The first meeting was attended by a member of the Presidium of the Expert and Advisory Council under the chief architect of Moscow, Alexei Klimenko, director of the Museum of Architecture. A.V. Shchuseva David Sarkisyan, Editor-in-Chief of Project Russia magazine Alexey Muratov, Vice President of the Moscow Union of Architects Nikolai Pavlov, Chairman of the Board of the Moscow Society for the Protection of Architectural Heritage Marina Khrustaleva, Vice President of the Union of Architects of Russia Yuri Sdoobnov and club experts - Natalie Golitsyna, Inna Solovieva, Larisa Golubkina, Daniil Dondurei. According to the organizers, this is a trial meeting, to which they have invited enough close people in order to outline the coordinates of the effective activities of the club. Based on the results of the meetings, it is planned to create an open letter that Muscovites and government officials should see.
The meeting began with a small introduction to the city-planning specifics of Moscow - once characteristic of the capital, low-rise buildings with its special landscape and crooked alleys, as a result of the return of capital functions in the 20th century, were saturated with an imperial spirit. “This dangerous tendency, according to Aleksey Klimenko, we continue to observe now. This is especially noticeable on the Old Arbat, where a gigantic new bank building breaks the existing street ensemble. " Among the opposite examples, Klimenko named Plotkin's building in the form of a catamaran house, which he always proudly shows to visiting foreigners.
Alexey Muratov called the main problem not the lack of high-quality modern architecture, but the attitude towards it and the heritage in general. He told how he came with a film crew from Channel 5 to Ostozhenka, one of the best collections of modern architecture in Moscow, and as soon as they started filming the buildings of Skuratov and Grigoryan, a security guard approached them and said that this house should not be filmed because here deputies live, and therefore shoot the next one. When they started filming another building, they approached them again and said that it should not be filmed either, “shoot the next one” and so on. “This is a clear example of how a city turns into a kind of private hotel, when you can do whatever you want with it,” says Muratov. In this case, architectural monuments are just a litmus test, because if earlier they belonged to everyone, now they do anything with them. The same is with the city - the point is not in modern architecture, but in the fact that while the city is "mine" I will do whatever I want in it."
Pavlov began a conversation in the town-planning mainstream. “It is necessary to isolate all highways from city life. We need a self-government system that will be responsible for supporting each specific territory. Because if the residents feel their territorial integrity, as it was before - the street of potters, tanners, etc., then no one will be able to demolish anything. All this is hampered by the underdevelopment of self-government. " Accordingly, the question arose - how to bring everyone together? And can the city club help with this?
The second thing that Pavlov noted is that "we need to develop a system of satellite cities, but not barracks cities, without any system that are formed around Moscow and in which oligarchs live, but well-thought-out urban elements." And third - “everyone says that St. Petersburg is a city of ensembles, Moscow also consists of ensembles, only they are much more complicated, because they have been taking shape for centuries. But many of the leaders do not pay attention to this and no one is concerned with the spatial system of the city.Therefore, another problem is the lack of professional staff in the field of urban planning”.
Understanding and accepting all the comments, the club members thought about what the result of this conversation could be, in other words, what to do. In response to Yu. Sdobnov's statement that “we constantly meet with the complete indifference of the authorities” Natalie Golitsyna shared her successful experience in writing letters, where the main thing is to write directly to the primary sources, at the same time write to the media and law enforcement agencies, and at the end put a note - “inform please, how long will you answer. " Such perseverance and methodology, according to her, has always received a positive result. The participants in the meeting immediately agreed that letters from the club would be written by Golitsyna, and Honored Artist of Russia Larisa Golubkina volunteered to refer them.
An example of her experience was given by art critic Inna Solovyova, who, together with the rest of the residents of her house, defended its demolition. According to her, in solving this problem “it is necessary to place pain points”, to outline the actions that we can actually do. One of the pain points, according to Golubkina, “is money, and it is still invincible because it is inside a person”.
Marina Khrustaleva in her speech advised the public not to give up and understand the power of their capabilities, even during the most painful situations. Among which she recalled the story of the artist Filatov in Molochny Lane, Znamenka, 9, who fought against Shilov, but lost, the story of B. Nikitskaya, 12, “where in front of Menshikov's estate they are building no news that under the guise of the main historical wing. And we know that there were people who were not strong enough to fight. But at the same time, we know people whose strength was enough and they saved the buildings. For example, two women, the owners of the Stanislavsky restaurant on Nikitskaya, still keep the house and the entire territory of the former estate, which was signed for demolition a long time ago. " She also recalled the story of the Patriarch's Ponds, where a primus was not built solely because of the people who went out into the street, and the story of the Melnikov house, which was taken under her wing by an elderly and completely unhealthy woman, the granddaughter of Konstantin Stepanovich and today's movement for Pushkin Square. "And we are actually fighting here with such formidable forces and such big money that we cannot even imagine."
The club members called the coming pre-election year a very good time to make adjustments. According to Marina Khrustaleva, the role of the public in issues of architecture this summer began to change dramatically. “If earlier we were a group of marginalized people, young people, now they start to invite us to various meetings and begin to say directly that next, populist year, we will have a queue to subscribe to our appeals … I don’t want that kind of money and political stories. - adds Khrustaleva, but this is the chance that we must be aware of and use in order to really change something."
The logical conclusion of the first meeting of the club was the decision to invite representatives of the authorities to the meetings, with whom the participants would discuss the possibility of solving urban problems.