CC BY
0DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2024-25-2-3
EDN: GGTIAL
JEL classification: R10
Evgeny G. Animitsa Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia Natalya Yu. Vlasova Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Abstract. The growth of cities and the transformation of their urban structure reflect the impact of numerous factors: economic, political, social, ideological and others. The Ural region with its concentration of larger cities is among the most urbanised in Russia. The paper explores the urbanistic processes in the Ural region at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries in the context general economic, political and moral factors. The methodological basis of the research rests on the theories of urbanisation and urban development, and the evolutionary approach. The study uses analytical, statistical, and comparative methods. The data for 1989-2022 reflecting the dynamics of urbanistic processes is taken from the Federal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation. The boundaries of the Ural agglomerations are sourced from the official territorial and strategic planning documents. The findings indicate several trends in the transformation of the Ural settlement system and its urbanistic structure, in particular, a qualitative change of the cities' industrial structure, a decrease in the employment in industry and a fall in the urban population, intensification of agglomerations processes and population tending to concentrate in larger cities. The indicated processes of deurbanisation and deindustrialisation of the Ural region result in the augmented share of larger cities, greater imbalance between size groups of cities. The paper is the first to describe the Ural Urban Square that encompasses four larger urban agglomerations - Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk, Ufa, and Perm. The paper underscores that the Ural Urban Square becomes a place of concentration of investment, human, economic, and social resources, the core of the development of the Ural macroregion and its neighboring territories.
Keywords: spatial economics; agglomeration; urban structure; settlement systems; the Ural region; Ural Urban Square.
For citation: Animitsa E. G., Vlasova N. Yu., Silin Ya. P. (2024). Evolution of Ural cities at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries. Journal of New Economy, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 45-68. DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2024-25-2-3. EDN: GGTIAL.
Yakov P. Silin
Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Evolution of Ural cities at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries
Article info: received July 17, 2023; received in revised form August 30, 2023; accepted January 10, 2024
Introduction
Cities and towns concentrate the vast majority of human, economic, financial and defence potential of a country, and play an extremely important role in supporting and strengthening the economic space. Moreover, they are a natural force integrating the state into a monolithic sociopolitical entity. Cities, especially the larger ones, together with transport multi-lane highways and information communications, organise a supporting framework of a country and represent its integral spatial structure.
Dramatic sociopolitical, socioeconomic, regional and other quantitative and qualitative changes in Russian society at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century greatly affected cities and towns' functioning and development.
Thus, an in-depth analysis, generalisation and interpretation of the urbanistic processes, dynamics and structure of urban settlement in the Ural region taking place at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries, are of particular interest.
Determining time boundaries is a special and rather complex issue for some reasons. Firstly, there is not a real visible boundary in the struggle between the old and the new in socioeconomic processes. Secondly, various complex transformations in the economic, social, urban and other structures of the region do not occur instantly.
The historical transition to a new stage in the development of the Ural system of cities and towns covers a more than 30-year period, and starts in the 1990s. This period can be characterised as a fairly autonomous phase of long evolutionary development. On the one hand, it led to the destruction of old economic and other structures, and on the other hand, to the emergence of new trends and shifts in unbalanced economic, social strata and institutions.
In this historical period, two qualitative stages can be distinguished. The first stage is 1989-1999, when the perestroika policy ended and the turn from the centrally planned system towards market relations began. Thus, active privatisation started to be carried out, a change in the sociopolitical system took place, which brought destabilisation, decline and stagnation of production, deindustrialisation, depopulation and deurbanisation.
The second stage is 2000 and subsequent years of the 21st century. They marked the beginning of a new era, the completion of market reforms, the formation of new phenomena and processes in the economy, social sphere, urbanism, as well as the emergence of the next paradigm of regional socioeconomic development.
The spatial boundaries of the study are the boundaries of the traditional (old industrial) Ural economic area, a vast macroregion of the Russian Federation. In zoning schemes developed by scientists back in the 19th century, the Ural region was identified as a special, integral region, therefore, its socioeconomic transformations have a noticeable impact on the development of the entire country [Alekseev, 2000, pp. 23-24].
The object of the study is the complexly organised system of cities and towns evolving and functioning in the space of a large polystructured economic region of Russia - the Ural region. The imposed chronological and territorial restrictions made it possible to determine the subject of the study - a set of economic, political, social and other relations and processes, interactions and trends that arise during the functioning and forming of cities and towns' system in a macroregion at different stages of its evolution.
The purpose of the paper is to hold an integration analysis and generalise about ur-banistic processes of the 20th-21st centuries from a problem-chronological perspective in the Ural system of cities and towns against the background of fundamental changes in the socioeconomic and political sphere of society with a view to identify trends in modern development and shape the image of the future cities and towns in the Ural region.
To achieve this purpose, the following objectives were set out:
- to examine the Ural cities and towns in the context of the Soviet urban planning theory;
- to analyse the general economic and political background in the country and region at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries and justify the inevitability of profound changes in the system of Ural cities and towns;
- to propose a new interpretation of some general theoretical and specific problems of urban development and reveal changes in the importance of the cities and towns in a transforming socioeconomic situation;
- to substantiate the importance of urban agglomerations in accelerating the pace of regional socioeconomic development;
- to conceptually define the conditions, form the image of the Ural cities and towns in the foreseeable future.
Addressing these problems does not yet allow giving a detailed description of the entire complex process of cities and towns' evolution in the Ural region at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries, since this is a special, capacious and so far poorly-studied issue. Since cities and towns are complex systems that combine economic, political, social, spatial, urban planning and other processes, using the integration analysis will be the most appropriate, as it involves, on the one hand, consideration of all subsystems and factors influencing their development, and, on the other hand, it unites disparate parts into a single whole.
Research methodology
The cities and towns develop along with society, but are not modernised and transformed simultaneously for they combine in their dialectical unity the old and the new - the results of material and moral activity over centuries. Materially, cities and towns embody the connection of past, present and future. The origin and formation of cities and towns is a derivative of those centuries-old sociopolitical conditions in which people have lived [Huggins, Thompson, 2019].
The role and significance of cities and towns in the historical transitions, coinciding with the most important events in the life of society, have long been examined in detail [Sayko, 2001]. For example, a number of authors study the development specifics of post-Soviet cities and towns [Goodrich Lehmann, Ruble, 1997; Gentile, Tam-maru, 2006; Neugebauer, Rekhviashvili, 2015].
Adam Smith argued that large-scale transformations of cities and towns take place due to the industrialisation of society, the growth of manufacturing production, but not just the trade development as a source of "wealth of nations" [Smith, 1992].
As the modern urban researcher Trubina rightly believes, "urbanisation and ur-banism... take on different forms under different socioeconomic circumstances, options for political control, and types of cultures" [Trubina, 2011, p. 16].
A considerable body of literature is devoted to the factors of urban development and transformation [Henderson, Wang, 2005; Hölscher, Frantzeskaki, 2021]. The evolutionary approach to the study of urban systems is used to explain the driving forces of the formed settlement structure [Fujita, Mori, 1997; Fujita, Krugman, Mori, 1999; Ioannides, Overman, 2004].
