mounting solar panels on sailboat rails

• Forums New posts Unanswered threads Register Top Posts Email
• What's new New posts New Posts (legacy) Latest activity New media
• Media New media New comments
• Boat Info Downloads Weekly Quiz Topic FAQ 10000boatnames.com
• Classifieds Sell Your Boat Used Gear for Sale
• Parts General Marine Parts Hunter Beneteau Catalina MacGregor Oday
• Help Terms of Use Monday Mail Subscribe Monday Mail Unsubscribe

Mounting a solar panel on the stern pulpit rail

• Thread starter Tom Okey
• Start date Apr 24, 2023
• Catalina Owner Forums
• Catalina 30

Hey'all, I'm aiming to mount my new Renogy 100 w solar panel on my starboard side stern pulpit rail with some SeaDog round rail clamps that I can mount securely on the outer frame of the solar panel. The problem is that my '83 Catalina 30 is currently a 6 hour drive from me and from the drill and other tools I have where I'm at, and Google searches haven't revealed the length of the straight part of that upper rail forward of the bend at the back corner of the pulpit. The solar panel is fully 106 cm (42") long, which I think might be slightly longer than this straight section of rail. Does anyone know the length of the straight part of that rail? If shorter than 106 cm, I could potentially mount a bracket across the panel for an additional place to mount the round rail clamps. Are there any other suggestions? Bonus question: Do you have any suggestions on the best kind of gland to get the two 10AWG wires through the deck, or any other ideas for that? In case you're wondering, I also bought a 3' telescoping pole extension, which I plan to mount to the other side of the panel underneath to adjust the angle of the solar panel. Thank you very much!  

Tom, I don't have measurements, sorry. However, I think I'd take a different approach. The clamps will work, of course, but I would build a frame to mount the panel that would allow you to place the clamps at whatever width you prefer. A simple frame will also allow you to include additional supports for angle support, using the vertical stanchions. I envision a flat metal bar running the length of the panel with cross pieces at each end and perhaps a couple intermediates. The clamps can be fixed to any point on the longitudinal piece, the support brackets on one or two intermediates. There's also the additional benefit that you'll be able to relocate the panel if desired. Good luckl.  

STANDARD VERTICAL CABLE ENTRY

Joe said: Tom, I don't have measurements, sorry. However, I think I'd take a different approach. The clamps will work, of course, but I would build a frame to mount the panel that would allow you to place the clamps at whatever width you prefer. A simple frame will also allow you to include additional supports for angle support, using the vertical stanchions. I envision a flat metal bar running the length of the panel with cross pieces at each end and perhaps a couple intermediates. The clamps can be fixed to any point on the longitudinal piece, the support brackets on one or two intermediates. There's also the additional benefit that you'll be able to relocate the panel if desired. Good luckl. Click to expand

dmax said: I no longer have my C-30 but I don't think the length of the top pushpit tube from the stern forward is 42" - on my current boat it is 18", I don't think the C-30 could be that much longer if at all. Here's the best picture I have showing my C-30: View attachment 215005 I mounted a 50 watt panel on the pushpit at the stern, I don't have room for a 100 watt panel there. I attached aluminum bar stock to the bottom of the panel so I could attach the mounts where I wanted them. You could use aluminum angle "iron" for more strength. Here's the cable gland I used, plenty of room for two 10 awg wires: STANDARD VERTICAL CABLE ENTRY The Seaview Cable Seals / Cable Clams provide waterproof cable routing. Made of UV stable ABS plastic, 316 stainless steel and black anodized aluminum. www.seaviewglobal.com Click to expand

Tom Okey said: Thank you for that Joe! I think you may be right....I wonder if a couple of intermediate cross bars would do it (if they were in the right spot and wide enough to help mount the clamps). In any case, you got me thinking, and I am now planning to design something along these lines. -Tom Click to expand

• This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register. By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. Accept Learn more…

Adaptability

Our innovation gives you options

Options and choices

In general we use two basic options for mounting rigid solar panels – one gets you up and over the canvas, and the other is a bit leaner. We then adapt the basic concept to the boat in question.

You can read more about these basic models in our article in Marine Fabricator magazine . This will give you a good idea where to start in planning your solar panel project.

Please also see our page of advice and FAQs on adding solar panels in seven easy steps.

Once you have a basic mounting option in mind, you can choose what Gemini Marine Products you want to use to execute the build.

Option 1: Low and lean

We designed our saddle-type post and fork mounts  with solar panels in mind. They give you easy, secure mounts for a solar panel frame that won’t draw attention to itself.

The saddle fittings bolt onto the top of the frame through the canvas of your bimini top or dodger. Rails running fore and aft create the base, and athwartship rails can augment the frame if needed. The entire installation can be made from off-the-shelf materials on the boat.

This option puts the entire rack up on the roof and largely hidden from view.

Option 2: Up and over

Alternatively you can use our   sliding or split side mounts  to create exterior side rails between your bimini’s end frames. Paired with a set of side-to-side bent rails, they go up and over the top to create the mounting platform.

This method does not touch the canvas and can be retrofitted without any fabric modifications. It provides good clearance and additional features such as a protective crash bar (think boom).

DIY Hybrids to meet  your  needs

You can of course mix and match our hardware and methods to create exactly what you need to suit your boat and the solar panels you’ve chosen.

Don’t take our word for it

The good folks at Abroad Reach Travel go through all the pros and cons of solar panel installation on boats, and when it comes to rigid panels, our rail mounts are right there on the shipping list .

Over at Tugnuts you’ll find lots of people using our mounts to install their solar panels . (Just search “Gemini” and see.

Easy enough for DIY. Strong enough for liveaboarders.

“ Easily executed .” – Tonya Ricketts and Captain Dave Pickering North East Canvas Products Association on using Gemini Marine Products for solar panel installation

Need a helping hand?

Use our DrillSteady  for clean, easy drilling every time, even on a rocking boat.

Welcome to Gemini Marine Products

Privacy overview.

• Search forums
• Practical Boat Owner's Reader to Reader

Mounting Solar Panels On Guard Rails

• Thread starter Jokani
• Start date 11 Aug 2020
• 11 Aug 2020

Active member

Looking to semi-permanently mount a solar panel on a guard wire. The best solution I have come up with is to use tow stainless saddle clamps, but these are fairly fiddly to get on and off with restricted access to the nut/bolt. Is there a better option than saddle clamps, something that would make the panel easier to mount and remove?  

