. This is materialization of Henri Lefebvre’s “The Right to the City” (1968) where he discusses that change can be only realized by working class and a “critique of the ideological and strategic implications of planning projects” (p. which could reflect past of the cities. p. they are still losing this fight. there was no need to fight for culture. It means that. even governments of cities have no power to engage in fight for the right to the city. there was need to fight for social rights. because they cannot fight for the right to their city. architects can become useful and necessary in helping to control new processes and new realities. Architects can help to manage all these issues and provide global vision for these places. present reality outside city walls and future needs. closed cities are opening up or changing their focus from military to civil production. because without permission from up they can not even enter closed cities. Without them. And as an outcome youth is leaving. However after crash of Soviet Union. Architects can be and must be involved in the fight for the right to the city. Only nostalgia and patriotic feelings are keeping people in cities. However. because control of economy in closed cities is directly dependent from Russia’s government. Architects did not need to be involved in these processes. 153). They are realized utopias (Van Alen Institute. New conditions will change face of the cities. 154). social and spatial consequences of fast changes in the cities can be unpredictable. because architectural and planning situation was everywhere the same. earned salary and ability to work. It is from these social and political forces that the renewed city will become the oeuvre” (1968. specific cultural and historical context and functional purpose. organize events in cities. geography and many more factors. government is trying to change situation. In case of ZATOs government is the trigger which can let people reclaim their city.

F. Release%2075%20Karpacheva%20judgment%2027_1_11. Natural Resources Defense Council  Bukharin. (2001) ‘Accessing the Inaccessible: The Case for Opening Up Russia’s Closed Cities’. Chastnyj korespondent. S.pbs. O. In: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. N. Leuven 7 . H. (1998) ‘Retooling Russia’s Nuclear Cities’. The New York Times Company. N. 2. B.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm> [Accessed 17 January 2013]  Kaser.  Hodge. Y. Available at: <http://bellona. p. Institute for International Law. P. (2002) 'Gated communities. and Hippel. Writings on cities.. R. 147-164  Kutepova.An amazing journey in a closed city’ [in Russian]. Moscow. F. Russia. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.U. Weiner (2000) ‘Conversion and Job Creation in Russia’s Closed Nuclear Cities’.no/bellona.php?id=3860> [Accessed 17 January 2013]  Eidel. In: Kofman. p. M. Hard Times for Russia's Nuclear Centers’.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/arsenal/retooling. Springer. Offord: Blackwell  Lemaître. Available at: <http://www. M. S. eds. G. Available at: <http://www.Residents of the closed settlements was forbidden to tell them where they live’ [in Russian]. (2003) ‘The closed cities’. and Tsepilova. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy. Cochran. E. 43-48  Lefebvre. Available at: <http://www. M. N.html> [Accessed 17 January 2013]  Hook. Y (2009) ‘Juicy Sarov .html> [Accessed 17 January 2013]  Eidel. G.chaskor. (1986) 'Of other spaces'.chaskor. 155 – 162  Kutepova. 1-29  Kozlov.May 29. Nuclear Weapons Databook. T. D.  Gordon. M.londonmet. Available at: <http://www. Y (2009b) ‘History closures . Apikyan and D. May 28 . K. and Sharon K. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University [in Russian] 33. and Lebas. Cetina. [online] The Slate Group. Socialogitskije The Bellona Foundation. (1968) ‘The Right to the City’. O. (1998) ‘THE HIDDEN CITY: A special n_russia/barbarians_at_the_gate. Conference: Policy Workshop. 1998. O. Available at: <http://www. No. and Norris. [online] WGBH Educational Foundation. K. June 27-29. (2006) ‘Planning for countering nuclear terrorism’. Hippel. R. O. p. Luongo. Eds. Russia. 2001  Bukharin. June 2005. R.. Geoforum. 864> [Accessed 17 January 2013]  Lappo. 2000. [pdf] Availavable at: < Open Disaster’.ru/p. Chastnyj korespondent. Bukharin. and Polian. Princeton University  Bunn. (2005) ‘How closed cities violate the freedom of movement and other international human rights obligations of the Russian federation’..slate. heterotopia and a ‘‘rights’’ of privilege: a ‘heterotopology’ of the South African security-park'. p.nytimes. Diacritics. Diamond. (2008) ‘Quality of life of population of closed administrative territorial formations’ [in Russian]. D. 16 (1): 22-27. Vrdoljak. J. Volume 14. 33 (2): 195-219. (2006) ‘Countering Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism’. (1998) ‘Closed cities’ [in Russian]. (2007) ‘Closed City. (1999) ‘New Perspectives on Russia’s Ten Secret Cities’. N. Working Paper No 77.pdf> [Accessed 17 January 2013]  Foucault. Obninsk.php?id=3861> [Accessed 17 January 2013]  European Human Rights Advocacy Center (2001) ‘European Court rules freedom to choose residence breached in Russian ‘closed city’. (2006) ‘A Nuclear Family Vacation in Russia’.

php> [Accessed 17 January 2013]  Rumyantsev. 661–679 8 .. Available at: <http://www-rohan. (2008) ‘Religion. (2009) ‘Russia's hidden past inside the secret cities’. [video online] Availavable at < http://vimeo. (2005) ‘Demographic processes and health of Seversk. [online] Available at: <http://www. 167 – 182  Van Alen Institute (2012) ‘ZATO: Secret Soviet Cities during the Cold War’.peinternational. comparison of indices over Tomsk ‘Closed Cities – Seversk’. p. Nemtsova. T. 10. Y.” and Youth in the “Closed City” of Soviet Ukraine.3 (Fall-Winter 2003): p.htm> [Accessed 17 January 2013]  Zhuk. The Russian Review 67 (October 2008): p. Karpov A. Tomsk and Tomsk region population during the last decades (analysis of situation. A. “Westernization. Available at: <http://www. ‘Post-Soviet transition and Russia’s ‘secret cities’.edu/~alexseev/RussiaInAsia/ZATO. S.M. (2003) ‘Conversion Challenges in Russian Nuclear Cities’. Russian Federation.B.sdsu. 1964–84‘. Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Bulletin of Siberian Medicine [in Russian] No. 45-51  Pe-inernational. Takhauov R. [online] San Diego State> [Accessed 17 January 2013]  Whittenton. and West Siberia)’ [in Russian]..html> [Accessed 17 January 2013]  Oleynichenko V. 2.F. The Nonproliferation Review.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful