Robert Argenbright
ROBERT ARGENBRIGHT
Associate Professor (Lecturer) Department of Geography University of Utah
e-mail: [email protected]
Publications
Book
2016 _Moscow under Construction: City-Building, Place-Based Protest, and Civil Society_, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Articles, Book Chapters (Refereed):
2013 Moscow on the Rise, from Primate City to Mega-Region, The Geographical Review 103 (1) (January): 20-36.
2011 New Moscow: An Exploratory Assessment, Eurasian Geography and Economics 52 (6): 857-875.
2011 Vanguard of Socialist Colonization?: The Krasnyi Vostok Expediton of 1920, Central Asian Survey, 3 (3–4), September–December 2011, 437–454.
2010 Soviet Agitational Vehicles: Bolsheviks in Strange Places, in Mark Bassin, Chris Ely, and Melissa Stockdale, eds., Place, Space, and Power in Modern Russia: Essays in the New Spatial History. DeKalb: Northern Illinois Press: 142-163.
2008 Avtomobilshchina: Driven to the Brink in Moscow, Urban Geography, 29 (7) (October1-November 15): 683-704.
2008 Lethal Mobilities: Bodies and Lice on Soviet Railroads, 1918-1922, Journal of Transport History 29 (2) (September): 259-276.
2002 (co-authored with V. R. Bitiukova) Environmental Pollution in Moscow: A Micro-Level Analysis, Eurasian Geography and Economics 43 (3): 197-215.
2002 Marking NEP’s Slippery Path: The Krasnoshchekov Show Trial, The Russian Review 61 (April): 249-275.
1999 Space of Survival: The Soviet Evacuation of Industry and Population in 1941, in Jeremy Smith, ed., Beyond the Limits: the Concept of Space in Russian History and Culture (Studia Historica 62) Finnish Historical Society: 207-239.
1999 Re-Making Moscow: New Places, New Selves, The Geographical Review 89 (1), January: 1-22.
1998 Honour Among Communists: The ‘Glorious Name of Trotsky’s Train,’ Revolutionary Russia 11(1), June: 45-66.
1998 The Soviet Agitational Vehicle: State Power on the Social Frontier. Political Geography 17 (3): 253-272.
1996 Documents from Trotsky’s Train in the Russian State Military Archive: A Comment. The Journal of Trotsky Studies 4: 1-11.
1993 Bolsheviks, Baggers, and Railroaders: Political Power and Social Space. The Russian Review 52 (4): 506-527.
1991 Red Tsaritsyn: Precursor of Stalinist Terror. Revolutionary Russia 4 (2): 157-183.
Other Publications
2015 Northern Eurasia, in Douglas L. Johnson, Viola Haarmann, and Merrill L. Johnson, eds., World Regional Geography: A Developmental Approach, Eleventh Edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 218-255.
2014 City-Builders vs. City-Defenders: Redevelopment, Heritage Preservation, and Civil Society in Moscow, National Council for Eurasian and East European Research Working Paper. http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2014_828-01g_Argenbright.pdf.
2013 New Moscow or Medvedev’s Folly?: Going in Circles around Moscow’s Traffic Problem, The Global Urbanist, January 15. http://globalurbanist.com/2013/01/15/new-moscow.
2010 Northern Eurasia, in Douglas Johnson, Viola Haarmann, Merrill L. Johnson, and David Clawson, eds., World Regional Geography: A Developmental Approach, Tenth Edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 270-305.
2007 The In-Between Countries of Eurasia: Physical Geography and Historical Context, in Merrill L. Johnson, Douglas Johnson and Viola Haarmann, eds., World Regional Geography: A Developmental Approach, Ninth Edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 308-323.
2007 “The In-Between Countries of Eurasia: The Geography of Their Political Economies, in Johnson, Johnson and Haarmann, eds., 324-339.
2005 Vekha na “Skol’skoi Dorozhke” NEPa: Pokazatel’nyi Protsess Krasnoshchekova (A Signpost on NEP’s Slippery Path: The Krasnoshchekov Show Trial), part 2). Rossiya XXI, no. 2, March-April, 130-155.
2005 Vekha na “Skol’skoi Dorozhke” NEPa: Pokazatel’nyi Protsess Krasnoshchekova (part 1). Rossiya XXI, no. 1, January-February, 140-163.
2003 Platz schaffen für die neue Mittelklasse. Moskaus dritter Transportring (Making Space for the New Middle Class: Moscow’s Third Transport Ring). OSTEUROPA, Nr. 9-10, pp. 1386-1399.
