Rural settlements and rural population. Types of rural settlements

- Subject of historical geography
  - Subject of historical geography - page 2
- History of the emergence and development of historical geography
- Geographical environment and development of society in the feudal era
  - Geographical environment and development of society in the feudal era - page 2
- Physiographic zoning of Western Europe
  - Physiographic zoning of Western Europe - page 2
  - Physiographic zoning of Western Europe - page 3
  - Physiographic zoning of Western Europe - page 4
- Distinctive features of the physical geography of the Middle Ages
  - Distinctive features of the physical geography of the Middle Ages - page 2
  - Distinctive features of the physical geography of the Middle Ages - page 3
Population geography and political geography
- Ethnic map of medieval Europe
  - Ethnic map of medieval Europe - page 2
- Political map of Europe during the early Middle Ages
  - Political map of Europe during the early Middle Ages - page 2
  - Political map of Europe during the early Middle Ages - page 3
- Political geography Western Europe during the period of developed feudalism
  - Political geography of Western Europe during the period of developed feudalism - page 2
  - Political geography of Western Europe during the period of developed feudalism - page 3
- Social geography
  - Social geography - page 2
- Population size, composition and location
  - Population size, composition and location - page 2
  - Population size, composition and location - page 3
- Types of rural settlements
- Medieval cities Western Europe
  - Medieval cities of Western Europe - page 2
  - Medieval cities of Western Europe - page 3
- Ecclesiastical geography of medieval Europe
- Some features of the geography of medieval culture
Economic geography
- Development of agriculture in the early and developed Middle Ages
- Farming and land use systems
  - Farming and land use systems - page 2
- Features of the agrarian system of various countries of Western Europe
  - Features of the agrarian system of various countries of Western Europe - page 2
Geography of craft and trade
- Features of the location of medieval craft production
- Wool production
- Mining, metalworking shipbuilding
- Geography of crafts in individual countries of Western Europe
  - Geography of crafts in individual countries of Western Europe - page 2
- Medieval trade
- Mediterranean trading area
  - Mediterranean trading area - page 2
- Northern area of European trade
- Areas of coin systems
- Transport and communications
  - Transport and communications - page 2
Geographical ideas and discoveries of the early and developed Middle Ages
- Geographical ideas of the early Middle Ages
  - Geographical ideas of the early Middle Ages - page 2
- Geographical ideas and discoveries of the era of the developed Middle Ages
- Cartography of the Early and Developed Middle Ages
Historical geography of Western Europe in the late Middle Ages (XVI - first half of the XVII century)
- Political map
  - Political map - page 2
- Social geography
- Demographics of the late Middle Ages
  - Demography of the late Middle Ages - page 2
  - Demography of the late Middle Ages - page 3
- Church geography
- Geography of agriculture
  - Geography of agriculture - page 2
- Geography of industry
  - Geography of industry - page 2
  - Geography of industry - page 3
- Trade of late feudalism
  - Trade of late feudalism - page 2
  - Trade of late feudalism - page 3
- Transport and communications
- Travels and discoveries of the 16th-17th centuries.
  - Travels and discoveries of the 16th-17th centuries. - page 2
  - Travels and discoveries of the 16th-17th centuries. - page 3

Types of rural settlements

In the first type, the “core” of the settlement is a square with a church, market, etc. located on it, from which streets and alleys extend in a radial direction. In a street village, the layout most often consists of several streets intersecting each other at different angles. Houses in such a village are located on both sides of the street and face each other.

In a linear village, houses are located on one line - along a road, river or some fold of terrain - and often only on one side of the road; sometimes there could be several such streets in a village: for example, in mountainous areas, courtyards often consisted of two rows, of which one runs at the foot of the slope, the other parallel to it, but slightly higher. In a cumulus village, houses are randomly scattered and connected by alleys and driveways.

Options for small settlements are no less varied. Usually, settlements with 10-15 households are considered farmsteads (in Scandinavia - up to 4-6 households). However, these courtyards can either be concentrated around some center (square, street), or lie quite far from each other, being connected only by common pasture, plowing, management, etc. Even individual buildings require their own classification: after all, large , the several-story farms of the flatlands are incomparable with the small huts of the mountain inhabitants.

Finally, the decisive role in many cases was played by the historical features of the development of each area and, first of all, the nature of its settlement. For example, military colonization explains the predominance of large settlements in East Germany and in the central regions of the Iberian Peninsula. The development of former forests, swamps, and low-lying coastal areas led to the spread of small forms of settlements - farmsteads, settlements, settlements with separate buildings. The nature of the settlements was also influenced by the customs characteristic of the former population of this area (Celts, Slavs, etc.).

However, all these patterns did not always appear; for example, in Friul, whose topography represents the entire gamut of landscapes from the Alpine mountains to the lagoon lowland, the distribution of types of settlements was the opposite of that indicated above: in the mountains there were compact multi-yard villages, on the plain there were isolated houses. It should also be taken into account that the nature of the dominant type of settlement could change several times throughout the Middle Ages. Thus, in England in the Celtic era, small settlements predominated, but already the first wave of the Anglo-Saxon invasion led to an increase in the proportion of large villages, since the conquerors preferred to settle in large clan groups.

In general, compact villa-commons were predominant in central, southern and eastern England in the early Middle Ages. Further settlement of the population took place through the splitting off of small settlements from large settlements; their number increased even more during the period of internal colonization. As a result, in many rural areas of the country already by the 15th century. Small scattered settlements became the dominant type of settlements. Later, as a result of enclosures, many villages were abandoned and the number of small farms and individual farms increased even more.

In Germany the border between various types settlements was Elbe. To the west of it, cumulus villages, small settlements of irregular shape, hamlets and individual buildings dominated, sometimes having some kind of common center or, conversely, located around an arable area. Small villages and hamlets were also common in the eastern states (Lausitz, Brandenburg, Silesia, Czech territories); here their presence is often explained by the form of previous Slavic settlements.

Basically, East Germany is an area dominated by large villages of a street or linear type, as well as smaller settlements that grew up in forest clearing areas or in mountainous areas, but have the same orderly character.

In the north and northeast of France, the overwhelming type was large villages; here the line between a small town and such a village was small. In the remaining regions of the country (Massif Central, Maine, Poitou, Brittany, the eastern part of Ile-de-France) small settlements and farmsteads dominated. In Aquitaine, the Toulouse region, Languedoc, since the time of developed feudalism, the picture has become somewhat different: centuries-old wars gave rise to a different type of settlements - bastides, fortified centers built according to a specific plan; Residents of the former villages began to flock to them.

The pattern of Spanish settlements also changed as the Reconquista progressed. For a long time, the north and north-west of the peninsula were a territory occupied by small farms and scattered buildings, but by the beginning of the Reconquista, in the lands of Leon and Old Castile bordering on the Arabs, a process of consolidation of settlements was underway. In the reconquered lands of New Castile, the dominant type of settlements became rare but large villages or, in the north of the region, small hamlets grouped around a fortified castle. Similar large villages dominated in Portugal south of the Tagus; however, to the north of it, farmsteads remained the most common type of settlement.

The picture of Italian settlements is no less varied. Most of the south of the peninsula was occupied by large villages, in some places mixed with small settlements and hamlets; only in Apulia and Calabria were scattered small farms dominant. Large villages and semi-agrarian towns also dominated south-central Italy. In the northern part of Lazio, Marche, Tuscany, Emilia, a large part of Lombardy, Veneto and Piedmont, the most common type of settlements were small villages, hamlets and individual farms - podere.

The presence of a dominant type of settlement in each region of the continent did not at all deny the existence of settlements of a different type in it. As a rule, in almost every locality there were large villages and small towns, and even individual houses - farms. We are talking only about the predominant type of settlement that determines the face of a given territory.

Rural settlements differ from cities in their smaller size, small number of inhabitants, less dense buildings, and relatively simple layout. In rural settlements, a distinction is made between the built-up part and household lands. For rural settlements in lowland areas, a regular layout is most typical, and in mountainous areas - an unsystematic one. The layout of settlements in rural areas is noticeably influenced by the presence of significant transport routes (tract type), terrain features (ravine-gully, valley, watershed and other types), swampiness of the territory, the nature of reservoirs (coastal type of layout), and sometimes the history of development.

When depicting populated areas, the ratio of built-up and unbuilt-up areas (building density) is preserved whenever possible, main streets and passages are highlighted by exaggerating their width, blocks are combined, preserving the character of the layout.

Industrial facilities: factories, factories, mines, quarries, oil and gas wells, oil and gas pipelines, power plants and power lines, water towers, etc. depicted on maps as out-of-scale conventional signs with a qualitative characteristic in the form of an explanatory signature. For example, near the plant sign they show the type of production: torment- flour mill, boom.- paper mill, etc. Next to the quarry sign they give the depth of the quarry and the name of the mineral: dog.- sand, Izv.- limestone, etc.

The specialization of agricultural enterprises and their type are displayed by an explanatory inscription under the name of the locality ( grain- grain, sheep- sheep breeding, etc.). Particularly shown are apiaries, cattle pens, and burial grounds.

From communications The maps include radio stations, radio and television masts, communication lines, television centers, and outside populated areas - telephone and radiotelephone offices.

TO socio-cultural objects include universities, schools, research institutions, weather stations, observatories, hospitals, sanatoriums, holiday homes, sports facilities, monuments, places of worship, cemeteries, fortresses, etc. Many of them show a building sign with a corresponding explanatory inscription: school - school , sick - hospital, etc. A clear image of the named objects on maps is also necessary because many of them stand out well on the ground and can serve as landmarks.

Land communications (railways and roads) are extremely important for the economy and defense of the country.

Topographic maps show the location, density, and operational condition of roads, reflect their capacity, and show roadside structures.

Roads are depicted with a linear sign, in the form of one or several lines of different patterns, often with a colored stripe between them. The width of a road sign is always exaggerated and represents the type of road rather than its actual width.

The population of settlements (i.e. their size in terms of the number of inhabitants) is associated with the production functions of the settlement, with the form of settlement, with the history of a given settlement. When classifying settlements according to their population in statistical records, they are all distributed into a larger or smaller number of groups, from the smallest (1-5 inhabitants) to the largest (10 thousand inhabitants or more), following the general principles of statistical groupings. Typologically, it is important to identify those population values that are associated with significant qualitative features of populated areas.

Thus, a special type - one-yard houses, single detached housing - represents the majority of areas with a population of less than 10 people. Small settlements with up to 100 residents, as well as isolated residential areas, are most dependent on nearby larger settlements to serve their population. Only selectively (in one small village for an entire territorial group of them) can some elements of public services be created (primary school, medical center, red corner, hut-reading room or club, village store - all of the smallest size).

With a size of 200-500 inhabitants, each settlement can have a similar minimum set of service institutions, but of an equally small size, providing the population with relatively limited opportunities for cultural and everyday services. An agricultural settlement of this size, organizationally, can be the base of a certain production unit (a collective farm team, a department or a large state farm farm).

When the size of a rural settlement is 3-5 thousand inhabitants, the most favorable opportunities are created for providing urban 1st level of amenities and cultural and public services with the construction of large standard schools, cultural centers, medical institutions, a specialized retail network, etc. In terms of production, such villages are considered optimal as centers of large farms in conditions that allow significant concentration labor force and production facilities.

Functional types of rural settlements. People engage in different types of activities, and settlements play different roles in the territorial organization of social production. These differences are taken into account primarily in the functional typology.

Several groups can be distinguished among the population of villages: 1) those employed in agriculture; 2) those employed in forestry; 3) those employed in external transport; 4) employed in industry; 5) combining occupations in agriculture and industry in the same locality (in different seasons of the year); 6) employed in institutions (economic, administrative, cultural, medical, trade) that largely serve other villages of the district; 7) employed in various institutions, mainly serving the “temporary” population arriving in a given place for recreation and treatment.

Let's consider the most common functional types of rural settlements.

Among agricultural settlements, the two main functional types are the central settlements of collective farms and state farms.

As a rule, this is the largest settlement on a collective farm or state farm, housing a significant part of its population (sometimes the entire population) and the main production buildings, as well as the largest public buildings on a collective farm or state farm - a club, a school, etc. The central village is usually built and developed at a faster pace than the rest of the villages of the collective farm or the villages of departments on the state farm.

Other types of settlements common on collective farms are brigade villages of field cropping and complex brigades, “branches” of brigade villages, undifferentiated “ordinary” villages and various kinds of specialized villages.

Brigade settlements are the most numerous in modern collective farm settlements. Members of the collective farm living in such a village form a production team (sometimes several teams in large settlements). The brigade is assigned a certain economic territory adjacent to a given village, it has its own production facilities (the brigade's farm yard), and all this constitutes a plot, an organizational subdivision of the collective farm.

Brigade settlements of integrated brigades are distinguished by the fact that they have a wider “set” of production functions and economic independence, serving, in addition to field lands, also farms, sometimes gardens, subsidiary enterprises, etc., located on the territory of a given production site of the collective farm. Often these are former central settlements of small collective farms, which were subsequently merged through consolidation, preserving a number of production facilities and public buildings.