GaryCottam said: Sorry coopec, I have edited my original post which said 'guard rail' I should have said 'guard wire'. I would need to be able to fit the panel without removing the wire. This is what I am planning at the moment: View attachment 96506 Click to expand...

I have a similar plan but was going to use the bimini poles rather than guard wire and go with the magma rail clamps  

rogerthebodger

Well-known member.

I have two panels, one either side towards the stern. I found some 25mm diameter hard plastic tube which I slid over the guard wires. Each panel is attached to its tube by four rubber sleeved “P” clips. The panels can be rotated out like wings and stayed with pvc waste pipe. I selected a size of panel which just clears the gunwhale when hanging vertically, so reasonably well protected. When propped in position it’s necessary to employ a restraining guy, otherwise a gust of wind may get underneath the panel and flip it inboard over the guard wire (don’t ask!). Mike.  

PaulRainbow

Rogershaw said: You could also use a bull dog clamp This could clamp better to the guard wire then a U clamp. Click to expand...

PaulRainbow said: The panels cannot be rigidly clamped, they need to swing up and down. Click to expand...

How much weight would you be happy putting on the guard wires? My panels are 150w rigid weighing just under 10kg each, 1 on each side of the boat. Too much for the wires (and a prop to the tow rail holding them horizontal)?  

I would rather discover a weakness in the guardrail with a 10kg panel than with a 95kg me...  

Rogershaw said: So Paul whats you solution. Yes if that what the OP wants. I don't recall the OP saying it must swing up and down just that he wishes to remove it easy. Using wing nuts on Bull dog clamps make it very easy to remove ad the wind nuts could be located on the top. Click to expand...

Personally I would not mount solar panels on the wires safety lines. I would mount then my pushpit as I did before I built my taga/goal posts. Click to expand...

I've done this recently with two 115 watt panels. Mounting on wire isnt going to work in my humble opinion. Too wobbly. The panels are quite heavy but can catch the wind. As a prototype solution I have used galvanised steel tubing. This isn't quite rigid enough either and the, gas strut pushes up when in the, down position. It's working well though. I'm just trying to decide whether to buy fairly thick wall Ss tubing or go with an arch/Davvits solution. Side mounting means less high up clutter. But a panel looked a bit vulnerable in the marina the other day as someones stanchion got very close. Im happy for now but will go with the Davvits long term.  

PaulRainbow said: I doubt he'll when them stuck out the sides when he comes into the marina loch and he likely won't want to remove them for short stops. It's standard practice with guard wire panels to be able to drop them for such times or to be able to adjust them to get the best angle on the Sun. Personally, i'd mount them on my solar arch, but then i don't have davits and a dinghy on the back of a 26 foot boat, like the OP does. I guess that's why he needs to mount them on the guard wires. Click to expand...

Rogershaw said: Well on the OP's case having davits I would mount on top of the davits or on an extension of the davits. My targa also act as davits when I wish to lift anything at the stern of my boat including outboard motor ot MOB. So I don't understand the issue unless it just to argue with me. Click to expand...

I have a 100w rigid panel mounted on the wires. I hastily cobbled together something involving whatever clips and brackets I could find on the boat, and it is now in its second season. I took it off for the winter. The aft end is mounted to the pushpit railing, using one half of a 25mm plastic tube clamp. The forward end is mounted on the wire, using a bulldog clamp. Even when tightened right down the bulldog clamp does not grip the wire. The panel is free to swing up and down. I have a piece of maybe 4mm line attached to the bottom edge and this goes up to a shackle on the top of a redundant pole where the wind gen used to be, then down to a cleat. Another line goes to the toe rail and then the cleat. You can hold the panel in position using the two lines, and I adjust them throughout the day to maximise output. We have just completed a three week cruise of Orkney using this setup, and did similar cruises last year, so I would say it's fairly well tested. In strong conditions or when entering a marina we drop the panel down to vertical, but most of the time it is raised to catch sunlight. Yes it does make the guardwire sag a little- but it's really just an aesthetic issue and I can't see it doing any harm. Certainly less load on it than tying fenders to the top guardwire, which many people seem happy to do. I've very pleased with it, and will install a matching one on the other side. There is a pole on that side for various antennae so I can use that for the string holding the panel up.  

PaulRainbow said: There is no "issue", i'm giving you some additional information. They need to be fitted to the guard wires. They need to be able to swing up and down and be removable. I simply informed you that the OP wanted to swing them, you are the one trying to turn it into an argument. Anyone else would take the new information onboard. Click to expand...

Rogershaw said: I don't see it as arguing. Click to expand...

Members online

• Andrew_Fitton
• WildGoldfish
• Wandering Star
• Fantasie 19
• Hot Property
• n_g_anderson
• Hairy Hobbit
• andrewbarker
• jointventureII

Share this page

• Forum Listing
• Marketplace
• Advanced Search
• About The Boat
• Gear & Maintenance
• SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Mounting solar panels on stanchion

• Add to quote

We have two 135W solar panels and are looking at our options for mounting them. The least expensive would be to mount them on the aft rails. However, it was brought to our attention that this can cause strain on the stanchions if they are not supported and ultimately lead to leaks. Supporting the stanchions is not an option as it will cause a hazard (tripping over support). Has anyone had, or heard of, this problem with the stanchions? Thank you Heidi SV Gypsy Wind  

We have two panels (125w and 85w) attached to our lifelines forward of the stern pulpit. To do this we replace the wire with 1" stainless tubing that we had welded together in Carriacou last winter since there was too much movement when everything was just bolted together. I imagine that your stern rails are already U-shaped so there would be support already. Our panels are mounted using rail clamps (2 for each panel) and then swung out to horizontal when we want to use them (pretty much all the time except when docking on that side). The outer edge of the panels is supported by a cedar 1 x 4" that is rounded at one end to fit on the lower lifeline rail and notched to fit the panel. Works great.  

That sounds really interesting. Any pictures? Thanks, Marc  

• ?            
• 174.8K members

Top Contributors this Month

🚚 FREE US SHIPPING ON ORDERS OVER $30 🚚

The Complete Guide to Solar Panel Mounts for Boats (and Where to Position Them)

How many boaters invest hours researching solar panels? They go all wide-eyed at the shiny panels, marveling at their ingenuity, but how many consider the humble mounts those bright panels sit on?

Let's face facts: Solar panels get all the glory, but spare a thought for the mounts? A good mount can help you get the most out of your solar, increasing your capacity by up to 40 percent.

So maybe it's time for mounts to step out of the shadows of solar panels and into the sunlight (bad pun, I know). Seriously, let's give them some glory.