In the Ural region, due to intensive socialist construction in the middle of the 20th century two historically important interrelated processes were completed: extensive industrialisation and urban revolution.
Industrialisation in the Ural region, more than anywhere else in the country, acted as the most determining factor in urbanisation. In 1926-1939, 22 new cities and towns were legally established in the Ural region (including Magnitogorsk, Berezniki, Krasnokamsk, etc.), and in 1939-1945, 10 more cities and towns were founded due to the industrial development. By the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, there had been 73 cities and towns in the Ural region, and the proportion of urban residents rose from 16.9 % (in 1926) to 35.3 % (in 1939).
It was the Ural cities and towns that became the testing ground for the purposeful formation and implementation of the Soviet urban planning concept. It implied creating a network of supporting urban industrial and residential settlements, which received the name "sotsgorod". They concentrated new large-scale industrial production and the proletarian population living there as well as a comprehensive system of public services [Konysheva, Meerovich, 2011; Ruleva, Abaimova, 2012; Bugrov,
2018]. Magnitogorsk, Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk, Verkhnyaya Salda, Kamensk-Ural-sky, Krasnokamsk, Izhevsk are among the typical first sotsgorods.
The transforming concept of a large group city was fully implemented in the famous "Bolshoi Sverdlovsk" project. According to the city plan "Bolshoi Sverdlovsk", the city was to consist of several settlements - autonomous industrial and residential ones (sotsgorods), remote from the old core and interconnected by both production specialisation and the governance unity of utilities, household and sociocultural services.
This was the first completely intentionally formed and implemented social project in the history of human civilisation, in which almost all aspects of life began to be created consciously.
In the 1930s, constructivism, a direction of the Soviet avant-garde, held the dominant position in urban planning and architecture. Its main features are monumentali-ty, monolithic appearance, functional expediency, geometric clarity of objects, lacon-ism and rationality of forms [Sidorina, 1995]. Ekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk from 1924 to 1991) until 1934 was the administrative center of the Ural region and one of the largest centers of constructivist architecture in the USSR. Currently, more than 200 well-known residential and specialised architectural complexes in the constructivist style can be found in Ekaterinburg.
It can be argued that in all cities and towns in the Ural region industrialisation was a milestone during socialist construction. New city-forming enterprises were founded in different cities and towns, as well as technologies were developed that eventually increased their share in the economic potential of the Ural region. Many of these enterprises became the largest in the Ural region and in the country. Nuclear cities and towns were also built in the region (5 out of 10 such cities and towns in Russia are located in the Ural region). Scientific institutions, universities, technical schools, theatres and museums received powerful impulses for development in cities and towns.
The socioeconomic basis for the functioning of the Ural urban settlement system continued to be formed by an integral large economic area (macroregion), which belongs to a special type of old industrial (traditional industrial) regions of national importance that determines the position of Russia on the world stage [Animitsa et al., 2009, pp. 165-166].
Restructuring of the city system in the Ural region at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries
Since the early 1990s, the Ural macroregion and the country as a whole have started to see a change in the development paradigm, which radically affected the development vector of the region, the appearance of its industry, and the trends in the evolution of the cities and towns and its population.
The years 1989-1990 can be considered as the starting point for the period, when the country and its regions were struck by a deep systemic crisis in almost all spheres of society caused by the USSR collapse, the liquidation of the planned economy, privatisation, the rupture of production and technological chains, the disintegration of the economy and other negative processes [Ryzhkov, 1995; Yanik, 2012].
In 1992, the Russian government embarked on the courses of radical economic reforms supported by the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, foreign advisers and curators [Sachs, 1995]. They explained to the Russian government that when forming market relations there should be as few government structures as possible; spending on social policy should be kept to a minimum, and assistance should primarily be given to large businesses, especially those close to certain government circles.
At that time, processes and trends previously unknown to the region began to gain momentum in the Ural region: a serious economic and industrial decline as a result of a sharp turn to a market economy, a noticeable deterioration in the quality of life, growing poverty, destructive social inequality and, ultimately, deindustrialisation.
A more complete picture of the unfolding crisis in the Ural industry is illustrated by data reflecting the dynamics of the main industries in the region for 1990-1999.
In 1990-1998, the production of cast iron decreased from 26,857 to 14,291 thousand tonnes (53.2 % of the 1990 volume), of steel - from 42,682 to 18,906 thousand tonnes (44.3 %), and the production of rolled ferrous metals - from 30,048 to 14,706 thousand tonnes (48.9 %).
During the first market reforms, the Ural region lost half of the potential of ferrous metals industry, a basic, historically established branch of its industry. A more depressing situation occurred in other industries: in 1998, cement production amounted to 28.0 % to that of 1990; the fabrics production was just 12.9 %, and knitwear production amounted to 8.4 % to that of 1990. As a result, the Ural region actually lost its light industry.
The Ural region lost such strategically important industries such as machine tool manufacturing, tractor manufacturing, agricultural engineering and others, which is evidenced by the following figures. In 1999, excavator production amounted to only 7.3 % of the 1990 volume (or 336 units versus 4,611 units in 1990); tractors - 9.3 % (2.6 thousand units versus 28.1 thousand units in 1990); metal-cutting machines -13.8 % (3.0 thousand units versus 21.7 thousand units in 1990) [Silin, Animitsa, No-vikova, 2019, pp. 222-223]. Figure 1 shows a severe reduction in the metal-cutting machines production at Ural enterprises.
In the region's machine-building industries, the most difficult situation was encountered by the converted enterprises of the defence industries, where the decrease in production ranged from 35 to 80 %. In 1993 alone, 80.7 thousand people employed
%
Fig. 1. Metal-cutting machines production by enterprises in the Ural economic area,
1990-20221
in industrial production at Ural enterprises lost their jobs due to the conversion of defence production, in the Udmurt Republic this number was 18.8 thousand, in the Sverdlovsk oblast - 16.1 thousand2.
There was a growing feeling that the Ural region was entering a new era with unclear goals, alternatives, outlines and prospects. This fundamentally new shift in the development of the region is still not fully understood by specialists and requires careful comprehension and explanation, including in theoretical and methodological terms.
The above-mentioned processes in the economy of the region resulted in that for the first time the region's importance for the all-Russian reproduction process dropped heavily. This can be judged by a fall of GRP, a general indicator of regional economic activity, in the economic space of Russia: from 14.5 % in 1995 to 12.1 % in 2000, while occupying 4.8 % of the country's territory.
Global shocks and economic sanctions also affected the volume and industrial structure of Ural cities and towns [Stepanov et al., 2022].
Despite the destructive consequences of market reforms, industrial production remained the basis of economic activity in the vast majority of Ural cities and towns. The Urals managed to maintain specialisation in the production of cast iron, steel, rolled ferrous metals, and in some cases even increased it (Figure 2).
