Tomsk: Erasing heritage? by Albina Davletshina

Politecnico di Milano Faculty of Architecture and Society Master of Science in Urban Planning and Policy Design

Tomsk: Everyday Routine of Urban Heritage

Author: Albina Davletshina | 818735 Supervisor: prof. Carolina Pacchi AA 2014 | 15

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

INDEX 0. ABSTRACT 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1.1 Actualization of focus on wooden heritage 1.1.1 Connection of urban society with nature 1.1.2 Wood as an urban material - Low density as a main characteristic 1.1.3 Turn Back to the roots 1.1.4 Geographical Scope

6 9 9 9 9 10 11

2. TOMSK AS A CASE STUDY CITY 2.1 Methodology and research framework 2.1.1 Analytical framework for Tomsk case study 2.2 Research Objectives 2.3 Heritage in focus 2.3.1 Heritage as an indicator of collective identity and collective memory 2.3.2 General introduction into Tomsk tangible heritage that is recognized by Law

12 15 16 16 17 17 19

3. CULTURAL CONFLICT AND FLUCTUATION OF COLLECTIVE IDENTITY 3.1. Cultural alienation - origins of cultural conflict

21 21 21 23 28 29 31 34 35 35 36 37 51 52

3.2 First wave of devaluation of historical zones - cultural alienation 3.3 Soviet legacy 3.3.1 Is there a City? A way of life 3.3.2 Type of property right for apartments 3.3.3 House and Territory 3.3.4 Conclusion 3.4 Second wave of cultural alienation. 3.4.1. Stigmatization in general 3.4.3 Hypothesis of Heritage Stigmatization 3.4.4 Portrait of problems 3.4.5 Conclusion 3.5 Stigma of Deviant people in space 4

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

3.6 Stigma of outsiders 3.7 Big scale cultural alienation 3.8 Conclusion

52 53 54

4. UNDERSTANDING TOMSK THE PRESENT STATE OF CULTURAL CONFLICT 55 4.1 Introduction 55 4.2 Theoretical background of Urban regime theory 55 4.3 General introduction into legal definition of heritage 56 4.3.1 The different levels of legislative system of Russia and the related policies 57 4.3.1.1 Federal level 57 4.3.1.2 Local level 58 4.4 Role of Universities and education institutions 64 4.4 General description of activism and civil society with relevance to urban heritage 65 4.4.1 Collective action: theoretical background 70 4.4.2 Clusters of actions 71 4.4.3 Periods 71 4.5 Conclusions 75 5. SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE MANAGEMENT 5.1 Top-down approach 5.2 Bottom-up approach 5.3 Directions to consider in Tomsk 6. CONCLUSION REFERENCES APPENDIX

77 79 81 28 83 86 93

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Abstract In Russia negli ultimi 100 anni, specialmente a Tomsk, ci furono enormi cambiamenti nella struttura politica, economica e sociale, questo portò a un cambiamento del comportamento delle persone e ad un processo di rivalutazione dell’individuo nel rapporto con gli altri e con la città. Ciò che fu importante per un’intera generazione cessò di esserlo, le priorità e la consapevolezza del ruolo dell’individuo all’interno della società cambiarono, ma la città rimase, in un certo senso, un prodotto fisico che venne ereditato dalle generazioni passate, come parte di una memoria di coloro vissero lì precedentemente. Il compito delle attuali generazioni è quello di prendere in considerazione ciò che è degno e prezioso alla nostra attenzione, ciò che bisogna conservare o distruggere. A questo punto è importante che tutti definiscano se stessi in virtù dei propri ideali e delle proprie aspirazioni. Su queste basi, è comparsa una crescita prolifica di tutti i tipi di conflitti, connessa ad un ripensamento dei legami culturali del singolo in relazione al patrimonio, oppure, a causa della sua mancanza, questi conflitti sono diventati parte dell’identità culturale della società. Il patrimonio storico in legno di Tomsk inglobò le tradizioni russe pre-rivoluzionarie, ma dopo la rivoluzione diventò un fantasma di un’altra società, i cui proprietari furono cancellati dalla nuova struttura sociale. Questo patrimonio diventò proprietà dello Stato ed un suo strumento per risolvere il problema degli alloggi. La società generata dal regime sovietico diventò il cliente dello Stato e così si creò un modo diverso di vivere e intendere quelle abitazioni rispetto ai legittimi proprietari. Quando l’Unione Sovietica crollò, una parte della società rimase mentalmente bloccata nel periodo sovietico, mentre quell’altra finì nel mondo del libero mercato, dove si dovette cercare di sopravvivere e di adattarsi al campo di battaglia dello sviluppo immobiliare. Questi 100 anni di metamorfosi, hanno portato ad un’alienazione socio-culturale e ad una comprensione istituzionalizzata della società civile, dove il conflitto diventò uno strumento per ripensare al significato del patrimonio, distribuito tra i diversi strati della popolazione e complessivamente all’interno della società. Dal 2004 ad oggi, nonostante il lavoro degli attivisti, la situazione è tornata al punto di partenza, ovvero quello della lenta e costante scomparsa del patrimonio storico. L’obiettivo di questa ricerca è quello di capire e individuare i punti deboli nelle modalità del comportamento degli attivisti, per spostare il conflitto culturale nella direzione del consenso culturale in relazione al patrimonio della Russia pre-rivoluzionaria. Per fare questo è necessario capire quali degli approcci di successo internazionali e russi possano servire da esempio per i possibili passi, strategie e progetti pilota avviati dagli attivisti.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Abstract Over the past 100 years, there were great changes in the political, economic and social structure of Russia and Tomsk in particular, each of these periods led to a change in the behavior of individuals and led to a rethinking process of individual connection with each other and with the city itself. What was valuable and important for one generation hundred years ago ceased to be so, priorities changed, understanding of the role of individuals in society changed as well. But the city in a certain extent is a physical product that was inherited from past generations, as a part of a memory of those who lived here before us. Now it is only upon present generations to consider what is dignified and valuable for our attention for retention or destruction. At this point, it is valuable for everyone to define themselves by virtue of his own ideals and aspirations. On this basis, appeared a prolific growth of all kinds of conflicts, but nevertheless all of them are related to rethinking of cultural ties of individual with this heritage, or due to its lack, these conflicts are part of the cultural identity of the society. Historical wooden heritage of Tomsk absorbed the traditions of pre-revolutionary Russia, and after the revolution, it was mentally a ghost of another society, whose owners have been erased from the new social structure. This heritage (at that time just a housing) became property of the state (institution of power) and became its instrument for solving the housing problem, and society generated by the Soviet regime became its customer and it has formed a different understanding of life in it than it was meant by the original owners. When the Soviet Union collapsed part of the society remained mentally in the Soviet times, while the other part went into a new not entirely clear and wild world of the free market, where you have to survive and adapt, where the city center has become a battlefield for the territory mainly for new housing development. These 100 years of metamorphosis have led to the socio-cultural alienation and understanding of civil society in very institutionalized way and to exacerbation of the cultural conflict, where the conflict has become a kind of measure of rethinking the significance of this heritage for different segments of the population and for the society as a whole. At the moment, in spite of the active work of activists from 2004 to the present time the situation comes back to the starting point of a slow but steady disappearance. The objective of this research is to understand and identify the weak points in the tactics of the behavior of activists to move the cultural conflict in the direction of cultural consensus in relation to the heritage of the pre-revolutionary Russia, it is necessary to understand which of the international and Russian successful approaches can serve as an example for the possible steps for strategies and pilot projects initiated by the activists.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

1. General Introduction This chapter gives a general introduction into the details of the research. It highlights the methodology and scope of the research; explains certain related key terms, theories, models and concepts that were resources for this research. 1.1 Actualization of focus on wooden heritage. 1.1.1 Connection of urban society with nature Russian society is strongly integrated and connected with nature, simply because nature is everywhere in almost enormous scale. For comparison density of Russia is 8,4 people per square kilometre while density of Italy is 201 people per square kilometre. Majority of citizens almost cannot imagine themselves without land or better still, soil. According to the national statistics more than 70% of Russian population live in cities however, 46% have “Dacha” (or summer house) outside of their cities (VCIOM: Russian Public Opinion Research Center, 2014). Although notion of Dacha existed even during Russian Empire they turned into mass project during USSR and now it is mainly regarded as a legacy of Soviet Union.(Lovell, 2003) Dacha - the piece of land that was given by the state to all citizens of cities and towns so that they could grow their own vegetables and fruits. From author’s personal and social experience, Dachas in the nineties literally were helping families to survive. After work, during weekends and holidays people spent all free time at that Dachas. Even now around 35% of urban population is spending their whole summer vacation at Dachas. Although the agricultural use of this land is slowly but constantly shrinking, the notion of land as “feeder” is still strongly present in Russian urban society: 81 % of the “dacha owners” (VCIOM) are using them for agricultural purposes - in most cases people, do not actually own this land but only have a right to use it for uncertain period. 1.1.2 Wood as an urban material - Low density as a main characteristic Before XIX century, wood was the most-used building material for construction in Russian cities as it was the most economical and hence became rational option. Another advantage derived from the use of wood is good insulation properties against heat or cold, while “breathing” at 9

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

the same time as a means of natural air ventilation. Therefore, traditional Russian cities were wooden with very low density, for instance, Moscow remained 1,75 floor in average. Wood was the main construction material that even Peter the Great law against wooden construction could not prevent it in cities and towns. It was cheapest and widespread material. Therefore, Russian architectural tradition is unavoidable comes from wooden architecture and Russian peasant’s house - Izba (Petrova, 2015) Nature of urban development till middle of 20th century had a low density. Even after revolution and during Stalin period in architecture in parallel was still developing “private housing sector” in cities but even some typologies of Stalin’s’ mass housing had a very low density of

Figure 1.1. Examples of low density development during Stalin’s period

development (1-3 floors). This process was interrupted by Khrushchev mass housing programme with its goal to satisfy “hunger” for private flat for each soviet family. First period from 1956-1965 was mainly 5 floor building then it shifted to 9-12 floors (Kirichenko, 2010). This mass housing urbanization of cities led to the shift from wood to reinforced concrete as a main material for mass housing construction and this historical wooden architecture slowly started to disappears in a lot of the cities. 1.1.3 Turn Back to the roots

The past decade started the period to look back at the roots of Russian cultural heritage that comes from nature. However, the past several years has witnessed a growing attention to wooden heritage tradition. It started with the reinterpretation of wooden architecture and possible public spaces made from wood. New wooden arts and crafts workshops were opened. Festivals like “Archstoyanie” and “Days of Architecture

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

in Vologda” that are in a search for authenticity were established, “ArchiWood” modern use of wooden materials, documentaries “Russian North”, private initiative of virtual museum of “Nalichniki” all showcased pictures of wooden frames (most beautiful decorative part of wooden houses) during Ivan Hafizov’s travels around Russia. In 2016 in Moscow museum of Architecture an exhibition “Wooden Russia, A Glance Back From 21st Century” was set up and dedicated to Russian wooden architecture. The main goal was to draw visitors’ attention to wooden architecture as a quest for continuity of the wooden tradition. Other examples of projects included Irkutsk (commercially successful project - “130 kvartal”), Samara (festival of wooden restoration - “Tom Sawyer Fest”), Tomsk (one of the most successful and known cases of preservation of wooden architecture under activist pressure) etc. All these attempts tried to return attention to the wooden historical areas. 1.1.4 Geographical Scope The area of study is Tomsk, a city in Russia. This research will be mainly focused on 4 historic areas of wooden architecture Tatarskaya sloboda, Voskresenskaya Gora, Preobragenskaya and in particular Dzerginka (Professors sloboda), Zaozerie.

Tomsk

as a case study

Tomsk is located in a heart of SiberiaonriverTomsurrounded by Taiga. It is considered as a university city: among the population of around 590 000 there are 76 000 of students. It has the oldest university in Siberia and one of the oldest in Russia. Near Tomsk is located Seversk - special scientific town that has restricted access for general public. It is a research center of nuclear power.

Moreover it is a capital

an Mil

2300 k m

Mo sco w

2900 km

sk Tom

Figure 2.1 Geographical position of Tomsk

of Wooden Architecture

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Tomsk used to be one of the most important economic centres of Siberia during the Russian Empire however for some reasons construction of Trans - Siberian Railway (TSRW) (1891-1916) was not planned to pass through Tomsk. There are several existing versions and speculations about reasons of the decision to make it away from Tomsk but this decision nevertheless on one hand enabled Tomsk to preserve its wooden architecture for the future but on the other hand it slowed down the economic growth of the town lagging behind comparatively smaller at that time cities like Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk and Irkutsk; that were developing faster after the end of construction of TSRW. Population of Tomsk in 1911 was 111 417 people and now is around 600 000 people

Modern Novosibirsk population is around 1.6 million did not exist. In beggining of XX century it was a small town Novo-nikolaevskii with population around 8000 people Figure 2.2 Tomsk and Trans-Siberian Railway in beginning of XX century.

After the collapse of the USSR in the 90s, Russia entered free market economy with fast privatization of all types of properties: starting from industries to rooms in communal apartments - “kommunalki”. This period was associated with a “urban development boom” all over Russia. In Tomsk context it was specifically characterized with process of heritage elimination (in particular through burning) and substitution of it with new high rise development (mainly 9 floors brick houses) which had very dubious effects on quality of urban environment. As a result of that period Tomsk has an imbalanced urban texture, an increase in infrastructural issues (roads capacity together with old engineering communication) and fragmented historical pattern. This is because it was an infill development without proper consideration of regulations. However, the leftover wooden heritage still has a potential of creating capital and also for appreciation and future preservation in broad sense.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

This wooden heritage creates a lot of issues and conflicts among art activists, public activists, citizens, dwellers, experts and authorities with varieties of opinions regarding the heritageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future. The research is thus aimed to understand these socio-political aspects of the shrinking heritage based on personal experiences of individuals and empirical data from the field. 2.1 Methodology and research framework The study was conducted with qualitative method of analysis using a Case Study (Yin, 1998) of Tomsk urban heritage. First step was an overview of articles and social media regarding the situation. Second, a field trip to Tomsk was aimed for gathering of materials: video and audio interviews with different actors, photographical representations and survey. These materials were a part of an ethnographic approach to the research. They were partially used in the documentary film. Documentary filming is used as both an analytical tool (though the process of making it) and as an introduction to the problem, which is based on main research question: why and how the process of heritage protection came at the present state? During the field trip 19 interviews were undertaken, among them 10 interviews for the cases appear as parts of the documentary film. Third step of the research is based on experiences of different individuals acting within the historical urban landscape of Tomsk using interviews, questionnaires, analysis of local media (social media as well) and in-field surveys in Tomsk within a time scope from September/ October 2015 and April 2016 respectively. This formed an analytical framework and as a result, it made up a theoretical research on concepts that could reinterpret these empirical evidences by â&#x20AC;&#x153;exploring the connections between memory, identity and heritage through an examination of cultural landscapesâ&#x20AC;? (McDowell, 2008, p. 37) that was aimed in an understanding of the weak elements and processes that led to the decay of the heritage zones in Tomsk. Last stage was a research on the possible perspective for a direction to slow down the situation from destructive processes that lead to the decay to productive potentials. 15

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

2.1.1 Analytical framework for Tomsk case study. The key elements of heritage protection process In this research, analysis will focus on heritage protection process through the following scheme that includes heritage, society and politics in relation to the individuals. Heritage domain itself is the fundamental domain of the whole analysis; The structure of civil society and socialrelated matters is a block of “Society”; The law, research institutions (also experts) and state system of heritage management is combined in one massive block of political domain (system) “Politics”, as used imply a representation of certain powers protected by authority and legal status. On one side is a political actors and on another bureaucratic system. 2.2 Research Objectives The general aim of this research is to bring to light an in-depth knowledge of how heritage protection process functions in Russian context (a case study of Siberian city of Tomsk, Russia). To arrive at this, the research objective is: What is heritage and its relevance to the present society? Who controls heritage ? “How can we explain an Individual’s behaviour in urban historical landscape under socio-political conditions”.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

2.3 Heritage in focus Issue of heritage will be viewed from two main perspectives: • Heritage as an indicator of collective identity • General introduction into Tomsk heritage 2.3.1 Heritage as an indicator of collective identity and collective memory Cultural heritage is the legacy of the past generation’s way of living that is appreciated and valuable for the modern generations and it is strictly related to place. It can be represented by material, physical presence in space of certain settlement or place (tangible heritage) or by customs, traditions, symbolic and artistic expressions, beliefs, knowledge and skills and shared values of certain community. It creates sense of identity, authenticity, belongingness and unity with other people of certain place (intangible heritage). It can be seen from the definition above that cultural heritage is divided into two main aspects: tangible heritage and intangible heritage. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.