Along with this, there are several types of highly specialized collective farm settlements, usually small in size. Of these, the most common are near-farm settlements at those livestock farms that are located due to local conditions (mainly due to the need to bring them closer to natural feeding grounds and fields that require manure fertilizer) and remote from existing settlements. Their sizes are limited by the size of farms that is permissible for economic reasons and also depend on the degree of mechanization of labor operations in animal husbandry.

The main types of settlements of state farms, in addition to the central settlements (central estate), are the settlements of departments and farms. In terms of their position on the farm, they are similar to the brigade and farm villages of collective farms. A significant part of the state farm villages were built anew, according to plan, in full accordance with the projects for organizing the economy, therefore such villages have a very clearly defined functional type, a homogeneous composition of the population consisting of workers and employees of a given enterprise. In those state farms that were created on the basis of some lagging collective farms and have not yet had time to carry out the necessary restructuring of settlement on their territory, one can find state farm villages - analogues of the settlements and branch villages that are not differentiated by their position in the economy (which make up only part of state farm departments).

A special functional type consists of permanent specialized settlements of workers and employees at separately located procurement points (especially for the procurement of livestock, which are kept and fattened at such a point until batches are completed for shipment to meat processing plants). They are usually very small in size.

Seasonal settlements - “second homes”, used by part of the workers on collective and state farms for temporary stay in places of the economic territory remote from the main settlements, represent a great variety in their functional types. They always have some kind of industrial buildings and a place to stay overnight, sometimes devices for household and cultural services that function temporarily during the period of use of this point.

The most common are agricultural field camps and livestock breeding stations on seasonal pastures, differing in seasons and duration of use. Along with them, in different areas there are hayfields, gardening camps, points for receiving and delivering agricultural products, etc.

Field camps of collective farms and state farms with a short period of use (sowing, harvesting, sometimes caring for crops and preparing land for sowing) accommodate a fairly large population (field crew or a significant part of it, up to 60-100 people) and in its modern form represent a group of houses -dormitories with a dining room, shower, red corner, first-aid post, trade stall, etc., with sheds for storing equipment and fertilizers; in their most primitive form, they represent a group of light buildings adapted for temporary overnight stays, meals and storage of necessary property. They are common in areas where agriculture is carried out on vast tracts of arable land with a sparse network of permanent settlements.

Seasonal livestock breeding centers are especially common in areas of desert-pasture and mountain livestock farming, where their number is many times greater than the number of permanent settlements. Their types and options are extremely diverse, most often they consist of 1-2 residential buildings near wells, livestock buildings or pens. There are also more complex forms, up to entire seasonal villages with schools, medical centers, shops, playing the role of temporary centers for working livestock breeders in remote, intensively used pasture areas.

Non-agricultural settlements in rural areas are represented by very different types associated with the performance of various national economic functions. Among non-agricultural rural settlements, the following functional types, or groups of types, are distinguished.

1. Settlements of industrial enterprises, the size of which does not meet the “qualification” established for urban settlements. According to the degree of their connections with agriculture, various kinds of small workers’ settlements in rural areas constitute a certain “typological series” - from completely “autonomous” (for example, mining enterprises, individual textile and other factories with their villages) to closely connected with it (villages at starch, vegetable drying, winemaking, dairy and other factories; villages of local enterprises for the production of building materials).

2. Villages on communication routes. Most of them are associated with railway transport - from single-yard “residential points” of trackmen scattered along the line, to sidings and small stations. A smaller number of them serve waterways (estates of buoy operators, carriers, settlements at locks, harbors, etc.), small airports, and roads (settlements on road sections, gas stations, etc.). IN recent years settlements appear that serve gas and product pipelines, their pumping stations, as well as long-distance power lines.

3. Builders’ camps for new buildings. Most of them, for a limited period of their existence, belong to “rural” settlements, constituting a special, specific type of populated areas (more precisely, a group of types, since along with crowded workers’ settlements there are also single “barracks” - dormitories on lines under construction, gatehouses and dormitories at warehouses and bases, etc.). After fulfilling their functions, they either disappear or are absorbed by an urban settlement emerging at a new industrial point, and sometimes they turn into a rural non-agricultural settlement of another type (industrial, transport settlement - see above).

4. Timber industry and forest protection villages. Timber settlements are located, as a rule, on timber transportation routes and very often on floatable routes, in places where logging roads exit to floatable routes6. Their main types are: a) villages in forest areas where teams of lumberjacks live; b) logging settlements combining several areas; c) the center of the timber industry enterprise - the central village for a certain local system of forest settlements; d) intermediate settlements on timber export routes (rafting, transshipment); e) villages at the exit of the forest to the main roads (usually these are mixed-type settlements, combined with a village or station village); f) villages on the main routes - roadsteads, near zapans, etc. Settlements of type “a” (often others) usually have a limited lifespan (until the forest resources in a given place are exhausted); when designing forestry operations, it is determined to be 10-15 years. But similar settlements are quickly springing up elsewhere. Forestry and forest protection service settlements (cordons, forest guardhouses) are smaller in size, but more durable.

5. Fishing and hunting villages. The large state fishing industry usually creates large urban-type settlements with ports, fish factories, refrigerators, etc. But there are many fishing collective farms and fishing brigades in agricultural collective farms with their villages on the coasts of moraines and lakes, on rivers and river channels, in deltas, etc. There are also small specialized villages - “rear bases” for commercial hunting in the northern collective farms , villages - supply bases for reindeer herding brigades, etc.

6. Villages of scientific stations, permanent (at observatories, weather stations, etc.) or temporary (bases of geological exploration parties, expeditions).

7. Villages of health care and education institutions are of various types: a) personnel villages at rural schools and hospitals located at some distance from the villages; b) country hospitals, nursing homes, sanatoriums, forming entire villages with their own households; c) orphanages, forest boarding schools located among nature, in rural areas; d) villages of holiday homes, country sports and tourist centers. Most of these functional types are characterized by a predominance (or a significant proportion) of a temporary, “variable” population.

Along with permanent ones, there are also seasonally inhabited settlements of this kind - at tourist bases for winter or summer use, mountaineering camps, and summer pioneer camps.

8. Dacha settlements are the second housing of part of the urban population in the summer. In fact, this is a special type of seasonally inhabited settlements, differing from the previous group (tourist bases, holiday homes, etc.) in that they consist, like most modern agricultural settlements, of individual cells - single-family houses, estates. Collective farm villages, which are used simultaneously as summer cottages (renting out rooms for the summer) or resorts, do not belong to this type, as do “dormitory villages” whose population works in the city.

9. Suburban residential settlements for workers and employees ("bedroom" settlements in rural areas). This specific type of settlements is common in the near suburban zone of large cities, forming unique “residential branches” of the city. They historically arose in the process of urbanization in all countries of the world with major cities, with convenient and fast transport links to the city as a place of work for their residents. They are often large in size, constituting a special type of satellite of a large city and greatly increasing the daily passenger flows between it and its suburban area. This type of settlement is distinguished by the fact that the “place of residence” function common to all settlements is the only one here.

Agricultural-industrial settlements in rural areas should be divided into two fundamentally different groups: in some cases, work in industry and work in agriculture are carried out by different persons living in a given settlement, in other cases, the labor of the same persons is used at different times (mainly seasonally) in various industries. Existing types of agrarian-industrial settlements belong to the first group. The second form of combining various branches of production in rural settlements is just beginning to develop (being very progressive and promising) and still exists in the initial stages in the settlements of individual large collective and state farms that have their own production enterprises.

Among the agrarian-industrial settlements of the first group, which represent a combination of an agricultural settlement and an industrial settlement, several types are distinguished depending on the nature of industrial production and its connections with agriculture.

One of the types is characterized by the development in an agricultural settlement of industrial processing of local agricultural products (sugar, oil, butter, vegetable canning, starch and other factories). Another type is formed by a combination of agricultural and forestry enterprises (and the former often turn into an auxiliary “food shop” of the forestry enterprise). The third type is created with the development in an agricultural village of industries serving local needs, working entirely or partially on local raw materials. The fourth type consists of settlements where, along with agriculture, small non-local enterprises have emerged that use local subsoil resources. The fifth type includes the combination of an agricultural village and the village of a small industrial enterprise that is not associated with the use of local raw materials and the local market (such, for example, are many metalworking and textile industries that historically developed in rural settlements that were previously centers of the corresponding handicrafts).

ABSTRACT

Report 522 pp., 2 hours, 201 figures, 16 tables, 164 sources, 13 appendices.

MODELS, SETTLEMENTS, XXI , TYPOLOGY, SUSTAINABILITY, DEVELOPMENT, FACTORS, ARCHITECTURE, VILLAGE, AGRICULTURE.

The object of the study is the development of rural settlements XXI century based on an analysis of domestic and foreign experience.

The purpose of the work is to develop viable models of rural settlements based on the study of historical and sociocultural characteristics of rural settlements and rural areas, taking into account domestic and foreign experience, based on modern research and design methods XXI century.

The results of this research work will allow us to obtain an objective assessment of the state of research developments in the field of studying rural settlements in Russia and abroad, as well as the level of development of programs for the preservation and development of both historical and modern villages and hamlets and to develop modern models of rural settlements XXI century.

In the process of carrying out research work, the following was carried out: analysis of scientific research in the field of studying rural settlements in Russia and foreign countries (Chapter 1); factors influencing the formation of rural settlements were studied (Chapter 2); analysis of the types and typology of rural settlements based on historical and modern paths of their development (Chapter 3); justification and development of models of rural settlements (Chapter 4); an assessment was made of the state of rural areas and settlements requiring targeted government support for their preservation and development (Chapter 5); a methodological approach and recommendations for the sustainable development of rural areas and settlements are proposed (Chapter 6). Additional information on areas of research is provided in the appendices.

The results of the work are presented below.

DEFINITIONS

INTRODUCTION

1. Analysis of scientific research in the field of studying rural settlements in Russia and foreign countries

1.1. Identification of historical and cultural lands (regions) and their borders using the example of the Russian North

1.2. Types of settlement and planning features of rural settlements

1.3.Historical prerequisites for the emergence of architectural and planning traditions on the territory of the Russian North.

Choosing a place in the natural environment. Grouping of villages and planning techniques

Architectural-spatial and compositional organization

1.4.Development of a sociocultural typology of rural settlements, based on historical and modern aspects of their development

Conclusions

2. Study of factors influencing the formation of rural settlements

2.1. Energy efficiency of a rural settlement

2.2.Ecological approach to creating a rural settlement

2.3. The influence of environmental factors on the planning of rural settlements

2.4. The relationship between architectural and climatic factors and the energy efficiency of low-rise residential buildings

2.5. The influence of general background and local climatic conditions on the development of a rural settlement

Conclusions

3. Analysis of the types and typology of rural settlements based on historical and modern ways of their development.

3.1. Types of rural settlements according to architectural and spatial solutions

3.1.1. Historical background for the formation of architectural solutions in rural settlements

Free development

Perimeter (centric) development

Radial-ring development

Ordinary (linear, street) development

Regular development

Landscape and estate development

3.2. Typology of rural settlements

3.2.1. Grouping of settlements by their size (population)

3.2.2.Functional typology of modern settlements

3.3. Experience in organizing rural settlements using the example of foreign countries

3.3.1. Experience in the development of rural settlements in the USA

V. Petrov “Low-rise construction in the USA”, ARBAT Builders Inform Agency, Chicago, USA

3.3.2. Experience in developing rural communities in Canada

3.3.3. Experience in developing rural settlements in Germany

3.3.4. Experience in developing rural settlements in Norway

3.3.5. Experience in the development of rural settlements in Sweden

3.3.6. Experience in developing rural settlements in Finland

Conclusions

Development of types and basic models of rural settlements of the 21st century

Design of a rural settlement

Regional features of the formation and development of the rural environment

Analysis of the prerequisites for the formation of the modern character of low-rise development in rural areas

4.4. Proposed residential building models

4.5. Proposals for the formation of models of rural estates

4.6. Proposed models of rural settlements

4.6.10. Country residential settlements (cottage communities)

Conclusions

5.1. Analysis of the state of rural settlements in the Russian Federation

5.2. Assessment of the condition of rural areas and settlements requiring targeted government support for their preservation and development

5.2.1 Calculation of the tax potential index

5.2.2. Calculation of the budget expenditure index

6.1. The concept of sustainable development of human settlements

6.2. Conditions for sustainable development of rural settlements of the 21st century

6.3. Factors influencing sustainable development of rural areas

6.4. State policy to ensure sustainable development of rural settlements

Federal law Russian Federation dated October 6, 2003 N 131-FZ “On the general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation.” Approved by the Federation Council on September 24, 2003.

