The meetings of the Public Council dedicated to the reconstruction project of Helikon-Opera were waited for almost two months: initially it was scheduled for the very beginning of February, but then it was twice postponed indefinitely. The object itself, we recall, was frozen in October 2010, when, after the resignation of Yuri Luzhkov, the Moscow authorities yielded to the city defenders and wondered whether it was worth demolishing the old wing of the Glebov-Streshnev-Shakhovsky estate for the sake of building a new theater stage. Of course, then hardly anyone could have imagined that this pause, equally destructive for the monument, and for new construction, and for the theater staff, would drag on for so long …
Both sides involved in this conflict agreed that a decision on Helikon should be taken immediately. And, as expected, the opponents found many arguments in defense of their position, so the meeting of the Public Council this time turned out to be both long and very tense in its atmosphere.
Thus, representatives of Arkhnadzor - the main opponents of the reconstruction (who were supported by a number of prominent experts and historians) - consider the implementation of this project to be the result of numerous manipulations and fraud - with a security status, with an address, with a subject of protection. According to city rights activists, all these parameters were shamelessly adjusted to the needs of reconstruction: protection zones were truncated, the very concept of restoration was interpreted as freely as possible. As a result, as Professor Natalya Dushkina noted, the city lost half of the estate. The circumference was demolished, the teremkovaya roof of the main house was changed - moreover, according to the movement's coordinator Konstantin Mikhailov, there was no sanction from the Moscow Heritage Committee for this (which allowed Arhnadzor to challenge the decision of Mosgorexpertiza in the Moscow Prosecutor's Office).
The last request to the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation about the status of the ensemble, which was repeatedly questioned (recall, several examinations were carried out to determine the value of the buildings - the last one was in 2010 at the direction of Vladimir Resin; in addition, there are recommendations on placing the object under Moscow Heritage Committee and Research and Development Institute of the General Plan). So, the Ministry of Culture confirmed that a number of manor buildings at 19/16 (the main house, circumference, western and eastern wings, a building on Kalashny Lane and two pavilions) are a federal monument with a corresponding passport of the Committee on Cultural Heritage. And if so, then new construction and reconstruction is prohibited by law. That is why Arkhnadzor proposes to return to the restoration with the adaptation of the main house of the estate to a small hall and the reconstruction of the lost parts, and to move the new stage to a vacant site. Rustam Rakhmatullin, the coordinator of Arkhnadzor, named the “pit” (a foundation pit dug many years ago) at the Arbatskaya metro station, at the other end of Kalashny Lane, as the closest such site.
However, the project manager, the theater community and the city's chief architect do not support the relocation of the stage for many reasons. Thus, according to Alexander Kuzmin, it is possible that Arkhnadzor will again find something valuable at the new site and ruin the project. Theatergoers are sure that Helikon-Opera has earned the right to develop exactly in the place where it began, and the project manager, architect Andrei Bokov, considers the concentration of theater spaces in the center (and on B. Nikitskaya, in addition to Helikon, the Mayakovsky Theater and the Conservatory are located) the quality of the environment by which Moscow approaches the European capitals.
In the revised version of the project, Andrei Bokov, by the way, partly went to meet Arhnadzor, proposing another version of the stage rear arrangement, in which the wall of the outbuilding on Kalashny Lane (which, in his opinion, is the subject of protection) is not recreated, but preserved. It is impossible to refuse to overlap the courtyard, according to the deep conviction of the author of the project, since this is the main territorial resource for the development of the theater: "Why is it possible to overlap the courtyard spaces in the General Staff building, but we cannot?", in the 1990s, the State Prize for a similar reconstruction of another, much more famous Khrushchev-Seleznyov estate on Prechistenka (A. S. Pushkin Literary Museum). “If we do not implement this project, then we will get a phenomenal precedent: despite the number of approvals, some handful of people who have turned into architectural and intellectual censorship will overturn it without any weighty arguments,” Andrei Bokov said at the council meeting.
