Village - what is it? The meaning of the word "village" What does the village mean.
Kavalerovo, -a, -om, in Kavalerovo (town, Primorsk. kr., RF) According to what rule is the neuter gender of a proper name declined in this case? It looks very much like a typo.
| Question #291846 | ||
Hello! How to write correctly (urban-type settlement in abbreviated form) - ZABAIKALSKY REGION, PGT. ZABAYKALSK or ZABAYKALSK REGION, town. ZABAYKALSK?
The answer of the reference service of the Russian language
In reference books, there are no recommendations on writing abbreviations if the entire text is typed in capital letters. Both options are possible - both lowercase and uppercase. Please note: abbreviations without dots and with three dots are normative - town And p.g.t.
| Question #268455 | ||
Good afternoonThe question of writing two cities has long been of interest. Ufa, the capital of Bashkiria, everyone knows this city. The adjective that answers the question "what" is Ufa. And in neighboring Udmurtia there is a city or urban settlement Uva. And the adjective answering exactly the same question is Uva. Why is the letter "m" in one case, and "n" in the other?
The answer of the reference service of the Russian language
Adjective Ufa unique. In other adjectives formed from similar geographical names, the consonant H is used: Aragvin, Tuvan, Uvin.
| Question #267497 | ||
Hello!
How is it correct to inflect the whole phrase "urban-type settlement Kaduy" (urban settlement Kaduy) in the text of the scientific style: in the town of Kaduy or in the town of Kaduy?
The answer of the reference service of the Russian language
Correctly decline: in the village of Kaduy.
| Question #261380 | ||
Is it necessary to put a full stop after the urban-type settlement (urban-type settlement). for example, town? Ivanovka
The answer of the reference service of the Russian language
Dot not needed: Ivanovka. An abbreviation is also possible: p.g.t.
| Question #252507 | ||
Which is correct: urban-type settlement (urban-type settlement) or urban-type settlement? rp (working settlement) or r.p.?
The answer of the reference service of the Russian language
Regulatory abbreviations town And p. g. t., r. P. And slave. settlement
| Question #243694 | ||
Hello!Please tell me how to write correctly: in the city of Vladivostok or in the city of Vladivostok? and also: in Vladivostok or in Vladivostok? Besides: in the village of Mikhailovka or in the village of Mikhailovka? In the village of Chkalovskoye or in the village of Chkalovsky?
In other words, is there a single rule about whether the name of a settlement is inflected, and if there is no general rule, then how to write in each specific case? Does the correct spelling depend on the gender of a proper name? Does the norm change if instead of the words "city", "village", "urban-type settlement", etc., we write abbreviations - city, village, town?
The answer of the reference service of the Russian language
| Question #226468 | ||
Good afternoon How to abbreviate "urban-type settlement" - p.g.t. or town?
The answer of the reference service of the Russian language
Both options are correct.
A village is a small settlement on the territory of Russia and the CIS countries. Settlements can be of different types, for example, summer cottages, cottages, resorts, workers, etc. A settlement is one of the types of rural settlements.
Types of rural settlements
Rural settlement means any settlement located outside the city. In different countries, there are different criteria for urban and rural areas, of which the population size is most often used. Also a frequent criterion is the nature of the activities of people living in the settlement. A characteristic feature of any rural settlements is the low level of development of the service sector, infrastructure support, the lack of modern benefits of civilization, the small population and the area of the settlement and the predominance of one-story or two-story buildings.
Functions of rural settlements
And rural settlements are also quite different. For rural settlements, the most common type of activity is agriculture, and for cities - industry, construction and services. In other cases, the functions of rural settlements are quite specific and focused on one particular type of activity. For example, it can be mining, maintaining a wildlife sanctuary or a national park. Some are focused exclusively on forestry, fishing or hunting, or created to serve the recreation of the population.
Features of rural settlements: differences between the village and the city
Characteristic features of towns and villages are as follows:
- insufficient transport accessibility;
- insufficient level of medical care;
- lower standard of living of the population;
- often there is a dependence on natural conditions (weather, bioecological, etc.);
- differ in the presence of residents of their own;
- lower building density than in cities;
- low prevalence of artificial surfaces (asphalt, concrete, tiles, etc.);
- as a rule, the best ecological situation;
- a more relaxed lifestyle;
- the streets of the village are less well-maintained and are often inhabited by domestic animals;
- a smaller number of chronic and catarrhal diseases in people (with the exception of some working settlements and places with unfavorable ecology).
