An interesting initiative, to say the least! Typically, architectural competitions focus on specific tasks, sites, or projects – or, conversely, delve into terminally abstract concepts. Urban research, however, is usually commissioned rather than treated as a competitive exercise. This time, after a preliminary portfolio and motivation letter review, five participants were selected to work for a symbolic fee, later divided as prize money based on rankings (from 750 000 to 250 000 rubles). Since each nomination was handled by a single participant, the competition format fell somewhere between a commissioned project and a closed-door competition.
Secondly, what does a competition for research projects entail when it comes to judging? Evaluating such work is no easy task: research quality depends on the scope of data analyzed, the depth of its interpretation, methodological nuances, and practical applicability, among other factors. How can all this be weighed simultaneously? It’s no surprise that the organizers framed the competition’s goal as “raising public awareness about urban development challenges and opportunities”. While this wording sounds quite vague, to put it mildly, I would argue the primary aim was itself an experiment – a kind of “meta-research”: testing the capacity of teams willing to tackle the outlined challenges, exploring various methodologies, assessing the time required for thorough investigation, and, most importantly, pushing boundaries beyond habitual urban planning routines. For all intents and purposes, the concept was to take familiar topics, mix them together, give them a good shake, and see what innovative ideas might emerge.
It is important to note that this was the first time the Genplan Institute of Moscow organized such a competition, embracing innovative initiatives.
“The first experience was undoubtedly a success” says the institute’s director, Tatyana Guk, “I can’t say that everything we saw during the judging process will immediately find practical application, but some ideas are definitely worth considering. There are some very viable approaches”.
Judging, it turned out, was not as challenging as we thought it would be. One project, by unanimous agreement, stood head and shoulders above the rest in terms of detail and originality.
1st place:
A catalogue of residential environments
Modern approaches to the spatial organization of residential areas
Curators: Vitaly Lutz, Olga Blagodeteleva
Team: A. Danilchenko, D. Medvedev, D. Pereyaslavtsev, V. Pomogaev, B. Savkin, A. Siraeva, S. Skotnikov, U. Suleymanova, A. Tolmachev
The winning team was large, enthusiastic, and impressively coherent. According to the participants, most of them met while studying at HSE University, and they came together specifically for this project but plan to collaborate further in the future.
Proceeding from the stated task – “Developing architectural and urban planning approaches to creating a comfortable urban environment” – I somehow anticipated vague discussions about green spaces and park benches.
In reality, however, the team, under the guidance of the Department of Prospective Studies led by Vitaly Lutz, created an original catalogue of residential complex “archetypes”. They introduced a new methodology that appears to combine two essential perspectives: architectural/urbanistic and market-oriented. As they explained, “Classes fail to reflect morphological diversity, while morphotypes overlook product variety”. It’s akin to layering two grids – and possibly three, incorporating perspectives from officials and regulatory bodies as well. This approach made their results not only substantial in volume (100 pages of presentation material) but also multi-dimensional. The research addresses three distinct audiences: (1) administrators – for decision-making and policy development, (2) residents – to assess and meet community needs, (3) designers – including architects and developers, to guide future projects.
It is important to note that each survay has a practical purpose, which is crucial for the future application of its findings. The Catalogue of Residential Environments is an analysis of extensive data on housing construction over the past five years. The result offers not only a wealth of information about existing housing morphotypes and popular architectural solutions but, most importantly, a clear understanding of residents’ preferences regarding their living environment. Together, this data forms a ready-to-use tool for designers, which can be immediately applied in practice.
One thing is clear: this is the kind of study that invites further exploration. It gives you the sense that you’re uncovering insights about both market dynamics and emerging trends. The conceptual framework proposed by the team is noteworthy in its own right.
The participants developed a survey matrix, identified 94 parameters for evaluation, analyzed 23 residential complexes, and defined seven housing archetypes for Moscow from 2019 onward. They noted that while the matrix itself remains stable, the archetypes seem to evolve almost in real-time. The authors also referenced international examples, contrasting practices in the Netherlands and Uzbekistan, and included insights from Russian regions. Their work culminated in 11 pages summarizing residential market trends.
