Formation of the Capital Functions of Moscow in the City Planning Structure from 1918 to 2018

Abstract

The question of the formation of the Moscow administrative- political center arose in 1918 after the Soviet government moved to Moscow. The strategy of placing the buildings of the highest bodies of state power has evolved along with an understanding of the mission and role of the legislative, executive and judicial branches in Soviet times and after 1991. The Soviet political and legal doctrine rejected the principle of separation of powers as bourgeois and unacceptable to socialist society, therefore the buildings where the executive andlegislative powers worked were in the Kremlin. The projects of the Palace of Soviets reinforced this principle. The Palace of Soviets, as a symbol of the victory of the Soviet system, claimed to be the tallest, most ambitious building of its time. The constitutional change in the structure of the branches of government in the early 1990s, after which new state supreme bodies appeared: the Federation Council, the State Duma, the Government and the judiciary of the Russian Federation, did not lead to a fundamental change in the urban planning policy regarding the location of the buildings for such bodies. The concept of the location of the new federal government center, appeared since 1996, was not reflected in part 4 of the General Development Plan of Moscow until 2025: "Ensuring the interests of the Russian Federation in the development of the capital of the Russian Federation - Moscow, the city of federal importance". The inauguration of the president reflects the adaptability of public spaces, formed by ensembles of buildings of the state authorities, to the performance of the capital functions by the capital of the state. The polycentric principle of forming a city planning structure is consistent with the democratic structure of society and its government. The spatial separation of equivalent building complexes of legislative, executive and judicial authorities creates a scale corresponding to the paradigm of the capital of the state, and symbolizes the mutual independence of state functions.