Planning structure of populated areas. Abstract types of urban planning structures Radial city planning

General plans of cities

As mentioned above, a complete and decisive transition to regular planning and development of Russian cities occurred in the time of Peter the Great. A clear example of regular urban construction was provided by the Lefortovo Sloboda near Moscow, where for the first time in Moscow, rectilinear streets with one-story and two-story houses appeared on the borders of blocks. Strict street perspectives, an abundance of greenery in the front gardens and along the sides of drainage ditches, simple but not devoid of good lattice designs and, finally, the open location of the house - all this sharply distinguished Peter’s new residence from the old districts of Moscow. But Lefortovo Sloboda was only a private phenomenon in Russia, and Russian city planners had to go a long way in order to creatively master the regular layout of the entire city as a single architectural organism.

In this regard, St. Petersburg played a decisive role, becoming first a “laboratory” and then the “main headquarters” of all planning work in the Russian Empire.

The construction of St. Petersburg, which began under Peter I in 1703, was initially carried out without a previously drawn up project for the planning and development of the entire city. Nevertheless, the foundations of the general plan in nature were laid extremely successfully.

The work began with the selection of the territory for the main city buildings, which predetermined the topography of the city center. These structures were the Peter and Paul Fortress and the Admiralty Shipyard. By locating the city center at the bifurcation of the Neva, the builders received a starting point for the entire layout of St. Petersburg.

After this, work began on strengthening the banks and partial construction of wooden embankments of the Neva, Fontanka and Moika, and since the Fontanka and Moika formed natural semicircles, the first ring highways along these rivers immediately appeared in St. Petersburg. In 1712-1715 The main radial streets were outlined - Nevsky and Voznesensky Prospekts, which successfully crossed the Fontanka and Moika and together with them formed a fan plan on the continental side of Peter the Great's capital.

Later (around 1717), in order to drain the swamps on Vasilyevsky Island, a system of straight canals intersecting at right angles was dug. And, therefore, already in the time of Peter the Great in Russia, two planning systems were used - rectangular and radial-ring in strictly regular terms.

It should be noted that simultaneously with St. Petersburg and even somewhat ahead of it, all Peter the Great’s fortified cities without exception received rectangular and radial regular plans. For example, in the Trinity Fortress (Taganrog) a system of three radial streets was used, converging towards the sea; Azov (on the territory of the citadel) and Novopavlovsk (in the suburb) had a rectangular street network, etc. Such a rapid and widespread spread of regular planning systems was ultimately explained by their practical advantages, namely: ease of communication and clarity of orientation in the city, simplicity layout of the city's general plan on site, the convenience of plots cut for development, and, finally, a whole range of artistic merits.

The planning project for St. Petersburg, drawn up by Leblon in the spirit of regular fortified cities of the Renaissance, was not implemented, due to which the planning development of the new capital continued in the post-Petrine era in the same, previously planned direction. In the 30s of the XVIII century. The commission of buildings, headed by Eropkin, Korobov and Zemtsov, implemented new radial and ring highways, namely: Gorokhovaya Street (designated under Peter), Bolshaya Morskaya Street, Mezhdunarodny Prospekt, Zagorodny Prospekt and a huge semi-circle of Sadovye streets, laid parallel to the Fontanka . The listed streets (as well as a number of other minor streets) were organically included in the planning system of St. Petersburg, strengthening and decorating it.

The origin of the radial highways of St. Petersburg is usually explained by the influence of Western European planning compositions, dating back to the radial highways of Versailles and Rome. However, it is not difficult to prove the uniqueness of the St. Petersburg planning system.

Us. 384 the radial streets of Baroque Rome, Versailles and St. Petersburg are compared on a general scale. A comparison of these radial systems makes it possible to draw the following conclusions: if in Rome and Versailles the radial systems have symmetry, in which the middle street becomes the main one, then in St. Petersburg there is no such symmetry. On the contrary, the lateral, obliquely directed Nevsky Prospekt plays a decisive role in the St. Petersburg radial composition. And this direction of the main highway fully justifies itself, because the complexes surrounding the Admiralty, like the entire center of St. Petersburg, do not have symmetry.

Further, the radial streets of Baroque Rome form such a narrow bundle of highways that an observer standing at the obelisk perceives them as a general picture. But the wide-ranging St. Petersburg avenues make it impossible to see them as a whole. In St. Petersburg, the beam system is designed for the exact opposite optical effect: if in Rome the streets lead from the planning node, then in St. Petersburg they lead to the planning node. The magnificent Admiralty Tower, crowned with a sparkling needle, is an optical “target” for three St. Petersburg avenues and produces an incomparably stronger impression than a Roman obelisk or the deserted court of honor of the Palace of Versailles. The very fixation of the starting point of the three radial avenues with a tower is a Russian innovation, first used in St. Petersburg. The wide fan of St. Petersburg avenues finds full justification in the composition of the master plan of St. Petersburg, since these avenues cut right through the left bank territory of the city and firmly hold the ring highways in the most significant places, namely at the inflection points of the Fontanka and Moika. The radial highways of St. Petersburg are extremely convenient in terms of transport, as evidenced by the further development of these avenues.

