I really love our workshop, and I’m always glad when some of the participants stay on to work at the Institute. I see it as a mutually beneficial three-way exchange: students gain new experience working with real cases and real requests; the Institute gains new employees – usually enthusiastic and capable ones; and the local administration, which is the client in this case, represented by the leadership of the city of Kasimov, receives a wide range of fresh ideas.
Objectively speaking, these ideas are unlikely to be used as fully ready-made proposals, but that is precisely the nature of a student workshop – the freshness and diversity of suggestions. Some of them will always be more speculative, some closer to reality. But they can serve as a driver for further work and reflection, and I believe that is important.
Objectively speaking, these ideas are unlikely to be used as fully ready-made proposals, but that is precisely the nature of a student workshop – the freshness and diversity of suggestions. Some of them will always be more speculative, some closer to reality. But they can serve as a driver for further work and reflection, and I believe that is important.
The Genplan Institute of Moscow holds such internships annually and typically offers participants sites that are in some way connected to projects already being developed by its specialists – not the projects themselves, of course, but related contexts. Previous topics have included districts of Moscow and New Moscow, the lesser-known Chegdomyn, and Pyatigorsk.
Since 2025, the program has been called an urban planning workshop.
In the summer of 2025, all four groups worked on different tasks for the town of Kasimov. The town is relatively small – about 30,000 residents – but historically very rich. It was first mentioned during the time of Yuri Dolgoruky as Gorodets Meshchersky. In the 15th century, Vasily the Blind granted Nizovy Gorodets to the Tatar prince Kasim in return for military support. Around the relocated town in the 16th century, the Kasimov Khanate emerged – a Tatar and Muslim center within Russian lands, on the Oka River near Ryazan. In the center of present-day Kasimov, in the Tatar quarter, a 16th-century mosque and mausoleum have been preserved; on the outskirts stands a brick mausoleum from the 17th century. The Kasimov Khanate existed until 1681. Afterward, the town remained Russian-Tatar, like Kazan – a place where two religions and cultures coexist.
Genplan Institute of Moscow; student workshop, summer 2025, final presentations
Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
In our case, the topics for the workshop participants were set by the head of the Kasimov District administration, Ivan Bakhilov. According to his plan, while the town currently receives up to 100,000 tourists per year, this figure should reach 1 million by 2030. To add one “zero” – that is, to increase the flow tenfold – Institute experts argue that a railway connection to the town would be necessary. Nevertheless, other measures are also valuable, so one of the proposed ideas was relocating the bus station, which, as became clear during the presentation, is currently housed in the 19th-century Resurrection Church in the Yamskaya Sloboda and even operates as a private enterprise.
In the summer, workshop participants traveled to Kasimov for a hackathon, where they explored the town, met with representatives of the local administration, and developed their initial ideas.
The projects were not ranked by category, and all groups received diplomas in different nominations. An additional nomination, “City’s Choice”, became a kind of top award; two representatives of the Kasimov city administration were present at the final presentations.
Genplan Institute of Moscow; student workshop, summer 2025, final presentations
Copyright: Photograph © Julia Tarabarina, Archi.ru
Best Presentation & City’s Choice
Lenin Square
Lenin Square project
Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
Unlike many Russian towns where Lenin Square serves as the central and main public space, in Kasimov it is located near the center but somewhat aside, functioning primarily as a large parking area within the city’s transport framework.
The project authors, while preserving the square’s pedestrian character, proposed transforming it into a new public space for residents and a new “entry point” for tourists – in other words, a new city center.
-
![zooming]( "Lenin Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow")
Lenin Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
-
![zooming]( "Lenin Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow")
Lenin Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
A key strength of the proposal is that it does not involve radical changes to the functions of the surrounding buildings. Instead, it builds on the existing situation, introducing temporary pavilions. Even the parking function is retained, though relocated from the current wide southern section to the narrower northern part of the square; the southern side is reserved solely for tourist buses.
According to the project, the “zone of influence” of Lenin Square extends to two triangular plots on the opposite side of Lenin Street: the paved area in front of the diocesan building is proposed to be landscaped, while a children’s playground is to be arranged beneath several trees nearby.
All parts are unified by a “red thread” embedded in the paving – colored during the day and illuminated at night.
