1

by Andrius Ropolas andrius.ropolas@gmail.com http://andrius.ropolas.eu/ written as a part of Critical urban theory course at K.U. Leuven, Sint Lucas School of Architecture, Brussels, 2013

This paper attempts to analyze Russia’s closed cities ("closed administrative-territorial

formations" or ZATO for short) through the social point of view, compare past and present situations and

introduce concepts of “The Right to the City”, gated community and heterotopia in them. Two main stand

points are overlooked: how and why people were and are fighting for their right to the city and what was

architects role in this fight in the past and what it could be today. Paper is divided three main parts. In

“Introduction”, history of Russian closed cities and situation of life, rights and freedoms meets concepts

“The Right to the City”, gated community and heterotopia. It is explained how we can see closed cities and

processes in them through these concepts. In the part “The right to the city, gated communities,

heterotopia and ZATOs” it is explained how and why people were fighting for the right to the city before

and in recent days. It is discussed if they failed or succeeded in doing that and what was the outcome of

their failure or success. In addition, other concepts are elaborated - what does it mean for people to live in

gated communities and heterotopian spaces, how these concepts influence their life. In the last part

“Architecture and planning in restricted areas” it is explained what was the role of architects in the past in

fight for the right to the city. In addition it is discussed what architects can do today to engage in this fight.

Moreover Henri Lefebvre’s idea about power of proletariat is challenged in context of closed cities. Paper

concludes that because of specific nature of these formations, in the past people managed to fight for their

right to the city and architects involvement was not necessary, however today situation is opposite and

moreover, involvement from government is necessary.

On February 11, 1943 Soviet Union started their nuclear research and development

program as a response to information that other countries are also researching possibilities of nuclear

power (Bukharin et al., 1999, p. 2). This led to construction of almost 100 entirely new closed cities or

ZATOs across Soviet Union (Eidel, 2009b). Those cities were designed just for one main function –

production of elements or objects necessary for soviet army to keep up in their race for power against

United States of America (USA). Some of the closed cities were working on nuclear program, others

manufacturing war machines or focusing on space programs, but all of them shared some common things –

secrecy, isolation and exclusivity.

The secrecy in cities was at top level, as it is mentioned in article by Michael R. Gordon (1998): “for the first

few years, none of the residents were allowed to leave”. However after first satellites appeared, secrecy

diminished greatly. From 1960 to 1972 USA did over one hundred satellite missions to uncover depths of

these cities (Bukharin et al., 1999, p. 9).

Cities often were built in distant areas, away from bigger cities to keep people and more importantly

information isolated. Primary access to the cities was railway, some cities also had airfields or helicopter

2

facilities (Bukharin et al., 1999, p. 9) cities were fenced and protected by KGB (Lemaitre, 2005). Their

existence was hidden from public and closed cities often did not have proper names, just codes, nor they

appeared on maps. Phone lines had direct connection just with main officials in Moscow. “The Right to the

City” as described by Henri Lefebvre (1968) was clearly not fulfilled. Without having freedom of movement

and speech it was hard to make any impact for people themselves. At the same time the idea of these

places came roughly from up, they were planned by small group of people and built by prisoners (Gordon,

1998), so in the structure of the cities it was already programmed that citizens would not have any power in

decision making.

However these harsh conditions had their advantages for workers. People working in these cities had

higher than average salaries, longer holidays, there was virtually no crime, closed cities were often more

spacious and green compared to similar open cities, there was almost no unemployment, common pride

was also very high, because people felt that their work is very necessary. When in the rest of Soviet Union

there were queues for products, in these cities people could get everything without any trouble (Eidel,

2009). Latest movies were shown one day after their premiere in Moscow movie theaters (Gordon, 1998).

This could be compared to gated communities. As described by Hook and Vrdoljak (2002) gated

communities are symbol of prestige and places of higher security, protecting people inside from reality

outside. Although their research is focusing on South Africa, main conditions are the same in ZATOs. People

in closed cities had certain special privileges, the rules and sometimes even political situation inside was

different from outside.