6.6. Research and methods for organizing partnerships in rural areas, taking into account foreign experience

6.7. Development of proposals for interdisciplinary resource studies with a developed rural settlement questionnaire

6.8. Community participation and partnerships: Russian experience

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

APPLICATIONS

Appendix A

Types of settlements characteristic of the Russian North (using the example of settlements in the Arkhangelsk region and the Republic of Karelia)

Appendix B

List of urban-type settlements systematized from the List of Historical Cities of Russia

Appendix B

Standards for calculating the area of service buildings

Appendix D

Examples of public service buildings in rural areas

Appendix D

Architecture of the production environment of a rural settlement

Appendix E

Architecture of agricultural crop production enterprises

Appendix G

Structural and functional diagram of the Scientific Research Center "Agrotechnopark"

Appendix 3

Interdisciplinary questionnaire on rural settlement

Appendix I

Examples of community involvement in rural development projects

Appendix K

World Bank project “Local self-government and civic participation in rural Russia”

Appendix L

Experience in organizing agricultural settlements using the example of the settlement “Melenci” (Republic of Serbia)

Appendix M

Methodology for state cadastral valuation of settlement lands

Appendix H

Stages of creating rural settlements of the 21st century

This research report uses references to the following regulations:

Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation dated December 29, 2004, as amended on July 17, 2009.
SNiP 2.07.01-89*. Urban planning. Planning and development of urban and rural areas. M.: State Unitary Enterprise TsPP, 2000.
SNiP 2.08.01-89*. Residential buildings. M.: State Unitary Enterprise TsPP, 2000.
SNiP 2.08.02-89*. Public buildings and structures. M.: State Unitary Enterprise TsPP, 2000.
SNiP 23-01-99*. Construction climatology. M.: State Unitary Enterprise TsPP, 2001.
SNiP 31.02-2001*. Residential houses, single-family houses. M.: State Unitary Enterprise TsPP, 2001.

DEFINITIONS

Acoustic climate a set of certain natural, climatic and acoustic characteristics of the environment (wind direction, type of underlying surfaces and level of transport and pedestrian noise).

Favorable environmentenvironment, the quality of which ensures the sustainable functioning of natural ecological systems, natural and natural-anthropogenic objects (Federal Law of January 10, 2002 No. 7-FZ (as amended on December 31, 2005) “On Environmental Protection”).

Large rural settlementssettlements from 3-5 thousand people. (SNiP 2.07.01-89* Urban planning. Planning and development of rural settlements.

Village a small settlement, built up only with peasant households, characterized by homogeneity and simplicity of structure, subject to a single method of building arrangement, which ensured a direct connection between peasant households and adjacent lands and promotes free development.

Closed layouta layout characterized by the isolation of villages from the environment by placing residential buildings around a center square, church, chapel. (These types of layouts are common in watersheds). In Kargopolye, such a planning system, which came from Novgorod, is called “Konchansky”.

Large rural settlementssettlements of St. 5 thousand people(SNiP 2.07.01-89* Urban planning. Planning and development of rural settlements).

Landscape and recreational areaterritory, including forests, forest parks, forest protection zones, reservoirs, agricultural lands and other lands.

Small rural settlements settlements up to 0.05 thousand people (SNiP 2.07.01-89* Urban planning. Planning and development of rural settlements).

Pogost center of gravity for numerous small villages. A church was built here and a cemetery was established. Churchyards became strongholds of trade; annual fairs were held there. The main element of the planning structure of churchyards was the trading area. In progress historical development gradually lost their original function as an administrative and economic cluster center, turning into churches with a cemetery. The churchyard is also a district, i.e. administrative structure within a certain territory.

Posad the outskirts of a city or monastery, as well as the usual row (order) of peasant huts in a village (a street of two suburbs).

Pochinok one-yard village.

Production areaterritory intended for accommodation manufacturing enterprises and related facilities, complexes of scientific institutions with their pilot production facilities, utility and warehouse facilities, external transport structures, commuter routes.

Ordinary layoutlayout, characterized by a linear composition of settlements and hamlets, the pattern of which is determined by the features of the terrain. The orientation of the main facades, as a rule, is to the south (ordinary “for the summer”), to the river or lake (coastal-ordinary). The variation of layouts can be determined by: one-, two-, or multi-row villages (coastal-row and herb-row). This layout in the North is associated with the time of Slavic settlement and is most common in the places of Novgorod colonization, i.e. in the river basin Onega, in Kargopolye and the lower and middle reaches of the Dvina, partly on the Sukhona. Since most rivers in the North flow from south to north, sometimes the rows of houses are located perpendicular to the river, which is due to the orientation of the main facades to the sun.

Light climate a set of natural characteristics of lighting and UV radiation (quantity, spectrum, and contrast of lighting, brightness of clear and cloudy skies, duration of sunshine, quantity and spectrum of ultraviolet radiation).

layout, characterized by a lack of regularity in the placement of residential buildings and outbuildings and their orientation. Single-row street villages are similar in appearance to ordinary ones, differing in the different orientation of the houses. All villages with a street layout, excluding those with a one-sided layout, are characterized by a certain closed volumetric-spatial composition. Distributed mainly in the lands where the Finno-Ugric population lives.

Residential territoryterritory, including residential buildings, public buildings and structures, communal facilities, streets, squares, gardens and parks, and other public places.

Village the center of a large landholding with a church, parish and trading area, to which a vast cluster of small peasant settlements gravitates. In accordance with its importance in the settlement system, it was usually located on a hill. The planning structure of the village was distinguished by the presence of a public center with a church and a marketplace, which determined a centric composition with a vertical landmark and the arrangement of row buildings in an irregular ring or square around a vast internal space. Sometimes such areas were moved away from the main residential buildings.

Rural settlementone or more rural areas united by a common territorysettlements(settlements, hamlets, villages, hamlets, hamlets, kishlaks, auls and other rural settlements), in whichlocal governmentcarried out by the population directly and (or) through elected and other local government bodies. The rural settlement is part ofmunicipal district. (Federal Law of the Russian Federation of October 6, 2003 No. 131-FZ “On the general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation”).

Rural settlement XXI century this is a settlement formed on the principles of landscape-estate development in which, thanks to modern technologies social, engineering and production infrastructure create the most favorable conditions for a person to master his genetically determined development potential.

Sloboda settlements of this type arose on newly developed lands, where the state and landowners attracted landowners and artisans on preferential terms.

Medium rural settlements- settlements from 0.2 to 1 thousand people. (SNiP 2.07.01-89* Urban planning. Planning and development of rural settlements).

Thermal climate a set of natural characteristics of the radiation, temperature-humidity and aeration state of the environment (thermal solar radiation, temperature, humidity, speed and direction of air movement).

Street layout layout, determined by the location of the buildings along the streets onto which their main facades face. Single-row street villages are similar in appearance to ordinary ones, differing in the different orientation of the houses. All villages with a street layout, excluding those with a one-sided layout, are characterized by a certain closed volumetric-spatial composition.

Energy active buildings buildings aimed at efficient use energy potential of the external environment (natural and climatic factors of the external environment) for the purpose of partial or complete (autonomous) energy supply through a set of measures based on the use of space-planning, landscape-urban planning, engineering and technical, constructive means that imply the orientation of spaces and architectural forms And technical systems on energy sources of the external environment (sun, wind, soil, etc.)

Energy efficient buildings buildings that do not use the energy of the natural environment (i.e., alternative sources) and ensure a reduction in energy consumption, mostly due to the improvement of their engineering support systems (as the most “energy-intensive” components of the building’s energy “framework”), structural elements that determine the nature and intensity of energy exchange with the external environment (external fences, windows, etc.), as well as optimization of architectural solutions aimed at reducing energy losses (increasing the compactness of volumes, reducing the glazing area, using urban planning techniques and architectural forms that level out the negative impacts of natural and anthropogenic factors external environment - wind, sun, etc.).

INTRODUCTION

The unfavorable state of many rural settlements, as well as manufacturing and agricultural enterprises, the outflow of the population, especially young people from the village, and the desolation of territories require a new approach to planning and developing models of settlements of the 21st century. In this regard, the focus of attention of specialists from various fields of activity is on issues such as their restoration (restoration), reconstruction, and new construction. Underestimation of the peculiarities of the lifestyle of the rural population and neglect of them in the sphere of management decisions still lead to their destruction without subsequent replacement by new cultural models. The restoration and/or development of various types of agricultural enterprises is directly related to the preservation or new construction of settlements and residential complexes. However, the resources allocated for these purposes are fragmented and are often used insufficiently; funds for all-Russian and all-regional programs and rural projects are allocated on a residual basis.

Today it has become obvious that in the process of modernization it is impossible to focus only on the solution economic issues and technological changes. This process also concerns social and cultural changes, including the life of the population, the preservation and development of settlements and significant elements of heritage, which become especially acute in the post-perestroika period. Earn money and invest in the gas, oil and other industries national economy necessary, but rural areas and landscapes are a national heritage and an equally important resource for the development of Russia. Small towns, both the centers of rural areas, as well as villages and hamlets, their monuments are symbols of the country, and today they are also becoming a product of the tourism industry, thanks to which all developed countries of the world earn money. However, the engineering and social infrastructure of many rural settlements requires either reconstruction or a new spatial solution, both themselves and the construction of residential buildings using modern methods of their planning solutions, materials that are economically beneficial and at the same time environmentally friendly. It becomes important to take into account the needs of various social groups population living in different types of rural areas and taking into account historical and cultural lands various areas Russia.

The purpose of this work:

Based on the study of the historical and sociocultural characteristics of rural settlements and various territories, taking into account Soviet experience and the experience of recent decades, using modern research and design methods, to develop viable models of rural settlements of the 21st century.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

perform an analysis of scientific research in the field of studying rural settlements in Russia and foreign countries;
develop a sociocultural typology of rural settlements based on the historical aspects of their development;
prepare proposals for interdisciplinary studies of rural settlements with a developed questionnaire that takes into account regional, historical, socio-cultural, subject-spatial, natural-ecological, economic and managerial aspects of territories for further use in development projects;
determine the reasons influencing the creation (development) of rural areas;
develop a typology of rural settlements based on historical and modern aspects of their development;
perform an analysis of architectural and planning solutions used in 2003 2008 abroad and in Russia;
identify factors influencing architectural planning and sustainable development of rural settlements, as well as the quality of life of the rural population;
develop options for viable models of rural settlements and examples of architectural and planning solutions for rural settlements;
develop indicators for identifying rural areas and settlements that require targeted government support for their preservation and development within the framework of the developed territorial planning schemes, taking into account historical and new types of settlements;
justify the definition of the concept of “rural settlements” XXI century";
develop models of “rural settlements” XXI century";
prepare a methodological basis for researching rural settlements, planning and organizing “rural settlements” XXI century";
prepare recommendations on methodological approaches for the development of forecasts and territorial development programs, the formation of territorial planning schemes for rural settlements;
develop methods for integrating construction (reconstruction) programs for rural settlements into XXI century with programs for sustainable development of rural areas of regions and constituent entities of the Russian Federation;
prepare proposals for amending the legislation of the Russian Federation to ensure the implementation of measures to create rural settlements XXI century

1. Analysis of scientific research in the field of studying rural settlements in Russia and foreign countries

1.1. Identification of historical and cultural lands (regions) and their borders using the example of the Russian North

Identification of historical and cultural lands (regions) and their boundaries, traditionally formed on the territory of various regions of the country, must be analyzed and taken into account in any socio-cultural design. The experience of such an analysis is offered below using a particular example of studying the territories of the Arkhangelsk and Vologda lands (regions).And this example is offereddemonstrate within the framework of this topic as an example and model of such research for other territories of Russia 1 .

By historical and cultural lands we mean a territory characterized by a certain commonality of natural, historical, socio-cultural, architectural, spatial and landscape parameters corresponding to a certain time period in the development of an ethnic group or other territorial community of people. The basis for the allocation of such lands is the spatiotemporal differences inherent in certain areas of life of various social groups of the population. In other words, one of the essential indicators taken into account in such zoning is the commonality of stages in the development of a complex of historical and cultural heritage, amenable to real study, in certain limited territorial loci.

This approach differs from historically established administrative entities (region, territory, republic), where it is sometimes difficult to see and trace the objective patterns of the natural formation of culture in a certain territory. We proceed from the fact that the formation of historical and cultural regions occurs gradually. In this regard, their borders turn out to be very flexible and depend on socio-economic, political, and cultural connections both within the studied lands and outside them. Moreover, within each historical and cultural region there may be local subregions, which in turn are differentiated according to more specific cultural indicators 2 . Within the main region, such differences are noticeable only at the local level and with a detailed study, which consists of identifying local features of traditional culture. It is necessary to take into account the lifestyle of the local population, national (regional) identity, norms of behavior, forms of communication, etc.

