Last Thursday, February 20, RIA Novosti hosted the first press conference of the Arkhnadzor public movement to protect the historical and cultural (and above all architectural) heritage. The movement that united active public projects (so far in Moscow) - thus for the first time declared itself to the press. And 2 days later, on Saturday, the first picket of the united Arkhnadzor took place on Nikitsky Boulevard, dedicated to the protection of the Shakhovsky-Glebov-Streshnev estate, the reconstruction of which for the needs of the Helikon-Opera theater (threatening with the disappearance of a significant part of the estate) has already begun. The picket was peaceful, completely legal and very calm - Arhnadzor stresses that its goals are positive, not negative: this social movement is not “against”, but “for”. It should be noted that the decision to unite was made not so long ago - at a working meeting on February 7, and now Arhnadzor started communicating with journalists and Muscovites.
So far, such a united movement is the only precedent in Russia. By the way, in Europe, where the situation is much better, the defenders of the heritage also inevitably lag behind the forces of its attackers, but civil society there is more active in its positions. It is important to note that the merger of public organizations of "guardians" took place at the initiative of the public itself. According to Natalia Dushkina, Arkhnadzor is a movement from below. Unlike the well-known VOOPiK, which was initiated in 1965 "from above" as a support for the then instruction of 1948. And if VOOPiK was created in the absence of a law, then "Arhnadzor" arose against the backdrop of powerful legislation adopted in 2002. “The authorities have never so actively supported the protection of heritage,” noted Natalya Dushkina, “but it is being violated en masse.”
It is violated mainly through "holes" in the law, and this has become widespread in the last ten years, when developers, having corrupted with the authorities, formed an almost invulnerable system for making any architectural and urban planning decisions. Realizing this, the public, instead of going under the bulldozer, picketing and making noise (although these methods are still effective), is trying to act legally competently. The authorities seem to be doing their utmost to limit this activity. In addition to the fact that only professionals can now make applications for the setting of monuments for protection, only residents of the district can now discuss important city objects under the new legislation. This is strange when it comes to the national gallery, as in the case of the Crimean Val - nevertheless, Muscovites are simply deprived of the practice of citywide referendums existing in the West.
A section is being created specifically to address legal issues within Arkhnadzor, headed by Rustam Rakhmatullin, who shared with those present his views on what needs to be done to overcome at least the most egregious failures in the law. The main thing is to remove the concept of “subject of protection” from the federal law on cultural heritage objects (No. 73). Many experts have already spoken about the danger of this concept. The second thing that, according to the (completely fair) conviction of Rustam Rakhmatullin, is important in the field of legislation is to clearly distinguish between the concepts of "capital construction", "reconstruction", on the one hand, and "adaptation", on the other, so that the proposal for capital construction does not was overcome by a proposal for adaptation, as is done today with might and main. Third, to introduce into the law a provision so that the technical examination of monuments should be ordered by the heritage authorities before the building is leased or owned. Then the tenant or owner will have to buy out the monument along with a package of documents, and the examination will be more independent.
Rustam Rakhmatullin spoke about how cleverly the manipulation of the documentation and the very concept of "subject of protection" is carried out using the example of the Shakhovskys' estate on Bolshaya Nikitskaya, which became the first object of concern of the united "Arhnadzor". Recently it began to be demolished, the demolition was officially announced as "restoration with adaptation" of the buildings of the estate for the large stage of the Helikon-opera theater, which is supposed to be arranged inside the estate, blocking it.
According to Rakhmatullin, the case with the estate is a classic example, when the area of demolition is simply removed from the subject of protection. Suppose the document states that the facades of the 2nd floor are protected, but the 1st is not mentioned, why is that? It turns out that here it is necessary to hedge the passage, turning it into a stage portal. And so they do wherever it is necessary to intervene and "correct" the history. According to the "reconstruction" project, the remarkable porch of the manor house in the spirit of the 17th century with the "weight" turns into a "VIP" box, and the facade of the turret, placed above the gate to the utility yard, into a flat backdrop of the stage. The entire volume of service buildings is being destroyed. In such cases, according to Rustam Rakhmatullin, there is no scientific justification for the protection documents of monuments, they are drawn up for a finished project, in the Shakhovskaya estate - “for the project of Mosproekt-4 and personally for Andrei Bokov”.
The concept of "subject of protection" in general is a rather paradoxical thing, it allows you to protect a building not entirely, but, say, only its plan or facade, like insuring a person not all, but in parts. The well-known Detsky Mir, as Alexander Mozhaev said, was fully armed in 2005, but then, with methodical precision, interiors, wall materials, and ceramic facades gradually disappeared from the security documents. As a result, only the volume of the building and the drawing of its facades are preserved, which will most likely make this building unrecognizable upon completion of the project, like the Moscow Hotel, Mozhaev said.
