Urban planning regulation and rationing of the infrastructure of mass sports in the largest cities

Vilenskii Michael Yur'evich ORCID: 0000-0002-0231-0550 PhD in Architecture Associate professor, Department of Urban Planning, Saint-Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering 190005, Russia, Saint Petersburg, 2nd Krasnoarmeyskaya str., 4, office 308A vilenm@list.ru Other publications by this author

Baranova Anna Yur'evna ORCID: 0009-0006-1653-7103 Graduate student, Department of Urban Planning, Saint Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering 190005, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, 2nd Krasnoarmeyskaya str., 4, office 308 -A annbar2606@gmail.com

Introduction 

Urbanisation of cities has an impact on their socio-economic and territorial development. In conditions of population growth, shortage of territorial resources, internal migration processes, inner-city territories are differentiated by population density and development, primary functional purpose, which leads to different filling of inner-city territories with different social infrastructure. In this regard, an important condition for the sustainable development of territorial entities is the achievement of a balance in the distribution of infrastructure facilities within and between various urban areas ^{[1, 2]}. At the same time, the key criterion for achieving this balance is the territorial (spatial) accessibility of social infrastructure facilities ^{[1, 3, 4]}. The process of urbanization also affects the structure social needs ^[3], among which mass sports occupy one of the key places in people's lives today. 

Sports infrastructure is a set of public service facilities and is one of the factors in the development of urban areas and the formation of a sustainable urban environment ^[2]. For large and largest cities in conditions of extensive urbanization, accompanied by a reduction in intra-urban territorial resources in combination with the densification of existing buildings, against the background of active growth of multi-apartment high-density residential buildings on the periphery of urban cores, in the absence of both quantitative and qualitative growth of sports infrastructure facilities, they turn out to be inaccessible, and in some cases inaccessible to the population in as a whole. Accessibility in this case is considered both from a spatial point of view (pedestrian accessibility and security) and from an organizational point of view - within the framework of replacing public facilities with non-public ones (commercial facilities without social programs or professional sports facilities). Thus, the share of Russian households in which the territories adjacent to apartment buildings are not equipped with sports facilities is 69.4% ^[5]. According to the authors' assessment of the peripheral districts of St. Petersburg, the total area of the territory occupied by public sports facilities in their composition is less than 1% of the total territory of new residential neighborhoods/neighborhoods. Despite the attractiveness for people, sports facilities in general, with the exception of individual sports and entertainment facilities and individual commercial facilities (fitness centers), are economically costly, and the current regulatory framework, based on old theoretical forms of urban planning and focused largely on saving budget funds and ensuring investment attractiveness for investors in the field of housing construction ^[6], provides for the provision of sports facilities primarily from the budgets of regions and municipalities. At the same time, emerging new mass sports facilities are largely part of investment projects based on public-private partnership ^[7], developed within the framework of relevant programs and federal projects ^[8], that is, the market economy itself is not able to fully fill the deficit of sports facilities on its own. The sports infrastructure included in such projects, its quantity, type and quality largely depend on the investments of investors and specific design solutions at the level of development of projects for the layout of specific territories, which makes it difficult to organize a connected system of mass sports facilities. 

For an objective assessment of the current situation, it is necessary to turn to the evolutionary development of the mass sports system in the country. The development of domestic sports can be divided into 4 stages: pre-Soviet (before 1922), Soviet (1922-1991), post-Soviet (1991-2000) and modern (from 2000 to the present day). At the pre-Soviet stage, sport was not formed into a system and was of an amateur individual nature, its development and infrastructure depended on representatives of the highest ranks of society, "sponsoring" cultural and physical clubs at educational institutions and factories. At the Soviet stage, the sport was divided into three directions:?Olympic, specialized and mass, thus forming a single system ^[9]. Due to the social and economic changes that took place in the post-Soviet period, mass sports underwent many changes from the "movement of physical culture students" and mass "spartakiads" to a means of leisure, at this stage new sports and forms of physical culture and recreation activities began to arise, involving more and more age groups of the population ^{[10, 11]}. This has led to an increase in demand for affordable sports infrastructure facilities that meet modern requirements and trends in the development of mass sports, and the interests of the population in improving the quality of the urban environment ^[12]. 

Due to the growth of the urban population, the quality of urban life is becoming an important aspect in the strategic planning of Russian cities: state programs and federal projects are being developed for balanced regional development, a comfortable and safe environment for life; preservation of the population, health and well-being of people; housing and the urban environment. The role of sport in social, economic and spatial terms is increasing: today it is becoming a way of life for 53% of Russians ^[12], as a specific physical activity with clear requirements for space, participants and time. 

Mass sports have now become a means of spending free time ^[13] and a daily need ^[14], requiring the widespread integration of sports infrastructure into public, residential and recreational areas of cities at all spatial levels, that is, the formation of a system of sports infrastructure facilities for mass sports as a separate area of strategic planning and spatial development of cities. 

Problems of development of sports infrastructure facilities in cities 

The evolutionary development of sports infrastructure facilities based on the Soviet experience shows the development of approaches to the formation and rationing of a network of sports facilities: from individual and territorial facilities to an interconnected public service system, universally integrated into the urban structure, provided systematically organized involvement in mass sports. 

Today, the need for mass sports, its varieties and its infrastructure facilities is determined by the consumer independently, which requires the search for new forms of sports infrastructure facilities and criteria for their spatial placement. 

In modern urban planning, the role and place of sports infrastructure facilities as related elements forming the system remains uncertain, since the placement of infrastructure is of an object nature. At best, the sports facilities being placed represent a public service system, determined based on indicators of security and territorial accessibility. But even in this case, the placement and regulation of sports facilities has no connection with the planning structure of the city and the planning context of specific territories: population density in different residential areas of the city, internal migration of the population, as well as the peculiarities of the urban organization of modern buildings lead to the fact that mass sports facilities are implemented in the context of individual facilities that do not allow for all the population is connected by a network of sports infrastructure. 

