Preservation Fibal Report by Alina Vasilenko

2010–11 EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

Preservation Research Report

Studio Preservation Next Director Rem Koolhaas Supervisors Anastasia Smirnova Nikita Tokarev Students

Efim Freidine Olga Khokhlova Denis Leontiev Daria Paramonova Tamara Muradova Anna Shevchenko Kuba Snopek

Introduction As in the past few decades the scale and complexity of the preservation practice have expanded beyond imagination, so too has the understanding of what is the historic heritage today. It seems not possible anymore to describe the range of problems of preservation in terms of classical oppositions only—Ruskin’s appreciation of ruins vs. Viollet-le-Duc’s restoration, conservation vs. destruction, the European system vs. the American one: in the post-industrial society different ideologies, theories and schools tend to merge, creating nonlinear dynamics, controversial mutations, spawning myriads of new questions about what, how and for whom to preserve our heritage. Despite (or due to) the ever-growing list of heritage sites and determined activities of institutions, preservation societies, and groups of enthusiasts, the very subject of preservation stubbornly eludes precise definition. Moreover, the heritage preservation that used to be considered primarily a cultural matter has over time developed, by sometimes mysterious means, a strong interdependence with the domains of economy, politics, sociology, and information technology. The world of historic preservation once monopolized almost exclusively by antiquarians obviously cannot survive today without other professionals. Right in front of our eyes, it becomes a truly symbiotic and interdisciplinary practice. So how a student-architect of the post-graduate institute for media, architecture and design can observe and explore such a complex field in the course of just several months? Reasoned back through the history of preservation theory and practice and forward to the recognition of historic preservation’s ability to create new urban and cultural conditions, studio Preservation Next considered an astute and creative revision of the current state of affairs its primary goal. Students were confronted with the task of investigating the objects that went way beyond design issues and the built world itself; of testing their own ability to operate across professional boundaries and to address problems contextually and collectively. This studio had no intention whatsoever to come up with any final solutions for how to deal with the recent and not-so-recent past in the complex realm of contemporary cities. The ultimate ambition was to question, to the best of our skills and experience, the prevailing stereotypes that hamper the development of our understanding of what is historic heritage today and what it will become in the near future—to rock the boat, as it were. The ideas, observations, intuitions, even the new vocabulary generated within this studio through the six-month research, public discussions, and in conversations with experts and tutors are to be disagreed with, to be challenged by professionals and the general public alike and, hopefully, are to be developed further after the education process has been completed.

Themes and Projects Theme 1. The Economy of Preservation Projects: World Heritage as an Economic Value (Denis Leontiev) Russian Historic Heritage: The Potential (Anna Shevchenko) Theme 2. The Ideology of Preservation Projects: (Re)inhabiting Russian Avant-garde (Tamara Muradova) Soviet Ideology of Preservation: How It Works Today (Efim Freidine) Theme 3. Preservation as Design Projects: The Aging of Contemporary Architecture: Luzhkov Era (Dasha Paramonova) The Palaces of Pioneers (Olga Khokhlova) Theme 4. The Intangible Heritage Project: “Belyayevo Forever” (UNESCO application for a new type of cultural heritage) (Kuba Snopek)

Studio Preservation Next has been structured around four main complementary themes: The Economy of Preservation, The Ideology of Preservation, Preservation as Design and The Intangible Heritage. At the very first presentation of the program in December 2010, the themes have been deliberately defined with a certain degree of freedom: instead of providing a precise description of the research field, we introduced a nebulous assortment of tags and keywords that demarcated—in a very impressionistic way—the territories of thematic interest. In doing so, we emphasised the provisory nature of these divisions; in fact, the themes are intrinsically connected, they overlap considerably, in combination constituting a complex whole. This holistic vision of preservation we attempted to maintain throughout the entire educational process. While the four themes were formulated very broadly, the seven individual projects within themes (1 or 2 per theme) focused on more specific issues. Each of the projects implicitly contained a paradox, addressing a very recognizable stereotype that the students should either challenge or confirm in the course of his or her studies. The research subjects of the projects roughly cover the time span of the last 100 years and could be easily presented in a coherent chronological sequence: Russian architectural avant-garde of the 1920s; the Soviet system of preservation in the 1920s–1950s; Post-War modernism; the Soviet mass-produced housing of the 1970s–1980s; the Luzhkov era (1991–2010) plus two projects that focus on the current period. At the same time, the vectors of all seven projects were strategically directed towards the future with projective exploration being an inherent part of every research endeavor. The projects also addressed the issues on very different scales: ranging from the global question of the economic value of world heritage to the national Russian issue of the potential of the new preservation strategies; the urgent issues specific to Moscow city; the problems of prototypal urban units (Moscow “workers’ settlements”) and even the destiny of a single building (the Palace of Pioneers). This variety of scale shows a realistic cross-section of the present-day situation, providing an overview of the ways in which preservation-related issues manifested themselves on various levels. It is important to mention that students’ projects also focused on typologically different subjects. While some elaborated on the specifics of preservation of past architectural styles (Russian constructivism, Post-War modernism), others addressed the preservation of certain (changing) conditions (Luzhkov’s Moscow, Russian “Forgotten Regions”) or investigated the functioning of legal systems of preservation (Soviet preservation institutions, the UNESCO) and even the possibility of an entirely new type of heritage that comprises both tangible and intangible aspects (Belyayevo). Educational Program During the first two months, the students had to define, in collaboration with the tutors, the major guidelines for their individual research projects, specifying with maximum precision the

