THE post-Soviet period in Russia has been characterized by change, usually profound, sometimes tumultuous, and almost always quick. From Gorbachev to Yeltsin, from planned economy to subsistence economy in some regions, from Communist-party hegemony to civil wars, from perestroyka to privatizatsiya, the transition from the old order to the new has been both uncertain and, for most people, profoundly unsettling. The concept of privatization, defined as the selling of the assets of the former socialist state to individuals, labor collectives, and legally incorporated entities, is very much the emblem of the new era (Tsenovaya Politika 1991, 9-10). First associated as formal governmental policy with President Mikhail Gorbachev, privatization on a large scale is clearly part of President Boris Yeltsin's economic agenda. Although the legislative framework for privatization is not entirely in place, the process of dismantling the legacy of Soviet economic, political, and value systems is well under way throughout Russia. Revolutionary change is closely associated with cities in Russia. They have been more than simply stages on which important historical events have happened. Now, as in the past, the conditions of daily life and labor in cities have figured prominently in the process of political change. In 1990 Pravda (29 June 1990, 5) observed that a was occurring. What passed for a municipal revolution then, however, is scarcely commensurate with what is happening now. The clamoring for increased local autonomy, a recurrent issue in municipal government for more than thirty years, has been overtaken by a host of developments that impinge on urban governance. These include the collapse of central authority, the demise of the Soviet system and state, the rise of radical political reform movements, the legalization of multiparty elections, the attempt to foster a market economy, and an armed uprising and near civil war on the streets of Moscow. In all of these developments the city of Moscow has figured prominently, and not simply because it is the seat of central government. In terms of governance the Moscow City Council was among the first to be disbanded by Yeltsin as retribution for its passing a motion in support of the Supreme Soviet's opposition to being dissolved. In terms of privatization Moscow has been in the vanguard of change, if not controversy. Two aspects of the privatization process that bear directly on the lives of Moscow citizenry and on the geography of the city are the focus of this article. The first concerns the effect of privatization on the urban economy; the second, the conversion of housing stock from municipal or state to private ownership. Before beginning this discussion some salient features of the population affected by this process and of the legislative framework that has facilitated it are described. POPULATION In January 1993 the population living within the official boundaries of the city of Moscow was 8.881 million, apparently 122,000 fewer people than there were two years earlier (Moskva 1993, 6). Official statistics chart the precipitous drop in the crude rate of net natural increase, from +1.7 per 1,000 population in 1985 to -5.8 in 1992. Births tumbled from 13.8 per 1,000 population in 1985 to 7.8 in 1992. The demographic profile for Moscow has altered in consequence. For example, the proportion of the population on pension grew from 22.3 percent in 1990 to 24.3 percent in 1992 (Moskva 1993, 7, 69). A reduction in the official total population suggests that the turmoil of recent years has had profound consequences. Nevertheless, this very turmoil gives rise to questions about the accuracy of official population counts. A sizable population has always lived illegally in Moscow without residence permits. With the collapse of the Soviet system of government and authority effective administrative mechanisms for monitoring and regulating in-migration became fewer, and thus the number of illegal residents increased. …