The type of mounts you have depends on what you want the solar to do and the space available. Is it to charge a cell phone or mobile GPS unit? Or is it to power your entire onboard needs when stationary?

The engine does the hard work when you're moving, so you only really need solar when you're moored up, right? To find out what solar mounts are right for you, we first need to discover what type of boater you are.

Are You a Liveaboard Boater?

Being a liveaboard boater  is a different experience to being a leisure boater. You can't just plug-in to a marina or get into an SUV and tow the boat home at the first sign of a rain cloud. The boat is your home.

So power is something you need to manage carefully. And the right solar panel mounts for your boat are essential to optimize the performance of your solar panels.

Are You a Leisure Boater?

As a leisure boater, you'll have different priorities than a liveaboard, and your need to manage power is not so crucial. You'll watch for sunny weather and head out in the boat for a day or weekend excursion . So why do you need solar?

Coolers need power to chill their contents and cell phones need charging. But in the main, the boat engine will power the electrical equipment onboard, because there won't be long periods when you're not moving, unlike a liveaboard boater.

Liveaboard or not, if the sun's power reduces your costs, minimizes the engine's wear and tear and you can afford it, why not?

What Are the Best Boats for Solar Panel Mounts?

Pontoon Boats

It depends on the size and shape of your pontoon boat . Smaller vessels are designed to make the most of the available space, which means seating and guests take priority on the deck .

Newer models, like the Cypress Cay Sea breeze SL 250, have virtually no surface to put solar mounts. Some pontoons have living space.

The Canadian manufacturer  South lands  builds hybrid pontoon boats, but the average pontoon vessels are for day trips and fishing. Some pontoons have fixed canopies so solar mounts can fit the available flat surfaces .

If you're in the market for a pontoon boat, solar panels and how to mount them are way down on your list of priorities.

Yachts offer a multitude of opportunities to fit solar mounts. Pole mounts are popular with yacht owners, as are fixed and angled mounts . And because most yachts are seafaring, there's little to obstruct the sun's rays way out in the ocean.

In addition, yachts are designed to travel farther, making extended periods onboard inevitable. This means that choosing the right mount is crucial to achieving maximum input.

Canal Boats

A  canal boat's  design makes them ideal vessels to fit solar mounts. Their robust, steel roofs can withstand the most durable solar panel mounts. This means larger panels can be attached to increase onboard power input.

Because of their long shape, canal boats also allow various panel mount options too. In fact, the only solar panel mount that's unsuitable for a canal boat is the pole mount because of low canal bridge clearances.

Motor Cruisers

Motor cruisers, because of their shape, often have plenty of space for panel mounts to be fitted. With long flat roofs, most motor cruisers (even the mid-range ones) are excellent boats for fixed, angled and even pole mounts .

Featured Boat Care Product

Check Price on Amazon - Better Boat's exterior cleaning kit comes with everything you need to keep your boat clean and shiny from bow to stern. It comes with boat soap, a soap foam spray gun, two microfiber towels, a large sponge and a boat eraser. 

The Best Ways to Fix Solar Panel Mounts to Your Boat

Glue adhesives.

There are numerous products available to bond panel mounts to any surface. If you choose this option, it's worth remembering there's some prep work before applying the glue.

Most manufacturers recommend cleaning the surface area before bonding, and some recommend lightly sanding the surface before applying adhesive.

I recommend this  Sikaflex-252 White Polyurethane Adhesive The most significant advantage of this glue is that once dried, it can be sanded and painted. Oh, and when choosing adhesives, there's the small matter of  no holes .

The fixing solution you choose depends on the boat you have and where it's used. Gluing solar mounts on a seafaring yacht may not be the best idea, especially if you're mid-Atlantic in force nine gales.

You want to know that the mounts are going to do their job and hold your solar panels in place. This Temco Z Bracket Stainless Steel Mount Kit (Available on Amazon) can be easily installed on solar panels. The stainless steel material means it'll never leave rust on your boat.

You're gonna need to bolt the mounts to the roof. Just make sure that when you've drilled the holes, you have enough marine-grade  sealant to plug the gaps.

Panel Sizes Versus Types of Mounts for Your Boat

Some solar panel mounts aren't suitable for different-sized panels. The most robust by far is the fixed mount system. If you cruise a lot and don't mind the panels being permanently flat, then these mounts can handle whatever weight you throw at them.

If you want tilt and angled mounts, then you'll need to check with the manufacturer what the maximum load is. The general rule of thumb is: the larger the mount, the bigger the panel it will hold.

Panel weights 100 w or less will fit cheaper mounts. If you want panels over 100 w, check with the bracket manufacturer to see the maximum load weight.

The Best Way to Position Solar Panel Mounts on the Boat

Your first consideration is the obstructions that might hamper the performance of the panels. Get it wrong and all that hard-earned cash you shelled will be for nothing.

Putting a fixed mount for solar on a deck of a motor cruiser isn't any good if you then use a retractable canopy to shield you from the sun and it blocks the panel producing energy. You've just wasted hundreds of dollars.

Another consideration is the mount type, especially if you're stationary for long periods. Tracking the sun by tilting the panels when not moving will increase power input massively.

If you're mostly moving and rarely still, then flat is best. This position optimizes the sun's rays, drawing power in whichever position the boat sits.

Look at your own boat. Does it have large flat areas, preferably high up and unaffected by shadows or obstructions? If the answer is yes, then the next consideration is what type of solar panel mount is best for you.

The Different Types of Solar Panel Mounts for Boats

Fixed Mount

The  HQST Z-Bracket is an excellent example of a fixed mount. It's lightweight and inexpensive. And I mean cheap!

It isn't complicated to fit, although it does require you to drill holes in whatever surface you attach it to. This bracket also enables you to mount the panel to many styles of vessels. The manufacturer even recommends them for RVs.

The other advantage of a fixed mount system is its ability to handle panel sizes from the smallest all the way up to 300w. While these look like a good option, it's worth remembering that if you need the flexibility of moving the panels to chase the sun, fixed mounts won't be for you. 

On an ocean-going yacht or a pontoon boat (space permitting) on a lake, the fixed mount system would be worth considering. There'll be minimum obstructions, and while you're always moving, the flat fixed mounts will optimize the charge into the batteries.

There are other types of fixed-mount systems that don't require any drilling.

The  Renogy Solar Panel Drill-Free Corner Bracket is a good choice if you don't want to drill holes in your boat roof. They aren't as cheap as the Z-Brackets, but primarily they do the same job.

If you own a boat with a fiberglass body, drilling into the roof simply isn't an option. So how are they fixed? Good old bonding adhesive like Sikaflex 252 (Available on Amazon) .