core subject of each project. Some students began with investigating the multiplicity of cases to locate among them just one case study that could serve as a prototype or a model; for the others a more logical first step was to initiate historical analysis and to built up a chronology in the form of a text or a timeline. This preparatory stage was of paramount importance for the whole process, as the project subjects were not completely predetermined by the studio program thus leaving considerable room for very individual adjustments and reformulations. At this stage, student research has been massively supported by introductory lectures and discussions with experts on various aspects of theory and practice of historic preservation (see Introduction to Preservation in Lectures, Discussions, Consultations List). The second period, the presentation stage, that lasted for another month was geared towards the midterm review and therefore gave more time and attention to presentational skills and methods. Lectures on infographics, documentary filmmaking, and research methodology have been complemented with numerous student test-presentations, which helped to deal with the questions of research visualization and building up of narratives. It is at this stage that the studio field trip to St. Petersburg was organized. We chose St. Petersburg as an extreme example of a large, contemporary city that lives under constant pressure of the preservation regime. Ostensibly similar to Venice and Rome, it also has some absolutely unique features that are in part related to its history of dramatic political upheavals, to its status of the former capital and current economic situation. During the field trip we visited the most recent large-scale preservation projects, attended lectures on the new preservation policies in St. Petersburg, and also made a series of interviews with young local architects. The field trip’s results were summed up in Towards St. Petersburg report and in the Personal Files video. After the midterm review, the process entered the third, consultancy stage, during which the students were led into increasingly deep and increasingly specific areas of concentration with the help of outside consultants. Students had to choose and then contact specialists whose areas of expertise, one way or another, could “refine” the studies of our studio; communication took form of Skype sessions, interviews, telephone calls, email correspondence and individual meetings. We got amazing support and friendly help from preservationists, journalists, architectural critics, cultural researchers, and many other professionals, to whom we would like to extend our thanks for their time and effort (see the names of experts in the Lectures, Discussions, Consultations List). This extensive individual work was augmented by collective events: film screenings, general lectures, and several special lectures from the “in-depth preservation” program that introduced the students to a higher level of theoretical thinking in the field. Towards the end of the term, the education process bifurcated; continuing the gathering of material and data processing, we began to determine the final product for each student project and the graphic means suitable for research representation. The diversity of deliverables reflected not only different characters and different scale of each study but, in a way, the individuality, the set of skills and personal interests of students (see List of Deliverables). In parallel with the increasing complexity of tasks, we introduced the final program of lectures under the common title “Incredible Preservation.” The program focused on the realized and successful projects in the field of preservation of both tangible and intangible heritage, in Russia and abroad, introducing us to the authors and providing an insight into how their ideas, plans, communication strategies accumulated to produce such impressive and, in many cases, unique results. It is important to point out that, although we have started our studio as merely an intellectual, academic endeavour, in the course of research many real events confirmed that our topics, directions of research and individual intuitions were absolutely relevant to the current moment. Public concern about the future of the Palace of Pioneers, new plans for the Gorky Park, revitalization of professional interest in the Moscow workers’ settlements, the State Hermitage exhibition dedicated to D. A. Prigov (a conceptual artist and poet who sang his native Belyayevo), and many other events reconnected our studies to the urgent issues and practicalities of the world outside our ivory tower. Thus all seven final products—be it a group of articles, a collection of diagrams, a UNESCO application in the form of a book, a video, a special issue of an architectural magazine, an academic paper or an installation/exhibition—have great potential to outgrow the framework of the studio research and to be continued well beyond Strelka.