Foreign studies devoted to the problem of defining cultural areas express different points of view on the processes of their formation and development. The opinion of the American scientist D. Mining is of interest 3 , developing the idea of an “ideal” region consisting of: a core, a domain and a sphere (“periphery”). The core is a cultural center with a high population density, with a certain homogeneity of a number of features and characteristics of a given culture. Domain the middle part of the territory where a given culture exists less intensively, but here regional characteristics appear more clearly. Sphere zone of external influence, where the culture in question is represented only by individual elements scattered in other cultures. Such a model of a historical and cultural region can extend to territories inhabited for a long time, fairly closed and relatively isolated from the influence of external socio-cultural systems. The center of such a region (city, urban settlement or settlement) is the bearer of cultural innovations; it is more susceptible to changes in its socio-economic and other characteristics.

The results of the study by Dr. Architect V. P. Orfinsky and Dr. Ethnography E. Heikinen significantly diverge from the model discussed above 4 , revealing the nature of the spread of cultural patterns in the peripheral part of cultural regions. Researchers draw attention to the presence of peculiar “symbolic” boundaries of such territories, identified, for example, in Karelia and Finland. As we move from the center of the region to the periphery, when assessing, for example, monuments of traditional folk residential architecture, folklore traditions, various ethnographic materials, there is not a dissolution of their figurative, symbolic and iconic elements in neighboring cultures, but, on the contrary, an active strengthening of their specific expressiveness. This can be traced in the decorative elements of buildings, in objects of applied art, in rituals, etc. The symbolic meaning inherent in the objects in question takes on the most vivid forms near the borders of a cultural region, which is, apparently, a reflection of external mechanisms of behavior, way of life, national characteristics of the people 5, etc.

The mentioned works confirm the fact that the boundaries of historical and cultural zones can be of different nature. Or it is a smooth, gradual “flow” of one’s own ethnic culture into a neighboring one, perhaps similar in its qualities. Or it is a fixation, “affirmation” of its significance in relation to neighboring national groups and territories adjacent to the border. In connection with the above, the mechanisms for the formation of such boundaries, the features of their existence at the present time, and, thereby, their functioning in the system of developing agglomerations, giant new buildings, etc. remain unclear. The cultural processes occurring in the territories of historical and cultural regions are also unclear , falling into the zone of such active external influences. All these questions remain to be explored, but it is obvious that this situation influences the formation of any social, architectural and industrial projects. As well as the fact that the population living on different lands have certain types and character traits, characteristics, traditions, etc., which must be taken into account in the process of working in certain regions and in any rural settlements.

The internal connections of territorial communities are based on production and labor activity, which is stable and has relative spatial integrity. At the same time, the connection between the spatial distribution of culture within a certain territory and its economic structure is manifested in all aspects that characterize historical and cultural zones: geographical, historical, urban planning, including the settlement system, subject-spatial, etc. There is no doubt that the climatic conditions of certain territories have a significant impact on the formation of its constituent socio-cultural elements. In this regard, when studying historical and cultural regions and establishing their boundaries, it is necessary to identify both economic and socio-cultural factors of the development of society in the past: history of development, settlement system, place of residence, nature of land use and improvement of territories by various social groups of the population, history “places” for different periods of its formation, etc. At the same time special attention should be given to the historical period for which we are trying to define historical and cultural regions.

To clarify the general theoretical judgments expressed above on the problem of interest to us, a particular consideration of the studies carried out to determine the historical and cultural zoning of the Arkhangelsk and Vologda regions is proposed, which, as a methodological move, can be extended to other territories.

Already from the middle of the 19th century, economic zoning of lands began to be carried out in Russia, distinguished by geographical location, social structure, and trade specialization of the population. However, pre-revolutionary researchers 6 when studying, for example, the northern regions of the country (Pomerania), the geographical and administrative division of the region was taken as a basis, and socio-economic and cultural conditions were given a secondary role. Currently, the basis for such zoning has become not only socio-economic, but also cultural parameters, perceived primarily in the form of architectural, ethnographic, linguistic and other characteristics of the corresponding territories.Knowledge of the history of the development of territories becomes necessary 7 .

As a result of the development of the places in question, settlers from the Novgorod and Rostov-Suzdal lands assimilated with the autochthonous population, forming unique “alloys” of cultures. Although the population that came from the north and south was Russian in origin, nevertheless, it had its own ethnocultural differences. They manifested themselves in all elements of the territories: language, housing, settlement layouts, etc. In addition, in the 18th-19th centuries. the culture in these lands was influenced by developing cities, which were generally in line with the development of local traditional patterns, and at the same time were influenced by large centers: Moscow, St. Petersburg, etc. Such characteristics of the region explain many facts in the development and change of its culture, including folk architecture and settlements.

But with all the strength of the influence of city culture on rural life, on art, crafts and decorative objects, each historical and cultural region continued to retain its own characteristics, characteristic only of a given area. This applies, first of all, to the planning features of settlements, folk architecture, decorative and other elements. Although various government regulations and decrees sometimes made changes to the listed structure.

The culture in the historical and cultural zones under consideration was affected by the influence of various nationalities that inhabited and inhabited these territories in different periods of land development: Komi, Vepsians, Karelians, Nenets, Russians, Ukrainians. The latter were referred to the North by the government from the southern regions of Russia in the post-reform period. Residential buildings also display structural and decorative elements common in Ukrainian and southern Russian lands.

There is no doubt that many conditions formed, on the one hand, the basis of the historical and cultural unity of the Russian North, and on the other, were the prerequisites for their differences, which can be traced in all regions of the listed lands. In addition to these data, the geographical conditions existing within a particular area are also important in this consideration, since a stable geographical environment is necessary for the formation of a relatively stable cultural community. There is a certain connection between the outlines of physical-geographical boundaries and the boundaries of historical-cultural regions, which is emphasized by geographers and ethnologists. The geographic environment was a significant factor in the development of agricultural, fishing, construction and other regional characteristics of the population; it played an important role in the location of villages and their layouts, in the construction skills of peasant carpenters, and in the architectural and artistic traditions of the people.

The determination of the territories of historical and cultural regions of various regions and their boundaries can be carried out according to various indicators and be guided, for example, by the study of the settlement system, considered as the material embodiment of certain stages of settlement of the territories of various social groups, as well as by the structure of agricultural, fishing, etc. . activities of the population. It becomes important to take into account the planning features of rural settlements, the structure of peasant estates, and outbuildings. We consider traditional residential architecture as the most striking and stable element of material culture, identifying various features of cultural territorial communities, transmitted in a traditional way over a long period of history from the moment the territories were settled.For example, in the monuments of residential architecture of those regions that were inhabited in the early stages by Novgorodians, today one can see elements of buildings of the X-XII centuries, found in Novgorod archaeological finds of recent decades. In the residential architecture of a number of areas of lower migration there are decorative and design features characteristic of the architecture of the Kostroma Trans-Volga region.

Taking into account the originality and architectural features of residential buildings, a total of about one and a half thousand measured and surveyed, systematized according to constructive, typological and other features clearly visible in various areas, we proposed a historical and architectural zoning of the territories under consideration. To confirm the expressed idea of coincidence of the boundaries of historical-cultural and historical-architectural zones, it is necessary to conduct additional studies listed above on this topic. Analysis, in particular, of the paintings of residential buildings confirms this hypothesis. 8 . The study of traditional folk architecture allowed for its mapping, which revealed the following historical and cultural zones with their specific characteristics on the territory of the Arkhangelsk and Vologda regions.

Western zone of Arkhangelsk and Vologda regions(former Olonets province Kargopol, Plesetsk, Onega districts of the Arkhangelsk region; Vashkinsky, part of the Vologda district of the Vologda region).
River pool Vaga (Velsky, Shenkursky, Konosha, Ustyansky districts of the Arkhangelsk region; partly Verkhovazhsky district, part of the Syamzhensky, Vozhegodsky, Tarnogsky districts of the Vologda region b. Velsky and Shenkursky districts of the Vologda region.)
River pool Northern Dvina(lower reaches Kholmogorsky, part of the Vinogradovsky district of the Arkhangelsk region, b. Kholmogorsky district; middle reaches Vinogradovsky, Verkhnetoyemsky districts of the Arkhangelsk region; upper reaches Krasnoborsky, Veliko-Ustyug districts. b. Solvychegodsky district of the Vologda province.)
River pool Pinega(Arkhangelsk region - former Pinezhsky district of Arkhangelsk province.)
River pool Mezen(Mezensky and Leshukonsky districts of the Arkhangelsk region, former Mezensky district)
River pool Vychegda(Lensky, Yarensky districts of the Arkhangelsk region, part of the Komi ASSR b. Yarensky and part of the Ust-Sysolsky district of the Vologda province.)
River pool Sukhony(Totemsky, Nyuksensky, part of Tarnogsky, Babushkinsky, Sokolsky, Mezhdurechensky districts of the Vologda region).
South-eastern regions of the Vologda region(Nikolsky, part of Babushkinsky and Kich-Gorodetsky districts of the Vologda region)
Southwestern regions of the Vologda region.(Belozersky, Ustyuzhensky, Chagodoshchensky, Babaevsky, part of the Vozhegodsky and Kirillovsky districts of the region)

Central regions of the Vologda region. (Vologda, Gryazovets, Syamzhensky, part of the Sokolsky, Kharovsky, Kubensky districts of the region)

Pomorie Coastal strip of the White Sea.

Rice. 1.1 Scheme map.

Historical and cultural zoning of Arkhangelsk and Vologda lands

1.2. Types of settlement and planning features of rural settlements

Types of settlement and planning features of rural settlementsin the northern lands under consideration, the types of settlements and settlements of the southern or eastern Slavs, as well as the types of layouts, differ from the types of settlements. 9 Here you can find repairs, settlements, graveyards (“place” and “district”), okolas, villages, hamlets, settlements, hamlets. The main type of settlement in these lands is a nested arrangement of villages that unite several villages and form a group (nest). They, as a rule, are several kilometers behind each other and have patronomic names.

Settlement plans have been studied by ethnographers and architects, and the connection between settlement planning and geographic conditions is obvious. 10 . However, the main role in their formation was played by social economic reasons: economic differentiation of regions, the nature of their settlement, the structure of the northern rural community, etc. In the space-planning structure of settlements, both the social, functional, and artistic aspects of their organizations were taken into account. Of no small importance was the picturesqueness of the area, which suggested compositional techniques for the layout of villages and the location of religious buildings.

Researchers consider the loose or disorderly structure of settlements in the Russian North to be the most ancient, linking its emergence with the initial conquest of land ownership and the single-yard or small-yard (up to ten households) nature of the settlement (up to XYII century). In the process of evolution, single-yard villages were replaced by multi-yard ones. (In other regions of Russia, in particular, in the central regions, in the Volga region, etc., the most ancient is the circular layout). As it develops economic relations and trade, the importance of rivers increased as the main transport “highways” of the North. They determined the row nature of the settlements. IN XYIII - early XIX centuries street settlements are springing up everywhere, which by the end XIX centuries became their main formative elements. These settlements became widespread in watershed areas.

Rice. 1.2.1 Layouts of rural settlements - Arkhangelsk and Vologda region

Methodological approaches to planning rural settlementscan be divided into five main types:

Open or cluttered layout, characterized by a lack of regularity in the placement of residential buildings and outbuildings and their orientation. More often the main facades are oriented towards the sun. Such settlements are common in places remote from rivers and on watersheds. Settlements of a disorderly plan are typical for areas with a Finno-Ugric population, for example, Karelians and Finns, in the Kargopol district of the Arkhangelsk region, in the river basin. Onega, as well as on the territory of the Komi Republic. They have been preserved in the Old Believer areas of the upper Pinega and on the river. Vye 11. (Fig.1.2.1, 1.2.2).

2. Closed form characterized by the isolation of villages from the environment by placing residential buildings around a center square, church, chapel. (These types of layouts are common in watersheds). In Kargopolye, such a planning system, which came from Novgorod, is called “Konchansky” 12 . And just as around the center of Novgorod “Detinets” the “ends” (districts) were located, so in this layout the “ends” with their streets are located around the center of the village (village M. Khaluy, village Gar; partly the river. Dvina, Vaga, Sukhona, Lipovka village, Velsky district). (Fig.1.2.2)

3. Ordinary layoutcharacterized by a linear composition of villages, the pattern of which is determined by the features of the terrain. The orientation of the main facades, as a rule, is to the south (ordinary “for the summer”), to the river or lake (coastal-ordinary). The variation of layouts can be determined by: one-, two-, or multi-row villages (coastal-row and herb-row). This layout in the North is associated with the time of Slavic settlement and is most common in the places of Novgorod colonization, i.e. in the river basin Onega, in Kargopolye and the lower and middle reaches of the Dvina, partly on the Sukhona. Since most rivers in the North flow from south to north, sometimes the rows of houses are located perpendicular to the river, which is due to the orientation of the main facades to the sun 13 .

4. Street layoutdetermined by the location of the buildings along the streets onto which their main facades face. Single-row street villages are similar in appearance to ordinary ones, differing in the different orientation of the houses. All villages with a street layout, excluding those with a one-sided layout, are characterized by a certain closed volumetric-spatial composition. (Fig.1.2.1, 1.2.3).

