Rus Articles Journal

Let`s me buy three hundred parts!

More and more players understand that return to the former market of real estate will not be. Having rolled away in many respects to a situation of the end of 1990 - x, the market will grope new ways of development. Today it is already clear that the house-keeper - a class will become the most demanded both city, and country format for many years. In other words, small apartments and sites - yesterday`s “illiquid asset“. Question: how small?

the Picture on city real estate is approximately clear to

. One-room apartments on 80 - 100 sq.m consigned to the past long before crisis. Builders of serial and exclusive housing, and also the city authorities managed to experiment much with “malometrazhka“ and to find limit of profitability and common sense. With country real estate the situation is more difficult.

begin

of Difficulty with a legislative disparate. The federal legislation does not establish the minimum sizes of sites of lands of different function. Moscow regional law (№ 3 / 59 - P of May 28, 2003) decided:“ To establish the minimum sizes of the land plots provided to citizens in property for maintaining: country (farmer) economy - 2,0 hectares; gardenings - 0,06 hectares; truck farming - 0,04 hectares; country construction - 0,06 hectares“. I.e. in the last three cases - 6, 4 and 6 hundred parts respectively. And here the minimum sizes of sites under IZhS are transferred to the jurisdiction of local governments (MS).

bodies of MS resolve by

I this issue according to own representations about fine and fair. From 2 hundred parts in Lotoshinsky district to 6 - in Ramenskoye, 8 - in Odintsovo and 10 hundred parts in not the most prestigious Voskresensky district. Besides the sizes of a site also its configuration matters: it should not be too extended or a broken line. However, even in Odintsovo district in each case at the settlement level it is possible to agree both upon a configuration, and by the sizes, i.e. to get permission to allocation of a site under IZhS (for example, at the section) in 7 and even in 6 hundred parts.

it is not always simple to p to Understand logic of local “self-managers“. It is clear, that the minimum sizes of sites are considerably dictated by requirements of Construction Norms and Regulations 30 - 02 - 97 and other acts. In particular, the distance from the house to the next site has to be not less than 3 meters (considering from speakers of points: blind areas, bay window, porch, etc.) . And it in case both houses - your and neighbour`s - stone. The distance between the stone house and wooden has to be not menee10 meters, and between two wooden - not less than 15 meters. As much meters has to lie from any at home to forest area. Not easier and on the front: 3 “minimum“ meters before journey and 5 - to the street. Also dislocation of “conveniences“ is painted: from the house to the bathroom - 12 meters, to a shower, a bath and a sauna - 8, from a well to the bathroom and the compost device - 8, before construction for the maintenance of small cattle and a bird - 12 m, etc. And all these distances have to be observed both between constructions on one site, and between the constructions located on adjacent sites. I.e. it will not be possible to take out the toilet like “toilet“ far away from the house closer to neighbour`s.

Having compared the data provided in two last paragraphs it is possible to draw a conclusion that residents of Lotoshinsky district on two minimum hundred parts live entirely in stone houses of narrow and high Dutch architecture with the most up-to-date communications, including municipal, and by all means in an environment of tulips. While inhabitants of Odintsovo Rublyovka toil between a drying house, a compost heap and “nesting box“.

Probably, other explanation, however, on the example of the Red Village near St. Petersburg is closer than

to truth:“ To reduce the minimum size of the land plots provided for individual housing construction and, offered respectively a size of the land plots in zones of one-family low construction to 3 hundred parts during public hearings of the draft of Rules of land use and building (PZZ) the resident of Krasnoselsky district. Bewilderment of the owner causes the fact that PZZ determine the minimum size of the land plot within 12 hundred parts. And she explained the offer with plans for transfer of a half of a site to children. In response to this offer the deputy chairman of KGA [The Committee on Urban Planning and Architecture of the government of St. Petersburg] Victor Polishchuk noticed that in world practice of town planning the standards doing possible granting sites, smaller on the area, under IZhS purposes are used. However developers of the PZZ St. Petersburg project at establishment of the minimum size of sites proceeded from desire to prevent process of formation of areas with excessive population density. „ 1,5 hundred parts are a norm of a site for a townhouse. If introduced such standard in your area, nature of building would begin to change. You would like that near your houses townhouses began to appear? “ - Polishchuk rhetorically took an interest“.

meanwhile, in the conditions of crisis and very long post-crisis period interests of citizens, builders, the states can agree on small sites. Townhouses and small cottages on 2,5 - 3 hundred parts together with transfer to housing stock of country property of Muscovites and residents of the area, could save the country market of Moscow area. Could as ridiculously it will sound, rescue the national project “Affordable and Comfortable Housing - to Citizens of Russia“. It is, by different calculations, about potential entry into the market from 60 to 120 mln sq.m of housing. For comparison, the housing stock of Moscow makes today about 210 mln sq.m

the Main obstacle is known. The authorities of the area and its areas are not interested in transformation of garden associations into settlements and furthermore, in increase in their population through division of households. Are not interested in construction at the expense of the budget of transport and social infrastructure for new settlements. And this position is fair: “live in Moscow area, and taxes pay in Moscow“. This contradiction needs to be removed. Though it is hard to say what way looks less fantastic - reform of tax system (to pay income tax in the place of residence, but not works) or association of two regions. But if this problem is solved, then 60 or 120 mln sq.m of housing people will construct those. Without any other help of the state.