More than 90 % of the region's industrial workers are concentrated in cities and towns. Industrial facilities located outside urban settlements have not played a noticeable role in the production structure in the Ural region. There is a clearly visible correlation between a decrease in the number of jobs in industry and a decrease in the urban population. Although simultaneously, during this period the Ural region was being filled with social infrastructure facilities, in particular trade ones.
1 Figures 1-2 are own compilation based on [Silin, Animitsa, Novikova, 2019, pp. 214, 232]. (In Russ.)
2 Indicators of social development of the Ural economic area and the Tyumen oblast for 1993. Ekaterinburg: Sver-dlovskstat, 1994, p. 35. (In Russ.)
Million
tonnes 35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
— Cast iron
— Steel
Rolled ferrous metals
— Steel pipes
1999 2000 2005 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020 2021 2022
Fig. 2. Key metal products manufacturing by enterprises of the Ural economic area,
1999-2022
The afore-mentioned economic and political transformations during this historical transition impacted greatly on the development of cities and towns.
In the Ural region, since 1992, a rapid urban change has taken place: the urban population began to decrease as a result of deindustrialisation, depopulation, natural population decline, a fall in the regional economy's need for nonresident labour, a sharp rise in the cost of living, and an unprecedented crime rate growth. Thus, in 1991-2000, the urban population in the Ural region went down by 398.3 thousand people, and primarily in its highly industrialised and highly urbanised regions (Table 1). The population declined especially noticeably in the Perm oblast (in 19912000, the number of residents there decreased by 188.3 thousand people).
More than half of the Ural cities and towns lost some of their population. These are mainly cities and towns located in the north and east of the region, and primarily urban settlements - centers of mining industries. The population of million-plus cities decreased substantially, especially in Ekaterinburg (its population declined from 1,364.6 thousand people of the actual population according to the 1989 census to 1,284.9 thousand people of the actual population as of January 1, 2001, i.e., by 79.7 thousand people).
Thus, the logic and long-term evolution of urbanistic processes in the region were disrupted, and, the unprecedented for the Ural region mechanisms of depopulation and deurbanisation (together with the deindustrialisation mechanism) were launched.
Since the 2000s in the economic space of the Ural macroregion, a new stage of the transition period has begun, which marks the revival of the Ural industry and the start of sustainable growth of its main industries (Table 3). At the same time, all kinds of industries in the macroregion have experienced multi-vector influence of the situation in regional, national and global commodity markets. For various reasons, the majority of industrial production has never been able to reach the levels of
Table 1. Absolute urban population size of the Ural region, thousand persons
Year Republic of Bashkortostan Udmurt Republic Kurgan oblast Orenburg oblast Perm oblast Sverdlovsk oblast Chelyabinsk oblast Ural economic area
Ural economic area 1 122,3 604,9 1 413,5 2 395,7 4 107,4 2 990,8 15 155,3
1989 2,520.7 1,122.3 604.9 1,413.5 2,395.7 4,107.4 2,990.8 15,155.3
1990 2,549.2 1,137.2 609.1 1,423.2 2,404.2 4,132.8 3,000.5 15,256.2
1991 2,573.4 1,145.5 612.3 1,431.9 2,410.9 4,134.3 3,001.3 15,309.5
1992 2,591 1,149.4 614.2 1,433.9 2,408.5 4,117.7 2,973.2 15,287.9
1995 2,638 1,147 612 1,426 2,311 4,119 3,007 15,260
1998 2,661.1 1,134.7 612.5 1,420.9 2,273.4 4,064.8 2,988.5 15,155.9
1999 2,672 1,135 611 1,418 2,252 4,051 2,990 15,129
Population growth, total for the stage 151.3 12.7 6.1 4.5 -143.7 -56.4 -0.8 -26.3
2000 2,678 1,131 607 1,264 2,228 4,024 2,980 14,912
2005 2,435 1,077 560 1,241 2,082 3,677 2,910 13,982
2010 2,462 1,054 549 1,212 1,976 3,604 2,852 13,709
2020 2,681.4 1,131.5 606.7 1,266.4 2,222.6 4,022.8 2,979.8 14,911.2
Total for the stage 3.4 0.5 -0.3 2.4 -5.4 -1.2 -0.2 -0.8
Total for the period 160.7 9.2 1.8 -147.1 -173.1 -84.6 -11 -244.1
Source: Own compilation based on the data from Urban settlements of the RSFSR according to the 1989 All-Union Population Census. Moscow: RIIC, 1991, pp. 18-20 (In Russ.); The Ural region. Population by cities, urban settlements and districts as of January 1, 1998. Ekaterinburg: Sverdlovskstat, 1998. 7 p. (In Russ.); Russian statistical yearbook 2003: Statistical yearbook. Moscow: Goskomstat of Russia, 2003, pp. 75-79 (In Russ.); Population of the Russian Federation by cities, urban settlements and districts as of January 1, 2001. Moscow: Goskomstat of Russia, 2001, pp. 16-17 (In Russ.); Kuzmin A. I., Orudzhieva A. G., Kornilov G. E., Alferova E. Yu., Golikova S. V. (1996). Population of the Ural region. 20th century. History of demographic development. Ekaterinburg: Publishing house "Ekaterinburg". 144 p. (In Russ.); Demographic Yearbook of Russia: Statistical Yearbook. Moscow: Goskomstat of Russia, 2002. (In Russ.)
1990. Nevertheless, their production generally have met modern requirements and the needs of intraregional, intranational and external markets.
Table 2 shows the macroeconomic indicators of the Ural macroregion reaching a trajectory of sustainable growth.
Instead of a destructive impact, the economy steadily got into its growth stage. The volume of investments in fixed capital turned out to be a record (growth in 2000-2021 was 13 times). The trading activity became a real driver behind the growth. Its growth rate can be considered historical for the Ural region (in 2000-2021 - by 18.9 times). Its share accounts for 11 % of the all-Russian retail trade turnover. Moreover, due to new technologies, the volume of housing construction in the region noticeably increased (more than 3 times).
One of the modern trends in the development the Ural region's economy, cities and towns is the increased interest in military technologies. The rapid growth of defence industry enterprises is becoming the main source of modern development in many Ural cities and towns. A significant role is assigned to the digitalisation of the socioeconomic life in urban settlements as the core of technical modernisation.
At the same time, population decline including of urban population in the Ural region continues, although its rate has substantially went down.
As the academician Tatarkin noted, "the reasons for modern depopulation lie not only in the sphere of material wealth, but they are a consequence of deep changes in values and motivation of the population" [Tatarkin, 2016, p. 11].
Due to the fact that the system of urban settlements has been forming in the Ural region for a long time at a fairly high level of economic development and population density of the territory, quite mature urban structure has historically emerged here and is preserved at this stage of development, represented by all types of settlements (by population size). Considering the prominent role of urban settlements in the economic system of the macroregion, it is of particular importance to establish the urban structure of cities and towns, i.e., to identify a certain order in distribution of urban settlements with different population size, and determine the general trends in their development.
