Recently, the St. Petersburg City Council approved a project for the workshop of Reinberg and Sharov, the essence of which is to replace the ground entrance hall of the Polytechnicheskaya metro station, built in 1975, with a five-storey shopping center. The city reacted instantly: the media spread the news, students launched a petition, which was signed by almost five thousand people, and architects wrote a letter to the governor and chief architect.
We asked some of the authors of the letter to share a more personal opinion on the current situation and found that one agenda exposed several long-standing St. Petersburg problems at once: the vulnerability of heritage, neglect of public spaces, unpopularity of architectural competitions, consumerist and rather absurd desire to replace the authentic with something new, but secondary. and stylized.
The sum of the opinions given below is an alternative city council, which no less professionally explains why "Polytechnic" is worthy of protection and preservation. It is also a snapshot, a “portrait” of architects of the “new wave” - young or on a path different from the one chosen by their older and more influential colleagues.
***
Anna Bronovitskaya, architectural historian
“The fact that the city planning council of St. Petersburg supported the project to rebuild the ground entrance hall of the Polytechnicheskaya station is reflected in the regrettable underestimation of the modernist heritage. Probably, the architects Mark Reinberg and Andrei Sharov, as well as the council members, find it difficult to admit that the building that has appeared in their memory already belongs to history, not modernity. The stylization of the language of architecture of the 1970s, as if speaking of respect for the architecture of Soviet modernism, does not in any way atone for the loss of the original pavilion. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the architects of the 1975 pavilion, Aron Getskin and Valentina Shuvalova, were also the authors of the ground entrance hall of the Gorkovskaya metro station, the replacement of which with a new one in 2009 has already been widely recognized as a mistake.
As a specialist who is fairly well acquainted with the Leningrad architecture of the 1960s-1980s, I can responsibly declare that it is deeply original - say, very noticeably different from Moscow - and constitutes a layer of heritage, the value of which is just beginning to be recognized by society. It's time to put the monuments of Soviet modernism on guard, and not to destroy them for the sake of momentary commercial interests."
Daniil Veretennikov, MLA + bureau
“Despite its rapidly growing popularity, Soviet modernism remains the most underestimated layer of Russian architecture. It would seem that the most fashionable Instagram accounts and telegram channels are dedicated to him, the most popular architectural guidebooks are written about him, it is he who becomes the most frequent subject of art history research and the hero of popular blogs. And yet, it is still very far from the recognition of the modernist heritage as a national treasure.
Of course, not everything that was built in 1960-1980 is worth preserving. The era of total technologism and unification naturally left behind mostly utilitarian and typical objects, which few would think of to stand up for. And those of them that were built according to unique designs can hardly count on active protection in the event of a possible demolition. Modernist architecture did not flirt with the tastes of the general public, and therefore it certainly cannot be called popularly loved. For many, houses of that era will forever remain "boxes", "glass" and "whatnots", and the dismissive nature of these nicknames speaks for itself. Here is the list of lost objects, which can be classified as definitely outstanding, is filling up with increasing frequency. Yekaterinburg TV Tower, Hotel Rossiya, Khovrinskaya Hospital, SKK Peterburgsky - the demolition of these objects at least slightly fueled the discussion about the value of the modernist heritage; in most cases, demolition is met with indifference and even relief. It is held back from becoming widespread only by the fact that these buildings have generally not yet worked out their service life and, for the most part, are in relatively good technical condition. Therefore, it is almost inevitable that in the near future we will witness an increase in the wave of demolitions and renovations.
The pavilion of the Polytechnicheskaya station is not in the first row of the monuments of Leningrad modernism, but nevertheless it is certainly an interesting, bright and stylish house, and its charm is especially fully revealed when compared with the ominous five-story shopping mall, which is threatened to be replaced. By the way, the main line of defense, built by the city defenders, rests not at all on historical and cultural arguments, but on environmental ones. Those who know the vicinity of Polytechnicheskaya well are sure that the appearance of such a shopping center will disfigure the spacious and green square of Academician Ioffe, introduce dissonance into the existing system of accents and dominants, and simply take away a significant part of the valuable pedestrian space. Arguments of architectural value are only of secondary importance here: even if the pavilion can be defended, it will not be a revenge of the city protection for the demolition of the SKK that happened a few months ago, in which case the engineering and artistic value of the object was quite obvious to the majority. However, I would like to hope that the defense of Polytechnicheskaya will be crowned with success, and this victory will become a prerequisite for the revalorization of the entire architecture of Leningrad modernism."
Sergey Mishin, architect
“I signed the appeal because I fully agree with the opinion of Daniil Veretennikov, expressed in his letter. Yes, I am convinced that Soviet modernism is an unconditional value, as part of a largely sincere disappeared Soviet paradigm. The paradigm was largely false and inhuman, and the architecture was quite sincere and not borrowed. Which, alas, cannot be said about the one that is going to be built on this site.
I think that St. Petersburg is a palimpsest city, and we need to work with layers, preserving and articulating each of them. In addition, I think that this is an outdated and shallow approach - to operate with houses, buildings, no matter how relevant they may seem to us. The house must be the result of the sum of spatial decisions, which in turn must be the result of life's circumstances."