2002 Tret’e Transportnoe Kol’tso: Dorogu Moskvicham iz Novogo Srednogo Klassa (The Third Transport Ring: Road for Moscow’s New Middle Class), Neprikosnovennyi Zapas 1/21: 23-27.
Educational History
Doctor of Philosophy, Geography University of California, Berkeley 1990
Master of Arts in Geography University of California, Berkeley 1984
Bachelor of Arts in Geography University of California, Berkeley 1981
Associate Professor (Lecturer) Department of Geography University of Utah
e-mail: [email protected]
Publications
Book
2016 _Moscow under Construction: City-Building, Place-Based Protest, and Civil Society_, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Articles, Book Chapters (Refereed):
2013 Moscow on the Rise, from Primate City to Mega-Region, The Geographical Review 103 (1) (January): 20-36.
2011 New Moscow: An Exploratory Assessment, Eurasian Geography and Economics 52 (6): 857-875.
2011 Vanguard of Socialist Colonization?: The Krasnyi Vostok Expediton of 1920, Central Asian Survey, 3 (3–4), September–December 2011, 437–454.
2010 Soviet Agitational Vehicles: Bolsheviks in Strange Places, in Mark Bassin, Chris Ely, and Melissa Stockdale, eds., Place, Space, and Power in Modern Russia: Essays in the New Spatial History. DeKalb: Northern Illinois Press: 142-163.
2008 Avtomobilshchina: Driven to the Brink in Moscow, Urban Geography, 29 (7) (October1-November 15): 683-704.
2008 Lethal Mobilities: Bodies and Lice on Soviet Railroads, 1918-1922, Journal of Transport History 29 (2) (September): 259-276.
2002 (co-authored with V. R. Bitiukova) Environmental Pollution in Moscow: A Micro-Level Analysis, Eurasian Geography and Economics 43 (3): 197-215.
2002 Marking NEP’s Slippery Path: The Krasnoshchekov Show Trial, The Russian Review 61 (April): 249-275.
1999 Space of Survival: The Soviet Evacuation of Industry and Population in 1941, in Jeremy Smith, ed., Beyond the Limits: the Concept of Space in Russian History and Culture (Studia Historica 62) Finnish Historical Society: 207-239.
1999 Re-Making Moscow: New Places, New Selves, The Geographical Review 89 (1), January: 1-22.
1998 Honour Among Communists: The ‘Glorious Name of Trotsky’s Train,’ Revolutionary Russia 11(1), June: 45-66.
1998 The Soviet Agitational Vehicle: State Power on the Social Frontier. Political Geography 17 (3): 253-272.
1996 Documents from Trotsky’s Train in the Russian State Military Archive: A Comment. The Journal of Trotsky Studies 4: 1-11.
1993 Bolsheviks, Baggers, and Railroaders: Political Power and Social Space. The Russian Review 52 (4): 506-527.
1991 Red Tsaritsyn: Precursor of Stalinist Terror. Revolutionary Russia 4 (2): 157-183.
Other Publications
2015 Northern Eurasia, in Douglas L. Johnson, Viola Haarmann, and Merrill L. Johnson, eds., World Regional Geography: A Developmental Approach, Eleventh Edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 218-255.
2014 City-Builders vs. City-Defenders: Redevelopment, Heritage Preservation, and Civil Society in Moscow, National Council for Eurasian and East European Research Working Paper. http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2014_828-01g_Argenbright.pdf.
2013 New Moscow or Medvedev’s Folly?: Going in Circles around Moscow’s Traffic Problem, The Global Urbanist, January 15. http://globalurbanist.com/2013/01/15/new-moscow.
2010 Northern Eurasia, in Douglas Johnson, Viola Haarmann, Merrill L. Johnson, and David Clawson, eds., World Regional Geography: A Developmental Approach, Tenth Edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 270-305.
2007 The In-Between Countries of Eurasia: Physical Geography and Historical Context, in Merrill L. Johnson, Douglas Johnson and Viola Haarmann, eds., World Regional Geography: A Developmental Approach, Ninth Edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 308-323.
2007 “The In-Between Countries of Eurasia: The Geography of Their Political Economies, in Johnson, Johnson and Haarmann, eds., 324-339.
2005 Vekha na “Skol’skoi Dorozhke” NEPa: Pokazatel’nyi Protsess Krasnoshchekova (A Signpost on NEP’s Slippery Path: The Krasnoshchekov Show Trial), part 2). Rossiya XXI, no. 2, March-April, 130-155.
