The reconstruction of the house-commune of the architect Ivan Nikolaev in Donskoy Proezd has been going on for more than five years. Ekaterina Shorban recently examined the building and discovered that during the reconstruction process many original fragments were lost, and the shape of some of the architectural details was changed in the spirit of Corbusier, which, from the point of view of the history of architecture, changed the monument very seriously (Nikolaev did not agree with Corbusier in everything). Now an elevator is being built into the ramp of the sanitary building, which was not there before - which, most likely, will completely kill the perception of the unique space (it is the ramps that are especially interesting in the monuments of the 1920s). We publish an expert's story about the history and current state of the building, accompanied by a detailed analysis of the legal framework.
On the issue of preserving the object of cultural heritage, architectural monument - House-communes, 1929 - 1931, architect I. S. Nikolaev.
Expert commentary
The house-commune of students of the Textile Institute, built in 1929–31 by the project of a young but very talented architect Ivan Sergeevich Nikolaev, is an internationally recognized masterpiece of Soviet avant-garde architecture. (It is located near the metro station "Leninsky Prospekt" on Ordzhonikidze Street; official address: 2nd Donskoy Prospect, 9, 9, bldg. 3). This is the clearest example of the experimental direction in the architecture of that time. The building is interesting not only as an outstanding work of constructivism, distinguished by elegance and emphasized freedom of geometrized forms, but also as a unique example of a social experiment.
There is no need to describe it in detail - it is included in all classical works on the history of architecture of the twentieth century. Let us briefly recall the structure of the commune house: The H-shaped building in the plan consists of three rectangular buildings: a narrow and long 8-storey dormitory for 2 thousand people, a transverse 8-storey sanitary building with shower and sports rooms, and a third low wide two-storey public (or "educational") building - it housed a library, rooms for individual lessons, a dining room. The lifestyle of the members of the commune was strictly regulated: this was achieved by means of architecture.
Particularly strict rules were related to sleep patterns and hygiene conditions. After taking a shower in the sanitary building and putting their day clothes in individual wardrobes, the communards put on pajamas and went to the dormitory. The sleeping rooms for two people resembled the size and structure of a train compartment: two beds and a narrow passage between them. Rows of such small rooms were located on each floor on the sides of the middle longitudinal corridor (in the 1960s, when the extreme inconvenience of students living in pencil-case rooms became obvious - according to the project of I. S. Nikolaev himself, the dormitory was rebuilt - the corridors were moved to the outer the wall facing the courtyard, and doubled the depth and width of the rooms). In contrast to the minimal sleeping cabins, the public spaces of the commune house were distinguished by the breadth of space. The interiors of the spacious library rooms, with upper shed lanterns, or the dining room and hall, with thin sparsely spaced columns with mushroom capitals look extremely elegant in old photographs (until recently, the public building was divided by a network of partitions into many small rooms of various uses - from a tire workshop to office offices).
One of the most beautiful elements of the building of Ivan Nikolaev is a triangular ramp, adjoining from the side of the courtyard to the transverse building and connecting its floors. The tape of the ramp winds upward around the vertical triangular shaft, creating a special theatrical space (it is no coincidence that a few years ago, artists annually organized the exhibition-installation “Ramp” in it). This ramp is a kind of symbol of the architecture of the Soviet avant-garde; his photographs taken by the famous Alexander Rodchenko are known all over the world.
In 2007, together with my colleagues, I had the opportunity to visit the house-commune of Ivan Nikolaev and bypass three of its buildings. Construction work began on the project of A. A. Bernstein and V. O. Kulish with a peculiar formulation "Reconstruction with restoration and adaptation" (parts of the project: "Project. Architectural solutions" and "Project for the restoration of interiors" approved by the Moscow Heritage Committee on September 5, 2007). By that time, the sleeping block was evicted and presented an amazing sight inside. The overlappings of all floors were destroyed and before us appeared a single multi-storey space, intersected by a genuine powerful metal frame - a large cross-section of horizontal beams that would be more suitable for an industrial building (it is known that during the years of construction I. S. … In addition, apparently, so that the “box” of the outer walls of the case would not lose stability, by 2007 it was “stitched” like knitting needles with thick metal rods pierced right through the brickwork of the outer walls and crossing the entire space at different angles in different directions.
When we saw this truly fantastic picture, we had a question - how will it be possible to preserve the original external walls when "pulling" these spokes from the building? As it turned out, it was not possible. Just as it was not possible to preserve the metal frame of the floors. (Even then, I had the opportunity to consult with the famous architect-restorer V. I. Yakubeni; after briefly describing the picture he saw, when asked if it was possible to act somehow differently and preserve all the original parts of the structures when remaking rotten wooden floors, I received immediate answer: “Of course you can: it was just necessary to destroy and restore the overlap between the load-bearing metal beams, not entirely, but in parts or vertical“grips”).