Settlement formation
A village is a locality located outside a city. Sometimes the village is called some areas of cities located in the outskirts of the city and stand out from the general urban development. Such areas in the past were separate settlements that became part of the city due to consolidation and merging with it. Cities consisting of more or less separate parts (for example, mining) are divided precisely into villages, and not into microdistricts. At the same time, the central region is the only zone called the city itself.
Some of the villages are completely absorbed by cities and become microdistricts. However, for some time they still retain some of their inherent individuality. In particular, the specific (and usually low-rise) nature of the development, the way of life, the connections between people, the external semi-rural appearance.
At the same time, the reverse process is also observed - the formation of new settlements. Often these are dacha cooperatives, which can subsequently turn into full-fledged settlements with permanent residence of people. New industrial facilities being built far from cities can also give rise to new settlements. This process was especially active in the USSR, which was associated with the rapid development of industry.
Some of the settlements are formed due to the compact resettlement of refugees and migrants. At present, the cottage settlement is becoming more and more widespread. Mostly wealthy citizens live there, and the level of well-being is higher than in other rural settlements. The cottage village can be considered the most modern type of rural settlements.
Features of the villages
At the legislative level, settlements are not officially fixed. Such settlements can be of urban and rural types. The population is usually no more than 10,000 people. Typically, settlements are relatively young formations associated with cities and other large settlements. Many of them originated during the Soviet Union. More ancient, historically established settlements are villages.
Differences between a village and a village
Both the village and the settlement are rural settlements. The main difference between them concerns the way of life, history, occupation and ways of organizing the economy.
A village is a relatively self-sufficient settlement, the inhabitants of which are mainly engaged in agriculture and have a personal (subsidiary) household. Villages have a way of life that is more characteristic of past centuries than of the present. They are most common in Ukraine, Belarus, in the central regions of Russia and some other regions. In the south of the European territory of Russia, the traditional way of life is typical for auls, villages, farms.
Villages and settlements similar to them have a longer history than settlements, and, as a rule, are inhabited by the indigenous (local) population. The settlements, as a rule, have a recent origin, and they may consist of a visiting population. The way of life of settlements directly depends on the type of activity of people, which can have an agricultural, industrial, recreational, forestry orientation.
Geographically, settlements, like villages, are usually located along river valleys, shores of lakes and reservoirs. However, there is no such clear attachment to the villages. Water in the villages can come from artesian wells or be brought from outside. Worker settlements can be built near man-made objects, which determine the priority of their location.
Thus, a settlement is not really a village, although there may not be sharp distinctions between them.
I wondered about, it seems, Yantarny urban settlement in the Kaliningrad region - after all village or urban? There seems to be no contradiction, but what is curious here is that the settlements of this category are simultaneously called settlements and are the centers of "urban districts" or "urban settlements". If you at least open an article on Wikipedia about, for example, the village of Idritsa in the Pskov region (in the photo below, by the way, it is he), then you can read that, being a village, he "is the center of the municipality, the urban settlement" Idritsa "".
Of course, there are many types of settlements. It is enough that a village, a village and a settlement are different things. However, even from the point of view of legislation, they are in the same category (rural settlements), and there are only three of these categories. Urban settlements legally, on the one hand, refer to urban settlements ("urban type"), and their residents, for example, do not have the benefits due to villagers, and on the other hand, remain an "intermediate link". An interesting question arises: how to call PGT in everyday life? For example, when you write a report on his visit. With villages / villages and cities, everything is clear - there is one short word that fits perfectly into the text or into colloquial speech. But texts with a rather awkward three-word term in the spirit of "I walked around this picturesque urban-type settlement" already complicate perception somewhat. Replacing it with the abbreviation "PGT" does not solve the problem either. Actually, the question is not even this, but what is PGT, it is village or still town?