The problem of providing the population with sports infrastructure facilities began to manifest itself through low attendance at existing local sports facilities ^[5] due to their inconsistency with modern demands of the population, and through a high load on new urban mass sports facilities located in public spaces, which creates an uneven distribution of the load on mass sports facilities across the city and a general imbalance in the system of sports facilities infrastructure. 

The increased role of mass sports as a way of life in modern society, leisure activities, is not realized as a need to acquire cognitive skills through interaction with the environment, that is, in the formation of public sports facilities.At the same time, despite the tendency to involve more people in sports, the problem of using sports infrastructure may arise: different social groups will show different degrees of interest in obtaining certain cognitive skills, that is, in using certain types of sports facilities. At the same time, sports infrastructure facilities in the urban system and their proximity to the end user are a direct incentive for their use by diverse social groups and individuals. Another incentive for acquiring skills can be called the urban environment formed by sports facilities, and in this case the criterion of proximity of the object already becomes secondary or does not play a role at all, especially for urban-level facilities. ^[1] 

At the current stage, it is necessary to determine an approach to the formation of a multi-level system of sports infrastructure facilities. The standards of urban planning design of sports infrastructure facilities are established as the calculation base for master plans and planning projects.  However, the old system of zoning of service systems is not applied ^[15], the provisions referred to by the current regulations are oriented towards a planned state economy, and a new system of organization and rationing of sports infrastructure has not been formed. Together, this creates a problem of providing the population with sports infrastructure facilities already at the stage of requirements of regulatory and urban planning documentation. This situation requires the development of a new approach to the rationing of sports infrastructure, taking into account the economic forms of urban development, the sprawl of major cities and taking into account the modern needs of the population in public mass sports facilities.

The objectives of this work are: analysis and evaluation of the effectiveness of the system of urban planning regulation of sports facilities for the largest cities, and urban planning documentation developed on its basis; determining the directions for the necessary transformation of the system of urban planning regulation and rationing of mass sports infrastructure facilities for the largest cities, taking into account their intensive growth and development of agglomeration processes.

The issues of regulatory aspects of the development of the urban planning regulation system as a whole were previously considered in the works of Ananchenko A. Yu., Trutnev E. K. ^{[16, 15]}, Mityagin S. D. ^{[17, 6]}, the general development of urban planning of the Soviet and post-Soviet periods — in the works of Kosenkova Y.L., Kolyasnikov V.A. ^[18], Meerovich M. G. ^{[19, 20]}, Vaitens A. G. ^[21], the system of sports infrastructure facilities of the Soviet and post-Soviet periods was studied in the works of L. V. Aristova ^[11]. The issues of sports development were also raised in the works of Alekseev K. A. ^[22], Adelfinsky A. S. ^[9], Pshenichnikov A.F. ^[23]. The problems of the development of a network of sports infrastructure facilities were studied mainly in socio-economic and management studies in relation to the modern stage, however, the urban planning aspect of the placement of facilities and, in particular, the tools of urban planning rationing turned out to be outside the field of research. 

Materials and methods 

The study examines the system of urban planning rationing of sports infrastructure facilities that developed during the Soviet period and identifies the main approaches to their rationing through the study of urban planning documentation. Due to the integrated approach to the study of the topic of this article, different types of urban planning documents were used: Instructions of the USSR State Construction Committee, Resolutions of the USSR and the RSFSR, general plans of Leningrad and Moscow, SN, SNiPs, MGSN, VSN Leningrad-St. Petersburg. As a result of the analysis of the evolution of urban planning regulation of sports facilities of the Soviet, post-Soviet and modern periods, patterns of influence of normative and urban planning documents on the formation of a system of sports facilities formed taking into account the planning organization of the city are revealed.

Mass sports as a means of leisure activities today impose certain requirements on sports infrastructure facilities: They should be public, integrated into the urban environment, meet the needs and demands of the population in various sports and outdoor sports, land resources are needed for the placement of facilities ^{[4, 24]}. In this regard, the problem of coherence of strategies, regional and local documents of urban planning regulation, documents of territorial planning and urban zoning becomes important. The study analyzes regulatory documents to determine approaches to the rationing of sports infrastructure facilities, and their accounting in documents of territorial planning of cities (master plans) and urban zoning (PZZ) at the level of allocation of functional and territorial zones.? The urban planning documentation and standards of urban planning design for the twelve largest cities of Russia are considered: Perm,?Voronezh, Omsk, Ufa, Samara, Chelyabinsk, Krasnoyarsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg.

The author's assessment of the effectiveness of local and regional NGPS (hereinafter RNGP and MNGP, respectively) of cities is proposed according to five criteria: normalized types of sports facilities, their spatial levels, the number of normalized indicators, normalized values of indicators of security and territorial accessibility.? As a result, a comprehensive NPG assessment is being formed for the studied cities, the main problems of accounting and rationing of sports infrastructure facilities in urban planning regulatory documents are identified. Based on the aggregate assessment of the NPG, an overall rating of the cities considered has been compiled. 

The main part 

Evolution of the sports facilities rationing system 

The Soviet stage. In the 1920s, ideas about "socialist cities" were formed, which were formalized legislatively and normatively. But there was no approach to rationing urban planning activities as a whole: there were no uniform rules for design and rationing, since previously the approach to planning itself was opposed to the new installations of the socialist urban planning system. ^[20] With the formation of the USSR, a sports system begins to take shape, including Olympic, specialized and mass sports. At the Soviet stage (1922-1991), three periods of sports development can be distinguished: 1922-1940, 1950-1970 and 1980-1991. In the first period, the individual and group nature of sports prevails; approaches to rationing and forming a network of sports facilities are being sought. 

In the Instruction of the NKVD No. 184 of 1928, sports devices were considered as objects planned in order to ensure sanitary and hygienic and medical-resort conditions for life and public health protection. In 1929, the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) "On the Physical Culture Movement" was issued, which announced the "restructuring" of the physical culture movement from an amateur principle to a production one, which corresponded to the state industrial and production approach to regulating and organizing public service systems in "socialist" cities. ^[19] 

As a result of the analysis of normative documents of the 1930s, the difference in approaches to the normalization of sports infrastructure facilities at the stage of the beginning of the formation of the system in terms of spatial levels of object placement, their typology and established norms was established. Documents of the RSFSR level contain prescriptions and general requirements for the organization of a network of sports facilities, but do not establish urban planning standards for them as such.