During the period of mature system, the process of structural diversification of cities and towns by size was basically completed (a system of cities and towns of all categories was formed). Nevertheless, at this stage of development of the Ural region, the proportions between cities and towns of different type (by population size) change and mainly because of the uneven growth of settlements, their move from one category to another (Table 3).
The overwhelming majority of cities and towns are losing some of their population and their production potential (these are usually towns with a population under 50 thousand people, their share decreased from 18.1 to 16.8 % in 2002-2022).
Table 2. Most important socioeconomic development indicators of the Ural macroregion, 2000-2023
RF subject Urban population, thousand persons (as of January 1) Investments in fixed assets (at actual prices), billion rubles Commissioning of the total area of residential buildings, thousand m2 of total residential premises
2000* 2023 2000 2022 2000 2022
Russian Federation 106,272 109,655.6 1,165.2 27,865.2 30,300 102,712.7
Republic of Bashkortostan 2,681.4 2,542.4 35.5 512.4 1,255 3,062.5
Udmurt Republic 1,131.5 948.4 9.9 137,0 257 1,176.0
Kurgan oblast 606.7 489.0 2.5 54.7 73 333.4
Orenburg oblast 1,266.4 1,102.2 15.0 234.7 385 950.6
Perm oblast / Perm krai 2,222.6 1,898.3 27.5 357.2 330 1,986.9
Sverdlovsk oblast 4,022.8 3,639.1 25.9 541.7 617 2,942.6
Chelyabinsk oblast 2,979.8 2,814.1 22.3 373.1 669 1,870.3
Ural economic area (UEA) 14,911.2 13,433.50 138.6 2,210.8 3,586 12,322.30
UEA in the main socioeconomic indicators of the Russian Federation, % 14.0 12.3 11.9 7.9 11.8 11.9
RF subject Industrial production (at actual prices), million rubles Shipped goods of own production (manufacturing), billion rubles Retail turnover (at actual prices), billion rubles GRP, billion rubles.
2000 2022 2000 2022 2000 2021
Russian Federation 4,763,000 66,797,0 2,335.8 42,577.0 6,277.8 121,183
Republic of Bashkortostan 141,792 1,549.2 49.4 1,118.0 160.8 2,000
Udmurt Republic 54,804 469,8 15.1 310.6 55.8 842
Kurgan oblast 14,774 197,1 8.5 148.1 19.9 269
Orenburg oblast 63,704 489.8 17.1 418.7 82.6 1,394
Perm oblast / Perm krai 110,377 1,342.9 40.5 660.9 131.4 1,741
Sverdlovsk oblast 168,220 2,799.1 58.7 1,321.0 165.8 3,038
Chelyabinsk oblast 146,116 2,171.8 39.6 766.8 136.1 2,043
Ural economic area (UEA) 699,787 9,019.70 228.9 4,744.10 752.4 11,327
UEA in the main socioeconomic indicators of the Russian Federation, % 14.7 13.5 9.8 11.1 12.0 9.3
Source: Own compilation based on the data from Regions of Russia. Main characteristics of the Russian Federations subjects 2023: Statistical Yearbook. Moscow: Rosstat, 2023. 853 p. (In Russ.); Regions of Russia. Main characteristics of the Russian Federations subjects 2005: Statistical Yearbook. Moscow: Rosstat, 2005 (In Russ.); Russian statistical yearbook. Moscow: Rosstat, 2023 (In Russ.); Russian statistical yearbook. Moscow: Rosstat, 2004. (In Russ.); Regions of Russia. Socioeconomic indicators 2002: Statistical Yearbook. Moscow: Goskomstat of Russia, 2002. 863 p. (In Russ.); Regions of Russia. Socioeconomic indicators 2023: Statistical Yearbook. Moscow: Rosstat, 2023. 1126 pp. (In Russ.) *Population of the Russian Federation by cities, urban settlements and regions as of January 1, 2001. Moscow: Goskomstat of Russia, 2001.
Table 3. Spatial and urban structure of the Russian Federation's subjects located within the Ural economic area by population, %
RF subject Total urban population Under 50 thousand people 50-100 thousand people 100-999.9 thousand people Over 1 million people
2002 2022 2002 2022 2002 2022 2002 2022 2002 2022
Republic of Bashkortostan 100.0 100.0 10.3 9.8 19.0 17.3 27.3 27.0 43.4 45.8
Udmurt Republic 100.0 100.0 6.0 5.9 10.0 28.5 84.0 65.6 - -
Kurgan oblast 100.0 100.0 19.2 18.1 15.3 15.9 65.5 65.9 - -
Orenburg oblast 100.0 100.0 15.9 18.1 11.3 14.2 72.7 67.7 - -
Perm krai 100.0 100.0 16.9 16.8 17.1 18.9 14.2 7.4 51.7 57.0
Sverdlovsk oblast 100.0 100.0 25.4 23.4 17.8 15.8 20.1 17.9 36.7 43.0
Chelyabinsk oblast 100.0 100.0 21.5 18.0 10.9 7.4 28.2 31.6 39.4 43.0
Ural economic area 100.0 100.0 18.1 16.8 15.2 15.6 33.6 30.7 33.0 36.9
Source: Own compilation based on the data from Regions of Russia. Main socioeconomic indicators of cities 2004: Statistical yearbook. Moscow: Rosstat, 2004 (In Russ.); Regions of Russia. Main socioeconomic indicators of cities 2022: Statistical yearbook. Moscow: Rosstat, 2022. https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/210/ document/13206. (In Russ.)
There are a few fast-growing cities and towns in the Ural region, but cities and larger cities predominate among them. The level of urban concentration, i.e., the concentration of the urban population in the region's larger cities, is one of the highest in Russia. In 2022, it was 36.9 % versus 33.0 % in 2002.
The essence of the concept "city" in changing social and moral conditions
Residents of the Ural cities and towns accumulate and preserve the collective life experience of current and previous generations: knowledge, skills, traditions, behaviour, beliefs, etc. Empirical studies of modern urban development amidst rising socioeconomic and political uncertainty have failed to reveal new laws or fundamental patterns of the cities and towns' development as well as urbanisation in general that could become the theoretical basis in the study of urban settlements at different territorial levels, including in the Ural region.
At the moment, in economic science and in regional economics, there is a strong opinion that in complex, dynamic political and economic processes in urban space, a person plays a decisive role with their needs and interests, since human potential is a special, most important and irreplaceable resource. Due to the human factor, Russia (at that time the USSR) made a technological breakthrough and could win the Great Patriotic War.
In the current conditions, the formation of a theoretical and methodological basis for the study of Ural cities and towns can greatly rely on moral foundations needed by the current society and its inhabitants.
First of all, a system of moral and cultural values allows integrating residents into a single local community, makes it possible to develop positive attitudes forming the morality of every city/town dweller, the basis of their life, and set the motives for their behaviour, including in economic matters. Due to the combined efforts of urban community members, recognition of the importance of traditional moral values in the life of a city/town dweller and the activities of business entities, the social and ethical situation in cities and towns after the 2000s became more civilised.