And it seems that the answer to this question in each case is individual, and depends on how the locals think. As I happened to be convinced by experience, the inhabitants of some urban-type settlements say “my village” about their settlement, while others say “my town”. The motives for this may be different, but as a rule, it is history (due to what it arose, whether it had the status of a city or village in the past) or size (population). If I haven’t come across such references to a particular urban-type settlement from its inhabitants, then I try to determine it myself, intuitively (whether the atmosphere of a small town or a village is felt in the settlement) and based on history and size. In most cases, I still call urban-type settlements villages (since the criteria are suitable), but there is a small percentage of them that feel more like small towns. These are, firstly, those that were cities in the past (including, and even in most cases, before the revolution), and secondly, those whose population exceeds the mark of approximately 7-8 thousand people (at the same time These two criteria are independent of each other).
The list of those urban-type settlements I visited that I remember as small towns is rather small. Perhaps these are: on the basis of having the status of a city in the past - Kresttsy and Demyansk in the Novgorod region, Berezovo in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, Kolyvan in the Novosibirsk region; on the basis of a fairly high population - Roschino and Sovetsky in the Leningrad region (both in the Vyborg district, 14 thousand and 7 thousand inhabitants, respectively), Plesetsk in the Arkhangelsk region (10 thousand), Maksatikha in Tverskaya (8 thousand). There may be individual exceptions to this rule - for example, Loknya in the Pskov region seemed to me more like a small city than a village, apparently due to the large number of apartment buildings, as well as a trolleybus, despite the fact that only 3 people live there with a half thousand people (however, such a discrepancy is probably due to the fact that at the time of the collapse of the USSR there were six thousand - Loknya is one of the record holders for population decline in the Pskov region). Another interesting example is Palekh in the Ivanovo region, which generally seems to be rather a large village (however, historically it was just a village); I remember Lubytino in the Novgorod region in a similar way. This is probably not a complete list, and some other examples may come to my mind later. And in absentia (that is, from those where I have not yet been) to the list of "PGT-cities" on the basis of urban status in the past, I would include Odoev in the Tula region and Lalsk in the Kirov region (it is likely that some examples will also come to the head).
Of course, at the same time, one should not forget that the official status of a settlement is not assigned to it forever, and can be changed at any time. In this regard, over the past quarter century, a number of urban-type settlements (for some reason, a particularly high percentage of those in Karelia) have lost this status, becoming simply rural settlements. There are objective reasons for this, and basically it is depopulation.
In general, since the above is about my personal perception, then everything that has been said is my subjective assessment, and regarding, for example, Maksatikha or Lalsk, someone may not agree with me. However, examples of the use of the word "city" or "town" in relation to urban-type settlements are still sometimes found. And the question village or urban?” to some extent, even cultural.
June 12th, 2015 04:13 am
The 1989 census recorded the “finest hour” of urban-type settlements in Russia, more than 13.5 million people (13,585,225 people) lived in 2,193 settlements. At the time of the 1979 census, the number of settlements was slightly less - 2043, and the population in them was less than 12.1 million people.
After 1989, the number of urban-type settlements (urban-type settlements) began to decrease and their population decreased. Consider the data 1989 census, 2002 census, 2010 census and population data by municipalities as of 01/01/2014 by settlements.
Table 1. Change in the number and size of the population of urban-type settlements in Russia over 25 years (1989 - 2014)
According to: |
Number of towns, PC |
Population, people. |
Change in the population of the urban-type settlement for the period, pers. |
Duration of the period (years) |
Average annual change in population for the period, people |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Census, January 1989 | 2 193 | 13 585 225 | |||
| Census, October 2002 | 1 842 | 10 512 572 | -3 072 653 | 14 | -219 475 |
| Census, October 2010 | 1 286 | 7 786 965 | -2 725 607 | 8 | -340 701 |
| 1 204 | 7 337 484 | -449 481 | 3 | -149 827 |
The number of settlements for 25 years has decreased by 45%, the population in them by 46%. The average population of the village has slightly decreased (see Table 2).
In the previous post on the topic of urban-type settlements, some of the statistical data for such settlements has already been considered. It should be recalled that in the days of the USSR there were criteria for the number of urban settlements (at least 3 thousand people) and cities (at least 12 thousand people). Further in the table, the number of settlements is grouped by population precisely in accordance with this criterion - is it possible to attribute a settlement in terms of population to a “city” (at least 12 thousand people), to a “village” (less than 3 thousand people) or to a “standard settlement” (less than 12,000 and not less than 3,000 people). The change in the average population of settlements is also given.
