Have you ever thought what would towns of Central Asia look like if the Soviet Union did not affect the culture of peoples living here? Is it possible that towns would be more comfortable and scenic than they are today?
The editorial office of CABAR.asia asked these and other questions to Rada Valentina kyzy, the founder of the urban initiative Peshcom in Kyrgyzstan by the example of Bishkek.
What is a decolonial urbanism and what is it based on?
The decolonial urbanism develops in the process of understanding of decolonial processes, in the post-Soviet time, in our case. The postcolonial discourse is little understood so far, and is not institutionalised in Kyrgyzstan. Before we speak about the decolonisation process, we need to realise our colonial past, which is a difficult and time-taking process, especially when our countries are partners and we even have friendly relationships with Russia, which takes all discussions regarding this theme painfully.
The decolonial discourse emerged comparatively recently in the post-Soviet space – nearly 15 years ago. Most often, it concerns soft sciences and is directly related to the language and culture.
In turn, urbanism is the process of urban development. Urban processes reflect everything what happens in culture, art, economy and other spheres of life of urban residents. If decolonisation issues are insufficiently discussed in public sphere, they will not be revealed in such practical sphere as urbanism.
In particular, the process of decolonisation in Kyrgyzstan is seen in the change of geographical names of cities, villages and streets. But in most cases, the same names are written in Russian instead of the Kyrgyz. Moreover, Soviet names of streets can be still found in the urban navigation. It might be the result of the lack of funding or because urban services are negligent in their work.
There are other signs of decolonial urbanism, e.g. national ornaments in architecture and decoration of the city, local toponyms in names of stores and points of sales, new monuments, reflecting the Kyrgyz culture. The fact the kurut and maksym have become the integral part of street food and image of Bishkek is also the reflection of decolonial processes in urbanism.
How have the USSR and the Russian empire influenced the urbanisation process in Central Asia? If not for this influence, how could urbanisation processes occur in the region today?
The architectural image of Bishkek and other towns of Kyrgyzstan was shaped back in the Soviet period. Frunze developed under trends common for all capitals of the union, which can be evidenced from the movie “The Irony of Fate”. Russian architects and specialists took part in the urban planning of the USSR, residential and cultural sites were built under the common pattern. Many large architectural structures in various CIS countries resemble each other, e.g., VDNKh, opera and ballet theatres, cultural centres, etc.
We will never know what our towns would look like without the Soviet influence. They might be more diverse or, possibly, more inclusive.
How much local specifics were taken into account in urban planning back in the Soviet period?
In terms of Bishkek, I know that back in the Soviet period much attention was paid to local climate during urban planning. Artificial irrigation canals were laid, many trees were planted – otherwise, the air in the capital would have been very dry.
See also: Colonialism As It Is. What about Russia and USSR?
What does the decolonial urbanism concept have to offer in exchange for the existing cities?
The urban communities have just started to discuss this topic. In my opinion, decolonial processes are individual for every country and depend on the political regime and democratisation of the society.
Is it important for the city to reflect the identity of the nation residing in it? How does it affect the people?
Of course, it is important. For the nation to feel the city as their home, it should reflect their values, culture, traditions, interests and needs. Therefore, participatory design is very popular now, when residents are involved in decision-making on urban space design.
Back in the Soviet period, ideology was imposed on people, all decisions came top-down and it developed helplessness in us. Now it is quite obvious on the example of yard areas, when people cannot reach a decision and improve their yard. Everyone expects someone from the “top” to resolve everything.