The rationing of sports facilities in different administrative-territorial entities was disjointed. For example, in the 1930 draft of the VTSK under the NKVD of the Ukrainian SSR "Code of Rules for the planning of settlements" for urban planning, the average values of the number of sports facilities per population with a fixed area for each type of facility were indicated; the recommended percentage of the residential area occupied by sports grounds (5%); the radius of territorial accessibility. In the typological series, in addition to the objects, sports areas were distinguished as separate elements of the territory layout, in which part of the sports facilities were concentrated in one place, provided that the other part of the objects were evenly distributed throughout the territory of the settlement. 

In 1931, due to the insufficient provision of the population with facilities of the sports infrastructure network that existed at that time, the "Decree on the construction of sports facilities" of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR determined the need to integrate sports facilities into public buildings: educational institutions of all types, clubs, cultural centers, industrial enterprises, recreation centers and medical institutions. 

In 1931, the "Uniform Standards of Construction Design" (p. XIII No. 2) introduced the concept of a "sports park" as a separate urban planning element related to special-purpose green spaces, for the concentrated placement of indoor and outdoor sports facilities designed for various sports. The composition of sports facilities in the park and the area of the park were determined depending on the population of cities: from 10-20 thousand inhabitants, the park area was recommended at 10-12 hectares, for cities with a population of 50-100 thousand inhabitants — 20-25 hectares. 

"Uniform standards of construction design. Sports facilities" in 1932 (OST 4530, 4532, 4533) defined the general requirements for the organization of a network of sports facilities, the design of which was carried out within the framework of projects of general plans of populated areas. The network included sports facilities of all departments and organizations and were divided into two groups: general facilities (physical education cell at housing, quarterly, district and central physical education bases, separate facilities according to local conditions) and special-purpose facilities (at industrial enterprises, educational and medical institutions, physical culture complexes). The network of facilities was determined based on the number of people in cities in relation to: territories (calculation of land plots according to the norms for 1 person), buildings (calculation of capacity), solutions in the plan (accounting for the service radius and distance). 

An analysis of the materials for the master plans of the 1930s made it possible to establish the role of sports facilities as public elements that are part of public green spaces. In the "Materials for the preparation of a plan for the development of housing and communal services in Leningrad" ^[26] of 1932, a positive change in the nature of green spaces is noted through the introduction of physical culture elements into them. Despite the placement of sports facilities in public green spaces, when establishing the total area of green spaces per person, the physical culture norm was at least 2.5 square meters. m per person and was not included in the norm of the landscaping area, which made it possible to avoid replacing public green spaces with sports facilities within the framework of rationing. The Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) on the General Plan for the Reconstruction of the City of Moscow in 1935 determined the placement of sports grounds and stadiums in the center of the microdistrict based on the full need for them by the population, which indicates the formation of an understanding of sports infrastructure facilities as public and accessible.Thus, the general plan of Moscow laid out the territories of physical education facilities in the blocks and between them, the area of which in 1936 averaged 9% (152 hectares) for all projected residential and mixed quarters with a total area of 1,629 hectares ^[27].

The draft of the all-Union "Norms of Urban Planning", published in 1940, extended only to the design of general city plans, therefore, by 1941, an array of disparate urban planning manuals with unapproved rationing proposals, which were advisory in nature, began to form in the USSR. ^[21] In the first decade after the war, work on the urban planning regulatory framework was not carried out. ^[23] 

In the 1930s and 1940s, the documents establishing the standards of sports facilities were master plans. A three-level system of maintenance of mass sports facilities (city, district) was formed; sports facilities were located on the territories of public landscaping, on the territories of production facilities, educational and medical institutions; the number of types of sports facilities varied in different territorial documents. An idea is being formed about the urban typology of sports facilities: a sports base, a sports district, a sports park. Regulatory requirements were only determined in an enlarged and averaged manner directly as part of master plans or generalized guidelines for urban planning, which are advisory in nature and based on the development of territorial planning documents, and therefore were not formed into a separate all-Union regulatory system. 

The second period of the Soviet stage, the 1950s-1970s, is characterized by the separation of mass sports into a separate independent direction, the main participants of which are workers and physical education students; a three-level system of maintenance of sports facilities is being formed, the search for the main standardized types of facilities and their indicators. A theoretical model of public service has developed, linked to spatial levels and their centers: a microdistrict, a residential area, a planning area, a city. Normative indicators in the field of physical culture and sports facilities were linked to the spatial levels of the planning organization of cities. The placement of sports infrastructure facilities was subordinated to the hierarchy of residential areas and urban centers. The theoretical model of the sports facilities network included three main service subsystems corresponding to the planning levels of the theoretical model of social infrastructure placement. In this model, sports facilities, in addition to being divided by territorial levels, were classified according to the "principle of their belonging" to other infrastructure facilities: places of employment (institutions, factories, factories, etc.); public service facilities (children's institutions, educational institutions, cultural and educational institutions, recreation facilities, etc.). The group was distinguished by public sports facilities, forming a subsystem for the maintenance of a microdistrict, a residential area, which was the basis of the entire network of sports infrastructure facilities. ^[11] Thus, in the "SNiP II-V.1 Layout of populated areas" of 1954, citywide, district, microdistrict sports facilities of a wide typological range were indicated for placement on residential territory, in which specialized sports facilities can be distinguished (sports grounds at educational institutions, water bases, stadiums of voluntary sports societies). Each spatial level had its own typological range: its greatest diversity was provided at the urban level, the least — at the microdistrict. The placement of sports grounds in a block or in a group of blocks had to be uniform. When placing stadiums in gardens or parks, the area of their landscaping did not replace the area of public green spaces: the regulations provided for compensation of the areas occupied by the stadium by a corresponding increase in the area of the garden or park. 

