Chapter 2. Socialist resettlement. Urban concepts. Construction of new cities
40. Planning scheme of a dynamic city - N. Ladovsky's "parabola" (rocket city) and the problem of Moscow reconstruction
Among the works of N. Ladovsky there is one project that is known to almost every Soviet architect (in the 1930-1950s it was often used by critics as an example of extreme formalism in urban planning). We are talking about the famous "parabola" of Ladovsky - the principal planning scheme for the development of the city developed by him. The most curious and at the same time tragic is that this project of N. Ladovsky was never appreciated by his contemporaries, although it is he who is one of the largest theoretical discoveries of the master.
Only after almost 30 years later Ladovsky's "parabola" was "rediscovered" by the famous Greek urban planner K. Doxiadis and widely published under the name of "dynapolis" (dynamic city) in the world architectural press (as component his urban planning theory - ekistics), we finally remembered the project of N. Ladovsky.
When did Ladovsky's "parabola" appear and how was it theoretically substantiated?
The development by N. Ladovsky of the concept of a developing city was preceded by preparatory stage searching and thinking. At the end of the 1920s, in the workshops of N. Ladovsky and N. Dokuchaev, VKhUTEIN carried out a number of urban planning topics, among which it is necessary to note the work of a group of graduate students on the "problem of the new city" in 1928 (these projects have already been discussed above). For this topic, two projects are of the greatest interest, which reflect different approaches to the search for the structure of a developing city: V. Lavrov's city-line project (one of the first projects of this kind in Soviet architecture) and T. Varentsov's project, which proposed an original planning scheme of a rational-ring system.
N. Ladovsky, having analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of the rational-ring and linear "he considered the old one as an extreme manifestation of a rectangular planning structure) city planning schemes, proposed a fundamentally new planning scheme. Figuratively speaking, Ladovsky's "parabola" can be considered either as a radially torn a ring system, or as Milyutin's flow-functional scheme bent into an arc.As a result, the resulting new planning scheme, as it were, combined the advantages of the radial-ring and linear schemes and at the same time did not have their shortcomings.
Ladovsky's "Parabola" made it possible to develop a city center while maintaining its role as a planning core. The center developed along the axis of the parabola, adjacent to it were residential areas, behind which were located industrial and green areas.
| N. Ladovsky. Analytical graphic diagrams and texts for the Moscow reconstruction project. 1929-1930. Scheme of Greater Moscow: "The outdated ring-shaped planning structure of the city creates impossible conditions for growth in general and, first of all, for the growth of its center. The center, trying to grow, encounters the resistance of rings that develop reverse centripetal forces" | N. Ladovsky. Analytical graphic diagrams and texts for the Moscow reconstruction project. 1929-1930. Scheme of Greater Moscow: "Scheme of the growth of a new socialist Moscow: "To direct growth, it is necessary to create new centers of gravity in the form of exemplary socialist construction. The nearest of them are marked with arrows 1 and 2 (Khodynka and Ostankino). The area of the triangle between points 1, 2 and A, due to the formation of new centers of gravity, will quickly be built up, reorganizing the city and, first of all, its center. The center will move along the resultant between the new points of gravity, forming the axis of the new socialist Moscow. The "rings" of old Moscow will be broken in this place, and their bent branches will follow the new Moscow, forming its periphery. Further stratifications around Moscow in the form of holiday towns, given the growth of Moscow, will have to develop according to the indicated pattern, forming an "opened horseshoe shape" |
Here is how N. Ladovsky assessed the radial-ring system in this article: “In terms of organizational content, the territories of the rings represent a vague conglomerate that is not connected with the shape of the rings, the growth of which is not foreseen at all and is not associated with the general shape of the ring. Such disconnection is natural, since the geometric the nature of the ring territory predetermines its spatial static character, while the physical nature of its construction, at best, allows only compaction.
N. Ladovsky wrote about the city-line projects: "Being an expression of maximum dynamism, these planning structures will inevitably turn out to be weak organisms, since they reduce the three-dimensional space to "one-dimensional", putting the emphasis on linearity. All modern material culture and technology make it possible to solve town-planning problems in three dimensions, putting the emphasis on "horizontal two-dimensionality".