The seven archetypes are:
- City within a City
- City Outside the City
- Universal Residential Complexes
- Urban Oases
- Residential Skyscrapers
- Business Residences
- Premium Residential Complexes
The authors cited an impressive range of previous studies, highlighting as a close comparison a project by KB Strelka on urban renewal (commissioned by DOM.RF). They also outlined plans for the future, presenting the research in a more user-friendly format, such as a landing page for potential buyers, conducting a survey of at least 1 500 residents to ensure a representative sample, and avoiding unnecessary tools, like a mobile app, which they deemed excessive. They drew a careful comparison between the American form-based code and Moscow’s land use and development rules, describing the latter as more dynamic and flexible – neither approach being inherently superior. This measured perspective speaks to the authors’ clear understanding of their work and its broader context. The team’s potential is undeniable, and the Genplan Institute of Moscow may well seek to collaborate with them again in the future.
As for the title, the competition’s nomination originally included the term “living environment,” but the study honed this to the more specific “residential environment”. It’s rare to see a shift toward greater precision in such cases – usually, it’s the opposite.
The research results are available online as an XLS spreadsheet. Notably, the Matrix and Catalogue are located on separate tabs within the same file.
Yury Sheredega, architect, partner and co-founder of the Sheredega Consulting project consulting bureau.
In the context of the urban development boom we are witnessing, it is essential to support not only the creative but also the scientific aspects of urban planning projects. Unfortunately, examples of post-project studies are exceedingly rare. However, reflecting on existing experiences provides valuable insights into how our projects influence the urban environment after their implementation. Experimental research can yield both positive and negative results, helping us assess the current state of affairs and chart a course for future progress.
2nd Place
City within a city
Local community centers in the peripheral areas of the city
Curator: Dmitry Nekrasov, Head of the Department of Strategic Planning and Urban Development Economics at the Genplan Institute of Moscow.
Authors and leads: Sergey Georgievsky, Ketevan Khelaya, Olga Gritsan, Maria Sedletskaya.
Team members: Territorial Planning – Alexandra Yaderskaya, Yulia Vedenina; Architecture – Yana Ness; GIS Analytics – Sergey Biryukov; Economics – Timur Baychurin; Sociocultural Programming – Andrey Vashchuk; Sociology – Pavel Stepantsov, Yulia Stepantsova, Ekaterina Sakharova, Yana Kruglik, Anastasia Kuznetsova; Materials Design – Denis Dmitrienko, Grigory Guslitskov.
The second team was significantly larger, consisting of 17 members compared to the 11 of the “Collective of 12”, including curators. The professional expertise of the Agency “Center” is beyond doubt, making their selection as participants a seemingly foolproof decision. Their urban research methods and principles are well-honed.
The survey begins with an extensive definition of Moscow’s periphery as such. To “find” the periphery, the authors identify six city-level centers: in addition to the Kremlin, these include the Moscow International Business Center (MIBC or “Moscow City”), VDNKh, Serp i Molot (likely referring to the residential complex “Symbol”), ZIL, the upcoming Shagal residential complex in Nagatino, and the Southern Port, which is currently more of a planned center than a reality. This initial exploration shows that Moscow already has so-called “polycenters”. From here, the study narrows its focus using purchasing activity data, particularly billing transaction concentrations. Out of 11 identified territories, the authors select two “model” areas for detailed analysis. These areas are chosen for their relative distance from established centers and their “semi-enclave” status, indicating varying degrees of isolation from the city.
In the south, the selected area is East Biryulyovo; in the north, it is the Lianozovo-Bibirevo-Altufyevo cluster.
The authors conducted on-site filming and interviewed local residents.
Conclusions: the more isolated an area is, the less successful and more dismal it becomes. The situation in Biryulyovo is notably worse than in Bibirevo. Biryulyovo, being a more isolated district, suffers acutely from the lack of a metro station – a long-awaited development hindered by a mysterious underground route. It is unlikely that the ongoing construction of the “Meeting Place” complex on the site of the former Chkalov plant will solve this issue. Unsurprisingly, the study reaffirmed a familiar fact: public centers in remote districts are largely limited to shopping malls, residential complexes, fitness centers, and children’s creativity hubs – with little progress beyond that.