UNESCO, 2003, Art.2, p.2

Usually the domain of tangible culture is about objectify nature of heritage from the past.It is strictly related to artefacts while intangible heritage is about practices and process that are still alive in the life of the community that is associated with. Moreover for the sake of further analytics, it is important to understand that these two terms — tangible and intangible cultural heritage are interrelated. First international official recognition of the importance and interdependence of both tangible and intangible cultural heritage in “western society” happened during Nara conference on Authenticity

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

1994 and was published in Nara Document on Authenticity: “All cultures and societies are rooted in the particular forms and means of tangible and intangible expression which constitute their heritage, and these should be respected”

(Nara Document, 1994)

This fact is recognized at the international level in both “The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage”, 2003 and “Yamato Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage”, 2004. UNESCO, 2003, p.1

“Considering the deep-seated interdependence between the intangible cultural heritage and the tangible cultural and natural heritage,“

In Yamato Declaration (2004) was also a statement “considering and safeguarding intangible heritage in its own right” (art. 4) and represented intangible cultural heritage as not an authentic part of tangible heritage but rather as an independent practice that has to be identified and safeguarded by its own.

Yamato Declaration, 2004, art. 8

“further considering that intangible cultural heritage is constantly recreated, the term “authenticity” as applied to tangible cultural heritage is not relevant when identifying and safeguarding intangible cultural heritage;“ Although is important to differentiate that interdependency between tangible and intangible elements of heritage very often represent and rooted in communities.

Yamato Declaration, 2004, art. 8

“realising that the elements of the tangible and intangible heritage of communities and groups are often interdependent;“ Cultural heritage is a synchronized relationship involving society (that is, systems of interactions connecting people), norms and values (that is, ideas, for instance, belief systems that attribute relative importance). Symbols, technologies and objects are tangible evidence of underlying norms and values. Thus, they establish a symbiotic relationship between

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

the tangible and the intangible. The intangible heritage should be regarded as the larger framework within which tangible heritage takes on shape and significance. (Bouchenaki, 2003) Heritage is a part of collective identity if a group or society remember, understand and recognise the value of it in either tangible or intangible sense, and if it is not a part of that collective identity then it is no longer a heritage (Tutchener, 2013 ) while at the same time society has to recognize that any legal or administrative power will not prevent material heritage from elimination if there is no connection with “system of knowledges” and mutual appreciation of that past community by members of present society (Bouchenaki, 2003). Therefore, strengthening or reanimating a value of tangible heritage is possible by practicing the intangible heritage that has a connection with this tangible heritage, because it gives deeper sense of value of conservation as an object and connect it with the present moment and therefore gives practical reasoning of value to tangible heritage and consideration to someone’s; cultural belonging. But only with condition if the intangible heritage that connected with tangible heritage is still practiced and alive at that locality (Tutchener, 2013). 2.3.2 General introduction into Tomsk tangible heritage that is recognized by Law. Majority of wooden heritage houses in XIX and XX century were built with money of local traders and wealthy people of Tomsk. They were constructed by construction artels (it is a type of private entrepreneurship during Russian Empire -a group of people united in commercial activity in equal share based on their professional knowledge and skills) decorated with rich wooden ornamented window frames “Nalichniki” (called in Russian), that originally contained a deep spiritual meaning as a protective amulet and represent a local folk art and crafts but during XIX and the end of XX century they had regulation of styles and this wooden heritage mainly was designed by professional architects who tried to combine some traditional architectural elements with some modern international stiles . That is why it is especially a valuable heritage not only for local or Russian context but for international community

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

because among these buildings you can find baroque, neoclassic, modern and other styles of architecture made in wood. Currently the city of Tomsk is considered as a best example of preserved historic urban area with massive areas of wooden architecture despite the 20-th century massive urbanization processes. However, after the collapse of the USSR and activation of “neoliberal urbanism” that is based in Russia on a “crony capitalism”, this legacy of the past is constantly shrinking in fragmented sense - bit by bit, pieces by pieces tangible cultural heritage disappearing from urban texture while intangible heritage related to wooden architecture is shifting into decay. Tomsk heritage still has very strong presence in the physical space of the city. First, Tomsk has a federal status of historical settlement. Second, based on official data, Tomsk has approximately total amount of 3086 wooden buildings (it varies due to fire outbreak) that is only 4 % of whole central territory of Tomsk, among them 8 historical zones where 1324 wooden historic houses are situated: 312 average wooden buildings (that will not be preserved), then 701 wooden buildings with special status and priority for restoration and renovation (Figure 1.4.), 87 renovated, 107 dilapidated, 361 capital refurbishments: Figure 2.3 Amount of wooden architecture in historical zones

512

objects of historical environment

189 2062

wooden buildings located outside of historical zones without any heritage status for protction

323

buildings inside historical zones

Status of heritage objects Newly identified.............40 Federal level.......................16 Regional level.................133 Municipal level...........None list of 701 objects from municipal programme of wooden heritage that are have to be protected by the state

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

3. Cultural Conflict and Fluctuation of collective Identity This chapter talks extensively about the origins of cultural conflict as a result of two waves of devaluation of historical zones. 3.1. Cultural alienation - origins of cultural conflict To be completely fair there are some clarifications required to understand how the process of historical degradation started. It appeared not just out of the blue and not only under pressure of emerging uncontrolled market economy or “crony capitalism”, because developers, business actors and politicians who are usually blamed for the “crony capitalism” situations are also humans, they have memory of a past and have heritage with which they can associate themselves. Therefore the process has its roots in the past of Russian history and cannot be explained solely with a market pressure and urge for constant urban development. This chapter will propose potential analytics of what processes throughout the past century led to a modern state of devaluation of heritage; the cultural conflict and then split into pro and con pools of thoughts from Tomsk inhabitants about this heritage: “Pro-heritage” and “No heritage”. 3.2 First wave of devaluation of historical zones - cultural alienation Tomsk capitalist modernization in the end of XIX century and the beginning of XX century led to a social stratification of Tomsk society. This was made of “8,5 % - bourgeoisie, 41,4% proletarians and 36,3% urban-middle class” (Dmitrienko, 2000, pp. 244-245) that lead to a process of transformation of all spheres of life. Before the revolution of 1917 Tomsk had already a good basis to form a civil society institutions (Drobchenko, 2011) In a certain extent Tomsk of the beginning of 20 century could be characterized as a more european city in a sense of freedom and civil society institutions. Among all these undergoing changes especially important was a role of Tomsk merchants. They not only were forming a bourgeoisie class of affluent people in the prospering economic growth of Tomsk but also they were developing a philanthropic culture that was developed under two conditions: one was a patriotic and private religious reasons and other a pressure of local administration and religious leaders to invest into public services and religions objects (Boyko, 1996). But another aspect that is actually important from architectural and urban history perspective is a fact that they were the

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

main drivers and clients for wooden urban development and growth of tenement houses in that period. (Dulzon, 2010) How it was stated in the introduction - historical houses were constructed by artels with money of local merchants and design of local architects with some elements of peasant traditions. After the Revolution of 1917 these houses were appropriated and nationalized by the state. They were given away as a social housing to new coming people: first waves straight after the revolution was composed by people from other parts of Tomsk region and second wave during World War II a refugees from central USSR (Dulzon, 2010) while the original owners (merchants) were erased as a class, partially killed or send away somewhere else. New dwellers considered these wooden historical areas of Tomsk as a part of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;way of lifeâ&#x20AC;? of another society and even more - another social class that no longer existed and used to have another way of thinking and living. All the ways of use were abandoned and social bones were dismantled. Even the means of the production of this space had become totally abandoned, these areas turned into sleeping districts. Even though these wooden houses were based on traditions of Russian arts and craft this new inhabitants could not recognize it and did not associate it with their identity. Moreover that was a legacy of a disgusted class that oppressed them. In case of shift from Russian Empire to USSR can be adopted following explanation: the social stratification of urban and rural inhabitants was so vast in the Russian Empire that actually wealthy classes that were erased during the revolution can be considered in a way as an oppresing class of feudals and all the legacy that they were associated with was also abandoned. Cultural alienation roughly saying can be reinterpreted as an inferiority complex of part of society. That was a starting moment that characterized first wave of a socio-cultural alienation in the following chapter will be explained second wave of a socio-cultural alienation. 3.3 Soviet legacy

The push that happened after the revolution led to some form of cultural amnesia in some parts of society. However, the intangible part of this material culture also disappeared. The this traditional knowledge

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

and practice of how to take care of these houses were lost (Dulzon, 2010). By the time of the second part of XX century this heritage was already in the process of degradation not only in mental but also in a physical(or material) sense. However in the 70-ies when Ligachev (governor of the region) came into power the methods of construction reappeared again. He understood the value and importance of this heritage and moreover he realised that this housing has a lot of issues with undermining life standards (like absence of drainage system, toilets outside of house, absence of hot water or no water at all etc) being the most important issues to solve in these historical areas. From an interview, Pavel Suhotepliy notes: “Probably Ligachev understood that it is a matter of honor, so he always kept everything under control. I worked under strict control from the regional party committee. And there was also the secretary of ideology, educational institutions and culture who told me: “report to me every week about the progress and if you need any help” - this is how it worked in the party committee! <...>So I was told by Yegor Ligachev: “make not just a decoration but decent living conditions for people” - that was my task and we tried to make it.” In order to reanimate the traditional practice of working with wood a new restoration institution was created and they invited restoration specialists from central regions of USSR where this intangible heritage remained alive at least among specialists. However this process had almost museological character (it means only restorers and specially trained people knew how to deal with these wooden buildings and their rich decorative elements). That was a moment when part of society: mainly historians, researchers, other intellectuals and cultural leaders had a clear understanding that it is a heritage and it needs the attention of the state and the state represented by its regional leader Ligachev also had this understanding and shared values with them. However, we cannot say that the general public and inhabitants could understand the value of this heritage. General public and inhabitants lost or even did not have any more knowledge of physical production of this heritage. So this legacy became the object that no longer had its intangible relevance to

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

the present generation. Safeguarding of this heritage became recognized and only organized by the State as it became the responsibility of state institutions. This heritage became dependent solely on political will without its solid basis in society. This top-down approach was strongly personalized and associated with political will of one leader (Ligachev) that after collapse of the Soviet Union with a shift to new political leaders brought lack of interest in these heritage zones either of State or of the broad layers of the general public. That situation illustrated above can actually give a slight clause in understanding the path dependency issues that represented on one hand with highly institutional addiction in all spheres of modern life and on another can partially explain the domination of “neglect” in society which in a bigger scale foster present state of social amnesia and strengthening of social and cultural alienations. We will attempt to explain in depth these concepts in following paragraphs. Russia’s present situation reproduces USSR case of inertia characterised with the same pattern to produce culture through organized and controlled power of state. Therefore “the Soviet cultural project” in a grand scale had a strictly rational logic. A logic with vertical hierarchy of institutions, organizations and agencies under control of the state (Kurennoy, 2014). In other words this process pushed away the role of the citizens in a process, so it can even be said that it eliminates citizen’s engagement and erases it from the decision-making process if an individual is not a part of the machinery of state controlled agents. But the bureaucratic machinery is enormously slow and complicated in structure. It is something that is not so easy to comprehend, especially for persons who are not used to it. It requires a lot of passion, time and desire. That all leads to natural reaction of citizens to avoid as much as possible this cumbersome state machinery where there is no place for human. They cannot change anything, they cannot go away outside of the system, the remaining possibilities are to believe in at best or to shift into parallel realm to the state.

That situation can be perfectly described with the famous concept by economist Albert O. Hirschman “Voice, Exit, Loyalty and Neglect”.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

In his work he explains the behaviour of a consumer or company worker in case of the inconvenient changes in his company, what are the possible reactions of worker or consumer on this unpleasant change. Let’s take an example of a worker. His behavior can take the following four directions: Voice - when he will express his opinion to the company and engage in some protesting actions; Exit - when he will quiet the company; Loyalty - when he will continue struggling and keep silent with a hope for better future changes in company; Neglect - when the person will just ignore a situation without any expectation (Hirschman, 1970).

