Spatial planning in Krasnoyarsk faces opportunities and constraints due to its history and geography. A team analyzed the existing problems by reviewing documents, conducting interviews, and observing the city. They found that the city's industrial past led to a mix of industrial and residential areas, outdated infrastructure, and environmental issues. However, opportunities exist like growing population, cooperation between government levels, and public participation. The team aims to understand problems, identify causes, and develop governance strategies to improve spatial planning and maximize opportunities for the city's further development.

1. Spatial planning in Krasnoyarsk:
opportunities and constraints

2. Team:
• Egor Zadereev, SFU (Russia) – supervisor
• Hanna Skryhan, BRU (Belarus)
• Irina Shilova, BRU (Belarus)
• Shailendra Kumar Mandal, NIT Patna (India)
• Viktar Kireyeu, CNIIKIWR (Belarus)
• Wanyu Shih, UNU-IAS (Japan)

3. Research question
• What are the weaknesses in existing
governance of spatial planning in Krasnoyarsk
city and how can they be mitigated?

4. Objectives
1. To understand existing problems associated with
spatial planning.
2. To identify causes of existing problems.
– Natural constraints
– Infrastructure constraints
– Social context
– Historical legacies
– Institutional constraints
3. To explore potential governance mechanisms to
mitigate these problems.
4. To develop governance strategies to improve
spatial planning process in the city.

5. Methodology
• Case-study approach
• Problem analysis (STEEPL and SWOT analysis)
• Stakeholder analysis
• Institutional analysis
• Interviewing
• Participation observation
• Historical review
• Documentary analysis
• Field trip

6. Data and sources
• Legislative documents (federal, regional, local);
• Master plan and supplementary materials;
• Scheme of spatial planning of Krasnoyarsk krai;
• Web-pages of Krai Government, City
Administration; Union of builders and
developers;
• Interviews;
• Observations

7. List of interviews
Person Time
1 Anton Shatalov, chief architect “Krasnoyarskgrazhdanproekt” 07-22-2013
2 Igor Veriovkin, deputy head of economical department of the
city; Aleksander Tsaplin, deputy head of economical department
of the city
07-23-2013
3 Anton Lukin, head of protect environmental office of municipal
services department; Nataliya Morosova, deputy head of protect
environmental office of municipal services department
07-23-2013
07-24-2013
4 Olga Kovalenko, head of office of spatial planning documents
preparation and landuse rules (urban development department)
07-23-2013
5 Aleksander Gliskov, City Council deputy 07-23-2013
6 Yulia Ivanova, researcher of of Institute of Biophysics (Siberian
Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences)
07-23-2013
7 Nikolai Diadechkin, architect, senior lecturer of SFU 07-23-2013
8 Yurii Podoprigora, former Executive Chief of the Builder Union
of Krasnoyarsk Krai, member of Public Council of Krasnoyarsk
Krai Ministry of construction and architecture
07-24-2013

9. Person Function
1 Anton Shatalov Architect: development of architectural image of the city.
2 Igor Veriovkin
Aleksander Tsaplin
Local officials: social-economical analysis of the city.
Definition of socio-economic city policy direction and
priority; definition of forms and methods of effective use of
city potential and financial resources to purpose of city life
activity normal working. Economical planning.
3 Anton Lukin
Nataliya Morosova
Local official: organize and control of street cleaning;
Local official: collection, treatment and burial of solid waste.
Definition of perfect landfills.
4 Olga Kovalenko Local official: development of architectural image of the city,
development of target specification for master plan, land use
control by architectural activity
5 Aleksander Gliskov Deputy, legislative authority
6 Yulia Ivanova Researcher: collection and processing of environmental
information, mapping of environmental state of the city.
7 Nikolai Diadechkin Teaching, planer / architect.
8 Yurii Podoprigora Developer, member of civil self-organized group

10. Introduction:
Historical and physical background

11. XVII-XVIII centuries
The colonization of Siberia by Russians
Major city functions and
properties:
• to control the territory
• to establish and control
trade with indigenous
people and nomads
• to provide the flow of
goods to “metropolis”
The quality of life is not an
issue
City – The Fortress
Taiga (forest)
(hunters, fisherman, in
digenous people)
Steppe
Nomad tribes (Mongolians, Kyrgyz)
Kazaks
2000 inhabitants, 200-300
houses, practically burned out in
1773

