For two centuries, Moscow has been the subject of close attention of scientists, primarily domestic historians.

Due to the uniqueness of the object under study as a complex, self-developing system, it is difficult to consider historical analogues or use a natural experiment. But it is possible to solve predictive tasks based on a systematic approach and an interdisciplinary understanding of the existing and predicted state of the metropolis. Based on modern information technologies, it is possible to identify key parameters that determine its development at the macro level, to make a forecast of the development of a megalopolis according to various, including alternative, scenarios, to identify hidden risks and hidden resources. Society must present dangers, its possibilities and the measure of responsibility it bears for what is happening in the system of which it is a part.

The concept of the development of the Moscow metropolis is determined by the idea of using the innovative potential of two interconnected systems — management and the creative potential of the city’s population. This principle is embedded in the primary state development programs of the city of Moscow. The basis of the document defining the strategy for the development of the Moscow metropolis in the future is the concept of sustainable (self-sustaining) development. Moscow is considered as a single, whole system in all its complexity, the development of which is determined by man and cognitive technologies. It becomes clear that a well-thought-out, consistent, scientifically based policy is being developed in all spheres of the region’s life.

A megacity like Moscow is described by a multitude of indicators that are not reducible to each other. When studying and forecasting the development of Moscow, it is important to take into account all the many disturbing internal and external factors, since any unaccounted parameter can significantly affect the development of the system and make the «simplified forecast» far from reality.

It is important to have a clear interaction of all the components of the subsystems and to provide the subsystems with a sufficiently wide opportunity to show initiative, creativity, and freedom in solving their professional tasks and problems. Only with such interaction, the system will not explode from internal tension, from the pressure of internal energy.

The Moscow metropolis is characterized by ultra-rapid development and steep ascents and turns in the economic and social spheres.

The uniqueness of the Moscow experience in the 21st century has shown how important methodological and conceptual aspects of the problem arose on the way to overcoming the powerful concentration of everything and everything in this city, as a legacy of the multi-century development of a centralized autocratic country and the 75-year development of the supercentalized Soviet Union. Without destroying one’s own past and building a new future, it is important to establish a reasonable continuity that can ensure the stability of the city’s development. Society and citizens need to adopt new rules of life and new taboos, change the scale of values and, at the same time, understand and feel responsible for the fate of their Fatherland and the capital and behave in accordance with this responsibility.

The giant city could not live only because of the inertia of the previous hundred years. At the turn of the XX–XXI centuries, it was necessary to solve the problems of «power and property», «power and man», «city and man», «Moscow and federal government», «Moscow and Russia» and others in a new way. A firm policy in the field of management, new rights to manage the capital and a special procedure for privatizing urban property were required.

The metropolitan metropolis belongs to those spatial figures, in relation to which it is important to develop scientific recommendations in order to analyze the mechanisms responsible for the emergence and functioning of a complex system. The main thing is: the presence of a strategic development goal, the development of tactics and the priority of the development of subsystems, staffing according to the historical moment, taking into account that in the process of joint action of parts of the system, the whole system has new properties that its parts do not possess.

The Moscow metropolis is the largest in Russia. The diversity of natural landscapes and the capital’s role over the centuries have endowed it with many, only its characteristic features, although it reflects the general trends in the development of agglomerations, is endowed with their common problems and acts as a guide in solving them.

The size of a city is a more capacious and complex characteristic than just the number of inhabitants. First of all, it is the variety of life opportunities that are provided to residents and different groups of the population in a given territory within a given community. The larger the city, the more acute the issues of settling and «embedding» in the established traditions of its own and foreign immigrants, the development of criminal processes, the territorial and economic expansion of the urban environment, the general «sprawl» of the territory, etc. may be for it. But it also has more jobs with a relatively higher salary level; on average, the population in such a city is more active (and aggressive); more differentiated demand has been brought up and the general standard of residents’ requests has been raised.

Administrative regulation of the development of European-type cities has become a real practice and a strict necessity.

In terms of population, Moscow significantly exceeds the average number of capitals of European countries, but is inferior to the largest capital cities of Asian countries (Tokyo, Beijing, Seoul). Moscow is home to about 6% of the Russian population and almost 8% of those employed in the economy. The material and technical base, intellectual potential and traditions accumulated in the territory of our capital make Moscow’s position quite attractive for living and stimulate the influx of people with a wide variety of aspirations and aspirations, which requires a sufficiently flexible regulation of migration processes.

The demographic situation of the largest cities, including Moscow, is characterized by low natural population growth due to a comparatively low birth rate and current trends in reducing mortality. A noticeable «aging» of the population, an increase in the number of divorces also reduce the birth rate, which leads to a decrease in the population. Migration is the most important source of human resources, which to some extent make up for the «failures» of natural population growth in developed countries. However, it, in turn, exacerbates the existing imbalances in the economic and demographic development of the largest cities.

One of the indicators of the megalopolis development process is the population density per square kilometer of the territory. In the largest capitals of Europe, the area of the capitals ranges from 105 square kilometers (Paris) to 1507 square kilometers (Rome) and 1549 square kilometers (London). It should be noted that in the issue of population size, an administrative rather than a socio-spatial approach prevails in determining the size of the territory. For example, Paris is comparable only to the central part of Moscow within its administrative borders.

The population density in Moscow – 8.7 thousand people per square kilometer – exceeds the average for European capitals by 2.6 times, and Asian capitals by 4 times. In general, it is on a par with New York, but significantly inferior to such cities as Cairo (31.78), Paris (20.52), Seoul (18.13), Jakarta (13.05).

Moscow’s share in the country’s gross product was 9.4%, and in this ratio it was noticeably inferior to the largest capitals of industrially developed countries in Europe and Asia. If we take into account the developing modern trends, we can say that the share of GNP created in Moscow has increased significantly in recent years. Currently, it is 1.6 times higher than the average in Russia. Several factors played a role in changing the location of the capital: a significant share of the financial segment of the country’s economy was centralized in the capital; a large number of central offices were located here; practically all the largest non-governmental enterprises and their subsidiaries; active support is provided to the real sector.

The level and quality of life of the population are characterized in the UN materials by the amount of annual income, caloric intake, the number and size of dwellings, the level of public services, as well as an indicator of the unemployment rate.

According to Major Cities of the World, annual income per inhabitant varied significantly across individual metropolitan cities. In the capitals of the European countries, the annual income per inhabitant was: US$ 6,988 (Lisbon), $21,121 (Madrid); $20,257 (Stockholm) and $31,503 (Vienna). In Rome and Paris, the average annual income per inhabitant was at the average (European) level, i.e. within 13 thousand dollars CIIIA. In Moscow, the annual income per inhabitant averaged $1,043.

An important indicator of the quality of life is the indicator of labor force use (in the materials under consideration, data are provided only on the unemployment rate in the capitals and largest cities of a number of countries). In the capitals of European countries, unemployment was at an average level of 10-13%, ranging from 5.6% (Stockholm) to 13.2% (Berlin). In Moscow, the unemployed accounted for 5% of the total economically active population, of which only 0.5% had official status in the employment service and 0.3% received unemployment benefits.

The housing conditions of the population of metropolitan cities and individual countries are characterized by the number of dwellings (apartments); their average size; the number of people living in one dwelling, and the average size of housing per person (data were not provided for all metropolitan cities).