Ladovsky considered the existing city as an interconnected urban environment, and not as a conglomeration of streets, ensembles and squares. This manifested itself at all levels of his approach to the structure of the city - from the design of a single building to a renovation project.
It is no coincidence that it was Ladovsky who turned out to be the author of the theory of a flexible, dynamic city. He, for example, saw Moscow as a complex growing urban organism with its own laws that should not be neglected. As you know, there were many concepts in the approach to the reconstruction of Moscow: it was proposed to radically rebuild the entire structure of the city, develop it in new territories, mothball the center, etc. (more on this below). The point of view won, aimed at preserving the radial-circular planning structure of Moscow while at the same time saturating the center with new social and political functions.
Moscow has not been the capital of Russia for more than 200 years, and it lacked a huge number of those buildings that were necessary for the capital city. It was clear that large volumes of construction in the city center would be required. At the same time, it was in Moscow that the most peculiar spatial and planning structure of the pre-Petrine capital of Russia turned out to be, as it were, mothballed. It is important to emphasize that not only the planning system of the city, but also its spatial structure was of value. Many understood this at the time, but few imagined what needs to be done to preserve this structure. It was Ladovsky, realizing the internal laws of the growth of the city, who warned that it was impossible, while maintaining the planning system, to oversaturate the city center with new functions. Such "new blood", in his opinion, having overfilled the "vessels" of the planning system and finding no way out, will break them. As a result, the planning scheme of the city will be preserved, but its volumetric and spatial structure will be destroyed, and the most architecturally valuable fragments of the building, facing the red lines, will suffer. (And so it happened: the volume-spatial structure of the central part of Moscow in short term was drastically broken). To prevent this from happening, N. Ladovsky suggested diverting part of the flow of "new blood" along the axis of a "parabola" - a concept diagram of a dynamic city developed by him.
In 1929, at a meeting of members of the ARU, Ladovsky made a report entitled "Moscow Historical and Socialist", which was then published. The report substantiated circuit diagram growth of the new Moscow.
“The concept of city growth,” said Ladovsky, “cannot be reduced to a simple mechanical increase in territory, width of passages, number of storeys, etc. Growth must be understood as organic, at different stages of its development representing a different organism not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively Meanwhile, all the projects of "Greater Moscow" that have been available so far consider the issue exclusively from the quantitative side and therefore suffer from the main flaw - "mechanism". "
Medieval walled city, Howard's garden city, system of satellite cities of Unwin (R. Enwin - S. H.) and the proposal for the redevelopment of Paris by Corbusier - all these planning structures, despite their apparent difference in form and purpose, can be attributed to one category of static forms ... The grafting of these systems on growing and vibrant cities must inevitably cause painful phenomena as they grow ...
A specific sign of their mechanistic nature is the position that these systems can only make sense for an instantaneous period of time, provided that they are implemented in a holistic manner, at the very next moment of growth they will need to be destroyed - in short, they do not provide for growth from a “cell” into a system, from a lower system to a higher one, and so on. with a relatively slow pace of life and insufficient consideration of the coordinates of time, the ring system could still hold out in planning for some time, but with the development of capitalism, with the growth of cities, it was broken everywhere.
Let us now turn to the projects of the Greater Moscow. According to all these projects, Moscow is presented as a central core surrounded by two rings, and with the growth of suburbs that are not linked into a system by any project, naturally, a third ring will be formed in the near future.
All the projects of "Greater Moscow" proceeded basically from the position of population growth and, as a consequence, the growth of territory. But this growth is accepted by them without an analysis of the individual components and interacting forces, but only formally, as a rounding off of the generally anarchically growing organs of the city into a geometrically shaped territory. After all, a snowball rolling and increasing in its volume, we have no right to consider organically growing. The same increase is in all projects of the "Greater Moscow" and the increase in its area. The organic growth of the city should be called such, which, with the growth of the whole, ensures the growth of its individual parts that act differently - organs united in a spatio-temporal economic system ...