Thus, the radial planning system of St. Petersburg, only at the most superficial examination, may seem like a variant of the Versailles or Roman system. In fact, it is an independent and living solution, entirely owned by the Russian urban planning genius.

Since the planning of provincial cities was carried out in St. Petersburg, by the hands of St. Petersburg architects, who had recently drawn up the plan for the capital, since it was natural to transfer St. Petersburg techniques to the provinces.

Thus, a radial system in the form of three rectilinear streets converging to a common planning node appears in the layout of Tver, Vasilsursk and Odoev; other cities, which include Kostroma, Poshekhonye and Lyubim, receive fan plans with many radial streets intersected by rings, and, finally, a large number of cities are reconstructed according to a rectilinear planning system, dating back to the layout of Vasilievsky Island.

Undoubtedly, we find an outstanding radial master plan in Tver. Being a Volga city, Tver has always had commercial importance, and the construction of the great St. Petersburg road strengthened it economically, turning it into a key transit point between St. Petersburg and Moscow. In the 1760s, Catherine II ordered the construction of a Travel Palace in Tver for stops of the royal family. The construction of the palace was entrusted to Kazakov, who partially used for it the remains of the old bishop's house, which survived the fire of 1763. At the same time, under the general leadership of Nikitin, a general plan of the city was drawn up.

In the 18th century Tver still retained its central core, which was the Kremlin, surrounded by earthen bastions. In the Kremlin there was a five-domed Spasopreobrazhensky Cathedral, in front of which stood a three-tiered bell tower. The location for the Traveling Palace was also chosen adjacent to the cathedral, as a result of which a large complex of public buildings, contrasting in shape and very picturesque in their silhouette, was formed in the very center of Tver. The new master plan of Tver was tied to this complex, as the center of the composition of the entire city. Unlike the St. Petersburg radial highways, the three main streets of Tver form a symmetrical composition. The central, Millionnaya street is directed directly towards the bell tower, while the side streets do not have closing verticals. The angle between the outer radial streets (Kosa Novgorodskaya and Kosaya Novotorzhskaya) is 30°, which corresponds to the optical capabilities of the human eye. Therefore, from the semicircular square located at the starting point of the radial highways, the three streets were visible in the overall picture.

In addition to the general plan, the development of Tver, executed in the forms of early Cossack classicism, was of great interest.

Tver was interpreted as a city of strict lines and strict heights. On the streets there were two-story residential buildings with intervals covered with bars, and in the squares there were large “official” buildings with unchanged pediments, pilasters or columned porticos. This gave the squares greater strength and sonority. Unfortunately, Tver subsequently lost its cathedral and excellent bell tower, as a result of which the central radial highway lost its purpose.

The city of Odoev received an interesting plan using three radiating streets in Catherine’s time. But such beam plans were still a relatively rare occurrence. Much more often, cities received radial-ring and fan plans with five, seven and nine straight streets converging on a city-wide planning center. It goes without saying that with such a large number of radial streets it was necessary to solve the problem of compositional diversity with exceptional clarity. In order to achieve diversity, as well as to improve the orientation of spectators, architects vary the width of streets, decorate them with squares in different ways and close street perspectives in different ways. As a general rule, one of the streets stands out and turns into the main radial avenue, and if the plan is symmetrical, into the compositional axis of the entire city. We find a similar street in the miniature Bogoroditsk, and in such a relatively large city as Kostroma.

The rule of building towers at the ends of rectangular streets took root under Peter. A huge tower with an expressive silhouette can serve as an excellent “target” not only for one, but also for two and three streets, of which the Admiralty Spire provides brilliant proof. However, with an increase in the number of radial streets, the architectural effect of any, even the most impeccable tower, inevitably decreases, because the repeated appearance of the tower in the street openings does not bring new impressions. That is why, when choosing a fan planning system for the city, Russian architects did not reduce it to one closing vertical; on the contrary, they tied the fan plan to a large and complex complex of buildings and, most often, to a kremlin or monastery. Since the Kremlin in most cases occupied the middle of the city territory, the new fan plan easily overlapped with the historically established radial planning system. At the same time, the city acquired a powerful and rich center, and the streets were oriented towards different towers, thereby achieving a variety of street perspectives. These are the master plans of Tula, Novgorod, Rostov-Yaroslavl and other cities, the centers of which were the Kremlins. Of course, fan plans almost always failed if the city center was interpreted as a vast area without vertical lines. The only exception to this rule is, perhaps, Bogoroditsk ( Bogoroditsk is a city of the former Tula governorate (now Tula region) on the river. Remain stubborn. It arose in the 70s of the 18th century. in connection with the construction of Catherine’s country residence, which subsequently passed to Count Bobrinsky. The project of the palace and park was developed by I. E. Starov and implemented by his assistant F. I. Volkov. Of interest is Catherine II’s letter to Voltaire, written under the impression of the layout of the Tsarskoye Selo and Bogoroditsky parks. In it, the Empress expresses her sympathy for irregular landscape parks, which became widespread at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. (see article: Makarov V.V. Andrei Bolotov and garden art in Russia in the 18th century. - In the magazine: "Among Collectors", 1924, No. 5, 6)), where the entire city, together with the central square, faced a wide water mirror and a huge park, among which stood the palace of Catherine II.

