The public discussion, which took place on August 19, 2017 within the framework of the Festival of Architectural Books at Khlebozavod, was timed to the publication of the book ArchiDron by Denis Esakov in DOM publishers.
Discussion participants:
Denis Esakov, architectural photographer and researcher of modernist architecture, Natalia Melikova, founder of The Constructivist Project, photographer, Lara Kopylova, architecture critic, Anna Guseva, architectural historian, associate professor and academic director of the master's program "History of Artistic Culture and the Art Market" at the School of Historical Sciences of the Higher School of Economics.
Moderator - Nina Frolova, editor-in-chief of the Archi.ru portal.
Nina Frolova: The problem of preserving monuments is, first of all, an ideological problem. Of course, we would like to preserve everything important and interesting, but life makes its own adjustments, and one of the topics that any organization for the preservation of monuments faces is the change of times and functions, that is, a structure that could differ in functionality and quality at the moment construction, after twenty, thirty, fifty, especially a hundred years, can turn into a completely inappropriate and generally unimportant structure, into a "complex" object, from which many will want to get rid of. There is also a subjective question of taste and just physical deterioration, which is also not always possible to cope with. All this makes the problem of preservation very difficult, even when it comes to buildings of really high historical significance, which are a century old or even several.
Well, when we talk about the monuments of the last hundred years, especially the post-war period or the last fifty years, this problem becomes even more acute because, unlike the monuments of classicism or baroque, the general public does not always understand what is important in these buildings - and how they differ from those that arose a week ago.
This is a really poignant plot, and an interesting look at these "new" monuments and buildings is given by Denis Esakov's book, which was published this spring. In it, in addition to the more familiar images of famous buildings in Moscow over the past hundred years, he captured them from the height of the drone's flight. I would like to give the floor to Denis: what did he want to say with his project, what aspects of these buildings did he want to draw attention to, what seems important to him in preserving the heritage, and what is a monument to him?
Denis Esakov: When I started this project, I had the idea to remove the buildings of Soviet modernism, what was built in the 1960s - 80s in Moscow, to show them from different points of view. One point of view is obvious, “pedestrian”, this is how we perceive a building on the street with our own eyes, and another point of view is “bird's”, this is a vertical downward perspective, in other words, in a plan, and in this case, the building simply dissolves into landscape. Sometimes you don't even know if it's a building at all. When we “presented” the book at the Garage Museum, we were asked: “What are these badges on the cover?” - and these are not icons, this is a top view of buildings, the same architecture, but in a slightly different form. And the third point of view is the building at an angle of 45 degrees, one might say, an axonometric projection from the point of view of the architect, that is, this is how the author saw the building. He created the project, taking into account this particular angle, before they began to implement it, as he saw it in the model. The result is a story from three angles about each of the 70 buildings: from the pedestrian's gaze (how the end consumer of architecture sees it), how the creator saw it, and how this building is seen from space - a "bird" projection.
Why is this important, and how should the issues of monuments be understood? When I was shooting constructivist buildings in Yekaterinburg, Eduard Kubensky, founder of the Tatlin publishing house, told me that they had a project to show the city administration that some constructivist monuments are in a terrible state. They deliberately made a very dark filming, which emphasized how neglected it all was - even stronger than in reality. Apparently, this should have caused a tear in the municipal boss, but this did not happen - the method did not work. This conversation sunk into my soul. I thought that it was necessary to do the opposite - to show the architecture beautiful, interesting, to display its idea. Show not destruction, but that it is valuable, that against the background of this object, at least a selfie can be taken. It is necessary to conduct a conversation not with a professional, but with an ordinary person in a simple, accessible language. And this will become important, forming a personal attitude towards individual buildings, something in which a person wants to take part. If a passer-by feels the value of a building being destroyed before his eyes, he will speak out against this, public support for the heritage conservation movement will arise.
In my opinion, it is important to photograph architectural monuments of the 20th century well, so that a person can see the proportions of the building, understand the idea laid down by the author. This is the advantage of architectural photography, its salt. Human vision is arranged in such a way that we perceive large objects partially - we see "in focus" only some detail of the building, but it is difficult to see it in its entirety. The pupil jumps chaotically, collects individual parts, and the brain glues them together into one picture. A person does not see a sharp image of the building, only a certain image. And so, when a camera with a necropped matrix places the entire building on one picture, and this image is placed on the screen, on the palm, on the phone, then the architecture is perceived as an integral object. Then the idea that the architect laid down appears, and surprise appears - as if a person saw this building for the first time.