If we imagine complete agreement, then the form, i.e. if the rings mean different organs, territories for different purposes, then the growth of one of them will occur at the expense of the death of the other. If, however, we discard the different functional significance of each ring, and accept their functional uniformity, then due to the economy of the dynamo-geometric principle, all other things being equal, a centripetal force will develop. which can be imagined as / the pressure of the rings on each other towards the center, while the central circle, trying to grow, thus encounters an enormous and insurmountable resistance of the rings (Fig. 3). This takes place in modern Moscow...
The picture given in Fig. 3, suggests that with the circular layout of Moscow, the center, striving for natural development in a horizontal projection, encounters the resistance of the rings that is difficult to overcome, and the resolution of the most fundamental moment in the life of the city - the dialectical process of its growth is not provided for by this design of the plan, since growth without crushing neighboring (presumably, also the vital organs of the city) is impossible. And, indeed, we are already seeing this picture in reality in the capital of the USSR at the present time ...
We offer, primarily:
Break the ring system in one of the sections and allow the center to grow freely(Fig. 5). The center in the form of a planning point, even if it is the diameter of the ring "A", both theoretically and practically, is generally unacceptable. The city center should be able to grow not only upwards in the third dimension, but also in a horizontal projection progressively forward. Consequently, the center of the city should not be a static point, but a dynamic line - the axis. By breaking the rings and bending them in the form of a horseshoe, we will enable the center, as well as the corresponding branches of the former rings, to grow. The city center takes the form of a fan. This form is most consistent with the function of the center, since as the city grows and its dynamics increase and the organization becomes more complex, the center does not remain clamped, but freely unfolds due to the area of \u200b\u200bthe fan. According to this design, the whole city and the center are like a stream, gradually expanding.
N. Ladovsky, proposing to use his planning scheme of a developing city for the reconstruction of Moscow, believed that the axis of the "parabola" should be taken from the highway Tverskaya Street - Leningradskoe Shosse. He also used his "parabola" in a competition project for the idea of reconstructing Moscow (1932). The project aroused interest. They argued with him, but noted the originality of thought.
"As a virtue, - wrote P. and B. Goldenbergs, - it should be noted the dynamism of the city whole and the possibility of implementing the system of highways proposed by N.A. Ladovsky not by breaking the Moscow system of highways, but by revealing its internal capabilities" .
V. Semenov wrote: "The simplest type of connection between urban zones can be considered the design of zones in the form of parallel strips; given the extreme schematism and inefficiency of the flow city, Ladovsky folds the flow city in half, so that the ribbons of planning zones go around the center of the city ("head") and form a row arcs open to the west...
The project is clear, interesting and original.
Max: Many questions, but the main one. Moscow has a radial-ring transport scheme, but now the idea that we need a rectangular system is very popular, that the ring system has become obsolete. The construction of metro lines is being discussed, which will not go in a circle, as it is arranged now, but from one district to another, without going into the city center. And that's the question: are there any examples good decisions for ring systems already struggling to handle passenger flows? And one more question - should we try to make the transport system of Moscow rectangular, not circular? Is it necessary to build the so-called chords?
Vucik: Tangential lines.
Max: Yes.
Vucik: Different types of ring lines can be very effective - they link many important radial lines. They reduce the need to travel to and from the city center to get anywhere. They are also efficient because they don't have the sudden traffic peaks that radial lines do. The radial lines go through the center of the city, so the percentage of labor movements there is very high, they create this peak.
Max: Yeah, everyone goes through the center, or from the center.
Vucik A: But with the ring road, people can get to the place without having to travel through the center. This is especially true for transit. Some people say that roundabouts aren't viable for transit because they can't make up for delays. However, for many cities roundabouts are not just useful, they are key lines. For example, Seoul in Korea. There, metro line number 2 is the ring. Or Yamanote, the Tokyo Regional Rail Line, one of the busiest lines in the world. It carries about a million passengers a day. The Moscow Ring is also I think the most... people who use the Moscow metro could say that they often use the circle line.
The transition of the system from the ring to the rectangular - I do not know how this can be done without destroying the city.
Max A: That's the question I always ask. Well, is the idea of building chords a good idea or not?
Vucik: Good in some cases..
Max: Because now the main streams of people…. everyone works in the center and moves from the sleeping areas along the ring to the center.