12. XIX century
The Siberian Golden Fever, Trans-Siberian Railway
City – The Capital
30,000 inhabitants,
30 factories, the city was almost
burned out in 1881
Major city functions and
properties:
• the railway station (the integrity
of the country)
• the capital of the Enisey
Guberniya
• to control trade and resource
extraction over the huge area
• to provide the flow of goods and
money to “metropolis”
- The quality of life was for the first
time considered as an issue
- City center is established

13. XX century (first half)
The reallocation of industry during the WorldWar2
City – The Factory
300,000 inhabitants,
developed machinery and
other industry
Major city functions and
properties:
• to enhance industrial
production
• to provide the flow of
industrial output to save
country
- The quality of life is not an issue
- The districts around the factories are
established (city is a batch of “villages”)
- The quality of environment abruptly
decreased

14. XX century (second half)
Mega projects to “extract” Siberia
City – The Mega Factory
900,000 inhabitants,
A lot of industry
Major city functions and
properties:
• to control, operate and
support mega projects of
natural resource extraction
over the huge area
• to provide the flow of
resources and industrial
output to the country
- The quality of life is minor issue
- The city is a batch of districts around factories
- The quality of environment continuous to
decrease

15. Krasnoyarsk now –
is a mixture of
different
styles, different
ages, different
functions built-up
areas
Modern spatial structure of the
city

16. Cottage housing
“Old” Krasnoyarsk
Modern elite cottage
villages

17. “Stalin” and “Hruschov” housing

18. Modern housing blocks

19. Business, public and commercial spaces

20. Industrial areas

21. Infrastructural areas

22. Green areas

23. The legacy of the past
Industrial zones along the banks of Enisey. Mixture of
industrial and housing zones (legacy of WorldWar2)
Can be used as a
historical core
Make the development more
difficult and costly
Territories to demolish
completely and make a
new good city
A lot of old
housing, “ghetto”, requires a lot
of investments and planning to
decrease patchiness
constraintsopportunities
Regular planning of city center and historical buildings (legacy
of XIX century)

24. Separate districts (“villages”) around huge plants which make
the city sprawling (legacy of XX century)
Additional costs to support and
develop transportation system
and engineering infrastructure, to
insure the social equity
Huge areas with low density of built-up
territories, a lot of “free” spaces which
could be used for renovation and
revitalization of housing and creation
of a green network
constraintsopportunities
The Enisey river, geomorphological and relief conditions
Can be used for landscape design
and creation of city green network
Limitation of the transportation
system development

25. Problem analysis:
Spatial planning in Krasnoyarsk:
opportunities and constraints

26. Problem analysis
STEEPL analysis (I)
Social aspects Technological aspects Political aspects
- positive growth of
population (“developing
city”);
- high employability;
- segregation of population
based on incomes, social
status, nationality and etc.;
- “boom” of housing
construction;
- underdevelopment of social
infrastructure;
- absence of social equity;
- growth of social / public
involvement in societal
processes, active citizenship
in regard to city
development;
- corruption
- outdated technologies and
approaches in construction
industry;
- low level of energy efficiency
in housing sector;
- old systems of water
supplying, sewerage, heating
and other infrastructural
elements;
- narrow streets and problems
with traffic;
- mix of industrial and housing
built-up areas;
- a lot of old housing (baraki,
hruschevki, brezhnevki);
- geomorphological conditions
and relief of the city, the
Enisei river
- capital of the region
Krasnoayrsk krai;
- good interrelations between
krai and municipal political
powers;
- political stability;
- city self-governmental bodies
are not a part of state
government;
- city officials are accountable to
local people, they are elected
on the five years;
- results of decision-making
process and some legislative
documents are accessible on
the official web-page;
- lobby of transnational
companies and oligarchs in Krai
government and parliament