List of Deliverables Collective: – Video collection of interviews with young St. Petersburg architects “Personal Files” (students in charge: Tamara Muradova and Kuba Snopek): http://vimeo.com/22994335 – “Towards St. Petersburg” field-trip report: compilation of essays and photographs (student in charge: Shi Yang) Individual: Denis Leontiev, “The World Heritage as an Economic Value” – Publication with the introductory article and a collection of diagrams (printed by studio Preservation Next) Anna Shevchenko, “Russian Historic Heritage: The Potential” – Video about Birobijan, one of the “Forgotten Regions” (in collaboration with a professional director of photography and a local assistant) Tamara Muradova, “(Re)inhabiting Russian Avant-garde” – Special issue of the ARCHIPROBA magazine dedicated to the Moscow workers’ settlements (printed by studio Preservation Next) Efim Freidine, “Soviet Ideology of Preservation: How It Works Today” – Three articles on different aspects of the Soviet system of preservation (in Russian, not printed) Dasha Paramonova, “The Aging of Contemporary Architecture: Luzhkov Era” – Publication (printed by studio Preservation Next) Olga Khokhlova, “The Palaces of Pioneers” – Small-scale exhibition/installation at Strelka dedicated to the history and current situation of the Moscow Palace of Pioneers Kuba Snopek, “Belyayevo Forever” (UNESCO application for a new type of cultural heritage) – UNESCO application in the form of an illustrated book (printed by studio Preservation Next) – Contribution to the catalogue of the State Hermitage exhibition PRIGOV

Lectures, workshops, consultations and panel discussions organized by Preservation Next Studio (school year 2010 - 2011) Fall semester Preservation week (for all students) Introductory lectures by Rem Koolhaas, Nikita Tokarev, Michael Shindhelm “Preservation in Moscow: how it works?”, panel discussion Field trip (Moscow): Narkomfin building, Vosstaniya square, Ukraina hotel, Palace of pioneers, Ostozhenka district “In the Praise of Shadow’ by Tanizaki Junichiro, reading salon with Anastasia Smirnova. “The Old, the New, and the Storytelling” lecture by Anastasia Smirnova “Krapivna 010: the resurrection” project presentation by Nikita Tokarev Spring semester Introduction to Preservation (January- February)

Continuity in traditional oriental cultures: capturing the intangible by Ilya Smirnov, (director of the Institute for Oriental and Classical Studies, Russian State University for the Humanities) Soviet Preservation lecture by Nikolay Pereslegin (counselor of the Moscow Preservation department) Preservation strategies and the State law lecture by Alexander Kibovskij (chief of the Moscow Preservation department) Preservation of the Russian avant-garde heritage in the global context lecture by Natalya Dushkina (archnitectural historian, MARKHI professor, member of DOCOMOMO, ICOMOS expert) Politics, Activism, and Preservation lecture by Marina Chrustaleva (activist, director Moscow Architecture Preservation Society) Knowledge as recollection and historical knowledge: the cultural premises of preservation lecture by Sergey Sitar (architect, architectural critic)

Research and Presentation Skills (February – March)

Research or Manifesto: Delirious New York by Rem Koolhaas, reading salon with Anastasia Smirnova Inspired by Almost Everything …., lecture on info graphics by Theo Deutinger (researcher/architect, Rotterdam) Mapping Strelka 1.0 workshop with Theo Deutinger (researcher/architect, Rotterdam) The Heuristic Value of Interdisciplinary Research: Explanation vs. Description lecture by Sergey Sitar (architect, art critic) Chasing the reality lecture by Marina Razbezhkina (documentary film-director) The Basics of Montage, discussion of the student video materials with Marina Razbezhkina (documentary film-director)

Field trip to St.Petersburg (March)

Excursions to Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library, General staff building, Museum of communication (Bezborodko palace), The State Hermitage museum; Genius loci: new St Petersburg declaration for UNESCO heritage list lecture by Alexander Margolis (member of St Petersburg governmental committee for historic preservation)

The Grand museums of St.Petersburg: imperial ambitions, territorial expansion, and the trial by contemporary art, lecture by Kira Dolinina (art critic, “Kommersant” newspaper correspondent, professor at the European University of St.Petersburg) Preservation Strategy 2000 in St.Petersburg, lecture by Boris Kirikov (preservation expert, former deputy director of Preservation Department of St.Petersburg)