Lara Kopylova: I want to continue this thought and ask a question. Here I am speaking in the position of a layman who does not understand what a monument of constructivism means. Here Denis says - an idea. And I want to ask, what is the idea and meaning? The fact is that we all understand that the Russian avant-garde is the greatest phenomenon, this is what Russia has given to the world. But the general public has not yet understood him. As soon as it comes to the meaning of the avant-garde, in fact, about the idea, everyone immediately begins to say in general terms that “yes, this is great architecture” - that's all. This is how one architect told me: "Leonidov is our everything." And that's all? What is the meaning of the Russian avant-garde? Let's say this is the Russian revolution, which is so ambivalent in our country, the rebellion is senseless and merciless - it is very difficult to love the Russian revolution, but we understand that this is a rare phenomenon. Or social utopia, or social engineering, an experiment on a person: two people were settled in a commune house in a room with an area of four meters, it is clear that this is a very controversial phenomenon.
I would like to ask the people who are sitting here - fans of the Russian avant-garde and Soviet modernism - why do you love him, except that it is cool (I agree with that)? How would you explain to a layman: what is this architecture about?
Denis Esakov: I can give an example from conversations that arise in Facebook and Vkontakte feeds, and on other sites where I post my photos. It so happens that a person sees architecture for the first time, its beauty in the picture: this is what I just talked about - the effect of architectural photography. If we are talking about a wide audience, then she is not ready to talk about the merits and achievements of architecture, I think that for her the criterion is beauty, aesthetics of architecture.
Lara Kopylova: The audience will see how you photographed the building from above, so what? Do you think she will directly appreciate the beauty?
Denis Esakov: Let's take the burnt-out building of INION on Profsoyuznaya. A girl for ten years walked past him every day to go down the subway. She writes to me: "I looked at INION, which you shot, it's so ugly, and yours is beautiful, it's photoshop, right?" This is the effect I was talking about earlier. This is not Photoshop, this is the first time a whole building fits into the retina of this girl's eye. She saw that there was an idea and proportions, and that it was really beautiful, and not just a dilapidated piece of an unkempt building.
Lara Kopylova: But what to do, for example, with some buildings of the 1960s - 1970s, such as the Minsk Hotel on Tverskaya, which were demolished, and no one tried to protect them, how to explain to a person that this is something valuable - and is it valuable?
Denis Esakov: I want to give an example
a story that took place in a parallel reality. In Tel Aviv. It is a city with a large complex of modernist architecture, which arose mostly in the 30s of the XX century. In 2003, UNESCO put it on protection. This is a monument of international importance "White City". Now the objects included in the protection zone of the UNESCO monument are being restored and have become the hallmark of Tel Aviv.
But back in the 1980s, this architecture was in very bad shape. People preferred to live not in these unique houses, but in the north of the city, in newer buildings. However, there were enthusiasts who understood how significant this architecture is. They undertook a whole series of actions to bring the city center and these modernist buildings in order. They told the city that it possesses an architectural gem, the conversation went with an ordinary person. Mikael Levin organized an exhibition at the museum, and hung the exhibition catalog on the trees along the boulevards. He built a dialogue about the value of this architecture with ordinary townspeople - and it worked out, people fell in love with their city. Of course, this was a more complex phenomenon. Songs were composed about the White City, photo albums and films were shot, it was a whole movement to explain to the Tel Aviv people that they have a very valuable and interesting heritage. Ordinary people believed in it, the city administration believed in it, and Nitsa Smuk, the chief architect-restorer at the municipality, picked up this idea, developed it and brought it to the status of a UNESCO monument.
Lara Kopylova: A monument is great, and to promote heritage is, in fact, the point. But my question remained unanswered.