Only a few of them travel from one sleeping area to another because they work or live there. But they also go through the center. I don’t know, it needs to be checked, but I don’t think that the flow is not so big that the whole metro line going from one sleeping area to another would be in great demand.
Vucik: That is, they travel along the radial, then through the center and again along the radial?
Max: Yes, that's the way things are now. And it is proposed not to go through the center, moving from one area to another.
Vucik: It is very difficult to achieve a large volume of transportation on chords, very difficult. Radial directions usually dominate. As for the ring roads, it very much depends on where they are located. If they are far from the center, we will not receive such large volumes of traffic. But the ring that directly surrounds the city center is very functional, very attractive and serves to collect and distribute people throughout the city. It reduces the number of non-straight trips and transit, reduces the number of cars scurrying back and forth in search of a less congested path.
Max: A very popular idea in Moscow now is that it is necessary to build a lot of tangential lines, chords. Both in the subway and in the road network - and this, supposedly, will reduce traffic. Does it make sense?
Vucik: Is it proposed to build peripheral roads that go around the city center, but do not pass through it?
Max: Yes, something like that.
Vucik: If you draw only radial lines, then a large number of transport goes straight to the city center, and, as a result, there is one square kilometer where many, many lines converge. And now you don't know what to do with it. These lines carry the heaviest load. But ring and, in some cases, chords can be very useful, depending on the geography of the city, on passenger behavior patterns, on the location of workplaces, schools, universities, etc.
Vukan Vučik uses the town-planning term "grid", from Grid plan - designation of the method of planning ancient cities with streets intersecting at right angles. In the modern Russian-language classification, this type of planning corresponds to the term "rectangular system" of the city.
Thank you very much for the translation
1. Radial-ring layout
2. Chess layout
3. Strip-like, or linear structure
4. Multibeam or star structure
5. Multinuclear or petal structure
6. Irregular (spontaneous) structure
Which one is better for the city of the future?
Before answering this question, it is necessary to consider the current forms of city organization and take into account two methods of city formation:
a) a self-developing form of the city
b) the organized formation of the city.
Today's cities are formed according to the type of self-developing forms. In some place, a center appears and around it more and more microdistricts begin to form. Depending on the landscape, terrain features and the location of industries, cities self-develop into one form or another, from radial (Moscow) to cities of "one street" (Krivoy Rog).
Radial-ring layouts(Moscow), are formed mainly at the intersection of transport routes and river branches. Such cities benefit from uniform growth and improved spatial expansion, as well as greater accessibility to the city centre. To date, the radial-ring form is considered the most "mobile" form of the city's structure.
MOSCOW:
Checkerboard or cross layout(Chicago, Beijing, Kyoto) arises mainly at the intersection of two land routes, which determine the future layout of the streets. Growing, such a city begins to form the functional features of a microdistrict, dividing them into rectangles (sleeping sector, industrial, recreation area ...). Such an order is more demanding for social calculations, but easier to plan.
CHICAGO:
Strip or line structure(Rotterdam, Volgograd, San Francisco) occurs predominantly where there is any obstacle to a concentric city (for example, a mountain range, a wide riverbed, or a sea coast). Also, there are production reasons for the formation of linear cities, for example, as mines or quarries are developed (Krivoy Rog). The linear structure is the most unattractive for development, since transportation within the city, to various functional parts of the city, takes a long time and additional costs are incurred.
VOLGOGRAD:
Multibeam, or star structure(Paris) is a kind of radial construction, but the intersections of the streets in it take on Y-shaped forms. Most often this is due to the desire to preserve areas of nature. Such a structure is more characteristic of old cities (districts) with not dense buildings and may not have clearly defined ring-shaped routes. The formation of such cities occurs in the same way as radial ones. The disadvantages of such cities are low population density and large sizes such cities.
PARIS:
Multinuclear, or petal structure(Stockholm, Bryansk, Kyiv) arises in those cities that were united from several small settlements. Thus, creating several centers (cores) in the city, around which further development takes place. Such a construction has a lower concentration of the population (compared to radial ones), and also leads to uneven development.