-
![zooming]( "Lenin Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow")
1 / 7Lenin Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
-
![zooming]( "Lenin Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow")
2 / 7Lenin Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
-
![zooming]( "Lenin Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow")
3 / 7Lenin Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
-
![zooming]( "Lenin Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow")
4 / 7Lenin Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
-
![zooming]( "Lenin Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow")
5 / 7Lenin Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
-
![zooming]( "Lenin Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow")
6 / 7Lenin Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
-
![zooming]( "Lenin Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow")
7 / 7Lenin Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
The theme of the “red thread” also ties together the design of the pavilions. Many details are presented thoroughly and elegantly, making the nomination well deserved. At the same time, one of the questions raised – how exactly the ice rink would be constructed – seems entirely justified, since a simple water-flooded rink is unlikely to be feasible, while a mechanically maintained one would require a substantial structural base.
Most Feasible Project / Walkable City
Lenin Square project
Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
The feasibility of the project is primarily determined by its relatively modest budget – 55.4 million rubles in total. However, this amount covers only street improvements. During the discussion, it became clear that the estimates did not include either the proposed stormwater drainage system or the pedestrian bridge across the ravine.
These shortcomings, however, are offset by the project’s second key feature – it is based on the idea of synergy, favored by the team leaders Anna Ivanova and Vitaly Lutz: cost-effective, targeted interventions that take existing plans into account and lead to significant changes in urban development by “connecting” different parts of the city, as well as various planning initiatives.
This project also makes it particularly easy to explore the city and its landmarks – it even creates a positive overall impression.
-
![zooming]( "Lenin Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow")
Lenin Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
-
![zooming]( "Lenin Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow")
Lenin Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
On closer inspection, the pedestrian route proposal seems to be the strongest – at least in terms of developing tourism. It is the only project that references the Strategic Development Plan for Kasimov, created by local activists. The same project also highlights the city’s large number of engaged residents as one of the key assets.
The plan itself is fascinating reading. For example, it notes that one of the city’s advantages is its many collectors who open their own museums. Indeed, a closer look at the map shows that the central area has almost as many museums as Pereslavl, indicating strong tourism potential. The document also reveals that riverboats do not stop in Kasimov due to pollution of the riverbed, which requires cleaning, and that there is no convenient access from the embankment to the river. It also mentions that residents are aware of the city’s littering problem and they even sometimes clean the ravines themselves. Whether this is still the case today is unclear, but around 2017 the issue was quite severe, with piles of garbage scattered all across the city.
Lenin Square project
Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
Returning to the project: the authors studied the master plan proposed by local activists – specifically the tourist routes identified for improvement – and developed their own routes, more efficient and less costly.
The result is two routes: a “hard” urban route with improvements, and a “soft” nature-oriented route. The city itself is not heavily landscaped, but it offers opportunities for walking in green areas.
-
![zooming]( "Lenin Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow")
1 / 6Lenin Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
-
![zooming]( "Tatar Sloboda and Victory Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow; student workshop, summer 2025")
2 / 6Tatar Sloboda and Victory Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow; student workshop, summer 2025
-
![zooming]( "Tatar Sloboda and Victory Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow; student workshop, summer 2025")
3 / 6Tatar Sloboda and Victory Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow; student workshop, summer 2025
-
![zooming]( "Walkable City project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow; student workshop, summer 2025")
4 / 6Walkable City projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow; student workshop, summer 2025
-
![zooming]( "Walkable City project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow; student workshop, summer 2025")
5 / 6Walkable City projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow; student workshop, summer 2025
-
![zooming]( "Walkable City project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow; student workshop, summer 2025")
6 / 6Walkable City projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow; student workshop, summer 2025
It might seem that the names should be reversed. However, in this case “hard” refers not to the effort required from tourists, but to the effort required from the city.
The proposal also includes a pedestrian bridge across a ravine – or even two branching ravines. In fact, such bridges could be highly beneficial for many Russian towns, where deep ravines are common. Examples include concrete pedestrian bridges built in Nizhny Novgorod in the 1980s, as well as – another fun fact – a bridge in Parfenyevo, Kostroma Region, constructed by local residents.
Lenin Square project
Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
Generally speaking, such “self-built” bridges, sometimes even suspended ones, are quite common in small towns, suggesting the need for a program to support local initiatives in their construction.