Urban social policy represented by the activities of numerous federal, regional, municipal and other organisations regulating the social sphere of a city or town, occupies a significant role in these positive processes.
According to Prof. Zaborova, despite "all the numerous disadvantages, it was the social policy pursued by the cities and towns' authorities that helped a lot of people survive in the conditions of a sharp deterioration in the economic situation at the beginning of perestroika, and even today, without the help of social protection organisations, the lives of many people in the city would have been much worse" [Zaborova, 2007, pp. 113-114].
Chernova, a sociologist of urban planning, calls new areas growing on the outskirts of cities with a minimum set of social infrastructure facilities "rentopolises"1. In cities, rental income holders are concentrated, and new areas often turn into entry points into a larger city for migrants.
The state has returned to the housing construction. It subsidises mortgage programmes and resumed the free housing distribution programme following the example of the Soviet Union (it provides housing to military, police and other government employees). Moreover, any adult orphanage resident is entitled to a one-room apartment. Relocation programmes for residents of dilapidated buildings using budgetary financing have been launched, which specify when a certain number of square meters of housing has to be commissioned.
At present, there are three main diverging trends in urban planning in the urban space of the Ural region. The first trend guides municipalities toward high-rise construction. The second one is low-rise suburban development. And the third one is the rental housing market, which is just beginning to emerge. In recent years, the desire of Urals residents for low-rise individual housing has been increasing. This trend has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the ability to work remotely.
1 Chernova E. (2022). Russian rentopolis: Why did the human race win and what to do about it? Construction Expert. https://ardexpert.ru/article/22270. (In Russ.)
Urban agglomerations as active drivers of socioeconomic development
in the region
Until recently, the problems of urban agglomerations development did not go beyond the interests and professional activities of specialists in urban planning. In the conditions of modern economic development, the problems of targeting the development of agglomerations have acquired priority in the implementation of state urban planning and regional policies. The concept "urban agglomeration" in the Russian Federation has received official (legal) recognition and is enshrined in law1.
Public discussion on urban development issues generally intensifies when, at the federal level, the formation of large urban agglomerations or the creation of new large towns is considered to be a priority for the spatial development of the country. This comes natural for the larger cities, which are the cores of agglomerations, concentrate gigantic production capacities as well as the human, informational, innovative and cultural potential of the country. Residents have great opportunities to attain their goals - there is a high probability to get any education, an opportunity to find a job, including extra work, corresponding to professional interests [Sokolov, 2010; Mel-nikova, 2023]. These cities offer easier access to municipal and regional structures of power and governance, and a chance to become an influential person.
Urban agglomerations, even in the difficult conditions of the transition period, remain a driver of economic growth and a draw for investment from the population and labour resources. They stimulate the emergence of growth points in regions and transform the economic space.
Urban agglomerations being concentrations of the population and various economic activities are intensively studied in economic science, including in regional economics, mainly from the standpoint of production efficiency, their contribution to the national and regional economy in connection with the emergence and development of agglomeration effects (agglomeration economies)2 [Hoover, 1948; Jacobs, 1960; Henderson, 1988; Lash, Urry, 1994; Fujita, Krugman, Mori, 1999; Fujita, Krug-man, Venables, 1999; Pertsik, 2009; Antonyuk et al., 2021].
Calculations show that urban agglomerations are capable of increasing GRP by up to 5 %. According to Izhguzina, who studies the functioning of the Ekaterinburg urban agglomeration, the share of the conditional gross agglomeration product of the agglomeration in Sverdlovsk oblast's GRP accounted for 48.2 % in 2016 and 65.9 % in 2008 [Izhguzina, 2018 , p. 15].
1 Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of January 16, 2017 no. 13 "On approval of the fundamentals of state policy for regional development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2025". ConsultantPlus. https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_210967/. (In Russ.)
2 Economy of Russian cities and urban agglomerations. Issue 5: The largest urban agglomerations of Russia in the global economy. Moscow: Institute of Urban Economics Foundation, 2020. 21 p. (In Russ.)
Further development of the urbanistic process, in particular, the formation of large urban agglomerations, should be considered as a necessary condition for ensuring economic growth. It is not a coincidence that in the Ural region, which is a highly industrialised and urbanised region of the country, urban agglomerations are being actively studied, and regional policy tends to serve their interests [Antonyuk et al., 2022]. In particular, when signing an agreement on intermunicipal cooperation aimed at forming the Ekaterinburg urban agglomeration, the heads of fourteen administrations were unlikely to have urbanisation economies of scale in mind. They counted on ensuring the implementation of joint transport, infrastructure and social projects that require the concentration of scarce financial, labour and material resources of municipalities.
In the economic space of the country, the larger cities (metropolises) "form a kind of "apical meristem" (a set of vertices) that retain the ability to create, generate and develop any types of human activities throughout their lives, to increase their absolute and comparative advantages over other types of urban settlements" [Animitsa, 2013, p. 84].
In the Ural macroregion, a unique urban construct, the Ural Urban Square, has historically formed in a natural way and is actively developing. On its 'corners', four largest urban agglomerations have grown - Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk, Ufa and Perm - with great potential for further growth (Table 4). As the table data shows, with the decline in the population of the Ural region in the last 10 years the number of their residents has increased by more than 25 thousand people.
It is noteworthy that data on municipalities has been available only since 2010, therefore, we can determine these agglomerations' population at an earlier date based on the population of cities and towns and other settlements included in an agglomeration.
Historically, in the socioeconomic development of the Ural macroregion, the Ural Urban Square absorbed the main properties of both the urban settlement system and the main economic characteristics of the macroregion. Being highly attractive for investment, this construct attracts large companies, concentrates human, industrial, economic and social resources, and is the core of development for both the Ural macroregion itself and neighboring regions. The urban square, which historically covered the old industrial Urals from the west and east, the so-called middle region [Animitsa et al., 2009], took possession of the 'entrances' and 'exits' from Siberia and the Ural region itself. As a result, it brought under economical and administrative control almost the entire territory of the macroregion. Complementing and supporting each other, these urban agglomerations contributed to the unification of various parts of the Greater Urals into a single internally functionally connected economic and urban integral entity, and also contributed to the consolidation of
Table 4. Population of the Ural Urban Square as of January 1, total population,
thousand persons
Agglomerations included in the Ural Urban Square 2012 2022 2022 to 2012, %
Ekaterinburg urban agglomeration* 2,026.5 2,157.5 106.5
Chelyabinsk urban agglomeration** 1,607.7 1,656.5 103.0
Ufa urban agglomeration*** 1,381.3 1,492.1 108.0
Perm urban agglomeration**** 1,240.7 1,297.5 104.6
Total Ural Urban Square 6,256.2 6,603.6 105.6
Russian Federation 143,056.4 145,557.6 101.7
Share of the Ural Urban Square in the population of the Russian Federation, % 4.37 4.54 -
^Research report "Socioeconomic and territorial justification for the territorial planning scheme of the Sverdlovsk oblast in the part of the Ekaterinburg agglomeration", 2018. https://disk.yandex.ru/d/IfK-B1n10qwwtvA. (In Russ.)