Rice. 1.2.2 Free layout. Der. Nikitinskaya, U. Vyya, Verkhovye r. Pinega, Arkhangelsk region. Rice. O.Sevan

Rice. 1.2.3 Street layout. Zaozerye, r. Mezen, Arkhangelsk region.

Rice. O.Sevan

A variant of the street layout can be villages where the streets intersect roads, although the streets themselves run parallel to the river (the so-called “cross villages”). Street layouts are more common in places inhabited by settlers of the Nizovsky colonization from the south, since this form of settlement is common in the Volga basin 14 . At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. street forms of settlements have become widespread throughout the territory under consideration. Many ordinary villages turned into street villages (Sukhona river, Vaga river, Dvina river, south-east of the Vologda region) (Fig. 1.2.1).

5. Mixed layoutcombines elements of various planning structures. They were formed in the process of expansion of villages and spread everywhere, but mainly on watersheds (on the Vage river, Palkino village, Simakovo village) (Fig. 1.2.1).

The stratification of the peasantry in the 19th century affected the change in plans. Shops, barns, taverns and other service buildings that belonged to wealthy peasants appeared next to peasant houses.The location of peasant estates was differentiated according to social indicators: Closer to the community center retail space or churches were erected in the homes of wealthy peasants. Official decrees and projects for redevelopment of settlements in the XYII - XIX centuries. undoubtedly affected the restructuring of villages and villages. These decrees, which were imposed throughout Russia, determined the distances between houses, legalized the placement of barns and bathhouses in the depths of the plots, and moved barns and barns to the line of the courtyards. The main type of layout was street. In the 19th century under the influence of decrees and decrees, many villages acquired clear geometric shapes, sometimes not related to the landscape. When rebuilding settlements, places were allocated for public buildings (churches, township administrations, schools). In those villages that received the status of fairs, shopping arcades were established (Soligalich, Kostroma region; Dunilovo-Goritsy, Ivanovo region, etc.). Sometimes trading shops were located in fences around churches (Vodlozersky Monastery, Karelia; in Kargopolye, Arkhangelsk region, etc.).

Thus, in relation to the tasks set in the project “Development of models of rural settlements XXI century" and based on the research proposed above, the following conclusions can be drawn.

Considering the enormous size of the territory of Russia, its differences in natural, historical, ethnic, regional and cultural features, it becomes important to identify historical and cultural lands (regions) within the framework of existing administrative entities (region, territory, republic). One of the possible methods for identifying historical and cultural lands (regions) and their boundaries across Russian territories is proposed in order to justify future architectural and planning decisions for rural settlements of the 21st century and peasant estates, taking into account the characteristics and traditions local residents. It is based on an analysis of the various conditions for the development of territories and the population of certain areas. In such a study, it becomes important to analyze the settlement of different population groups in a given area in different historical periods and their interaction with local (aboriginal) residents, as a result of such interaction a new type of culture is emerging, which is manifested in the forms of housing, planning, estate complexes, in residential and commercial buildings. Over time (especially during the 20th century), such cultures also change, being influenced by the development of migration flows of various ethnic groups, means mass media etc. However, the character of historically established rural patterns is present, and it is visible in the modern landscapes of territories and rural settlements in many regions of the country. This is one of the indicators of the cultural identity of the region and its population.

In work to substantiate models of rural settlements of the 21st century, it is necessary to take into account those developed and proposed in the “Concept of sustainable development of rural territories of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020 » types and subtypes of rural areas. But at the same time, it is also necessary to take into account the proposed approaches to identifying historical and cultural lands (regions) across Russian territories. It should be noted that the boundaries of historical and cultural lands (regions) quite often do not coincide with administrative boundaries. That is why many administrative decisions taken in the social, cultural or managerial sphere are not effective enough, since they do not take into account the basic structure of the population, their characteristics, traditions, etc. And the proposed architectural solutions often do not correspond either to the nature of the historical development, or to the way of life of the population, or their interests and characteristics. In this regard, it is proposed to take this approach into account when developing models of rural settlements of the 21st century. Even if within this project this method can only be partially used, to which we draw attention, it will be important to establish it as an important methodological aspect of such work in the future.

When developing projects for rural settlements of landscape-estate type, one should take into account the specific forms of historical folk architecture of housing in a particular region. This type of work has already been carried out in a number of regions previously (Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Pskov, Kostroma, etc.). Materials from researchers (architects, ethnographers, geographers, historians) can be used in the development of specific settlements, taking into account the modern needs of the population and its various social groups, since they are important elements of the cultural landscapes of rural areas.

1.3.Historical prerequisites for the emergence of architectural and planning traditions on the territory of the Russian North.

One of the largest researchers of the architectural tradition of the Russian North, Yu. S. Ushakov, proposed a slightly different approach to the object of his study, although his conclusions largely coincide with the conclusions of O. G. Sevan. His analysis was based on the dependence of the architectural, spatial and planning structure of settlements on the features of the landscape, which is absolutely correct in relation to historical settlements, but is not always acceptable in relation to modern ones.

The development of the North began in the 11th and 12th centuries. Novgorod people (the so-called Novgorod colonization) with the aim of expanding the territories for forestry and fishing, which gave the Novgorodians marketable products, in exchange for which they could get bread from the south and necessary goods from Western countries. These circumstances forced them to look for convenient trade routes to the White Sea. Of the four main routes laid by the Novgorodians, two were most used: Kenoretsk and Belozersko-Onega (Fig. 1.3.1.). Both of them started from Lake Onega, where the Novgorodians left Ladoga along the Svir River and led through portages to the Onega River the nearest large rivers North. These routes were preferred to others due to the fact that they lay within the Novgorod lands. According to them from the 11th to the 16th centuries. There was an influx of population from Novgorod to the graveyards that were formed in the Pudozh region, Kargopolye on the banks and tributaries of the Onega River, in the lower reaches of the Northern Dvina and on the coast of the White Sea.

Clarification and clarification of the historical routes of development of the North for the study of architectural heritage seems especially important, since it was through them that the culture of Novgorod penetrated here. These routes determined the zones of initial development of the North, which was not confirmed by surveys. The largest number of villages and their nests were identified in areas along trade routes.

Rice. 1.3.1 A schematic map of the Russian North with the main routes of its development and an indication of the surveyed villages.

1 territory of Novgorod Pyatiny, according to K. A. Nevolin; 2 territories of Rostov and Moscow development in the XIII XIV centuries; 3 ways of Novgorod development of the North; 4 ways of Rostov and Moscow development.

The initial settlement of the North by Novgorodians (in addition to the aboriginal population) is also confirmed by data from related sciences: anthropology, ethnography, dialectology and toponymy. The subsequent process of settlement by immigrants from the Rostov-Suzdal and later Moscow lands (the so-called Nizovskaya colonization) brought here other architectural and planning traditions. The fusion of the traditions of these cultures in combination with the natural, geographical and climatic conditions of the North led to the birthregional types and forms of settlements,received final development in the period from the 16th to the 19th centuries. and therefore of greatest interest to us.

What types of settlements had developed here by the beginning of our century and what was their structure?

Based on socio-economic characteristics, three main types of settlements can be distinguished on the territory of the Russian North:churchyard, village and hamlet.All of them are of Russian origin, and the beginning of the formation of these types in the North should be associated with the Novgorod development 15 . One of the earliest and most unique types of settlements characteristic of the North was churchyard The term “pogost” was mentioned already in the 12th century. in the scribe books of the Obonezh Pyatina and has two meanings: the central settlement and the administrative district. In view of this, in the literature it is customary to distinguish these two concepts terminologically by using the expression “pogosto-place” in the first case and “pogosto-volost” in the second.

Initially, the population of the churchyard-volost apparently constituted a rural community, later the boundaries of the community narrowed, and several communities already functioned within one churchyard 16 . Usually, a church or temple complex was built on a churchyard site (i.e., in the central village of a churchyard), while the churchyard-volost constituted a parish. Worldly gatherings and congresses took place in graveyards, meaning “place,” and merchants came here as “trade guests” (hence “graveyard”). In the churchyards and volosts, a count of residents, lands and property, private and state-owned, was kept.

The territories of the churchyards depended on the concentration of the population. For example, the Zaonezhskaya part of the Obonezhskaya Pyatina was divided in the 17th century. for 17 churchyards. The greatest concentration of population and, consequently, the smallest churchyards in terms of territory were formed along the shores of Lake Onega near the areas through which the main waterways passed. For example, the territory of the sparsely populated Vygozersky graveyard, which was not adjacent to Lake Onega, was 26 times larger than the territory of the densely populated Tolvuisky graveyard, located on the Zaonezhsky Peninsula, near waterways 17 .

The term "village" appeared on the pages of Russian chronicles in the 10th century. and designated a princely country estate. Later, the village was understood as the central settlement to which villages gravitate. In the XIX-XX centuries. in most cases it means a relatively large rural settlement in which there is (or was) a church. Thus, the village was the administrative, commercial and social center of a group of villages that gravitated towards it. And finally village the main type of settlement of Russian peasant farmers, initially in 13, later in 1015 households.

In addition to these three types of settlements in the Russian North, one more can be named: pochinok, exhibition, or okol. Pochinok one-yard village. During the Novgorod development of the North, this term was used to mean the founding of a new village (“initial”, “to begin”). Often this initial cell, with a successful choice of location, became the first link of the future village or village. Later in the XVIII-XIX centuries. Repair, or exhibition, in the North were small settlements that spun off from a village or village in search of better lands. In essence, it was precisely this process that gradually led to the formation in the Northnests (groups) of villages.So, the socio-economic connections of the three main types of settlements (pogost, village, village) were the fundamental basis for the formation of the structural system of the habitat characteristic of the Russian North.

For the study of folk traditions in the architectural and spatial organization of the living environment, the 17th to 19th centuries are of greatest interest. the period of formation of multi-yard villages and their groups with an established system of subordination and visual connections. Let us consider how geographical and physical conditions in the territory of the Russian North influenced the nature of the location of settlements (types of settlement). The first to propose classifying the settlements of the East European Plain based on the characteristics of their location on the ground was the famous geographer P. P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky 18 . He based his classification on the geographical factor and, based on it, tried to understand the nature of settlements. He rightly noted the predominance in European Russia waterway communication due to the flatness (unlike Western Europe, where rivers originate in the mountains), which led to the construction of dirt roads. When exploring the Russian North, they used water and portage routes (on boats in summer, on ice in winter).

Later, the desire to find suitable land led to watersheds. But good soils on watersheds are available only in the middle zone, in the North best lands lie along the banks of rivers and lakes, while the interfluves are occupied by taiga and swamps (“taibola”). Very busy northern population in the fishing industry it also forced us to “snuggle” to waterways as the only means of communication. Based on this, Semenov-Tyan-Shansky identifies three main types of settlement of the East European Plain:

1. Central non-chernozem And northwestern agriculturaldue to the location of the most convenient lands.

2. Northern, commercial mainlyand only to a weak extent agricultural and corresponding to the most developed network of rafting rivers.

3. Southern, black earth,exclusively agricultural, gravitating towards river valleys as the only reliable sources of drinking water.

“In a word, the Russian man in this case was like a forest, which Far North and in the extreme south of the East European Plain it clings to river valleys, and in the middle zone it occupies watersheds,” notes Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky 19 . While correctly defining the northern type of settlement as a whole, Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky does not analyze it and does not identify subtypes within it. This gap was partially filled in 1946 by ethnographer I. I. Sorochinskaya-Goryunova 20 , which adopted the classification of Semenov-Tyan-Shansky and identified several subtypes in the territory of the Eastern Ladoga region. The greatest concentration of population is observed along the banks of rivers (river type - up to 40%), along which one can penetrate deep into the continent, as well as along the shores of large lakes and lake groups (lake type - up to 35%), the rest of the villages - on watersheds between lakes and rivers and are connected with hills (selgas).

Due to the diverse natural situation in lake areas, Sorochinskaya-Goryunova identified three subtypes:coastal-lake villages, lakeside settlements(capes) and villages of lake isthmuses.The remaining 25% of the villages in the Eastern Ladoga region are distributed between three types of settlements:sled-lake,in which villages are located in groups along selgas among a system of small lakes and channels, herring, when villages are located on watersheds far from open bodies of water, “on wells”, andvillages on the hills.The latter type includes groups of villages on the ridges of the indigenous hills of the Eastern Ladoga region. The listed types of settlement, noted by Sorochinskaya-Goryunova based on an analysis of the Eastern Ladoga region, are characteristic of the entire territory of the Russian North, but at the same time, due to the wide variety of natural and geographical conditions of this vast territory, the above classification requires further development and addition.