Adjustable Mounts

The Renogy Adjustable Tilt Mount Bracket  mount enables the solar panel to be adjusted to directly face the sun, a feature commonly used when the boat is still.

For the liveaboard boater, the adjustable mount is crucial. By adjusting the angle of the panels, you can increase the input of energy by up to 40 percent.

This particular model can only support a maximum panel of 150w, and the adjustment angle does decrease depending on the size of the panels. So it's worth considering that the max 150w panel, while the most powerful, could give less performance with this bracket, because of the angle that it can be mounted.

What makes this mount different is that the brackets that attach to the roof of your boat are independent of each other, rather than on a long aluminum bracket joining them together.

It means the roof doesn't have to be completely flat. Canal boats would benefit from this type of bracket because they have slightly curved roofs.

The Link Solar Adjustable Rack Solar Panel Mount  is another adjustable bracket, enabling the maximum performance of the panels.

It's a rack system, so it has a long strip bracket that attaches to the roof. The beauty of this system is the capacity it can handle.

If you invest in the 41-inch bracket, it'll take the weight of a 300w solar panel. It may cost more, but given that you'll probably only need two brackets if you're mounting 300w solar panels, it could still be a cost-effective choice.

Just remember where you're going to mount it. Because it's a rack system panel mount, it only fits on perfectly flat surfaces.

AM Solar 35mm Tilting Mount Okay, I'm a bit sneaky here. Technically, these mounts are for RVs. But if it attaches to RVs, it'll attach to your boat. They're light, compact and give vital adjustability to maximize the sun's power.

This mounting system's advantage is you'll avoid drilling holes in your roof. Each bracket has a VHB tape strip, which bonds to most surfaces. Fiberglass gives the best bond, but if it works for RVs, then metal surfaces will work too.

A word of caution:  These brackets attach by drilling into the solar panel's side. This is the crucial bit: If you're piercing the side of your panel, there's a strong chance you'll invalidate the warranty.

It's worth checking before you do. AM Solar sells compatible panels with pre-drilled holes, which massively cuts down on your choices and ability to shop around for the best price.

Pole Mounts 

Missouri Pole Mount

Let's start with a positive: This pole mount is 100% American. That's got to be a good thing, right? 

Pole mounts are excellent for panels that can be raised up to avoid obstructions. They're also good for boats with limited solar panel mounting space.

Pole mounts are popular with yacht owners due to their maneuverability and height adjustment properties. This particular pole system can handle two 100w panels, so there's no need to compromise on the energy you create.

What We've Learned

All the solar panel mounts featured are value for money. What to consider is the panel size. Is it better to have two 300w panels, reducing the number of solar mounts? Or do you go for six 100w panels, increasing the mount's overall cost? That'll depend on your boat's available space.

By far, the easiest to use is the fixed flat system . Glue or bolt the brackets on and away you go. No fuss. But again, mounting space may be an issue, so this type of mount won't be for everyone.

The most efficient is the angled, adjustable mount . Liveaboards should consider this when buying solar. Increasing your panel's performance with the ability to angle towards the sun is vital if you're stationary for extended periods.

In winter, when the sun sits lower in the sky, you'll reap the benefits of angled mounting systems for sure.

To clean your solar panels, simply rinse with a boat hose  and nozzle and swipe with a silicone squeegee . This is a quick task to do when you've got out the boat soap  or hull cleaner for the rest of the vessel.

One Final Point

• choosing a selection results in a full page refresh

Contact Kato Marine: 7416 Edgewood Road Annapolis, MD 21403 Phone: 410-269-1218

Call us at the number above - or - Use our quick form - or - Email us

These days we are seeing more and more satellite comunication systems on sail boats.  The newest is the Starlink and similar. The antennas are reasonably light (as are their precursors -the KVH M1 and the Intellian i1/i2), and what better place to put them than the stabilizer on the davits!  This mounting place has a great view of the sky, and the weight is minimal.  We have mounts for both the Slip-On stabilizer and the SS100 stabilizer.

 For heavier Starlink and KVH M3, use only on the SS100

Price $470.00

Solar Panel mounts:

Solar panels can be mounted above the davits provided you accept that the davits will no longer be regularly folded in.  This solar panel mounting system is our tilting mount for the SS100 stabilizer. It raises the panels 12-1/2" above the davits, allowing easy passage down the transom without hitting your head, and avoids the typical Bimini shadow.

This view is the underneath of the solar panel mounting system for davit with the Slip-On stabilizer.  This system does not attach to the stabilizer, it attaches to the davits themselves.  It is slightly higher than the SS100 version, at 14-1/2". (*Shown with optional athwartship braces)

Flag staff sockets:

In many situations the ships flag staff will no longer fit into its socket when the dinghy is raised, for this reason we provide alternative flag sockets.

The Slip-On stabilizer utilizes twin clamps to ensure no movement as the flag vibrates. The SS100 stabilizer flag socket bolts in place. Both units are fabricated from highly polished stainless steel and available in 3/4', 1”, and 1-1/4” ID sockets.

6:1 lift tackle:

Kato�s davits come standard with 4:1 lifting tackle that uses 3/8� diameter Dacron braid and Harken blocks. With today�s heavier RIB inflatables it is usual to upgrade to the 6:1 purchase on at least one of the davits. Bear in mind that one davit normally does most of the work � sometimes as much as 80% of the weight is on one davit. We also have larger sheave systems (57mm) which tend to reduce friction and makes hoisting even easier. Of course the ultimate in ease is the winch davit (see menu above).

Cam Cleats:

These Harken � cleats are mounted on the outside of the davits, and allow one person to pull both lines at once. This idea courtesy of Bob Hauser (Island Packet 38) - thank you, Bob.

Follow Puck Worlds online:

• Follow Puck Worlds on Twitter

Site search

Filed under:

• Kontinental Hockey League

Gagarin Cup Preview: Atlant vs. Salavat Yulaev

Share this story.

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Gagarin Cup Preview: Atlant vs. Salavat Yulaev

Gagarin cup (khl) finals:  atlant moscow oblast vs. salavat yulaev ufa.

Much like the Elitserien Finals, we have a bit of an offense vs. defense match-up in this league Final.  While Ufa let their star top line of Alexander Radulov, Patrick Thoresen and Igor Grigorenko loose on the KHL's Western Conference, Mytischi played a more conservative style, relying on veterans such as former NHLers Jan Bulis, Oleg Petrov, and Jaroslav Obsut.  Just reaching the Finals is a testament to Atlant's disciplined style of play, as they had to knock off much more high profile teams from Yaroslavl and St. Petersburg to do so.  But while they did finish 8th in the league in points, they haven't seen the likes of Ufa, who finished 2nd. 

