6. Iu. V. Got’e,
7. TsMAM, f. 2311, op. 1, d. 28, 1. 520b.
8. See the Durnovo correspondence published in “Zakhvatchiki, imenuiushchie sebia “narod”
. . .’: Neskol’ko dokumentov iz fonda P.P. Durnovo (1917–1919),”
9. Blok’s account of Lakhta in a diary entry of 11 June 1919 is in his
10. See, e.g., the report by a local housing committee in TsGA SPb, f. 78 (Primorsko-Sestroretskii raiispolkom), op. 1, d. 158, l. 63.
11. TsGAMO, f. 2591 (Moskovskii uezdnyi otdel kommunal’nogo khoziaistva), op. 3, d. 1, ll. 27–29, 33.
12. K. Chukovskii,
13. TsGAMO, f. 2591, op. 3, d. 1, l. 3450b.
14. TsMAM, f. 2311, op. 1, d. 28, l. 47.
15. M. Bliznakov, “Soviet Housing during the Experimental Years, 1918 to 1933,” in
16. A short memoir by a resident of the children’s colony and a letter of complaint
by Klara Shvarts to her local commissar for education are to be found in V. Vitiazeva,
17. Got’e,
18. RGASPI, f. 78, op. 7, d. 32.
19. An appeal to the letter of the law is made by an evicted dacha owner in TsGAMO, f. 2591, op. 3, d. 32, l. 288 (though it did not lead to his reinstatement).
20. One example: a woman who had married a wealthy Moscow merchant’s son before the Revolution managed to hold on to the family’s spacious dacha in the village of Dunino, thanks to her personal acquaintance with the revolutionary Vera Figner (interview with the woman’s granddaughter, September 1999). The two other families I spoke to in Dunino were also the direct descendants of the well-to-do prerevolutionary owners of their dachas; one household had retained the property by gathering the large extended family in it and arguing that they were occupying no more than their normal housing entitlement, the other simply by going through the necessary bureaucratic procedures to register the dacha in their name with the Soviet authorities.
21. TsGA SPb, f. 78, op. 1, d. 158, l. 216.
22. Ibid., f. 469, op. 2, d. 5, ll. 35, 42. The OMKh did not desist, however: it subsequently issued several requests to investigate the social background of residents at particular addresses.
23. There was some confusion at the time on this point: see the clarification offered
in S. Kisin, “Dachi i desiatiprotsentnaia norma,”
24. P. A. Portugalov and V. A. Dlugach, eds.,
25. TsGAMO, f. 2591, op. 3, d. 1, ll. 329–57.
26. Ibid., l. 349.
27. See, e.g., TsGA SPb, f. 469, op. 2, d. 784.
28. D. I. Sheinis,
29. G. D. Andrusz,
30. See S. Fitzpatrick,
31. TsGAMO, f. 182, op. 1, d. 13, l. 12. At the beginning of 1930, Moscow’s municipal
dacha stock was distributed as follows: 4,000 under the trust; 7,300 under local ispolkoms;
1,000 under the oblast department of education (
32. Portugalov and Dlugach,
33. TsGAMO, f. 2591, op. 3, d. 1, l. 339