Surveys conducted by Yu. S. Ushakov showed that the presence on the territory of the Russian North of such large rivers as Onega, Northern Dvina with Sukhona, Vychegda, Vaga and Pinega, Mezen and Pechora, allows us to distinguish two subtypes in the river type of settlement:river village at big river, when villages are located predominantly on one bank of the river, andriver village near a small river,when villages are located on both banks of the river. The presence of such large lakes that lay on the settlement routes and have rugged shore contours and groups of islands, such as Onega, Vodlozero, Kenozero, Pochozero, Syam-lake, Sandal, Lizhmozero, etc., gives grounds to add two more subtypes of the lake type to those considered earlier check-in:lacustrine peninsular And lake island villages.Finally, characteristic natural features, which contributed to the choice of location for settlements on the shores of the White Sea, allow us to talk about independentseaside type of settlement.Due to the fact that since ancient times settlements in Pomerania were based not only on the coast itself, but also at the mouths of rivers flowing into the sea (the possibility of penetrating deep into the mainland, the availability of fresh water, river fishing, etc.), we can distinguish two subtype:coastal andseaside-riverine.

How were villages distributed throughout the Russian North? Due to the fact that the population, both in the initial period of development of the North and in subsequent ones, gravitated to the shores of rivers, lakes and the White Sea, its greatest concentration (up to 90%) fell on river, lake and coastal types of settlement. This was facilitated primarily by economic reasons: for example, rivers and lakes are “the economic nerves of the region,” as Vitov put it, the only convenient roads (with the almost complete absence of land roads), as well as sources of fisheries.

The further you go to the North, the more the role of fisheries increased, the fertility of the land decreased and the climatic conditions for agriculture worsened. Most of the lands suitable for cultivation in the North are located along the banks in a narrow strip. Often, 100 x 300 m from the river, the “suzem” begins - a watershed covered with swamps or impassable forest, while near rivers, thanks to natural drainage, there are no swamps. It is also important that the vast majority of rivers in northern Russia flow from south to north, and therefore the soil in river valleys is somewhat warmer than on watersheds. In the floodplains of the rivers there are water meadows, which served as a base for livestock breeding. We must not forget that the Russians came to the North with fairly highly developed agricultural technology and established traditions in animal husbandry, therefore good soil for arable land and the presence of closely located hayfields when choosing a place for a settlement were decisive. Finally, the formation of large settlements on the shores of the White Sea, where agriculture was unprofitable due to the harsh climate, was facilitated by fishing and sea animals, which provided everything necessary for the Pomors through exchange. The ancient origin and stability of river and lake types of settlement on the territory of the Russian North are confirmed by written sources. Thus, A.V. Uspenskaya and M.V. Fechner, who studied the settlements of Ancient Rus', in the northwest and northeast noted a large number of settlements (65%) along the banks of rivers and lakes and especially in the basins of large rivers 21 . Vitov, who studied Zaonezhye settlements in the 16th-17th centuries based on sources, classifies 40% as river type and approximately 25% as lake type. 22 . This ratio can be seen in other relatively densely populated areas of the Russian North with a large number of rivers and lakes. The predominance of these types of settlement here is confirmed by the General Survey maps compiled in the first quarter of the 18th century.

Modern large-scale maps and long-term observations by Yu. S. Ushakov indicate the predominant development of coastal types of settlement at the present time. The herb, or watershed, type of settlement in the initial period of development of the North was only 35%, and only by the 19th century. increased to 1012% 23 .

Summarizing all that has been said, we can present a summary classification by type of settlement for the Russian North in the following form(Table 1.3.1.). The above classification can be used as the basis for the analysis of North Russian villages based on compositional characteristics in relation to the natural environment as uniquearchitectural and natural ensembles.

Table 1.3.1.

Classification by types of settlement of the Russian north

Types and subtypes of settlement

Approximate distribution of villages, %

Areas for which this type is most typical

River:

a) river villages near large rivers;

b) river villages near small rivers.

Ozerny:

a) coastal lake villages;

b) lakeside villages;

c) villages of lake isthmuses;

d) peninsular lake villages;

e) island lake villages.

Selezno-ozerny.

Selezhny.

Villages on hills.

Seaside:

a) coastal settlements;

b) coastal and riverine villages.

Basins of the rivers Svir, Onega, Northern Dvina, Pinega, Mezen, etc.

Eastern Ladoga region, South Karelia, Zaonezhye, Pudozhsky district, Kargopolye.

Eastern Ladoga region, South Karelia, river basin. Onegi.

Winter, Summer, Onega, Pomeranian, Karelian, Kandalaksha and Tersky shores of the Beverny Sea.

Yu. S. Ushakov proposes to introduce this term, which most accurately defines the high harmony in the relationship between North Russian villages and nature, despite the fact that the concept of “ensemble” provides for the organic unity of architectural and natural principles.

Choosing a place in the natural environment. Grouping of villages and planning techniques

Folk traditions in the field of grouping villages on the territory of the Russian North have not been fully studied, and the architectural and artistic aspects and patterns of formation of groups of villages have not been analyzed at all. Until recently, issues of grouping settlements (or types of settlements) were considered only in the works of ethnographers, among whom M. V. Vitov paid the greatest attention to this problem. He created a classification of the main types of settlement. Describing this concept, M. V. Vitov notes that “mutual grouping of settlements reflects different stages of development of society in specific geographical conditions” 24 . Introducing the concept of “type of settlement,” M. V. Vitov was the first ethnographer to draw attention to the importance of studying the characteristics of the grouping of settlements. He writes: “When studying a settlement, in our opinion, one should not limit oneself to individual settlements, but take a complex, a group of settlements that form an organic, historically established unity, in other words, serious attention should be paid to considering the features of the mutual grouping of settlements.” 25 . The words of M.V. Vitov, addressed to the ethnographic aspects of the study of types of settlement, can rightfully be attributed to the architectural and spatial organization of groups of villages.

Of the three main types of settlement identified by M.V. Vitov for the entire territory of the East European Plain (crowded, nesting and scattered farmsteads), the most typical for the Russian North is nest 26 . This specific type of settlement, in which villages are located not alone, but in groups, developed here in the 16th-17th centuries. and to the XVIII-XIX centuries. received final development and completion. In the initial period, the population of such nests had family ties and were distinguished by unity of economic and social interests. Subsequently, despite the disruption of these connections, the nesting character remained for a long time, becoming the dominant type of settlement in the North. M.V. Vitov even makes the assumption that the nesting type of settlement in the past was much more widespread than now, and went beyond the North, being one of the main types of settlement throughout the East European Plain. Favorable natural and economic conditions in the south, as well as significant population density, contributed to the fact that nesting villages there merged into large villages, while in the North the nesting type has survived to this day. Surveys have established relatively good preservation of the nesting group in all regions of the Russian North, with the exception of some areas of northwestern Karelia, where a different type of settlement is common 27 .

The preservation of a nesting group of villages on the territory of the Russian North seems especially important for studying the folk approach to the architectural and spatial organization of the habitat, since the nesting type, which is most closely related to the natural basis, gives us examples of the most interesting architectural and natural ensembles, since the natural origin of the chosen place dictates and the originality of the grouping (composition) of nests of villages. This circumstance allows us to examine in detail the interaction of two closely related spheres - nature and architecture, which form the basis of the living environment. It is the nested form of grouping of villages that is most characterized by structure, subordination and internal organization (near the village, subordinate to the center - churchyard). The data from surveys conducted by Yu. S. Ushakov decisively refute the opinion repeatedly expressed by ethnographers about the absence of any order in the nesting grouping of villages.

All surveyed nests of villages are united by some natural element: a bend or mouth of a river, a lake or lake group, a peninsula, an island or a group of islands. The characteristic repeating features of the nests of the village, which developed in various natural and geographical conditions of the vast territory of the Russian North, allowed Yu. S. Ushakov to introduce the division of the nesting group into three subtypes: 1) g nests of villages near a small riverwhen villages are located on both banks of the river (Fig. 1.3.2-1); 2)nests of villages near a big riverwhen villages occupy one of the banks (Fig. 1.3.2-2 and -3)nests of settlements near a lake or lake group(Fig. 1.3.2-4).

Rice. 1.3.2 Examples of the main types of village nests

1 at a small river: the village of Verkhovye (V. Mudyug), Onega district of the Arkhangelsk region; 2 near a large river: the village of Zaostrovye, Bereznikovsky district of the Arkhangelsk region; 3 near the lake: the village of Kolodozero, Pudozhsky district of the Republic of Karelia; 4 seaside-commercial: Maloshuika village, Onega district, Arkhangelsk region.

I.V. Makovetsky, in a work devoted to the architecture of Russian folk housing, disagreeing with the predominance of the nesting type of settlement for the North, points to another type, characteristic of coastal regions, which took shape and developed in the form of large fishing and trading villages that do not have direct villages gravitating towards them 28 . This type is, indeed, most characteristic of the coastal zone of the White Sea. It includes such large villages as Nenoksa, Purnema, Varzogory, Maloshuika, Kushereka, Shueretskoye, Kovda, Varzuga. The population of these villages, located near river mouths, was engaged in river and sea fishing, catching sea animals and salt making.

Agreeing with I.V. Makovetsky about the unique reasons for the emergence of this type of settlement, we can point out that each of the named villages still consists ofgroups of compactly located villages,and we should talk, in fact, about a peculiar type of nesting type of settlementseaside-commercial, highlighting it in fourth subtype(Fig. 1.3.2-4).

And finally, it is necessary to stop atplanning forms of settlements,formed in the natural and climatic conditions of the Russian North. In works devoted to the typological analysis of wooden architecture structures of the Russian North, planning issues are touched upon only incidentally, using a small number of examples. An in-depth analysis involving a wide range of measurements in different regions of the North has not yet been carried out. The exception is the already mentioned work of A. V. Ikonnikov 29 , but it is based on material from a survey of villages in the Volga-Oka interfluve and is indirectly related to the study of planning traditions of the Russian North.

Until the 16th century On the territory of the Russian North, single-yard and small-yard settlements dominated; various forms of settlements appeared only in the 16th century. 30 . But this process was uneven. On the shores of the White Sea, developed multi-yard settlements appeared in an earlier period - in the XIV-XV centuries. Thus, the formation of traditions of architectural and spatial organization of multi-yard settlements is an earlier phenomenon than hitherto believed.

The concept of “settlement form” includes the layout of the village and the orientation of residential buildings. When considering the main forms of settlements that have developed on the territory of the Russian North, one has to rely mainly on the study of villages in nature, since neither the maps of the General Survey, nor, especially, the scribal books provide an answer to these questions. In this regard, all field observations of researchers of Russian wooden architecture, no matter how brief they may be, acquire great value (M. B. Edemsky, K. K. Romanov, N. II. Kharuzin, R. M. Gabe, M. V. Vitov, S. Ya. Zabello, V. N. Ivanov, P. N. Maksimov, I. V. Makovetsk, V. P. Orfinsky, G. V. Alferova).

In the work of M. B. Edemsky 31 , the best among pre-revolutionary studies on northern housing and village planning, is devoted to several pages. M. B. Edemsky rightly considers the most specific form of settlements in the Vologda and Arkhangelsk provinces to be coastal-ordinary, on the river bank, with the front facades of houses facing east. “The condition “to the east and to the river,” the author notes, “is easily achievable, since most of the rivers of Pomerania flow from south to north. As the village grows, the second row is lined up behind the first, also facing the water.” In places far from the water, the houses are oriented towards the road (street form). M. B. Edemsky notes the increase in street villages to the south, towards the Sukhona River basin. He does not explain the reasons for this circumstance, but today it is clear to us: this is due to the fact that the watershed between Vaga and Sukhona the border between the Novgorod and Nizov colonizations.

The difference in material cultures affected not only the forms of villages, but also the types of estates and houses. K. K. Romanov 32 notes several forms of settlement and considers the most ancient to be a row one with houses facing the sun. By the definition of “facing the sun” K.K. Romanov understands the orientation to the south, southeast and southwest. Later, when the second order appears, in coastal villages houses are often rebuilt according to the street principle. Sometimes both of these forms are observed in the same village.

Ethnographer N.I. Kharuzin established among the Finno-Ugric peoples who lived next to the Russians the spread of a disorderly form of settlements 33 (it is also called formless,” “irregular,” and, more recently, “free”). This was also noted by R. M. Gabe, who examined the villages of Karelia. However, arguing with Kharuzin, Gabe wrote: “Villages, in the layout of which it would be impossible to detect any order or desireI have never seen anything related to it in relation to the location of houses...” 34 . He also noted the complete absence of published measurements of villages, which made it very difficult to draw general conclusions, since patterns in the location of houses in villages are often revealed only on plans. Gabe noted that drawing conclusions about the unsystematic nature of villages based on their appearance is dangerous and premature. The validity of this remark has been repeatedly verified by measuring villages in variousregions of the North by Yu. S. Ushakov.

For the Russian villages of Karelia R. M. Gabe notes till greater correctness of planning with a predominance of ordinary and street forms, and only the lack of a sufficient number of measurements did not allow him to give a broader systematization of the forms of settlements in Karelia; this gap was filled by V.P. Orfinsky, who continued the study of Karelian wooden architecture. He also notes the predominance of a disorderly (free) layout in the Finnish and Karelian regions, and a regular, ordinary layout in the Russian regions of Karelia, while noting less and less deviations from regularity in the layout of villages when moving from west to east and not only in villages on watersheds, but also in coastal villages 35 .