Evgeny Reshetov, bureau Rhizome
“I understand and feel the city as a living tissue that needs development and change. Often in the process of these changes, something expensive and familiar leaves, making room for the new. This is normal, inevitable and natural. However, we must always carefully weigh what we lose and gain. In the case of the Polytechnic, we are offered to change the existing and rather pleasant, inhabited part of the urban fabric by introducing a new object into it, the value of which simply from the point of view of its functional content seems questionable. Particularly disturbing and narrow-minded seems to be an attempt to build another shopping complex right now, when all existing shopping centers and shopping malls are closed, get rid of a significant part of their tenants, and the industry as a whole will have some significant time to restore its pre-pandemic form, and it is not a fact that will return to it, as people are already getting used to online trading.
We are offered to lose the environment that has developed and is dear to many specific townspeople, to lose the expressive author's architecture of the pavilion. You may or may not like it, this is your right, but it is an object that increases the complexity, elaboration and, as a result, the overall value of this environment. And all for the sake of an object that no one needs and, it seems, even developers will only bring problems and losses. There are many controversial and complex stories of environmental change in our city, but often they have at least some kind of logic and position in which you can understand the agents of these changes by changing your inner optics. But here the monstrous incorrectness, inappropriateness of the gesture itself, the very topic proposed for discussion, is striking.
As for the more subjective categories, it seems to me that there is no question of some kind of conservative turn to please the undeveloped taste of the public or something like that. Nobody proposes to put a neoclassical building in place of the pavilion, citing the flawed socialist modernism. The situation is rather the opposite - in place of a joyful and light pavilion in its own way, with an abundance of welcoming "golden" details, we are offered to put a gray and dull volume, much more in tune with the most controversial and dreary examples of late Soviet architecture."
Stepan Lipgart, architect
“Petersburg is the only one, there is no one like it. And to us, fortunately inhabiting this city, sometimes the invaluable uniqueness of its features ceases to be obvious. Here is the Polytechnic: another free area near the almost peripheral station, an avenue leading to the endless sleeping bags of the northeast, an institute, a park with it.
For some reason, this place always seems to be filled with spring bright light, transparent air of St. Petersburg suburbs, prosperous outskirts of a century ago. And it seems that Polytechnic Street, making a gentle bend here, will go further to a different fate, to a different city than the one that the 20th century left us, which continues to be reproduced in the present century. There, among the green alleys, light austere buildings will be spaciously located, their cornices will frame our northern endless sky, it will be reflected in their high windows. It is easy to imagine this air-filled Petersburg at the gates of the Polytechnic Institute, because it is exactly like this here - miraculously preserved. And its harmony is surprisingly not destroyed, but emphasized by the Soviet buildings: the elegant turquoise ribbons of the Ioffe Institute are the optimism of the late 60s, and the metro pavilion is almost of a park scale.
As is often true for St. Petersburg, creation here would be preservation, and destruction - new construction. Irreplaceable damage to scale, character, memory of the place."
Petr Sovetnikov, Katarsis Bureau
“I would like to support the idea of architectural competitions for such socially significant objects as metro stations, which was voiced at the City Council.
The meaning of building a shopping center on the site of a good modernist pavilion is incomprehensible from the point of view of the benefits for the city. It is unclear what such a project offers to residents in order to demolish a pretty object for the sake of this. The position of the city is not clear.
I would rather like a reasonable development of a cozy and green square, such a chamber and at the same time spacious student square, where the central place is occupied by the Polytechnic University itself.
The format of a shopping center above the metro is already something from the early 2000s, but there are more flexible, progressive development methods. Perhaps the project would not have been so acutely perceived if, instead of pure commerce and parking, it offered the city something useful. For example, the normal organization of Ioffe Square and the territory on the back of the metro, with landscaping and public space, where there would probably be enough space for the necessary commerce and without demolishing the pavilion, if the city was interested in this. But it looks like there is no such interest here, unfortunately."
Elena Mironova, architect of the Institute of Territorial Development
“I would like to start respecting the legislation. I can admit that not all architects have the sun rising in the east. The procedure for such a violation - standards for insolation - concerns a separate room and may well be deliberate. But the requirement to preserve the historically established environment cannot be overlooked, and this cannot concern only one architect or even a group, this applies to everyone who lives in this city.
The square is a systemic pause in the urban fabric. It is especially needed next to a powerful university campus. Why doesn't the investor take part in the improvement of Ioffe Square? This place has great potential to create an interesting multifunctional space, where you can delicately integrate a commercial function.
The chief architect asked: "Is it possible to demolish Speransky?" This is a rhetorical question, Speransky cannot be tolerated. This is obvious for our generation. This is an absolutely contextual example of Leningrad modernism, which is very delicately inscribed in the space of the square and gives it a certain flavor. Its human scale, materials and proportions work to harmonize the environment.
It is not for me to judge the economic feasibility of the proposed project, but I hope that the current situation will further enhance the unreality of this proposal. All my friends and colleagues who find out about this story have a question on their lips: "Why?"