27. Problem analysis
STEEPL analysis (II)
Economic aspects Environmental aspects Legislative aspects
- investment attractiveness;
- economic growth as the
main goal of city
development;
- huge industrial potential;
- natural resources including
energy resources;
- low costs of energy
resources;
- sale and lease of municipal
lands, local taxes are main
financial source for city
budget;
- outflow of finance (profit of
industrial enterprises) to the
transnational companies
located in European part of
Russia
- high level of air pollution;
- soil contamination with oil
and point river pollution;
- municipal solid waste;
- location of industrial
enterprises in the center of
the city, lack of buffer zones
between industries and
housing in the center of
Krasnoyarsk;
- poor greenery in the center
of Krasnoyarsk
- sale and lease of municipal
lands regulate by Land Code of
RF, Rules of land use and urban
development of Krasnoyarsk
city;
- urban development regulates
by Urban development Code of
RF, Rules of land use and urban
development of Krasnoyarsk
city, Norms for urban
development of Krasnoyarsk
city, Master plan;
- building construction and
infrastructure construction
regulate by construction
standards;
- environmental protection in
the city regulate by
environmental legislation of RF

28. Problem analysis
SWOT-analysis (I)
STRENTH WEAKNESS
Krasnoyarsk is a large industrial center in
Siberia with huge industrial potential, high
investment attractiveness and different
opportunities for employability. City has huge
potential for development, increasing of
livability and competitiveness. “Boom” of
housing construction attracts new residents
and gives more opportunities for further
development.
Local officials are accountable to citizens,
results of decision-making process and some
legislative documents are accessible on the
official web-page. During last years could be
observed growth of social / public involvement
in societal processes, active citizenship in
regard to city development. These factors
could insure openness and transparency
decision-making process in regard to city
planning process.
As a soviet industrial city Krasnoyarsk is
characterized by underdevelopment of social
infrastructure which could limit city
development in future. In spite of “boom” of
housing construction usually in construction
industry is used outdated technologies and
approaches. There is a low level of energy
efficiency in housing sector. These are
decrease adaptiveness and livability of the
housing sector in future.
Main infrastructural elements (systems of
water supplying, sewerage, heating system,
roads and streets) were built about 30-40
years ago. At present time these factors impact
negatively on urban planning and
development.
There are forest parks and city parks in
Krasnoyarsk, but the center of the city is
characterized by poor greenery.

29. Problem analysis
SWOT-analysis (II)
Opportunities Threats
- growing population (“developing
city”);
- geomorphological conditions
and relief of the city, the Enisey
river;
- capital of the region Krasnoayrsk
krai;
- good interrelations between krai
and municipal political powers;
- political stability;
- city self-government bodies are
not a part of state government;
- Industrial growth as the main
goal of city development;
- natural resources (including
energy resources);
- low costs of energy resources
- segregation of population based on incomes, social status,
nationality and etc.;
- absence of social equity;
- mixture of industrial and housing built-up areas;
- a lot of old housing (baraki, hruschevki, brezhnevki);
- geomorphological conditions and relief of the city, the
Enisey river;
- lobby of transnational companies and oligarchs in Krai
government and parliament;
- corruption;
- sale and rent of municipal lands, local taxes are main
financial source for city budget;
- outflow of finance (profit of industrial enterprises) to the
transnational companies located in European part of
Russia- high level of air pollution;
- soil contamination with oil and point river pollution;
- municipal solid waste;
- location of industrial enterprises in the center of the city,
lack of buffer zones between industries and housing in the
center of Krasnoyarsk

30. Stakeholder analysis:
Actors in a spatial planning play

31. Levels of actors
1. Federal: Parliament, Ministries, Agencies
2. Federal district (Okrug): Presidential
representative, departments of federal agencies
3. Regional level: legislative
assembly, ministries, regional units of federal
agencies
4. City level: council, administration, department s
5. District level: administrations of 7 districts
6. Actors operating across the levels:
business, NGOS

32. Functions of actors: Federal and Okrug levels
Federal – legislature, executive bodies:
1. Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment (Minprirody)
Development of state policy in the field of environmental protection and safety,
water resources, geology and mineral resources, hydrometeorology and
environmental monitoring, forest resources, hunting and wildlife
• Federal Agency for the Control of Natural Resources (Rosprirodnadzor)
• Federal Forestry Agency
• Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring
2. Ministry of Regional Development (MinRegion)
Strategic planning and development of state policies in spatial planning, evaluation of
regions and local self-government, constructions, architecture, and housing
3. Ministry of Economic Development
Regulates property relations, land-related transactions (except for agricultural lands),
the State Register of Real Estate, state cadastral record-keeping and cadastral activity,
state cadastral valuation of land, state monitoring of land (except for agricultural
lands which is under the Russian Ministry of Agriculture), state registration of rights
to real estate, geodesy and cartography
• Federal Agency for State Property Management (Rosimushchestvo)
Okrug (District)
1. Presidential representative for Siberian Federal Okrug (SFO)
2. Rosprirodnadzor Department for SFO