M.V. Vitov, who ethnographically examined the southern coast of the White Sea and the middle reaches of the river. Onega, Kenozero and Korbozero, notes the following forms of settlements: along the flow of large floatable rivers, an ordinary coastal layout dominates, most often single-row, less often multi-row, in remote watershed areas disorderly, in some places ordinary, oriented to the south, and, finally, in the most economically developed in areas where land transport plays a major role, street layout predominates 36 . The historical evolution of the forms of settlements in the Russian North can be traced in these three main forms. The coastal-row layout of villages is associated with the initial period of development of the North, when waterways predominated. With the increase in population and in connection with this intensive development of watersheds, various forms of watershed settlements arose. And finally, the appearance of land roads in the North gave rise to a street form of planning.

At the same time, M.V. Vitov records a large number of mixed forms of settlements, which represent transitional forms (from ordinary, oriented to the south “for the summer”, and coastal-ordinary to street, from disorderly to ordinary), rightly noting Moreover, the study of mixed forms is important in establishing the antiquity of a particular type of layout 37 . As a result of his work, M.V. Vitov made an attempt to revise the classification of settlement forms existing in ethnographic literature for all territories of the East European Plain, putting forward five main ones:chaotic, ordinary, closed, street And villages of late origin (post-reform).

For the Russian North, this classification requires clarification. It has already been said that the definition of “disorderly” is controversial, recently recently replaced by the term I. V. Makovetsky, who proposed calling such a form “free” 38 , and about the exclusion of the last, fifth, group, as not having anything to do with folk art. Moreover, on the territory of the Russian North there are villagesthose rebuilt under the influence of the state administration (after the reforms of the first half of the 18th century) are almost never observed. At the same time, surveys conducted by Yu. S. Ushakov revealed villages with a layout form that apparently had Novgorod origins, with street ends diverging from the public center. This system was first noted by I. I. Rudometov 39 . G.V. Alferova, who examined the villages of Kargopol, also notes a number of villages that have retained the indicated form, proposing to name it Konchanskaya 40 . We can agree with this term and distinguish the Konchan form into an independent subgroup 41 .

A large number of villages with various forms of planning that have developed in the process of their evolution under the influence of various kinds of reasons makes it necessary to separate them into a separate subgroupmixed forms of settlements.

Based on the analysis of literary sources, as well as on-site surveys and measurements, it is possible to identify on the territory of the Russian Northtwo groups of settlement forms: near the water And on watersheds.Then the classification of the main forms of settlements for the Russian North can be presented in the following form.Forms of settlements near water:

1) free;

2) coastal-ordinary;

3) ordinary “for the summer” (oriented to the south and southeast);

4) Konchanskaya;

5) street;

6) mixed.

Forms of settlements on watersheds:

1) free;

2) private “for the summer”;

3) street;

4) mixed.

We will consider these forms in more detail along the way during the analysis of the architectural and spatial organization of villages and their nests.

Analysis of ethnographic and architectural surveys of Northern Russian villages of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as well as surveys conducted by Yu. S. Ushakov, note a significant predominance of forms of settlements near water, especially in areas of Russian development and in areas with a mixed population. The presence of various planning techniques in such large residential formations as nests of villages not only helps to understand the process of their formation in historical terms, but also helps in identifying folk traditions in the architectural, spatial and compositional organization of the living environment of various settlements.

Architectural-spatial and compositional organization

Surveys and measurements carried out by Yu. S. Ushakov on the territory of the Russian North, and reconstructions of the villages and their nests, which were formed here by the 18th-19th centuries, carried out on this basis, allow us to speak about the high compositional skill of folk architects in organizing the habitat, craftsmanship, which gave birth to villages as diverse and individual as nature itself.

And yet, despite the endless variety of compositional techniques, with a certain degree of convention, inevitable in any systematization of works of art, Yu. S. Ushakov proposes to carry outclassification of methods of architectural and spatial organization of North Russian villages and their nests in relation to external visual perception and according to natural and geographical characteristics.

The basis of the classificationregarding visual perception,to which, as the study has shown, great attention was paid in folk architecture, determines the degree of opening of the village or nest of villages to the main routes (water and land). In this regard, it is proposed to distinguishfour main types of compositions (or methods of spatial organization). To the first type centric compositionsincluded villages and nests of villages that have a center that organizes the living environment and the perceivedfrom many directions.Depending on the latitude of the opening, settlements with a centric composition can be divided into two types. The first type includes centric compositions with circular perception, to the second centric compositions with a predominant semicircular perception (Table A.1.) 42 . The second type includes villages perceived primarily from two sides. They got the name linear with predominant bilateral perception. To the third type frontal compositionsinclude villages whose composition is designed for frontal perception. And finallyto the fourth type multi-center compositionsincluded villages that have equivalent compositional attributes perceived mutually. Two types are considered here: paired compositions withmutual perception and multi-accent compositions with mutual perception, subordinate to a single center.

In turn according to natural-geographical characteristicsarchitectural and natural complexes are divided into groups and subgroups. This classification is based on the main (predominant) types of settlement of the Russian North:

1. Riverside villages:a) at a small river; b) with a big river.

2. Lakeside villages:a) lakeside-coastal; b) peninsular open; c) peninsular closed; d) island open.

3. Seaside villages:a) coastal-coastal; b) coastal-riverine.

In each subgroup, based on the analysis of three or four villages, a model of visual perception is built.

Let's look at examples of villages in each type and type of composition, starting with centric. Villages or their nests, organized in a chosen natural situation so that they are perceived practicallyall directions, attributed to centric compositions with circular perception.This technique is most common in the natural-geographical conditions of the Russian North and is often the basis for the organization of riverside, lakeside and seaside villages. The largest number of villages in the Russian North (about 40%) were founded on the banks of rivers along which trade routes ran. The survey revealed certain features village compositions that have developed along the banks of large or small rivers.

As an example of a riverine village small river Let's look at the village of Verkhovye (Verkhniy Mudyug) in the Onega district of the Arkhangelsk region. The villages of the former Upper Mudyug parish were formed in a steep bend in the middle reaches of the Mudyuga River, the right tributary of the Onega River, apparently developed during the period of settlement of the Onega basin. Over time, after the once navigable Mudyuga River shallowed, the village of Verkhovye found itself cut off from the waterways and remained unexplored for a long time. This is also the reason that the Upper River is well preserved, in contrast to the group of villages of Nizhny Mudyug (Grikhnovo) at the confluence of the river with the Onega 43 .

A characteristic feature of villages near small rivers is the location of villages that make up a single group on both banks. The village of Verkhovye consists of three villages. Two of them are the most ancient: Ryakhkovskaya on the left bank, bearing traces of a free layout (the oldest houses and barns are recorded here), and Mitinskaya with a coastal-row layout on the right bank.

Later, along the road to Nizhny Mudyug, the village of Shutova was formed with a street layout. By the end of the 19th century. the village consisted of 128 households with a population of 778 people 44 (Fig. 1.3.3).

The most important component of any village is its community center. In large villages this role was played by the temple complex. The overall composition of the village and its perception from the main external directions largely depended on the choice of place for its placement. Here, in the Verkhovye, the temple complex was located on a peninsula formed by a steep bend of the river, so that all three of its elements (the tented Church of the Entry of Jerusalem of 1754, the five-domed Tikhvin Church of the 18th century and the bell tower of 1787) 45 clearly visible from all sides: from the upper and lower reaches of the river and from two roads to the village (from the west and southeast). Good perception is also facilitated by skillful mutual placement of the ensemble’s structures 46 .

The small width of the river and the closed nature of the surrounding space affected here the proportionally small heights of the buildings of the temple ensemble (up to 28 m). Thus, the natural conditions of the valley of a relatively small river also determined the corresponding scale of the centric architectural and spatial composition of the village.

Rice. 1.3.3 The village of Verkhovye (V. Mudyug), Onega district, Arkhangelsk region. Plan and panorama according to A and B.

In order to understand how the same type of village composition varies in a different natural situation, let’s consider another example. Villages b. The Ust-Kozha churchyard was located near the confluence of the Kozha River and the Onega (Ust-Kozha village, Onega district of the Arkhangelsk region). The location for the central village of the churchyard, Makarino, was chosen on a cape, bounded on one side by the Kozha River and on the other by Kuzhruchye (Fig. 1.3.4). Both of these water roads led to the west to lakes (Kozhozero and Kuzhozero), and near the village a kilometer from Onega they merged together.

Rice. 1.3.4 The village of Ust-Kozha (Makarino), Onega district, Arkhangelsk region. Plan and section.

On the high left (10 m) bank of the Kozhi was the center of the churchyard - the five-domed Church of Clement (1695), the tent-roofed Church of the Exaltation of the Cross (1769) and the bell tower (18th century). Two rows of houses in the village of Makarino face the south and the churchyard, but gravitate towards Kuzhruch. On the right bank of the Kozha, opposite the churchyard, stood the village of Glotovo (Semyonovskaya), whose houses face two sides - to the north-west and south-east. Thus, the public center, located between two villages, was visible from every house and served as a landmark from the west - from the water roads along Kozha and Kuzhruch. Previously, when the tip of the cape was not forested, the village was also visible from the Onega River, thereby completing its circular perception.

Each village or nest of villages, assigned to one type of composition, has a clearly defined individual face; it could not be otherwise with such a close relationship with the landscape. The natural environment here is a tuning fork that sets the general mood of the entire composition, the measure of space and the scale of the main architectural elements. And every time you are amazed at the accuracy of the solution, the proportionality of the elements and the accuracy of the perception of the composition. All this was done without drawings, based only on intuition, developed by centuries of communication with nature, intuition that contributed to the emergence of true works of art.

Rice. 1.3.5 The village of Zaostrovye, Bereznikovsky district, Arkhangelsk region. Reconstruction. Plan and panoramas A-B.

Centric compositions with a circular perception include such dissimilar villages and nests as the village of Ratonvolok on the Yemtse River (Emetsky district of the Arkhangelsk region), Kuliga Drakovanaya in the valley of the Shoksha River tributary of the Northern Dvina (Krasnoborsky district), Bestuzh e in the bend of the Ustya River (Oktyabrsky district), etc.

Villages or nests of villages that have developedat large riversof the Russian North, are located mainly on one of the banks, usually on the one that is more convenient in terms of relief and orientation. One of these villages is the village of Zaostrovye on the left bank of the Northern Dvina (Bereznikovsky district of the Arkhangelsk region). Zaostrovye is mentioned in the “Book of the Big Drawing” as the Zaostrovsky churchyard on the left bank of the Dvina at the mouth of the Nisa River. It is mentioned in the Dvina Charter of 1471. This is one of the large estates on the Dvina, for the possession of which there was a long struggle between the Novgorod and Rostov princes. Village Zaostrovye 47 , consisting of four now almost merged villages, is no longer located on the banks of the Northern Dvina, as it once was, but on its oxbow lake, into which the Nisa River flows (Fig. 1.3.5).

Over the past centuries, the Dvina has “moved away” from the village by almost a kilometer, leaving vast water meadows. But this same circumstance had a positive impact on the safety of the village. Time has changed the planning structure of the village: the coastal-row form remained only in one northern village of the village of Malakhino, but large (“two-story”) houses were replaced here by small one-story ones.

In other villages, with the departure of the Northern Dvina channel, a street layout developed. The riverine order of houses in the village of Yakovlevskaya is broken approximately in the middle, and here, near the river bank (and now oxbow), there is a temple ensemble: two tented churches Bogoroditskaya (1726) on the site of a more ancient one, from the beginning of the 17th century, of St. Michael the Archangel with refectory (1776) and bell tower (1785). Three verticals, contrasting with the horizontals of the bank and the order of residential buildings, were visible from afar from the upper and lower reaches of the river as unique identification marks of the village. Thanks to the smooth curve of the streets and rows of houses following the shore, the ensemble is clearly visible from the villages of Podvolochye and Malakhino and from the road to the village of Seltso, as well as from both ends of the village of Yakovlevskaya. The third ray is also oriented towards the Mother of God Church - the street of the village of Gogara.

And in this type of composition of villages that have developed on the banks of large rivers, we observe a variety of options dictated by the natural environment. A cluster of villages located next to Zaostrovye under the general name Seltso and the village of Rakuly on the same bank of the North have a centric composition. Dvina (Emetsky district), the village of Sura on Pinega (Pinega district). A peculiar exception is the village of Turchasovo, which we have already discussed, where, due to a change in the course of the Onega River, a nest of villages occupied both banks.