Individual consultations with experts (April): Kiril Ass (architect, architectural critic), Boris Bernaskoni (architect), Clementine Cecil (journalist, MAPS coordinator), Natalia Dushkina (architectural historian, MArkhI professor), Bart Goldhoorn (publisher, critic), Elena Gonsales (architectural critic, journalist), Boris Groys (philosopher, art critic), Vladimir Kagansky (geographer), Kira Kartashova (sociologist, MArkhI professor), Marina Khrustaleva (MAPS director), Ekaterina Larina (architect), Julia Liderman (culture studies scholar), Felix Novikov (architect), Vladimir Paperny (architectural critic), Andrej Prigov (son of Dmitrij Prigov), Marina Razbezhkina (documentary film-director), Grigorij Revzin (architectural critic, journalist), Sergey Sitar (architectural critic), Mikhail Smetana (graphic designer), Elena Tsareva (architectural historian) Dmitrij Zadorin (architect), Anna Zalivako (architectural critic) Viktor Vakhstain (sociologist), Daniyar Yusupov (architect), see also projects. “In-depth Preservation” program (April)

Formalities: Architecture and Bureaucracy at the UNESCO House, 1952-1958, video lecture by Lucia Allais (historian, researcher, Princeton University) The History of the Preservation Theory, lecture by prof. Wim Denslagen (Utrecht University) The Culture of the Copy, lecture by prof. Wim Denslagen (Utrecht University) Conversation with prof. Michael Turner (Chairman of UNESCO's Israel World Heritage Committee, Jerusalem)

“Incredible preservation” program (April – May)

“100 short films about Moscow” or how to capture the transitional state?, screenings of the short documentaries from 1990s TV series, with commentaries by Arnold Giskin (producer, researcher) Rediscovering the Kremlin, excursion by Tatiana Krasheninnikova (deputy director of restoration department of the Kremlin Museums) The fate of the Kremlin presentation of workshop results by Sergey Sitar and Yuri Grigoryan (architect, Director of educational program of Strelka Institute) Wooden Irkutsk: Preservation and Social issues of the quarter 130 lecture by Elena Grigoryeva (vice-president of Union of architects of Russia, member of Academy of Architecture) and Mark Meerovich (historian), Irkutsk How to build yourself a hutong? The Art Zone phenomenon lecture by Ai Weiwei (artist, curator of the Art Zone project, China) (cancelled in May, 2011) "The Intangible Heritage: Preservation strategies for "minor" languages of Siberia", lecture by Olga Kazakevich (professor at the RGGU and MGU, linguist) Stavropol-on-Volga: the Story of the Inundated City, lecture by Igor Malakhov ( architect, Samara_Tolyatti) Mightier than the bulldozer? The role of journalism in campaigning for built heritage, in Russia and the UK, lecture by Clementine Cecil (MAPS coordinator, journalist)

world war I

BY EFIM FREIDIN

TEXT TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY ANATOLY KOVALEV

SOVIET IDEOLOGY OF PRESERVATION: HOW IT WORKS TODAY?

1917 civil war empire collapse

world war II New Moscow plan, 1935

PRESERVACTION. PLAN FOR MEDIA CAMPAIGN

First and foremost, I would like to thank the administration of our studio and institute for the wide range of experts who participated in our projects. These people doubtless define the subject matter of my research. Their positions represent and illustrate the current situation in the sphere of heritage protection and preservation in Russia. Looking back on the last few months, I can maintain with confidence that the Russian system of preservation of historic objects is genetically related to its Soviet predecessor. The hereditary symptoms include the system’s birth in revolutionary conditions with the concomitant threat of physical destruction of the “cultural Lazar Kaganovich, Jozef Stalin, architect of stratum” and the necessary presence of social opposition masterplan supervisor, politic socialistic reconstruction and industrialization to the authorities, architects, building contractors, etc. The system was being destroyed more than once and then created anew. It involves the know-how to protect derelict, long-abandoned monuments of the past. The new epoch has brought on new conditions: the Listing of new (100y.o.) architecture started relatively new Soviet heritage is not abandoned—it in Soviet period. Heritage is mostly in use. is still in use, in some cases even inhabited. The once endangered monuments of constructivism, “Stalin-style” buildings and creations of post-war modernism became potential objects of state protection. After the collapse of the USSR, a new mechanism of interaction—viz., through market economy—became prevalent, though in many cases and with many individual participants it still fails to operate in Russia. The situation is critical: everything George Krutikov, konstructivist that is being done—either to preserve 8000(1930) historic buildings or to demolish them to make way for new housing or offices—equally leads to the destruction of cultural heritage. The system of state protection, the movements aimed at protecting urban Museum of wooden architecture in Kolomenskoe heritage, restorers and architects, real-estate developers, the authors of numerous projects form but a shorter version of the list of actors involved, one way or another, in “working” with historical monuments. They all have very Nikita Kchrushev, mass housing, urbanization (1960s), last part of different motivations and methods of work. Each of them industrialization adamantly believes his (or hers) to be the right one. Looking from the outside, you can plainly see that it’s House on the embankment, B.Iofan an “each-to-his-own” situation. To achieve a general