Natalia Melikova: Maybe I can answer this question, because I am just the kind of person who seven years ago did not know the word constructivism and lived in America. And when I saw the photograph of the Shukhov Tower by Alexander Rodchenko, I was struck by the beauty of this tower - I did not know what it was then - I really liked this photograph, and I thought about who Rodchenko is, what is constructivism, and we can say that this was the beginning of The Constructivist Project, which I have been doing for seven years. And I think this is very important - how we shoot architecture, what we want to show. When I first started photographing such architecture, I repeated Rodchenko's foreshortenings, because I realized that his approach was in the spirit of constructivism. And then I began to shoot how they are being demolished, I had a question: if experts say and write that this is a valuable architecture, why is this happening?
When I photograph the building of the People's Commissariat for Finance in its poor condition, people often come to me with the question: “Why are you renting such a building? It collapses, it is ugly. But when I just started my project, I did not know what the People's Commissariat of Finance was, I simply removed the monuments “according to the list”. Then I wondered: why is the house in such a bad state, if everyone thinks it is a masterpiece? I began to study this history, and now, when they ask me about it, I answer, and we are conducting a discussion. I think it is very important to tell about this architecture, and not just show it.
Lara Kopylova: Well, these are absolute masterpieces - the Shukhov tower and the building of the People's Commissariat for Finance … and if you take, for example,
"House-ship" on Bolshaya Tulskaya, there you can already discuss - "a masterpiece - not a masterpiece", and this is probably more difficult to explain.
Natalia Melikova: It depends on the person. For example, I came from constructivism to an interest in Soviet modernism. Because when we look very quickly at a building, it seems to us that it is “just a box”. But when they talked about the [now demolished]
Taganskaya automatic telephone exchange, that it is "just a box", it was necessary to explain what the value of this "box" is: that there is a special form, structure, what is it in principle …
Lara Kopylova: I want to ask the last question. It seems to me that in modernism, in its very sense, there is a certain problem, which is why it is so difficult to preserve it, because it is focused on the poetics of technology, and technology is a thing by definition temporary: we throw out the washing machine in five years, the computer we change even more often because it is out of date. And, if modernism poeticizes technology (constructivists - tractors, and now - computer screens), the building itself very quickly becomes obsolete in its meaning. And this is a reason to think, because the architects who are building now are also often focused on "extra-novelty", but it very quickly ceases to be understandable and valuable.
Anna Guseva: Lara has just touched on a very important topic: how we define the quality of a monument. In Japan there is such an organization - mAAN - modern Asian Architecture Network - "Association for the Preservation of Contemporary Asian Architecture." Why did this association arise? Because in Asia there is not even such a thing as a monument - except for very ancient structures, and what was built fifty, one hundred, even two hundred years ago is just houses. Therefore, it became necessary to talk about the fact that this or that building is of historical or artistic interest.
But, in fact, if we look at a building from the point of view of an architect (what we conventionally call “a masterpiece is not a masterpiece”) is only half of the position, there is also the position of the residents themselves who live in this building, next to it … And that building, which from the point of view of an art critic or an architect can be considered typical, ordinary, uninteresting, will be extremely necessary for creating and understanding the identity of the community in this village or city. It will be very important for the residents who spent their childhood in it, their happy memories are associated with it, although from our, "professional" point of view, it may be completely uninteresting, and one can decide: demolish - well, okay.
Therefore, the definition of a monument is a very difficult issue that affects many "players" whose opinion must be taken into account. To consider the object not only from the point of view of the quality of construction, which can be cruel (“this building is very old, it will take too much money for restoration”) and from the point of view of architecture, as they may contradict the position of the residents.
It seems to me that photographers have a very important tool that allows them to reveal these many facets of architecture, to see a building not only from the point of view of an architect, but also to show how this building is changing, how it lives. As an artist who paints a portrait of a person, he does not show his "passport photograph", he rather shows his soul.
Nina Frolova: I would like to return to specifics and everyday life. At the end of 2016, the Motley Ryad residential area in Chernyakhovsk (this is the Kaliningrad region, the former territory of Germany) received the status of a federal monument. These houses were built by the outstanding German architect Hans Scharun in the twenties. This is a unique object even by the standards of Germany, and, naturally, in Russia there are no other buildings of Sharun at all, in principle there are no buildings of Western modernists of that time. And in parallel with the award of this high protective status, major repairs began in this residential area. On the one hand, it was a disaster, because it was the loss of the monument of its authenticity, authenticity, and heritage conservationists were horrified. On the other hand, the residents of the "Motley row" have long suffered from its dilapidation: these are high quality buildings, for example, the paint of the 1920s on the walls came to us in a very decent condition, but there was no repair there for almost a hundred years, and they live in these apartments it was not easy.
