First, about the promises. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin last Friday attended a meeting on low-rise construction in the Stupino district of the Moscow region and promised that 60% of Russian housing by 2015 will be low-rise. President Dmitry Medvedev, in turn, attended a meeting with historians and said there that he supports the idea of creating a register of endangered architectural monuments. … And Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin, also on Friday, inspected Izmailovsky Park and promised to make the capital's parks "the best": now the city plans to reconstruct as many as seven parks by autumn. And finally, on the website of the Department of Urban Development Policy of Moscow, it is promised to create a Coordinating Council on the implementation of the General Plan of the city. The head of the council will be the Deputy Mayor for Urban Development Policy and Construction Marat Khusnullin, and his task will be to oversee the implementation of the General Plan.
Indeed, if you build "Big Moscow" (as if it is small now!), Then supervision of the General Plan will be needed. The discussion that flared up last week somehow quickly faded away, but two completely opposite opinions emerged. First, the well-known architect and theorist Felix Novikov published yesterday on Archi.ru an open letter addressed to President Medvedev, Mayor Sobyanin and Governor Gromov, urging them not to rush to make a decision on Greater Moscow, especially before the elections. Representatives of the Union of Architects expressed the opposite point of view in Moscow News. Maxim Perov, President of the National Guild of Urban Planners and Vice-President of the SAR, called Moscow's radial-circular layout “a trauma reproduced for centuries” (Felix Novikov, on the contrary, urged to be more careful with the historical structure of the city, which is 850 years old). SAR President Andrei Bokov believes that as a result of the construction of the satellite city "the opportunity to live and breathe will return to Moscow," but only it must be built strictly according to regulations and instructions: the walls are like that, the windows are like that, the color is just that.
Here you can see two contradictions at once: the architect Felix Novikov, who lives in America, is against a quick decision about Greater Moscow, and the president of the Union of Architects of Russia is in favor. It seems that the president of the Union of Architects can be understood: he must defend the market for Russian architects, and in the new city, the market for architects may open up a gigantic one. However, his next statement about regulation sounds somehow contradictory. If everything is regulated, what will architects do? What is their job?
The contradictions of these July days do not end there, smoothly moving to where they should be - in the area of protection of monuments. Irina Zaika, scientific secretary of the Heritage Council of the Union of Architects, returning from Paris from the 35th session of UNESCO, said in Ogonyok that “the main enemy of architectural and historical monuments is capital, or rather private investors” (but President Medvedev at that the same day he instructed Then to work out a bill on the privatization of monuments, i.e. on their transfer to private capital). “We, in Russia, have a specific problem - an oversupply of money that investors invest in the development of historical city centers,” says Irina Zaika, illustrating her words with a story about point construction in the center of Yaroslavl and a new bridge built in this city. Now UNESCO issued a stern warning to Yaroslavl and threatened to add the city to the heritage list under threat - Irina Zaika told Ogonyok.
A completely opposite opinion was voiced by the Chairperson of the Executive Board of UNESCO, Eleonora Mitrofanova, who visited Yaroslavl for the first time in her life earlier this week. She confidently stated that she liked the new construction in the city. “I didn’t see anything that I imagined when I read the complaints of some NGOs and groups of people that everything is being violated, that everything is being violated,” the UNESCO representative told Yaroslavl television. “The fact that the World Heritage Committee gives any comments is in the order of things. Otherwise, why then do they exist if they say that everything is wonderful? - continued her thought Eleanor Mitrofanova. Talking about this visit, Regnum quotes in detail the resolution of the World Heritage Committee regarding the new construction in Yaroslavl.
The fate of Moscow's historical buildings turned out to be even more controversial. On Monday, the public movement Arkhnadzor issued a statement in which "the talks of Moscow officials about a" new urban planning policy " were called "openly operetta" and listed 21 houses that are in immediate danger of demolition. Two days later, on Wednesday, July 27, Nikolai Pereslegin, advisor to the head of the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage, told RIAN Real Estate that Arhnadzor's statement about the threat to 21 historical buildings in the center of Moscow was "disinformation" and it was based on "some speculation." Who to believe is unknown.