Most of the world and even Russians did not know about the existence of those kind of structures, until in

1992 a law governing “closed administrative-territorial formations” or ZATO (Lappo and Polian, 1998) was

accepted. The space which is here and at the same time not here is a clear example of heterotopian space.

In conversation about ZATO at Van Alen Institute, professor Jean-Louis Cohen referred to military,

territorial, scientific complexes, such as ZATOs, as system of heterotopian spaces. As elaborated by Michel

Foucault (1986) there are different types of heterotopian spaces. Closed cities because of their mix of

different functions (civil and military) in one space are heterotopias of crises. Today visitors in closed cities

mention the feeling that time in these places has stopped for last 30 years (Eidel, 2009). Isolation from

outside world made these cities heterotopias of time.

After fall of Soviet Union and new disarmament agreements between Russia and USA, situation started to

change dramatically. Although already in 1980s government understood that there is no need to keep the

same production pace as before (Bukharin et al., 2000, p. 62), after 1991 the importance of production in

these cities diminished even more. Funding from the government decreased creating social issues. In 1996

director of the nuclear design center Chelyabinsk-70 killed himself, because he could not pay salaries to his

workers (Gordon, 1998). As stated by Oleg Bukharin and others (2000, p. 10) government funding in 1999

was only one-seventh as it was in 1990. To prevent specialists from leaving closed cities and Russia for

better paid jobs in Iran or North Korea, local government together with USA started conversion and

reorganization projects in these sensitive areas to create new products, create new work places and use

existing knowledge for civil purposes. A program “Reorganization of Nuclear Industry Enterprises” had to

release 30 000 workers from nuclear complexes and at the same time to create same amount of

workplaces by reorienting released personnel to work in civil production and supporting development of

private enterprises from period 2002 until 2010 (Rumyantsev and Kholdov p. 174).

Today there are 47 closed cities with a population of around 1.3 million. It means that almost every 100th

person in Russia lives in a closed city under special regulations. Although presence of these cities is no

longer denied they are still kept in secrecy. Privacy and freedom of people living and working in these

structures is limited, they cannot freely change their residence location, nor sometimes live with their

relatives. As it was reported by European Human Rights Advocacy Center in 2011 Maxim Kurpachev could

3

no longer live with his mother, because he was convicted for some criminal offenses and after release from

prison, he could no longer get permanent residence at closed city of Ozersk, where his mother lives.

In some cases not only people struggle for the right to the city, but also cities themselves: “The Primorskii

Krai government has used the threat of dumping waste in international waters as leverage for more

funding in Moscow” (Whittenton).

It is extremely difficult for foreigner to get inside these cities. It is easy to find stories of journalists who got

their access denied in last minute (Hodge, 2006). Also for Russians it is also a serous task, of course it differs

depending on the city and how heavily it is secured. Often easiest way to get access is to have relatives

living there (Eidel, 2009). Special limitations to get to closed cities makes these spaces heterotopias of

purification.

Same difficulties applies to media. “Federal and local mass media have no access to closed cities. None of

independent pressmen are allowed to visit ZATOs.“ (Kutepova, 2003). According to Roemer Lemaitre (2005)

these restrictions violate freedom of movement and other international human rights.

However more cities are planned to be opened. “With the military reform transforming the Russian army

and the market economy booming, it is inevitable that most of these cities will open up” says Alexander

Golts, an independent military analyst (Nemtsova, 2009). On the other hand it is not only government who

wants these cities to be closed, but also people. Often they look with suspicion about plans to open city

they live in. Nostalgia and old feeling of prestige is such a strong factors playing big role for older residents,

that 89% of interviewed people of city of Norilsk did not want their city to be opened (Lappo and Polian,

1998, p. 47) although younger people often strive for possibilities in bigger open cities, especially Moscow.

Existing restrictions confronted with Henri Lefebrve’s “Right to the city” ideas raises question if people

living in closed cities have any rights and power at all to make any impact on their environment.

