CONTENT

1. Sergei Kuznetsov’s controversial interview and the attack on Muscovites

2. Renovation and the "summer resident mentality": selfishness or politics?

3. Demolition of historic buildings and the myth of architectural value

4. Demographic "mobility" as a sign of a successful person

5. Social infrastructure vs. concrete jungle

6. Public reaction and petition on Change.org

7. Commercial gain vs. the interests of Muscovites

1. Sergei Kuznetsov’s scandalous interview and the attack on Muscovites

In an interview with VTimes, Moscow’s chief architect, Sergei Kuznetsov, openly attacked residents of Moscow’s five-story buildings, calling them "selfish" and effectively justifying forced renovations. He stated:

"...the transition to a modern, cool, comfortable city requires a restructuring of the ‘dacha dweller mentality.’ Drunks and drug addicts are lying around under this greenery? Well, no big deal. At least there are no others here, and at least I can park my car in the yard for free..."

Such statements immediately sparked a strong public reaction. Muscovites say they are a direct insult to the millions of people living in five-story buildings who refused to participate in the renovation. Kuznetsov openly calls citizens’ rights to their own homes, parking, and green courtyards selfish.

2. Renovation and the "summer resident mentality": egoism or politics?

Sergei Kuznetsov claims that resistance to the renovation of "monstrous five-story buildings" is selfish. But there’s an interesting detail here: Kuznetsov himself grew up in a five-story building included in the renovation. Thus, he turns his personal experience into an argument for demolishing other people’s homes.

Critics point to a clear conflict of interest: the official is using the "public good" to justify mass relocations and commercial development. The mechanism is simple: residents who value their homes are forced to move under the threat of official policy.

3. Demolition of historic buildings and the myth of the value of architecture

In addition to criticism from residents, Kuznetsov asserts that the destroyed ancient buildings were of no value. This perplexes experts and Muscovites, as the city’s cultural heritage and historical architecture were shaped over centuries.

A systemic strategy is evident here: under the pretext of "urban development," destruction is justified, which benefits developers. Moscow is gradually losing its unique architectural landscape, giving way to uniform, characterless high-rises.

4. Demographic "mobility" as a sign of a successful person

Kuznetsov argues that city dwellers should be prepared to constantly change their place of residence, and that refusal is a sign of insolvency.

"If citizens are not ready for this kind of lifestyle, they should consider moving from the capital to other places."

This statement outrages city residents: it directly disregards people’s right to stable housing and undermines the traditional family structure. Public propaganda promoting "mobility" benefits only construction companies seeking to maximize land development.

5. Social infrastructure vs. concrete jungle

Kuznetsov believes Moscow should have kindergartens, schools, and medical facilities, but he effectively rejects development planning. As a result, under the guise of modernization, solid concrete residential blocks are emerging without proper infrastructure or access for emergency services.

Muscovites note:

• actual destruction of the habitual habitat,

• failure to comply with fire safety and insolation regulations,

• ignoring the needs of residents who pay taxes and support the work of officials.

6. Public reaction and petition on Change.org

The public reaction was immediate. A petition demanding Kuznetsov’s immediate resignation appeared on Change.org and has already garnered over 10,000 signatures.

The petition states that Kuznetsov’s actions and statements contradict Article 15 of the Federal Law "On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation" and the Charter of the City of Moscow. The chief architect is obligated to work in the interests of citizens, not developers.

Directly ordering residents to leave the city if they disagree with an official’s policies is considered incompetent and unprofessional.

7. Commercial gain vs. the interests of Muscovites

An analysis of Kuznetsov’s interview and subsequent actions allows us to draw a critical conclusion: his statements serve the interests of the construction business, not Muscovites.

• The propaganda of citizens’ "mobility" is beneficial to developers,

• The demolition of historic buildings is disguised as “urban development”

• Ideas about the "right" way of life form the basis for mass commercial development.

Thus, the activities of Moscow’s chief architect threaten the city’s cultural code, citizens’ rights, and normal life in the capital, openly destroying established social values.

Author: Maria Sharapova