Both of these stories Rustam Rakhmatullin attributed to the most common threat to Moscow monuments - capital construction, which is often called "reconstruction". This word, as Natalya Dushkina noted, has recently begun to contain all shades of meaning, up to demolition. Including all the stories with the overlap of the courtyards of the most famous monuments fall under the reconstruction, on which Rakhmatullin dwelt in more detail. After the international success of Tsaritsyno, this trend threatens to become widespread - there are plenty of estates in Moscow, many of which can be turned into your own Tsaritsyno. By the way, the project of overlapping the Mint is already ready - the authorities were not at all embarrassed by the idea of digging an amphitheater there and turning the 17th century facade - one of the best examples of the Naryshkin Baroque - into a stage backdrop.
The point is that substitution in terminology is a direct path to substitution of history. Today it has become the norm that “reconstructed” historic buildings or ensembles are still officially considered monuments. As Natalya Dushkina said, in the new atlas of the capital's monuments, the Moscow hotel appears as one of them. This "modernized" history is certified, approved, taken for granted, not by anyone, but by some representatives of the architectural profession itself. It is, as noted by Dushkina, about the erosion of boundaries and urban planning science, and the concept of scientific restoration. An architect is often not professionally prepared to work with a monument, and “restoration” turns into a loss, we get “like monuments”, from the Cathedral of Christ the Savior to “Tsaritsyno”.
In many cases, the threat to the architectural heritage turns into not even rebuilding, but demolition. A glaring example is the Tverskoy Viaduct, the bridge over the railway on Belorusskaya Square, the Art Nouveau monument, the only one of the old bridges in this direction. It interferes with the construction of a transport interchange on the Tverskaya Zastava square. According to Alexander Mozhaev, according to the current project, the structures and drawing of the viaduct are completely changed, it becomes 2.5 m higher. But according to the latest document, about which Mozhaev became aware, “in order to ensure the preservation of the monument,” the overpass needs to be dismantled and rebuilt altogether.
At the opposite extreme in relation to monuments, suffering from the close interest of the authorities, are historical buildings, which are crumbling from desolation. There are about 20 of them in Moscow, according to Rustam Rakhmatullin. One of them is the chambers of Prince Pozharsky on the Lubyanka - a sample of the early Petrine baroque, with a wonderful white stone decor, which have been in complete ruin for many years.
Unfortunately, threats to historical Moscow are multiplying catastrophically, it is possible that this is fate and there will always be more of them than defenders. However, Arkhnadzor intends to act more efficiently now. For a more organized work, he was divided into sections, the direction of activity of which intersects with the specifics of the projects participating in the movement. In addition to the already mentioned section of law, there is a "public inspection" created to monitor the state of Moscow monuments, what the site of Alexander Mozhaev was doing, he, in fact, will be in charge of this direction. Another section, on identifying new monuments and promoting their registration, partly repeats the work of the site "Moscow, which does not exist", therefore it will be headed by the head of the site, Yulia Mezintseva. The media section will be chaired by Konstantin Mikhailov, and international relations will be chaired by Marina Khrustaleva, Chairperson of MAPS.
"Arhnadzor", as noted by its leaders, was not a challenge or a reproach to the bodies of state protection, rather it offers them effective assistance. The fact that the institute of inspectors of the Moscow Heritage Committee does not work is a fact, according to the leaders of Arkhnadzor. The number of squatter structures in the center, according to Alexander Mozhaev, significantly exceeds those rare cases in which the Moscow Heritage Committee manages to identify and punish the culprit. Often, inspectors do not have time to keep track of everything, and developers take advantage of this. Alexander Mozhaev called the chambers opened in the Aragvi restaurant on Tverskaya Square as the most amazing find of recent years. When they began to carry out construction work there, an inspector went there, made sure that the work was suspended and left. In the meantime, the renovation continues to this day. This is precisely where the “public patrol” could help, but without the appropriate documents it cannot break through to the construction site, let alone into the building.
As Natalya Dushkina emphasized, "Arkhnadzor" has a national-patriotic character, and it is possible that soon this will result in a wider phenomenon when, for example, St. Petersburg colleagues join it. By the way, they have not yet united, but decided to ask their ombudsman for help. For the protection of monuments, he created a special body - an advisory council, for which, by the way, he was condemned, they say, interfering in not his own affairs. But Rustam Rakhmatullin, who really liked this idea, as well as Natalya Dushkina, consider the destruction of history to be just a matter of direct violation of human rights - the rights to culture, monuments, urban space, etc. And the public intends to actively defend these rights.