Rectangular planning systems began to be used in the second half of the 18th century, but they became especially widespread in the 20s and 30s of the 19th century. We find rectangular plans in a geometrically pure form in Ostashkovo, Bogoroditsk, Bronpitsy, Kholmogory, Rostov-on-Don and a number of other cities. However, when solving the city plan in the form of a system of mutually perpendicular streets, the architects interpreted one or two of them as the main planning axes. Voskresensk provides a successful example of such a cladding composition.

On the main streets (always the widest) there were boulevards; squares were located on them, churches and the most significant residential and public buildings were built. If the city lay near the river, then the main street was stretched along the shore, making exits from it towards the coast. Coastal cities, represented by Ekaterinoslav, Mariupol and Arkhangelsk, as a rule, received extended plans, which made it easier to serve the city by the river, but if the city was located far from the river or sea on a relatively flat area, then the urban plan spot became compact with approximately equal planning axes .

The architects of Russian classicism never used the rectangular system in its geometrically correct form in the planning of large cities. They understood well that the layout of a large city differs sharply from the layout of small towns. And if a rectangular plan is possible in urban planning miniature, then in a large city it causes a dull monotony, which is not redeemed even by first-class buildings. Large cities such as Odessa, Poltava, Yaroslavl or Chernigov combined elements of one or another planning system. Odessa is especially interesting in this regard.

The general plan of Odessa, begun in 1794 and completed in 1814 under the mayor of Richelieu, is a combination of two rectangular street networks connected at an angle of 45°. This “turn” in the street system, justified in terms of transport connections, imparts closure to many streets, while a number of other highways have an open perspective with a blue stripe of the sea horizon. Against the background of the city plan, three parallel main highways are highlighted: Pushkinskaya, leading to the beginning of the seaside Nikolaevsky Boulevard, Ekaterininskaya, which has a closed perspective before exiting to the Richelieu monument, and Aleksandrovskaya, on which a boulevard and two excellent market squares are laid out. Skillfully placed few vertical spaces, an abundance of greenery and, finally, a high level of improvement and development have made Odessa one of the most beautiful cities in the Black Sea region. The misconception has not yet been eradicated that the planning of cities carried out by the Betsky commission was supposedly carried out without taking into account historically established plans, as a result of which the cities became depersonalized and significantly lost in their picturesqueness.

It is impossible to evaluate all master plans of cities of the 18th and especially the first half of the 19th century, without exception, as unconditionally successful, because many of them fell into the hands of mediocre planners - those “experienced” officials of the Buildings Commission who did not possess planning skills. However, what was done by real architects reveals not only the ability to solve utilitarian problems, but also a deep understanding of the problem of continuity, without which the reconstruction of cities is unthinkable. To see this, consider the plan of Yaroslavl.

Us. 393 combines the general plan of Yaroslavl before its reconstruction with the implemented plan. From a comparison of these plans, it becomes clear how much the architects who designed Yaroslavl had a lively, innovative thought and how carefully they treated the existing architectural monuments, as well as the successful places of the old general plan of the city. The center of Yaroslavl, which is a system of public squares, was created from beginning to end under the influence of the St. Petersburg center.

But this new and unexpected composition for Yaroslavl was perfectly tied to the existing monuments. The Church of Elijah the Prophet, located in the middle of the city territory, served as the beginning of the city's planning composition. From its two towers in the direction of the Spassky Monastery and the ancient city gates, two radial streets were laid, and in the direction of the cathedral a very long parade ground was laid out with a round square on the arrow itself. It should be noted that the direction and dimensions of the bridgehead were chosen in such a way as to stretch the system of squares along the Volga and at the same time include as many architectural monuments as possible in the perimeter development. And if previously the picturesque Yaroslavl churches were lost in the dead ends and alleys of the old city, now, having found themselves on the borders of a huge square, they received visibility and great significance, and only very little had to be added to them in order to obtain a continuous chain of ensembles. The architectural forms of Russian classicism have always been well combined with the forms of ancient Russian architecture. Therefore, new buildings were used as a bonding agent. For all its significance, the house of the provincial government offices, and the building standing symmetrically to it, and even the lyceum building only framed the square and shaded the old church buildings, which had indisputable superiority.

