34. K. N., “Po dacham,” VM, 7 May 1925, 2. Moscow’s municipalized stock was reported to comprise 3,000 dachas
in 1927, but more than half of them were occupied by permanent residents: see M. K.,
“Dachi,” ZhT-ZhS, no. 16 (1927), 12–13. Leningrad was similar: as many as 40% of houses in its satellite
towns (such as Detskoe Selo, Slutsk, and Ligovo) were taken up by commuters: see Mikhail
[sic], “O derevne, prigorodakh i okrainakh,” Zhilishchnoe delo, no. 13 (1925), 8
35. TsGAMO, f. 2591, op. 3, l. 346. The encouragement of private reconstruction in dacha
areas is signaled in A. Sheinis, “Stroit’ li zanovo ili dostraivat’ i vosstanavlivat’?”
Zhilishchnoe stroitel’stvo, no. 4 (1922), 15.
36. LOGAV, f. R-3736, op. 1, d. 16; f. R-3758, op. 1, d. 117.
37. U. Pope-Hennessy, Leningrad: The Closed and Forbidden City (London, 1938), 40.
38. LOGAV, f. R-2907, op. 1, d. 47, l. 2. It seems, however, that the municipalized
housing stock was not always managed with great efficiency: the OMKh produced a list
of seventy-two unused municipalized buildings in Slutsk (formerly Gatchina) as of
1 Oct. 1928 (ibid., ll. 71–72).
39. “Rasshirenie dachnogo stroitel’stva,” VM, 27 Apr. 1925, 2. It is unlikely, however, that many of the dachas built on this
scheme were used as summer houses (as opposed to year-round residences).
40. Reports on English garden cities and on other Western European models of deurbanization
appeared quite regularly in the press: see, e.g., “Goroda-sady,” Zhilishchnoe tovarishchestvo, no. 6 (1922), 29; V. Flerov, “Tipy rabochikh poselkov,” Zhilishchnoe delo, no. 4 (1924), 18–21; S. Chaplygin, “Poselok-sad,” ZhT-ZhS, no. 1 (1927), 9; S. Lebedev, “Letnii otdykh v Germanii,” ZhT-ZhS, no. 22 (1927), 16–17.
41. A good short account of the Sokol settlement is M. V. Nashchokina, “Poselok ‘Sokol’—gorod-sad
1920-kh godov,” Arkhitektura i stroitel’stvo Rossii, no. 12 (1994), 2–7. Sokol was a high-prestige project that espoused the “modern”
values of comfort and convenience rather than any socialist collectivism. By January
1924 the cooperative already had 250 members, drawn mainly from the intelligentsia.
42. In 1928 there was even a move to transfer part of the Leningrad dacha trust’s holdings
to cooperatives (LOGAV, f. R-2907, op. 1, d. 47, l. 49).
43. See “Perenosnaia dacha,” VM, 5 May 1925, 2, and “Razbornye dachi,” VM, 10 May 1927, 2.
44. V.S. Plotnikov, Deshevoe dachnoe stroitel’stvo (Moscow, 1930), chap. 2. The 1920s press, similarly, reported that dacha cooperatives
were slow to develop: see Andr., “O dache, pochkakh i kooperatsii,” VM, 15 May 1926, 2.
45. VM, 31 Mar. 1932, 2.
46. LOGAV, f. R-3758, op. 1, d. 132.
47. See “Appetity dachevladel’tsev,” VM, 2 Apr. 1926, 2.
48. The distinction between “dacha settlements” and “rural settlements” had real administrative
significance: inhabitants of dacha settlements were automatically granted Moscow registration
(propiska), while in rural settlements this right was extended only to temporary residents
(i.e., dachniki). See the resolution of the Moscow uezd ispolkom of 23 Apr. 1928,
published in Zhilishchnoe zakonodatel’stvo: Spravochnik postanovlenii i rasporiazhenii tsentral’noi
i mestnoi vlasti s prilozheniem sudebnoi praktiki za 1928 god (Moscow, 1929), 388–89.
49. Dachi i okrestnosti Moskvy: Putevoditel’ (Moscow, 1928).
50. For an account that argues that prerevolutionary habits were preserved “in a truncated
form” in 1920s Leningrad, see “‘ . . . I kazhdyi vecher za shlagbaumami . . .,’” interview
with E. E. Friken by Tat’iana Vol’skaia, Nevskoe vremia, 10 Aug. 1996. Similar is V. Pozdniakov, “Petrograd glazami rebenka,” Neva, no. 2 (1994), 285, 288. This view of the social composition of the dacha public
of the 1920s is also shared by N. B. Lebina in her Povsedtievnaia zhizn’ sovetskogo goroda, 251–52 (Lebina cites several other memoir sources).
51. V. Shefner, “Barkhatnyi put’: Letopis’ vpechatlenii,” Zvezda, no. 4 (1995), 26.