A month ago, in August 2013, I again needed to visit the house-commune of I. S. Nikolaev - it was necessary to prepare a fresh photo shoot for a lecture on the history of avant-garde architecture. Imagine my surprise when the dormitory building of the complex appeared "completely new". Completely new - in the literal sense of the word, that is … newly built in a significant part. Not only the materials of the supporting structures themselves, but also the architectural forms were replaced with new ones. For example, part of the lower floor of the building, according to the architectural fashion of the 1920s, was left by I. S. Nikolaev without enclosing walls - the volume stood on open columns. As a result of recent construction work, these columns, originally square in cross section, have now acquired an elongated shape with rounded corners - just like in the building of "Tsentrosoyuz" architect Le Corbusier on the street. Myasnitskaya in Moscow.
Another change: the removal of balconies on the outer facade of the dormitory has been significantly increased - well, probably, to make it more convenient to place summer furniture there … How can one not remember what new owners of architectural monuments say in such cases, for example, suburban manor houses of the 18th century near Moscow, their rebuilding: "Don't worry, it will be better!" Of the original fragments of the building, only the brick walls of the ends of the body and the staircase half-cylinders have survived. Most of the load-bearing walls have been lost. So, the dormitory building of a commune house is like a monument (that is, an object with genuine elements) we have lost almost completely and even with a change in architectural forms.
For the sake of fairness, it must be emphasized that something has been done well in the newly built dormitory building. A small "museum block" was created - a section with an old layout was reconstructed - with a middle corridor and narrow compartments on its sides. On all floors, very expensive wood striped glazing frames follow the original design. True, in Nikolayev's house they were sliding, which could not be fulfilled; the frames are hinged.
The corridors of the dormitory building themselves are painted in unexpectedly bright colors with an artificial "aniline" shade: bright crimson corridor, bright green, etc. This bold color "solution" seems to have little to do with the colors of the original interiors of I. S. Nikolaev.
What is happening to the other two parts of the commune house today?
In the transverse sanitary building, construction is underway at full speed according to the same scheme that was used in the sleeping block: jackhammers are knocking, the floors are removed, the metal frame is cut (more precisely, almost all of it has already been cut) and replaced with a new one … But what about the famous ramp? It is still preserved in its original form - both inclined shoots and a blank wall of the fence together with the original wooden railings have survived. When I approached the ramp, I saw workers hammering some metal elements into the bottom of the inner shaft … “What's this? "There will be an elevator here!" - came the answer. This means that the magnificent space of the ramp of the house-commune of I. S. Nikolaev will also be lost forever. Why? Unknown.
As for the third public building, it still continues to function (at least it was in early August). Although divided by later partitions and partly reminiscent today of a kind of "crow settlement", it nevertheless retained many original parts. Columns with mushroom capitals are visible in one room or another on the ground floor. These are the very columns of the spacious hall of the public building. The shed lanterns that illuminated the library have survived, and even the original fence of the library balcony with a simple and elegant design. On the rear façade of this building, a completely unique part has survived: an original and well-preserved gray-silver facade cladding with larch bars. This is an ingenious imitation of the concrete wall surface invented by Nikolayev. Having asked the builders about the fate of the cladding, I received another disappointing answer - most likely, it will disappear. On the main facade of the public building, from the side of the courtyard, the canopy of the main entrance was severely broken off (the horizontal visor on the four columns had a curved shape, reminiscent of a crescent in plan).
Let us turn, as far as the documents at our disposal allow, to the legal aspect of the issue.
Let's try in chronological order to consider how the protected status of a cultural heritage object has changed and what actions, corresponding or not corresponding to its status, were carried out with it.
1. In the 1980s. house-commune I. S. Nikolaev had the status of an architectural monument of local importance. According to former employees of the Moscow Heritage Committee, I. S. Nikolayev, back in the early 1990s, with the then user of the building, the Institute of Steel and Alloys, a "Security Obligation" was drawn up - which means that even then this object had a confirmed status of a monument.
2. In the 2000s. Moscow Heritage Committee approved the project of architects A. A. Bernstein and V. O. Kulish with the wording "Reconstruction with restoration and adaptation." ("Project for the restoration of interiors" approved on September 5, 2007 No. 16-11 / 15222, "Project. Architectural solutions" approved on September 5, 2007 No. 16-11 / 15223).