33. Actor analysis: Regional level
1. Legislative assembly
Rule-making
2. Executive bodies
• Ministry of Energy and Housing
Overall maintenance of communal infrastructure, implementation of state
policies
• Ministry of Construction and Architecture
Implementation of state policies in the field of constructions and architecture
• Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests
Implementation of state policies in the field of natural resources and forests
• Agency for Control in Construction and Housing
Implementation and enforcement of legislation on urban planning, fire
safety, ​​sanitary and epidemiological welfare, environmental protection,
participation in the joint construction of apartment buildings and (or) other real
estate and housing laws
• Agency for Control of Natural Resources
Implementation and enforcement of legislation on environmental protection,
air protection, radiation protection, forest law, water law, legislation on
environmental reviews, subsoil legislation
3. Regional units of federal agencies
1. Rosprirodnadzor agency for Krasnoyarsk Krai

34. Actor analysis: City and District levels
City (Municipal)
1. City Council
Rule-making
2. City administration
• Department Communal Services
Rule implementation and development and maintenance of
infrastructure
• Department of Architecture
Making of assignments for planning documentation, drafting
proposals, issuing permits
• Department of Urban Planning
Implementation of policies, drafting proposals, issuing
permits
District
1. Administrations of 7 districts
Implementation and enforcement of regulations and norms

35. Actor analysis: Across the levels
1. Business
• Industrial companies
• Construction companies
• Investing companies
2. NGOs
• Union of Architects
Expertise, monitoring in the field of architecture and planning
• Union of Construction workers
Expertise, monitoring in the field of quality of constructions
• Environmental NGOs
Expertise, monitoring in the field of environmental quality
3. Educational and Research organizations
• Siberian Federal university
Educating architects and designers, providing expertise in
ecology, landscape and urban planning
• Academy of Sciences
Providing expertise in forest ecology and landscapes

36. Area of
administrative
units (km2):
• Federation –
17,098,246
• Okrug – 5,114,800
• Krai – 2,366,797
• City – 380
• Districts ≈ 60
• Microdistricts ≈ 6

37. City districts
District
Area
(km2) Population
Zhelezno-
dorozhnyj 18 95 000
Kirov 46 115 000
Lenin 58 150 000
October 86 160 000
Sverdlovsk 72 131 000
Soviet 94 300 000
Central 36 59 000

38. Scales of Planning Interests
Federal authorities
Federal district
authorities
Krai authorities
City authorities
District
authorities
Business
NGOs
DaysWeeksYearsDecades
Metes Kilometers 100 kilometers 10000 kilometers

39. Power grid
Legitimacy is acceptance of group’s authority by other groups, power is an ability to
influence the actions of other stakeholders, urgency is the ability to impress the
critical and pressing character of one's claims or interests.
Stakeholder group Power Legitimacy Urgency
Local officials +++ +++ ++
Planners,
architects
+++ ++ +
Investors,
developers
+++ + +++
Vulnerable and
marginal groups
of citizens
+ + +
Civil self-organized
groups
+ ++ ++
State env.
agencies
+ +++ +
Municipal
services int.
++ ++ +

40. Local officials
Planners,
architects
Investors,
developers
Vulnerable and
marginal groups
of citizens
Civil self-
organized
groups
State env.
agencies
Municipal
services int.
Local officials L
Planners,
architects
A M
Investors,
developers
B C N
Vulnerable and
marginal groups
of citizens
D E
Civil self-
organized groups
F G H
State env.
agencies
I
O
Municipal
services int.
J K
Conflicts between stakeholder’s groups

