The city constantly reminds us of what it could be, but what is not, writes urban anthropologist Abdoumaliq Simone. The evolution of Russian urban knowledge also includes many stories of unfinished transformations. Having survived the transition years, today a number of research groups, research centers, MA programs, experts and activists continue the work begun decades ago by Glazychev and Vysokovsky, Kogan and Meerovich, Rappoport and Lappo. This work is impressive in its persistence and diversity of reflection on urban growth and other processes. The intermediate result of this evolution is that the "city" - in its different modalities - is of continuing interest and is used to create ever new interdisciplinary formations and educational projects. I will address the colleagues' attempts to combine humanities (history) and social sciences (geography and sociology), creating educational programs and research projects with "city" at their intersection, in particular the MA programs in historic urban studies. The experience of such programs prompts us to address the problem of the high value of applied knowledge in the eyes of education organizers, grant seekers, and students alike. Drawing a number of parallels between the state of academic urbanism in the West and in Russia, I will show that in the new taxonomies of success and in the face of increasing competition, knowledge that promises pragmatic efficiency is highly valued, and players who promise to create it have a greater chance of continuing with meaningful (and funded) activities. I will consider what exactly knowledge about the city is applied to and what conflicts arise as the demands for making urban knowledge useful intensify.