The layout of the blocks and streets around the Yaroslavl center is no less indicative. Here every well-laid old street suggested the direction of a new one, and churches and other prominent buildings were beautifully placed. The place of the old city wall was taken (without retreating from its arc outline) by a large boulevard, and two-tier embankments with huge earthen slopes were laid along the Volga along the old coastal passage. Thus, the master plan for Yaroslavl demonstrates a combination of decisive planning actions with careful and thoughtful redevelopment of the city. Can we then say that Russian architects of the 18th and early 19th centuries? did not take into account the natural topography and artistic heritage of ancient cities?

Abstract on the topic
"Types of urban planning structures"

Developed Art. gr. GSH 1-10
Frolova S.V.
Checked by Zurabova I.V.

Volgograd 2013
Introduction
1.Radial structure of the city 6 pages
2.Radial-ring structure of the city page 9
3. Fan structure of the city 12 pages
4. Rectangular city structure 14 pages
5.Linear structure of the city 16 pages
6. Combined city structure 18 pages
Conclusion 21 pages
List of used literature 22 pages

2-
Introduction
A city is a territory that differs from the surrounding countryside in its high population density, compact development and complex architectural and planning structure.
A city is a living environment created by man, necessary for his diverse activities.
Modern cities are divided into:
- small (up to 50 thousand inhabitants), for example Dubovka;
-medium (50-100 thousand) – Mikhailovka;
-large (100-250 thousand) – Volzhsky;
-large (250-500 thousand) – Tambov;
- the largest (500 thousand - 1 million) - Volgograd;
- millionaire cities (over 1 million inhabitants).
In the 1980s, there were about 220 millionaire cities in the world.
Many large cities have satellite cities. Often cities and satellite cities combine to form agglomerations, which can be combined into megalopolises.
Classification of urban settlements can be carried out on many grounds, the main of which are size (population) and functions. Moreover, in each urban settlement there are city-serving functions (types of activities and industries whose products are intended for the city population - internal transport, baking industry, etc.) and city-forming functions, which have an external significance relative to the settlement. New cities and urban settlements are emerging due to the need of the country or its individual parts for certain city-forming activities. And urban settlements are classified according to city-forming functions.

3-
City-forming functions can be divided into two groups - central and special. The central functions are to provide various services to the population and economy of the adjacent territories. Urban settlements - central places form a fairly strict hierarchy within the country. At the top level of this hierarchy is the capital Moscow, serving the entire territory of the country. The next level is formed by cities - the largest centers of economic regions (Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, etc.). The territories of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are served by regional centers (Pskov, Orel, Astrakhan, etc.). within each region, it is usually possible to distinguish a level of inter-district centers serving several lower administrative districts (for example, Orsk and Buzuluk in the Orenburg region). The next level is formed by settlements - regional centers (for example, Vyborg, Priozersk and others in the Leningrad region). The lowest level of the hierarchy is formed by settlements - intra-district centers that serve part of the administrative district (Aprelevka and Vereya in the Naro-Fominsk district of the Moscow region).
Special functions are often performed by industry centers throughout the country. Russia has the largest number of urban settlements - industrial centers (Magnitogorsk, Novokuznetsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, etc.). The most prominent representatives of transport centers are large seaports (Novorossiysk, Nakhodka). Relatively rare in our country are scientific centers (Obninsk in the Kaluga region, Dubna in the Moscow region, etc.), tourist centers (Suzdalvo in the Vladimir region) and resort centers (Sochi in the Krasnodar region, Pyatigorsk in the Stavropol region, etc.).
In terms of the degree of urbanization, the regions of the Russian Federation differ significantly both at the level of large economic regions and at the level of administrative-territorial entities.

4-
Urbanization is considered as a process of increasing the role of cities in the development of society, causing changes in the social and demographic structure of society, culture, lifestyle and concentration of forms of communication between people. Modern urbanization has significantly changed the course of settlement development. The process of urban consolidation is intensifying, which is accompanied by their rapid spatial expansion and dispersal of production and population into adjacent territories. The importance of enlarged cities as centers of economic and cultural influence on adjacent settlements is increasing. The big city turns into a vast urbanized area, in which it begins to play the role of the main center. An urban agglomeration is being formed - one of the qualitatively new forms of modern urban settlement.

5-
1.Radial system
The radial system in its pure form is not currently used, because it is very unfavorable due to its low throughput, limited by the throughput of its central point, where all the central streets converge. In addition, the radial system has a very high straightness coefficient in communications between different points of the city. The radial planning system in terms of its throughput is the least favorable due to the fact that all movement, in whatever direction from one radius to another it is carried out, passes through the central point at which all radial directions intersect. It is easy to see that the more radial directions converge at a central point, the less time it takes to move through the central intersection at each radius and, therefore, the less capacity it has. As a result, this central intersection point limits the capacity of the entire system.
The radial planning system is characteristic of the old cities of Central Asia, in which all roads coming from the surrounding areas converged on the city bazaar, centrally located in the city.
In the process of development of the cities of the Soviet Central Asian republics, the radial systems of highways were reconstructed with the creation of additional highways, unloading the urban center and reducing the coefficient of non-straightness when traveling from points located on different radial directions.
Radial system of Kharkov (Fig. 1)
Radial system of Nizhny Novgorod (Fig. 2)
Radial system of Uglich (Fig. 3)