2005 Vekha na “Skol’skoi Dorozhke” NEPa: Pokazatel’nyi Protsess Krasnoshchekova (part 1). Rossiya XXI, no. 1, January-February, 140-163.
2003 Platz schaffen für die neue Mittelklasse. Moskaus dritter Transportring (Making Space for the New Middle Class: Moscow’s Third Transport Ring). OSTEUROPA, Nr. 9-10, pp. 1386-1399.
2002 Tret’e Transportnoe Kol’tso: Dorogu Moskvicham iz Novogo Srednogo Klassa (The Third Transport Ring: Road for Moscow’s New Middle Class), Neprikosnovennyi Zapas 1/21: 23-27.
Educational History
Doctor of Philosophy, Geography University of California, Berkeley 1990
Master of Arts in Geography University of California, Berkeley 1984
Bachelor of Arts in Geography University of California, Berkeley 1981
less
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Robert Argenbright
a move that more than doubled the size of the Russian capital.
The federal and city governments were supposed to move to
New Moscow, which was meant to be in the avant-garde of
twenty-first century urban design. However, soon New
Moscow’s role was reduced to helping to make Greater
Moscow more “livable” and channeling growth to the southwest.
The present study sketches the historical background
and current context of New Moscow, identifies the main factors
shaping the pattern of growth, and provides an empirically-
based investigation of current trajectories of change “on
the ground;” i.e. with respect to population distribution, housing,
commuting, land use, and the environment. The goals of
this paper are to assess the extent to which directed suburbanization
in New Moscow represents a radical departure from
the past and to gauge its contribution to the effort to make the
Moscow agglomeration more livable.
from its unveiling as a leap into a new epoch to its
more modest current role. Possible reasons for undertaking
the project are examined, with special focus on the
one consistent justification: to make the capital more
polycentric. Against the backdrop of global polycentric
urban region formation, the question of Moscow’s polycentricity
is explored at three different scales: intraurban,
urban-regional and national. Other projects underway in
Old Moscow are discussed as competitors with New
Moscow. The article questions the economic and political
sustainability of the development of New Moscow and
other mega-projects in the capital, given the demographic
and economic stagnation in most of Russia.
of Moscow and move government offices to newly annexed areas. The plan aims to increase the land area of the capital by 155 percent, mainly by annexation of a vast tract southwest of
the city. The author demonstrates that while “New Moscow” is envisioned as a multi-polar and low-density urban site, the historic core would likely focus on tourism. He discusses the
official reasons given for the immense undertaking, the potential problems raised by urban specialists and local media, as well as the results of public opinion polls detailing the attitudes
of Muscovites toward the city’s proposed transformation.
a move that more than doubled the size of the Russian capital.
The federal and city governments were supposed to move to
New Moscow, which was meant to be in the avant-garde of
twenty-first century urban design. However, soon New
Moscow’s role was reduced to helping to make Greater
Moscow more “livable” and channeling growth to the southwest.
The present study sketches the historical background
and current context of New Moscow, identifies the main factors
shaping the pattern of growth, and provides an empirically-
based investigation of current trajectories of change “on
the ground;” i.e. with respect to population distribution, housing,
commuting, land use, and the environment. The goals of
this paper are to assess the extent to which directed suburbanization
in New Moscow represents a radical departure from
the past and to gauge its contribution to the effort to make the
Moscow agglomeration more livable.
from its unveiling as a leap into a new epoch to its
more modest current role. Possible reasons for undertaking
the project are examined, with special focus on the
one consistent justification: to make the capital more
polycentric. Against the backdrop of global polycentric
urban region formation, the question of Moscow’s polycentricity
is explored at three different scales: intraurban,
urban-regional and national. Other projects underway in
Old Moscow are discussed as competitors with New
Moscow. The article questions the economic and political
sustainability of the development of New Moscow and
other mega-projects in the capital, given the demographic
and economic stagnation in most of Russia.
of Moscow and move government offices to newly annexed areas. The plan aims to increase the land area of the capital by 155 percent, mainly by annexation of a vast tract southwest of
the city. The author demonstrates that while “New Moscow” is envisioned as a multi-polar and low-density urban site, the historic core would likely focus on tourism. He discusses the
official reasons given for the immense undertaking, the potential problems raised by urban specialists and local media, as well as the results of public opinion polls detailing the attitudes
of Muscovites toward the city’s proposed transformation.