3. According to the response of the Department of Cultural Heritage of the city of Moscow (Mosgornasledie) No. I16-29-1042 / 3 dated 05.09.2013, signed by O. A. Zakharova, Head of the Department of State Registration and Expertise of Cultural Heritage Objects, at the request of citizen N. Yu. “On the issue of adjusting the subject of cultural heritage protection located at the address: 2nd Donskoy prospect, 9, 9, bldg.3 ", today" … House-commune, 1929, architect Nikolaev IS " officially “is an object of cultural heritage of regional importance”. "The subject of protection of the Object was approved by the order of the Department of Cultural Heritage of the city of Moscow dated February 24, 2012 No. 95."
4. In the same document of the Moscow Heritage Committee, cited above, it is stated:
“The works on the preservation of a part of the Object (block“A”- dormitory building) have been completed and adopted by the act of the Moscow City Heritage Commission on the acceptance of works on the preservation of the cultural heritage object dated February 19, 2013 No. and 20137-2013. Work on the Object (block B - sanitary building, block C - public building) continues."
5. A copy of the document on 3 pages was attached to the answer of the Moscow Heritage Committee:
"Order of February 24, 2012 No. 95"
"On the approval of the features of a cultural heritage site of regional significance, which served as the basis for its inclusion in the unified state register of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation and subject to mandatory preservation (subject of protection)", signed by the Head of the Moscow Cultural Heritage Department A. IN. Kibovsky - on 1 page, and the actual "Subject of Protection" on 2 pages. Note that the "Subject of Protection", in principle, is quite generalized. Although there are sections there that are usual for such documents, in almost all of them they tried to avoid mentioning such mandatory elements of the "Subject of Protection" as the original materials of load-bearing structures and finishing of facades and interiors (for monuments of such a historical and artistic level, the "Subject of Protection" usually all the smallest authentic elements are included, including door handles). So, let's list all the points of the "subject of protection":
a) "town planning characteristics of the building" (with decoding);
b) “volumetric-spatial composition of the building” (with decoding, including “semicircular staircase ledges of the dormitory building” are the only elements that were preserved during the reconstruction of the dormitory building; “parabolic volume of the sanitary building's ramp” - what is meant here? Destruction and remake, or is it preservation?);
c) "the configuration, material and nature of the flat roof of 1929 (taking into account the restoration work of the 2000s), including the elevation marks, the design of the" shed "lanterns and the location of the round skylight of the educational building" - we note about the elements of this item that in basically (with the exception of shed lamps), we are talking about non-preserved elements, such as "material … of a flat roof of 1929" and "a round skylight of the educational building" (known about it only from archival photographs) - of course, the desire to recreate it is important;
d) "compositional solution and architectural and artistic design of the facades of 1929 … (taking into account the restoration work of the 2000s)" - it is not clear what kind of "restoration works of the 2000s" are meant, - if we mean a dormitory, then as shown above, it has been completely rebuilt;
e) "drawing of carpentry fillings of 1929";
f) "the nature of the finishing of the facade surfaces in 1929, including textured plaster, wooden cladding of a part of the facade of the educational building from the 3rd Donskoy passage (taking into account the restoration work of the 2000s)" - this paragraph refers to the wooden cladding of the educational building - this is extremely important, since the name of the still preserved unique original element of the building, but whether it means the preservation of the original material or its replacement is not clear from the wording “character of decoration”;
g) “the coloristic solution of the facades (taking into account the restoration work of the 2000s)” - what “restoration work” is meant is not clear;
h) "the spatial and planning structure of the interiors of the building of 1929 - 1970s (author's version) with one-sided orientation of residential blocks within the main walls, supporting structures of 1929 and floors (taking into account the restoration work in 2000), including an open gallery with training cabins, with a fence and a metal staircase, in the interior of the educational building "- in this paragraph, again, the original parts of the monument that have survived are listed, which is extremely important;
i) "a 1930s stiffener in the form of a" blank "wall, arranged along the educational building between the existing pillars of 1929" - this point raises a question, since the "blank wall" was arranged to strengthen the structures and in reality significantly worsened the interiors of the building: why it should be preserved is not clear;
j) "the location, construction, material and character of the staircase decoration of 1929, including the Metlakh tiles on stair landings (taking into account the restoration work of the 2000s") - in this paragraph, unlike other sections of the "Subject of Protection", it is surprisingly named The "material" of the stairs; note that in the course of the work carried out in recent years in all the stairs of the dormitory, the marches were made anew, but according to the old measurements; the railings are made on the basis of an analogue: according to the drawing of the staircase railings designed in the same period by I. S. Nikolaev object (Cotton and Wool Laboratories of the Textile Institute). In the walls of the stairs, it was possible to identify and restore the window openings of 1929;
k) "the coloristic solution of the 1929 sanitary building ramp" - the inclusion of at least a coloristic solution of the ramp in the "Subject of Protection" is important, but certainly not enough (considering the plans of the 2007 architectural project to distort the entire ramp space by installing an elevator in it);
l) "The subject of protection can be clarified after the completion of the restoration work." - this last sentence of the text of the "Subject of Protection" is not entirely clear and legally can be interpreted in two ways: "clarified" in the direction of reducing the number of elements of the "Subject of Protection" destroyed during construction work, or, conversely, "changed" upward, for due to the emergence of "new" elements, passed off as genuine?
