It is not by chance that the name of this festival includes the concept of a city, not a monument - the idea of the organizers is to protect from destruction not only buildings, but historically formed areas, environment and panoramas - which is much more complicated.
The conversation about heritage has somehow revived recently - recall the recent government meeting on legislation in the field of preservation of monuments. On the eve of Zodchestvo, a conference dedicated to the theme of the historic city was opened in the House of Architects, however, it seems that dialogues within the profession on this topic are going on by themselves, while the dialogue with the authorities, as Alexander Kudryavtsev noted, is being built on the level of “you interfere with work. Professionals are sometimes forced to obtain information about construction carried out in the security zone, as they say, “from under the floor”.
The statistics so far are extremely disappointing. President of the Institute for the Reconstruction of Historic Cities Vitaly Lepsky cited figures from the state budget in his report - it turns out that about 500 million are allocated annually for the restoration of monuments, which, according to him, is enough to restore only 400 out of 25 thousand monuments in the country. Of the buildings that are currently under protection, 60% are on the verge of emergency. During the years of Soviet power and the next decade, the country lost up to 50% of churches and up to 90% of noble estates! Today we are told that over the past year Moscow has not lost a single monument - and statistics say the opposite - every day there is one in the country, but it dies, and in the capital, as you know, the processes are proceeding at an accelerated pace. Speaking about the preservation of urban ensembles, in 2007 only 8 historical panoramas were accepted for protection. And despite the fact that entire historical quarters of Kazan have been bulldozed, Rostov Veliky and dozens of other cities are quietly collapsing from desolation. Meanwhile, in Russia there are cities such as Torzhok, Suzdal, Veliky Ustyug, which need protection as a whole, like Rome, Florence, Prague …. Where can I find funds for their restoration?
Patronage hardly saves the situation. So far, according to the ratings of international magazines, Russian business has the lowest social responsibility in comparison with Western business. We need a program that can attract long-term private sector investment in this area. In this sense, we, of course, should learn from the United States, where the so-called trust form of managing monuments has been operating for 30 years - today it has been tested only in Torzhok. According to one of the authors of this program, Donavan Ripkema, who gave a lecture at Zodchestvo, its essence is in the use of historical buildings for economic purposes.
As Donavan Ripkema explained, this program consists of 4 main points. First of all, the promotion of the brand or the image of the city itself works to revitalize the historical centers, in order to lure there, first of all, buyers, and after them also tenants. Secondly, a team of process organizers - architects, bankers, managers, who work absolutely free of charge. Ripkema proudly attributes this to the remarkable American tradition of volunteers. Third, a new model of the economy of the centers is being built that supports the interests of investors. And finally, historical buildings are being renovated. Typically, for Americans, this is not an end in itself, but only a means for economic revitalization of the regions.
According to Donavan Ripkema, Americans do not know such a careful approach to restoration with the preservation of later extensions, which is popular among professionals in Russia. In his opinion, buildings should be rid of late extensions, and then - boldly adapt to modern needs, hang with advertisements, make showcases, etc. Donavan Ripkema: “We do not have long discussions about what is an authentic look, we do not care about the theory of conservation buildings are simply "good restoration" standards that we adhere to. We have no doubts that buildings need to be adapted to modern functions."
In general, all of the above makes you wonder if this program is actually economic, and not a way to preserve heritage? For Donavan Ripkema, the main thing is that it gives good results - for every dollar invested out of the 1.5 billion that was invested in it over 25 years, as a result, they received 23 and almost 200 thousand restored buildings. The program, obviously, was created under American conditions, but whether it will work elsewhere, Ripkema, according to him, does not care. Is this compromise path suitable for Russia - not strict restoration, but also not final destruction, not turning buildings into museums, but adaptation to modern functions? Yuri Gnedovsky, Alexander Kudryavtsev have a positive view of the experience of the Americans.
However, literally trying on Ripkema's program to our conditions, we face some difficulties. Firstly, there are hardly such numbers of volunteers, and secondly, a law is needed to conduct a dialogue with business in Russia, otherwise the “renovation” of the building may end in its disappearance. By now, as is known, the moratorium on the privatization of monuments has been canceled according to the experience of the West, but restrictions on the new owner, apparently, are still not in effect. Moreover, the State Property Committee, as Vitaly Lepsky noted, when selling monuments to the right and to the left, does not have local specialists to monitor and assess their condition, while volunteer organizations are engaged in this, such as the MAPS, "Moscow which does not exist," etc. however, the dialogue with the authorities also fails. This is what the scandalously famous film by Andrey Loshak "Now is the office here" about. It was shown before the start of the discussion organized by C: SA in continuation of the conversation started at the conference.
The discussion was attended by Ilya Lezhava, Alexander Skokan, Alexey Klimenko, Alexander Kudryavtsev, Boris Levyant, Marina Khrustaleva, Rustam Rakhmatullin, Elena Grigorieva, Jose Asebillo, and Alessandro De Magistris. The first question that the host of the round table, Irina Korobyina, addressed the participants in the discussion - "Is it possible to reconcile the interests of the old and the new?" - sounded somehow rhetorical. And nevertheless, the audience was divided into supporters of the principled "yes" and "no". According to Rustam Rakhmatullin, “old and new are divorced by laws…. The new must develop in a field not described by the law on heritage,”Rakhmatullin noted, it is also important here to trust the prosecutor so that the law is implemented. Alexander Skokan, on the contrary, believes that the question is only "in the quantities and rates of renewal", the process itself cannot be stopped. In general, in Russian culture, Skokan believes, the word "remake" has never had a negative meaning. Ilya Lezhava was also close to this opinion, for whom the question is who and how regulates the process of city renewal. Alexander Kudryavtsev recalled the professional responsibility of architects and those who knowingly build in violation of the law. And Alexey Klimenko was convinced that since the question of the coexistence of the old and the new has been successfully resolved in many countries, then in Russia it can be dealt with.