What to do in such cases? On the one hand, there is a cultural community, historians, architects who are trying to preserve the maximum of historical buildings. On the other hand, there are people for whom this is the only housing, and they have the right to a decent quality of life, they do not have to suffer, because someone wants to admire the Sharun building. How to get out of the situation in such a situation? What is the best way to adapt the requirements of real life to what we would like to preserve as a work of art? For whom did the architects create the building at that time? For the human user or for the pleasure of the aesthetes?
Lara Kopylova: It seems to me that architects always create a building in the expectation that they will get something great, that it will become an architectural monument, but they never admit it, so they say: “Here is thermal insulation, here is insolation, so we here they retreated, but here our heating networks passed through, and that's why we built such a volume, and another volume crashes into it”. But in fact, of course, it seems to me that they are not doing this for people.
Anna Guseva: I still hope that they work for people (laughter), because I think this story with Sharun's house is a problem. On the one hand, it is a monument, and on the other hand, a major overhaul. Ideally, if it is not such a major overhaul, as we most often see - what paint they gave out, they smeared it on - and the correct restoration, then people will live comfortably, and the monument will be preserved. The same thing happened in Germany with typical houses, which we consider to be the prototypes of our Khrushchevs [five of them are included in the UNESCO World Heritage List]. These small buildings designed by the largest architects of the 1920s are now beautifully restored, reanimated, the interior layout has been slightly reformatted, and they look very good, minimalist, fashionable, and they are good to live in. And if the overhaul rises a step higher, reaches the level of restoration, then this, it seems to me, is the most working option for these buildings.
Nina Frolova: This is an ideal option, but, unfortunately, we can give few such examples, and, of course, often the very authenticity of the monuments comes into irreconcilable conflict with the comfort of the residents. You can recall the Moscow housing of different decades, where it is really not always convenient to live, although in principle they are interesting examples of this or that architectural ideology or technology, I mean, among other things, Khrushchev's program on mass housing, but not only her.
For example, one of the bright, even a bit comical examples: there is Rem Koolhaas's “House in Bordeaux” villa, built in 1998, that is, less than twenty years ago. And it is unique in that it is designed for a person moving in a wheelchair. The entire structure of the villa is designed to be comfortable for him: the central part of it moves vertically, like an elevator, so that he can move with his desk from one tier to another, and so on. The owner of the villa died in 2001, three years after the completion of construction, and in parallel with this, the French government granted the villa the status of a monument. That is, the owner's children can no longer rebuild it, although they no longer need its special device, and it is rather difficult to use it, because it was not built for them. They have in their hands an expensive property, their father's house, which they cannot fully use.
In this story, of course, the conflict of authenticity and inconvenience is exaggerated, more often residents of "important" houses, especially multi-apartment buildings, are faced with the fact that the rooms are too small, the windows do not provide enough light, the roof collapses and leaks, but, nevertheless, the authenticity is the major restructuring they need will be lost, which is a problem.
Lara Kopylova: To do this, it is necessary to create a security fund and, accordingly, transfer the building to the one who will operate this building in a more interesting way. The owners will probably not mind selling it.
Denis Esakov: It seems to me, yes, they have a choice: somehow live in this house or sell it. If we take this example specifically, this is a unique case when a house was created for a person with disabilities. From an engineering and architectural point of view, this is very interesting and, one might say, edifying. If someone is uncomfortable living there - there is a choice, you can sell the villa. Surely there will be a person who will be comfortable with this house.
Like the house of the People's Commissariat for Finance: we believe that low ceilings are inconvenient, and Anton Nosik, who lived in one of the cells, explained that it is convenient for a person to sleep in a hole, and not with high ceilings and a bed with a huge canopy.