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Figure 3.1 Albert O. Hirschman “Voice, Exit, Loyalty”, 1970

The hypotheses proposed in the present work imply that Hirschman’s concept can be used as an interpretation of relations between people and state. For instance the statistic of elections attendance at Tomsk is very low as it remains at an average level of 20% (data from Tomsk Duma and Regional Administration) . That demonstrates a refusal of majority of people to express political opinion through elections. The case of “exit” can be described with reference to people who migrated from Russia. According to research of Russian economist Natalia Zubarevich, incomes of Russian citizens greatly dropped in the last 3 years. This logically leads to resentment. In spite of this fact, Russia’s population does not go on protests to register their displeasure but according to the dynamics they just minimized their spendings two times greater than the decrease of their incomes. “It is our way. Based on historical experience of the 20th century, if something goes wrong, then save, then you can survive. The typical response from the government: “we are surrounded

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

by enemies, and oil has fallen in price” - and this reasoning is fine for the main mass of the population” (Zubarevich, 2015, from video lecture). Another Russian economist Leonid Polishchuk was relating it to “Backroom” Social contract, the desire of general public to have a “strong hand” of the leader (Polishchuk, 2016). However both concepts that propose loyalty contradict to the real fact of election participation. Actually this phenomena that was described by Zubarevich and Polishchuk in fact is not related to “loyalty” but it is more of a case of “neglect” a representation of parallel realm. Only those who participate in elections can be considered as a “Voice”or “Loyalty” case. In case of no voting people can resort to all other types of expressions but not “Loyalty” case. In Tomsk case it is around 80 percent of people. That is what was also observed during field-work interviews. It was not like this during all new history of Russian Federation for instance in 1996, the overall Russian election attendance rate was 65% but for elections of president and the State Duma ( The lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia). It demonstrates a certain degree of disappointment and puts under question functional capacity of state to make a change. The leader of TPS Ulitsa Dzerzhinskogo Andrey Ivanov confirms this high level of inertia in election and compares this situation with management of territories and buildings: On the other hand inertia of most people is manifested not only in the elections, when we had a 17% turnout at the election - it’s not even funny. The same is evident in such things as the administrative management of the house, territory management. Pavel Suhotepliy (wooden architecture expert) sees inertia in both citizens and the authorities: People who live there(wooden heritage) are absolutely passive and the authorities are not active as well. Alexandra raised an issue for priority to survive and absence of having time to care about beauty and history (especially when it is in decay and they have to live inside): 26

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

I spoke to one German researcher. He said it would be good to make a documentary about our life. He also asked an interesting question: “why you, inhabitants, don’t want to save all this beauty?” But we just try to survive, it’s out of question now. We need money for doing all this. “Neglect” can be explained with no hope for the government and desire to survive. That means people live out of political domain they count only on themselves and they live in a parallel to the state reality even though they are unavoidable to intersect with it from time to time. If real emigration represents “exit” then the best term to describe “neglect” is inner emigration. When a person has an opportunity to emigrate to another country, but instead, for some personal reasons choose to remain in the socio-cultural and political conditions. They might still pay taxes and go to local state hospital, use social services busily, yet will use the state structures but will not have an active political or socio-cultural position towards it. But moreover the overlapping situations of economic instability and political ignorance to the issues leads to the search of alternatives for “reproduction of social cohesion” by some - “religious cults, secret societies, political sects, economic Utopias” (Della Porta, 2006, p 7, p2, citing Neil Smelser, 1962) and the constant growth of registered religious organizations for the past 10 years can partially confirm this statement, official statistic 2003 - 2013 (Yakovenko, 2012 ). Both of the aspects: Institutional addiction and as a result of its social alienation that tuned into domination of neglect leads in a sociocultural perspective to social amnesia strengthening disconnection of cultural heritage with individual identity and collective identity. Another aspect that is strengthening social disconnection and represents one of the possible forms of neglect is distributional way of life which characterises Russian’s everyday life by homework, on weekends - Dacha by private car people remain between urban and rural way of life (Kurennoy, 2013). From author’s personal experience in Tomsk field-trip people were refusing to give interviews on weekends because of one simple reason - they are at Dacha. All this actually leads us to the question is there a city in a broad sense? 27

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

3.3.1 Is there a City? A way of life Tomsk, a city with population of almost 600 000 people appears as an oxymoron city under the frame of urban culture and sociology. On one side is a massive urbanization - the population of Tomsk has grown by 5 times during the 20th century, on the other - localization with resemblance of a village because of its pre-revolutionary system of settlement and we cannot regard the latter as a suburban area despite its low density because it is located next to the main political, economic and cultural center of the city. However the difference between these areas is drastic. These territories have some historical background that in a matter of fact there is no cities in Russia in a pure sense nowadays (Glazachev, 1996, Kurennoy, 2014). Modern heritage zones are historically called â&#x20AC;&#x153;Slobodaâ&#x20AC;? by the beginning of XX century already reminded urban villages, because despite the low density they had certain aspects that could characterize them as an urban settlement: merchants were practicing philanthropy and investing into public services and religious institutions. How it was already mentioned in the first chapter, the functional activities of these zones were integrated into Tomsk economy, first floors of the houses were very often carrying some non-housing functions: stores or workshops and organizations and moreover the level of overall degree of civil society had constantly being growing. All these aspects describe a balanced urban system of local economics and political engagement (Jacobs, 1969). Currently all these aspects do not exist or have very weak representation in the same historical zones. This will be demonstrated and explained in coming part of present chapter (towards stigmatization process) but shortly speaking now they are low density sleeping districts. However a survey targeted on people (part of present research) who live in mass housing districts and visit historical areas showed that respondents feel a sense of coziness and comfort in such areas and often visit for relaxing walks. There is a general feeling of relaxation despite the absence of basic level consumer services like bars, cafes or restaurants galleries. 28

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

3.3.2 Type of property right for apartments Common property, private property, state property - dilemma of ownership and relationships between neighbours Historically the majority of these houses were tenements, which is in fact means that they are meant to be shared by many people. However certain historical aspects have to be taken into consideration. In order to understand the complexity of ownership situation we have to look at the types of ownership and its variations. Originally in 19th century these houses were owned by one owner who lived either in the same house or in the own private house next to it. Thus it gave the opportunity for the owner to take care of its property. After the October Revolution the state expropriated the houses from owners and gave to immigrants (mainly peasants from countryside) or to people in need. In that way the state was declared as a legal owner and all the procedures were under control of the state institutions and services that remained during whole period of USSR again an example of institutional addiction that leads to alienation. Now there are 3 main types of ownership of these tenement houses: privatized apartment, state apartment (rented to people who used to live there since USSR but did not want to privatise) and apartments for private rent (both state and private owned that are rented out to another person). However, with open possibility for privatization not everybody rush out to privatise their apartments. Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s take a glance at reasons why people do not privatise this property. In 1990s when privatization process was legalized by the new government a lot of people started to privatize their apartments in wooden houses but not all people because from time to time there were a fire breakouts. Then in 2000-2004 when fire breakouts became massive and frequent people realized what will happen if they privatize their wooden houses. When I asked Alexandra from Tatarskaya sloboda why they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t privatize their apartment she told me: 29

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

There is only one privatized flat in our house. But we decided not to privatize our flat, we don’t want to own this rotten house. We don’t want to lose a chance to get a new apartment. Some time ago it was commonly used to burn old houses for getting a free space for construction. The lawyer advised us that if we privatize this property and it will ever burn then we will not get any housing instead. But if the property is under the social rent then the government must provide us with the housing. So if you privatized it then you are the owner and it’s your problem if it was burnt. This statement clearly demonstrates two aspects regarding ownership. First - people are scared to privatize their apartments because they feel unprotected by law if something happens. If apartment is privatized and fire breakout would happen then they have to buy new apartment however when it is state owned apartment then state has to give new apartment for free. Second - as far as it is not their house by law but a state property they do not want to invest their own money into doing anything in order to prevent slow destruction of these houses. Another aspect is when apartments are rented out by owners. Both privatized apartments and state apartments are rented out to third party people. This type of short term dwellers care about the house and apartment even less than others. Author’s personal experience about a rented apartment: For the research sake during my field trip I decided to rent an apartment in one of the wooden houses in historical area. With help of local activist I found a place to stay. The apartment was owned by lady that for the last 5 years were renting it out to couple with child and they recently moved out. She lived outside the city and almost did not visit this apartment. The owner privatized it during the 90s but what was observed inside was shocking. If not having hot water and centralized heating was acceptable for me but sanitation situation was a nightmare, bed bugs and cockroaches were everywhere that was not acceptable.

This situation demonstrated the degree of appreciation or better to say no appreciation and level of maintenance by private owner - how some people do not care anymore about their property as long as it gives 30

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

profit they are fine, if it is not - which does not matter. They do not invest money into renovation even if it is their property. That was also confirmed by Arkadiy who helped me to find that apartment. Here it’s worth to notice that very often in particular the state apartments become the most vulnerable because it happens that the owner does not live inside and only legally related to this house. While in reality they rent out this state property and live somewhere else. Obviously they do not take care of this house, apartment or territory. Especially complex and conflictual situation is when some apartments are still state owned property and given for rent as a social housing while others are already privatised and legally belong to some individuals; they are having difficulties in finding consensus in taking care over their house. 3.3.3. House and Territory Ambiguity of post-soviet notion of private property. Some people “I am the host!” react by fencing their territory or their private parking lot on a common territory without even announcing to co-inhabitants of the territory while others “State must do it!” just completely neglect the territory with confidence that State has to fix it! This nature, on one hand of fencing the territory and on the other hand of full delegation of responsibility to the state are two sides of the same coin. According to Maxim Trudolyubov this is something that comes from absence of mental feeling (almost subconscious) of actual legal power of private property right. This almost barbarian or medieval fear that someone can come and take it away still can be easily found in Russian society even though it has a legislative protection. Historically it happened that people never fought for it but it was generously given by the State starting from the Russian Empire and ending with Russian Federation ( Trudolyubov 2011) but the second type of people are the descendants of Soviet legacy who are actually used to the fact that state was fixing everything for them, they are influenced by institutionalised approach in solving the problems of territories that was practiced in USSR.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

“State must do it!” From in-field experience many people settled in wooden houses waiting for the government or their representatives to solve all their issues inside the house and more rarely this is a case of territory. This attitude comes from Soviet period because majority of people usually of older generation used to think that it is only the State responsibility to provide all house maintenance and keep the place outside their apartment in good condition (even though in reality it is not like this, majority of people even not complain and remain passive about it). Some experts and activist were highlighting the overall inertia of society. People mainly recognize the ownership of their own apartment (it can be observed also when you are in a different types of space): usually it is very cozy and comfortable inside the Russian apartment but when you come out from the apartment, a person can feel like being in a “ghetto”. This expression was heard several times during the fieldtrip regarding both apartments in high rise building and apartments in historical zones. Therefore the perception of private space is squeezed to the size of apartment or even a rented room. Aleksandra one of the inhabitant Tatarskaya sloboda confessed that she is actually a citizen of another country that was destroyed but it gave her education, house and almost everything else was provided (she meant a USSR) and now there is nothing. Figure 3.2 Fenced and used as a private space

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

“I am the host!”: Fences as a sign of symbolic power of property right Another aspect is the lack of agreement on ownership over common territory (basically the land under and around the houses). Legally this territory has a common property status that can be equally used by all the inhabitants of the house and the use of this land has to be coordinated together and by common decision. In Russia there is a proverb “if it is everybody’s then it is nobody’s!” therefore you can do with it whatever you want. These common territories become disputed areas of several owners and create micro level conflicts. Sometimes even turn into a tool of speculations among inhabitants. Very often the appearance of a house and its territory very well illustrates the relationship of the people who live inside. Some people in order to prevent undesired actions of other neighbours start to divide the territories inside into even smaller pieces It is very visible that some dwellers only take care of their own land in front of their windows and entrances, other backyards have visible division into zones that belong to different dwellers. Many backyards are almost abandoned and completely messy and less often is when a backyard is organized based on a sort of zoning according to common interests of all inhabitants of the house. But overall people are more willing to take care of their private territory (mainly in individualistic manner) than the full house or common areas inside the house. Figure 3.3 Inner shared space

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

3.3.4 Conclusion Country of fence is a mirror of society. Private property as a notion still does not exist in mental field of society. Therefore, people prefer to fence their territory as a symbolic power over the territory. Moreover the common ownership over houses and territory creates huge amount of local conflicts that in majority of cases leads into the factual absence of “owner’s hand” of those who feel real sense of their property and take care about it. On the other hand social alienation, fear of instability in future of this housing, constant fires and mess around property rights form a type of inhabitants that prefer passive mode of habitation.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

3.4 Second wave of cultural alienation. 3.4.1. Stigmatization in general Stigma is a social phenomenon used in defining individuals or a group of people. Based on Goffman there are three types of social “stigma”: (1) Overt or external deformations (2) blemishes of individual character, and (3) tribal stigma of race, nationality and religion (Goffman, 1963). This notion of stigma can be also applied towards spatial qualities. Reinterpretation of Goffman’s typologies of “Stigma” into spatial qualities: 1) Overt or external deformations > the conditions of space, some disorders and occurrence of “Ugliness” in space. However, we can consider something in a space as “ugly” only when we recognize this difference compared to “not ugly” and these qualities can vary from individual to individual based on their backgrounds and definition of ugly. 2) Blemishes of individual character > presence of deviant individuals influence perception of this space. 3) Tribal stigma of race, nationality and religion > presence of individuals from others ethnicity, religion or nation(migrants) the notion of “insiders and outsiders”. The dimension of stigmatization are internalized and externalized. First when it is projected by individual on itself or a group whom he represents. Externalized directs the stigmatization towards other individuals and groups. Another analytical work that reasons around the topic of marginality and stigma was proposed by Loïc Wacquant. By mixing the concept of Goffman’s idea of stigma as a social discredit and Bourdieu’s symbolic power where symbolic power is represented as a force in “making and unmaking groups” by cutting up social space in ways that (de)mobilize “putative members”, Loïc Wacquant proposed the concept of territorial stigmatization. In his book “Urban outcast” he proposed a mechanism of comparative study of how the process of Urban Marginality evolves: (1) the growing internal heterogeneity and de-socialization of labor; (2) the 35

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

functional disconnection of neighborhood conditions from macroeconomic trends; (3) territorial fixation and stigmatization; (4) spatial alienation and the dissolution of place; (5) the loss of a viable hinterland; (6) the symbolic splintering of marginalized populations pulverized beyond the ambit of established instruments of collective voice (such as trade unions, community organizations, and left political parties) (Wacquant 2008, pp. 233-244) Wacquant was building his research on analysis of “Western societies”, post-fordist society; describing harsh districts (ghettos) with strong urban marginalization, all of that is too extreme comparing to the Tomsk case. Therefore we cannot fully apply his scheme on modern Russian society and Tomsk in particular. But certain aspects of urban marginality regime can be recognized in heritage zones of Tomsk. This definitely can be highlighted as (2) the functional disconnection of neighborhood conditions from macroeconomic trends; (3) territorial fixation and stigmatization; (4) spatial alienation and the dissolution of place.However there are not enough data for deepening this topic into this research thus we put it away for now and adopt the original concept of social stigma by Goffman: stigma as a perception of “ugliness” in the space 3.4.3 Hypothesis of Heritage Stigmatization “That is not my heritage” because it is too bad and ugly to be a part of my identity, it is a spoiled identity, feeling of shame (Goffman, 1963). 1) Overt or external deformations > the conditions of space, some disorders and occurrence of “Ugliness” in space. One of the elderly inhabitants of Gogol street described a situation like this:

Our Gogol street used to be so cozy and green with tiny houses. We have been living here already for 70 years and now this street turns into nightmare. Houses are burning. There are 13 resettled and burnt houses already 3 houses are abandoned constructions. One house did not suffer from fire but fell down by itself. So shortly speaking. It’s dangerous and scary to go outside in the evening

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

From the condition of houses and surrounding territories, become even more evident the contrast with central Lenina street and Tatarskaya Sloboda. 3.4.4 Portrait of problems From my personal experience and from interviews with people, what often popped-up were issues regarding conditions of environment and problems with houses itself in historical areas that I would put in 2 blocks: Wooden housing: Space in historic areas: Conservation and Fires Conditions of living Maintenance of houses Restoration Capital Refurbishment

Public space Streetscape Connectivity and function New development

Wooden housing Conservation and fires Fire outbreak is a major problem that creates stigma among citizens of Tomsk through fear and abandonment. When the house has a hazardous status, it is supposed to be resettled. In the case where the house is a non-heritage, it will be demolished but under the condition that it will be replaced with a similar wooden house or sometimes even rebuilt. If the house is a monument or an object of valuable historical and cultural environment it must be preserved for future capital refurbishment (the decision of the Duma of Tomsk City on April 5, 2016, N 188). Since conservation mechanism is a complex bureaucratic procedure it delays for a few months, sometimes years leaving the house empty and open. Very often, residents of neighboring houses come into the hazardous house and take away the elements or decorations that may be useful for them. Also homeless or other people from the street enter

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

these houses for myriad reasons. For instance Arkadiy from Tatarskaya sloboda: â&#x20AC;&#x153;The city authorities must look after this, but for some reasons, they take no actions to monitor this situation, as soon as it is resettled, residents of neighboring houses began to disassemble the roof for their own needs, BUT when the roof of the house is removed then the house is lost, it starts to rot and no one then will not do capital refurbishment!â&#x20AC;&#x153; Nevertheless, conservation of houses is not a guarantee that they are protectively good enough from fires, looting and unauthorized settlement to the homeless. Even warnings about video surveillance are ignored because everybody realizes that nobody will invest money into video surveillance of conserved houses. Thus in these houses fires occur.