In the first half of the 1950s, the regulation of sports facilities was carried out for the most part for residential areas. There are no criteria for the placement of sports facilities in the city, except for preferential placement in residential areas and attraction to green areas of common use. The main typological series are stadiums and sports grounds, which indicates an objective approach to both the placement and rationing of sports infrastructure; there is no urban typology of sports facilities, which was formed in the 1930s. In general, the system for sports facilities is not fixed within the framework of all-Union documents. 

In the second half of the 1950s, the linking of sports facilities to residential areas and public landscaping continued. According to the "Instruction 115-56", the placement of sports facilities as part of territorial planning documents was carried out in conjunction with the planning of public green spaces at the Nagorodsky, district and microdistrict levels. Standardized sports facilities were differentiated by their types in accordance with spatial levels and their belonging to infrastructural subsystems of public services. A clearer system of normalized indicators of sports infrastructure facilities began to form: indicators of "security" and the size of land plots were normalized. Thus, the provisions of CH 41-58 identified public sports facilities, residential district facilities, facilities and facilities of limited use at educational institutions. The values of the calculated indicators of the areas (in hectares) of the reserved plots were set depending on the population of the planning units; the service radius was determined — 0.75-1.5 km — for sports facilities in a residential area. In CH 41-58, for the first time, the suburban area is allocated a separate spatial level for the placement of specialized sports infrastructure facilities. 

In general, over the period of the 1950s, the following main trends in approaches to rationing sports infrastructure facilities can be identified: the object approach of rationing; mass sports facilities are located on the territories of other infrastructure facilities (educational institutions, pioneer houses, industries, etc.); specialized facilities (sports schools, etc.) are allocated to a separate group; the main spatial levels of sports facilities are microdistrict and district with urban, while the facilities located on the last two levels are part of the parks of the appropriate level;? rationing indicators are calculated on average for all cities without their differentiation by population; linking the normalized indicators of the area characteristics of objects to the population of the district and microdistrict, while there are large ranges of values of both the population and the required areas of sports facilities, set at the level of development of specific planning projects; indicators of territorial accessibility as such are not established or they are conditional and are of a recommendatory nature. 

In the 1960s, the main types of sports facilities and units of measurement of their indicators were becoming standardized in the rationing system. Thus, "SNiP II-K.2-62" established calculated indicators of the area of the site per 1000 people for sports facilities of the microdistrict, residential area and populated area, depending on the norm of housing provision; indicators of the provision of gyms and swimming pools were set as the floor area and water mirrors (in sq. m.), respectively, per 1000 people. In addition to the object-based approach to placement and rationing, an "integrated" approach appears in the documentation system: according to the requirements of CH-345-66, the general plans of cities provided for the placement of citywide and district sports centers in conjunction with public landscaping. 

In the 1970s, a more comprehensive approach to the rationing of objects appeared. In SNiP II-60-75** the main normalized types of sports facilities were combined into complexes, for which the standards established the area of land plots per 1000 people, in large and largest cities, the size of land plots of playground complexes was allowed to be reduced by no more than 25%, provided that the sports facilities of schools and the neighborhood were used jointly by schoolchildren and adults; Indicators of territorial pedestrian and transport accessibility were established. There was a tendency to place sports facilities in citywide and district parks, but now they were considered as functional areas within public landscaping facilities, the size of which amounted to 15% of the total area of the park. 

During the period of the 1950s and 1970s, there was a separation of rationing documents with territorial planning documents. At the same time, the regulatory documents carried out the division of sports facilities by spatial levels, which made it possible to use the regulatory framework in relation to territories and the theoretical model of service. Sports facilities and their complexes were located in residential areas of cities on specially designated sites located near or on the territories of public green spaces or in the suburban area. The normalized sports infrastructure facilities were considered as separate structures and complexes. The composition of the structures of the complexes was determined depending on the level of its placement. Also, the standards separately identified sports facilities that can be classified as specialized (for example, ski resorts, children's sports schools), but their capacity and size of land plots were determined by the design assignment, that is, they were not included in the general maintenance system. The tendency to take into account sports facilities located on the territories of educational institutions when organizing a network of mass sports facilities has strengthened. Normative indicators of security and the size of land plots were mandatory, indicators of territorial accessibility were advisory in nature. 

In the third period of the Soviet stage, the 1980s and 1990s, the rationing of sports facilities lost its connection to the spatial levels of the planning organization of cities. There has been a mix of types of standardized sports facilities through the emergence of new types of facilities. Thus, in SNiP 2.07.01-89*, premises for physical culture and recreation activities were added to the main normalized types of sports facilities, which, when drawing up territorial planning documents, made it possible to take into account non-public sports facilities that do not allow providing the population with the necessary areas for sports. The provisions of the norms began to contribute to the manifestation of a shortage of sports infrastructure facilities: SNiP 2.07.01-89* recommended placing sports and sports facilities in a public network, combining them with sports facilities of educational institutions, recreation and cultural institutions with a possible reduction in territory. The typological range of standardized facilities has been reduced to territories, premises for physical education and recreation activities, public gyms, indoor and outdoor pools. Indicators of security and accessibility for urban-level facilities were established, and the size of land plots was set only for territories. 

Nevertheless, attempts have been made to normalize sports facilities depending on the structure of territorial entities. For example, the VSN-1-89 introduced in 1990 set the capacity per 1000 permanent population separately for peripheral, central planning areas and for the city as a whole and the total area per unit of measurement for freestanding and for built-in facilities. Indicators of the availability of mass sports complexes, youth sports schools were determined for peripheral, central planning areas and for the city as a whole, and for detached facilities, indicators of the availability of specialized sports complexes and sports and entertainment - only for peripheral planning areas. 

The normative documents that appeared in the 1990s were editions of SNiP 2.07.01-89, but did not contain changes either in terms of the types of normalized sports facilities and their indicators, or in terms of the values of normalized indicators of security and accessibility, the size of land plots. 