Lara Kopylova: Ten years ago there was a discussion where Bart Goldhoorn, then the editor-in-chief of Project Russia magazine, talked about Koolhaas's research and position: there are different monuments, in buildings before the beginning of the 20th century there is a certain artisan value, because they were built by a bricklayer what is built later is industrial construction, so it makes sense to keep only the project as a super idea.
For example, this villa has an elevator room - this is really very unusual, but it is enough to save the project, not the building itself.
Denis Esakov: In this case, in order to understand the idea, it is easier to see the villa once than to read about how it works. The blueprint is the medium of the professional. The object will be easily perceived by a wide audience. There is emotion in the object, instructions in the blueprint.
Anna Guseva: Another important issue is the originality of the monument in a typical construction situation. After all, even if we are talking about the 19th century, we also have a lot of typical objects: eclectic houses are, in general, typical houses. Nevertheless, we love them dearly, and, for example, when they say in St. Petersburg that “this is a typical construction” and such houses are demolished, as a rule, this is a big scandal, and, thank God, sometimes it can be stopped. In Moscow, it is more difficult, houses in such cases are still destroyed, even if they are put on guard, for example, such buildings in Zaryadye have recently been demolished, so that ordinary buildings of the 19th century disappear, and after all, they were previously considered by experts and historians of architecture to be something little worthy studying …
And on this wave it has already become indecent to say “I want to destroy the house of the 19th century”, however, for “I want to destroy the house of the 20th century” no one will beat so hard. This is a very acute problem that is now causing a lot of discussion among architects, historians, and simply among the general public - what can be saved?
Lara Kopylova: Maybe then we can talk about Cheryomushki? Directly about the panel area, it is now proposed to preserve it as a kind of monument, although this is clearly a typical construction, honestly, I don’t know what to keep there, this is the very example, the very border where, in my opinion, there is nothing to keep
Denis Esakov: I just want to subscribe to what Anna said a little earlier. There is one side - this is an architectural monument, and you need to discuss it from an architectural point of view, to understand what unique achievements and findings are embodied in it. And there is another side - people and the environment they form. If people live there, have their own habits and connections, then by destroying buildings, "demolition" destroy this environment. Here the question of price arises: are the innovations and, in general, the intention with which the demolition is carried out, are they worth the destruction of the existing environment? Or will the trauma inflicted on the city be greater than the benefit received? The question is acute for Russian society, in which it is already difficult to develop ties.
Anna Guseva: It seems to me that mass housing is perceived differently by all people. I also do not like "panels", it is more pleasant for me to live in an old house, but now I live in a panel house - it's okay. And I know a lot of people who spent their childhood in those very Cheryomushki or Chertanovo, and they love these places dearly, for them it is an image associated with their childhood, with their youth, with a lot of memories. And it will hurt them just as much when they destroy these "panels", as it hurts us when they destroy historical buildings …
Lara Kopylova: And what is the conclusion from this? Keeping all the panel districts, right?
Denis Esakov: This is a question of balance and rational decision, and not a giant slogan - “we demolish everything, build like this”. It is necessary to consider each district specifically, to assess how much the environment has developed there, how much the benefit from the "hundred-story buildings" that will be erected instead of five-story buildings will cover up the negative created.
Lara Kopylova: And if not stand-up buildings? If there will be an improvement in the environment, low-rise housing? …
Denis Esakov: Amazing, it seems to me, there will be a case …
Lara Kopylova: Why, there was such a case in Holland. Residents of panel houses are tired of the fact that the buildings are so far from each other, and small businesses are dying, because no one can see what kind of establishments there are on the ground floor. As a result, holes were built up between the panel "plates" with rows of blocked two-story houses, and business appeared there, it became comfortable, the street appeared!
Nina Frolova: Another hot topic is what appears instead of what is being demolished. You can, of course, say: yes, let's demolish these hated five-story buildings - but what will we get instead of them? There are many fears in this regard, because if we look at the products of modern DSK, most likely, these will be terrible twenty-two-story houses that we would not want to see anywhere and never, not only instead of five-story buildings, but even instead of a vacant lot.
