The crowded and excited meeting in the lobby of the Tretyakov Gallery was the first experience of holding public hearings, which appeared as a mandatory procedure in the new town planning code. Prior to this, the decisions of the city authorities were not discussed, they were informed about them, and often only at the prefecture level. In general, the participation of residents in urban planning is a normal practice of civil society in Western countries, where it happens through a referendum. Public hearings in Moscow are a kind of half-measure, since, firstly, they limit participants only to those who live or work in the area and the owners of land plots. And secondly, there was no vote, instead it was proposed to submit their proposals and comments, which then from the protocol should be submitted for consideration by an authoritative commission. We emphasize that the commission will analyze them, but it is unknown whether or not to take them into account. Finally, she will report the results to the city authorities, who will make the decision.
But those gathered that evening in the foyer of the Tretyakov Gallery seized on this small opportunity. The most interesting thing was that the people came to discuss the demolition of the Central House of Artists, not realizing that this issue was resolved without public participation. At the hearing, the project for the planning of the territory was presented, exhibited in the condemned building during the previous 2 weeks.
The chief architect of the city, Alexander Kuzmin, courageously assumed all the people's anger and shelling with questions. Entrusting this role to him was far-sighted from the point of view of the organizers. By the way, the rest of the officials in the “presidium” - representatives from the Moscow Heritage Committee, “Mosproet-2”, the Department of Nature Management, the head of the Yakimanka administration, the State Duma and the Moscow City Duma deputies - did not speak at all, with the exception of deputies Sergei Mitrokhin and Yevgeny Bunimovich.
As Alexander Kuzmin said, the Tretyakov Gallery itself prompted the authorities to demolish the Central House of Artists, who wished to settle in something more modern and convenient for museum work. According to the chief architect of the city, the gallery itself was the first to turn to the authorities with a request for a new building, drew up a terms of reference (a mythical document that few saw and it is unknown who signed), and after which the city authorities could no longer refuse, and the Research and Development Institute of the General Plan began for the development of the planning project.
The new building of the Tretyakov Gallery is the first to be built. It plans to move it to the Garden Ring at the request of the museum workers themselves. The audience didn’t believe it, buzzed, shouted “absurd!”, But Alexander Kuzmin was ready to prove his words with a document. Then the funds move to new volumes and only after that they begin to demolish the CHA. With the proceeds from under the old building, they pay off the investor for the gallery, and there he is already building, no one knows what, but 55 meters high. The building of the art school (the scariest in this company) is preserved. The area of the park is also practically not cut, especially, as Alexander Kuzmin assured, the status of this territory does not allow building more than 30%. The park even overlooks the embankment, for which the roadway is deepened. In addition, a certain shopping complex is emerging under the Garden Ring, but the chief architect all the time avoided answering the question of what it would be, referring to the fact that the complex is located outside the territory.
At the mention of investment construction, the audience was loudly indignant, offering the investor to get out of the Moscow Ring Road or to build his building next to the highway, where they want to move the Tretyakov Gallery, and leave the Central House of Artists alone. However, as Alexander Kuzmin noted, there is no money in the city budget to relocate the gallery, but the investor has it. As the chief architect assured, there is no specific developer yet, as well as no architectural solution, and even complete confidence that this project will be implemented (sic!). Kuzmin is sure that the exhibited tablets will still change greatly. Then, perhaps, an investment competition will be held, then an architectural one, with representatives from the Union of Artists, the Union of Architects, and only after all this will the implementation begin.
The very same investment construction is likely to be a hotel, says Alexander Kuzmin, or even exhibition halls for an antique salon, since the status of the territory excludes both housing (apartments) and offices. There will most likely not be entertainment and shopping functions here either, but hotels, according to Kuzmin, exist at all the largest museums in the world, what's wrong with that? “During a crisis, one must be prepared for the fact that it will end,” said the chief architect, and the gallery must be built in any case.
Deputy Sergei Mitrokhin called the fact that the investor is being paid in kind, by the way, with the common area, which is taken away from the Muscovites, a direct violation of the law. The preoccupation with the commercial component angered the Moscow City Duma deputy Yevgeny Bunimovich. On the contrary, he is convinced that Russia can build its national gallery not at the expense of an investor: "If the Tretyakov Gallery was built by a philanthropist and donated to the city, then it is absolutely indecent to equip this gallery today only at the expense of someone's private interests." And then the scheme of investment construction of cultural objects has already proved its vulnerability in the 1990s, when cultural buildings turned out not in the proportion in which they were assembled, says Yevgeny Bunimovich: “But already the Fomenko theater was built as just a theater. And it was announced then that we will continue to build cultural centers. I think we should just remove this project, and let the state think about how to improve the position of the gallery and the House of Artists. All the rest are strained decisions."