In general, during the period 1980-1990, the rationing system underwent the following main changes: the types of the main normalized sports facilities were determined — territories (planar structures), gyms, swimming pools; the normalized objects lost their connection to spatial levels and to public landscaping; at the same time, the object approach to rationing and to the placement of sports infrastructure on the territory was preserved and strengthened territories of educational institutions; in terms of normalized indicators, the concept of security has "taken shape". 

The post-Soviet stage. Due to the collapse of the USSR, the emergence of new subjects of urban development and the corresponding redistribution of powers, as well as the transition to a market economy, the logic of placing social infrastructure is changing — now it cannot be considered as a centrally organized system of public services in relation to actually and documented existing territorial levels. But the rationing system that was formed at the time of the 1980s and 1990s is not undergoing changes, which does not allow the development and implementation of a connected network of sports infrastructure facilities. 

At the post-Soviet stage, separate attempts were made to form a system of urban planning regulation in accordance with new economic conditions, legislation and management structure. Introduced in 1995, SNiP 10-01-94 established the composition of the system of normative documents, in which the SNiPs, joint venture and governing documents of the system referred to federal documents, to the normative documents of the subjects of the Russian Federation — territorial building codes (TSN). Thus, the formation and approval of standards at the legislative level was placed under the jurisdiction of territorial entities, which made it possible to develop a regulatory framework for sports facilities, taking into account the peculiarities of social, territorial and economic development of cities. Despite this, the normative documents adopted during the period 1992-2000 were based on SNiP 2.07.01-89 and did not contain changes in terms of rationing indicators and types of sports facilities. MGSN 1.01-98 can be considered an exception: an attempt was made to search for other types of sports facilities and classify them according to the level of service. Thus, the objects of daily maintenance, close to housing, and periodic maintenance, placed in public areas and in green areas of common use of the residential area, were normalized. The former included physical culture and recreation clubs, the latter - physical culture and recreation centers of the districts, specialized physical culture and recreation facilities, complexes of seasonal physical culture and recreation facilities. Security indicators were set for them: the total area of covered structures and the area of the complex. Indicators of territorial accessibility were also established. However, this approach to rationing the performance of sports facilities cannot be called sufficiently consistent. 

During the formation of the rationing system, the main types of sports facilities were determined: gyms, swimming pools and sports grounds. Among the other most common normalized sports facilities, stadiums, limited-use facilities (sports facilities at educational institutions, etc.) can be distinguished. educational institutions) and specialized facilities (youth schools). For the main selected types of sports facilities, the indicators of security and the size of land plots were normalized. Territorial accessibility was determined to a greater extent for regional and urban facilities. 

Based on the documents reviewed, it can be concluded that the Soviet stage of the development of the rationing system in terms of physical culture and sports facilities as a whole had greater consistency between the normalized elements and their correlation with the planning structure of cities, in particular with the green frame. However, in the 1980s and 1990s, this correlation of normalized elements with the planning structure was lost in regulatory documents. The rationing of the post-Soviet period, in fact, duplicated the documents adopted in the 1980s and 1990s of the Soviet period. 

The current stage: analysis of established practices and directions of transformation 

The adoption of the Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code), Federal Law No. 184 "On Technical Regulation" contributed to the emergence of new elements of rationing in the system of urban planning documentation — RNGP and MNGP, which allow for rationing at the regional and local levels, respectively, with the possibility of defining approaches to rationing sports infrastructure facilities, taking into account the urban planning features of territorial entities. However, modern NGPS have largely preserved the basic principles of rationing sports facilities laid down in the Soviet period, which makes it problematic to implement this opportunity in the system of rationing sports facilities in major Russian cities, contributing to the sustainable development of cities and the formation of a spatial system of sports infrastructure facilities, taking into account current trends in the development of mass sports and the needs of the population. For the purpose of evaluating possible and necessary transformations of the system of urban planning regulation of sports infrastructure, the author conducted a study of the effectiveness of modern NGPS. 

The choice of the largest cities is due to the fact that the entire system of Soviet standards, which formed the basis of modern standards, was developed in relation to cities with a population of 100 or less thousand inhabitants: such a model was formed starting from the 1930s of the XX century. Today, the largest cities are developing in a different spatial and territorial paradigm, accompanied by territorial expansion and population growth, which necessitates determining the effectiveness of NGP. 

The efficiency assessment was proposed based on a study of 12 largest Russian cities by the number of inhabitants of more than a million at the time of 2023. There are 16 million cities in Russia, so 75% of the largest cities were considered in the study, which allows us to identify common problems of rationing sports facilities for them.?The largest of the cities under consideration is St. Petersburg, the smallest in number is Perm. As part of the study, RNGPS were considered for St. Petersburg, and MNGPS for other cities. ? 

Decisions on the approval of the NGP of the considered cities appeared starting from 2012. At the same time, the "Methodological recommendations for the preparation of regional and local NPOs", developed at the federal level in order to form a unified approach to the preparation of urban planning standards, appeared only in 2021. Despite the fact that this document provides a separate definition of physical culture, and defines recommendations for the establishment in the MNGP and RNGP of limit values of calculated indicators for objects of local importance in the field of physical culture and sports, these indicators and their characteristics, as well as spatial and functional links between objects and binding to the nature of territories, this document does not they are considered and not disclosed. However, as an example, it is indicated that the provision of sports schools for the population — the number of places for visitors in a building per 1000 inhabitants — is recommended to be set taking into account the population density in the municipality, gender and age composition and other factors. It is also recommended to establish increasing coefficients for indicators of the minimum provision of physical education and sports facilities for the population when implementing projects for the construction of facilities in vacant (undeveloped) territories compared with built-up ones.   

As a result of the study of the NPG in terms of sports infrastructure, it was revealed that the standards of all the cities considered, with the exception of the RNGP of St. Petersburg, include sports facilities located on the territories of other infrastructure institutions (educational, medical institutions, professional sports facilities, etc.). At the same time, in the NGPS of all cities there is no division of sports facilities into public and non-public ones.? 

Five criteria were identified and considered, the totality of which evaluates the effectiveness of NGP in relation to the placement of sports facilities in relation to the largest cities: the normalized types of sports facilities, their spatial levels, the number of normalized indicators, the normalized values of indicators of security and territorial accessibility. 