Figure 3.4 Abandoned house next to newly build federal agency

As for the conserved buildings standing for years in this state of rot, or buildings that are still awaiting conservation, it give the impression of abandonment of territory and fatality of wooden objects that leads to clear realization. Authorities do not need them especially when next to it in contrast stands newly built buildings of some state institution. In reality these conserved houses are doomed (Figure 2.2) because their renovation is not a priority and city administration does not have a political will to invest money into their refurbishment and especially to keep its functioning as a housing unit. Thus they prefer to wait for private investors to rent these housing units. Consequently, these houses are left burnt and dilapidated for several years without refurbishment. Recently the mayor made a proposal to the regional government to al-

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

low local government to disassemble these dilapidated heritage houses instead of creating small recreation zones and mini-park. Another situation is when fire occurs in settled houses. After collapse of the USSR, fight for the territories for new development went so far that houses were burnt up sometimes with intentional blocking of the people inside. From interview with Irina Evtekhieva: “In 2004 this house was burnt out from upper floors usually when house was burnt. The official version says that is was fire breakout BUT in reality it was made on purpose Usually inhabitants were proposed to resettle to very depressive areas in outskirts of the city and usually they did not wanted to accept that. Then suddenly happened that these inhabitants who declined to resettle (it can be confirmed by all victims and witnesses of those accidents) were blocked in their houses from outside and burnt up.” All these instilled fear in people, even now respondents to the interviews in Tomsk often mentioned examples of Makarov times (Mayor Makarov) when there were frequent cases of deaths in fires. This period has created a stable bond [Wooden house = Fire ], even it is a self-evident statement but in this case it is on a level of survival instinct.

Figure 3.4 Conservation of burnt houses Source: author, October 2015

Conditions of living Living conditions in this heritage housing plays an extremely important role in the formation of opinion of the people who live inside. Majority of houses out of official “list 701 houses” (Preservation of wooden architecture of Tomsk) are having proper sanitation (toilet,

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

bathroom, heating) however it the same cannot be said about all historical zone because based on the data from the inhabitants in areas like “Voskresenskaya gora” there are some houses that still have no proper drainage system; hot water and restroom is outside of the house. The dwellers of houses that do not have bathrooms use either public bath or “banya” (Russian sauna). From author’s personal experience in one of the historical areas (Tatarskaya sloboda ): “It is one of the best historical areas that I like in Tomsk, I choose to stay in slightly extreme conditions for real experience, I stayed as a guest for one week in one of houses with no “warm” toilet (just outside, in backyard), no bathroom, no centralized drainage system, no centralized heating, only Russian fireplace(stove) true authentical, however it was interesting but tough experience for me personally although the last point about Russian fireplace actually was nice”

Alexsandra also from “Tatarskaya sloboda said that they just try to survive: “I spoke to one German researcher. He said it would be good to make a documentary about our life. That was during Makarov (mayor). He also asked a good question: “why you, people who live here, don’t want to save this beauty?” But we just try to survive, it’s out of question now. We need money for doing all this… Today I visited my neighbour. Can you imagine how she lives in 21st century at 15 square meters of space with no heating.”

Pavel Suhotepliy expert: “I always tell: let’s do the restoration honestly, not just to make a decoration but in complex to make people comfortable living. So I was told by Yegor Ligachev [the governor of Tomsk region during 80-ies]: “make not just a decoration but living conditions for people” - that was my task and we tried to make it. What is now: they may repair the roof, install water drainage but not the complete living environment.” Maintenance of houses, Capital Refurbishment and Restoration process a) From time to time different inhabitants raised the issue of maintenance, some people were pointing out this as a main reason why they 40

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

do not want to live in wooden house. Everyday maintenance is characterized with lack of proficiency and competence, management companies who simply do not have workers who knows how correct maintenance of the wooden house has to be done. Oleg is a representative of the one of the house in “Dzerginka” neighborhood (historical name “Professors’ sloboda”). He was raised issues of inappropriate maintenance and pointed at the rain-water pipe that neither him nor management company knew how to fix it on a wooden house in a proper way. As a result, water leaks just on the walls of the house. Alexandra: “...here we have a bigger heating fee because they assume that more heat is wasted through these gaps but they do nothing to fix it. We pay for heating more than people from ordinary brick houses, what a disaster! And this is our mayor’s initiative. During Soviets we could go to ask from Housing Service to give us materials and they were giving us everything for free, now is nothing. <...> At the same time these old houses haven’t been repaired for 50 years since 1965. If they would make a good renovation to these houses we would love to live here. It’s easier to breath in the wooden house, so when I visit my sister-in-law living in a brick house I feel sleepy after half an hour.” b) Very often inhabitants by themselves are trying to fix technical issues with houses without knowledge on how it is supposed to be done in the correct way. For instance all over Tomsk you can see how people use spray foams and plastic for insulation however based on experts opinion (Pavel Suhotepliy) it is completely forbidden to use this type of material because it causes decay in wood due to moisture condensation.

Figure 3.5 People change (“improve”) their houses in historical zones Source: blogger Roman Petrushin

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Some representatives of local administration are aware of these issues and even raise them during official interviews. They even confirm the fact that the municipality knows what is going on with houses but have turned a deaf ears to it. For instance, the Head of the “Committee on preservation of the historical heritage of Tomsk” Nikita Kirsanov during interregional forum “Cultural heritage is a factor of development for the modern city” on March 2016 in Samara said: “These tenement wooden houses are the most problematic housing fund all over Russia … it is the most raped with incompetent exploitation, it is the most fire hazardous fund, usually housing management companies want to escape from responsibility to take them under their control but if they forced to do so in anyway then everything is letting-off for them, on a lot of things local governments close their eyes. This fund is in catastrophic situation, if we will not find systematic solution then in 5 - 10 years will start massive disappearance of this wooden urban heritage.”

Case of “Raped” history (but legally not a heritage)

Figure 3.6 Marx 41 before capital refurbishment, Condition of house in 2014

The case of house at Marx 41. The administration of at local municipality (rayon) decided to do a capital refurbishment of the building. For the period of renovation (9 months) inhabitants were asked to move out to a so-called “maneuverable fund” (housing fund for temporary living) (article 92 of the

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Housing code of the Russian Federation). Majority of inhabitants except for one apartment were refusing to move out because they were satisfied with condition of their house and they were more afraid to end up without any apartment at all. However, based on my interview with inhabitants, local administration and then also representatives of city administration, there was assurance “almost on bible” that people will be able to return to their houses in December 2015 when the repairs will be completed. After that, almost all inhabitants moved to “maneuverable fund” except for one women - Evgenia, because she was not ready to accept conditions in “maneuverable fund, therefore she moved to self-constructed attached to the house construction that was equipped as a kitchen with sleep place. Evgenia decided not to move first of all because the 12 square m room in maneuverable fund was not enough to fit all her furniture but moreover she was afraid of fire (this fear of fires in wooden houses, was present in all the citizens of Tomsk). So technically she moved from the house but remained in this tiny kitchen attached to the house. After 2 or 3 months of inappropriate “repairment” they found out that actually their house is in emergency status (unsafe or unfit) and municipality is in the process of taking a decision to demolish it all, because the repairing company have done some major mistakes during the process and refused to fix it and no other company wanted to take this case to fix. They were saying: “it is cheaper to destroy this house and build new one out of concrete and brick”.

Figure 3.7 Marx 41 after wrong capital refurbishment.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

After this statement the houses were left completely open without roof for 6 month under rain and snow.

Figure 3.8 Marx 41 after 6 months of wrong capital refurbishment.

House with poster (GIVE BACK OUR HOME), state of the house in the beginning of October 2015. In April 2016 when I arrived for second part of the field trip i went to check on them, this people from Marx 41 were still in the same situation living in attachment to the house. A) Violation of Methodology Pavel Suhotepliy, one of the best experts of wooden architecture restoration, led and established “Tomskrestavratziya” (was a government research institution of restoration in 80 it was leading all restoration projects and was very famous in whole Siberia) during the 80-ies: “Now everyone is doing restoration but there are no experts and no one complies with the methodology… The methodology in Europe allows to use only certain materials, but here it’s different: they use what is cheaper to buy. Nobody has methodology of restoration, they are not even interested in it. But the methodology must be developed and observed. The range of applicable materials must be strictly specified because today we have a lot of materials coming from abroad that may not be suitable for our climate. Some houses are well done but there is no complex management of the restoration. Wood must be seasoned with right times, moisture content etc. But currently it’s not controlled by anyone, who cares about moisture? They can put spruce log between aspen and pine which is not allowed because of different tar. Currently there are no experts able to supervise the restoration process up to standards. Nobody cares follow proper technology and methods that are known and available. Come and check who is building a new house they don’t follow any procedure.

City government almost never involves SpetzProektRestavratsiya institute in making restoration projects because it’s too expensive. City cannot afford such professional projects. City is looking at them like “Lenin looked at bourgeoisie”, they don’t want it because it’s too

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

expensive for the city but it is a fixed state price for the project, we can’t change it.” Pavel Suhotepliy: “ I see that business is currently killing good initiatives. People are talking just about profit and do not care about historical aspects. There is no great profit and short-term money because restoration is all about long investments. Business needs money to be paid in advance. It used to be that 30% advance was paid in the beginning to buy the materials but now they suggest that business do the restoration on own expense get paid after work is complete and accepted. “ One of the most famous wooden monuments of Tomsk is The House with Firebirds”. Pavel Suhotepliy was invited as an expert during restoration of “The House with Fire-birds to solve several issues, when he saw what the restoration company (with licenses) have done. He suggested them to redo everything because they had skipped a lot of stages in its restoration. He said it happened because they were in a rush to finish it for some celebration and added certain methods they weren’t supposed to add and vice versa. In the

Figure 3.9 Federal monument The House with Fire-birds”.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

end we see beautiful building with unresolved problems with insulation. In his experts view this all wrong situation around wooden heritage happened because of the absence of first, political will and second, strict methodology. B) Case of “We do not want to be a monument! “ In Dzerzhinskogo Street (Preobragensaya historic area) where almost the whole street is more or less restored. Maxim the head of this house said: “That house had capital refurbishment 2 years ago (pointing to nearby) I can tell you how it was done. I work as a construction foreman and that means I understand the construction process a bit. Why do I want to remove the status of a monument? I hear that money is being allocated to monuments , yet they are not reaching our house. I have correspondence with Deputies already from 5 years and every time they say that we will put your house in the program for the next year under condition of financing.

Figure 3.10 Dzerzhinskogo street regional monument.

We have to co-finance restoration, contractor company must have a special license to work with the monuments and it has becomes more expensive. This means we are also paying many times more. If It is just a house, then we might just renovate as a regular

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

house with regional program. Here, I have no right even to hammer a nail because it is a monument. One official has offered me to do it silently basically she proposed to me something against the law that could be a case for the court. Somehow I did not dare to do so. Some official representatives are coming to check the conditions of the our monument house. They do not even enter the house to determine where and what to do. They just standing on the street without entering. Probably they see issues of the house with x-ray vision ability. I was always running after and annoying the bureaucrats begging for help with our monument house but lately is almost gave up because it does not give any results” C) bankruptcy of heritage regional institution Intentional bankruptcy of specialized state institutions, those who render professional assistance at all the stages of restoration process for heritage objects: preparation of projects, estimation of cost, restoration and supervising service. Nikita Kirsanov stated that all the specialized state companies were closed down: “In Tomsk for the last years all specialized professional institutions were eliminated: Municipal management company, project estimate bureau, regional committee “Tomsk Historical”, “Tomskrestovratziya” all these institutions actually do not exist anymore although some of them still legally present” Actually “Sibspetzproektrestavratziya” (a branch of federal research institution of restoration “spetzproektrestavratziya”) is in the process of bankruptcy. This means there is no good local research institution anymore that can provide reliable expertise on restoration process. Heritage Space Public space and Streetscape a) Sidewalks and roads

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Existing sidewalks are difficult to call so, more often it looks like some kind of path that pedestrians use as a sidewalk but very often it just disappear suddenly and pedestrian has to go on the road. One of the elderly locals of Tatarskaya sloboda Eleonora told me following up on public spaces: “Try to find at least one good sidewalk on our street - you will not find. Now wealthy people built their houses this way that blocks the sidewalk. We do not have sidewalks, so we walk on the road and our children walk on the road, of course it is dangerous especially for school students” Another inhabitant of “Tatarskaya sloboda” Alexandra confessed that sometimes she feels like living in ghetto and that was not like this during the Soviet period: “This area was nice during Soviet times, asphalt was good and roads were washed. Tatarskaya and Gorkogo streets looked very decent. <…>Last winter we were buried under snow and once a man from the administration came to my shop and I asked him why the roads are not cleaned from snow? His reply was: “You have 3rd-class roads”. So I said: “Great! Does it mean that here 3rd-class people are living as well? We live here like in ghetto!” Figure 3.11 Sidewalks and roads.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Figure 3.12 The only playground in the area.

b) Playground Majority of the time, people try to deal with this issue by themselves by installing some elements of playground inside of their inner yards. Oxana: “My son grew up here, now he is 18. I did not know any problems. I let him go to back yard and he played with neighbor boy. Now my neighbor has second son and he is also playing with another neighbor’s child. Here we have our micro world.” The only state playground I saw was in Tatarskaya Sloboda that was installed a month before I arrived to Tomsk. When I mentioned about this playground to Eleonora she said: “They made this playground because of upcoming elections of local deputies that is the only reason they installed this playground”. c) Parking lots In heritage zones there are no proper public car parking even for locals. People park their cars everywhere where they find a space. Usually dwellers park their cars in backyards or next to the houses strait on soil (that leads to a lot of mud) or they have metal garages that also have very questionable aesthetics. Two elderly ladies on Gogol street complained: “They park their cars right in front of our windows. You open a window and see someone’s cars. But what will happen if there is fire ? How firefighters will get access?” d) Waste management Management of waste is organized in an unpleasant manner. There are no regular trash bins, only big green containers for trash from locals. All these big green trash containers stand next or in front of the houses even if it has a monument status:

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

a) entrance into historical zone;

b) monument of regional level

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Ń ) monument of regional level

Figure 3.13 Waste management

e) Public space Even in those few attempts to make improvement of public space it looks very dubious and questionable.

Figure 3.14 Conditions of public spaces

f) Backyards This domain in majority of cases has status of common property. It depends on the owners of the apartment and their relationships with how it will be used. Very often they take care of it and try to create certain levels of coziness and care.