Although information and processes inside closed cities are protected and in the past were protected even

more, there is information about attempts to fight for the rights to the city. As researched by Sergei I. Zhuk

(2008) in closed city of Dnepropetrovsk in 1970s, which at that time was the site of biggest missile factory

in Soviet Union, among youth, forbidden things like religion and “westernization” were spreading. Youth

were buying copies of western music on black market. As emphasized by Zhuk (2008), the record of Jesus

Christ Superstar played a big role of spreading new ideas among young people and made headaches for

KGB (p. 662). He even mentions some arrests, when in 1970 ten young hippies were arrested and later,

forty more. However often only people from Soviet elite could afford buying these records, so hippies

arrested, were children of some high officers (p. 672). This just demonstrates that sometimes system was

fighting against itself. Bigger spread of western music led to events organized by Baptists around the city

with western music and radio shows (p. 667), although they were later banned people always found away

how bypass restrictions.

In his text Zhuk makes an important conclusion: “The story of “popular religiosity” and “Western mass

culture” in Dnepropetrovsk during the Brezhnev era highlights the complete failure of Soviet ideologists

and the KGB to protect the youth of this strategically important center of the Soviet military-industrial

complex from “ideological pollution.” At the same time, it shows how the tastes and activities of the new

youth culture created new values and demands for cultural consumption that gradually transformed and

replaced traditional Soviet values and Communist ideological practices”. Here it is stated that the fight for

rights to the city, not only led to changes in the city, but also changes in ideological system and traditional

4

Soviet values. It means that highly classified status of city and work being done inside can be separated

from people and their right to the city. The walls keeping work and information safe inside the city does not

necessarily apply to people living inside. Even with limited rights, without help from up, people always

found tools to fight for their rights and make change.

After crash of Soviet Union and introduction of market economy needs of people changed. Despair of

people about the future is visible in dramatically dropping birth rates. In closed city of Tomsk birthrates

compared to years 1965 and 1990 dropped by 20%, in Seversk by 41% and compared with years 1975 and

1995 birthrate in all Russian Federation dropped by 49% (Oleynichenko et al, 2005, p. 46). Freedom of

culture, music, religion were no more restricted, however market economy forced to face new challenges.

Nuclear defense sector did not benefit from opening up economy (Kaser, 2006). Declining need of

production from closed cities led to declining financial support for them. Russian crises of 1999 also did no

leave those areas untouched. At the same time population in ten cities in control of Ministry of Atomic

Energy grew by 57 000 residents from period 1989 to 1998 (Kaser, 2006). Troubles with finance and

inability to change anything by people themselves, because of isolation and direct financial dependence

from Moscow, led to new forms of protest and fights for rights. Suicide of director of Chelyabinsk-70 in late

1996 for inability to pay salaries to his workers, was probably most radical, but not only way of expressing

despair.

“About 300 workers from one nuclear submarine factory blocked the Trans-Siberian railroad, demanding

wages that were nearly ten months overdue”, “one striking plant mechanic said he could see "only one way

out – to go to a nuclear submarine and do something," adding that it would not be hard to cause a "tragedy

worse than Chernobyl" (Whittenton). These are just few examples of people trying to influence decisions

related to their rights.

Government understands seriousness of these issues, however changes are happening very slowly. Main

reasons of slow changes are that very big changes in system and big amount of finance are needed to

accomplish goals (Bukharin et al, 2000, p. 10). Lack of experience in market economy also keeps cities

dependent on government funding (Ball, 2001). Initiatives between USA and Russia, like Nuclear Cities

Initiative and a program “Reorganization of Nuclear Industry Enterprises”, tries to help closed cities to

reorient their knowledge to civil production and create new private enterprises.

There are exceptions, not all closed cities are struggling with finance: “The nuclear facilities in three cities

(Novouralsk, Zelenogorsk, and Ozersk) have been doing relatively well because they have been able to

market uranium-enrichment and other fuel-cycle services to foreign nuclear-power utilities and have been

blending-down excess weapons uranium for sale…” (Bukharin et al., 2000, p. 10). However overall situation

is unkind. As research in closed city of Ozersk (Kozlov, 2008, p. 159) shows people are not happy with

welfare, medical assistance, public services and social security.