But this is a very acute situation, and I would like to give an example about social affection and appreciation. It is now believed that the brutalist buildings, the powerful concrete architecture of the late 1960s and 1970s, are in the greatest danger from possible demolition for the sake of new construction: they are considered poorly aging, they are supposedly "inhuman", perceived by the public as ugly, and so on. They are being actively demolished, even when they are designed by prominent architects and are voted on by the public as the most repulsive buildings in the country in various polls.
And so people voted as the ugliest building for the Trinity Square shopping center in the English city of Gateshead. It was a famous building, it "starred" in the movie "Get Carter" with Michael Kane in 1971, that is, the whole country knew it, and the citizens readily awarded it the title of "ugliest". But what happened next? It was demolished, in its place appeared a large shopping center, completely walk-through, uninteresting architecture, and ended up being awarded the title of the ugliest new building in England in 2014. Why was it necessary to demolish a restrained-looking concrete object and pollute the environment at the same time (because any demolition is also completely non-ecological, we must remember this; reconstruction is always more environmentally friendly than demolition and construction of a new one) in order to get an absolutely uninteresting building, and obviously with a shorter life cycle, because it is glass, rather flimsy, albeit huge. So this theme of love is dislike, it’s so poignant! Can a five-story building beloved by people or another typical object, can it, simply because we love it, be saved from demolition?
Anna Guseva: Complex issue. In general, I am in favor of preserving everything as possible. But here's an example to talk about typical and non-typical projects. We conducted research with students in the Vologda Oblast. In Vologda, almost opposite the Kremlin, behind the trees, stands the House of Culture of the 1950s. It was completed already in Khrushchev's time, when the Stalinist architecture with columns was already a thing of the past, but in fact this is a typical neoclassical project of 1947. There are a lot of such recreation centers, there are in Samara, Nizhny Tagil, etc. Somewhere they are in good condition, but the house in Vologda was badly dilapidated: the House of Culture worked in the building until the 1990s, then there was a neuropsychiatric dispensary, and then there was nothing there. Now the building is overgrown with trees, children climb there, and, oddly enough, photo shoots of newlyweds are held, because there are very beautiful staircases descending in a semicircle on the back facade, which resembles a neglected Borisov-Musatov-style manor, and a bride in a white dress looks there perfectly…
Now this building has been sold to private owners, it is not protected as a monument. It was built on the shore on the site of the 19th century building, very competently made and really "keeps" the line of the embankment. It is loved by the townspeople, and there is now a campaign to turn it into a wedding palace. This is a problem: the recreation center is really typical, our architectural heritage will not suffer from its loss, but the city and its inhabitants will suffer.
Nina Frolova: And in Moscow recently there was a similar example with the [now demolished] House of Culture named after Serafimovich, about which only experts knew - before they began to demolish it - and the very active actions of people who live nearby and to whom this recreation center is dear - allowed [at that moment] stop this demolition.
Natalia Melikova: I just live nearby, and when they began to demolish this building, all my neighbors immediately came out, and everyone could tell their story: that they went there to circles, to theatrical performances, it turned out that in our area - on Tishinka - this was the only Cultural Center. There was information about this building, we found out the details about the architect, that there was a permanent club, and then they set up a recreation center. It seems to me that this is very important: before, I was simply interested in the architecture of this building, and then, when I began to shoot how it is being demolished and communicate with my neighbors, they had so many stories! It is important to record - not only culture and architecture, but how these people fought for this building. At the same time, I often met that those who, it would seem, should stop the demolition, do nothing, do not raise a fuss, do not publish photographs …
As a photographer, I now more and more take pictures with my phone, because the photo needs to be uploaded to the network as soon as possible in order to draw attention to the building in danger; and only then the experts will join, who will argue: "Now we have this object in danger, and we need to study what to do with it." This time, it turned out to stop the demolition not only with the help of photographs and public attention, the caring local residents helped, for whom this building was very valuable, and as soon as it was in danger, I think they loved it even more. And after all, they planned to build a huge tower instead - it is not clear why!
Nina Frolova: It seems to me that now it is worth giving the floor to our audience, please, if anyone has any questions, ask!
Alexander Zmeul, editor-in-chief online publicationsI archspeech: Can you name the criteria for the preservation of post-war buildings? And how to preserve them, taking into account our economy, our conditions, our approach to private property?