8-
2.Radial-ring system
The radial-ring (concentric) system contains two fundamentally different types of highways - radial and ring. Radial highways serve to connect the city center with peripheral areas, and ring streets connect radial streets and ensure the transfer of traffic flows from one radial direction to another. This layout allows the development to be harmoniously located around the center, where the main public and business facilities are concentrated. With this layout you can easily get to the city center. The advantage of the radial-ring scheme is the compact shape of the plan, in which the natural environment of the city is least disturbed.
However, the full benefits of this scheme can only be realized in smaller cities. As the territory increases, the central part of the city experiences functional overload and is cut off from the natural environment, and peripheral areas find themselves at a considerable distance from the center.
A variation of the radial-ring layout is the “star” layout. In this case, the development is located in non-concentric strips around the city center, but is concentrated along the radial highways; in this case, arrays of greenery can be placed between the rays of the “star”. In this case, there is a good connection between the outskirts and the center. However, with such a scheme, connections between peripheral regions with each other are difficult. The star-shaped scheme requires attention to the problem of the development of the center and the increase in traffic intensity within its boundaries.
An example of a radial-ring system is the city of Moscow (Fig. 4). Along with Moscow, classic examples of a radial-ring
layouts are represented by cities such as Paris (Fig. 5).
It is less pronounced in Berlin (Fig. 6) and Brussels (Fig. 7).

(Fig.5)
-10-

Fig.7
-11-
3.Fan (beam) system
Beam (fan) system - found mainly in the central parts of large cities in combination with other systems. In this case, the indicators for the coefficient of non-straightness and capacity are determined depending on the properties of those simple geometric systems from which the general planning system of the city was formed.
Examples are the city of Kostroma (Fig. 8), St. Petersburg (Fig. 9), the capital of Udmurtia, Glazov (Fig. 10).

Fig.10
-13-
4.Chess system
The checkerboard (rectangular) system, in which streets intersect at an angle of 90°, assumes a relatively uniform development of the territory. This type of planning structure has been widely used at all times. The advantage of the chess structure is the possibility of uniform distribution of traffic flows. With this layout, it is easy to demarcate areas.
However, a large number of street crossings increases vehicle mileage and lengthens trips. The checkerboard pattern makes it difficult to form a clearly defined central core and system of centers of residential areas of the city.
The positive properties of the rectangular system include the division of the urban area into rectangular blocks convenient for development. This system is favorable in terms of its throughput due to the fact that at each intersection point of this system only two directions intersect.
The rectangular system is unfavorable in terms of the weighted average non-straightness coefficient, reaching a value of 1.27. Also, the disadvantages include the monotony of the layout.
Examples are cities such as Philadelphia (Fig. 11), Odessa (Fig. 12), Rostov-on-Don (Fig. 13).

Rice. eleven
-14-

Fig.13
-15-
5. Linear system
The linear (ribbon) layout is a kind of checkerboard layout, strongly elongated in one direction. Objects in the central part of the city in this case are located along the main highway or along several parallel highways. The linear layout ensures proximity to the natural environment and main transport routes. This layout allows for convenient transport links, reducing travel time. However, as the city grows and the development zone lengthens, a significant part of the territories finds itself at too great a distance from the centers of various ranks. In addition, the distances between individual parts of the city are increasing significantly.
Examples are the city of Taishet. (Fig. 14), Volgograd (Fig. 15), Arkhangelsk (Fig. 16)

Fig.16
6.Combined system
Combined system (Fig. 17) - combines the features of simple systems and their components.
For example, the layout of St. Petersburg, built in its central part on three radial highways converging to the Admiralty building, has a clearly defined rectangular system in a number of districts of the city. Odessa has a rectangular layout, consisting of separate parts, the network of highways of which has a different direction in relation to local conditions.
Examples are St. Petersburg, Tashkent (Fig. 18), Odessa (Fig. 19).

20-
Conclusion
The search for a planning solution for the city and its transport organization in the form of a system of main streets and roads and a public transport network is carried out by conducting a comprehensive comparison of master plan options for a number of planning, compositional, transport and economic indicators, taking into account the city’s place in the settlement system. In this case, the technical and economic indicators of the network, traffic safety conditions, convenience and comfort of traffic and pedestrians are taken into account.
Transport connections should provide the ability to travel along the shortest routes between destinations, and the layout of the street grid should be simple, without complex nodes and intersections.