41. Description
A conflicts caused by contradicting visions on spatial urban planning and city architecture
B conflicts based on land property rights, construction and land use permissions, lobbying of
interests, and implementation of Master plan
C selection of simple architectural projects by investors and developers based on cost of construction
D conflicts between the people living in a tumbledown housing and city administration about
replacement to new apartments
E conflicts between people living in a tumbledown housing and investors/developers interested in the
land
F conflicts between civil self-organized groups and local officials caused by different views on urban
development, city planning, and economic growth
G conflicts between civil self-organized groups and planners / architects caused by lack of agreement
about urban development and city planning strategies
H conflicts between civil self-organized groups and investors / developers resulting from discussions
on urban development, city architecture , and location of industrial enterprises
I conflicts about locations of "dirty industries"
J conflicts between investors / developers and municipal services stemming from underdeveloped
engineering infrastructure
K conflicts based on proper compliance with legislative requirements
Conflicts between different stakeholder’s group

42. Description
L conflicts between legislative and executive agencies, lobby groups, etc.
M conflicts within the community of planners / architects based on different vision of
urban development
N conflicts among investors / developers based on competition
O misfits and gaps in collection, storage and transfer of data
Conflicts inside stakeholder group

43. Actors: opportunities and constraints (I)
opportunitiesconstraints
Participation strongly
depends on the leadership
within the city administration
City administration and Mayor
are accountable to public and
mechanisms for close
collaboration are in place
Lack of expertise in integrated
planning and management
Establishing of new educational
programs at SFU
Interplays between
monitoring agencies
Revising the structure and
responsibilities of actors
Actor groups do not trust
each other
Establish and maintain public-
private partnership

44. Actors: opportunities and constraints (II)
opportunitiesconstraints
Large number of governance
levels with actors of higher
rank with their stated and
unstated goals
Overlapping jurisdictions in
policy-making
More space for lobbying of
interests for industrial and
business groups
Conflicts can be solved by
engaging actors from one of
the higher levels
More thorough monitoring

45. Institutional analysis:
Spatial planning: decision making
process and public participation

46. Level /
scale
Legislation (Codes, laws) Regulation (rules,
norms)
Programs, Instructions
Federal - Urban development Code;
- Land Code;
- General principles of
organization of local self-
government;
- Other federal laws
- Construction
standards;
- Norms of env.
quality;
- Standards for social
services
- Development strategies
for different sectors of
national economy;
- Long-term strategies
and programs of social-
economic development
of Russia;
- National projects
Regional Laws:
- Regulation of land relations in
Krasnoyarsk krai;
- About 4th auto-bridge over
the river of Enisey in
Krasnoyarsk;
- Laws about cities borders in
the Krai;
- About combating corruption
- etc.
- Scheme of spatial
planning of
Krasnoyarsk krai;
- Statute of
Krasnoyarsk krai;
- Investment standard
for Krasnoyarsk krai;
- Statute of Agency for
control in
constructions and
housing
- Regional program of
social-economic
development;
- Regional programs and
strategies for different
sectors of economy;
- Regional economic,
social, env. and etc.
projects
Formal institutions for urban planning (I)

47. Level /
scale
Legislation
(Codes, laws)
Regulation (rules, norms) Programs, Instructions
Local
(city &
district)
- Statute of Krasnoyarsk city;
- Master plan;
- Rules for land use and urban
development;
- Urban development norms;
- Rules for
improvement, arrangement of
green spaces, maintenance of
territory and buildings of
Krasnoyarsk city;
- Decrees on
- Changing Master plan;
- Changing urban development
norms;
- Permissions for
constructions, principal
renewal, reconstruction and
renovation;
- Permissions for the
- Strategy for city
development;
- Investment programs;
- City programs;
- City investment projects;
- Instructions about
collection, removal,
utilization and treatment of
domestic and industrial
wastes in Krasnoyarsk city;
Formal institutions for urban planning (II)

48. Informal institutions for spatial planning process
Lobbying of interests by business groups in City Council, City
Administration
Fake participation in public hearings of residents/experts supporting the
decisions in favor of developers / investors / administrators
Shadow schemes for sale and rent of land for constructions
Bribes (in different forms)
Information companies in mass-media
Social networking (tweeter, facebook and etc.)
Establishing civil self-organized groups
Integration of business and governmental bodies

