?
Сталинский джерримендеринг: как Ленинград разделили на районы в 1936 году
he intracity division of many Russian cities is a legacy of Stalinism. On what principles were intracity boundaries drawn in the late 1930s? This study considers Leningrad, the first city in the country where a fundamental district grid transformation was carried out in 1936.
The purpose of this article is to identify the administrative zoning principles of soviet cities during the fundamental reform of 1936 using the example of Leningrad. The study collects and analyzes archival documents, publications in scientific and periodicals, describes the process, identifies the political context, analyzes the authors’ preparatory calculations, compares them with public declarations of the authorities, and puts forward a hypothesis about the goals of city administrative zoning in the Stalin period.
The scientific novelty of the study is determined by the use of archival documents about the preparation and implementation of the disaggregation of Leningrad districts in 1936, identified by the author. Among them are statistical calculations, explanatory notes, minutes and transcripts of meetings, texts of speeches, and correspondence. Most of these documents were declassified in the 2010s and are published for the first time.
Using comparative-historical and comparative-cartographic methods, the study recreates the algorithms and principles of the zonings.
The author concludes that intracity zoning changes were carried out as a zoning of the city party organization to fix the general party purge of 1933–36. It ensured the numerical advantage of the workers and bureaucracy in each district cell and was a preparatory stage for the mass repressions in 1937–38. The zoning was carried out in a socio-constructive paradigm based on party statistics, formalized the city’s administrative-territorial subordination to the situational political goals of the Stalinist leadership and did not pursue the socio-economic goals declared by the public propaganda campaign.
The author suggests that the principles identified are relevant for other cities that have preserved the Stalinist zoning legacy, and retains its institutional influence, including hindering the development of local self-government.