Table 2. Grouping of the population of the urban-type settlement by size, change over the period 1989-2014
According to data at the moment: |
Total |
With a population of 12 thousand people. and more (“city”) |
With a population of 3 thousand people. and more, but less than 12 thousand people. (“standard village”) |
With a population of less than 3 thousand people. (“village”), including settlements without a population |
Share of urban-type settlements of the “standard settlement” type in the total number of urban-type settlements, % |
On average, the population of one village, pers. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Censuses, January 1989 | 2 193 | 233 | 1 375 | 586 | 62,7 % | 6 195 |
| October 2002 censuses | 1 842 | 165 | 1 082 | 595 | 58,7 % | 5 707 |
| October 2010 censuses | 1 286 | 123 | 816 | 347 | 63,5 % | 6 055 |
| As of 01.01.2014, population estimate, Rosstat | 1 204 | 113 | 775 | 316 | 64,4 % | 6 094 |
Table 2 shows that the proportion of “standard settlements”, i.e. settlements with a population in the range from 3 to 12 thousand people, which cannot be called a village and it is too early to attribute them to cities, varies slightly in different periods, but does not exceed 2/3 of the total number of settlements. Thus, if we exclude large settlements (almost “cities”) and small ones (almost “villages”), then there are not so many “standard settlements”. As of January 1, 2014, the population of “standard settlements” was 4,877,987 people (66.5% of the total population of urban-type settlements). The number of “standard settlements” has decreased by exactly 600 over 25 years (by 44%).
Why were urban-type settlements excluded from this category? The main reason for the exclusion of a settlement from the urban settlement category is its transfer to a rural settlement; for the 25-year period under consideration, 823 settlements left the settlement for this reason. In addition, the settlements were transformed “with an increase in rank” into separate cities (53 new cities were formed from the urban-type settlements), joined the cities or other urban-type settlements, 167 settlements “dissolved” in them, and were also abolished due to the outflow of the population to zero or resettlement of the population (33 villages). Interesting cases are also noted: the settlement was first transformed into a village, and then included in the city (the village of Orgtrud, Vladimir Region); part of the village is included in the city, part is transformed into a village (village Yakurim, Irkutsk region); the village of Sokolskoye was transferred from the Ivanovo region to the Nizhny Novgorod region. The reasons were analyzed according to the site gks.ru and (for the period from 2002 to 2010) according to the Wikipedia article "Former urban-type settlements in Russia".
Also, between the 1989 and 2010 censuses, 89 new urban-type settlements were formed. For 2011-2013 no new settlements appeared.
Of the 2193 settlements (as of the date of the 1989 census), 1078 (823 + 53 + 167 + 33 + 2 settlements of difficult fate) left the composition of the settlements, 89 new settlements were added, and the settlement of Sokolskoye dropped out of one region and was added to another. In total, as of January 1, 2014, 1204 villages remained.
The decrease in the total population of urban-type settlements occurred mainly due to the exclusion of settlements from the category of urban-type settlements. The second factor is the reduction in the population of urban-type settlements, which remained in this category of settlements. The assessment of these two factors was carried out as follows: three time intervals were considered separately (1989-2002, 2002-2010, 2010-2014), if in the considered interval a separate settlement dropped out of the urban-type settlement category, then its population as of the date of the last census (1989, 2002, 2010, respectively) was taken into account in the calculation as a decrease due to the first factor. The number of new settlements formed during the period under review at the end of the period was also taken into account as the first factor with a plus sign. If the settlement did not leave the urban-type settlement for the considered time interval, then the decrease in its population in this time interval was taken into account as a decrease in the population due to the second factor (in the case of an increase in the population, the amount was taken into account with a plus sign).
Table 3. Factors of population decline in urban-type settlements.