XX XIX XVIII XVII XVI >XVI

2870 (1923)

Natalya Sedova (Trotskaya) Head of museum department Piotr Baranovsky, restorer, founder of museum in Kolomenskoe

-75%

2000 (1930)

550 (1947)

Blasting of the Christ the Saviour cathedral in Moscow Vladimir Vinogradov, member of Old Moscow, founder of Museum of Architecture

Postwar restoration of palaces and towns

Igor Grabar, art historian, Count Valentin Zuboff, art historian, Head of Restoration workshops keeper, founder of Gatchina museum Anatoly Lunacharsky Comissar of enlightnment

1918

1934

1948

1960

>15000 (2010)

1991 USSR collapse consensus, you’ll probably have to somehow inﬂuence all parties involved. Sometimes they meet each other in governmental ofﬁces, or at the negotiating table, or at a building site—where the ones try to protect architectural heritage from the destructive encroachment of the others. They also meet online, addressing their respective supporters from internet forums, magazines and other publications. It is much more rarely that we see them on TV and in open disputes.

The above-described situation calls for urgent action, for the intervention of an external force in this sphere of activity. Failing that, we might easily lose both the heritage and the sphere of its preservation. That is why I call this intervention—and, likewise, my project—“Preservaction.”

Kolomenskoe, Palace of Tzar (1750s, 2009)

Sergey Polonsky , real-estate developper

Marina Khrustaleva activist, journalist, Archnadzor Sergey Gordeev, ex-senator, Russian avanguard foundation

Vladimir Ressin (building department supervisor), Vladimir Putin (prime-minister), Jury Luzhkov (ex-mayor of Moscow)

Alexander Kibovsky, head of Moskomnasledie

Natalia Dushkina, expert on preservation of modern architecture

Yekaterina Furtzeva, minister of culture

Suzdal: city as museum of architecture

in federal li

6515 (1974)

mentioned

536 (1990)

monuments

Restoration of stalin style Opera and ballet theatre in Novosibirsk (1980-2004)

To induce change in the nature of the relationship between the “destroyers” and the “preservationists” is a task solvable by a special media campaign. Such a sweeping campaign would be targeted at different audiences, addressing a different message to each of them : (1) it would attempt to expound in detail various aspects of the problem under discussion; (2) it would involve various groups (especially decision makers on various levels) in the activity of preservation; 478 (2000) (3) it would offer workable approaches and strategies to all parties interacting in the speciﬁed sphere, including the “destroyers.”

Quantity of

Grigory Revzin, architectural critic, journalist

8834 (1995)

New Arbat

sources: 1) http://kulturnoe-nasledie.ru (ministry of culture' database) 2) Platonov O. 1991 3) Tschenkov «Articles on...», p. 17 4) Law №3898 14/10/1948

Ust'-Ilim hydro power station

Listed h cit istorical

2010: Defense of Kadashi: ruined heritage after activity of developper and preservationists

ies

Archnadzor public support of preservation

115 (1986)

-90%

41 (2010)

Model of Tzar Palace in Kolomenskoe (1940s)