BRYANSK:
Irregular (spontaneous) structure(Istanbul) most often arose in third world countries in which cities began "from barracks". Barracks were set up spontaneously, and as the city developed, they were rebuilt into capital structures, creating disordered structures of streets and districts.
ISTANBUL:
If you notice, up to this point we have been considering types of cities that developed independently, starting with a small settlement or group of settlements.
If we talk about the cities of the future, then they will be created in an organized manner, with a form of development planned in advance. Such an approach will make it possible to initially plan everything necessary - social structure, communications, life support systems and capacities, transport networks and energy production.
Today there are two opinions:
1. Current cities need to be developed further while maintaining their original layout.
2. It is necessary to build new cities "from scratch", relocate residents to them, and completely reconstruct old cities.
The first opinion is based on the preservation of the cultural and historical value of the old city. Although, if you look at it carefully, it is rare that buildings remain untouched for more than 100 years.
Also, the first approach has significant disadvantages - for example, the fact that new buildings of the city must be carried out in a cultural combination with the previous ones, which leads to the constant territorial expansion of cities with a low concentration of residents, the concreting of as many unused areas as possible, which ultimately leads to to the growth of concrete "deserts".
Take the city of Paris for example. I just want to say the phrase "And before there was a forest ...".
Now it is a concrete "desert".
On the one hand, historical values can be defended, which will lead to even greater depletion of soils and cutting down the last remaining forest areas. Do not be lazy, go to a Google satellite map or another, open your city in it, and see how much forest is left around your city and neighboring cities. But the forest is the lungs of the planet. This is our oxygen, which is becoming less and less every year. You and I are suffocating more and more, and the planet is increasingly turning into a concrete desert.
But you can simply build a city with a high density (about 10-20 thousand people per km²), move Paris there, for example, and reconstruct it on the site of the old one, restoring forests and significantly increasing the density (leaving the most important cultural values), and then relocate to his next city. And if, at the same time, the technologies of the Vega-Prime project are used, then such a city will cease to be a concrete desert and will harmoniously coexist with nature.
Think for yourself, in which apartment would you like to live? - from these two options:
a) nine five-story houses around yours, all in concrete and asphalt, cars under the windows ..
b) or a detached 50-storey house, and around your house, within a radius of 70-100 meters, nature, trees, grass... fresh air!
And if at the same time we are talking about the Vega-Prime project, then all the houses stand on six-meter supports, and lawns or playgrounds are located under the houses. In other words, if you look around, nature will be visible everywhere. Access roads to the house are of a mesh (cellular) type, raised one meter from the ground, under which grass also grows. The city is a park!
Minimum harm to nature = maximum fresh air for you and me.
Therefore, Vega-Prime adheres to the second opinion that it is necessary to build new cities "from scratch", relocate residents to them, and completely reconstruct old cities into environmentally friendly and harmless to the environment.
So, for our developments, we chose concentric cities with a radial-ring shape. This is the most ideal form for the organized construction of the city and future communications.
As has been accepted since ancient times, vital objects are located in the city center, and objects to which daily mass access is required. In the old days, such objects were defensive fortresses and shopping areas (markets). Today, these are enterprises, shopping malls, educational establishments, medical and other social institutions. It's kind of the core of the city. Residential areas are located in the second ring. And in the last ring - the production of food and life support.
Such a construction ensures maximum availability of the necessary facilities, reduces the average duration of the movement of residents to essential facilities, and also increases the speed of interaction between enterprises. In addition, the time of delivery of goods to the consumer is reduced, the mileage is reduced. engineering communications, increases the cascading of redundancy systems at the lowest cost. Public transport systems are becoming more efficient than personal transport, which leads to a significant reduction in the traffic of individual vehicles.
But again, it is worth noting that such a construction is not possible with self-developing forms of cities, but only with a pre-planned infrastructure of the city, rebuilt "from scratch" and entirely (or sectorally).
In outer ring wind, sound, wave and other barriers are placed to create the necessary microclimate, as well as food production buildings - multi-story hydroponic farms and multi-story livestock farms (including multi-story poultry farms and fish farms).