21-
Bibliography:
E.S. Kositsina, N.V. Korosteleva, I.V. Zurabova. “Planning, development and reconstruction of populated areas”, Textbook of VolgGASU, 2011. pp.40-44
G.M. Barsukov. “Design of a city, microdistrict.” Textbook VolgGASU, 2009. pp.74-78
E.S. Kositsina, N.V. Korosteleva, I.V. Zurabova. Guidelines for course work in the discipline “Planning, development and reconstruction of populated areas.” 2011 Page 4
http://www.coolreferat.com (8.09.13)
http://www.2fj.ru/istoriya/skladyvanie_radialno-kolcevoj_ planirovki.php (8.09.13)
http://www.barviha-live.ru/zhilye-rajony-goroda/29.html (8.09.13)
http://images.yandex.ru (8.09.13)

The modern city is the most complex form of settlement. Urban and rural settlements should represent a rational integrated organization of industrial zones, residential areas, a network of public, cultural and educational institutions, sports facilities, trade and household enterprises, transport, providing the best conditions for work, life and recreation of people.

City planning and development, the successful solution of urban planning problems begins with the choice of territory for the city. At this stage, the possibility of rational functioning of its main components - industrial and residential zones, external connections with other populated areas, natural, hydrogeological factors, floodability of the territory and many others is largely determined. Considering the complexity of the task, the territory for the city is selected on the basis of a regional planning scheme with the participation of many government and research institutions, urban planners, doctors, economists, transport workers, builders, geographers, ecologists, etc.

The layout of new cities and their development trends are shown in . These trends are dictated by the interests of developing new areas with rich deposits of raw materials (vast territories along the Baikal-Amur Mainline, regions of Western Siberia).

City development planning diverse. The residential zone is formed from residential areas and microdistricts, a system of cultural and public services. The stepwise system of public service laid down in city projects is not always followed to the end in practice. The division of the service system into daily, periodic and episodic is gradually changing depending on the development of the urban transport network, the expansion of forms of service, as the number of cars in personal use increases, etc.

In the planning structure of a residential area, the formation of a public service system becomes crucial. It includes buildings and complexes for managing public and business life, education, enlightenment, culture, trade, public catering, consumer services, medicine, physical education, sports, recreation and leisure. When designing cities, much attention is paid to the architectural and spatial organization of the urban public center in conjunction with the public centers of residential and industrial areas.

The system of a city's public center usually includes a city council building, a hotel, a post office, a telegraph office, a restaurant, a shopping center, a House of Culture, sports facilities, etc. They are planned as a single ensemble in combination with city parks, public gardens, and gardens.

To find the optimal solution for many options, the placement of the residential zone in relation to the city-forming industrial zone is being studied. The general planning structure of the city determines the location and relationship of industrial and residential zones, the main transport directions and the locations of public centers.

Urban planning problems of industrial architecture should include issues that serve as interfaces between urban planning and industrial architecture:

• differentiated location of enterprises and improvement of the urban environment;
• nature protection and saving land for industrial construction;
• architectural and planning organization of industrial units (complexes) and enterprises.

The location of industrial enterprises in the settlement system is decisively influenced by:

• the specifics of production due to the sanitary characteristics of the technological process: types and volumes of production emissions into the atmosphere, water bodies, soil;
• types of external transport and volumes of cargo turnover - railway, water, road;
• local natural and climatic conditions - direction of prevailing winds, terrain, soils, permafrost, etc.;
• the relative location of residential and industrial zones, optimization of intracity transport connections and the implementation of a unified compositional plan for the city (settlement) as a whole.

Industrial enterprises differ in sanitary characteristics. An increasing number of enterprises stop emitting harmful substances into the air, water bodies, and soil, and reduce the level of noise, vibration and electromagnetic radiation. According to sanitary characteristics, such enterprises belong to classes IV and V; they require sanitary protection gaps only within 50 and 100 m from residential buildings. This is almost equal to the width of the streets of modern cities. This includes enterprises in the light and food industries, instrument making, mechanical engineering, etc. They, as a rule, form urban industrial complexes. It is rational to locate harmless enterprises inside residential areas, forming industrial and residential complexes. Such a solution ensures minimal work trips for people, which reduces material costs for urban transport and unproductive time spent by workers. And this is an extremely important social factor.

It is much more difficult to resolve the issues of locating enterprises of class I and II according to sanitary characteristics - enterprises of heavy industry: ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, chemical industries that require sanitary protective gaps from 1000 to 500 m. In practice, such enterprises are located at a distance of many kilometers from the residential area ( rice. 12), which depends on production capacity. Rice. 12. Silhouette of a chemical plant (a) and a diagram of its location in relation to the residential area (b)

On the border with residential areas, machine-building factories, house-building factories, etc. are usually located, requiring a sanitary protection zone of 300 m.

Urban industrial districts include significant territories occupied by industrial enterprises and related facilities, transport, engineering structures, etc. In some industrial cities, industrial districts occupy up to 50-60% of the urban territory. In this regard, the rational placement of industrial enterprises in the city is of great importance. It affects working conditions in enterprises, living conditions, transport patterns and the overall planning structure of the city.