The classifier of types of permitted use of land plots (VRI), approved by Order of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation No. 540 of 2014, established the types of land plots for the placement of sports facilities of capital construction without differentiation by their nature. In 2020, in accordance with Order No. N P/0412 of 06/23/2022 of the Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography, the current classifier of types of permitted use of land plots in terms of sports infrastructure defines VRI as part of recreation and establishes the differentiation of "places" for sports activities by the nature of providing buildings and structures: providing sports facilitiesentertainment events (stadiums, sports palaces, ice palaces, racetracks), provision of indoor sports (sports clubs, gyms, swimming pools, foks), sports grounds (sports grounds, running tracks, fields for sports), equipped sports grounds (tennis courts, racetracks, motorcycle racing tracks ski jumps, shooting ranges), water sports, aviation sports, sports bases, golf courses and horseback riding — as specialized sports facilities. Sports facilities are included in the List as elements of social infrastructure facilities, i.e. facilities combined with housing, educational institutions, etc. Thus, at the time of 2024, the types of sports facilities regulated by the NGP represent only individual elements taken from the VRI. 

Assessment of modern standards of urban planning design 

The main types of standardized sports facilities and NGP indicators.

In order to determine the main normalized types of sports facilities, 12 cities considered were accepted for 100% of cases, then the percentage of each normalized type of sports facilities by city was calculated; the type of sports facility that scored the highest percentage was determined as the main one. When considering RNGP and MNGP, the main normalized types of sports facilities for all cities under consideration were identified: swimming pools, gyms and planar structures. Swimming pools are normalized in 100% of the cases considered, gyms — in 92%, planar structures — in 83% of cases. The latter are not regulated in the local regulations of Novosibirsk and Perm. The most frequently normalized in the considered MNGS in a number of other types of sports facilities are children's youth sports schools (youth sports schools) and stadiums. 

By analogy, the number of cities has been determined, in the standards of which sports facilities are divided by spatial levels. As a result, it was found that sports infrastructure facilities are divided into urban, district and microdistrict. But this division is very conditional, since these planning units have fallen out of the legal field of the Civil Code ^[6] and are not linked to the spatial organization of cities. In 67% of the cases considered, sports facilities are not divided into spatial levels at all. 

Territorial accessibility. One of the key parameters characterizing the efficiency of the distribution of the city's sports infrastructure is its territorial accessibility, defined as a spatial characteristic of the network of social infrastructure facilities. It is recommended to calculate it either based on the time spent to reach the object, or based on the distance to the object measured in a straight line along the available paths of movement or otherwise. When determining the indicator of territorial accessibility for each type of object, it is recommended to specify the type of territorial accessibility unambiguously. ^[6] 

The assessment of cities according to the criteria of territorial accessibility and security was carried out for three main standardized types of sports facilities: planar structures, gyms, swimming pools. 

In 42% of cases, the NGPS of the cities under consideration set values for territorial accessibility, of which transport is allocated in 42% of cases, and pedestrian in 33%. Accessibility is expressed in meters or minutes, while transport accessibility is not always measured in minutes, and pedestrian accessibility is measured in meters. Also, the standards do not prescribe a "physical" measurement of territorial accessibility, which leaves the possibility of interpreting this indicator in practice to meet the standard. 

The assessment according to this criterion took into account the presence and (or) absence of a division into transport and pedestrian accessibility and was carried out by reducing the values of the indicators to a single unit of measurement, meters. The average pedestrian speed, 4 km/h, was used to bring the indicators of pedestrian accessibility, and the average car speed, 60 km/h, was used to bring the indicators of transport accessibility. 

Scales of values of general territorial accessibility were compiled for each main normalized type of sports facility, that is, the values given were entered into a scale from minimum to maximum, regardless of their belonging to pedestrian and (or) transport accessibility. It was revealed that the NGP sets the largest number of accessibility values and a lower degree of their "spread" for gyms, and the greatest degree of dispersion of accessibility values is for planar structures. 

In the NGP of some cities, territorial accessibility for certain types of sports facilities is not established. Thus, in Novosibirsk, the territorial accessibility of swimming pools has not been established, in Nizhny Novgorod — swimming pools and gyms, in Chelyabinsk and Perm, accessibility indicators are not set for any of the main standardized types of sports facilities.? In some cities, on the contrary, several accessibility indicators are set for one type of normalized sports facility. For example, in Krasnoyarsk, three pedestrian accessibility values are set for gyms: 600, 1300, 2400 meters. At the same time, the set values are not related to the territorial levels of the object. 

As a result of the assessment according to the criterion of territorial accessibility, a rating of cities was compiled, in which the first place corresponded to the minimum average value of the territorial accessibility of the main normalized sports facilities, the last to the maximum average value. In the distribution between the first and last place, priority was given to cities whose NGPS establish pedestrian accessibility. Perm and Chelyabinsk were not included in this rating of cities, since their NGPS do not normalize territorial accessibility for sports facilities. It was also revealed that in 63% of cases, the type of territorial accessibility for each type of object is not specified unambiguously when determining indicators of territorial accessibility; NPGS do not determine the physical magnitude of accessibility measurement, which leads to the possibility of any interpretation of this indicator in practice; when determining indicators of transport accessibility, the type of transport is not specified, which also leads to the possibility of any interpretation This indicator is used in practice, since different types of transport have different average speeds; pedestrian accessibility values are set based on the average pedestrian speed, which does not allow taking into account the peculiarities of movement of different age groups and, accordingly, ensuring territorial accessibility for all population groups; territorial accessibility is not considered as an element of security. 