Speaking of positive experience, one of the guests of the festival was the Czech architect Oleg Haman, who delivered a short and instructive lecture on how to combine the visual integrity of a historic city with modern high-rise buildings. It is known that the central part of Prague is protected by UNESCO as a cultural and historical reserve, and nevertheless, even Prague is not immune from the appearance of high-rises. Finding out where to place these new dominants most painlessly for panoramas, the architects divided Prague into areas according to volumetric and spatial characteristics, where they tried to find average heights. Then the skyscrapers were divided into 4 groups - 50, 80, 100, 120-150 m each, and they began to explore the panoramas of the city in these areas with 33 viewpoints, "sticking" different types of skyscrapers into them alternately. After listening to Oleg Haman, Yuri Gnedovsky expressed hope that skyscrapers would never appear in Prague, but Haman himself is sure that this is a matter of time.
Modern architecture follows economic considerations and it is clear that the old city is inconvenient for many. On the other hand, Donavan Ripkema has convincingly shown how a historic center can develop a city's economy, not just drain resources. When asked by Irina Korobyina whether such a practice is possible in Russia, Rustam Rakhmatullin answered negatively. In his opinion, Moscow will never become a center of international tourism, but for domestic tourism it is necessary to preserve what we have. Presenting the facts, he listed several regular losses, such as the Shakhovskys' estate, which is now being reconstructed for the "Helikon-Opera" theater, as a result of which from the urban space, i.e. whole ensembles are excluded from the excursion program, and soon there will be nothing to watch in Moscow at all. Alexey Klimenko recalled that the Moscow authorities have exactly the opposite ideas - to create a city tourist ring. Drawing on his experience in the reconstruction of Barcelona, Jose Acebillo emphasized that for absolutely all cities, the economy is a central issue in design. However, the problem of preserving historical centers is not limited to tourism - this, in his opinion, is possible in the USA or Asia, but unacceptable for Europe and Russia.
By the end of the discussion, Irina Korobyina suggested turning from words to deeds and expressing opinions on the priority measures to get out of the situation with the legacy in our country. As Alexander Kudryavtsev noted, “everything that is happening now is being done as an exception, in a struggle. The state does not give us any signs of what it is going to do with the gigantic heritage of monuments. " Kudryavtsev urged to refer to the experience of American trusts. “Business should not be demonized here,” he said. “They just need to be shown what to do. The system of managing the heritage as a material resource is the way out."
According to Mikhail Khazanov, the work of an architect is hindered by regulations - they should be given all at once, Khazanov believes; instead, regulations turn into obstacles, and with them "the collective responsibility of the councils." Boris Levyant proposed to declare a moratorium on some of the monuments for 15 years. In his opinion, it makes no sense to restore the monuments with the existing low quality of work. Referring to the traditions of Italy, Alessandro De Magistris noted that much depends on the culture of the architect himself. Continuing this thought, Alexander Kudryavtsev proposed boycotting dubious contests that violate the rules by the very conditions as a priority measure, both at the level of participation in the jury and the contestants. Alexander Skokan pointed out the problems in the education of architects, where courage and innovation have been encouraged for a long time - where then will the conservatism due to the legacy come from? Namely, our culture lacks conservatism, Rustam Rakhmatullin believes. Returning to the facts, he recalled how quite recently they began to dismantle the famous Filippovskaya bakery, and that in the city there was no longer a single pharmacy or hairdresser that existed in this place before the revolution. The city authorities, according to Rakhmatullin, represent the ideology of the 1990s, while the 21st century is already in the yard….
While venerable professionals discussed the problem at the theoretical level, young people responded to it with specific projects. Within the framework of the festival, competitions of student works were held for the best concept and sketch-idea, developing the theme of embedding modern architectural elements into the historical fabric of the city center. The jury's sympathies were mainly won by the projects carried out for Kaliningrad - these are three of the four winners. Silver diploma was awarded to Varvara Domnenko for the project of the Hotel Hoffman Hotel complex and the reconstruction of the territory east of Altstadt, the gold diploma - Olga Yatsuk for the project of the Sports and entertainment complex "Wagner Square", a special jury prize - Evgenia Yatsuk for the project of the Water tourist complex in the structure of the reconstructed center of Kaliningrad …
It should be noted that since 2002, a new master plan has been considered in Kaliningrad, including a new regulation for the development of the center. All three authors, using the forms of pre-war buildings, nevertheless, abandoned their exact copying in favor of rethinking the historical past interspersed with modern volumes in the structure of the projected complexes. Bronze medals were awarded to Alain Kharinkin and Petr Vasiliev for the project of the Office Center on Paveletskaya Embankment, which is a reconstruction of a historic building giving it a modern modernist look, reminiscent of the work of JSB Ostozhenka.
The past "Architecture" showed that the professional community, as always, turned out to be generous with ideas, moreover, this time specific proposals were sounded with might and main. So now it seems that in order to solve the problem of preserving the historical environment of cities, it remains to come to an agreement with the authorities, recalling the words of Alexander Kudryavtsev, "to entrust this problem to the state."