1970 1966

1986

1978

-90

2002

1995

2002

2010

List of historical cities List of monuments

2010

Laws

world war I

KEEPER AND RESTORER: SIGHT ON HISTORY

1917 civil war empire collapse The preservationist community is fairly clannish; it obtains the necessary data from professional publications like The Hermitage magazine and Our Heritage and from conference reports. This community is subdivided into two major groups: the keepers of heritage (museum staff, overseeing state functionaries) and the restorers (who actually perform the restoration and “editing” of national history, sometimes reinterpreting and presenting it anew). The exponents of either group are, as a rule, conversant with the history of their profession, adhering to particular schools and certain principles of which their circle possesses quite a few. They can be easily contacted, once you found common ground, and they set great store by the names of their icons. We have chosen two figures—Count Valentin Zuboff and Piotr Baranovsky—from the many worthy names. They both started working during the October revolution, but each in his own manner. Zubov gradually came to adopt the attitude of a keeper that he put into practice at the former Palace in Gatchina, while Baranovsky became a model restorer, working in that official capacity from 1918 until the 1980s. Zuboff was a champion of wholeness, striving to preserve cultural heritage in its context, together with entire historical strata in their transformation. Emotional bonding with the object of preservation was very important for him. Baranovsky, on his part, valued most of all the genuine look of a monument as it was in its heyday, not its current appearance with possible later additions or subtractions. He found inspiration in research and imaginative reconstruction of history. The two men shared great activity and certain radicalism—in the cause of preservation, they were ready to go to all lengths, ignoring political and economic considerations, as well as state borders. Unfolding my story through the abovementioned figures and demonstrating the controversial nature of the decisions they made, I “cracked”—so to speak—the genetic code of national system of preservation

Kazan cathedral on the Red square in Moscow: disclosure, restoration (1925), demolition (1934), replication (1989)

Renovation on new place (in Kolomenskoe, Moscow from Irkutsk region)

Modern movement

1948 Prepared the list of architectural monuments for Moscow 1943 Execute documentation on different sites in Moscow: Krutitskoe podvorie, Church and palaces on Bersenevskaya embankment

Old russian style

1940 Made a critical report on Moscow reconstruction plan and preservation of historic buildings 1928 Graduated from Ladovsky studio in VKHUTEMAS with widely known diploma project on Future cities. Chief of Moscow Deputy branch of сhief

Сollaborator of 1933

Khan-Magomedov S.O. «G.Krutikov»

1939

1940 1946

Comission on protection of monuments in Academy of architecture

Interior of Gatchina palace

Count Valentin Zuboff, art historian, keeper, founder of Gatchina museum immigrated in 1925

1958

First >Moscultprog tour: Church and Palaces of Kirillov on Bersenevskaya embankment

George Krutikov, konstructivist, under inﬂuence of Piotr Baranovsky became keeper, then - head of Moscow system of preservation (1946-56)

Museum of wooden architecture in Kolomenskoe

Piotr Baranovsky, restorer, founder of museum in Kolomenskoe, exiled 1934-1936.

1951

State inspection for protection of monuments

of historical monuments. I juxtapose the old and new practices and modes of thinking, demonstrating a direct link between them, to prompt the keepers and restorers of today to think about relevant problems in this ﬁeld. For better or worse, the results of older and more recent renovations are here for all to see. This would involve some degree of responsibility. Would it be right, in this connection, to pursue the old Soviet ideology of preserving dead heritage regardless? This article might result in a discussion about preserving historic monuments that are still inhabited which would require working out new strategies of preservation. Conferences of keepers of small museums who need additional expertise and opportunities for the development of their institutions under current conditions could be a logical continuation of this trend.

Kazan cathedral on the Red square in Moscow: disclosure, restoration (1925), demolition (1934), replication (1989)

Wooden palace in Kolomenskoe Replication after 250 years (1750s/ 2009)

Scientiﬁcal restoration on optimal epoche (1940s)

Our experts in the above-mentioned domain were: Igor Malakhov, a designer from Samara who developed the program for the Togliatti Museum of Flooded Cities; Georgi Yevdokimov, a restorer of the Moscow Kremlin; Yelena Olshanskaya, the keeper of the Lisitsky Printing Ofﬁce, Moscow; Kira Dolinina, an art critic and professor at the European University, St. Petersburg, Clementine Cecil from Moscow architecture preservation society, Natalya Dushkina, expert on preservation of modernist' heritage. A related event: “Re/evolution of avant-guard: life, place, time” meeting of keepers in commemoration of S.O.Khan-Magomedov at Strelka Institute (14/06/2011, co-curator - Maria Troshina) Alisa Bogdonaite, Museum of Russian Architecture