During the period: |
Change in the population due to the retirement of urban settlements (formation of new ones), people |
Change in the population due to a decrease in the population in the urban-type settlement, pers. |
Average population in the outgoing settlements, pers. |
Including the average population in the leaving settlements transferred to rural settlements, persons. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1989 - 2002 | -2 135 499 | -937 154 | 5 886 | 4 085 |
| 2002 - 2010 | -2 397 284 | -328 323 | 4 432 | 3 324 |
| 2010 - 2014 | -329 435 | -120 046 | 4 018 | 3 602 |
| Total: | -4 862 218 | - 1 385 523 | 4 965 | 3 647 |
Due to the first factor, the population decreased by 78%, due to the second factor - by 22%.
The 53 urban-type settlements that were converted to cities had a population of 960,998 as of the census date before conversion (an average of 18,132 per settlement). For the period 1989-2002. there were 42 conversions of urban settlements into cities, for the period 2002-2010. - 11 transformations. The high average number of leaving settlements in the period 1989-2002 is associated with the departure of large settlements from the category of urban settlements and their transfer to the category of cities.
The total population of 823 urban-type settlements, which were transformed into rural settlements over 25 years, amounted to just over 3 million people on the census date before the transformation. At the same time, the number of rural population during this period decreased from 38.97 million people to 37.12 million people (by 4.8%). If we take into account the 3 million population of urban-type settlements, which was added to the rural population, the decline in the rural population was 12.5%.
In the future, the population of urban-type settlements will continue to decrease. The rate of decline depends on a number of poorly predictable events - the withdrawal of specific settlements from the category of urban-type settlements. In favor of the assumption that a fairly intensive withdrawal of all new settlements from the category of urban settlements will be carried out, the following observations speak:
- The average population decline in the remaining settlements for the last period under review (2010-2014) was about 0.5% per year, but this decline is unevenly distributed, in 307 settlements the population decline is 6 percent or more over 3 years (this is a decrease of 30% of the initial number for 15 years, while maintaining the decline); small settlements decrease on average faster than larger ones; in general, as of January 1, 2014, 279 settlements increased their population compared to the 2010 census; rapidly losing population and small settlements are more likely to leave the category of urban-type settlements;
- As of January 1, 2014, there were 5 urban settlements in Russia without a population, and several settlements are close to this state, they will have to be withdrawn from the urban settlement either while they have a population, or when it already reaches zero;
- If large settlements, on average, they more often have a growing population, are transformed into cities (or into villages, which also sometimes happens), then only a few cases of such transformations - and the total population of the village will decrease significantly; as of 01.01.2014 in 113 urban-type settlements with a population of at least 12,000 people, i.e. in terms of the number of those fulfilling the criteria for the city, 26% of the total population of the town lives; if we exclude growing settlements from the category of urban settlements, then the relative decline of the remaining settlements will increase;
- Urban-type settlements are not found in every region of Russia; as of January 1, 2014, they are available only in 71 regions (out of 85); in most regions where there are currently no urban-type settlements, these settlements were in 1989, then they were completely withdrawn from the category of urban-type settlements (Lipetsk region, Orenburg region, the Republic of Kalmykia, the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria, etc.); in Crimea, all urban-type settlements were transferred to rural settlements by law of 06/06/2014 (all statistical data given in the post are without Crimea and Sevastopol); several regions left only a small part of the settlements, the rest of the settlements were removed from the category of urban settlements in 25 years (for example, the Republic of Bashkortostan, the Republic of Karelia, the Vladimir Region); at any time, regions with urban-type settlements can choose the scenario of a significant reduction in the number of settlements on their territory or the complete withdrawal of all settlements from the category of urban-type settlements; this is especially true for regions with a rapidly decreasing population of urban-type settlements (details by region and other statistics on urban-type settlements can be found in the previous post).
The combination of all these factors will lead to a gradual reduction in the number and size of the population of urban-type settlements. If the rate of decline that has developed in recent years is maintained, in 3-4 years the number of settlements and their population may be less than half of those indicators that were in 1989.
The appearance on the world map of new settlements and urban-type settlements is closely connected with the problem of urban formation. The village is considered the lowest stage of this process. As the village expands, it becomes a township. The next step is the village. Several villages form an urban-type settlement among themselves, which, after the construction of certain objects, receives the status of a city.