Thus, the resident of the city is located between two rings containing the objects he most needs, and the speed of access to them is reduced to the maximum.
From all of the above, there is only one conclusion -
The cities of the future are cities with pre-planned infrastructure, built from scratch and entirely. And for such cities, the most ideal form is radial-annular.
Essay on Moscow studies
"The folding of the radial-circular layout of Moscow"
student 9 "D" class of school No. 1061
Demenkov Ilya.
Moscow. 1997
1. Introduction. Moscow layout.
2) History of folding rad.-col. Moscow plans:
a) Economic and geographical location of ancient Moscow and the Kremlin;
b) Kitay-gorod;
c) White City and Earthen City;
d) Kamer-Kollezhsky shaft;
e) District Railway;
3) Features of Moscow in connection with its planning.
4) Problems and Prospects.
Introduction.
One of the most important factors influencing the development of the capital Russian Federation, the city of Moscow is its layout - radial-circular or branched-fan. This layout is typical for ancient European cities and is a structure similar to that shown in Fig. one:
This layout is beneficial for settlements that simultaneously perform the role of a transport and industrial hub and a military tactical center, which were most of the ancient Russian cities, not excluding Moscow, with the only difference that Moscow performed more of a transport function, since it was originally located at the intersection several trade routes, and later itself became a major transport hub.
The radial-ring layout system is a synthesis of a radial layout ideal for transport nodes (Fig. 2) and a classic chain of fortifications (Fig. 3).
fig.2 fig.3
The undoubted advantages of the radial-ring layout include its compactness, the speed of intracity movement and unlimited growth opportunities in all directions. The main disadvantage of this layout is the inevitability of transport overload in the central part of the city.
Along with Moscow, such cities as Paris and Vienna are classic examples of radial-circular planning. It is less pronounced in Berlin and Brussels.
The current radial-circular layout took shape in Moscow far from immediately. How the structure of Moscow has developed over the centuries is described in the second paragraph.
History of folding radial-annular
Moscow plans.
The prerequisites for the formation of a radial-ring structure appeared in Moscow from the very beginning, from the moment the city was founded. The reason for this was that Moscow was founded at the intersection of several trade routes: Torzhok-Tver-Moscow-Ryazan, Uglich-Tver-Moscow-Kursk, etc. But in those days Moscow was not yet "round", that is, it did not have radial - ring layout: the Kremlin walls - from the first wooden ones to those erected by Ivan Kalita - looked like a triangle located on a cape between the Moscow and Neglinnaya rivers. A small trading town, as Moscow was then, has neither the opportunity nor the need to overcome any obstacles in the way of its growth, especially water ones.
On the contrary, the river gave protection better than many fortress walls, and it would be unreasonable to settle beyond its line. Even after the construction of solid stone walls that fixed the size of the Kremlin, the city continued to grow mainly to the east, where at the beginning of the 16th century, under Ivan Kalitite, the wall of Kitay-Gorod arose, which included the settlements that arose even during the first Kremlin walls.
But there came a moment when Moscow increased so much that first the small Neglinnaya, and then the large Moscow River, ceased to be an obstacle to its growth. Two new lines of city fortifications, erected in late XVI century, recorded a gradual rounding of the city's boundaries. The first line - the walls of the White City - resembled a strongly curved horseshoe, the ends of which rested on the Moscow River. The wall, which ran along the river, connected the ends of the horseshoe with the walls of the Kremlin and Kitai-gorod. In general, the White City was an almost complete ring. When its walls were broken a hundred and fifty years later, wide boulevards were laid out in the vacant place. what we now call the Boulevard Ring.
And the first completely closed ring around the city was formed by the walls of the Earthen City, which “stepped over” the Moscow River, embracing Zamoskvorechye. Now on the site of the walls of the Earthen City lies the famous Garden Ring.
The next ring of the "city fence" - the Kamer-Kollezhsky shaft - was built in the middle of the 18th century not for defensive purposes, but as the customs border of the city - the shaft limited the territory on which the alcohol monopoly of tax-farmers, who acquired the right of exclusive trade in alcohol within Moscow, operated. This "ring" about 37 km long was irregular shape. It receded especially far from the center to the northeast, where important and populous suburbs lay - Preobrazhenskoye and Lefortovo, and in the northwest and southwest it came close to the center, as if it had been "depressed".
