Material Elements of the Political Landscape of Moscow as a Capital

The urban environment of Moscow is considered through the concept of the political landscape as a complex of environment-shaping, representative objects. The image of the capital is not only the political history of the state, captured in buildings and monuments, but also a mirror of the representations of the national elite about its social support, development prospects, the outside world, and diverse social ideas about space. Official buildings as the focus of the political and administrative functions of the capital and city monuments are shown in the study as the dominant categories of place, a matrix of new representations that determine the evolution of the urban political and symbolic landscape. The objective of the study is to trace the stages of evolution of the most important material elements of the Moscow political landscape: the location, the construction time, the origin, and other features of the buildings of state institutions and monuments. The features of the modern spatial distribution of government buildings and monuments are studied. The historical hyperconcentration of government buildings in the capital center has been confirmed. Two large areas of high concentration of government buildings are identified: around Lubyanka, Kitai-Gorod, Staraya and Novaya squares and within the Moscow City business complex, as well as the relationship between the significance of a government agency and proximity to the Presidential Administration and the Kremlin as the main centers of decision-making. Despite the transfer of several federal agencies outside the center, there has not yet been a noticeable spatial decentralization of the administrative functions of the capital. In turn, the geography of the monuments repeats the general patterns of the capital plan. Their location reveals the radial-ring and sectoral structures of the city, as well as the specialization of districts. The absolute dominants of the landscape are the monuments dedicated to the heroes and events of the Great Patriotic War (more than 40% of the total number of monuments), which is one of the basics of modern Russian identity. The importance and significance of many capital monuments as an element of the political landscape is based on a strong long-term discourse. Despite some changes (the installation of monuments to rehabilitated public and political figures, victims of new wars and terrorist acts, as well as orthodox monuments), the monumental landscape of the capital is quite stable.

1. Adams P.C., Lavrenova O.A. Monuments to Lenin in the post-Soviet cultural landscape. Soc. Semiot., 2022, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 708–727.

2. Agnew J. Space and Place. In The SAGE handbook of Geographical Knowledge. Agnew J., Livingstone D., Eds. London: Sage, 2011, pp. 316–330.

3. Alpatov M.V. Russkoe iskusstvo XVIII veka [Russian Art of the 18th Century]. Moscow, 1958. 642 p.

4. Balyberdina E.V. Pushkin: code of national identity. Na putyakh k novoi shkole, 2012, no. 1, pp. 47–49. (In Russ.).

5. Berlin–Washington, 1800–2000: Capital Cities, Cultural Representations, and National Identities. Daum A.W., Mauch C., Eds. New York: CUP, 2007. 318 p.

6. Bellentani F. The Meanings of the Built Environment a Semiotic and Geographical Approach to Monuments in the Post-Soviet Era. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2021. 188 p.

7. Bocharov Yu.P. Transformation of the capital: from Lenin to Putin (in order of discussion). Academ. Arkhiit. Stroit., 2005, no. 2, pp. 20–25. (In Russ.).

8. Chubukov V.V. Vsenarodnyi pamyatnik Pushkinu: 200-letiyu A.S. Pushkina posvyashchaet’sya [National Monument to Pushkin: Dedicated to the 200th Anniversary of A.S. Pushkin]. Moscow: “Tverskaya, 13” Publ., 1999. 160 p.

9. Claval P. Les espaces de la politique. Paris: Armand Colin, 2010. 416 p.

10. Cosgrove D.E. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1998. 293 p.

11. Debarbieux B. L’espace de l’imaginaire. Essais et détours. Paris: Edition du CNRS, 2021. 312 p.

12. Druzhinin A.G. Prolongation of the “Moscow-Centricity” of the Russian Space: Pro et Contra. Polis. Polit. Issled., 2018, no. 5, pp. 29–42. (In Russ.).

13. Forest B., Johnston J. Unraveling the Threads of History: Soviet-Era Monuments and Post-Soviet National Identity in Moscow. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 2002, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 524–547.

14. Gaidai A.Yu., Lyubarets A.V. “Leninopad”: getting rid of the past as a way to design the future (on the materials of Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye and Kharkov). Vestn. Perm. Univ.: Istor., 2016, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 28–41. (In Russ.).

15. Gottmann J. The Significance of Territory. Charlottesville: Univ. of Virginia Press, 1973. 169 p.

16. Gritsenko A.A. Cultural and political landscape. In Identichnost’: Lichnost’, obshchestvo, politika. Entsiklopedicheskoe izdanie [Identity: Personality, Society, Politics. Encyclopaedical Edition]. Semenenko I.S., Ed. Moscow: Ves’ Mir Publ., 2017, pp. 540–545. (In Russ.).

17. Hartshorne R. The Functional Approach in Political Geography. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 1950, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 95–130.