Figure 3.15 Backyards. Source: author, October 2015

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

g) Connectivity and function Officially 87% of the historical fund in 8 historic areas are solely housing. Among them 74% are tenement housing, but it does not mean that only poor people live there. These are 519 houses with 2221 apartments inside with 5332 dwellers. It is not very vibrant and livable. All these dwellers have to go outside of their historic area for any services. For instance in “Tatarskaya sloboda” when I asked “where do they spend weekends?”, Svetlana one of the dwellers answered that she goes to the outskirts of Tomsk to the shopping mall with her husband by car because there are parking, cinema and shopping, but the main reason is parking because it is difficult to find parking place in the city center, they use mainly car because Tatarskaya sloboda is almost not connected by public transport with other parts of Tomsk (only one bus goes thru it). In fact there are no signs of bus stop even where the bus stops. In all focused areas “Voskresenskaya gora” “Tatarskaya sloboda” “Dzerginka” “Zaozerie” there are common problems: very weak connectivity, almost absent public transport and no soft mobility. 3.4.5 Conclusion The above described different issues of physical space: constant fires, wrong maintenance of houses, conserved monuments left for decay, low quality of urban space, absence of public services and transportation. This abandonment and neglect of the areas from the attention of authorities (here add idea of institutionalized nature of control Kurennoy) leads to ‘symbolic demonization’ of territories (Wacquant, 2008). Territories of historical zones have very low quality of public space. It does not respond to modern potentials: no benches, no bike-lanes, no public transportation, very often absence of proper sidewalks, organized open spaces are absent, no parkings, pavement is broken or even just soil. When it rains it becomes muddy with puddles. Analysis of quality of the urban space in historical areas revealed degradation of territory. All this demonstrates lack of competence and governance by the Tomsk administration.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

3.5 Stigma of Deviant people in space Blemishes of individual character > presence of deviant individuals influence perception of this space. Nikita Kirsanov stated that: “In this housing fund there are a lot of socially vulnerable groups like elderly or handicapped people, also more vividly present are marginal contingents of addicted people.” It is not clear if this statement (especially about addicted people) is based on solid statistics and unfortunately there is no official open data either. However, it is important to highlight the expression used in this statement:”vividly present” regarding presence of addicted people. This expression is very valid for small scale areas (Simmel, 1903). This kind of small scale environments are similar to villages. They have a slow mode of reality surrounding human. The level of understanding and sensitivity to any difference is increasing thus when this space is distracted with violence or scandal it is much more noticeable especially by locals. The idea is that these zones are becoming more noticeable that leads for faster stigmatization because of their scale compared to the ordinary urban scale. Nevertheless this fact demonstrates a certain degree of marginalization that is recognizable by society. However from my personal experience the social composition of these areas are not homogeneous. It is possible to find newly built solid brick houses that were constructed during “unstable times” of the 90-ies (how some locals call this houses “new houses of deputies and rich people”). Next to them are absolutely dilapidated monuments of the 19th century in wooden modern style which are inhabited by elderly and disadvantaged families. 3.6 Stigma of outsiders Social composition and replacement of inhabitants with immigrants. Tribal stigma of race, nationality and religion -----> presence of individuals with others ethnicity, religion or nation(migrants) the notion of 52

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

“insiders and outsiders” Another aspect that is worth paying attention to is the substitution of locals with foreigners from CIS countries. For the past decade there is a tendency of substitution of local people with immigrants. That is a very slow process and a lot depends on economical and political situation. Nevertheless this process is undergoing. They come to live in the heritage zones because the cost of selling and price of rent of apartments in this districts is lower. Eleonora from Tatarskaya sloboda mentioned this during the interview : “Now here we have a mess: The Tatar population is very little, a lot of immigrants buy the wreck houses because they are relatively cheap.” In fact, the price comparison of apartments for instance in Tatarskaya sloboda and newly built houses in neighboring locations demonstrates that the prices of an average wooden house is about 30% lower however the sizes of apartments are also smaller. Arkadiy inhabitant of Tatarskaya sloboda mentioned that very often real owners of apartments in wooden houses rent out their properties to newcomers. During my visit of “Voskresenskaya gora” I had a conversation with children and among them were migrants from Uzbekistan as a matter of fact they were playing with other children of the local population. 3.7 Big scale cultural alienation

Figure 3.16 Local Children. Source: author, October 2015

The disrespect to its own traditions can be seen in a modern Russian society in an urban environment and even in the houses of modern elites. All over Russia you can find palaces of new political and state corporate elite that are newly built in the styles of european tradition while the historical palaces of XVIII-XIX century elites are left to decay. This is a never-ending story of reproduction of the same system. Although the political regime was different in its core, it is not changing the possibility that in a future these present elitist palaces will stay in the same state of decay in the future. Another example is a new urban project investment into the shapes of other traditions that does not belong to this. This fake new architectural

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

Figure 3.17 An illustration of urban inferiority complex. Yoshkar-ola and Novosibirsk

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

aesthetics and a huge desire to be Europe is an illustration of inferiority complex. There most vivid examples are Yoshkar-ola and Novosibirsk: one is a project of “embankment of Bruges” of Yoshkar-ola that is in fact a copy-paste of historical center of Belgium city Bruges. Another project is a Commercial center “Amsterdam” in the heart of Novosibirsk that wants to imitate Amsterdam (Figure 3.17).

3.8 Conclusion As a result of cultural and social alienation appears cultural conflict. The active collective actions in Tomsk appeared as a reaction to a threat of physical elimination of Historical Zones. In 2004, the Mayor of Tomsk officially announced that these zones and in particular these wooden housing is no longer valuable and has to be demolished to give space for new high rise development in the city. He was using very specific negative vocabulary as “Rotten... Decay... Out of date”(Dulzon, Lisovskaya, Pfeiffe and Eckert, 2010). That was the moment university intellectuals turned from general public into public activist and started to take active collective actions against government in order to protect their identity that was represented in that heritage. Their solidarity was based on the idea of this heritage as a part of their cultural identity (Melucci 1996). This moment became a great illustration and a beginning of new rounds of construction of collective identity and formation of new type of conflict that has cultural basis. Notion of heritage applied to this particular historical areas led to conflict in the society. This marked the starting point of under evaluation of these areas by the whole society and it continues till present moment. 54

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

4.UnderstandingTomsk’sPresent State of Cultural Conflict 4.1 Introduction This chapter is going to cover the following: theoretical background of urban regime, heritage under legislation, bureaucratic machine and political actors and a general introduction into legal definition of heritage. It also covers the following sections of local government and civil society: Heritage protection legislation and governance • Reality 1. Municipal program “Preservation of wooden architecture of Tomsk” • Reality 2. Non-material aspect of wooden architectural heritage represented in policies • Reality 3. Tomsk as a Historical settlement Analysis of civil society • General description of Activist groups • Analysis of collective actions with regard to heritage in Tomsk • Description of the dynamics by Public activist with Authorities. • Clusters of actions of Public activists • Periods of relationships Finally, the chapter looks at Tomsk Urban regime and conclusions 4.2 Theoretical background of Urban regime theory Urban regime theory came to projection after Stone case study analysis of Atlanta that was referring to local political order of city. Looking at the origins of the concept, urban regime is the set of conditions that were settled in urban environment and dictate its future urban agenda. Although this concept was introduced and applied on USA cases, the question that raised Stone’s approach can be applied to many other states with free market structure and with some flexibility in political institutions. The basic goal is to apply some of the features to the case of Tomsk and try to understand how it is correlated with heritage protection and how it considers heritage in its objectives? Urban regime theory has very effective set of main questions such as Who governs? What type of coalitions exist among actors? What are the actors involved into decision-making process? (Stone, 2005). What are the logics used in “speaking” about the city (Vakhshtayn, 2015) by each actor and where is the place of heritage in these logics? In order to understand what

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

are the main existing languages to talk about city and to highlight what is the dominant language used by each of the actors involved in “the production of space” in Tomsk. This understanding will help us to define what kind of Local Urban Regime exists and how it affects the system of orientations for future development with respect to heritage. The main question: does it even consider heritage as a part of its language or as a priority at all? First language of city as a “Machine of growth” an idea of economical growth “fast effective machine”. Second, as a “Hedonic City” is the Language of so-called “Hipster urbanism” (Vakhshtayn, 2015) that was introduced in Russia in particular by Danish architect Jahn Gale. Third, city as a “city of just” as a machine of struggle and inequality - egalitarian or in simplified terms leftist approach. What is the role played by heritage under the conditions of each of these languages? Possible adaptations of these three logics could be the following: “Machine of growth” - heritage here is a public good, a part of commodification, capitalization and objectification of the place and monument in order to gain profit out its presence in locality. “Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place”, Logan and Molotch 1987. “Machine of Entertainment” - Part of Creative Industries,, Entertainment and Tourism. Effects that overlap with idea of growth maschine, Notion of Hedonic price, Revitalization with Gentrification effect. “Machine of Justice” - Heritage preservation as a part of human right for his or her identity and sense of belonging, as a collective identity. “Just City” Susan Feinstein (Faro Convention, 2005, art. 1 states right for the heritage as a part of human right) 4.3 General introduction into legal definition of heritage

This chapter presents analyses of Heritage Protection system in Russia and demonstrates how it functions using Tomsk as an example. Main sub-elements: system of heritage management, policies, research institution (also experts)

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

TOOLs of preservation and regulation • • • • •

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Figure 4.1. Legislation and tools regarding heritage protection with accordance to levels of government .

Project of Protection Zones Project of Land Use Regulation Kadastr Protection Obligations Passport of the cultural heritage object

4.3.1 The different levels of legislative system of Russia and the related policies 4.3.1.1 Federal level The main law that regulates heritage protection in Russia is federal Law # 73-FZ “On the objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the people of the Russian Federation (as amended on March 9, 2016)” (It is based on this law that the main regulatory, control and protection roles are given to government and its representatives (ministry of culture and municipalities) Article 9 of Law # 73-FZ (The powers of the Russian Federation in the field of preservation, use, popularization and state protection of cultural heritage, passed for the public authorities of the Russian Federation). Russian legislation has very sharp separation between tangible and intangible cultural

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

heritage, in fact these terms have been replaced with different vocabulary i.e. material heritage for tangible and non-material for intangible cultural heritage. The main Federal law on material cultural heritage(tangible) is law “On the objects of cultural heritage (monuments of culture and history)”, enacted in June 2002, while the law on non-material cultural heritage (intangible) is simply non-existent. From legislative point of view, the definition of what is non-material cultural heritage also does not exist, the only law that speaks specifically about certain types of non-material heritage is # 7-F “The folklore and crafts”. Another document is “the Concept of preservation and development of the non-material cultural heritage of the people of the Russian Federation for 2009-2015”. Article 40 of “Basic legislation of the Russian Federation on culture” in law N3612-1 only talks scantily about non-material heritage. The powers of the state authorities of the Russian Federation in the field of culture: “creating conditions for the development of local traditional folklore, participate in the preservation, revival and development of folklore in the urban settlement.” On 23rd of June 2016 chairman of the federation council V. Matveenko during VI Parliamentary Forum “Historic-cultural heritage of Russia”, stated how crucial it is to have a law about non-material heritage in Russian Federal legislation in order to prevent its disappearance. Apparently, Matvienko did not consider this law on “The folk arts and crafts” as a solid foundation for protective initiatives for non-material heritage. Also, the idea of uniting material and non-material heritage appeared in federal programme: ”Culture of Russia”. However, skimming through this document reveals the absence of integrated approach for all types of heritage— merely stating on a priority list without considering strategies for creation of relation between them. 4.3.1.2 Local level The same division on tangible and intangible cultural heritage is ongoing at the regional and municipal level of Tomsk without merging them or without considering their interrelatedness in the physical context. Therefore, these two realms of legislation will be represented separately in 58

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

this part of research. It became clear during the analyses of legislation based on Tomsk that there are three parallel realities which have weak relevance to each other but moreover they contradict the real situation. The following Parallel realities are in the legislation of wooden heritage protection in Tomsk: • Reality 1. Municipal program “Preservation of wooden architecture of Tomsk” (objectified approach) • Realty 2. Non-material heritage relevant to wooden architectural heritage (spiritual or intangible approach) • Realty 3. Historical settlement (Big scale Territorial approach) Reality 1. Municipal program “Preservation of wooden architecture of Tomsk” Wooden monument as a modern house. Objectified approach. One of the typologies that was introduced in Law # 73-FZ is that the protection procedures of monuments have purely object-oriented sense. The same sense applies to the municipal program “Preservation of wooden architecture of Tomsk” in years 2015-2019. In a certain extent it can be considered as a mediating tool for different departments of municipality involved in the process but at best, it does a partial refurbishment of houses which very often is purely “façade” renovation because of lack of financial support from state budgets. Listed in this document, in 8 historical zones were located 512 “valuable objects of historical environment” and 189 historic-cultural monuments of different levels (federal, regional or municipal). Officially 87% of this fund is a housing, what is important to emphasize - among them 74% are tenement housing Inside of them are 2221 apartments, where 5332 dwellers live, that is 519 houses. All 701 buildings in this list have mixed property rights, that means the apartments in these houses are either privatized by the owner of the apartment or belongs to local municipality and taken for social rent by citizens. According to article 56 of the Law #73-FZ, if a monument is functionally used as housing then all the refurbishing procedures has to be followed by Housing code. In Housing law, when a monument belongs to an individual or legal actor then capital repairs must be financed by the owner of

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

the building. However, the owner can ask for co-financing or compensation of investments into the restoration. On the other hand, if even one apartment in a building belongs to the municipality, the municipality has to do capital refurbishment of this monument from the municipal budget for housing or other funds if it is qualified for other funds. In Tomsk’s case, the municipal programme “Preservation of wooden architecture of Tomsk” is mainly financed from The Fund of Capital refurbishment. Then this money goes to management companies. Two main issues were stated in the municipal programme regarding multiple apartments wooden buildings are stated in the municipal programme. First, absence of strategic vision for development of these historical zones that require a systematic solution. Second, the issues about dilapidated conditions of houses: 51 are in hazardous states and inhabitants have to be resettled and 424 are dilapidated and require refurbishment as soon as possible. But here they also highlight the fact that refurbishment fund is not enough to carry out activities on restoration and reconstruction of facades and decoration and cannot provide the complex restoration of the historic appearance of Tomsk. Another important point stated as second issue is the fact that housing function no longer efficient way of use for the heritage buildings basically because current dwellers of these houses cannot afford proper exploitation of these houses, therefore along with refurbishment process authorities have to resettle these houses as soon as possible and change housing function of this heritage into, for instance, administrative or office function. Here is a fundamental contradiction appears in terms of tangible and intangible aspects of heritage. Initially these heritage was built for housing purpose and its intangible function (a way of use) was given a housing purpose. Contradiction in authorities behavior. Level of Reality 1. Municipal program “Preservation of wooden architecture of Tomsk”

Case of New development in Tatarskaya sloboda by developer Bairamov (+ other cases of Bayramov’s manipulations with heritage houses at Batincova square and College restoration). Who is Bairamov? He is the general director of “Tomsklesstroy” which was part of “Tomskrestoration”.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

“Tomskrestoration” used to be one of the main public research and restoration institutions during the Soviet times. In the 1990s Bayramov privatized “Tomsklesstroy”several years ago “Tomskrestoration” went bankrupt. Behind the construction site is located a monument house of federal level at Tatarskaya 43 (2 stories building). The construction company “Tomsklesstroy” initiated new development in the historic area of Tatarskaya sloboda. According to project of protected zones (Town planning code of Russian Federation), Tatarskaya sloboda area of Tomsk requires new development of specific regulations: building height, materials use and also the ways of construction, but all of these requirements were abandoned by the developer ( #73-FZ. Article 3.1.).