Security. The provision of facilities to the population is a quantitative characteristic of the network of social infrastructure facilities. It is recommended to calculate it as the specific capacity of any type of infrastructure per inhabitant or representative of a certain age, social, professional group, or a certain number of residents or representatives of these groups. The indicator of the population's availability of facilities can be defined as the ratio of the main quantitative characteristic of the capacity (capacity) of an object to the number of people, as well as in some cases as the ratio of the number of objects of a certain type to the total characteristic of the population. ^[6] 

Security is normalized by the NGP of the cities under consideration in 100% of cases. Indicators of security in the cities under consideration are set in different units of measurement, all of them can be divided into two conditional main blocks: "objects-people", "area-people". Since 82% of cities with millions of inhabitants use units of measurement of the last block to establish indicators of security, the values of the indicators were reduced to a common unit of measurement — square meters per 1000 people — and were considered in comparison between cities for each type of sports facilities. 

When evaluating by the criterion of security for each main normalized type of sports facility (planar structures, gyms, swimming pools), scales of indicator values were compiled, that is, the values given were entered into the scale from minimum to maximum. It was revealed that the standards set the largest number of security values with the highest degree of dispersion for planar structures, the lowest degree of dispersion of security values for swimming pools. 

Some of the cities have disparate units of measurement. Thus, in St. Petersburg, according to the RNGP, established for the period up to 2025, the indicators of provision of planar structures and sports halls are calculated in the number of facilities per 1,000 people, and in the standards of Omsk, the entire range of sports facilities represented is in one-time capacity per 1,000 people aged 3 to 79 years. 

When comparing the minimum security values with the values of the areas of the main types of normalized facilities required by SP. 332.1325800.2017 "Sports facilities. Design rules" it was revealed that the standards specify the values of areas less than required by the rules for designing sports facilities. For example, in Voronezh, the standard for the provision of planar structures is set at 20 square meters. m per 1000 people, which is less than the area of the smallest planar structure — a playground for playing small towns — 28 sq. m. (see Fig.1) So, with the total area of the territory of a new residential neighborhood of 58.5 hectares for 13,697 inhabitants, 274 sq. m (0.027 ha) will be required according to the established standard, and when accepted as the norm 28 sq . m . m per 1000 people for the same number of inhabitants — 384 sq. m (0.038 ha). 

Fig. 1. The standard of provision of planar structures in comparison with a playground for playing small towns 

Separately, it is worth noting the normalization of security indicators depending on the type of residential development. In Kazan and Ufa, the security values for planar structures, gyms and swimming pools are determined by the area of objects (in thousand square meters) per 10 thousand square meters of apartments and the area of objects (in thousand square meters) per 100 individual residential households.? 

As a result of the assessment according to the criterion of security, a rating of the cities in question was compiled, in which the first place corresponded to the minimum average value of the security of the main normalized sports facilities, the last to the maximum average value.? It was also revealed that there is no correspondence of the minimum values of the indicator to the area characteristics of sports facilities required by design standards; there is no dependence of the values of territorial accessibility and security; there is no dependence of security values on the population of cities; non-public sports facilities and (or) restricted access facilities are included in the security calculation. 

The overall efficiency of the NGP 

In order to determine the overall effectiveness of existing NGPS, an overall rating was compiled by city; it took into account the 5 criteria discussed above. The assessment for each of the criteria was carried out using 3-point scales. As a result of the assessment by the number of standardized types of sports facilities, it was found that the largest number of types of standardized facilities is in Omsk (11), the smallest — in St. Petersburg (3) and Samara (3), by the presence of objects linked to spatial levels — differentiation of objects by three spatial levels is present only in the RNG of St. Petersburg, according to two spatial levels, including the local one — in the Municipal Government of Novosibirsk and Yekaterinburg, in terms of the number of normalized indicators, the largest number of types of normalized indicators is in Omsk (12), the smallest is in Chelyabinsk (1) and Perm (2). 

The results obtained for assessing territorial accessibility, taking into account the compiled rating according to this criterion, were translated into a 3-point system in which the absence of rationing accessibility was equated to 0, rationing only transport or only general — to 1 point, rationing transport and general — to 2 points, the presence of rationing pedestrian — to 3 points. Pedestrian accessibility is regulated in St. Petersburg, Samara, Omsk and Krasnoyarsk. Similarly, the rating of cities according to the criterion of security was transferred to a 3-point scale, it was found that the highest average values of security for sports facilities were in Chelyabinsk, Samara and Kazan, the lowest in St. Petersburg. A comparison of the values of security and territorial accessibility by city did not reveal their dependencies on each other and patterns. 

As a result of the assessment conducted according to 5 criteria, an overall rating of cities in terms of NGP efficiency was compiled: the NGPS of Kazan, Yekaterinburg and Omsk are recognized as the most effective. 

A comparison of the results of the overall rating with the population in cities did not reveal a dependence of the effectiveness of the NGP of sports infrastructure on the population of cities (see Fig. 2).?

Fig. 2. Assessment of the NGP of cities according to the point system; The overall rating of cities according to the effectiveness of NGP? ? 

The above assessment gives only a general idea of the effectiveness of the NGP, since its implementation was based on common existing approaches to rationing sports infrastructure facilities. To conduct a more comprehensive assessment of efficiency, it is necessary to take into account the urban planning factors of territorial entities (planning structure, population density and buildings), which the modern rationing system does not allow, because it is actually divorced from territorial planning. 

The conducted research revealed the inconsistency of the rationing system with other legislative documents and the duplication of documents established in the Soviet and post-Soviet periods that do not meet modern administrative-territorial, economic, social development and changes that have occurred in mass sports. 

In particular, the Methodological Recommendations for the preparation of NPGS, the purpose of which is to meet the provision of territories with sports infrastructure facilities, propose a system of differentiation of territories for the rationing of sports facilities, which does not provide for the differentiation of objects for different types of territories in the structure of one territorial entity, and the territories for rationing are not linked to spatial and territorial levels. At the same time, the list of sports facilities provided in the document is advisory, does not correspond to the VRI and NGP, and the document itself refers to the joint Venture and the SNIP, that is, in fact, it is a "collection" of previous documents and their duplicate. Taken together, these aspects do not allow the Guidelines to be a flexible document and take into account other legislative regulations. 