A striking observation was made by Olga Gritsan, Head of the Analytics Department at the Strategic Development Agency “CENTER”: “I live in the Moscow Region town of Ramenskoye and was unpleasantly surprised to find that public spaces in Biryulyovo are less developed than those in the Moscow suburbs.” On the other hand, Bibirevo’s “Park of Light” was vandalized.
Conclusions and recommendations under the caption “Local Centers: Formula for Success” occupy about a fifth of the study, presented in the form of diagrams and tables of potential resident demands.
The authors even make an attempt to scale their findings to other cities, using Pskov and Vyazma as examples.
The research appears extensive and detailed, featuring quotes, diagrams, lists, and statistics. It also incorporates positive, modern approaches tested in central areas of the city: transitioning from mono- to multifunctionality, promoting resident engagement, ensuring 15-minute accessibility, and considering various aspects of “centrality”, from economic to cultural. Attention is also given to residents’ concerns about citywide improvements potentially erasing local identity and personal connections to their neighborhoods.
Nevertheless, the emergence of new public centers on the periphery does not paint a particularly bright picture. Footage reveals that the only example of contemporary architecture in this context comes from cultural centers in the “39 Cinemas” program. These are clean and appealing but predominantly function as shopping malls – firstly – and, secondly, they are all uniform or visually similar, giving the impression of a standardized design. However, perhaps this is only the beginning of a longer journey.
Kirill Puzanov, Academic Supervisor of the Master′s Program Digital Urbanism and City Analytics at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE).
Competitions that challenge us with new questions play a key role in advancing both science and practice. We should welcome such initiatives and hope that scientific research will once again become the starting point for future projects. It is crucial that the outcomes of these competitions do not go unnoticed: they must be shared with a wider audience and the expert community to spark new discussions and raise pressing issues.
3rd Place
What do you need a car for?
A study of the motivations behind car ownership
Curator: Natalia Karmadonova, Head of the Transport Systems Planning Workshop
Participants: Anastasia Pirotskaya, Ksenia Radygina, Ekaterina Nichaeva, Daria Pudovkina, Ekaterina Tsimbota
To be quite honest, as a car owner myself, I found the topic somewhat predetermined in its conclusions. You know how questions like “why” or “for what purpose” are often framed to lead you toward a desired answer? In this case, it feels like the underlying message is that cars are unnecessary, that cars are evil, yet some irrational city dwellers continue to hold onto them for purely egoistic reasons. According to the authors, there are about 4 million cars in Moscow – or 5 million if you count commuters from the suburbs. That’s too many, they say... From a driver’s perspective, this framing can feel biased, as if the next step might involve efforts to reduce car usage – like raising parking fees, for example. Parking in Moscow’s Kitay-Gorod area in the center of the city already costs 600 rubles per hour.
So! The research team from CIAN split their study into two parts: qualitative and quantitative. The first included personal experiences and 12 in-depth interviews, while the second involved surveys of CIAN’s service users, with approximately 1000 responses collected. I share the jury’s sentiment that this sample size is insufficient; it seems the team relied too heavily on the internal capabilities of their own system.
After presenting several tables to confirm some basic intuitions – that driving is more comfortable, especially with children, for shopping, and when heading out of the city...
The authors cometo a simple conclusion:
People use their own cars for commuting to work or school, shopping, and with children. Choosing public transport, on the other hand, is a rational decision to avoid traffic jams and calculate routes more efficiently. However, improvements in the frequency and comfort of public transportation in recent years also play a role. Still, for emotional reasons, people are more likely to choose scooters and bicycles. All of this is true and aligns with personal intuitions – at least mine. This leads to the question: why conduct a study just to confirm what is already obvious?
Probably anticipating the intuitive nature of their conclusions, the authors accompanied their presentation with a small “mise en scène” featuring two characters: a woman with children and a man without, which brought some liveliness to the expert defense session.