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Figure 4.2. New constructions site in Tatarskaya sloboda

When the construction team started to hammer the piling for foundation of new houses, the foundation of neighboring wooden houses (Federal monuments) crumbled because of very strong vibrations. Inhabitants of the federal house monuments have a lot of responsibilities to maintain them and are responsible for fixing damages on the monuments. Somehow against the federal law the developer obtained permission for construction from city administration without public hearings. But public agitations (public activist, media and locals) against this construction caused city administration to announce a public hearing. Public hearings were led by Head of City Council Ilyanih. A lot of people — both locals and outsiders—were present at the hearings. Authorities later found out that part of these people were brought to this public hearing by Bayramov in order to achieve the positive outcome of voting. These people voted for construction of this project. But nevertheless, high publicity of these events in local media caused the city administration to cancel the construction permission. Realty 2. Non-material aspect of wooden architectural heritage represented in policies On the other side, we have an intangible reality of wooden heritage.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Tomsk wooden architecture has 2 main possible intangible heritage focuses. This is possible because it is people who need to decide whether or not they see the value of wooden heritage from an intangible point of view: • Unique technology of construction of these houses • Nalichniki Nalichniki have 2 parts: technology of this craft and significance of the meaning. Each decoration of window is deeply connected to spiritual nature. Originally Nalichniki were amulets to prevent ‘bad eye’. Later they were used purely in a decorative sense but the meaning did not disappear. Way of life (living in a house in the center of the city having their own garden). First, in the municipal programme of wooden heritage protection there are some worlds stating a fact of popularization of these heritage among local population. However this aspect never had developed into a solid strategy of actions from the side of the authorities. Second, there is a Festival of Axe in Tomsk region. It is however not strictly related to the wooden architecture of Tomsk but to the art of working with wood as a material. It is a festival that generally celebrates wooden art and craft. Moreover, this festival is established outside of the city in commercial village park “Okolitsa” (very popular among locals) but people have to get there by car because there is no public connection. It is not integrated with city in spatial sense. Third there is only one official excursion “Mystery of Tomsk window” where the local museums of Slavic mythology and Museum of Tomsk history made an attempt to de-codify the meaning behind nalichniki. But instead of going into the city and showing it with wooden examples in the city, they have kept wooden frames from destroyed or ruined wooden houses in museums and only explain those. The de-codification of nalichniki is worth to develop and it is necessary to develop, but the question, is that a level of research that has to be done by local department of culture and tourism that is in fact is tourism focused? I doubt.

Actually the reality of intangible heritage can be considered as “coma condition” because there are some attempts but they are not integrated and

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

contextualized with material heritage. Reality 3. Tomsk as a Historical settlement. Territorial approach We will be delving into the territorial tools of protection under this heading. Based on federal and regional law, each monument is required to have “a passport of the heritage object” that is a one of the requirements represented by planning tool “General Plan of Tomsk” (Town planning code of Russian Federation). It also correlates with “the Protection Zone” and “Land Use and Development Plan” which is supposed to be strictly controlled by Land Use and Development committee. This requirement is mandatory in order to be registered in the national register of monuments. Moreover information about territory of monument, its protection zone (basically land) has to be registered in Cadastre. From this list, only 189 monuments have protection zone in 8 zones and other 512 houses from the list form a conglomerate of territory that has to be protected in a particular way. Based on the order of Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Regional Development #418/339 Moscow “On approving the list of historic settlements”. Tomsk has status of “historical settlement” of federal level along with 42 other cities in Russia. Only four amongst them are located in Siberia. Contradiction of level of Reality 3. Tomsk as a Historical settlement. Case of “Tomsk embankments project” and “project on river Yshaika” This project was launched in 2014 as a part of “InoTomsk” (Innovative Territorial centre). It is a massive project of future urban development of Tomsk that has to be mainly located next to embankment of Tomsk river. As observed from render below it will contain a massive block of high rise buildings of mixed use that is next to heritage zone Tatarskaya sloboda This project was approved by Governor of Tomsk region Sergey Zhvachkin but later they realised that Tomsk actually confirmed a federal status of “Historical Settlement” (however all required documents to confirm this status are still under development) Thus, this development of “Tomsk Embankment” turned to be no longer valid and did not meet a legislative base. Facing this situation in spring of 2016 the designers of this project - planning company “Institute

Figure 4.3 Project of “Tomsk Embankments

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Lengiprogor” (from Saint-Petersburg) suggested the regional government to refuse a status of “Historical settlement”. When the general public found out about proposal to dismiss the historical status it was scandalous. Thus the Governor made an announcement: “Different people have different opinions. But my personal opinion is that, status of “Historical settlement” was assigned not for getting it down later. That was not our deed and we are not allowed to decide about this… I think this proposal is someone’s personal opinion it is definitely not an official statement.” Later several other local authorities had similar opinion and refused this proposal. That was good news for urban heritage. However even though the regional government and city administration say this, it contradicts to their actions regarding the Protection zones. In March 2014 was a revision of “Protection zones” (that is also a part of set of documents that have to be submitted to ministry of Culture of Russian Federation) and they changed it in favor of private-sector interests. It seems like they actually say: “We are “Historical settlement” but let’s not forget about development”. Who knows when they will have new revision and how it will end up for heritage zone of Tomsk. 4.4 Role of Universities and education institutions Social structure of Tomsk is based on the Universities. Among 590 000 population of Tomsk 76 000 are students, 14 % among them are foreigners mainly from CIS countries.

For the past several year with federal strategy for improving positions of state universities in international ranking system and with a strategy for innovation, Tomsk universities were highly subsidized by state. For instance, Tomsk State University (TSU) has one of the leading positions in Russia. The federal government invest a lot into the budget of this university. In comparison, the budget of the city of Tomsk is around 11 billion rubles (Tomsk City Administration website, http://admin.tomsk.ru/pgs/2dh) whilst that of TSU is around 6 billion rubles (Official TSU budjet report, 2015). However this most influential university does not have any noticeable project or any other urban development or revitalization project for heritage zones .

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Several universities and institutes do research regarding heritage in terms of academic domain in the fields of anthropology, history and culture. However if we talk about in depth interaction with inhabitants of wooden zones we cannot see the progress on that. Therefore, although Tomsk is known as a student and intellectual city the role of higher education institutions cannot be considered as a leader or a strong participant of heritage protection process. Despite the fact that heritage protection process involves many professors and students of these institutions it is not connected to the life of universities and not included in the objectives of the university. Moreover Higher Education Institutions and Universities as actors are not participating in any conflict disputes and not taking any official position around this issue. Therefore we can consider them only in a position of “Neglect”or “Loyalty”. 4.5 General description of Activism groups with relevance to urban heritage Public activists “Tomsk Istoricheskiy” - It can be considered as a non-profit and nongovernmental organization. That is one of the most influential and remarkable group of enthusiasts who fight for protection of heritage. It contains journalists, deputies, advocates, inhabitants of wooden houses, university professors, intelligentsia, leaders of territorial public self-governance groups. They are led by Nikita Kirsanov (even he does not want to accept this fact). However the composition of participant is all the time fluctuating. It means old people go away (for their personal reasons) and new people come but on the more or less permanent base there are around 6 - 10 people. They have a legal status and one of the leaders Nikita Kirsanov works in City Administration in a committee for heritage protection. Usually they gather in emergency cases that can demonstrate rather reactionary nature way of their actions. The main tool of action has a legal base. They make a legislative proposal, participate in public hearings and trials related to heritage case, send official letters of complaint. They also consult people in need for help. They actively widespread their opinion through social media and local newspapers. 65

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

One of the remarkable achievement in terms of interaction with general public is a public event - they call it “analytical picket” at 17 of April every year dedicated to the international day of “monuments and remarkable places”. It has a pop-up nature however every year to prevent any unpleasant circumstances they take an official permission from city administration. At this event they invite musical and folklore groups; organize an analytical exhibition (posters) with statement of their interests regarding heritage protection, gather signatures of general public under letters addressed to city and regional administration. They invite art activist and photographers and do exhibition of their works. All these usually happen at Novosobornaya square in the heart of Tomsk. Territorial Public Self-governance That is one of such rare democratic tools of the Russian legislation where people “the owners of houses” can implement their control over the territory where they live. Representatives of the house gather at meetings and state what are their issues and objective regarding a territory, then they try to figure out what will be their steps. In Tomsk there are around 10 TPS but the most active regarding heritage protection of TPS “Ulitsa Dzerzhinskogo” and TPS “Tatarskaya Sloboda”. TPS “Ulitsa Dzerzhinskogo” - One of the most successful TPS in terms of prevention of their wooden architecture from neglect and decay. They are well known for their fight with developers; active participation in public hearings and in particular for Budget of Tomsk where they insisted on allocation of money for municipal programme of wooden heritage protection with special focus on houses of their territory. Therefore that is one of the most prolific TPS regarding not just a refurbishment but real restoration of houses. During the interview with head of TPS “Ulitsa Dzerzhinskogo” Andrey Ivanov indicates what was the reasoning behind establishment of this TPS:

“When we decided to establish a territorial public self-governance (TPS) firstly it was a wish to preserve the look of this historical wooden district. And we are being successful so far. We put down the ambitions of some developers (ex-deputies) who wanted to build up that part of the street.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Besides that we took active part in public discussions on city budget and two years ago we have lobbied a special funding for the municipal program called “Preservation of wooden architecture” where for the first time it specially allocated 10 million for repair of four houses on this street. Including this house next to us. So we come and join the events that we think are important for the city and for us. And participate in discussion.” TPS “Tatarskaya Sloboda” - This TPS is similar to TPS “Ulitsa Dzerzhinskogo” with similar objectives. In fact TPS “Tatarskaya Sloboda” was established with the help of a leader from TPS “Ulitsa Dzerzhinskogo” Andrey Ivanov. Art-activists “Young artists of Tomsk” - They did one pop-up exhibition in an abandoned cultural monument without any permission from authorities. That was a spontaneous action. “To burn or not to burn?!” - group of artists create street art stencils where they demonstrate demolished wooden building that were important for them as a group their actions dedicated to the general public to grab their attention and question the situation and memorise the fact that this building existed at certain locality. It is a stencil message on the pavement that people would remember made by Lukia Murina and Nikolay Isaev. They are in contact with public activist from time to time to participate in common event: “Once we attended a meeting of public activists that was held in the museum of wooden heritage. Current director of this museum was one of the leaders at that meeting. Hard to tell how we came there, but we met Nikita Kirsanov and some other activists there. There were many activists who live in wooden houses in Tatarskaya sloboda. We couldn’t find common ground with them. Because they stuck to the law and to protect their rights they spend all their time on paperwork that we are not capable to do. We are artists and we solve problems by means that available to us. We are not policy makers or authorities, our means are brush and pencil.” “To burn or not to burn?!” However they do not want to shift to

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

traditional ways of collective action or join Public activists, during meetings with one of the leader of public activist from “Tomsk Istoricheskii” they refused to take a leading role in the public movement because they consider it as a waste of time and energy: “He said if you are interested in all this, come to me and I tell you. He hopes that someone has to take his vacant position. He was brave and passionate when he was a public activist. But now he is a government worker and is not allowed to run around the city with posters. So he needs people who can take his activist job but so far there is no such people like Nikita. He suggested us to create a public group and find allies but we certainly will not take it. “

NIMBY (Not In My Backyard ) That is more a category than a defined group. In chapter I “Portrait of problems” was described the case of Marx 41 - “raped history”. The inhabitants were in shock with the situation that they were faced with and started taking actions against it. They covered whole house with banners addressing blames to municipality and city administration. They ashamed the mayor and municipal authorities for doing this kind of repairing. They were demanding based on these posters, a return to their house. In addition, they started to collect official documents for a possible future sue against the city administration plus in parallel tried to contact any possible organizations that could help them to spread this situation in media and give it higher publicity around the city and even country. It is not the first time where inhabitants of this particular house raised up their voice. They reacted on negligence of authorities 5 years ago when there was a fire in their house and the roof was burnt out, they saw that nothing happened to resolve that issue by their local municipality, therefore inhabitants went to the City Hall. This is how Evgenia describes it : “Five years ago they gave money for repair. That was after the roof was burnt and nobody cared about it until we brought all the children living here to the City Hall, at that time we had free access into it. So children started playing and running around the place until 68

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

our mayor came in for discussion. As a result by the 1st of July the roof was repaired. But since then nothing else was done on the house… We have no hopes for authorities. We think that it is our city and its future depends on our words, desires and actions. We would like to revive or at least to preserve it because all new trends come and go but without the history a human becomes a beast.” So out of this example we can see that they raise their voice only when it affects their own life quality. These people are not so preoccupied with the issue of heritage but more with conditions and quality of their own life. Which is fair enough. Other relevant groups and individuals “Smart transport Tomsk” - this activist group is mainly focused on the domain of public transport and especially soft mobility of which they undertake research and try to reach out through social media to as much people as possible (facebook, vkontakte). The leader Alexey Kozyavkin actively participate in meeting of Public activist group “Strange people” - an activist group with a focus on making the city better. They undertake simple activities to make the city better at the present moment (with hope that the place will change in the future). The most important action is Gogol square. They are not related to heritage protection and wooden architecture even though some people who participate in their actions also participate in activities regarding wooden heritage. Roman Petrushin - individual (outside of any group but very present in the topic of heritage protection). He is one of the major sources of photographic representation and documentation of wooden architecture dynamics ( thematic series “chronicle of disappearance”, “before refurbishment and after”) These last two actors stated that they are outside politics. The other activist groups are not defined.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

4.4.1 Collective action: theoretical background For the analysis of the public actors, actions. Melluci’s highly abstract vocabulary for interpretation of collective actions was adopted. This high level of abstraction of the original scheme will give the opportunity for more flexibility in interpretation of empirical cases. It is represented as a 3 intersecting poles of ‘the analytical system of coordinates” that form 8 different combinations of possible collective action responses. The scheme brings together 3 main axes: a) type of unity b) type of relation c) type of reaction toward overall system. Each of these axes have different degrees of freedom for interpretation. The end goal is to understand what type of actions have the most effective operational role in terms of effective heritage protection. First we have to understand the composition of the effective heritage protection; what will be adapted in this particular work; and what are the criteria and reasoning behind. Part of civil society will play one of the most important roles For instance on first axis of “type of unity” has pretty defined nature of interpretation. We have on one side solidarity and on other is aggregation. Where solidarity according to Melucci is “the ability of different actors recognize each other as part of one social unit” (Melucci, 1996). Here we can also anticipate mechanical or organic solidarity among actors. Further during empirical analysis solidarity in more interpretive sense wiil be considered and reviewed for an enhanced conceptualisation of solidarity. On the contrary side to solidarity is aggregation that can be expressed at ‘spatio-temporal contiguity”, as a gathering of individuals united by common feature or believe (fashion, flash mob, crowd behavior, booms etc ) but not a solidarity per se. Next axis can be characterized as a relational pole - “type of relation”. Where on one side is conflict among actors. It appears like a reaction on crisis of the system, reaction on long standing “struggle and suffer”. While another is consensus - mutual harmony of interests and understanding achieved by readiness to compromise and desire to find common solution. 70

The third pole is “the reaction on system” itself. On one side is

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

“breaching the system limits” on another “maintaining systems limit”. This is the most abstract notion because here it is necessary to define what is actually the system and what is the limits of it. Moreover, what does the breaching of systems limit mean? All questions will be elaborated during the empirical analysis of each case. Tova Benski was anticipating breaching events as those acts that actually shake or question political social or cultural order. Based on this catalogue of activities that took place in the past decade in Tomsk and in terms of urban agenda, it demonstrates what are the main events and actions that were taken in the past 12 years related to heritage zones (Figure 3.5). Description of the dynamics by Public activist with Authorities. Some of the request demanded from authorities had elements of “breaking the system’s limits”where by the system meant that urban regime that was formed for the past 12 years. They demonstrated attempts to shift the settled Urban regime during 90-ies that was mainly dictated by global phenomenon of market domination (Harvey,2008).