49. Institutions: opportunities and constraints (I)
opportunitiesconstraints
Absence of regional urban
development norms
Approval of regional norms can
reduce constant change in city urban
development norms and stop
unjustified increase in housing
density
There are no mechanisms for
submitting, approving / rejecting
proposals from stakeholders to
spatial planning documents in
Federal Code These mechanisms can be codified in
regional and local regulations
Federal Code does not provide a
procedure for public hearings and
inform local residents about the
projects of federal and regional
levels in neighboring areas

50. Institutions: opportunities and constraints (II)
opportunitiesconstraints
Lack of information about public
hearings
Information campaign for increasing
public awareness and involving public
in decision-making process
Public is hardly involved in public
hearings and decision-making
process on spatial planning
There are a lot of different forms of
public participation which can be
combined for better results
City administration may
collaborate more closely with
regional agency for constructions
and housing control
City administration lacks power
to control / to punish inadequate
development activities

51. Institutions: opportunities and constraints (III)
opportunitiesconstraints
There is no specialized department
responsible for the development of
green network
City administration may appoint a
department responsible for
development of green space system
A lack of procedure for periodical
revision of Master plan
City administration may establish
such a procedure
Complex pattern of land
ownership undermining
comprehensive land
management schemes
Using functional and urban
zoning to reduce unnecessary
complexity

52. How far from good governance? (I)
Indicator Definition Score Explanations
Participation Participation by both men and women
is a key cornerstone of good
governance. Participation needs to be
informed and organized.
3 Legislation supports different forms
of participation, but awareness
about participation is low. There is
no tradition of participation
Rule of law Fair legal frameworks that are enforced
impartially, full protection of human
rights, independent judiciary and an
impartial and incorruptible police force
3 Corruption is a “Russian way of
life”, sometimes human rights are
not fully protected.
Transparency Decisions are taken and their
enforcement is done in a manner that
follows rules and regulations.
Information is freely available and
directly accessible
3 Some information is accessible
directly, but is not enough
information, and sometimes it is
not understandable for general
public
Responsiveness Institutions and processes try to serve
all stakeholders within a reasonable
timeframe
3 Spatial planning process doesn’t
meet interests of all stakeholder
groups
http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp

53. How far from good governance? (II)
Indicator Definition Score Explanations
Consensus
oriented
Mediation of the different interests in
society to reach a broad consensus in
society
4 Different forms to reach a broad
consensus in society are in place
Equity and
inclusiveness
All members of community feel that they
have a stake in it and do not feel
excluded from the mainstream of society
3 Vulnerable and marginal groups can
improve their well-being in theory,
but in practice their participation in
societal processes is limited
Effectiveness
and efficiency
Processes and institutions produce
results that meet the needs of society
while making the best use of resources at
their disposal (including sustainable use
of natural resources and the protection
of the environment)
2 Krasnoyarsk is one of the most dirty
cities in Russia. However,
environmental protection is not a
main goal for city development now
Accountability Not only governmental institutions but
also the private sector and civil society
organizations must be accountable to the
public and to their institutional
stakeholders
3 Local officials are accountable to
local people, but private sector and
civil society are not sufficiently
accountable to stakeholders
http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp

54. Conclusions: Focal issues
• Making people believe in use of deliberation /
cooperation with other groups
• Nurturing leadership in local authorities
• Increasing the efficiency of communication
• Changing “Vremenschik” mindset
• Brining landscape into picture

55. Conclusions: Solutions /
suggestions (I)
Solving the trust issue:
• Better coverage by media of
governmental initiatives, pilot projects
encouraging social learning
Solving the leadership issue:
• Information campaigns to increase
involvement of local people, development of
non-governmental centres of governance
Solving the mindset issue:
• Information campaigns to increase city
attractiveness online, hosting
international events, pilot projects on
state-of-the-art housing and landscaping

56. Conclusions: Solutions /
suggestions (II)
Solving communication problem:
• Creating ‘communication loop’ of planning,
design, management and maintenance to
ensure that each part of the process informs
the others
Pilot projects for the landscape issue:
• Integrated Planning and Management:
Design with nature
• Planning multifunctional green spaces at
multiple scale levels
• Urban Micro-climate Management (Stuttgart,
Germany)
• Bus Rapid Transportation (BRT)
• Revitalization / gentrification of brownfields

57. Thank you for your attention