The overall concept reinforces the idea of synergy, proposing to begin with simple but visible interventions that can generate interest in the program, and only later move on to building bridges.
-
![zooming]( "Lenin Square project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow")
Lenin Square projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
-
![zooming]( "Walkable City project Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow")
Walkable City projectCopyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
The project lacked just one thing: a polished, contemporary visual presentation.
Most Thoroughly Developed Project / Bus Station
Bus Station project
Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
The project to relocate the bus station was perhaps the most discussed and, at the same time, the most expensive among those presented. It involves constructing a new station on the city’s main street, in the Cheremushki district, near the Kasimovsky Privoz shopping center. The district consists mainly of 2 and 5-story silicate brick buildings, along with brick garages. The relocation would free up the current bus station building – currently housed in a church – for use as a public center, while placing the new station along a direct axis between the bus station and the river port on the Oka River.
Although the project graphics were somewhat weak and inconsistent, the team went much further than others in terms of urban analysis: they presented numerous diagrams, explored four relocation scenarios, studied land-use boundaries for the selected site, and proposed a design for the new station. They also reconstructed the proposed silhouette of the Resurrection Church, presented a restoration concept, and even found and showed an existing restoration project – which, judging by the computer renderings, appears rather unsettling.
The jury appreciated the project’s level of detail, although the idea of relocating the bus station to Cheremushki did not receive support: “...the authors first demonstrated that all advantages are concentrated in the center, and then moved the station to the outskirts”. Timur Bashkaev – who in recent years has designed more stations and transport hubs than almost anyone – was also critical of the students’ proposed station building.
The Most Creative Idea / Tatar Quarter and Victory Square
Tatar Sloboda project
Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
If the bus station relocation project mentioned above required 650 million rubles, the largest team’s proposal – developed by ten participants – did not address the financial aspect at all. Judging by its scope, however, it could turn out to be even more expensive.
The authors focused on a city area that can be considered culturally central to Kasimov—the Tatar Sloboda and the adjacent Victory Square, which local residents themselves describe as “neglected”.
This is the most extensive and densely developed project. In the courtyard of the mosque, the authors proposed a “Tatar Garden”, while Victory Square – more precisely, Victory Park – was completely reimagined. The idea of memorial lighting fixtures, or “candles”, designed to illuminate what is currently a dark and gloomy park in the evenings, seems compelling. However, the dismissal of modernist mosaic steles as “funereal” speaks for itself. Nearly all surrounding buildings are also reprogrammed – albeit with restoration conditions – into a youth center, an art cluster, a sports courtyard, and a hotel. If implemented, this would result in a large – indeed, very large – public center, including museums, coworking spaces, retail, and more. In principle, such a scenario is possible, but it raises an important question: what would remain of the “spirit of place” of the Tatar Quarter itself? After all, it contains two heritage monuments – one built in 1555, the other dating back at least to the 15th century. Even in Kazan, such a concentration of early Tatar heritage is not easy to find.
Thus, although it is clear that significant effort was invested by all ten participants, the project appears somewhat overambitious, overloaded, and imposed on its context. For that reason, it ranks last on my list.
Nevertheless, the workshop projects offer more than enough material for rethinking the heritage and urban development of Kasimov. In terms of tourism, the “Walkable City” project seems the most promising, while “Lenin Square” appears the most thoroughly developed. However, the issues raised by the local community seem even deeper and more compelling: a river port where boats cannot dock due to pollution of the riverbed – seriously? If the goal is to attract one million tourists per year, cleaning the river is absolutely essential.
Genplan Institute of Moscow; student workshop, summer 2025, final presentations
Copyright: courtesy of Genplan Institute of Moscow
Jury of the student workshop projects:
Tatiana Guk, Director of the Genplan Institute of Moscow
Alexander Kopnev, Deputy Head of the Kasimov Municipal District Administration for Territorial Development
Irina Grishina, Head of the Yasenevo Municipal District of Moscow
Timur Bashkaev, architect, head of ABTB
Sergey Klychkov, Head of the Historical and Cultural Research Sector at Genplan Institute of Moscow
Yulia Tarabarina, Editor-in-Chief of Archi.ru
