Podcast Summary

Overview

Episode Title: Anna Zhelnina, "Private Life, Public Action: How Housing Politics Mobilized Citizens in Moscow"
Podcast: New Books Network
Date: December 5, 2025
Host: Dr. Miranda Melcher
Guest: Dr. Anna Zhelnina, Assistant Professor of Interdisciplinary Social Science, Utrecht University

This episode features a rich discussion with Dr. Anna Zhelnina about her book, Private Life, Public Action: How Housing Politics Mobilized Citizens in Moscow (Temple UP, 2025). The conversation explores the impact of the Moscow renovation plan, a massive urban renewal project, on local politics, civic mobilization, and everyday life in Russia’s capital. Dr. Zhelnina sheds light on how policies affecting seemingly private domains, like housing, can trigger public action and collective activism.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Origins of the Book and Moscow Renovation Plan

• Personal and Academic Background

  • Dr. Zhelnina describes her longstanding interest in housing politics and urban collective action. She began her PhD research at CUNY focusing on related issues and shifted her dissertation upon the announcement of the renovation plan in 2017. (02:23–05:21)

• Scale and Impact of the Plan

  • The Moscow renovation project proposed demolishing over 4,000 Soviet-era residential buildings, affecting more than a million residents.
  • The goal: "to get rid of those apartment buildings altogether than trying to fix them." (04:05)
  • Zhelnina notes the lack of contemporaneous research exploring the social consequences, spurring her to investigate. (04:49)

Factors Influencing Public Response

• Multiple Motivations
  • Socioeconomic status played a role: poorer residents often welcomed improved housing, while others valued stability or distrusted authorities. (06:08–10:32)
  • The meaning of good housing is culturally rooted and varies across families and individuals.
  • “People really connected their dignity as citizens to the quality of their housing." — Anna Zhelnina (08:28)
  • Trust in government and past experiences with state institutions strongly shaped opinions.

The Soviet Legacy and Moscow's Specificity

• Historical Context Matters
  • Soviet-era policies instilled the sense of housing as a right, not a commodity—a notion persisting in Moscow’s culture. The lack of private property under socialism still influences expectations. (11:20–15:25)
  • Not all neighborhoods were created equal; even under socialism, there was prestige and inequality in housing distribution.
  • "Despite this socialist idea of having a classless society... the example of Moscow very clearly shows you that this ideal was never really achieved.” — Anna Zhelnina (13:00)

Social Relations and Anonymity

• Neighborhood Life before Renovation

  • Early Soviet blocks fostered close neighborly relations, especially when residents helped build their own cooperative houses. Over time, urbanization led to increasing anonymity. (17:01–19:55)
  • “This kind of urban anonymity was really normalized. There was not much room for socializing, for collective action, because people just wanted to be left alone, really." — Anna Zhelnina (19:55)

• Activist Seeds and Political Mobilization

  • Previous redevelopment plans and national opposition movements (e.g., 2011–2012 protests) seeded activist networks that would be activated during the renovation struggle. (20:20–21:49)

The Framing and Logic of Renovation

• State’s Perspective
  • The term 'renovation' was misleading—a "macro approach” involving demolition, not improvement, of old buildings.
  • The project aimed to modernize Moscow, increase housing density, support construction companies, and reallocate valuable urban land. (22:05–25:36)
  • Authorities depicted affected neighborhoods as centers of crime and decay to justify demolition.
  • "The policy was framed as a gift to the city, to Muscovites, basically a free improvement..." — Anna Zhelnina (23:29)

Citizen Response and Factions

• Complex Decision-Making

  • Residents split into supporters and opponents, but many remained ambivalent for a long time.
  • Unique voting process: multiple votes allowed, with some residents changing their mind ("one person voted seven times"). (26:25–27:40)
  • "Speaking to other people is really important when we make our decisions.” — Anna Zhelnina (29:11)

• Activist Influence

  • Anti-renovation activists successfully persuaded undecided neighbors, sometimes changing voting outcomes in otherwise similar communities. (29:23–30:17)

Limits of Participation and Spaces of Mobilization

• Mock-Democratic Procedures

  • The city advertised an “unprecedentedly democratic process,” but discouraged collective discussion and real debate. Official meetings were tightly controlled and designed as one-way information delivery. (31:28–33:16)
  • "Inviting individuals to vote quietly... this collective action was really not invited and not expected at all.” — Anna Zhelnina (33:58)

• Grassroots Innovation

  • Activists repurposed official meetings to organize and connect, turning waiting rooms, staircases, and courtyards into agitation and organizing spaces. (36:04–39:15)
  • "Those spaces really came to life in a very different way from before... these spaces that were really ordinary transformed into political arenas." — Anna Zhelnina (38:12)
  • However, politicization of domestic spaces also brought stress, discomfort, and even feelings of insecurity for leading activists.

Broader Political Impacts

• Electoral and Institutional Change

  • Grassroots mobilization energized usually apathetic municipal elections, resulting in opposition victories and independent councils. Some activists from the renovation battle ran for, and won, local office. (41:01–45:11)
  • The experience, networks, and skills from housing activism were transferred to subsequent citywide political contests.

• Parallels Beyond Moscow

  • Dynamics observed in Moscow are echoed in other cities facing urban renewal, including in ostensibly democratic contexts where state–capital alliances may override local will. (45:38–47:55)
  • "Even in democratic context, you can see elements of this... suppression of the individual and collective will.” — Anna Zhelnina (46:54)

Fragility and Future of Civic Infrastructure

• Civic Gains and Setbacks
  • Civic infrastructure and activist capacity are vital yet fragile, especially against broader political currents.
  • The 2022 invasion of Ukraine had immediate and severe effects on Moscow’s civil society, quickly erasing activist networks developed during the renovation struggle. (48:34–49:56)
  • “Civic infrastructure is really important, but also very fragile and they need maintenance just like any other type of infrastructure.” — Anna Zhelnina (49:56)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Ambivalence and Activism:
  “One of my favorite examples is that... there was a person... they voted in this voting procedure seven times. They changed their mind multiple times.” — Anna Zhelnina (27:40)

• On the Depth of Housing Politics:
  “All of these kind of spheres of life, they have a lot of political potential. And I think it's really important to pay attention to that.” — Anna Zhelnina (48:34)

• On Politics Entering Everyday Life:
  "Everything became, everything was political... even if you took out your dog, you ended up just chatting to your neighbors for an hour because everyone ... wanted to speak with you about something." — Anna Zhelnina (39:15)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Book Inspiration & Context: 02:23–05:21
• Why People Reacted Differently: 06:08–10:32
• Soviet Housing Legacy: 11:20–15:25
• Neighborhood Social Dynamics: 17:01–21:49
• State Framing of Renovation: 22:05–26:09
• Citizen Factions & Activists: 26:25–31:04
• Policy Limits on Participation: 31:28–34:35
• Mobilizing Beyond Official Arenas: 36:04–40:37
• Political Ripple Effects: 41:01–45:11
• Relevance Beyond Moscow: 45:38–47:55
• Fragility of Activist Networks: 48:08–49:56
• What’s Next for Zhelnina: 50:16–51:24

Conclusion

Dr. Anna Zhelnina’s book offers a nuanced, deeply contextualized look at how housing policies can bring private and public lives into collision, producing new forms of politics—even under repressive or seemingly inhospitable conditions. The Moscow renovation plan, intended as a technical city improvement, ended up transforming the city’s political culture, activating everyday spaces and residents, and demonstrating both the promise and vulnerability of grassroots civic infrastructure.