This series will be a challenge for the underdog, because unlike some of the other KHL teams, Ufa's top players are generally younger and in their prime.  Only Proshkin amongst regular blueliners is over 30, with the work being shared by Kirill Koltsov (28), Andrei Kuteikin (26), Miroslav Blatak (28), Maxim Kondratiev (28) and Dmitri Kalinin (30).  Oleg Tverdovsky hasn't played a lot in the playoffs to date.  Up front, while led by a fairly young top line (24-27), Ufa does have a lot of veterans in support roles:  Vyacheslav Kozlov , Viktor Kozlov , Vladimir Antipov, Sergei Zinovyev and Petr Schastlivy are all over 30.  In fact, the names of all their forwards are familiar to international and NHL fans:  Robert Nilsson , Alexander Svitov, Oleg Saprykin and Jakub Klepis round out the group, all former NHL players.

For Atlant, their veteran roster, with only one of their top six D under the age of 30 (and no top forwards under 30, either), this might be their one shot at a championship.  The team has never won either a Russian Superleague title or the Gagarin Cup, and for players like former NHLer Oleg Petrov, this is probably the last shot at the KHL's top prize.  The team got three extra days rest by winning their Conference Final in six games, and they probably needed to use it.  Atlant does have younger regulars on their roster, but they generally only play a few shifts per game, if that. 

The low event style of game for Atlant probably suits them well, but I don't know how they can manage to keep up against Ufa's speed, skill, and depth.  There is no advantage to be seen in goal, with Erik Ersberg and Konstantin Barulin posting almost identical numbers, and even in terms of recent playoff experience Ufa has them beat.  Luckily for Atlant, Ufa isn't that far away from the Moscow region, so travel shouldn't play a major role. 

I'm predicting that Ufa, winners of the last Superleague title back in 2008, will become the second team to win the Gagarin Cup, and will prevail in five games.  They have a seriously well built team that would honestly compete in the NHL.  They represent the potential of the league, while Atlant represents closer to the reality, as a team full of players who played themselves out of the NHL. 

• Atlant @ Ufa, Friday Apr 8 (3:00 PM CET/10:00 PM EST)
• Atlant @ Ufa, Sunday Apr 10 (1:00 PM CET/8:00 AM EST)
• Ufa @ Atlant, Tuesday Apr 12 (5:30 PM CET/12:30 PM EST)
• Ufa @ Atlant, Thursday Apr 14 (5:30 PM CET/12:30 PM EST)

Games 5-7 are as yet unscheduled, but every second day is the KHL standard, so expect Game 5 to be on Saturday, like an early start. 

Loading comments...

Suburbanization Problems in the USSR : the Case of Moscow

• Référence bibliographique

Gornostayeva Galina A. Suburbanization Problems in the USSR : the Case of Moscow . In: Espace, populations, sociétés , 1991-2. Les franges périurbaines Peri-urban fringes. pp. 349-357.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3406/espos.1991.1474

www.persee.fr/doc/espos_0755-7809_1991_num_9_2_1474

• RIS (ProCite, Endnote, ...)

Résumé (fre)

La suburbanisation n'existe pas en URSS au sens des phénomènes décrits dans les villes occidentales. Cependant on observe certains transferts limités d'activités industrielles exigeantes en espace ou polluantes, voire même de centres de recherches, vers les zones suburbaines ou des villes-satellites. Mais ces déconcentrations répondent à une logique de planification administrative. En outre, les Moscovites hésitent à aller habiter dans ces centres d'emploi, de crainte de perdre les privilèges liés à l'autorisation d'habiter Moscou (la propiska) et du fait des communications insuffisantes avec la capitale. Le taux de croissance de la population moscovite reste supérieur à celui du reste de l'oblast. Par contre le développement de datchas de seconde résidence est très important dans l'oblast de Moscou, en particulier aux alentours des stations de chemin de fer. L'abolition du système de propiska pourrait transformer les datchas les plus proches de Moscou en résidences principales.

Résumé (eng)

The suburbanisation does not exist as such in the USSR with the meaning one has of the phenomena in Western cities. Though one may notice some limited transfers of industrial activities demanding a lot of space or polluting ones, even research centres, towards the suburban areas or satellite-towns. But these déconcentrations correspond to an administrative planification logics. Moreover the Muscovites hesitate before going and living in these employment centres, because they are afraid of loosing the privileges linked with the authorisation to live in Moscow (the propiska) and because of insufficient communications with the capital. The growth rate of the Muscovite population remains higher than this of the remainder of the oblast. To the contrary developing of datchas for second residences is very high in the Moscow oblast, especially in the vicinity of a railway station. The abolishment of the «propiska» system might transform the datchas nearer to Moscow into main residences.

• Economic structure [link]
• Suburbanization of activities [link]
• Suburbanization of population [link]
• Conclusions [link]
• Literature [link]

Liste des illustrations

• Table 1. Employment structure, % [link]
• Table 2. Annual rate of population increase, % [link]
• Fig. 1. Spatial distribution of country-cottages and gardening associations in the Moscow region [link]

Texte intégral

Galina A. GORNOSTAYEVA

Moscow University

Suburbanization Problems

in the USSR :

the Case of Moscow

Suburbanization processes typical to cities in Western Europe, the USA and other countries are not observed in the USSR or they are distorted to such an extent that they may not be compared with existing standards. This states the question how Soviet cities-succeeded in escaping this stage of urban development. In order to answer this question, we should first summarize the main aspects of Western suburbanization.

Firstly, it is well known that the urbanization processes are linked to structural changes in the economy. Thus the transition from the stage of concentration to this of suburbanization is associated with industrialization, and the transition to the third stage - déconcentration - is related with the rapid growth of employment in the non-industrial sphere. Secondly, a suburbanization of economic activities can be distinguished. It applies in the first place to the building and iron- working industry, transports, engineering and chemical works. These are polluting and requiring extensive areas. This suburbanization of industry is caused by the following factors: rising demand for land from firms ; worsening of transport

tions in the inner cities ; demand for lower land costs and taxation levels in suburbs ; rapid growth of road transports; state policies regulating the growth of large cities ; migration of the labour force to the suburban zones. Scientific and educational activities are also transferred from the centre to the suburbs.