Bokov's speech was greeted with a standing ovation - the whole team came to support the artistic director of the theater Dmitry Bertman, as well as their star colleagues - Yevgeny Mironov, Emmanuil Vitorgan, Lev Leshchenko, a letter in support of the project was sent by Alexander Kalyagin. The theatrical elite is sure that the cultural object "weighs" more than "ordinary historical buildings", and is seriously concerned that the loud story with the destruction of the monument may lead to the destruction of the team of "Helikon" itself, which is forced to perform in depressing conditions, waiting for the promised scene more 14 years. Other arguments in favor of the reconstruction were also voiced at the meeting: for example, because of its stoppage, budget money and the money of the theater itself, already invested in construction, disappear. Finally, the defenders of the theater believe that if the project is abandoned now, it will most likely be bought for commercial purposes by some investor, and then the ensemble will certainly be inaccessible to the townspeople.
Most of the accusations in this story were leveled at Dmitry Bertman, who was recently even called "the destroyer of Russian culture" on one of the central channels. At a meeting of the council, the theater's artistic director admitted that these words were a powerful blow to him, and excitedly reminded the audience that it was the theater staff that had kept the estate from destruction for many years in a row. His opponents, however, are reluctant to believe that the leadership of the theater is responsible for the current partial destruction of the monument. “Initially, the wrong reconstruction strategy was chosen,” notes Natalya Dushkina. - Why did the architects take on the federal monument, and not the restorers? And why are the latter being subcontracted and at the same time doing the expertise themselves?"
When the heat of the discussion reached its climax, the floor was taken by the chief architect of Moscow, Alexander Kuzmin. He supported the theater: "It is shameful and scary: now Bertman is an enemy of the Russian people, then the Tretyakov Gallery, the Pushkin Museum, the Russian State Library will go - and after all, everyone needs to expand." Kuzmin reminded Arkhnadzor that there is no commercial interest in the project, as in Kadashi or Khitrovka, and it is not clear to him why cultural projects meet such resistance from public figures. “Yes, all these evasions made the situation unclean,” Kuzmin admitted. - But if there are violations - let those who should deal with them, and not the Public Council. The construction must be completed immediately, and details such as preserving the outbuilding wall can be discussed within the framework of the working group. " Academician Yuri Platonov supported the reconstruction project together with Alexander Kuzmin. Moscow Deputy Mayor Lyudmila Shvetsova also spoke in favor, but called on the experts: "The scale of the compromise should be limited to the project that has already been agreed."
Chairman of the Council Vladimir Resin supported the resolution of Alexander Kuzmin as a final decision: “We are in a moral debt to the artists and have already lost many talented people. Therefore, it is necessary to find a compromise that will allow the construction of the theater to be completed in the coming months. Colleagues from Arkhnadzor should be involved in the revision. Well, the overlap of the courtyard is beyond doubt: this is our climate,”concluded Resin, expressing the hope that such a Solomon decision would suit even Princess Shakhovskaya herself.
To the discussion of the second issue on the agenda - the project of typical metro stations - the hall was almost empty. Needless to say, in contrast to the first plot, the excitement around the return of the "tipuha" to the metro has long been dormant. Recall that in January, Metrogiprotrans' chief architect Nikolai Shumakov presented projects of typical metro stations developed in accordance with the plans of the new city administration - to extend the metro network by a record 120 km until 2020. The public immediately got scared of the word "typical", and a wave of critical publications arose in the press. As a result, Shumakov was instructed to report the project to the professional council. The architect made it very clear about his work everything that he had told the press so far. The stations will be of two types: the main type for shallow ground - vaulted, "in certain, optimized parameters, I emphasize, not minimized." Hydrogeological conditions can limit the ability to build a vault, and a two-span structure is provided for this case. The parameters of the lobbies, which are divided into several modules, and auxiliary technical structures for deep-level stations are also regulated. The stations are equipped with lifts for disabled people and transparent partitions on the tracks.
By the way, the declared 120 km also includes the creation of the Third Interchange Circuit, with the help of which it is supposed to remove the load from the ring line. Nikolai Shumakov intends to build it in the form of a large section tunnel, in which trains are passed in two directions at once, which will speed up its commissioning. The pre-project also contains proposals for the construction of a light metro that will connect Moscow and Zelenograd.
The Council fully supported the work of Nikolai Shumakov. As Vladimir Resin noted, “this is a big step forward, and not at all a type. Only the constructions will be typical, and each of the stations will have its own architect and design. Member of the Public Council Yuri Grigoriev advised to pay special attention to the lighting of the new stations and the design of the entrance pavilions. And Alexey Klimenko recalled the kilometers of abandoned tunnels and workings and called for the creation of a working group in order to use this resource. Taking into account these proposals, the project was approved by the Public Council.