However, as if in confirmation of the words of "Arkhnadzor" on the same Wednesday, a house in Bolshoy Kozikhinsky Pereulok, 25 was demolished; Through the efforts of residents, the coalition in defense of the Khimki forest and the coalition in defense of Moscow, and even actress Tatyana Dogileva, the demolition was stopped. Probably anticipating the current intensity of passions, Sergei Moskalev in Chaskor devoted a week ago to his house in Kozikhinskoye about whether residents, developers, heritage defenders, can agree among themselves and how.
It has been said for a long time about cutting the territory of the buffer zone around the Arkhangelskoye estate. Now "Vesti" has reported that these territories are consistently sold off at auctions, and in some places, construction has already begun, albeit not so long. The reduction of security zones is now a trend. Also recently, the protected area of the Troyekurovo estate was reduced (it is located in the south-west of Moscow near the Moscow Ring Road; the main value of the estate is the church of Peter the Great's time). Continuing the conversation about boundaries and promises, the new chief archaeologist of Moscow, Leonid Kondrashev, promised to clarify all the boundaries of Moscow's archaeological sites by 2014 and then begin large-scale excavations.
The problem of the boundaries of the protected zones also affected Pskov. A week ago, the chairman of the Pskov branch of VOOPiK Irina Golubeva and the head of the art department of the Pskov museum-reserve told in the "Pskov province" that in the spring of 2011 the regional committees on culture and tourism adopted a project of reduced protection zones for only 11 (out of 350 available) monuments of the city of Pskov. Experts tell in detail about the history of the formation, as a result of scrupulous research work, of the system of protected areas of the city (at the origins of this work was the famous historian of Pskov Yu. P. Spegalsky) - and reasonably insist not to destroy the system created over half a century by the forces of professionals for unique city. They qualify the reduction of security zones as a consequence of a deliberate order aimed at making a profit from the development of the city center.
At the same time, in the pages of the same newspaper, the restorer Galina Hoffman speaks in detail and motivatedly against the project of museification of the Intercession Tower of the Pskov Kremlin (this is a wide "thick" tower at the farthest corner, near which Stephen Batory was defeated in 1581). The project was developed by the construction company "PGS II" completely free of charge and (probably) therefore joyfully accepted on June 16 by the Pskov Public Council. It involves the erection of a multi-tiered glass-metal structure inside the tower; the structure will not touch the walls, but, according to Tatiana Golubeva, it will destroy the perception of the huge (wide, surrounded by deep chambers of the archers) interior of the tower. The restorer also presents two other projects for the museumification of the tower - his own and that of the architect L. I. Savelyeva. Both projects were made by professionals, but the Pskov Public Council did not have time to consider them. Let us remind you that in 1995 the wooden tent of the Pokrovskaya Tower burned down and was restored a year and a half ago using authentic technology, i.e. chopped from wood "in dir" (you can read about this in last year's detailed article by Irina Golubeva).
On the positive side: at the end of last week, journalists were shown the results of a long and painful reconstruction of the Bolshoi Theater - Maya Krylova talks about them in detail in NG. The theater hall was reduced by two hundred seats, but, on the one hand, it was carefully restored, the cement of the Soviet era was removed, the spruce upholstery, stucco moldings from papier-mâché and the curtain with Minin and Pozharsky were returned - and on the other hand, the theater was saturated with electronics and automation, there will be a creeping line on the backs of the chairs with a choice of the target language, the stage has two coverings, one for opera, the other for ballet, and the foundation of the theater has been thoroughly strengthened. The journalists have not yet been allowed into the new, underground premises of the Bolshoi (about the project of which you can read on Archi.ru).
Another positive news, which, although it happened in June, has only leaked to the press now, is the creation of a new Non-Profit Partnership of Certified Experts (ICES). We have already written about the creation of this organization. Now several extensive and thorough interviews have appeared in the press, allowing us to understand the specifics and goals of IKES. And I must say that against the background of the general fuss and scandals, this specificity looks unexpectedly positive, focused on professionalism and science. Experts say: the need for serious, archival and field research; about the possibility of collective discussion of complex problems. And the provocative questions that it will be more difficult for unbiased experts to get orders are answered unanimously: we are scientists, we already have a lot of work; and customers, they will sooner or later understand that high-quality expertise is more profitable. However, as soon as it comes to real life examples, they, alas, say the opposite: so far, customers can easily find obedient experts who are ready to solve their financial problems. Perhaps the work of IKES will help change the situation in a more civilized direction. Sometime, after all, this must happen.