The third important aspect of suburbanization applies to the population. In the suburbs two opposite flows of population meet ; one is centripetal, coming from non- metropolitan regions, the other is centrifugal, coming from the central city. The reasons for the migration to the suburbs are as follows : declining living standards in large cities (overcrowding, slow housing renewal, environmental problems, etc.); growth of motorization of the population, development of communications (telephone, telex, fax, computer) ; intensifying decentralization of working places ; lower land prices in the suburbs ; state support for the intensification of real estate development in the suburbs. The above-mentioned factors and reasons for suburbanization are altered in the Soviet cities. Let us explore them, by taking for example the largest one - Moscow.

Economic structure

The employment structure in the USSR reveals sharp differences from those in developed urbanized countries. The USSR is characterized by a high share of employment in agriculture, industry, construction and a low share in the non-industrial sphere (tab. 1).

A correlation analysis of the percentage of urban population and employment in the different spheres of economic activity reveals that the share of urban population in the USSR is higher than in countries with the same percentage of persons employed in agriculture.

TABLE 1. EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE,

Source: personal calculations.

The urbanization processes in the Moscow Capital Region (MCR) are more intensive than in other regions of the USSR. Structural changes are more obvious here : the share of employment in the non-industrial sphere increases more substantially and the percentage of persons employed in industry and agriculture is lower than in the whole country. However the MCR cannot therefore be compared with a metropolitan region in a Western country. Although Moscow is the most advanced agglomeration in the USSR, it lags is far behind the major world cities in terms of development and it is at the very start of the post- industrial stage of its structural and urban transformation.

The structural «anomaly» of the USSR as a whole and of the MCR in particular is explained by the enforced process of industrialization (starting from the thirties) at the expense of the peasantry (thus, there is not only a booming industrial employment in cities, but also worsening living and working conditions in villages and forced collectivization having triggered off the massive rural emigration). As a result, the share of urban population in the USSR is higher than expected, based on changes in the economic structure. While urbanization in the developed countries was due, among

other causes, to an increasing labour efficiency in agriculture, this remained quite low in the USSR. Therefore the employment share in agriculture is overstated in comparison with countries with a similar percentage of urban population, and even this considerable part of the labour force is unable to feed the whole population of the country.

The share of agricultural employment in the mcr increased from 7,4 % to 7,6 °7o between 1980 and 1985 (as a result of Moscow attractiveness and the better living standards in its surrounding villages), whereas it continued to decline in other parts of the Central region. The population growth in villages adjacent to Moscow is especially intensive, though labour efficiency in localities near Moscow is higher than in the other oblasts. In spite of this, Moscow oblast provides only 61 % of milk, 34 °/o of potatoes, 45 % of vegetables and 23 % of meat needed by the population in Moscow city and oblast (Argumen- ty i facty, 1988, N50, p. 3). The structural anomaly is not only related to processes in agricultural sphere but also in industrial sector. As a result of the low economic mobility of socialist firms and of the absence of market relations, the industrial development was extensive,

without significant increases of the labour

productivity.

Thus the employment transfer from the

agricultural to the industrial sector, their

extensive development and their low labour

productivity are intrinsically related with the political definition of productiorfrela- tions and course of structural economic transformation.

Suburbanization of activities

Moscow and Moscow oblast show divergent economic structures and changes (tab. 1). In Moscow the employment share in the non-industrial sphere in Moscow is growing more rapidly, whereas the share of industrial employment is decreasing. In Moscow oblast the part of transport and communication infrastructure, retail trade, administration, housing (presently less developed than in Moscow) is increasing. Some stages in the transformation of activities in the mcr's settlements may be pointed out here. The stage of industrialization and reconstruction after World War II is characterized by the swift industrial development and the active restructuration of the Moscow and Moscow oblast economy. New industries have been built (motor-car and aircraft assembly, machine-tool industry, organic synthesis, etc.), around Moscow research and production potential. Nevertheless, this restructuration is extensive, since traditional industries don't curtail production. It favours the heavy concentration of modern functions in Moscow. There is no transfer of firms outside Moscow. Suburbanization of industrial activities did not occur because of the state owning the means of production and of thé socialist form of production relations. When research and technological progress are slowing down, these firms become inefficient and spatially immobile. The period 1956-1970 is marked by an intensive development of the region scientific sphere and by the rise of « satellite » urban policy. The new centres were specialized in modern branches of machinery and research-engineering activities and were undoubtedly very attractive for the population. Therefore towns like Dubna were growing rapidly. While the aim was to redirect part of Moscow population

growth, they display a quite specific relation with the capital. For instance, Muscovites working in Pushchino cannot reach their job every day because they lack transport facilities. Nevertheless, they don't wish to move and register their passports in the city in which they actually work, since they would have to give up their Moscow registration and then lose all Moscow privileges (see further). These new centres are isolated from information sources in Moscow. Poor telephone communications, lack of computers and telex systems hamper contacts and teamwork with colleagues in the city. It seems that material resources for experimental work in research centres are not sufficient to compensate for lack of information and communications. At the same time, poor transport links with Moscow and the other towns of Moscow oblast isolate the scientists from the higher standard of culture in the centre and from a well developed social infrastructure. An original home-work relation can be observed in Dubna: the Muscovites get the second registration of passports and live there in hostel apartments during 4 or 5 working days, during the weekends they go back to Moscow, where their families are living. The change of functions in Moscow oblast towns is still going on. Inside the towns of the first circle adjacent to Moscow, the share of employment in the non-industrial sectors and transport is growing. Inside the towns of the second circle (suburban zone) these changes lead to an increasing potential of non-industrial, industrial and construction functions. Finally, in the outlying parts of the region the further grovth of construction and industrial functions is observed and the organization potential is intensifying in some towns. The mcr towns display a crawling concen-

tration of the regional most important functions and their extension outside the boundaries of Moscow to the towns of the suburban zone. But the déconcentration of functions in the mcr is not only of natural- economic character. It also results from the state urban policy. Déconcentration is not related to the search for more advantageous sites for firms and institutions as regards to economic or social relations (the availability of cheaper labour force or more comfortable living conditions, etc.), nor is it sustained by the expansion of transport and communication facilities. Thus, this déconcentration is independent from curtailment of any function in central Moscow, whose potential is still growing, and it is also completely inadequate regarding the continuing concentration of population (see below). All this, together with the slow economic and territorial mobility of firms, is an obstacle to the economic restructuration of the region, and to the reorientation of Moscow and its suburbs to non-industrial activities and to progressive scientific and informational work. The mass labour-consuming functions still remain in Moscow and its suburbs, but they are inevitably cut off from modern types of activities.