The most successful form of locating harmless enterprises should be considered industrial and residential zones, where residential and industrial buildings are geographically combined, including enterprises of classes IV and V according to sanitary characteristics with insignificant cargo turnover, carried out mainly by road transport. This form has a unified planning structure with the shortest pedestrian and transport connections (with a travel time of within 20 minutes from residential buildings to enterprises, “door to door”). Utility networks, landscaping, a recreation area and other cultural and public service facilities are planned, concentrated in a single public center. Business employment of the working population in “their” area is over 50%. When locating industry within residential areas of a city, they usually take into account the time required to travel to the place of work. This radius for such residential and industrial zones should not exceed 2 km. In this case, the total residential area associated with industry will be approximately 1200 hectares, and the largest size of the industrial zone will be 400 hectares with a maximum number of workers of 25-30 thousand people. (city or several districts of a large city). Such an industrial zone can be divided into two or three complexes, placing them in combination with residential zones.

Industrial and residential zones are created not only by combining residential buildings with industrial enterprises, but also through cooperation with scientific institutions and engineering complexes. Near residential buildings, it is possible to form an industrial zone from enterprises such as clothing factories, cotton, shoe and carpet factories, enterprises for the production of haberdashery and leather cardboard, printing plants, food industry enterprises, refrigerators, public transport enterprises, public services, etc. Creation in a number of cities of scientific centers (academic towns) - a unique implementation of the idea of ​​industrial and residential complexes.

1. Radial-ring layout
2. Checkerboard layout
3. Stripe or linear structure
4. Multi-beam or star structure
5. Multi-core 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 urban organization and take into account two methods of city formation:

a) self-developing city form

b) organized formation of the city.

Today's cities are formed according to the type of self-developing forms. A center appears in some place and more and more microdistricts begin to form around it. Depending on the landscape, terrain features and location of production, cities self-develop in one form or another, from radial (Moscow) to “one street” cities (Krivoy Rog).

Radial-ring layouts(Moscow), are formed mainly at the intersection of transport routes and river branches. The advantages of such cities are uniform growth and improved spatial expansion capabilities, as well as greater accessibility to the city center. Today, the radial-ring form is considered the most “mobile” form of city 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. As such a city grows, it begins to shape the functional characteristics of a particular microdistrict, dividing them into rectangles (sleeping sector, industrial sector, recreation area...). This order is more demanding in terms of social calculations, but easier to plan.

CHICAGO:

Stripe or linear structure(Rotterdam, Volgograd, San Francisco) occurs mainly where there is some kind of obstacle to the concentric city (for example, a mountain range, a wide river bed or the 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 least attractive for development, since transportation within the city, to various functional parts of the city, takes a long time and requires additional costs.

VOLGOGRAD:

Multi-ray or star structure(Paris) is a kind of radial construction, but the street intersections in it become Y-shaped forms. Most often this happens due to the desire to preserve areas of nature. This structure is more typical of old cities (districts) with sparse 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 the low population density and large size of such cities.

PARIS:

Multinucleate or petal structure(Stockholm, Bryansk, Kyiv) arises in those cities that were united from several small settlements. Thus, creating several centers (nuclei) in the city, around which further development takes place. This construction has a lower population concentration (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”. The barracks were erected spontaneously, and as the city developed, they were rebuilt into permanent structures, creating disorderly structures of streets and districts.

ISTANBUL:

If you noticed, up to this point we have been looking at types of cities that developed independently, starting with a small settlement or group of settlements.

If we talk about the cities of the future, they will be created in an organized manner, with a pre-planned infrastructure and form of development. This approach will allow us 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, resettle residents to them, and completely reconstruct old cities.

The first opinion is based on preserving 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 also has significant disadvantages - for example, the fact that new city buildings must be carried out in cultural combination with the previous ones, which leads to constant territorial expansion of cities with a low concentration of residents, concreting as many unused areas as possible, which ultimately leads to the proliferation of concrete “deserts”.

Take for example the city of Paris. I just want to say the phrase “And before there was a forest here...”.

On the one hand, one can defend historical values, which will lead to even greater depletion of soils and cutting down the last remaining forest areas. Don’t 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 increasingly suffocating, and the planet is increasingly turning into a concrete desert.

But you can simply build a city with high density (about 10-20 thousand people per km²), move Paris there, for example, and reconstruct the old place, restoring forests and significantly increasing the density (leaving the most important cultural values), and then move it to his next city. And if you use the technologies of the Vega-Prime project, then such a city will cease to be a concrete desert and will harmoniously coexist with nature.

Think for yourself, what kind of apartment would you like to live in? - from these two options:
a) nine five-story buildings around yours, all in concrete and asphalt, cars under the windows...
b) or a detached 50-story building, and around your house, within a radius of 70-100 meters, nature, trees, grass... fresh air!

And if we are talking about the Vega-Prime project, then all the houses stand on six-meter supports, and under the houses there are lawns or playgrounds. In other words, if you look around, nature will be visible everywhere. The 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, resettle residents in them, and completely reconstruct old cities into environmentally friendly and harmless ones for 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 customary since ancient times, vital facilities are located in the city center, and facilities to which require daily mass access. In the old days, such objects were defensive fortresses and trading areas (markets). Today, these are enterprises, shopping malls, educational institutions, medical and other social institutions. This is kind of the core of the city. The second ring contains residential areas. And in the last ring - the production of food and life support.