Let us consider in more detail the individual provisions of the "subject of protection" of the house-commune of I. S. Nikolaev and compare with what has already been done with the sleeping and sanitary buildings:
1. “The subject of protection of a cultural heritage site … is:
compositional solution and architectural and artistic design of the facades of 1929, including … rows of open balconies with a "blank" metal, made of horizontally arranged parallel pipes, an external fence, with metal I-beams supporting a reinforced concrete balcony slab …"
- balconies with solid or "blank" fencing of the dormitory were redesigned with an increase in the overhang;
- as for the continuous linear balconies running along the entire main courtyard facade of the sanitary building, the same "metal I-beams" indicated in the "Subject of Protection" have already been replaced with thick reinforced concrete cantilever ribbed slabs; and the fence made of horizontally located metal pipes (recorded on the 2007 survey) has been lost;
- note: there is an obvious misprint in the text of this paragraph: a comma is missing between the words "deaf" and "metal" - since there were two types of balconies - one with a blank fence, the other with a through metal of thin horizontal pipes.
2. “The subject of protection of a cultural heritage site … is:
Spatial-planning structure of building interiors 1929 - 1970s (author's edition) with one-sided orientation of residential blocks within the main walls, supporting structures of 1929 and floors (taking into account the restoration work in 2000) … »(Emphasis added by the author);
- as mentioned above, "capital walls, support structures of 1929 and floors" in the dormitory completely lost and replaced with new ones (new metal beams and reinforced concrete floors) - but there, the authors of the project can refer to the fact that the project "Reconstruction with restoration and adaptation" was approved and carried out on the bedroom building already in 2007, that is, EARLIER approval of the "Subject of Protection" on February 24, 2012 (it is not clear what restoration work of "2000" is in question; perhaps this is a typo in the document, and instead one should read "2000s" - as it is said in other paragraphs of the text "Subject of protection");
With regard to the transverse "Sanitary" building, then in it the destruction of the original "supporting structures of 1929", including metal floor beams, takes place today, in 2013, that is, AFTER the adoption of the "Subject of Protection": thus, the provisions of this "Subject of Protection" are deliberately violated.
3. “The subject of protection of a cultural heritage site … is:
The spatial and planning structure of the interiors of the building from 1929 to the 1970s …"
- The ramp adjacent to the sanitary building, no doubt, fully corresponds to this wording, which means it must be preserved in its original form.
However, in the document already cited above - the answer of the Moscow Heritage Committee to Vasiliev N. I.
signed by O. A. Zakharova, there is a separate paragraph on the ramp:
"Design documentation approved by the Moscow City Heritage (" Project for the restoration of interiors "approved on September 5, 2007 No. 16-11 / 15222," Project. Architectural solutions "approved on September 5, 2007 No. 16-11 / 15223) an elevator is provided in the ramp of block B ».
This decision does not contradict the approved subject of protection of the Object, the parameters of the elevator are specified at the stage of detailed design”(bold - the author).
This quote raises many questions. According to the letter and spirit of Federal Law No. 73 of 25.06. 2002 "On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation" the main task - physical preservation integrity and authenticity cultural heritage site, and this document testifies otherwise.
To clarify the situation, let us refer to the provisions of Federal Law No. 73 of 25.06. 2002 year
1. "Objects of cultural heritage are subject to state protection in order to prevent their damage, destruction or destruction, changes in appearance and interior, violation of the established procedure for their use, movement and prevention of other actions that could cause harm to cultural heritage sites, as well as in order to protect against adverse environmental impacts and other negative impacts "(Federal Law No. 73; Chapter VI, Article 33" Aims and Objectives state protection of cultural heritage objects”, paragraph 1).