Kamer-Kollezhsky Val actually became the border of the city, but the tsarist government did not recognize this for a long time. For example, in 1806, it was announced that the Moscow city police could manage within the entire Kamer-Kollezhsky Val, but at the same time, the Garden Ring was still considered the official city boundary. but each time it was rejected. The opportunity to establish new boundaries of the city appeared only in 1917.
By this time, another ring arose around Moscow - the District Railway. It was not intended for urban traffic and very poorly corresponded to the real boundaries of the city, but, nevertheless, it was recognized as the official border of Moscow. The ring road became a kind of feature that summed up the growth of the city for seven and a half centuries - until the October Revolution itself.
But six months later, the Duma was replaced by the Moscow Council, and it was forgotten for a long time within the boundaries of the city.
They remembered this issue only in the late 20s and early 30s.
And so, in 1935, a grandiose General Plan for the development and reconstruction of Moscow was developed. Similar Plans were created later - in 1971, for example - but they were rather a continuation of the thoughts set forth in the 1935 Master Plan. The plan was to identify promising directions for the development of the capital and prevent spontaneous, unorganized development. He proposed "preserving the historical layout of the city and simultaneously introducing new elements into it" - such as long straight avenues (mainly in the southern part of the capital) and large green areas. In accordance with the Plan, along the borders of the Kremlin and Kitay-gorod, a Central semicircle was laid, consisting of a chain of squares connected by wide avenues. Along the entire length, the Garden Ring was expanded and landscaped, and transport interchanges were built at the intersections with radial highways. Work began on the construction of the rings - the Third and Park. The full implementation of the Plan was prevented by the war, but some sections of the rings were built. Later, in the General Plan of 1971, the idea of unloading the Center from traffic flows was further developed. It seemed that the correction of the age-old shortcoming of the planning scheme of Moscow was not far off, but this did not happen. The laying of new streets among the existing buildings, the construction of numerous transport interchanges - tunnels, overpasses, bridges turned out to be a long and expensive matter. In addition, the implementation of the work ran into stubborn resistance from "zealots of antiquity" who denied any possibility of reconstructing old Moscow streets.
True, Moscow nevertheless received one new ring. It became the Moscow Ring Road (MKAD), built at the end of the 50s as a high-speed highway, all the suppressions of which were arranged on different levels. Initially, this 109-kilometer ring was intended only for passing transit vehicles around the city, but today its role for intracity traffic has greatly increased.
Moscow has long gone beyond the MKAD, but it served as the administrative border of Moscow for a quarter of a century.
Features of Moscow in connection with its layout.
Rings around Moscow different times were erected for different purposes: those built before the Kamer-Kollezhsky shaft were fortifications, after - attempts to unload the Center from transport. In general, the issue of traffic congestion in the central part of the city in cities with a radial-ring layout is very acute. For example, the center of Paris can handle 15,000 cars a day during rush hour. In Moscow, the situation is almost worse.
But Moscow also has pleasant features: for example, the radial-circular layout contributed to the architectural diversity of the capital. The Moscow metropolitan region is one of the most popular recreational areas in the world, and it owes this not to some individual sights, but to the layout of Moscow.
Moscow quickly overcame the only obstacles in its path - the Neglinnaya and Moskva rivers, so the advantages of the radial-circular layout were most fully manifested in it - you can quickly move around the city, which is especially noticeable when using the subway. By the way, the Moscow Metro is unique in its kind, its scheme is practically the only one that has such a pronounced radial-ring structure.
In general, the main feature of Moscow is that
that it most strongly expressed the features of the radial-circular layout.
Problems and Prospects.
The main problem of Moscow - the traffic congestion of the Center - is now close to being resolved. The Moscow Ring Road is expanding, and more and more Moscow motorists prefer it to intracity highways.