Despite all attempts to change situation, people feel unappreciated. Former Atomic Energy Minister

Yevgeny Adamov was “lecturing authorities in the nuclear cities not to pay plumbers and common laborers

more than nuclear scientists” (Gordon, 1998). As an outcome, for inability to fight for their right to the city,

younger people leave their closed cities: “We live here under a magnifying glass – every step to the left or

right is noticed and discussed. My friends and I plan to move to Moscow right after graduation. At least I

will see people from other countries there,” says Olga Sibiyato, an 11th-grader at High School No 235 in

closed city of Znamensk (Nemtsova, 2009).

What still keeps people in these cities are advantages of being in gated community and a heterotopian

space. Isolation of cities by walls and checkpoints not only protects information inside from foreign spies

and sabotage, but nowadays protects people and city inside the walls from organized crime (Bunn et al,

1998). Another feature of gated communities is that they often are symbol of status and prestige. “For

5

many, the lock on the gate and secretiveness of their hometown is not a Soviet relic, but the meaning and

pride of their lives” says Anna Nemtsova (2009) about people in closed city of Znamensk. 89% of people

from Norilsk said that they do not want their city to be opened (Lappo and Polian, 1998). People see

closeness as a special feature of their city rather than downside. “The wall is not to make us close-minded,

or isolated, but to provide us with a special status,” says mayor of Znamensk Victor Likh (Nemtsova, 2009).

As being places of heterotopia of time and deviation closed cities creates strong nostalgic and patriotic

approach. Remembrance of past, which is very strong in these places, makes things to have meaning. “We

are rocket specialists, the elite of the Russian army”, “Thousand of missiles have gone through our hands…

If not us, then who is going to keep Russia safe?” says Aleksei Prudnikov, the commander of the anti-terror

unit at Znamensk military range (Nemtsova, 2009). As Matthew Bunn and others (1998) think, only

patriotism prevented from wide selling nuclear weapons and technologies from closed cities on black

market.

Construction boom of closed cities

was happening from 1940s to 1960s as mentioned by Xenia Vytuleva at Van Alen Institute conversation

(2012). At that time soviet modernistic ideas of architecture were already defined. Across all Soviet Union

typical housing, industrial, cultural, medical projects were being realized. Despite of distance, no newly

built area differed too much in style from other. Housing blocks in Georgia or Lithuania were almost the

same. Typical planning was also big advantage for fast building. This planning ideology is visible in closed

cities (pe-international.ru). Only difference, that as space of privilege, closed cities were more green and

spacious (Gordon, 1998). Typical building system, ideological approach and extreme secrecy of closed cities

meant that architects had limited possibilities to be involved in fight with people for the right to the city. At

the same time, there was no need of architects to be involved – structure and ideology was all over the

same, no difference if it was open or closed city. Moreover, conditions were even better in closed cities. As

it was discussed before, people successfully managed to fight for their rights to the city in these conditions.

Today situation is different. Being heterotopias of time, closed cities did not follow contemporary trends,

market economy bypassed them. It means that closed cities today have same structure as they had 30

years ago, old ideological presence and structure are not reflecting what is happening outside the walls.

As a reason of economical declination and inability to fight for their rights to the city, there is a tendency

for youth to leave closed cities, striving for more possibilities in Russia’s biggest cities, where presence of

reality and contemporary world is most appreciable and visible.

It is clear that ongoing changes of restructurization, conversion and private enterprises in closed cities must

be encouraged and not only because Russia can no longer afford these complexes (Bukharin , 2000, p. 60),

but also because it will create better environment for people. Opening up to the world is another side of

the medal. For some cities is inevitable to open up, as Russian government can no longer support them and

production from them is not as necessary as before, the only way of survival is opening up and contributing

to market economy.

These processes of reorientation, conversion of closes cities and opening of some of them leads to massive

changes in cities structure and economy. And here is the place where architects can play their role in help

for people to fight for their city.