Within the framework of this study, the following documents were considered: strategic planning documents (socio-economic strategies and programs, including sectoral schemes) for the development of sports infrastructure, master plans of cities and rules of land use and development. These documents were considered in terms of the formation of a justification for the placement of sports infrastructure facilities at the territorial level and their connection with urban planning standards.? 

An analysis of the strategic planning documents of the studied largest cities in the field of sports infrastructure facilities shows that despite the availability of such documentation in all cities, an integrated approach based on a systematic functional and spatial strategy for the development of sports facilities, taking into account the nature of cities, their planning structure and territorial population growth is absent in the documents considered. All documents are focused on the object level with access to quantitative parameters for the city as a whole, based on the estimated one-time throughput (ENP), without territorial and functional links between objects and the urban environment.These indicators, in turn, are based on "Methodological recommendations on the application of standards and norms in determining the needs of the subjects of the Russian Federation in physical culture and sports facilities", which provide for an average ENP standard for all subjects of the Russian Federation - 122 people per 1000, for cities of federal significance - 72 people per 1000 population, the calculation of which includes all sports facilities including at educational institutions , etc. 

A study of the master plans of the largest Russian cities considered in this article shows that the approach to the placement of sports facilities at the territorial planning level is implemented only in 58% of cities in which separate functional zones are allocated for the placement of sports facilities. At the same time, in 83% of the surveyed cities of the Russian Federation, territorial zones are established with the inclusion of sports infrastructure facilities, of which 60% are recreational areas, 30% are public, and 30% are allocated for individual specific sports infrastructure facilities. 

Thus, it can be argued that in the vast majority of the largest cities of the Russian Federation, effective urban planning regulation in the field of sports infrastructure placement requires changes related to the integration of standards, strategies and urban planning documentation.? The strategies ^[28] should be based on territorial and functional approaches based on the system of placing sports facilities in the city, taking into account the nature of consumers, and standards and documentation being developed should become effective tools for the implementation of these strategies.? 

Conclusions 

The evolutionary development of the regulatory and legal system of urban planning regulation and rationing from the 1920s to the present has identified two possible approaches to rationing infrastructure as a whole: territorial and object-based. The development from a system of multi-level elements at the city level, formed by the mid-1930s, by 1980 had been reformed into a network of objects in the city structure. Despite the fact that such facilities were actually located in the GP and PDP, their implementation differed significantly, as can be seen from the projects of the GP and PDP of Leningrad (1950s-1980s). The regulatory requirements were primarily citywide in nature and provided general provision for the city, while regional and local conditions were practically not implemented. By 1990, the rationing was based on the object principle of placement in relation to a selected number of sports facilities. The same trend has persisted in a transformed form to the present time, which leads to a shortage of sports infrastructure, especially in the new residential areas of the last decade. 

The refusal to form a system of territorial sports infrastructure facilities is primarily due to the nature of urban development of urban areas in new economic conditions. Mass housing development, renovation of industrial and transport and communal areas do not include sports infrastructure of a public nature as an obligatory element of service.  

At the same time, changes in the nature of mass sports and the attitude of the population towards it (an expanded number of types of popular sports facilities, the nature of the use of facilities, a high degree of involvement of different categories of the population, individual and group (self-regulating) forms of sports) lead to an imbalance of sports infrastructure in the established built-up areas. 

The object rationing of sports infrastructure in relation to the SOEs of the largest cities does not allow taking into account the specifics of new and established built-up areas, the gender and age composition of the population at the object-territorial level and is ineffective. 

As a result of the study, the general problems of the currently existing norms have been identified: they are disconnected from direct application — they are not connected with the PZP, in which VRI and SP are used; they are disconnected from the territorial planning structure, which does not allow solving the issues of organizing objects in the urban planning environment in practice and, as a result, does not allow solving the problem of providing the population with sports facilities; they are disconnected from the scale of cities and types of territories; there is no spatial reference to the placement of such objects in recreational areas; the division of objects into specialized and non-specialized (publicly accessible) is not taken into account; objects that cannot be used by a wide range of the population, i.e. objects of limited use, are taken into account; territorial accessibility is not considered in terms of normalized indicators as an element of security. 

The peculiarities of the sprawl of the largest cities and the agglomeration processes associated with this lead to the need to rethink the established practice of urban planning rationing for them. In order to improve the rationing system and implement its binding to the documents of urban zoning and territorial planning, a more flexible spatial system of urban rationing is needed, based primarily on the territorial principles of the placement of sports infrastructure facilities, taking into account the classification of objects by sports directions and establishing their relationship to each other in the conditions of various spatial planning elements of the urban environment. 

It is necessary to allocate various urban spatial elements within the framework of rationing, for which different regulatory requirements will be established, allowing, if it is impossible to place such objects directly on the territory, to compensate for them by placing them at the district planning level or at the urban level. For a general calculation within the framework of the actual provision of mass sports facilities to the population, it is necessary to take into account only publicly accessible sports facilities, while excluding facilities at educational, medical and other institutions, as well as private facilities in the absence of special regional or municipal programs for the population. There is also a need for a significant expansion of the VRI, which will make it possible to more effectively implement complex and integrated sports infrastructure facilities in the urban environment. At the stage of preparation of GP and PZ, taking into account the modern needs and preferences of the population in mass sports, it is necessary to develop a spatial strategy for the development of sports infrastructure for all public-business, recreational and primarily residential territories, including territories with established buildings. In this regard, it seems necessary to develop urban standards for the urban planning of sports facilities, taking into account the characteristics of each city. At the same time, it is necessary to provide for the combination of recreational (green) elements of the urban environment with sports as separate urban planning elements. In connection with this, it is necessary to exclude from the norms of the PZP the possibility of including sports planar elements in the calculation of green spaces. 

When solving the problem of forming a sports infrastructure system, taking into account its imbalance in relation to the number and density of the population, primarily in residential areas of recent decades in the absence of intra-district and intra-quarter territorial reserves, it is necessary to give preference to the creation of inter-district (inter-quarter) sports parks combining different elements of mass sports and recreation interconnected and integrated as in the planning structure of territorial formations, as well as the urban fabric, and not replacing public landscaping.