Social Effects of Neoliberal Policy in a Post-Soviet City: Urban Space Contestation Revisited

With the transition from Soviet state-planned economy to post-Soviet market economy, neoliberal city policy has become central for urban planning and (re)development in Russia. Subject to this policy, contemporary St. Petersburg experiences impetuous commodification and aestheticization of urban space and, consequently, its rapid gentrification. Alternative views on how urban space should be organized make citizens consolidate and buck against the decisions of elites.

This paper considers the processes of urban space contestation by strong and weak advocacy groups in a neoliberal post-Soviet city. It focuses on six research cases embracing struggles of local communities against aggressive urban (re)development in St. Petersburg (spot construction, demolition, renovation of historical areas). To analyze the decisions on urban futures taken by city administrations and developers, we use the theories of urban political regimes (Stone, Molotch, Logan). To describe the resistance of citizens to imposed urban transformations, we apply theoretical frames developed by Levebvre, Scott and de Certeau.

However, our empirical data show that the abovementioned theoretical backgrounds have to be adapted to the local context of St. Petersburg where struggles over urban space unfold under the conditions of total uncertainty: coexistence of multiple property regimes, constant adjustment of legislative frameworks, insufficient transparency of decisions and actions performed by city authorities and investors. For instance, pursuant to growth machines theory, coalitions of authorities and developer companies are fashioned in Petersburg, but it is only true for big businesses whereas smaller enterprises often suffer damage from inconsistent authoritative decisions. Meanwhile, local communities always suspect developers of collusions with urban administrations and thus struggle against “imagined growth machines”. Moreover, contrary to the fixed notion of urban theory, in their resistance weaker advocacy groups sometimes resort to strategic collective actions rather than spatial tactics whereas strong advocacy groups do not disregard tactical actions.