The Assumption Cathedral of Yaroslavl was built in the 17th century and destroyed in 1937. In 2004, its foundations were investigated by archaeologists, who discovered a lot of interesting things and were able, in cooperation with historians and archivists, to make significant adjustments to the complex history of the construction of the main temple of the city of Yaroslavl. The finds were very interesting - in particular, historians were able to determine that the foundations that were previously attributed to the 16th century belong to the middle of the 17th century. But then a completely different story began.
Back in 2004, when the excavations were in full swing, the patriarch blessed the restoration of an exact copy of the lost cathedral (at least, as it was written in the provincial press). However, then - in 2005 - a competition was held, the winners of which were named by the jury two projects: one of them (the Yaroslavl restorer Vyacheslav Safronov), assumed an exact reconstruction, and the second (Muscovite Alexei Denisov) - turned out to be more than a free fantasy on the theme of Yaroslavl architecture. It was necessary to choose one of the two projects, and the then governor of the region, Anatoly Lisitsyn, chose the second, rejecting the idea of an exact restoration of the temple.
Denisov's project is not just a fantasy on historical themes, but a very large fantasy - more than 10 meters higher than the lost cathedral, with underground floors and four elevators; a temple that can accommodate up to 4,000 people. Then, after the announcement of the final results of the competition, Edmund Harris, a British journalist and one of the leaders of the Moscow organization for the protection of monuments MAPS, called this decision a shame.
And the construction, funded by the devout Mytishchi entrepreneur Viktor Tyryshkin, the owner of the VIT construction company, began at an accelerated pace. It began with the fact that all the foundations discovered by archaeologists were hastily taken out at night in trucks to no one knows where - destroying the last remains of the 17th century cathedral - the very tearfully mourned temple that was blown up by the Bolsheviks. Even at the 2005 competition, the ideas of museumification of the remains were expressed and then discussed by specialists - the foundations were offered to be taken under glass and shown to descendants. But in the fall of 2006, the construction site was hastily cleared out - and all plans were buried along with fragments of the monument that could still be investigated.
The process of pouring concrete into the pit on the site of the destroyed, now finally, 17th century cathedral was described with affection by the regional and diocesan press - dozens, if not hundreds, of admiring articles. At the same time - from the very beginning, from the moment of the competition, specialists - historians, archaeologists, restorers, architects and the public of Yaroslavl - protested, collected signatures against the construction and wrote letters to federal departments, the prosecutor's office, and UNESCO.
The fact is that Strelka - the place where the Kremlin of the city of Yaroslavl was located - is under the protection of the law. According to Russian law, this territory is included in the security zone, in which any new construction is prohibited. The only thing that is allowed is the so-called compensatory construction. In other words, a copy of a lost cathedral can be built, but a new cathedral is legally impossible.
As for international agreements - in the same 2005, shortly before the mentioned competition, the historical center of Yaroslavl was included in the UNESCO World Heritage List. It is assumed that countries maintaining relations with this international organization should inform UNESCO about major restorations or new construction planned in the territory under its protection - and before, and not after decisions are made.
And finally, returning back to Russian laws - as you know, we have nothing but a house on a personal plot, and even more so - in a historical city, it is impossible to build without approval, including with Rosokhrankultura. And here - there is no final agreement, but the construction is underway. But what goes there - almost the entire cathedral has been built, the zakomars have been removed, at the moment there are only the drums of the heads. How did it happen that such a colossus was built without approval? Didn't you notice? Are you kidding. I forgot to say - even the president came to the construction site, admired. And all without agreement.
But then the nuances begin. Not that there was no agreement at all. Rossvyazohrankultura issued a document in 2006 with the following words: to agree on the condition of maximum compliance with the appearance of the lost Assumption Cathedral. To approve. But on condition. The condition is not met - which means, apparently, such an agreement is not considered. In any case, it cannot be called final.
But we must somehow coordinate it. Then the initiators of the construction turned to VOOPIiK. In translation - the society for the protection of monuments of history and culture. That is, in theory, this is the kind of society that is supposed to protect monuments. It has existed since Soviet times, in the 1980s a lot was heard about it, it really defended something, and then - less and less, but the right to consider projects and even approve them from this public organization remained from the old laws, which no one canceled … True, no one particularly enjoyed this right. But when it turned out that it was impossible to "push through" the project through the main, authorized organizations, they remembered about VOOPIiK. And VOOPIiK approved the gigantic structure of the architect Denisov twice. In the fall of 2006, it not only approved, but also proposed to make it even higher. And in 2007 he simply approved, only now he recommended to think about the possibility of using tiles like those from Yaroslavl. The author thought. And he added tiles.