An interesting version of a centric composition the village of Konetsdvorye on Konechny Island in the Northern Dvina delta 48 . Natural conditions low elevations of an unforested island open to the winds gave rise to a clear and compact centric planning technique. The houses are clustered in a small space relative to the higher part of the island around the square with the tented St. Nicholas Church (transported from Arkhangelsk in 1769) and the bell tower (XVIII-XIX centuries). At the first cursory glance, it seems that the houses here are in complete chaotic disorder, but once you take a closer look and, having walked around the village, put its planning diagram on paper, a clearly readable system emerges (Fig. 1.3.6).

Fig.1.3.6 The village of Konetsdvorye at the mouth of the Northern Dvina River, Primorsky district of the Arkhangelsk region. Plan.

So, analyzing folk traditions in rural architecture, which led to brilliant ensemble solutions, one cannot help but note the strikingtheir exact coincidence with the conclusions and patterns of modern experimental psychology and the theory of perception.This circumstance is another convincing confirmation of the value of folk experience, which undoubtedly deserves close attention from modern theory and practice of architecture. It should be noted that in folk architecture, in contrast to professional architecture, during all periods of its development, harmony was maintained between the functional and aesthetic sides.

All the mentioned provisions and principles, which, in fact, form the basis of folk traditions, give us the right to apply to each North Russian village the concept of “ensemble”, a concept in which the highest achievements of architectural thought are embodied. Despite the fact that villages arose without a pre-drawn plan, developed traditions, vast construction experience, and most importantly, a highly developed sense of nature allowed folk architects to successfully implement an architectural plan, very accurately find a place for each structure and, when solving any practical problems, never leave On the other hand, aesthetic requests.

1.4.Development of a sociocultural typology of rural settlements, based on historical and modern aspects of their development

In this section, within the framework of the topic “Conducting scientific research and developing models of rural settlements XXI century" an analysis of the historical and modern sociocultural typology of rural settlements, taking into account historical and cultural lands, which becomes important in connection with attempts at their restoration (restoration), reconstruction or new construction. This approach has become relevant since in recent decades in many countries there have been discussions about the preservation and development of regional cultural identity, about finding ways to preserve the diversity of cultures, and about finding alternatives to turning the world into “one big village”: with one language, similar traditions, architecture and Ave. 49 And the process of urbanization, in turn, causes active movements of the population and specialists in a number of countries for the preservation of historical cities, the “spirit of the place,” including rural settlements 50 .

In recent decades, as today, projects have been developed for the preservation and development of historical villages 51 , their planning features are studied according to different lands and regions of different countries 52 53 , museums are created in rural environments where people live and agricultural activities are maintained 54 , or transportable museums, of which there are more than two thousand in Europe alone 55 . Analysis and experience of such work deserves research and application in our country 56 .

In connection with the development of a sociocultural typology focused on the preservation of historical settlements that are significant for the development of the country and regions, we will make several comments regarding the subject of analysis.

Modern land transformationsand economic relations in rural areas of our country, associated with the redistribution of property, become detrimental to the development of a number of historical settlements, since they are carried out outside their village boundaries and, unfortunately, are not focused on their preservation and development. On the contrary, a spontaneous process of alienation of lands for various types of objects that are not related to targeted activities in agriculture and specific territories and their population is obvious. This is the construction of dachas, “second homes” for citizens, industrial enterprises in close proximity to populated areas. And since in many cases the issues of social and engineering infrastructure are not resolved, they place a burden on various villages and hamlets, including historical ones. 57 .

And the modern rapidly changing situation, unfortunately, does not allow us to exercise reliable control over the territorial, in many cases spontaneous, development of settlements. Local authorities, in order to resolve issues of partial budget filling, as well as for the purpose of their own profit, at their own discretion decide on the priorities for the distribution of land within the boundaries of municipal territories. Basically, historical villages (and not only) do not have master plans and development programs (which can be seen in other countries, for example, in Germany or Austria) 58 . Villages and hamlets are often included within city limits in order to expand the development territory of a small town (for example, Zvenigorod, Moscow region). 59 At the same time, rural residents acquire, along with a number of advantages, noticeable disadvantages.

“Preservation and use of cultural heritage” -This is a section of the “Territorial Planning Schemes”, both at the regional and district levels. However, the formation of different types of historical settlements and their development within the framework of these projects is not specifically intended, since modern analysis and territorial design are practically removed from the presence of individual architectural monuments or the history of the settlements themselves. Various types of historical villages and hamlets are not taken into account, which for the most part are simply not identified, their own significance is not determined: history, spatial characteristics, landscape, lifestyle of the population, etc. Therefore, in the future, at the district level, as well as the region, when discussing programs development of the territory, such settlements are not given importance, programs and projects specific only to them are not proposed, or alternative character(craft centers, open-air museums - “ in situ ", places of trade (fairs) and the revival of folk festivals, tourist villages, etc.). Obviously, this approach becomes new within the framework of these projects, but necessary for the purpose of developing historical and cultural lands and settlements.

Architectural and spatial problemsThe formation of the appearance of rural settlements is especially obvious in the suburban areas of the country. This is expressed either in faceless residential buildings or very pompous residential buildings, in size, quality of construction and style falling out of their surrounding landscape. It is clear that the city's rich citizens are striving to invest their money in property, in housing, planning the development of families, although their destruction is everywhere observed, not to mention maintaining buildings in the future.

But one cannot blame only villagers or city dwellers for the tasteless decoration and construction of houses. Criticism, apparently, should be subjected toheads of regions, districts, settlements(unfortunately, they do not have an education in the field of architecture), but are responsible for control in this field of activity, as well as architects, proposing as standard projects that turn Russian villages into the same type of settlements, or into stupid castle settlements.

Method of restoration, reconstruction and new constructiontoday deserves attention, since it supports the idea of preserving the traditional regional (national) features of significant villages and their surroundings, taking into account the local style, materials and lifestyle of the population. With this approach, the issues of restoration and reconstruction of various types of heritage, including cultural landscapes and villages, are quite obvious, but are not yet feasible, since there is still no complete List of historical villages of the Russian Federation. And for those of them that accidentally ended up in it (see Appendix B), the situation also remains uncertain due to the lack of real practice of their reconstruction (in the presence of methodological approaches to research and socio-cultural design) 60 , funds, information, etc. All this leads to the neglect of such historical objects, both at various levels of management, architectural design, and by local residents, busy with their own problems and/or unaware of the value of their own “small homeland” and its heritage.

Reconstruction (renovation) of the village and renovation of peasant housesis part of a differentiated policy in many European countries, which involves residents in the process of understanding not only their own home, but the entire settlement. For example, in Austria twenty years ago there were 2,304 rural areas and more than 17,000 villages. Only about 100 of them had official or public development programs. In Upper Austria, where there were 6,500 villages, 2,400 farms needed repair and reconstruction. It was obvious to specialists that such large number settlements and structures needed both special analysis and the development of priorities for their preservation and development by experts and local residents in many villages at the regional level. Therefore, these issues were constantly discussed, and are still being worked out at different levels of government. 61 .

Preservation and supporting development of the cultural landscape, as places where people live, is important in many European countries. The issue of not only restoration and reconstruction, but also the construction of quality housing, the formation of an environment for work activity and especially as recreational places with significant social aspects. The European Landscape Convention (Florence, October 20, 2000), signed by many European countries, was not ratified by our country, which indicates the attitude of the authorities to this subject of consideration. 62 Although such landscapes are also of economic value, providing an opportunity for the development of tourism, the construction of holiday homes, hotels, clubs, restaurants, etc.

Peasant estate, their group, residential buildings, outbuildings, places of worship, as well as the settlement as a whole, are also integral elements of cultural landscapes, the cultural identity of the population of any state. It is not just a living environment, but also a cultural environment for work, including environmental and socio-cultural functions. Any decisions in the field of construction or reconstruction directly or indirectly affect economic functions. Therefore, today it is necessary to think through: where and when, when reconstructing estates, the main directions of agricultural, industrial or other policies at the regional or local level should be taken into account. Its goal is to preserve the local identity of not only buildings, including wooden ones, but also the entire settlement, and, consequently, the image of the region and the country as a whole. “Wood culture” is acquiring special significance throughout the world today. 63

Cultural and rural tourism,as a capital-intensive area, it requires attracting foreign capital, reconstruction of buildings, trade, entertainment, which is difficult to develop in Russia due to poorly developed infrastructure, etc. 64 Although in recent years there has been some progress in this area. But for the development of rural tourism it is importantIs there a state intention to support real subjects of the socio-cultural environment on the basis of which they are going to produce a tourism product?. 65 Since rural or agro-tourism is a derivative element of state social policy, closely intertwined with such areas as local government, the development of self-regulatory public organizations, systemic support for small and medium-sized businesses, etc., with mandatory consideration of socio-cultural factors

There are dozens of options for classifying rural settlements of medieval Western Europe. From all their diversity, two main types of settlements can be distinguished - large compact ones (villages, hamlets, semi-agrarian towns) and small scattered ones (farms, settlements, separately located farm houses). Compact settlements and villages are very different from each other in their layout; for example, they distinguish between “nuclear”, cumulus, linear and other types of villages. In the first type, the “core” of the settlement is a square with a church, market, etc. located on it, from which streets and alleys extend in a radial direction. In a street village, the layout most often consists of several streets intersecting each other at different angles. Houses in such a village are located on both sides of the street and face each other. In a linear village, houses are located on one line - along a road, river or some fold of terrain - and often only on one side of the road; sometimes there could be several such streets in a village: for example, in mountainous areas, courtyards often consisted of two rows, of which one runs at the foot of the slope, the other parallel to it, but slightly higher. In a cumulus village, houses are randomly scattered and connected by alleys and driveways.

Options for small settlements are no less varied. Usually, settlements with 10-15 households are considered farmsteads (in Scandinavia - up to 4-6 households). However, these courtyards can either be concentrated around some center (square, street), or lie quite far from each other, being connected only by common pasture, plowing, management, etc. Even individual buildings require their own classification: after all, large, several-story farms of lowland areas are incomparable with small huts of mountain dwellers.

The diverse picture of settlements of the medieval era has been preserved to this day: the vast majority of settlements on the continent are believed to have arisen before the 15th century. At the same time, certain patterns can be noticed in their occurrence. Thus, the system of open fields was most often combined with compact settlements. The Mediterranean economic system allowed for the existence of different types of settlements, but starting from the 15th century. in places of greatest development of agrarian relations (Central Italy, Lombardy), individual farm houses became dominant. Geographical factors also influenced the spread of one type of settlement or another: large villages, as a rule, predominated in flat areas, and small farms in mountainous areas. Finally, the decisive role in many cases was played by the historical features of the development of each area and, first of all, the nature of its settlement. For example, military colonization explains the predominance of large settlements in East Germany and in the central regions of the Iberian Peninsula. The development of former forests, swamps, and low-lying coastal areas led to the spread of small forms of settlements - farmsteads, settlements, settlements with separate buildings. The nature of the settlements was also influenced by the customs characteristic of the former population of this area (Celts, Slavs, etc.). However, all these patterns did not always appear; for example, in Friul, whose topography represents the entire gamut of landscapes from the Alpine mountains to the lagoon lowland, the distribution of types of settlements was the opposite of that indicated above: in the mountains there were compact multi-yard villages, on the plain there were isolated houses. It should also be taken into account that the nature of the dominant type of settlement could change several times throughout the Middle Ages. Thus, in England in the Celtic era, small settlements predominated, but already the first wave of the Anglo-Saxon invasion led to an increase in the proportion of large villages, since the conquerors preferred to settle in large clan groups. In general, compact villa-commons were predominant in central, southern and eastern England in the early Middle Ages. Further settlement of the population took place through the splitting off of small settlements from large settlements; their number increased even more during the period of internal colonization. As a result, in many rural areas of the country already by the 15th century. Small scattered settlements became the dominant type of settlements. Later, as a result of enclosures, many villages were abandoned and the number of small farms and individual farms increased even more.

In Germany, the boundary between different types of settlements was the Elbe. To the west of it, cumulus villages, small settlements of irregular shape, hamlets and individual buildings dominated, sometimes having some kind of

Rural settlements in Central Europe:
1 - cumulus and nuclear villages; 2 - farmsteads and small villages; 3 - separate farms; 4 - small cumulus and nuclear villages of a more orderly type (areas of colonization); 5 - large street and nuclear villages; 6 - farmsteads; 7 - later forms of settlements

a common center or, conversely, located around the arable area. Small villages and hamlets were also common in the eastern states (Lausitz, Brandenburg, Silesia, Czech territories); here their presence is often explained by the form of previous Slavic settlements. Basically, East Germany is an area dominated by large villages of a street or linear type, as well as smaller settlements that grew up in forest clearing areas or in mountainous areas, but have the same orderly character.

Types of rural settlements in Italy:
1 - large villages and agricultural towns; 2 - farmsteads and mountain villages; 3 - separate houses and farms; 4- mixed forms of settlements

The presence of a dominant type of settlement in each region of the continent did not at all deny the existence of settlements of a different type in it. As a rule, in almost every locality there were large villages, small towns, and even individual farm houses. We are talking only about the predominant type of settlement that determines the face of a given territory.