**Order of the Governor of the Chelyabinsk oblast of August 17, 2020 no. 777-r "On the creation of working groups". https://clck.ru/39qNvW. (In Russ.)
***Decree of the Government of the Republic of Bashkortostan of December 20, 2018 no. 624 "On the Strategy for the socioeconomic development of the Republic of Bashkortostan for the period until 2030." P. 109. https://economy.bashkortostan.ru/documents/active/298367/.(In Russ.)
****Decree of the Government of the Perm krai of December 23, 2020 no. 993-p "On approval of the Territorial Planning Scheme of the Perm krai." https://docs.cntd.ru/document/571056220. (In Russ.)
the old developed regions of Russia's European part and the regions of the later and more recent development in the country's Asian part.
In the foreseeable future, the socioeconomic, investment, and innovation potential of the Ural Urban Square will increase significantly and will continue to transform the economic space of the region due to the inclusion of new municipalities in its composition, as well as by localising modern industries, which appear due to the new industrial revolution and require the latest technologies and the best minds [Marsh, 2015].
As for the regulation of development in an urban agglomeration, it is possible to recall the synoicism concept (the Greek ouvoiKia^oq means populating together), which defines and formulates a specific urban policy in a system of several interacting cities and towns. Soyya envisioned the unification (association) of several cities and towns into a single polis as a source of social synergy. This is a policy based on the postulates of civil society, democratic ideals and processes of innovative development [Soyya, 2008].
Ural cities and towns in the foreseeable future
We should emphasise that the economic basis of Ural cities and towns in the posttransition era will be a restructured, high-quality and efficient manufacturing industry capable of ensuring stable economic growth and employment. Key new industries
will advance at the cutting edge, including biological manufacturing, defence and space, quantum technology and low-altitude drones. Efforts will be made to further transition to digitalisation, including intellectual technology. To achieve these goals in the Ural region, it will be necessary to take full advantage of the available internal resources and minimise the threats caused by uncertainty.
It is impossible to shape urban development in the form of spontaneous self-development and self-adjustment. We cannot rely solely on self-regulation of cities and towns as complex systems. A lot of cities and towns, operating for many centuries, have accumulated numerous problems that can only be solved through targeted action.
The famous French philosopher Auguste Comte formulated the well-known rule: "to know in order to predict, to predict in order to control", which has direct implications for planning cities and towns' future development. At the stage of socioeconomic transition, numerous crises are recorded in cities and towns, caused by a multiplicity of natural, socioeconomic and political circumstances and reasons. A complicated situation is emerging in cities and towns, which requires solving a number of problems and formulating answers to many questions. Entire generations of urban planners and architects have tried to find and keep on looking for answers to these complicated questions and ways to outline problems about the future of cities and towns.
At the stage of transition from the 20th to the 21th century, Russian urban planners and experts are showing great interest in the Smart City concept, which implies a safe, economically powerful, environmentally friendly and efficient urban center with a developed social and industrial infrastructure, the main purpose of which is to ensure sustainable economic growth and improve the quality of life [Anttiroiko, Valkama, Bailey, 2013; Angelidou, 2014; Shelton, Zook, Wiig, 2015; Veselova, Khat-skelevich, Ezhova, 2018; Popov, Semyachkov, 2020, p. 137].
The concept of smart cities was formed in the scientific community in the early 2000s. The 2008-2012 period was characterised as "Smart City 1.0", and after 2016 a new period began in the development of new cities - "Smart City 2.0", in which the comfort of residents is assigned a priority [Popov, Semyachkov, 2020, pp. 112, 115]. Currently, smart cities 3.0 and 4.0 are being discussed in the literature [Yun, Lee, 2019; Lugo Santiago, 2020]. In Russia, the "Smart City" project was developed and is being implemented within the national projects "Housing and Urban Environment" and "Digital Economy".
In 2016, the urbanist Carlos Moreno proposed creating "smart" and "living" metropolises divided into "15-minute zones"1. It is expected that places of work or study,
1 Moreno C. (2019). The 15 minutes-city: for a new chrono-urbanism! https://www.moreno-web.net/the-15-min-utes-city-for-a-new-chrono-urbanism-pr-carlos-moreno/.
hospitals and cultural sites, shops and cafes, sports facilities and parks, public spaces for events and the development of good neighbourliness should be located within a 15-minute walking or cycling distance. In 2021, Moreno received the prestigious Obel Award for his significant contribution to the development of architecture in the world. His ideas are most likely to be guided by the concept of Howard's garden city, who tried to combine the advantages of a city and the countryside in designing settlements. He wrote, "... Town and Country must be married and out of this joyous union will spring a new hope, a new life and a new civilization" [Howard, 1911, pp. 12-13]. The ideas of a compact city remain quite attractive for scientists and for urban planning policy [Mouratidis, 2018; Kain et al., 2022].
The 15-minutes city concept got its second breath in the last 3-4 years, when the COVID-19 pandemic began. Almost all countries tried to limit citizens' freedom of movement in order to avoid the spread of the disease [Lennon, 2021; Mouratidis, 2022]. This idea also appealed to green activists, who advocate the abandonment of internal combustion engine vehicles in favour of bicycles and walking [Holden, Norland, 2005].
The powerful urbanistic message of theories of future urban development has always, to one degree or another, influenced the conceptual attitudes of Ural urban planners and designers (especially concerning constructivism).
Conceptually, nothing fundamentally new or significant has yet been developed by Ural urban planners and architects, except for the manifestation of strategic thinking in the strategic plan for the Ekaterinburg's development created by a team of scientists, experts, and city administration specialists in 2003 and updated in 2010 and 20181 [Animitsa et al., 2003].
Currently, the Ural cities and towns are regulated by several scientific and design documents, including the city master plan, the city socioeconomic development plan, programmes and projects. In the Soviet Union, such planning was carried out by state urban planning institutions (for example, Giprogor, Lengiprogor, Sverdlovskgrazh-danproekt). At present, there are no such institutions. In most cases, they became corporatised, changed the profile of their business activity and were involved in private rather than government orders. Unfortunately, our country seems to not be in need for urban planning policy and urban planning. Even in the Town planning code of the Russian Federation adopted in 2014, designed to streamline town planning in the country, such important concepts as town planning activities, town planning regulation were not included2.
1 Ekaterinburg City Duma Decision of June 10, 2003 no. 40/6 "On the strategic development plan for Ekaterinburg" (as amended on May 25, 2018 and edited by Resolutions of the Ekaterinburg City Duma of January 22, 2008 no. 7/52, of October 26, 2010 no. 67/30, of May 25, 2018 no. 12/81). https://docs.cntd.ru/document/802003648. (In Russ.)
2 Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation. In: Complete collection of codes of the Russian Federation. Moscow: House of Slavic Books, 2006, pp. 613-634. (In Russ.)