Not only VOOPIiK behaved strangely in this situation. The Russian subdivision of UNESCO (RK World Heritage Site) and its chairman I. I. Makovetsky. In 2007, it "did not object" to the construction of the cathedral "in the style of Yaroslavl architecture of the 16th-18th (!) Centuries", but recommended to approach the heights of the old cathedral. How can you not object if, according to all laws, only a copy can be built in this place?
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the approval of VOOPIiK does not replace the approval of government agencies, which does not exist. But - having received at least such an agreement, the investor continued construction. What about? There is a blessing, there is a document with approval (although not the one that is required), there is a pious impulse, and most importantly, there is money (apparently, a lot - the total investment was estimated at 70 million). The support of the local press is more than enough, just over the edge.
But a lot of protests - speeches by historians, letters from the public - all of this fell through like cotton wool. There were no protests at all. Letters were sent from Yaroslavl to Moscow with an opportunity, fearing that they would be intercepted. The residents of Yaroslavl collected 10,000 signatures (against new construction in the city center, including against the construction of a new cathedral on Strelka), this is a lot, a thick volume of signature sheets - but few people knew about this.
And now there is much less money in the construction sector. The money ran out suddenly. According to IA REGNUM, a private investor has stopped financing, and the issue of financing from state money is being considered. It will be quite interesting if the state during the crisis gives money for a project that is not coordinated under the laws of this state. It turns out strange somehow.
Probably realizing this oddity, the prosecutor's office of the Yaroslavl region, in response to a question about the legality of construction in 2007, replied that the project had indeed not been approved. And she calmly pointed out that it must be approved after all. She also said that the governor of the region asked the Minister of Culture to assist in the agreement. Still - everything is almost finished, now it's time to put the documents in order.
Apparently, the meeting, which took place a week ago at the RAASN, was another attempt by the author of the project, Alexei Denisov, to get approval for his work (the meeting was described in detail by IA REGNUM). Alexei Denisov, the head of the All-Russian Industrial Scientific and Restoration Plant, who was once involved in the project of the restoration of the KhHS, presented to the specialists the project of the cathedral one and a half times larger than the old Uspensky cathedral, and completely different from it. The main feature of the project is that it has already been built and it is difficult to do anything with it. So, the meeting was like an ordinary architectural council, with the only difference that the object is no longer on paper. The architect, who in this case can hardly be called a restorer, told the audience that the Assumption Cathedral of Yaroslavl had never been a monument (this is true - it did not have time, it was demolished earlier), and therefore (!) It is absolutely unnecessary to restore it. That we are talking about the restoration of not the cathedral, but the town-planning dominant. That the water level in the Volga has risen, Strelka is overgrown with trees, which means that the new building must be higher, otherwise it will not be visible behind the trees. And he also assured that the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, the protographer of the Yaroslavl Cathedral, is a building, it turns out, flattened. It was even strange to realize that the author really hopes to convince the audience that the project should be accepted.
The audience of the meeting was very representative: architectural historians, archaeologists, restorers, famous architects; doctors of sciences, heads of institutes and workshops, representatives of ICOMOS and Rosokhrankultura. All from different positions spoke out against the project. It grossly violates the panorama of the city, exceeds all imaginable height restrictions - this is a new construction, not a recreation. They remembered that the cathedral is not the only building that is planned to be built on Strelka, on the territory of the Yaroslavl Kremlin. The hotel "Marriott" is planned there - also a rather large building, inappropriate in the protected area. Strictly speaking, the exaggerated height of the new cathedral (50 m) can serve as a reference point for further growth in the height of neighboring buildings.
Architectural historian, Doctor of Science Andrei Batalov recalled that Denisov's project was twice categorically rejected by the Scientific and Methodological Council of the Ministry of Culture. True, now the methodological council no longer works … Archaeologist, also Doctor of Science Leonid Belyaev emphasized that the main thing now is to preserve what is left - the priceless cultural layer of the Yaroslavl Kremlin, in which, not far from the cathedral under construction, recently (in November) found the foundations of cathedrals of the XIII and the XVI century, they must be studied and preserved. And on Strelka, large-scale landscaping and even construction are planned. So, on the site of the newly discovered remains of ancient cathedrals, a square is supposed. It must be said that many Assumption Cathedrals were built in the Yaroslavl Kremlin over the course of 4 centuries - from the 13th to the 17th century. According to Andrei Batalov, in addition to those already found, there is at least one more temple that has not yet been discovered by archaeologists. As a result, it was decided to condemn the project of the architect Denisov, despite the fact that the building was almost completed, and to seek more civilized practice in the future. The adopted resolution, in particular, contains a demand to stop construction. Such a statement by scientists is necessary at least in order to prevent similar phenomena in the future. If this is not condemned now, then the practice of destroying historical sites under the guise of restoration may take root in other cities.