''People in the closed cities are like children, the gap between ordinary cities and the free market is quite

big, but the gap between people who lived in a closed city and a market economy is enormous'' - Yevgeny

Adamov, fromer Atomic Energy Minister (Gordon, 1998)

6

In these new conditions architects can help to understand better and plan processes of change. New

conditions will change face of the cities, so it is very important to have visions how these cities can see

themselves in the future. Although similar rules apply to all closed cities, in depth they are very different,

with difference in size, social structure, needs, geography and many more factors. Architects can help to

manage all these issues and provide global vision for these places, which could reflect past of the cities,

present reality outside city walls and future needs. Smart visions would make it easier for people to shape

city themselves, by reclaiming and fighting for their rights to the city.

However without changes initiated and supported by Russian government, architects have no power, even

governments of cities have no power to engage in fight for the right to the city. It is ironical example which

opposes Henri Lefebvre’s idea of power of proletariat: “Only groups, social classes and class fractions of

revolutionary initiative can take over and realize to fruition solutions to urban problems. It is from these

social and political forces that the renewed city will become the oeuvre” (1968, p. 154). In case of ZATOs

government is the trigger which can let people reclaim their city. Otherwise situation where people are

either leaving, because they cannot fight for the right to their city, or accepting existing setting and being

passive is inevitable.

Ofcourse we have to remember that closed cities in Russia is unique example of mix of freedom rights,

national security, specific cultural and historical context and functional purpose. They are realized utopias

(Van Alen Institute, 2012), so it is natural that widely accepted philosophies work differently in these

conditions.

When the fight for the city was about culture, people managed to find their ways to

gain their rights and city. They still managed to buy desired records, dress up as they wanted, organize

events in cities. Architects did not need to be involved in these processes, because architectural and

planning situation was everywhere the same. Eventually this fight had an outcome and changed all

traditional Soviet values. This is materialization of Henri Lefebvre’s “The Right to the City” (1968) where he

discusses that change can be only realized by working class and a “critique of the ideological and strategic

implications of planning projects” (p. 153).

However after crash of Soviet Union, there was no need to fight for culture, there was need to fight for

social rights, earned salary and ability to work. It is impossible for people to influence these issues, without

involvement from up, because control of economy in closed cities is directly dependent from Russia’s

government, even city government has no power. It means that, although people are fighting for their

rights to the city, they are still losing this fight. And as an outcome youth is leaving. Only nostalgia and

patriotic feelings are keeping people in cities. Architects can be and must be involved in the fight for the

right to the city, however they are also hostages of government, because without permission from up they

can not even enter closed cities. However, changes are happening, government is trying to change

situation, closed cities are opening up or changing their focus from military to civil production. Only

because of changes triggered by government, architects can become useful and necessary in helping to

control new processes and new realities. Without them, social and spatial consequences of fast changes in

the cities can be unpredictable.

7

Ball, D. Y. (2001) ‘Accessing the Inaccessible: The Case for Opening Up Russia’s Closed Cities’. In: Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory, Conference: Policy Workshop, Moscow, Russia, May 28 - May 29, 2001

Bukharin, O. Cochran, T. B. and Norris, R. S. (1999) ‘New Perspectives on Russia’s Ten Secret Cities’. Nuclear

Weapons Databook, Natural Resources Defense Council

Bukharin, O. Hippel, F. and Sharon K. Weiner (2000) ‘Conversion and Job Creation in Russia’s Closed Nuclear

Cities’. Obninsk, Russia, June 27-29, 2000. Princeton University

Bunn, M. Bukharin, O. Cetina, J. Luongo, K. and Hippel, F. (1998) ‘Retooling Russia’s Nuclear Cities’. [online]

WGBH Educational Foundation. Available at:

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/arsenal/retooling.html> [Accessed 17 January

2013]

Eidel, Y (2009) ‘Juicy Sarov - An amazing journey in a closed city’ [in Russian]. Chastnyj korespondent.

Available at: <http://www.chaskor.ru/p.php?id=3860> [Accessed 17 January 2013]

Eidel, Y (2009b) ‘History closures - Residents of the closed settlements was forbidden to tell them where

they live’ [in Russian]. Chastnyj korespondent. Available at: <http://www.chaskor.ru/p.php?id=3861>

[Accessed 17 January 2013]

European Human Rights Advocacy Center (2001) ‘European Court rules freedom to choose residence

breached in Russian ‘closed city’. [pdf] Availavable at:

<http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/fms/MRSite/Research/HRSJ/EHRAC/Press%20releases/EHRAC%20Press%20

Release%2075%20Karpacheva%20judgment%2027_1_11.pdf> [Accessed 17 January 2013]

Foucault, M. (1986) 'Of other spaces'. Diacritics, 16 (1): 22-27.