But there will never be too many problems. Moscow is growing and soon - in a dozen - another years - there will be a need to build a new ring around the city. However, this is not given enough importance: the newest Moscow territories, the so-called "emissions" outside the Moscow Ring Road, arise and grow almost spontaneously, growing in those directions in which Moscow is already "stretched" - in the northern and southern parts of the capital; they do not show any hint of a radial-annular layout. It is necessary to think about the next ring highway already now and develop "emissions" accordingly.
With the growth of Moscow and, accordingly, the complication of movement within the city, the role of the metro will have to increase. And there will come a time when one Ring metro line, approximately corresponding to the Garden Ring, will not be enough. The same situation is observed here as with "emissions" - they do not think about a new ring yet and build "branches" of the subway without taking into account the fact that soon - in 50-60 years - it will become necessary.
In general, after solving the problem of transport congestion of the Center, the main issue for the development of the capital of the Russian Federation, the city of Moscow, will be the planning of new urban areas.
List of used literature .
1) Moscow. Encyclopedia. 1980
"Soviet Encyclopedia", 1980
2) "Moscow. Man-City-Nature. Experimental textbook for senior classes.
Rogachev A.V. Bustard, 1994
The street and road network of the city is intended for the passage of traffic and pedestrian flows, the organization of drainage from the territory of the city, as well as the passage of engineering communications. The streets and roads of the city should be combined into a single rational scheme.
The main planning systems of urban street networks are radial, radial-ring, rectangular, rectangular-diagonal, triangular, combined and free.
Radial is not convenient to use. It is typical for some eastern cities. (fig.10)
BUT 
b
a - radial scheme of streets; b - plan of Samarkand
Rice. 10 Radial street map
The radial-ring scheme is typical for many old cities in Europe and Russia. (fig.11, 12)
a 
b
a - radial-annular scheme; b - plan of the center of Vienna
Fig.11. Radial-ring scheme of streets
Fig.12. Moscow is an example of a radial-ring scheme of streets.
Rectangular and rectangular-diagonal are found in Europe and other parts of the world, but they are especially characteristic of the United States. (Fig. 13, 14).
a 
b
a - rectangular scheme; b - rectangular-diagonal scheme
Fig.13. Rectangular and rectangular-diagonal street patterns
Fig.14. Philadelphia plan
The triangular scheme is typical for the central part of Paris. (Fig. 15a, 16)
a 
b 
in
a - triangular scheme; b - combined circuit; ... c - free circuit
Fig.15. City street plans
Fig.16. Plan of the center of Paris
An example of a combined layout is London in its central part, where radial-annular, rectangular and triangular layouts are combined. (Fig. 15b, 17).
Rice. 17. Plan of the center of London.
Free planning, sometimes called landscape, is characteristic of cities with unusual landscapes and small settlements. (Fig. 15c,18)
Rice. 18. Plan of Venice
The classification and main parameters of city streets and roads are fixed in SNiP 2.07.01-89⃰ Urban planning. Planning and development of urban and rural settlements. In a small town, the project of which is carried out during the course work, in most cases three types of streets are designed:
- main streets of city-wide significance of regulated traffic;
- main streets of regional significance;
- Residential streets.
It is necessary to develop a classification of city streets and give them names. Present the results in tabular form, indicating: street category, name, length, width and area (in square meters, measuring the length of the street according to the general plan in accordance with the scale of the drawing). (Fig. 19)
Rice. 19. The street-road network of the city in the residential area. Table
| № | Street category | Street name | By project | ||
| length | width | square | |||
| A. Main streets of citywide significance (regulated traffic) | Ivanova | ||||
| Petrova | |||||
| B Main streets of district significance (transport and pedestrian) | Sidorova | ||||
| B Streets and roads of local importance (in residential areas) | |||||
The transport network of the city should ensure the speed, comfort and safety of movement between the functional areas of the city and within them. The tasks of designing a transport system are subject to the requirements of functionality, environmental protection and landscape features. On the transport scheme a small town, it is necessary to locate a railway station and a bus station, as well as to ensure their convenient connection with all areas of the settlement. It is also necessary to ensure a reliable connection between residential areas and the industrial zone, providing additional connections in case one road fails.
AT term paper it is necessary to develop several (at least three) urban transport routes. Which would provide these main urban communications, as well as a convenient connection of residential areas with the urban center and recreational areas.