April 28-29, in pursuit of the passing day of heritage, "Mosconstruct", a joint project of the Moscow Architectural Institute and the Roman Institute "La Sapienza", held a series of various events, one of which was a round table on the topic of partnership between private capital and the state in the preservation of monuments avant-garde. The round table was held in the building of the Moscow International University, one of the faculties of which, under the name "Entrepreneurship in Culture", actively cooperates with "Moskonstrukt". The conversation was also attended by representatives of the Moscow Heritage Committee, teachers of the Moscow Architectural Institute. However, the participants of the round table touched upon the announced topic only in passing, focusing on the problems of preserving the heritage of the Russian avant-garde as a whole.
The participants in the round table were pessimistic about the situation that has developed around the monuments of constructivism. In the general opinion of those present, the problem is great and only the participation and understanding of the whole society can solve it, which means that the main thing that is needed is the propaganda of the heritage of the avant-garde: on the one hand, among the population, on the other, among people in positions of power.
By the way, the participants of the television talk show of Alexander Arkhangelsky came to literally the same idea the day before: the head of Rosokhrankultura Alexander Kibovsky, Vyacheslav Glazychev and other respected specialists.
The paths of possible propaganda are different. Representatives of the Moscow International University who participated in the conversation proposed the most modern solutions for this - from PR tricks, working with the media to holding youth festivals.
Moskonstrukt, for its part, is leaning towards more academic ways of promoting the legacy of the 1920s, with seminars, exhibitions and walking tours. The database of constructivist objects in Moscow is constantly updated on the project website (https://www.moskonstruct.org/objects). According to the head of "Moskonstrukt" Elena Ovsyannikova, in the course of the work, many new addresses and objects were found that were not registered with the Moscow Heritage Committee. This is especially true of mass development, which, along with industrial facilities, are "in the zone of special risk."
Which, according to Alexander Kudryavtsev, is quite natural: after all, if not everyone is ready to recognize the aesthetics of the masterpieces of avant-garde architecture, then what can we say about ordinary buildings of that time? It requires constant educational work at different levels, from the inhabitants of these buildings to … the officials of the Moscow Heritage Committee.
During the conversation, it became clear that, oddly enough, the degree of rejection of the residential quarters of the avant-garde by "ordinary people" is greatly exaggerated. "Moskonstrukt" conducted a sociological survey among the inhabitants of buildings built in the 1920s - 1930s. The results were surprising: 30 to 50 percent of residents are happy with their homes. They like the space, the small scale of the development, and the layout, especially in the three-room apartments. Elena Ovsyannikova believes that in this situation, the idea of reconstruction rather than demolition of these houses suggests itself.
However, officials have a different opinion on this matter. Not so long ago, the prefect of the central district in his scandalous (without exaggeration) interview said that he intends to improve his district by demolishing the old constructivist quarters.
Even worse, there is no consensus on the buildings of the 1920s - 1930s even within the Moscow Heritage Committee. According to representatives of this department, Galina Naumenko and Natalia Golubkova, last year they managed to protect 114 monuments of this time, but this required a lot of work - since the leadership of the Moscow Heritage Committee does not always share the conviction of its employees in the value of buildings of the avant-garde era. “We hope to convince the leadership,” Natalya Golubkova said.
Even worse, according to Alexander Kudryavtsev, understanding of the aesthetics of the avant-garde does not often come even to future students-architects. They are "children of the Stalinist Empire style and understand Zholtovsky's tectonics better."
In addition, which is typical, for some reason not Melnikov, but the (restored!) Cathedral of Christ the Savior and the bridge across the Yenisei, is next in line to the UNESCO World Heritage List among Russian sites, Alexander Kudryavtsev noted.
The aesthetics of the avant-garde remains understood only by experts, art historians and some architects. That is, in essence, elite aesthetics. Unfortunately, the voice of experts, that is, people who understand this elite culture, is deliberative, and the city authorities make decisions according to their own style or even economic preferences.
Understanding the full force of the inertia of this process, the expert community is not surprised at the slowness of changes in attitude to the heritage of the avant-garde. The building of the People's Commissariat for Finance became a sad illustration of this. His future is still uncertain. According to Natalia Golubkova, the Moscow Heritage Committee has managed to issue a decree on the restoration of the building, which will be carried out within the framework of the investment project. The investor, oddly enough, is the same MIAN, somehow ambiguously hiding after a loud presentation the year before last. For two years, as Natalya Golubkova said, it was even possible to resolve all issues with resettlement. But the troubles of the monument did not end there, according to Yuri Volchok, inspection warrants for the public block are still issued. If the complex is divided, blocked, reconstructed one by one - then goodbye, Ginzburg's plan.
Hence, there is another problem: sometimes it is important not only what to preserve, but also how to do it, says Yuri Volchok. Especially when it is necessary to preserve the ensemble and part of the urban environment. As, for example, in the case of the weaving factory "Red Banner" in St. Petersburg. According to Yuri Volchko, the project for the reconstruction of the factory's territory involves the complete destruction of all buildings, preserving only the facades along the red lines of the surrounding streets. That will simply destroy the monument, created according to the conception of Erich Mendelssohn, turn it into a shell without content. The same threatens the Moscow facilities - the "Pravda" plant, the Gazgolder and many other industrial territories, where it simply does not make sense to keep one house, Yuri Volchok believes.
In all fairness, it must be said, despite a lot of criticism of the Moscow Heritage Committee, that with the arrival of the new leadership, active propaganda of constructivist objects began, and in two years a register of these monuments was compiled, which today numbers about 400 objects. Unfortunately, only in recent years, according to Natalia Golubkova, the Moscow Heritage Committee begins to turn to the experience of restoring avant-garde buildings accumulated in other countries, for example, in Germany. The country does not have its own Russian experience of working with buildings of this period, since in Soviet times they did not try to restore them. The first buildings of the avant-garde were put on guard quite late (compared to Europe) - only after 1987.
Although there are positive results: in particular, for the 100th anniversary of Konstantin Melnikov, all of his Moscow buildings were placed under protection.
We were also pleased with the results of the partnership between heritage and private capital, which was announced as the topic of the round table. Vladimir Shukhov, the grandson and namesake of the famous engineer, President of the Shukhov Tower Foundation, spoke about it. With sponsors' money, the foundation erected a monument to the famous engineer in Moscow, preserved and restored a hyperboloid tower in Nizhny Novgorod, as well as the now famous Bakhmetyevsky garage, built by Melnikov in collaboration with Shukhov. For the main tower, the Moscow one, the authorities have already promised to allocate funds, the fund, however, also wants to implement a project for the development of the adjacent territory.
It is easy to see that the speeches of the roundtable participants revolved around familiar problems: monuments are not preserved, the quarters of the 1920s are very difficult to make monuments, and the value of avant-garde architecture is seriously recognized only by experts, and some architects, and then most of them are not even ours, but foreign. Government officials think in a different plane, they prefer to count gilded replicas as monuments; they regard avant-garde buildings as junk, preventing new development. What is especially scary - even those officials who are engaged in the protection of monuments think so.
This conversation left the impression of walking in circles or marking time - for the most part, everything that has been said has already been discussed: it is necessary to improve legislation, popularize the heritage of the avant-garde, it is necessary to master the experience of foreign restorers on the monuments of the avant-garde, since there is no experience of our own.
It is a pity that the main topic of the round table remained uncovered by only one example - in the story of Vladimir Shukhov. Because it is possible that such cooperation could be one of the ways out of this situation.