The Strategy for spatial development of the Russian Federation for the period until 20251 does not correspond to the current realities and the progress of the country, but most likely aggravates the situation since it develops mainly cities and agglomerations and at the same time causes desertification of the spaces between them.
In recent years, the authorities of the Ural cities and towns have become seriously concerned about the local humanisation of the urban environment within the federal project "Formation of a comfortable urban environment" of the national project "Housing and urban environment", in which the quality index of the urban environment is assessed by 36 different indicators. They characterise the 6 most popular types of inner-city spaces: housing; public, business and social and leisure infrastructure and adjacent spaces; green areas; embankments; street infrastructure and city space.
The problem of relocating residents from dilapidated buildings remains relevant. For this reason, President Putin in one of his speeches called on regional and municipal authorities to more actively use new technologies in urban construction. The construction of apartment buildings in cities and towns, especially small ones, rather than simply distributing money to owners of living space in slums, can be considered a fundamental point. New blocks and microdistricts not only renew cities and towns' appearance, but also are an impetus for infrastructure development.
Ural cities and towns are moving to really comfortable arrangement of the innercity territory and the transformation of outer-urban spaces and environment (in particular, the construction of trade and warehouse infrastructure, cottage villages, the formation of recreation areas, etc.). This significantly expands the social space of the urban settlement.
The Sverdlovsk oblast is actively participating in implementing the federal project "Formation of a comfortable urban environment". Over the past five years, more than 15 billion rubles have been spent on these purposes from budgets at various levels. Over the time, more than 1,900 territories have been improved, including at least 670 public spaces. Since 2022, the regional programme "Formation of a comfortable urban environment" has been implemented, its financing is covered by the regional and municipal budgets. In 2023, they were going to improve 58 sites, including 45 public ones; more than 1.6 billion rubles were allocated for these purposes.
In the cities and towns of the region, local programmes "Our Yard" are being implemented as a public initiative. They are aimed at comprehensive landscaping of yards of high-rise buildings.
All these measures can not only ensure certain control over the territories and their development, improve the quality of life, but also make it possible to stop the migration of the population outside the Ural region.
1 Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 13, 2019 no. 207-r "Strategy for spatial development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2025". https://docs.cntd.ru/document/552378463 (In Russ.)
Conclusion
In conclusion, it would appear that many economic, social and moral processes, historical phenomena in urban development find their explanation and comprehension being considered in retrospect, in long-term cause-and-effect dynamics. This is the only way to understand the essence of events, identify the internal mechanisms of functioning, and confidently trace the factors and conditions of urban development not only in the past, but also in the complicated present and contradictory future.
Despite the unfavorable and often destructive trends of market transformations, Ural cities and towns have generally managed to preserve their genetic code. Updated industrial production remains the basis of economic activity in the vast majority of Ural cities and towns, while the processes of technological modernisation and reconstruction have intensified.
In connection with the further strengthening of larger cities' role and importance in the Ural settlement system, the manifestation of the Ural Urban Square, which includes the four fast-growing largest agglomerations of the Urals, will further increase. This urban construct becomes the core not only of the Ural system of cities and towns, but also the backbone of the entire economic complex of the region as a whole.
A new paradigm for the socioeconomic development of Russia and its regions is being formed; it is the one that will dominate in the foreseeable future in the Ural region, including beyond the transition period.
The future of the Ural settlement system and many cities and towns will be built on new principles and approaches, take into account the interests and needs of the population as a whole, and be based on the formation of a new comfortable urban environment.
References
Alekseev V. V. (ed.) (2000). The Urals in the panorama of the 20th century. Ekaterinburg: SV-96 Publ. 496 p. (In Russ.)
Angelidou M. (2014). Smart city policies: A spatial approach. Cities, vol. 41, pp. S3-S11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.06.007.
Animitsa E. G. (2013). The larger cities of Russia in the context of global urbanization processes. Ars Administrandi, no. 1, pp. 82-96. (In Russ.)
Animitsa E. G., Bochko V. S., Vysokinskiy A. G., Silin Ya. P., Chernetskiy A. M., Andrus M. O., ... Yandyganov Ya. Ya. (2003). Development strategy of the largest city: A look into the future. A scientific and methodological approach. Ekaterinburg: Uralskiy rabochiy Publ. 600 p. (In Russ.)
Animitsa E. G., Glumov A. A., Dvoryadkina E. B., Kochkina E. M., Novikova N. V. (2009). Middle region: Theory, methodology, analysis. Ekaterinburg: Ural State University of Economics. 508 p. (In Russ.)
Antonyuk V. S., Kozina M. V., Vansovich E. R., Sigatova N. A. (2021). Formation and development of urban agglomerations: Theoretical and methodological aspects of research. Vestnik YuUrGU. Seriya: "Ekonomika i menedzhment" = Bulletin of SUSU. Series "Economics and Management", vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 7-19. https://doi.org/10.14529/em210201. (In Russ.)
Antonyuk V. S., Vansovich E. R., Kidrasov D. R., Sigatova N. A. (2022). Urban agglomerations of the Russian Federation: Specificities of functioning in the post-industrial period. Proc. of 74th Sci. Conf. "Science of the South Ural State University. Economic sciences" (pp. 67-73). Chelyabinsk: South Ural State University. (In Russ.)
Anttiroiko A. V., Valkama P., Bailey S. J. (2013). Smart cities in the new service economy: Building platforms for smart services. AI & Society, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 323-334. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00146-013-0464-0.
Bugrov K. D. (2018). Social cities of the Greater Urals. Ekaterinburg: Ural University Publ. 472 p. (In Russ.)
Fujita M., Krugman P., Mori T. (1999). On the evolution of hierarchical urban systems. European Economic Review, vol. 43, issue 2, pp. 209-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(98)00066-X.
Fujita M., Krugman P., Venables A. J. (1999). The spatial economy: Cities, regions, and international trade. The MIT Press. 382 p.
Fujita M., Mori T. (1997). Structural stability and evolution of urban systems. Regional Science and Urban Economics, vol. 27 (4-5), pp. 399-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-0462(97)80004-X.
Gentile M., Tammaru T. (2006). Housing and ethnicity in the post-soviet city: Ust'-Ka-menogorsk, Kazakhstan. Urban Studies, vol. 43 (10), pp. 1757-1778.
Goodrich Lehmann S., Ruble B. A. (1997). From 'Soviet' to 'European' Yaroslavl: Changing neighbourhood structure in post-Soviet Russian cities. Urban Studies, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1085-1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098975745.
Henderson J. V. (1988). Urban development: Theory, fact, and illusion. New York: Oxford University Press. 242 p.
Henderson J. V., Wang H. G. (2005). Aspects of the rural-urban transformation of countries. Journal of Economic Geography, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 23-42. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlecg/ lbh052.
Holden E., Norland I. T. (2005). Three challenges for the compact city as a sustainable urban form: household consumption of energy and transport in eight residential areas in the Greater Oslo region. Urban Studies, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 2145-2166. https://doi. org/10.1080/00420980500332064.