What is the phenomenon?
Quite frankly, the whole history of design and construction is complete wildness.
Under pressure from money, coupled with a pious impulse in Yaroslavl, the foundations of a 17th century monument were destroyed, and the remains of the very shrine that was supposedly being "restored" was erased. The opinion of the public and experts was ignored. They ignored the law, both Russian and international agreements. Generally speaking, if it is impossible to build anything in the security zone except a copy of what was lost, then how could the governor choose a project that is one and a half times larger and not at all similar?
In fact, at the moment, the new Assumption Cathedral in Yaroslavl is a big squatter and lawlessness.
Even worse is the wave of emotion and delight that accompanied this lawlessness for three years. All public protests were completely suppressed, because if few people know about them, then - in modern society - for the majority of them, as it were, they do not exist. Most of them read reports from an exemplary construction site, are moved and admired. This is the most unpleasant thing - when such things are done with emotion and delight. They designed the Okhta Center in St. Petersburg - there were demonstrations, everyone knew that people were against the construction of their city, but here everything is the same, but nothing is heard.
And why? Is it because Yaroslavl is not the capital? Perhaps, in Yaroslavl, movements in defense of the city are not so developed than in Moscow and St. Petersburg? No, 10 thousand signatures were collected. Maybe because the press reacts worse to the Yaroslavl protest … It seems that at the moment only one newspaper - "Severny Kray", voices the opinion about the dubiousness of the anniversary Yaroslavl projects.
But the main thing is because a temple is being built. The fact that construction is a church building seems to shut everyone's mouth (or almost everyone). Everything seems to be still responsible for what was destroyed by the Bolsheviks, and few people dare to loudly object. So what - let the church authorities now finish destroying what the Bolsheviks did not-until-destroyed? Behavior is just that, Bolshevik, Party, peremptory. Everything we do is for the good, the rest are silent.
This is how strange documents appear - the coordinating authorities, both state and public, issue such texts that are even unpleasant to read, because it is very strongly felt in them how the authors of these documents are trying with all their might to counteract the nonsense that is happening, but cannot directly and firmly say no. They try to say "no", but they fail - it turns out "agree, but …" - well, those who need to, this very "but …" calmly omit to themselves. It turns out that they did not agree, and they were not completely against it. And construction is underway, and is about to end.
It turns out that we are facing a series of forgeries. The indecisive protest of the approving authorities, who, knowing that the governor has chosen an enlarged project, write in the documents that they agree with the construction, but in the size of the former cathedral. Ignoring any protest by those who build and are confident that they are doing a good deed. And the betrayal of VOOPIiK, which, instead of protecting, helped to destroy. And all this under the guise of a good deed.
Is it possible to do a good deed - for example, to build a temple, on such foundations? Forgeries, lawlessness, attempts to agree on an already constructed building that is contrary to all norms? It seems to be the other way around - God's work must be done in a divine way, and the Church is the first who, supposedly, should take care of this. And if not divinely, then what kind of good is it? And we have the opposite turns out. It turns out that since the deed is declared to be of God, it means that it is sinful to contradict it. And even smart people at this place become silent - well, the temple is after all. Is it possible to build a temple using such means? And shouldn't we talk about it loudly? Because we are talking about the authority of the church, if you use it like that all the time, then the authority can also become thinner. Why shouldn't everyone be engaged in defending the authority of the church from wrongdoing?
This eerie situation with law and lawlessness, with ignorance of scientists - this is not the first time. It was the same with Tsaritsyn, and not only. For example, the press published the story of the miraculous assurance of the entrepreneur Viktor Tyryshkin and his good deeds for the glory of God. Some of these things are really good - for example, the Spassky Cathedral of Pereslavl was restored at the expense of the "VIT" company. The following is a very characteristic story. When the businessman undertook to rebuild the blown up cathedral of St. Nicholas Monastery in Pereslavl, the abbess of the monastery told him that the Ministry of Culture also offered to give money for the cathedral, but only to restore an exact copy of the cathedral that was before the explosion. “No,” the abbess answered, “we don’t need such a council!” And they built another cathedral, which the businessman is very proud of. Strictly speaking, the same thing happened in Yaroslavl.