4th place
“Light in the window”
Determining the Vacancy of Residential Housing
Curator: Grigory Yushin, Head of Data Analytics for Territorial Planning; Denis Murataev
Participants: Team “Urban Helper”: Pavel Semin, Tatyana Baltyzhakova, Yulia Rodikova, Valeria Palich, Vyacheslav Ivanis, Ulyana Zudilova, Yesilzaveta Evrasova
The project was presented by Yulia Rodikova, who introduced herself as the leader, occasionally communicating via video link with some mysterious Pasha, whom she referred to as the author of the algorithm.
UPD 25.11.2024: Some project authors like to request revisions after their text is published. “Urban Helper” is one of these teams. For example, Yulia Rodikova asked us to correct the text several times, such as: “It would also be polite for you to refer to the author not as “Pasha”, as I called my AI during the presentation, but as Pavel Semin, as he is listed among the authors”. We are correcting that. The algorithm’s author is evidently Pavel Semin. However, what “my AI” refers to remains a mystery to this day. Was it named after the algorithm’s author? The questions seem to multiply.
After providing examples of similar foreign studies and evaluating their applicability...
The authors chose an analysis method based on the type of balconies, focused on the most common panel building series I-515, and then: they took panoramic shots from Yandex, marked them, made assumptions about the occupancy of the apartment, and classified the images – all manually. They did, however, use a pre-trained model called Segment Anything. Information about the model is provided here. The link to its description and code, however, is no longer valid. UPD 25.11.2024: Yulia Rodikova, again, sent us a link that she described as valid. Here it is.
Next, the authors discuss their methodology for determining the vacancy of apartments, highlighting the use of open data and the relative simplicity of the calculations as its advantages. Without pretending to fully understand the reasoning behind Moran’s index, which underlies spatial autocorrelation and allows the authors to bring together several assumptions, I’ll just note that the link to the code for their methodology works, and here it is.
The maps and analytics are available here. It’s quite interesting to review them, for example, it shows that Kommunarka leads in apartment vacancy, and that vacancy increases progressively to the southwest.
I still cherish hope that the data presented is indeed justified. However, it is hard to rely on its absolute accuracy, especially since the explanation of the methodology can hardly be described as clear. Additionally, and this is just my subjective opinion, it seems unlikely that apartment occupancy can be accurately determined through open sources without resorting to data from housing utilities or mobile phones. Another statement from the authors that remains unclear to me is their claim that the analysis method based on lighting is considered unpromising.
***
Clearly, the competition is not trivial, and the tasks are far from simple. Some of them may not have a definitive solution under current conditions or may require considerable time and effort. Nonetheless, it is impressive that four teams managed, in varying degrees of detail, to address their tasks and respond to questions. The complexity is illustrated by the fact that the fifth team dropped out of the competition.
The jury of the “Explore the City” competition:
Yulianna Knyazhevskaya – Chair of the Jury, Chair of Moskomarkhitecture
Sergey Kuznetsov – Chief Architect of Moscow
Sergey Kostin – Deputy Chair of the Moscow Chamber of Architects
Tatyana Guk – Director of the Genplan Institute of Moscow
Igor Bakhiyev – Deputy Director of the Genplan Institute of Moscow
Grigory Mustafin – Chief Architect of the Genplan Institute of Moscow
Tatyana Polidi – Vice President of the “Institute of the Economy of the City” Foundation
Yuri Sheredega – Architect, Partner and Co-Founder of Sheredega Consulting Design and Consulting Bureau
Kirill Puzanov – Scientific Supervisor of the Master’s Program in “Digital Urbanism and City Analytics” at HSE University
Ivan Dementyev – Deputy Director of the Moscow Transport Museum for Research and Development
Kirill Zhanydarov – Director of the Transport Department of the Skolkovo Foundation
Yulia Tarabarina – Editor-in-Chief of ARCHI.RU
Timur Bashkaev – Architect, Head of the ABTB LLC
Dmitry Sukhov – Creative Director of Genpro