This construction ensures maximum accessibility of necessary facilities, reduces the average travel time for 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 of utility lines is reduced, and the cascading of redundancy systems is increased at the lowest cost. Public transport systems are becoming more efficient than private transport, resulting in a significant reduction in individual vehicle traffic.

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 city infrastructure, built from scratch and entirely (or sectorally).

The outer ring houses wind, sound, wave and other barriers to create the necessary microclimate, as well as food production buildings - multi-storey hydroponic farms and multi-storey livestock farms (including multi-storey poultry farms and fish farms).

Thus, a city resident is located between two rings containing the objects he most needs, and the speed of access to them is reduced as much as possible.

From all of the above there is only one conclusion -
Cities of the future are cities with pre-planned infrastructure, built from scratch and entirely. And for such cities, the most ideal shape is radial-ring.

A city is a large settlement in terms of population and geographic size. Its totality of economic, utility, residential and engineering facilities determines the formation of a special environment for the life and activities of city residents. One of the most important issues in urban planning is types and features of city planning, the variety of which can be reduced to two fundamentally different patterns: radial and checkerboard.

Ring arrangement of settlements

Chronologically, this principle of building construction began to be used later than the rectangular intersections of streets characteristic of linear systems. In plan, such a structure has a round shape with a concentric structure. Its skeleton is formed by the intersection of radial lines in a common central space, connected by ring streets.

A classic example of circular development is Moscow; in a modified version, the concentric structure is characteristic of other European capitals - Paris, Vienna, Berlin and Brussels. With the advantages of compactness and ample room for seamless expansion, radial city layout has a number of negative features:

• as the territory grows, peripheral areas become increasingly distant from each other and from the main life support zones concentrated in the central part;
• the inevitability of congestion of traffic flows in the center, causing widespread development of traffic difficulties both within the city and beyond;
• difficulties with the reconstruction and/or modification of highways due to the density of buildings in the city core;
• the presence of a “bottleneck” effect - a phenomenon associated with a strong narrowing of a multi-lane highway, which leads to a decrease in the highway’s capacity and additional waste of time changing lanes of traffic;
• difficult-to-solve environmental problems of air pollution from automobile and industrial emissions, caused by the lack of space for public gardens, parks and other recreational areas with green spaces.

There is a problem, there is a solution

There is an established opinion among Moscow motorists that distances in the Russian capital are measured not in kilometers, but in hours. This is not surprising, since Moscow traditionally occupies a leading position in the world in terms of the length of time spent traveling between districts.

Statistics show that on average, city residents spend approximately 1.5 - 2 hours in traffic jams every day, and during peak periods, losses can amount to over a dozen hours. This situation shows that the already built ring lines are not able to relieve traffic flows. Therefore, other methods must be used.

In the world, the problem of radial-ring planning is being solved by launching new and expanding the functionality of existing branches of urban transport, building underground and above-ground communications, and modernizing highways. Replacing the rings with separate chords, arranged to overlap each other, has worked well.

All these methods are actively being developed and implemented in Moscow. The city electric train has already started operating on the Small Ring of the Moscow Railway. Due to the impracticality of constructing the Fourth Transport Ring, small lines are being built to connect the largest outbound highways. In the most heavily loaded parts of the street network, reverse traffic is organized.

Checkerboard layout of large cities

Externally, this type of structure of a settlement is an intersection of avenues at right angles, as a result of which separate blocks of approximately equal size are formed. A regular structure based on the intersection of two overland trade routes arose in ancient times; it can be observed in the policies of ancient Egyptian, ancient, and Asian civilizations.

At the present stage, a typical example is layout of the city of St. Petersburg, the foundations of which were laid by Peter the Great. Other representatives of this type of urban planning are Beijing, Chicago, Almaty. A variation of the chessboard type is the belt system, when the development of the street network proceeds along one direction due to a geographical obstacle: mountains, rivers, gorges. The example here is Volgograd, whose length is over 100 km.

Advantages and disadvantages

In contrast to the previous type of layout, the main advantage of the chess variety is the uniform distribution of traffic flows. The consequence here is the absence of a distinct central zone, leading to a more uniform distribution of the most important objects throughout the city.

The chess organization provides unlimited opportunities for the growth of a settlement, however, in large cities with a regular rectangular structure, it is often easier to get to the next block on foot than by car. A large number of street intersections increases the mileage of private and public transport, and also requires great responsibility in matters of regulating traffic with traffic lights.

In its pure form, radial or checkerboard urban planning is rare. As a rule, the type of urban geometry used in urban planning is determined by the natural features of the location of the object. Thus, in the presence of a mountain range or sea coast, a linear scheme is advantageous; when a city is located near a river bend, a radial-ring development often develops.