The idea of alleviating Moscow's development appeared from the very beginning of its rapid growth, since the excessive concentration of population and employment led (as in the other major world cities) to environmental discomfort, worsening of transport, strip-holding of land and other congestion signs. In market economies, the firms react to alterations of economic or social conditions by their mobility: some

of them close, other relocate in more convenient places. In the USSR, the problem of firm transfer (unhealthy or unprofitable firms) becomes unsolvable because of the special type of production relations. Economic and territorial passivity of firms is apparent in the difficulties of erecting industrial buildings and dismantling machinery and equipment, in the low turnover of the means of production. The same problem exist regarding the labour force. Firms transferred to the suburban towns of Moscow oblast are encountering great difficulties in recruiting staff in sufficient numbers and of required skill. The local labour force is rather weak, while the Moscow workers wouldn't leave the capital to follow their firm, because they are afraid of being deprived of passport registration in Moscow. From the social point of view, giving up a Moscow registration is more significant to people than losing their job. The processes going on in the mcr are therefore not quite comparable with those in the Western world. The market economy is more «lively» and replacement of functions has the character of territorial waves. Some functions disappear while new ones emerge. In the mcr, the waves are replaced by stratification. New functions do not replace the old ones, but joining them. At the same time, this process of relative déconcentration of functions overpass the process of stable concentration of population. In the mcr, the modern branches are gravitated closely to Moscow, where skilled workers are retained by their registration advantages. Suburban towns have to be satisfied with commuters or specialists from the outlying regions of the USSR.

Suburbanization of population

The urbanization structure of the region is characterized by the predominance of its main centre - Moscow. The share of the capital in the total Moscow oblast population was as follows: in 1929 - 44,3 Vo, in 1939 - 51,6 %, in 1959 - 54,9 %, in 1979 -54,5 Vo, in 1985 - 57,3 % (Moscow Capital Region, p. 137.). Within the agglomeration, the share of Moscow is still higher, in 1959 it was 75,5 % and in 1985

- 67,3 % (ibid., p. 141), whereas in the highly developed capital regions of the world the agglomeration counts one half or less of the total population and of the economic potential, the second half being concentrated in the suburbs (Gritsay, p. 71). Moreover, the growth rate of Moscow population is higher than that of Moscow oblast (tab . 2).

TABLE 2. ANNUAL RATE OF POPULATION INCREASE,

Migrations are of great importance to the mcr. The internal migration of rural population to the cities is rather substantial, and the immigration flow from the rest of the USSR is not compensated by the decrease of rural population in the mcr. The nearer a town to Moscow, the larger the migration share in its total population increase.

The dynamics of population in the mcr has a specific character. In agglomerations of the developed countries the principle of the «broken glass» summarizes the suburbanization process. When, for some reasons, the centre loses its attractiveness the urban population moves to suburbs in search of higher living standard. In Moscow agglomeration the principle of the «overfilled glass» is operating. People wanting to live in Moscow cannot enter the city and are forced to settle near it. In Moscow immigration undoubtedly prevails over emigration, confirming the extreme territorial differentiation in conditions, level and way of life. As a rule, commuting is oriented from suburbs to Moscow (600 thousand persons come to Moscow and only 200 thousand leave it), but it accounts only for 12-15 % cf the total employment in Moscow's economy. Moreover, these commuters are not Muscovites but potential new inhabitants of the capital (striving for passport registration and domicile in Moscow).

Moscow became the most attractive place for living and an intensive flow of ruined rural residents as well as residents from other regions of the country were rushing -to Moscow. These processes were generated not only by the inception of the country structural economic transformation,

but also by the policy of special privileges for Moscow. These privileges came into being after the establishment of a centralized distribution system. Such a system involves the assignment of a priority level of foodstuffs and manufactured goods to each territory. Moscow was awarded the highest priority level. From the very beginning, better living standards and higher income for certain population categories were established there. In the thirties the artificial differentiation in living standards was confirmed by imposing restrictions to passport registration in the capital, and also by the division of administrative bodies into Moscow and Moscow oblast authorities. In the period 1925-30 dozens of new large firms were located in Moscow, but housing was insufficient at that time. Therefore, a great number of migrants from every corner of the country came to get a job in Moscow and settled in cottages in the nearby countryside. Soon, these settlements in the nearby countryside. Soon, these settlements turned into urban ones. For example, towns like Mytishchi and Luberstsy developed rapidly, and even Muscovites moved there when the railways were electrified. This was clearly the outset of a suburbanization process, but it stopped as soon as the restrictions on passport registration in Moscow were imposed and the social barrier between Moscow and Moscow oblast was established. In the period 1930-40, new industrial developments were banned from Moscow and firms drawn towards the city were located on the outskirts thus causing a rapid growth of the old and new towns. Although the development of cottages as second residence near Moscow started even before the revolution, since the en-

vironmental degradation of Moscow was practically completed at that time, they became the main resorts of those years. They had flourished in the districts with privileged natural conditions and convenient transport services (not further than 2 km from a railway station). In the period 1930-40, this sprawl of leisure housing carried on - cottage settlements expanded into an entire belt of scattered one- storeyed buildings. But at the same time, urban multi-storeyed housing also increased and after World War II these multi- storeyed buildings were found in the cottage settlements of the leisure zone. In the period 1950-60 a network of gardening associations was established. In those

years the most convenient land near Moscow had already been built on. The gardening plots allotted to the Muscovites were located in the remote parts of the mcr, outside the suburban zone, and very frequently they were on improper territories. Because of their remoteness, the difficulties in cultivation and building, the lack of infrastructure, these plots cannot become effective leisure resorts. More frequently Muscovites use them for fruit and vegetable growing.

The desire of the Muscovites for having a second residence in the suburbs can be interpreted as an unfulfilled suburbanization tendency. This desire has the same, mainly environmental, causes as suburbaniza-

tion in Western countries. The cottages within the reach of Moscow's traffic and having access to appropriate infrastructure and amenities, might become the principal residence of Muscovites if passport registration is abolished. The restrictions of passport registration in Moscow fixed in the thirties were devised as an administrative solution against the effects of Moscow's unique attractiveness and not as a means of eliminating the attractiveness itself. For this reason, Moscow became even more attractive, like a forbidden fruit. The consequences were both the concentration of the upper strata of society in the city and the extensive development of industry, resulting in a growing shortage of unskilled labour.