2. « Design and implementation land surveying, earthen, construction, reclamation, household and other works on the territory of a monument or ensemble are prohibited, with the exception of works to preserve this monument or an ensemble and (or) their territories, as well as economic activities that do not violate the integrity of the monument or ensemble and do not pose a threat of damage, destruction or destruction (Federal Law No. 73; Chapter VI, Article 35 "Features of the design and implementation of land management, earthworks, construction, reclamation, economic and other works on the territory of the cultural heritage site and in the protection zones of the cultural heritage site", paragraph 2).
When reading this quote, the question may be asked - what does it have to do with our topic? - The most direct: partially survived two buildings of the commune house (sanitary and public), including such unique parts as the sanitary block ramp, facades and interiors of the public building, at the moment are under imminent threat of "damage, destruction or destruction". This is confirmed in the above-cited answer of the Moscow Heritage Committee that the device of the elevator inside the ramp is outlined by the project and “ does not contradict the approved subject of protection of the Object ».
3. We may also object that the project for the communal house was approved in 2007, and the "Subject of Protection" was drawn up in 2012. Quite right, and thus, those who previously, when drawing up the project, still had it is not clear that they are dealing with the monument, in accordance with the law, in 2012 it was necessary to suspend the work, to carry out obligatory the State Historical and Cultural Expertise provided by law (Federal Law No. 73. Chapter V. State Historical and Cultural Expertise) on the compliance (or non-compliance) of the 2007 projectlegislative principles for the protection of cultural heritage sites and the provisions of the "Subject of Protection" and seriously change and adjust the project towards preserving all the original parts of the object:
«… works, the implementation of which may worsen the state of the cultural heritage object, violate its integrity and safety, must be immediately suspended by the customer and the contractor after receiving a written order from the executive authority of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, authorized in the field of protection of cultural heritage objects "(Federal Law No. 73; Chapter VI, Article 37" Suspension of excavation, construction, reclamation, economic and other work, the performance of which may cause harm to objects of cultural heritage”, paragraph 2). - Undoubtedly, in order to save the still surviving original parts of the object, the relevant executive authority, the Moscow Heritage Committee, must fulfill its legally defined mission.
4. It is necessary to clarify the meaning of the wording approved in the 2000s. project "Reconstruction with restoration and adaptation":
In order to avoid misinterpretations of what is "restoration", "adaptation" and "reconstruction", let us turn to the definitions of the law.
In Federal Law No. 73, Chapter VII "Preservation of a cultural heritage object" there are definitions of the concepts of restoration and adaptation:
Article 43: Restoration: Restoration of a monument or an ensemble - research, exploration, design and production work carried out in order to identify and the preservation of the historical and cultural value of the cultural heritage site ».
Article 44: Adaptation: “Adaptation of a cultural heritage object for modern use - research, exploration, design and production work carried out in order to create conditions for the modern use of a cultural heritage object without changing its features that constitute the subject of protection, including the restoration of elements of a cultural heritage object that are of historical and cultural value ».
(everywhere in bold - by the author).
There is no interpretation of the concept of "reconstruction" in "Chapter VII" of Federal Law No. 73, since reconstruction, that is, the restructuring of an object in its essence, does not provide for the "preservation of a cultural heritage object."
Conclusion
As for the "reconstruction" - this was exactly what was done with the first (dormitory) building of the House-Commune of I. S. Nikolaev.
Today, in my opinion, the time has come to stop the ongoing destruction of other remaining original parts of the monument, and to start "restoration and adaptation" - along with "reconstruction", also stated in the formulation of the architectural project of A. A. Bernstein and V. O. Kulish. Genuine constructions, facades and interiors of the sanitary building ramp (without building an elevator into it), and the entire public corps should be SAVED.
As an epilogue, I will cite another quote from Federal Law No. 73 - on the concept of "PRESERVATION OF THE OBJECT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE".
This quote absolutely accurately, succinctly, in the necessary sequence, reflects everything that had to be done in relation to the cultural heritage site of regional significance of the house-commune, 1929–1931, by the architect A. S. Nikolaev, both the designers and organizers of the construction, and the cultural heritage protection authorities, but have not yet adequately done:
"Preservation of a cultural heritage site for the purposes of this Federal Law - repair and restoration work aimed at ensuring the physical safety of the cultural heritage object, including conservation of a cultural heritage object, repair of a monument, restoration of a monument or an ensemble, adaptation of a cultural heritage object for modern use, as well as research, survey, design and production work, scientific and methodological guidance, technical and architectural supervision. " (Chapter VII. Article 40).
Shorban Ekaterina Antonovna, Expert of the State Historical and Cultural Expertise, Ph. D. in History of Arts, Laureate of the Prize of the Government of the Russian Federation in the field of culture
Moscow, September 6-9, 2013