Hodge, N. (2006) ‘A Nuclear Family Vacation in Russia’. [online] The Slate Group. Available at:

<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dispatches/features/2006/a_nuclear_family_vacation_i

n_russia/barbarians_at_the_gate.html> [Accessed 17 January 2013]

Hook, D., Vrdoljak, M. (2002) 'Gated communities, heterotopia and a ‘‘rights’’ of privilege: a

‘heterotopology’ of the South African security-park'. Geoforum, 33 (2): 195-219.

Gordon, M. R. (1998) ‘THE HIDDEN CITY: A special report.; Hard Times for Russia's Nuclear Centers’. The

New York Times Company. Available at: <http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/18/world/the-hidden-city-a-

special-report-hard-times-for-russia-s-nuclear-centers.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm> [Accessed 17

January 2013]

Kaser, G. (2006) ‘Planning for countering nuclear terrorism’. S. Apikyan and D. Diamond, Eds., (2006)

‘Countering Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism’. Springer, p. 1-29

Kozlov, V. N. (2008) ‘Quality of life of population of closed administrative territorial formations’ [in Russian].

Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University [in Russian] 33, p. 155 – 162

Kutepova, N. and Tsepilova, O. (2007) ‘Closed City, Open Disaster’. Research in Social Problems and Public

Policy, Volume 14, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, p. 147-164

Kutepova, N. (2003) ‘The closed cities’. The Bellona Foundation. Available at:

<http://bellona.no/bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/nuke_industry/siberia/mayak/27

864> [Accessed 17 January 2013]

Lappo, G. and Polian, P. (1998) ‘Closed cities’ [in Russian]. Socialogitskije isledavanije, 1998, No. 2, p. 43-48

Lefebvre, H. (1968) ‘The Right to the City’. In: Kofman, E. and Lebas. E. eds. Writings on cities. Offord:

Blackwell

Lemaître, R. (2005) ‘How closed cities violate the freedom of movement and other international human

rights obligations of the Russian federation’. Institute for International Law, Working Paper No 77, June

2005, K.U. Leuven

8

Nemtsova, A. (2009) ‘Russia's hidden past inside the secret cities’. Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Available at:

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/6251328/Russias-hidden-past-inside-the-secret-

cities.html> [Accessed 17 January 2013]

Oleynichenko V.F., Takhauov R.M., Karpov A.B. (2005) ‘Demographic processes and health of Seversk,

Tomsk and Tomsk region population during the last decades (analysis of situation, tendencies, comparison

of indices over Tomsk region, Russian Federation, West Siberia)’ [in Russian]. Bulletin of Siberian Medicine

[in Russian] No. 2, p. 45-51

Pe-inernational.ru ‘Closed Cities – Seversk’. [online] Available at: <http://www.pe-

international.ru/eng/cities/seversk/introduction.php> [Accessed 17 January 2013]

Rumyantsev, Y. and Kholodov, A. (2003) ‘Conversion Challenges in Russian Nuclear Cities’. The

Nonproliferation Review, 10.3 (Fall-Winter 2003): p. 167 – 182

Van Alen Institute (2012) ‘ZATO: Secret Soviet Cities during the Cold War’. [video online] Availavable at <

http://vimeo.com/42369896> [Accessed 17 January 2013]

Whittenton, T. ‘Post-Soviet transition and Russia’s ‘secret cities’. [online] San Diego State University.

Available at: <http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~alexseev/RussiaInAsia/ZATO.htm> [Accessed 17 January 2013]

Zhuk, S. (2008) ‘Religion, “Westernization,” and Youth in the “Closed City” of Soviet Ukraine, 1964–84‘. The

Russian Review 67 (October 2008): p. 661–679