18. Identichnost’: Lichnost’, obshchestvo, politika. Entsiklopedicheskoe izdanie [Identity: Personality, Society, Politics. Encyclopaedical Edition]. Semenenko I.S., Ed. Moscow: Ves’ Mir Publ., 2017. 992 p.

19. Kagansky V.L. Kul’turnyi landshaft i sovetskoe obitaemoe prostranstvo [Cultural Landscape and Soviet Habitable Space]. Moscow: NLO Publ., 2001. 576 p.

20. Kalutskov V.N. Landshaft v kul’turnoi geografii [Landscape in Cultural Geography]. Moscow: Novyi Khronograf Publ., 2008. 320 p.

21. Kliot N., Mansfeld Y. The political landscape of partition. The case of Cyprus. Polit. Geogr., 1997, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 495–521.

22. Kolosov V. Political polarization at the national and the intra-urban levels: the role of Moscow in Russian politics and the socio-political cleavages within the city. GeoJournal, 1997, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 385–401.

23. Kolosov V., O’Loughlin J., Vendina O. Moscow as an Emergent World City: International Links, Business Development, and the Entrepreneurial City. Eurasian Geogr. Econ., 2002, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 170–197.

24. Kolosov V., O’Loughlin J. Building identities in post-Soviet “de facto states”: cultural and political icons in Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Transdniestria, and Abkhazia. Eurasian Geogr. Econ., 2017, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 691–715.

25. Krinko E.F., Goryushina E.M. Events and participants of the time of troubles in the memorial culture of Russia. Vestn. Volgograd. Gos. Univ., Ser. 4: Istor. Regionoved. Mezh. Otnosh., 2019, vol. 24, no. 2. pp. 203–214. (In Russ.).

26. Lavrenova O.A. Strategies for “reading” the text of the cultural landscape. Epistemol. Filosoph. Nauki, 2009, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 123–141. (In Russ.).

27. Lavrenova О.А. “Lenin is alive”. Monuments to the chief of the revolution in the post-Soviet cultural landscape. In Geografiya iskusstva: mnogomernye obrazy prostranstva [Geography of the Art: Multidimensional Images of Space]. Moscow: GITR Publ., 2022, pp. 113–130. (In Russ.).

28. Malinova O.Yu. The Great Patriotic War as a symbolic resource: The evolution of display in official rhetoric in the 2000s-2010s. Russ. Sovrem. Mir, 2015, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 6–29. (In Russ.).

29. Pallot J. Land Reform in Russia, 1906–1917: Peasant Responses to Stolypin’s Project of Rural Transformation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1999. 272 p.

30. Pamyatniki monumental’nogo iskusstva Moskvy [Monuments of Monumental Art in Moscow]. Moscow: Milk Agency, 2016. 404 p.

31. Podvintsev O.B. The question of the transfer of the capital in modern Russia. In Perenos stolitsy: istoricheskii opyt geopoliticheskogo proektirovaniya [Transfer of the Capital: Historical Experience of Geopolitical Design]. Konovalova I.G., Ed. Moscow: Inst. mirovoi istorii RAN, 2013, pp. 114–119. (In Russ.).

32. Rossman V. Stolitsy, ikh mnogoobrazie, zakonomernosti razvitiya i peremeshcheniya [Capitals, Their Diversity, Patterns of Development and Displacement]. Moscow: Inst. Gaidara Publ., 2013. 336 p.

33. Sargin G.A. Displaced Memories, or the Architecture of Forgetting and Remembrance. Environ. Plan. D: Soc., 2004, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 659–680.

34. Scott J.C. Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1999. 464 p.

35. Sluka N.A. Global’nyi gorod: teoriya i real’nost’ [Global City: Theory and Reality]. Moscow: Avanglion Publ., 2007. 243 p.

36. Stephens A.C. The Persistence of Nationalism: From Imagined Communities to Urban Encounters. London: Routledge, 2013. 162 p.

37. Taylor P., Walker D., Catalano G., Hoyler M. Diversity and power in the world city network. Cities, 2002, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 231–241.

38. Thorez J. Le développement de la nouvelle capitale du Kazakhstan, Astana / Nur-Sultan (1998-2018): croissance, capitalisation et normalisation. Cybergeo, 2019, no. 897. https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.32223

39. Turovsky R.F. Political landscape as a category of political analysis. Vestn. Mosk. Univ. Ser. 12: Polit. Nauki, 1995, no. 3, pp. 33–44. (In Russ.).

40. Vale L.J. Capitals’ architecture and national identity. In The Construction of Capitals and the Politics of Space. Minkenberg M., Ed. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2014, pp. 31–53.

41. Vedenin Yu.A., Kuleshova M.E. Cultural landscapes as an object of natural and cultural heritage. Izv. Akad. Nauk., Ser. Geogr., 2001, no. 1, pp. 7–14. (In Russ.).

42. Wittlesey D. The Earth and the State. New York: Holt, 1944. 618 p.