4.4.2 Clusters of actions The goal is to analyse the empirical cases of actors interaction and come into a general scheme of what is the dominate nature of civil society behaviour of Tomsk. 1 cluster of actions: Picketing it varies from breaching events to ritual with elements of breaching the system statements. It focused on publicity in media; 2 cluster of action: Legal pressure (Active participation in Public hearing, Official letter, Notes of protest); 3 cluster of actions: ideological tactics in order to form appreciation of wooden heritage by general public (fight with stigmatization of Heritage that settled in their minds) 4.4.3 Periods We can say that overall what was happening at Tomsk from 2004 till present time in a field of collective action in regard to heritage protection had 3 different periods: 71

Figure 3.5 Time-line of Actions

Federal Monument - “House with F

complex of wooden buildings was reconstructed in ELAN’

Builing

Restoration of a complex (4 buildings with different monu

y og Federal agenc

OOPS?!

Kirova 2

Kartashova 16

restoration

Was a crilical point for public activists

Krasnoarmeyskaya 67/1

Builing og Federal agency (2009-2010)

Were dimolished buildin

Not Monument Not Monument

URBAN ACTIVISM & COLLECTIVE ACTIONS

Marx 32

Herzena 46 Belinskogo 50 Kirova 2 2004

Sovetskaya 5

Lenin 134

2009

2008

05.06

12.04

Kartashov 16

Krasnoarmeyskaya 64

22.09.09.

official note of protest was sent to main cultural figures and representative of Russian Ministry of Culture, to President Administration, to Federal Media Picketing

at Marx 32

HERITGAE AS A COLLECTIVE IDENTITY

Strat of dailogue: Piblic activicts are officially were invited and participated in meeting with rigional goverment Picketing

Picketing “intertational

day of monuments”

Picketing

Picketing “intertational day of monuments”

Exhibition dedicated the process of reconstracton of historical area "Elan'"

Open official letter to governor of Tomsk region against illegal construction at Tatarskaya sloboda Picketing “intertational day of monuments”

Serias of video documentaries "A visit with Vanaya"

PERIODS

Protest

dialogue

and

Ov of

Picketing more turns into festifal

Picketin

Was created Commeetee of Preobrage sloboda (later Territorial Self Goevrna Ulista Derginskoro) Decay

cooperation

KRESSKRESS KRESSKRESSK

AYORS GOVERNORS

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

First meeting of regional council of wooden heritage preservation with participation of public activists

First step towards activists.Round table dedicated to the issues of wooden heritage protection

The Order № 555r against new constraction in heritage zones

Mayor ignored this meeting Mayor makarov announced that they plan to demolish “delapitated wooden houses” New General Plan without heritage consdiration

City amdinistration in an emergensy way allocated land among different bid constraction companies

from 2008 every year:"Prazdnik Topora" “-

MAKAROV MAK NIKOLAYCHUK NIK Extremely negative opinion about wooden heritage

Public activists are not longer invited at regional council of wooden heritage pre

Information based on blogs of Roman Petrushin, Nikita Kirsanov Information based on blogs of Roman Petrushin, Nikita Kirsanov

07.10.13

inside of demolished wooden house was opened a square of wooden heritage

Federal Monument

ngs at Bakunina

Not Monument Not Monument

rasnoarmeyskaya 63 2010

Tverskaya 66

29 .04. 11 12 .05. 11

Not Monument

Sovetskaya 60 Sovetskaya 78 Kartashova 16 Marx 55 Krasnoarmeyskaya 35 Krasnoarmeyskaya 43 Nechevskiy 12 04. 12

25.08. 12

04. 14

09.09.15

24.12. 14

RIGHT TO THE CITY

verlaping two paradigms thinking about city

“Strange people” cleaned margenilized territory near "Square of Memory and Grief"and installed new transpared fence in order to inscease sequrity of place

Strage people launched project by Gogol- Mogol Picketing

enskaya ance

Not Monument

DISTOYED

ument status)

WOODEN HOUSES

RECONSTRACTED

WOODEN HOUSES

Firebirds”

Picketing

Was created Territorial Self Goevrnance Tatarskaya Sloboda E-form of protest. Petition at Change.org against constaction in Tatarskaya sloboda Picketing

Picketing Pop up art exhibition “To burn or not Project QR-tomsk "History in new way" to burn” by Young artist of Tomsk Art-actions Burn or not ro Burn? Stensils on pavenmen Decay overlaps with Emerging paradigm about the city

Picketing

2011

2016

ZHVACHKIN ZHVACHKIN ZHVA SKRESS 2012

2013

2014

2015

2017

region stoped to finance wooden heritage programme

PARSHUTO PARSHUTO PARSHUTO

-”festival of exe” that dedicated to traditional skills arts and crafts, howover is not integrated with historical zones of Tosmk and selebrated outside of Tomsk

the eservation

KOLAYCHUK NIKOLA-KLYAN KLYAN KLYAN starting from 2011 every year:"Ethno Forum" that dedicated to traditions of ethnics that present in Tomsk region initiated by public activists with support of city and rigional administrarion but also as well as we ”festival of Exe” is not very integrated with historical zones of Tomsk Public Hearing Public Hearing confirmed by city counsil a list of 512 houses that has to be pecially frotected by law

Public Hearing

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

2004 - 2005 Social movement Most active and productive period. Collective action that had provoking and conflictual nature that were the result of the long standing struggle of intellectuals. Formation of group based on sense of solidarity. That heritage as a part of their collective identity under process of full elimination. Conflict, breaching the system limits and solidarity, the period when it had all element of social movement proposed by Melucci. 2005 - 2008 Dialogue and cooperation Public activist and authorities made a mutual “backdoor” agreement “we will keep quite and you(authorities) will at least control better developers and keep them away from wooden houses and at least from “list of 701” in historical zones”. But in fact the situation went out of control: wooden houses continued to burn or demolished and authorities lost their power over territory. 2009 - 2011 Decay Public activist, intellectuals and practitioners are no longer invited to the official meetings at regional committee of wooden architecture that can be considered as the end of official dialog between authorities and public activists. 2011 - till present Emerging paradigm about the city This period started with closure of municipal agency “Istoricheskii Tomsk” as it was considered not effective. It started a process of bankruptcy of restoration institutions. Continuation of decay but with new elements of collective resistance. New forms of actors appeared. Among them are the “Strange people” and “Burn and not to burn” that adopted (consciously or unconsciously) “the language of talking about city” as place in search of justice where heritage or city itself are parts of their rights as part of human right. Their actions at certain extent represent an understanding of “right to the city” concept. They stay out of institutional setting or official political system. However even though they think they are outside of politics, that cannot be the truth because making a certain collective action is a political act by itself. Urban space can be considered already as a political space (Lefebvre, 1992). 74

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

From time to time at any of these periods appears some antagonistic reactions like Individual resistance or group resistance that is related to NIMBY cases, where people have nothing to lose. Their actions have some political statement as they demand for the change from local political leaders. However this “type of unity” has only aggregational characteristics. As result, they are not recognised as heritage protectors. Overall, degree of civil society as a group at present state can be characterised as a combination of “aggregation”, “maintaining systems limit” and “conflict” which is in a present state “Individual mobility” that is actually represent absence of solid common ground that can move forward present situation toward change. Which is represented by reactive character of their actions; absence of strategies and common vision; inability to see potentials in civil engagement and institutional approach to influence the change that in fact does not work and stuck in stage of “decay”. 4.5 Conclusions Tomsk Urban regime has 2 strong coalitions: one is the city administration with local business structures and another - coalition of national corporation Gazprom with regional government. Patterns of their logic adopted a growth machine language. The decision-making process has most of the time backstage format where public activists and citizens are not involved. Public activists with a coalition of some local medias are trying to oppose and put pressure on coalition of city administration with local businesses. However actions of public activists have rather reactive nature than systematic and strategic steps. Resource mobilisation does not go deeper that only informative propaganda of value of this heritage. Whole general public and majority of inhabitants remain in “neglect” regarding heritage protection. Public activists weaknesses: Even though the tendencies of the past several years demonstrate the emergence of new forms of collective actions there is still lack of certain aspects that will exacerbate the decay status of cultural heritage: • One of the main issues is: they do not have a strategy or vision, they act in a reactionist way. It can be analogical with trying to

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

•

• •

•

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

treat a disease by fighting with symptoms but not understanding the real roots of the issue. Public activists use almost always institutionalized ways “to push the system limits” that is representing a logic of soviet idea of city as a “machine of growth”. They focused on delivering their message to authorities and pushed them to do their basic duties with regard to heritage management. They do not go straight to inhabitants of heritage zones trying to engage them in more strategic and proactive way. They do not involve general public. Interaction inside groups has some conflictual character. When I attended their meetings I observed that there is some personal tensions between its participants, that cannot be considered as a very effective way to fulfill their objectives. Meetings do not have causal base but arranged depending on the”the leader”. During an interview Nikita was also stated the fact that without his initiative they do not gather even during emergencies.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

5. Sustainable heritage management. Strategies This chapter will introduce two dimensions of heritage processes. One will present and analyse core element of two concepts used by international organizations in terms of urban heritage that represent topdown approach and another will present 2 successful cases from russia itself:”Textil” in Yaroslavl and “Tom Sawyer Fest” in Samara “Tangible and intangible heritage are sources of social cohesion, factors of diversity and drivers of creativity, innovation and urban regeneration – we must do more to harness this power.” – Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO at the World Urban Forum (Naples, 2012)

Heritage management and protection process in Russian context and in Tomsk in particular is played by almost solely by state and state according to legislation has material-based approach, which is considering objectified conservation procedures in heritage protection (Poulios, 2014). it is almost fully delegated by society to the state institutions and agencies. However as it was already stated a lot of times, Tomsk urban heritage is still an inhabited heritage. This housing function is considered by authorities as one of the main issues of this heritage that comes in a bundle with other issues: of property rights, of relationships and individual conflicts, of inappropriate maintenance by inhabitants and housing maintaining organizations, of financial disability of a lot of the inhabitants to maintain their houses by themselves and of living conditions. All these represent only one side of the situation. On the other hand the control and respect of legislation as well as management of heritage both belongs mainly to the state representatives even though there are some legal instruments like “public hearings” or “territorial self governance” they do not work efficiently and decision making process is not transparent. Whilst, there are still ongoing stigmatisation processes of the territory, cultural and social alienation, loss of connection and continuity of this heritage. 77

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

According to Bouchenaki (2003) sustainable heritage management process can be achieved with these following steps: Putting tangible heritage in its wider context (1) means integrating it with present society and everyday life of space production; Translating intangible heritage into “materiality” (2) by realising that intangible and tangible heritage are the “sides of the same coin” because tangible heritage was made by the practices represented in intangible; Supporting practitioners and the transmission of skills and knowledge (3) actually activating potential of tangible practices and knowledge into life of society and locality per se. All these aspects can be figured out only by involvement and working together with inhabitants in actual process of “reconstruction” of intangible practices and knowledge. Without proper involvement of inhabitants in actual place making process and deep appreciation of actual living in heritage and care about this. This missing point of control, management and care over heritage by local community, civil society and other citizens is actually the issue that unavoidably will lead to complete disregard of any heritage. It was proposed by the Municipal programme of wooden heritage preservation to resettle as much houses as possible either to rent out to private investors or to turn them into administrative buildings. Even if these ideas will be possible to realize, these houses will not have people living in the territory (no “eyes on a street”). With overlapping pressure of constant urge of developers to find new territories in the central part of Tomsk, this will fatalise these historic areas. Moreover this method potentially will shift this heritage into another function which will destroy the intangible part of the idea for what they were meant to be. There is a missing part of intangible heritage in Tomsk because present society does not have a proper knowledge how to take care of these houses there is a missing notion of continuity and relevance of this heritage to present society. But moving out people who can be the potential resource for reanimating this tradition and practice will destroy continuity of the heritage with present society and will faster the process of disregard. This housing has to continue to remain as a living environment therefore it is crucial to stay on the idea of urban village or low density mixed community.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

5.1 Top-down approach Learning from international Top-down approaches that can be useful for Tomsk case The closest meaning to notion of “historical settlement “ which as used in Russian law on international level is “urban historical landscape” and “living heritage”. However there are crucial differences between these approaches compared to “historical settlement”. People-centered approach and living heritage approach is adopted by ICCROM and the historic urban landscape approach is adopted by UNESCO. Both of them are considered as a top-down approaches because they are engineered by the international safeguarding institutions that are led by experts of this field. They implement these concepts for heritage safeguarding and conservation of living heritage and world heritage sites. The historic urban landscape approach The historic urban landscape approach was adopted on 10 November 2011 by the 36th session of UNESCO’s General Conference, based on the UNESCO definition: “...The HUL approach shifts emphasis from the monumental architecture to the conservation of urban values that undergird the life of the city.” In this definition is recognized the idea of integrated approach and search for connection between urban heritage and present society. Recommended tools by the HUL include: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Civic engagement tools, Knowledge and planning tools, Regulatory systems, Financial tools

It gives recommendation of key element for sustainable heritage management systems. It speaks about the importance of people who live and use this heritage on everyday basis, however this approach introduces the equal attention to different tools and spheres that are necessary to consider during the management process but as a core tool it introduces civil engagement. 79

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Living heritage approach Living heritage was implemented as a type of heritage that still keeps a functional use to present society and that is based on notion of continuity of cultural heritage: 1. Continuity of community connections; 2. Continuity of cultural expressions (both tangible and intangible); 3. Continuity of care (through traditional or established means) Moreover, as a core element it recognises a continuity of the original functional use that was intended to this heritage. People-Centred Approaches to the Conservation of Cultural Heritage: Living Heritage People centred approach is a part of living heritage approach which focus directly on the domain of community that lives in heritage itself and interacts with it. It is very specific and narrowed down to locality, people and spirit of place. The core elements are: a recognition of diversity and connection between heritage and people who live within this living heritage(1), quality of life of present generations(2) recognizing it as a heritage with respect to combination of all aspects of cultural heritage: way of life, material elements, skills, practices and knowledge. (3) importance to hear the voice of people (4) link heritage with sustainable urban development (5)

Considering these three approaches, reveals certain similarities where all of them state the importance of community involvement and civil engagement. All of these three approaches can be used by state and partially some of the tools and suggestions of each of the three approaches can be used by civil society. However desire to adopt them by state depends on the political will of leaders and priorities on heritage in urban agenda. At present, neither of these are present even though state has higher access to resources. There is not present civic engagement tools except for bureaucratic instruments like public hearings and territorial self governance that in most of the cases have very weak influence to change

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

the situation in a bigger scale. On other hand civil society has to take responsibility for their own decisions and be ready to mobilize resources independently from state. 5.2 Bottom-up approach Learning from Russian cases of Bottom-up approach In some cases when public activists realize that there is no hope for the government representatives and institutions to wake up, they start to mobilize their own resources forming independent pool of actors that start to change urban environment with the logic of “right to the city”. Presented here are two cases that developed in the Russian context and especially relevant to heritage protection and wooden urban heritage. Tom Sawyer Fest in Samara, a festival’s main topic is devoted on wooden architecture restoration with help of volunteers. This festival is used as a tool for the heritage revitalization and as an instrument for the involvement of the citizens and inhabitants into heritage restoration process through appreciation of wooden architecture in real environment. For their objects they choose wooden houses with privatised apartments and without any monumental status (in order to avoid long and expensive bureaucratic procedures) collaborating with restoration experts, practitioners, inhabitants, volunteers, local businesses and media also they invite famous figures to join volunteers, objectives are following: 1. 2. 3. 4.