The church authorities do not need the old cathedral - which they mourn and destroy at the same time. The old cathedral cannot accommodate either elevators, or ceremonial meeting rooms, or 4,000 people. It's not that it's unnecessary - it's all absolutely necessary, even an elevator, if the temple is so big. But why should it be built in the Kremlin, in the security zone? And by the way, where do many parishioners live? That's right, on the outskirts. Therefore, where is a roomy temple needed? Probably also on the outskirts. And it will be difficult for parishioners to get to the center, it will be far away and the streets are narrow. The parishioners are apparently not the main thing here. A giant temple is being built for solemn divine services, for church and secular authorities. It turns out, excuse me, such an executive committee. But when in Yaroslavl the godless government was building an executive committee (on Ilyinsky Square, opposite the Church of Elijah the Prophet), then it was made smaller and lower so as not to disturb the unique town-planning ensemble. For some reason, the modern government, which is church-going, behaves differently - it builds in the most protected zone and does not look at the restrictions. It is scary to think - does belonging to the church cause such a strong sense of impunity? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Everybody once waited with hope for a non-godless power, hoping that it would behave like a god, but somehow it doesn’t work out. It's a pity.
But it's all about the laws and the situation, which in itself is disgusting. If you look at the architecture of the temple, then I would define it as helpless. Strictly speaking, the very desire to restore even a copy of a lost temple is a helpless act. As if we are trying to make everything the same, to heal the wound, to show it to someone (I don’t know who, maybe to God) - now, we broke it, but we came to our senses, glued it together, repaired it. This behavior is characteristic of a not fully mature consciousness - to believe in what can be broken, and then repaired, returned completely and completely. In fact, it is impossible to return, but it is worth remembering and saving those crumbs that remain. For example, instead of planning grandiose construction projects and ostentatious landscaping, it would be better to take the city's 1000th anniversary and scientifically restore all the monuments, to carry out large (non-rescue) excavations in the Kremlin. Instead, a skyscraper is planned for Kotorosl, a "Marriott" in the Kremlin, and so on. It is clear that such high-profile cases are more obvious to an immature consciousness. They are like children. Only these children have a lot of money, power and construction equipment. Things that ordinary children are not given into their hands.
If the desire to restore an exact copy of the cathedral is rather naive, but still understandable (it would be smarter to explore everything, museumize the foundations and make a museum of lost cathedrals in this place). But the attempt to design a new cathedral instead of a copy and call it a compensation for the old one is barbaric. After all, what is barbarism? It is an immature consciousness that can be active. For example, to destroy the remnants and build the way you want at the moment. Is it really possible not to notice that this temple is not the same, and hope that everyone else will not notice too? This is especially unexpected to notice in the behavior of a Moscow architect and head of the VPNRK, who should have had a sufficiently mature consciousness by education and position.
Frankly speaking, to what the President of the RAASN Alexander Kudryavtsev said at the meeting - that the members of the Union of Architects should not even participate in such strange competitions as the one that was held on the building of the Yaroslavl Cathedral, I would add - architects who behave so unethically from a professional point of view, it should also be excluded from the union.
Probably, it all started when the architect-restorer Aleksey Denisov in Mosproekt-2 was engaged in the restoration of the KhHS. The theme of restoration was transformed into a revival, and the Yaroslavl project is just that. But its architecture is deeply helpless and naive, although drawn with a steady hand on a computer. So, the architect naively believes that 10 meters higher than the old cathedral is good, because the water has risen in the Volga. And that it would be appropriate to decorate this colossus in the style of Yaroslavl merchant temples. A hundred years ago, architects were looking for ways to revive the national style through a copy, and they abandoned this idea. Russia is one of the rare countries where this movement has now revived. But they have to add new functions to the old forms - elevators, halls, and so on. And neither the customers nor the architects want to think about a new form that would correspond to the new function and new technologies. It is this unwillingness to think that I call the immaturity of consciousness.
It's just a pity that people with an immature, almost childish consciousness have all the means to realize their plans, because this allows them to carry out barbaric projects. And people with a fully formed consciousness do not have the ability to interfere with them. In particular, why does the scientific and methodological council under the Ministry of Culture no longer function? It was one of the fragile, but still - obstacles on the way of projects such as the one considered by Yaroslavl. No matter how the situation changes for the worse. But you want her to change for the better. Therefore, the decisiveness of scientists and architects can only be welcomed and we hope that this meeting will not be the last.