The project itself, which the professor of the Moscow Architectural Institute Yevgeny Ass called “a gross mistake”, and the arguments with which they tried to justify the demolition of the Central House of Artists, looked "strained". During the debate, the following motives for the demolition became clear: unsatisfactory appearance, including advertising on the roof, poor technical condition, inconvenience for the employees of the Tretyakov Gallery. However, according to Ass, who has been involved in five projects related to the area and the building itself, including the expansion and reconstruction of the halls, it has enormous resources. And the fact that the engineering systems do not work, so the time has come to change them - says Ass, for comparison - the Pompidou Center has already been renovated twice. And to demolish it only because someone thinks this building is a "suitcase" - "this is generally a dangerous path," Ass believes. "This house deserves to work with it, to renovate it."
From the words of the director of the Tretyakov Gallery, Rodionov, it remained unclear what exactly prevented them from working peacefully in the existing building. Rodionov did not hide that he did not like this house, and on behalf of the rest of the employees said that they want a beautiful and modern one. Apparently, Masut Fatkulin wants the same as he fiercely defended his rights as the owner to decide the fate of the building. But, perhaps, declaring about large non-working areas, the Tretyakov Gallery and the Central House of Artists simply did not learn how to use them correctly? According to the new project, the gallery receives plus 20% of the area, i.e., roughly speaking, one more hall, but it turns out to be merged again into one volume with the House of Artists, although it wanted to separate. But the building resembling the letter "G" becomes a screen stretched along the Garden Ring in the area with the worst pollution and vibrations. Alexander Kuzmin even urged residents not to walk there, especially with children. Under the building of the gallery, underground parking lots appear, which is simply dangerous for museum storage (it is possible that they will still be removed under the Garden Ring). And finally, according to the conclusion made by the famous restorer Savva Yamshchikov, the very moving of the funds and the placement of the gallery in the indicated place will be disastrous for the paintings.
A natural question arises - why go to all these sacrifices, start a long-term construction project during the crisis, deprive the residents of the park for the duration of construction and put the heritage at risk? If the matter concerned the interests of culture, then it would be rational to leave the CHA in place and modernize it. Or, for example, to build a new building of the State Tretyakov Gallery next to the old one, in Lavrushinsky, and give everything to the Central House of Artists on Krymsky Val, as the audience suggested. (In the Moskomarkhitektura, by the way, there is already a project on the embankment in Kadashi, but, according to Kuzmin, there is only enough space for an exposition, and the main thing is a budget project). But culture, unfortunately, has nothing to do with it.
According to Evgeny Ass, everyone is cunning in this matter - “The Tretyakov Gallery, which is going to expand its premises. Disingenuous NIIPI General Plan, which makes a senseless project on an incomprehensible terms of reference. The chief architect of the city is disingenuous, showing the project and at the same time saying “don’t look at this, we will make you another project and the CHA may remain.” Apparently, as one of the residents shrewdly noted, someone has already noticed this “tasty” territory of the Crimean Wall, and the only question now is where to evict the Tretyakov Gallery with the House of Artists.
The position of the authorities from this story was clear from the very beginning. All illusions about the possibility for the population to somehow turn the course of the project were shattered by the very formulation of the question at the hearings. Instead of deciding whether to demolish or not, residents were asked to speak out about a ready-made and openly hacky project, with a gigantic commercial component in the center. “As a professor at Moscow Architectural Institute, - said Evgeny Ass to the audience, - I would give a bad mark for this project, it is unresponsive and meaningless”. Architect Yuri Avvakumov agrees with Assom, admitting that the presented project is bad and cannot be improved. Its main problem is that with the new building of the Tretyakov Gallery, the authors propose to break one long green wedge that goes almost from the Kremlin to Vorobyovy Gory.
Alas, despite the clearly militant attitude, the public was not ready for resistance - it should have united, thought about clear formulations, arguments, and demands. Instead, the valuable comments of the professionals were simply drowned in the exasperated outcries and vague opinions of others. Shouting to the whole audience "Down with the project!" and slamming the supporters of the project is not a weighty argument at all, this path is stupid and dead-end, and it plays into the hands of the authorities. Unfortunately, apparently, the hearings did achieve what the organizers wanted: they shouted and dispersed.