community engagement encourage recognition of ownership by heritage owners bring attention and awareness of value of historical environment activate local business’s responsibilities for heritage

This case was so successful that the assistant of the president in regard of cultural heritage of Tatarstan decided to “copy-paste” this festival in Kazan. However in Samara it was pure grass-root initiative and it could be better if authorities would realize and not interrupt this grassroot mode with their interventions into process as a leaders and would give the space for its citizens to act. “Textil” in Yaroslavl is organized by public activist Agency of Creative

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

initiatives encouraging place-making initiatives. This is how they introduce themselves at their website: “«TEXTIL» is not located in the central part of the city, it rises an additional challenge - working with local communities and local themes. Events linked to the Red Perekop and directed to the manifestation of cultural codes and local identity.” They use one of the buildings at “Red Perekop” factory that actually has its historical significance for Yaroslavl and its whole region because it is one of the oldest industrial heritage sites in Russia. However even though the organizers of “Red Perekop” really appreciate a historical background of their new cultural place and this aspect played a crucial role during the search for location of their cultural space, it was not a main goal of the project, but as a result, this initiative grabbed attention on heritage as a positive side effect. It sets a great example how placemaking process can be used as a tool to influence heritage recognition and appreciation. They organize events, short term and long term projects, invite artists, local activists and experts from all over the world and create new cultural place with help of volunteers, objectives are following: 1. formation of common cultural space for residents of neighbourhood 2. activate citizens for participation in place-making process 3. invitation to dialogue and participation of urban activists, citizens, government and business 4. function as a knowledge exchange platform for urban activists, experts and practitioners 5.3 Directions to consider in Tomsk

Society by itself has to reanimate their presence in formation of future urban agenda in general and also with regard to its heritage by starting a negotiation process among civil society, inhabitants, business and political powers. At present moment interaction of public activists in Tomsk is tend towards authorities and legislation, they do not consider any serious steps to involve general public. They have to put an effort to find a solutions or better still, a strategy of how to overcome a situation of stigmatization.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

6. Conclusion Despite the fact that the case of Tomsk heritage protection of the past 10 years considered as one of the most successful cases in Russia, it is still observed very vividly the ongoing constant degradation of the urban heritage landscape. This work tried to understand what are the processes underlying this devaluation of heritage in physical and mental senses. Russian society went under drastic transformation in the last century with several different periods that were forming a new type of social structure, mental settings and new values. These periods influenced present state of heritage degradation and shifted the idea of heritage itself and its value to society. It is characterized by cultural and social alienation, social amnesia and institutional addictions not only in culture but in all spheres of life that brought to emergence of new type of cultural conflicts among different actors and stakeholders. Modern stage is characterized with ongoing process of stigmatization of historical heritage zones that is not so easy to overcome and with the â&#x20AC;&#x153;skeletonsâ&#x20AC;? from the past make it even more complicated to change. These all drop down the threshold of heritage disregard among citizens of Tomsk. However despite all these negative tendencies there are groups of activists that are formed a solidarity bound towards this heritage that let them oppose with some set of collective actions to the logic of market, bureaucratic machine and political coalitions. However their actions cannot manage to shift the urban regime arrangement that was formed in past 20 years because of some missing points that activist fail to follow. The cultural development and heritage safeguarding in cities is largely determined by the role played by intellectuals, depending on how they mobilize other groups of society, how they cooperate between each other and with general public, what resources and strategies they use to balance urban agenda. In the case of Tomsk the main focus of heritage activists is mainly turned into direction of political powers and bureaucratic machine. After they had witnessed 10 years of disregard of their requests from 2004 by the authorities and observed slow but stable degradation of heritage zones they are still trying to communicate mainly with authorities without considering to engage general public and inhabitants

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

of heritage zones that remain in a stage of “neglect”. Civil Society does not function in a straight way and independently from authorities but prefers to operate solely from domain of control with very weak and institutionalized traditional tools that in most cases are playing a role of the curtain that create a vision of legal public control over authorities trying to push political authorities to do their work properly. However seeing the minor amount of the individuals involved into this process of opposing this situation, authorities do not see the issue as one to be taken seriously. Moreover they have a reactionist nature of actions where there is no strategic vision. This work came to conclusion that there are aspects that need to be changed in order to realise a mental shift in society towards heritage recognition not only by the marginalised (stratified from general public) group of intellectual elites and experts but also, of wider layers of society that are able to stand for it. With parallel collective actions that have already been used by activists like media pressuring of authorities and business elites and traditional tools of control over the situation, they have to develop new approaches that have wide range of influences: • Set strategic vision of future steps, goals and objectives. • Search for alternative resource of mobilization mechanisms and coalitions. • Turn to inhabitants of historical zones by fostering grassroots activation and bottom up approaches applied on heritage zones by reanimation of intangible heritage.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

References Books and articles: Bandarin, F. and van Oers, R. (2012). The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban Century, Wiley. Bell, Daniel, A. (1995). Residential Community Associations: Community or Disunity? Responsive Community, 5(4), pp. 25–36. Boyko, V. (1996). Tomsk merchants at the end of XVIII-XIX centuries. From the history of the formation of the Siberian bourgeoisie, Vodoley. Bouchenaki, M. (2003). The interdependency of the tangible and intangible cultural heritage. In: 14th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium: “Place, memory, meaning: preserving intangible values in monuments and sites”. In Victoria Falls, pp. 27–31. Brumfield, W. C. and Ruble B. A. (eds) (1993). Russian Housing in the Modern Age: Design and Social History. Cambridge University Press. Debord, G. and Knabb, K. (1983). Society of the Spectacle, Rebel Press. Dmitrienko, G. (2000). Siberian city of Tomsk in XIX - the first third of the XX century:. management, economy, population, Tomsk University Press. Drobchenko, V.A. (2011). The Origin of the Elements of Civil Society in Tomsk (mid XIX – early XX century). Tomsk State University Journal of History 3(15), pp. 5-12. Douglas, M. (1986). How Institutions Think, Syracuse University Press. Dulzon, A. A., Lisovskaya N., Pfeiffer, M. and Eckert, H. (2010). Problem Conservation of wooden architecture of Tomsk. Izvestiya of Tomsk Polytechnic University 317(6), pp. 228-236.

Glazachev, V. L. (1996). Slobodizatsiya country Gardariki. Published in the book (ed) Saikou, E.V.”Other. Readings of the new Russian identity,” Volume 1, Moscow: Argus, 1996, pp. 63-72.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Goffman, E. (2009). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Touchstone. Góral, A. (2014). Cultural heritage in the cobweb of meanings. In: Amoêda, R., Lira, S. & C. Pinheiro (eds.): Heritage 2014. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development. Barcelos, Green Lines Institute for Sustainable Development, pp. 43-51. Graham, B.J. and Howard, P. (2008). The Ashgate research companion to heritage and identity, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Harvey, D. (2008). Right to the city. New left review 9,10(53), pp. 23-40 Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Harvard University Press. Jacobs, J. (1969). The Economy of Cities, Middlesex,. UK: Penguin. Kaminer, T. (2011). Urban Asymmetries: Studies and Projects on Neoliberal Urbanization, 010 Publishers. Kirichenko, E. I. (2010) City Russian mid XIX - early XX century. Book 3. The capital and province, Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya. Kurennoy, V. (2012). New urban romance, political and cultural and social aspects of the new russian protest. Logos 2(86), pp. 30-45. Lefebvre, H. (1992). The Production of Space, Wiley. Lowenthal, D. (1999). The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lovell, S. (2003). Summerfolk, A History of the Dacha, 1710–2000. Cornell University Press. Logan, J. R. and Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place, University of California Press.

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Melucci, A., (1996). Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age, Cambridge University Press. Petrova, A. (2015). Wooden Russia. A Glance Back From 21st Century. Kuchkovo Pole Press Polishchuk, L. (2015). Wait for authority or chip by yourself: social capital in the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life. In: Auzan, A. ed., Incentives. Paradoxes. Failure. City through the eyes of economists, Strelka Press, 2015. pp 112-135. Poulios, I. (2014). The Past in the Present: A Living Heritage Approach â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Meteora, Greece. London: Ubiquity Press. Simmel, G. (1903). The metropolis and mental life. University of Chicago Press. Stone, C.N. (2005). Looking Back to Look Forward: Reflections on Urban Regime Analysis, Thurley, S. (2005). Into the future. Our strategy for 2005-2010. In: Conservation Bulletin English Heritage Tutchener, D. (2013). Collective identity and heritage: Ebb and flow at national and global levels. Journal of Globalization Studies, 2, 96-103. Vakhshtayn, V. (2014). Reconstructing the city: between language and space, Sociology of power 2, pp. 9-38. Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality, Wiley. Yakovenko, I., A. (2012). Tendencies in development of religious consciousness in modern Russia. Teacher of the Kuban Technical School of Economy and Real Estate, Krasnodar.

Yin, R. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Zukin, S. (2009). Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places, Oxford University Press. Webliography: http://kartolog.ru/wp-content/gallery/Karta_putey_soobsheniya_ aziatic_russia/Karta_putey_aziatic_Russia_2.jpg Map of Trans Siberian Raylway, last accessed: 09.12.2016 http://admin.tomsk.ru/db3/docs/2016112803 About conditiond of living in wooden historical zones, last access: 09.12.2016 http://news.vtomske.ru/ Activist Kovyavkin about “list of 701”, last accessed: 29.11.2016 http://chur.gorod.tomsk.ru, Blog urban heritage activist of Nikita Kirsanov, last accessed: 26.10.2016, last accessed: 28.11.2016 https://obzor.westsib.ru/news/493244 News about change of Project for Zones of preservation, last accessed: 29.11.2016 http://www.tsu.ru/upload/medialibrary/59f/informatsiya-o-postupleniii-raskhodovanii-_sredstv-za-2015-god.pdf report on Expendetures of TSU, last accessed: 02.12.2016 http://mkrf.ru/press-center/news/ministerstvo/valentina-matvienkopredlozhila-prinyat-zakon-ob-o Matveenko statement about nesecity to have federal law on intangible heritage, last accessed: 12.11.2016 Documents: Budget of Tomsk Housing Code of Russian Federation Land Code of Russian Federation Town Planning Code of Russian Federation Federal programme “Culture of Russia” Nara Document on Authenticity

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage; 2003 “Yamato Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage”, 2004 “Concept of preservation and development of the intangible cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation for 2009-2015 “ Municipal program “Preservation of wooden architecture of Tomsk” The decision of the Duma of Tomsk City on April 5, 2016 No 188 Federal Law No. 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation” Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention, 2005) Law on amendments to the law of Tomsk Region “Regarding the objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) Tomsk region” Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society Video: • Interregional Forum in Samara, “Cultural heritage - the factor of development of the modern city,” Available at: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Ceor_lV1tJE, last accessed: 30.11.2016 • Kurennoy V., “The culture of a provincial town in Russia”, Available at:https://postnauka.ru/video/20394, last accessed: 30.11.2016 • Zubarevich, N., “In the next 5-7 years, Russia will be social degradation”, Available at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYZ8BuAwyoo, last accessed: 30.11.2016

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Interviews: Public activists: (in documentary) 1. Lukia and Nikolay - art-activists (in documentary) 2. Pavel Suhotepliy - expert (in documentary) 3. Andrey Ivanov - head of TSG and activist 4. Nikita Kirsanov - activist and head of Committee of heritage protection 5. Nikolay Rybakov - architect Inhabitants and public activists: 6. Irina Evtikhieva (inhabitant, art historian, public activist) 7. Arkadiy Kanaev 8. Oxana Sotnikova 9. Maria Bokova Inhabitants: 10. Natalia and her family 11. Evgenia 12. Alexsandra 13. Eleonora 14. Maxim 15. Oleg and his wife 16. Anatoliy and his family 17. Svetlana 18. Olga 19. Irina

(in documentary) (in documentary) (in documentary)

(in documentary) (in documentary) (in documentary) (in documentary)

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Appendix: Figure 1.1. Examples of low density development during Stalin’s period. Source: http://su-maloetazhki.livejournal.com/ Figure 2.1 Geographical position of Tomsk. Source: generated by Author Figure 1.3. Tomsk and Trans-Siberian Railway. Source: generated by Author Figure 1.4. Amount of wooden architecture in historical zones. Source: Municipality of Tomsk Figure 2.1. source: Albert O. Hirschman “Voice, Exit, Loyalty”, 1970 Figure 2.2. Division of space. Source: author, October 2015 Figure 2.3. Empty historical building awaits his end. Source: author, October 2015 Figure 2.4. Conservation of burnt houses. Source: author, October 2015 Figure 2.5 People change(“improve”) their houses in historical zones. Source: blogger Roman Petrushin Figure 2.6. Marx 41 before capital refurbishment, Condition of house in 2014. Source: blogger Roman Petrushin Figure 2.7. Marx 41 after wrong capital refurbishment. Source: the author, October 2015 Figure 2.8. Marx 41 after 6 months of wrong capital refurbishment, Source: the author, April 2016 Figure 2.9. Federal monument - house with “firebirds”. Source: author October 2015 92

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

Figure 2.10. Dzerzhinskogo street regional monument. Source: author, October 2015 Figure 2.11. Sidewalks and roads. Source: author, October 2015 Figure 2.12. the only playground found. Source: author, October 2015 Figure 2.13. a)entrance into historical zone says welcome; b) monument of regional level; c) monument of regional level. Source: author, October 2015 Figure 2.14. Conditions of public spaces. Source: author, October 2015 Figure 2.15. Backyards. Source: author, October 2015 Figure 2.16. Local Children. Source: author, October 2015 Figure 2.17. An illustration of urban inferiority complex. Yoshkar-ola and Novosibirsk. Sources: http://prohorov.livejournal.com/332085. html, http://novosibirsk.n1.ru/articles/2198043/ Figure 3.1. Legislation and tools regarding heritage protection with accordance to levels of government . Source: generated by author Figure 3.2. New constructions site in Tatarskaya sloboda source: 25.03.2015, http://obzor.westsib.ru/article/443612 Figure 3.4. Project of â&#x20AC;&#x153;Tomsk Embankmentsâ&#x20AC;?. Source: https://obzor. westsib.ru/article/386303 Figure 3.5. Action Time-line. Source: generated by author

TOMSK: Everyday routine of Urban Heritage

ALBINA DAVLETSHINA

As a base for coverpage were used stencils of the destroyed wooden buildings that were created by art-activist Lukia Murina and Nikolay Isaev from project â&#x20AC;&#x153;To burn or not to burn?â&#x20AC;?. These stencils illustrate some of most precious for Lukia and Nikolay buildings. St.Krasnoarmeyskaya 35/ St. Krasnoarmeyskaya 63/ St. Herzena 24/ St. Obrub 2 / St. Sovetskaya 58/ St. Sovetskaya 60/ St. Sovetskaya 62/ St. Kuznetsova 19 The cover a form of provocation alike Ai Weiwei performative photos of him destroying the ancient chinese vase as an act of protest. The cover represents a street of already destroyed houses on fire - which is the most common way of heritage disappearance. So common that it became already a routine of heritage vanishing process.