Abstract
What is happening in urban development in Russia's periphery in the provinces is often overlooked in scientific research trying to understand and theorize post-socialist urban conditions. Discussions of national priority projects and federal target programs headed by the state as spatial manifestations of state capitalist development create a precedent, but do not give a complete picture of the dynamics of center-peripheral relations characteristic of hybrid regimes, as in the case of Russia. Analyzing large infrastructure projects in regional centers and other non-capital cities, one can see a contradiction to the logic of large-scale development with characteristic subordinate relations between the state and private entities, since the latter and the former are tied in competition for federal resources, often blindly using irrelevant projects and programs. We delve deeper into these features of interaction between the center and the periphery on the subject of actions taken by the local community to prevent the project of bank protection of the Vologda River embankment, paying particular attention to decision-making processes, lack of transparency, bureaucratic fuss and non-systemic policies in response to the civil protest that contributed to the highlighting a notable, albeit common to many Russian cities, dilemma: systemic backwardness or basic urban maintenance. To investigate this case, we will turn to participatory observation, including meetings of architects and heritage conservation societies, discourse analysis of regulations, project plans, official correspondence with authorized agencies, media publications created by local protest groups, and observation of participants during the period. 2018-2019, as both authors took part in the settlement of the urban conflict that arose around the project. The text highlights a complex dynamic - between a lack of local revenue and an inability to manage federal funding, between the capital's unlimited decision-making power and a complete lack of oversight and regulation on both sides. Thus, the article demonstrates not only the asymmetry of power relations in the urban development of the post-socialist periphery, but also the bureaucratic constraints and uncertainties that often arise in a situation of stagnation with no prospects for future improvement.