Hölscher K., Frantzeskaki N. (2021). Perspectives on urban transformation research: Transformations in, of, and by cities. Urban Transformations, vol. 3, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s42854-021-00019-z.
Hoover E. M. (1948). The location of economic activity. New York, Toronto, London: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc. 310 p.
Howard E. (1911). Garden cities. Saint Petersburg: Tipografiya tovarishchestvava Obsh-chestvennaya pol'za Publ. 176 p. (In Russ.)
Huggins R., Thompson P. (2019). The behavioural foundations of urban and regional development: Culture, psychology and agency. Journal of Economic Geography, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 121-146. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbx040.
Ioannides Y. M., Overman H. G. (2004). Spatial evolution of the US urban system. Journal of Economic Geography, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 131-156. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/4.2.131.
Izhguzina N. R. (2018). Formation and development of the larger urban agglomeration in the economic space of a region. Cand. econ. sci. diss. Ekaterinburg. 27 p. (In Russ.)
Jacobs J. (1960). The economy of cities. New York: Random House. 268 p.
Kain J. H., Adelfio M., Stenberg J., Thuvander L. (2022). Towards a systemic understanding of compact city qualities. Journal of Urban Design, vol. 27, issue 1, pp. 130-147. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2021.1941825.
Konysheva E. V., Meerovich M. G. (2011). Ernst May and the design of socialist cities during the first five-year plans (using the example of Magnitogorsk). Moscow: Lenand Publ. 224 p. (In Russ.)
Lash S., Urry J. (1994). Economies of sings and space. London: Sage Publ. 360 p.
Lennon M. (2021). Green space and the compact city: Planning issues for a 'new normal'. Cities & Health, vol. 5, issue sup1, pp. 212-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.177 8843.
Lugo Santiago J. A. (2020). Is there such a thing as the smart city 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0? In: Lugo Santiago J. A. (ed.) Leadership and strategic foresight in smart cities (pp. 33-42). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Marsh P. (2015). The new industrial revolution: Consumers, globalization and the end of mass production. Moscow: Gaydar Institute. 420 p. (In Russ.)
Melnikova L. V. (2023). Efficiency of large cities: Theory and empirics. Voprosy ekonomiki = The Issues of Economics, no. 3, pp. 83-101. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2023-3-83-101. (In Russ.)
Mouratidis K. (2018). Is compact city livable? The impact of compact versus sprawled neighbourhoods on neighbourhood satisfaction. Urban Studies, vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 2408-2430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017729109.
Mouratidis K. (2022). COVID-19 and the compact city: Implications for well-being and sustainable urban planning. Science of the Total Environment, vol. 811, 152332. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152332.
Neugebauer C. S., Rekhviashvili L. (2015). Loss and (re-)construction of public space in post-Soviet cities. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 35, no. 7/8. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-04-2015-0042.
Pertsik E. N. (2009). Large urban agglomerations. In: Problems of development of agglomerations in Russia (pp. 34-46). Moscow: KRASAND Publ. (In Russ.)
Popov E. V., Semyachkov K. A. (2020). Smart cities. Moscow: Yurayt Publ. 346 p. (In Russ.)
Ruleva I. V., Abaimova A. A. (2012). Ideological preconditions of the concept of sotsgorod. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya = Modern Problems of Science and Education, no. 6. https://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=8028. (In Russ.)
Ryzhkov N. I. (1995). Ten years of great upheaval. Moscow: Association Kniga. Prosvesh-chenie. Miloserdie Publ. 576 p. (In Russ.)
Sachs J. D. (1995). Market economy and Russia. Moscow: Ekonomika Publ. 331 p. (In Russ.)
Sayko E. V. (ed.) (2001). City in the processes of historical transitions. Theoretical aspects and sociocultural characteristics. Moscow: Nauka Publ. 392 p. (In Russ.)
Shelton T., Zook M., Wiig A. (2015). The 'actually existing smart city'. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/ rsu026.
Sidorina E. V. (1995). Russian constructivism: Origins, ideas, practice. Moscow: VINITI Publ. 240 p. (In Russ.)
Silin Ya. P., Animitsa E. G., Novikova N. V. (2019). Ural macroregion: Large cycles of industrialisation. Ekaterinburg: Ural State University of Economics. 371 p. (In Russ.)
Smith A. (1992). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (Books I-III). Moscow: Nauka Publ. 572 p. (In Russ.)
Sokolov M. M. (2010). Socioeconomic problems of the functioning and development of large cities. Methods of research and regulation. Moscow: GASIS Publ. 352 p. (In Russ.)
Soyya E. (2008). How to write about a city from a spatial perspective? Logos, no. 3, pp. 130-140. (In Russ.)
Stepanov A. V., Burnasov A. S., Valiakhmetova G. N., Ilyushkina M. Y. (2022). The impact of economic sanctions on the industrial regions of Russia (the case of Sverdlovsk region). R-Economy, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 295-305. https://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2022.8.3.023.
Tatarkin A. I. (2016). Demographic situation in the Urals: inertia and dynamics of natural population movement. Proc. 7th Demographic Forum with Int. Participation "Dynamics and Inertia of Population Reproduction and Generation Replacement in Russia and the CIS". Vol. 1. Sociology and history of population reproduction in Russia (pp. 8-12). Ekaterinburg. (In Russ.)
Trubina E. G. (2011). The city in theory: Experiments in understanding space. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie Publ. 520 p. (In Russ.)
Veselova A. O., Khatskelevich A. N., Ezhova L. S. (2018). Prospects to create "smart cities" in Russia: Classification of problems and their solutions. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Seria Ekonomika = Perm University Herald. Economy, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 75-88. https://doi. org/10.17072/1994-9960-2018-1-75-89. (In Russ.)
Yanik A. A. (2012). History of modern Russia. Origins and lessons of the latest Russian moderniuation (1985-1999). Moscow: Fond sovremennoy istorii Publ.; Moscow University Publ. 760 p. (In Russ.)
Yun Y., Lee M. (2019). Smart city 4.0 from the perspective of open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 5, no. 4, 92. https://doi. org/10.3390/joitmc5040092.
Zaborova E. N. (2007). A city on the verge of centuries. Ekaterinburg: Ural State University of Economics. 272 p. (In Russ.)
Information about the authors
Evgeny G. Animitsa, Dr. Sc. (Geography), Prof., Prof. of Regional, Municipal Economics and Governance Dept. Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia. E-mail: animieg@usue.ru
Natalya Yu. Vlasova, Dr. Sc. (Econ.), Prof., Prof. of Regional and Municipal Governance Dept. Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia. E-mail: vnj@usue.ru Yakov P. Silin, Dr. Sc. (Econ.), Prof., Rector, Prof. of Regional, Municipal Economics and Governance Dept. Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia. E-mail: odo@usue.ru
© Animitsa E. G., Vlasova N. Yu., Silin Ya. P., 2024