A village is a small community of people. It is larger than a village, but its main difference from a village is that more people live there and it is located next to a city or a larger settlement. Settlements occupy small areas around larger formations.
The main difference between a village and a village is the presence of a school or other social infrastructure. In the village, none of this can be. The village, especially if it is far from the city, always has a kindergarten, a clinic and a school.
The next type of locality after the village is the village. The village has its own church. In the village it may not be, but in the village it is always there. Villages can appear anywhere, not necessarily near a large agglomeration, a village is usually located near some center.
Usually, as the village becomes larger, it immediately becomes a village, passing by the status of a village. A village is a settlement associated with a city. A typical village is Pavlovskaya Sloboda near Nakhabino, or Tushinsky village in the same place. Such settlements can be formed as a place to live for workers from a manufactory located nearby in a city or as a place of residence for personnel serving road or railway junctions.
An urban-type settlement is such a large formation that it practically does not differ from a city. For example, in the city of Uglich, which was at one time a princely center, now 8 thousand people live, and in an urban-type settlement Nakhabino 45 thousand people live. The population of an urban-type settlement is 5.5 times larger than that of an ancient city.
An urban-type settlement differs from a city in that there are few places for recreation and entertainment. There are no hospitals, theaters, museums, scientific institutions, etc. If we compare a village and an urban-type settlement, then an urban-type settlement must have a polyclinic, several schools, more than a dozen streets, a railway station, a nightclub, parks and other leisure places. A village may not have all this, it may not even have a church, because this is a village, not a village. An urban-type settlement usually has several churches.
Urban-type settlements appeared in the 19th century, when ordinary settlements began to expand. This happened so quickly that no one began to rename them into villages, but they did not dare to give the status of a city either. A settlement rarely has a population of more than 20 thousand people, and, as a rule, there are 1-2 thousand. An urban-type settlement may have 200 thousand, and not receive city status, although most often there are 15-20 thousand. towns do not receive because the city is obliged to include all the basic places necessary for a person to live, including hospitals and theaters. An urban-type settlement can be very densely built up, but there is a problem with the social infrastructure.
There is no need to talk about an ordinary village at all. Not every village has a high school. For example, in the Tushinsky village you can only study up to the 9th grade, and if you go to the 10th grade, you will have to go to study at a school located nearby in the urban-type settlement of Nakhabino. This example clearly shows the differences.
An urban-type settlement is usually so large that at least 3-4 highways lie in it. For example, 4 major roads pass through Nakhabino. There is always 1, maximum two roads leading to the village. An urban-type settlement occupies 5-10 times more territory, especially when it is spread out in several clusters, between which there is a forest and a park zone.
The main differences between a village and an urban-type settlement
There are few places for entertainment in the village. Usually there is a disco, a library, a couple of leisure places at the discretion of the residents. In an urban-type settlement there is almost everything like in a city, except for very urban types of recreation, such as a circus.
Parks, attractions, sports bars, bookmakers, hardware stores are all attributes of an urban-type settlement. In the village, this is usually not the case. There may be exceptions, but for one or two types of infrastructure. The urban village has it all.
Another difference number of storeys of buildings. In the villages there are rarely five-story houses, somewhere there are nine-story buildings. In urban-type settlements, you can even see thirty-story houses, as in large cities. Now they do not save on the number of storeys, unlike social infrastructure. Although, in Nakhabino, the tallest houses are limited to the 17th floor, in the nearby Tushino village there are no houses higher than five floors.
They differ in management. In an urban-type settlement, there is a head of the village, who manages it as a mayor, and has its own local administration, which is subordinate to the head of a larger entity. There is no such administration in the village, and it reports directly to the representative of a larger entity.
The urban-type settlement has police, fire and gas service departments. Many villages also have them, but this is not a mandatory attribute of the village. There are villages where only district police officers work, but there is no police building, there are villages without fire protection, not to mention gas. Although, recently the state has been struggling with this, and such cases are not common.
The main difference between an urban-type settlement and a settlement is its size. And the size entails everything else. For a larger number of residents of an urban-type settlement, more organizations are needed that would serve their leisure. A smaller number of residents are not interested in building buildings where people will not go, so in the villages something usually appears that is interesting to the residents of this or that formation.