To make it easier for you to answer, I would even bracket the question of residential buildings, we will only discuss public buildings - markets, administrative buildings, cinemas … For example, we need to preserve the building of the Mint on Tulskaya, or tomorrow the Mint will want to build a new one for itself, and the old can be demolished - where are these criteria?
Anna Guseva: A great question, but difficult to answer at once about all the criteria. It seems to me that the first criterion is, of course, time, date of construction, uniqueness, of course, authorship. And one of the most important criteria is what role this building plays in urban development, what role it plays for society.
Alexander Zmeul: In principle, every building meets two or three of these criteria.
Lara Kopylova: No, of course, it is better not to demolish anything at all, but to figure out how to ennoble the building with the help of design and include it in the urban environment. When artists come to the industrial zone, it doesn't matter how long the building is, maybe the 19th century, or maybe the 1970s: all this can be turned into something decent with the help of, for example, articulating the facades, with the help of design artistic means. There is no need to demolish anything - it is very uneconomical and very harmful. But it seems to me that we have not figured out the criteria.
Nina Frolova: Yes, I agree that there is always a problem of criteria - even for buildings of the 19th century, for example. But you can save all the unique projects that are of great urban planning importance. That is, conditionally, the same ill-fated INION, he nevertheless formed the ensemble at the Profsoyuznaya metro station, I would not want to lose it, also considering that there is a public space around it, which should be accessible to the townspeople, should work for them - something that, unfortunately, has not been very successful so far. But at the same time, I would say that for newer buildings you can use the scheme that exists, for example, in England: they have monuments of two categories, conditionally - the first and second, plus the second category with an asterisk, they just define, among other things - the degree of new interference that is possible in this building. That is, not to preserve this building completely, so that a person could not change the mixer without the permission of the authorities, but could greatly modernize it.
Alexander Zmeul: Well, we also have a subject of protection, right?
Nina Frolova: Yes, there is a subject of protection, but it seems to me that a more flexible and more general system can work here. The subject of protection is not clearly spelled out for each building, which can bind the owner hand and foot, but a freer scheme that allows you to preserve the most important buildings of urban planning significance, or buildings with some unique content, for example, those where the project was involved also painters and sculptors. It seems to me that such buildings are quite easy to isolate from the general building.
Natalia Melikova: I don't know if I can answer this question, because I am a photographer, I am just observing the situation. But, since I have been dealing with the problem of heritage preservation for many years, I know that there is international experience - there are norms, there are criteria that have been discussed for a very long time and at the same time change all the time, there is no standard approach. The criteria are flexible and you can work with it
Denis Esakov: The criteria listed by colleagues sound quite reasonable: uniqueness, to what extent this building played a role in the development of architecture.
But architecture should be for a person, not for a city, not for a mayor - accordingly, you need to understand how it shapes the environment, how people in such an environment interact with it and with each other. It is important not to make big generalizations - "We will demolish the entire Southwest and build classy seventeen-story buildings" - but to approach each area individually, try to figure out what is happening there and what is needed for this area, and not to embody big modernist ideas.
Natalia Melikova: I would like to add about the criteria: if, for example, we have known about the Narkomfin house for a long time that it is a masterpiece, why has its restoration begun only this year? I think this needs to be discussed. And the fate of the Shukhov Tower has not yet been decided …
Lara Kopylova: So I talked about what needs to be told to people, what is the meaning of the Russian avant-garde and Soviet modernism: this is important, but for some reason it is always very difficult for everyone to talk about this topic. It's easier with the avant-garde, but with modernism … By the way, the regional cinemas, by the way, will now be massively demolished, a scandalous project. You have to explain - what are these buildings about, why should they be preserved? I am afraid that the population will not protect them.
Denis Esakov: Or maybe they don't need to be saved …
Lara Kopylova: Or maybe not - that's what we are talking about: they have a very vague meaning. Because I, as an art critic in the 1970s, see the meaning of the poeticization of technology, the scientific and technological revolution, in principle, the meaning is important, we had a good 1960s, but this must be conveyed to the public, somehow shown.
Anna Guseva: It seems to me that the “demolish, not reconstruct” approach is a very outdated approach, I think that it is better not to demolish anything at all.