The shortage of regular workers in Moscow is sometimes explained by the increasing number of working places. An adequate planning of the «limiters» (1) system is then put forward as the solution for controlling the growth of Moscow is found in (Glushkova, 1988, p. 43). To be frank, about twenty industrial units and more than one hundred scientific institutions were already created in the seventies alone, in spite of the industrial building ban in Moscow, only a few firms moved outside the city in return. New industrial units easily find staff, since they offer new machinery, relatively good working conditions and higher wages. New scientific and administrative institutions are in a similar position. But the situation is totally different in the old industrial units, with rundown equipment and a high level of manual tasks. Those units suffer from a staff shortage. Moreover, as in any other city, there is a social mobility in Moscow, in most cases improving - from manual up to mental, from unskilled up to highly skilled work. Furthermore, the prestige of a higher education (university) is overestimated in Moscow, whereas the prestige of the manual professions has declined as a result of the stagnation of reinvestments in industry, the high share of manual labour (40 %), and also favouritism and

crowding in the administrative staffs. The attractiveness of an upper class position is therefore overestimated, and social mobility activated. Since Moscow cannot admit free «immigrants» the lower strata of the social structure are vacant and there appears a shortage of unskilled labour force. The lower strata of the social structure were filled in with « limiters ». Available employment in Moscow was not the cause of an organized immigration flow, but represented the only possible way to register the passport there. Roughly half of these people drawn into Moscow's economy left their jobs. «Limiters» get the right to register their passports in Moscow and take up their residence in new houses when their contract expires. They usually quit their job as soon as possible in search of better working conditions (Glushkova, 1988, p. 42). The nature of unskilled work in Moscow and the associated working conditions are so unattractive that it is nearly impossible to find Muscovites willing to perform them.

The institution of passport registration raised many problems. Thus the « limiters » are recruited in social groups not needing most of the advantages of a large city, their psychology and value system differ sharply from native Muscovites. The direct environment of the hostels where «limiters » live, has a pronounced criminal character. Fictitious marriage in order to register the passport in Moscow has become a widespread practice.

Moscow's environmental problems can hardly be solved as long as passport registration exists. The population is literally locked up within the city boundaries. Notwithstanding the environmental stresses, the Moscow privileges prevent the Muscovites from leaving the city. The urban districts not saturated with harmful industrial units are the most prestigious. The social and economic causes of Moscow's extensive growth reveal that its problems are a reflection of the ones facing the USSR. The concentration of economic, social and management functions in Mos-

cow in Soviet times materializes the strong centralism of the particraty and weighs down on the city's development. Low labour efficiency in agriculture and sheer desolation of villages on the one hand, rapid but extensive industrialisation together with forced increasing social attraction of Moscow, confirmed by the restrictions on passport registration, on the other hand, were the key factors of the mcr's polarization during decades. Together with objective factors found in other large cities of the world, subjective factors related to the Soviet political and economic system influence Moscow's growth.

The objective factors are as follows: the diversity of employment in the capital, the emergence of new types of occupations, the concentration of high-skilled and creative labour, the higher living standards, the large educational and cultural opportunities.

The subjective factors are the higher supply level of foodstuff and manufactured goods different than in other regions (the existence of meat-rationing system in many regions of the country and its absence in Moscow establishes a significant threshold not only in terms of supply but also in the outlook of the population); the lack of communications and individual motorized transport (in the rsfsr one counts 47 cars per 1000 urban inhabitants against 560 in the USA) (Argumenty i facty, 1988, N47, p. 2); the craving for joining the upper social classes and for accessing neighbourhoods with a high quality of life; unjustified promotion of upward social mobility releasing «the ground floors» of Moscow's economy; continued growth of employment due to the extensive economic development and the low economic and territorial mobility of firms. Today, the hierarchy of priorities for selecting a residence within the mcr and the whole country is as follows. Food supply comes first. The supply of manufactured

goods, the opportunities to obtain better and larger living quarters and to accede to a prestigious employment with a wage increase, social promotion, well developed consumer services come next. And only at the end of the scale appears the opportunity to fulfil cultural needs and education. Thus, there is a process of «pseudo- urbanization» characteristic of the Soviet economic and social system, superimposed on the process of «natural» urbanization. By natural urbanization we mean the process related to economic development and to the natural difference between rural and urban ways of life. The specificity, the structural changes and the hierarchy of city functions shape the migration flows conditioned by natural urbanization. «Pseudo-urbanization» points to «the scum» of the process, that may complete the economic and socially conditioned urbanization. The «pseudo-urbanization» is generated by a disproportionate development of the country's economic structure (hypertrophie share of industry; economic and political reforms have triggered off a massive flow of the peasantry towards the cities, related not with the rising but with the lowering of labour efficiency in agriculture, with impoverishment of the countryside and hence with the urge towards the centres of relative well-being), and by the territorial inequalities in standards of living, artificially created and maintained by the institution of passports and registration.

The suburbanization of population cannot be observed in the MCR. The centripetal tendencies mentioned above resulted in rapid growth of Moscow and its suburbs, as well as in some stagnation of its periphery. Thus Moscow agglomeration is now in the first stage of development, the stage of «crawling» concentration where centrifugal forces are very weak. This situation will last as long as the barrier in terms of standards of living exists between Moscow and Moscow oblast.

Conclusions

This study has reaffirmed the general lack of suburbanization in the Soviet cities. Some signs of suburbanization like the

transfer of some activities from Moscow to the suburbs, the concentration of population in towns and villages near the central

city and commuting, differ significantly pie and firms will emancipate, only if the from the Western cities. The process of ur- existing political and economic system in banization will take its normal course, peo- the USSR is dismantled.

Argumenty i facty, 1988, N47, p. 2 Argumenty i facty, 1988, N50, p. 3

GLUSHKOVA V.G. Questions of Interrelated Settlement in Moscow and the Moscow Region, Problems of Geography, vol. 131, Moscow, 1988, pp. 40-56.

GRITSAY O.V. Western Europe : Regional Contrasts at the New Stage of Scientific-Technological Progress, Moscow, 1988, 148 p.

Moscow in Figures. 1980, Moscow, 1981, 220 p. Moscow in Figures. 1985, Moscow, 1986, 240 p.

National Economy of Moscow Oblast. 1981-1985, Moscow, 1986, 271 p.

National Economy of the ussr. 1985, Moscow, 1986, 421 p. Yearbook of Labour Statistics. 1987, Geneva, 1987, 960 p.

Moscow Capital Region: Territorial Structure and Natural Environment, Moscow, 1988, 321 p.

(1) Limiters are unskilled workers, hired in an organised way by Moscow firms; after working there for several years of working they get the right to register

their passports and to take up their residence in Moscow.