Andrey Erofeev, curator, art critic, expert on New Avantguard

Sergey Nikitin, art historian, founder Moskultprog and Velonotte

Elena Olshanskaya, keeper of Lissitsky' printing ofﬁce

Vladimir Shukhov, president of Shukhov tower foundation, head of Do.Co.Mo.Mo in Russia

Ekaterina Karinskaya, keeper of Konstantin and Viktor Melnikov' House http://www.strelkainstitute.com/en/#url=/en/summer/events/511

Lenin/Lunatcharsky dialogue about creativity

Stalin/Tschussev dialogue about future IN MY OPINION THE DECISION (DEMOLITION OF TOWER) WAS RIGHT, I SUPPOSE, THAT SOVIET PEOPLE COULD CREATE GREATER AND MORE MEMORABLE EXAMPLES OF ARCHITECTURE THAN SUKHAREVA TOWER

Our society is able to create the beauty, immensely more excellent than all, what could be dreamt about in the past V.Lenin, 1918

Nowhere people could learn such artistic range as that was done by nobility at its zenith

1934 Blasting of Sukhareva tower by trafﬁc reason (ofﬁcially)

A.Lunacharsky «Why we protect Romanov'

DEMOLITION OF TOWER IS INAPPROPRIATE, IF THE TARGET IS ADJUSTMENT OF TRAFFIC, THE RESULT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY OTHER MEDIAS A.TSHUSSEV AND GROUP OF ARCHITECTS

A.Lunacharsky

The head of 1929

1918

NarKomPros Commissariat of enlightenment

Bombing of Moscow Kremlin by bolsheviks

POWER AND HERITAGE

1907

1917

1927

1937

1933

1947

1957

1967

1977

1987

1997

2007

The second target audience of our planned campaign are decisions makers, including state officials, and members of movements protecting urban heritage. The goal of this publication is their serious, nonformal involvement in the sphere of heritage preservation, as well as the definition of the current state and structure of that sphere and an attempt to create an efficient vocabulary for interaction within it. The article is based on a reconstruction of the historical context of current state of dissonance in the sphere of urban development, especially as regards the demolition of historic blocks of the capital. It is important for the parties involved to see one another as parts of the same system, to have a clear perception of the history of their relationship. During the Soviet epoch they were all technically the gears of the same governmental clockwork, with each gear acting in the interests of the whole machinery. The dynamics of listing architectural monuments entitled to protection—as regards their number and identity—show the state’s changing attitude to

history and its heritage. The structural transformation of the protection system itself, the involvement of public support in it became new characteristics of the “state–heritage” situation. It is important that private enterprise which, starting from the 1990s, became part of the system after legalizing the self-financed building projects that had existed unofficially before can no longer be controlled by the state: the entire activity is now contract based. The same applies to the parties renting monuments— they work under contract, on mutually beneficial terms. Who but the state authorities and urban protection movements backed by civil society has the real power over our heritage? For even the owners of historic buildings have no real power to preserve or destroy them. By unfolding the socio-political topic of power and history, by delineating my own map of the world and demonstrating that the old leviathan tears the historical fabric of the city to pieces with appalling efficiency, I try to involve a wide audience in our

8000(1930)

Rudmetalltorg – ofﬁce of metall stocking and trade for industrialization needs

Gostorg in Moscow

of industrialization needs or price of Tractor plant in Tchelyabinsk

40%

of cost came to the budget of city

60%

of cost came back to museum

Antiquariat auction trade from museum collections for inustrialisation needs

Recycling of bells by Rudmetalltorg

2870 (1923)

Source: Osokina «Gold for industrialization», Jukov «Stalin: operation Hermitage»

Ю.Б. Галай Нормативные акты об охране колоколов и их практическая реализация в Нижегородской губернии

Public organisation International support Professional society Regional network

Professional restorers

State Organisation Laws State/private/public 1907 system of preservation

MLN RUBLES from sales from State Hermitage and other museums' collections

Old Moscow, Old Saint-Petersburg Russian mansion amateurs etc.

-75%

Ethnographers' bureau branches Gubmusei (regional museums)

Academy of Architecture

2000 (1930)

Regional inspections for protection of monuments Ethnographic museums

Central state restoration workshops

Museum department of Glavnauka (Science) Narkompros 1917

Central state restoration workshops

Comission of Academy of Architecture Ministry of construction 1927

Regional ofﬁce of culture

550 (1947)

1937

State inspection for protection of monuments

1947

1957

Krutikov/Kaganovich dialogue about urbanization

>15000 (2010)

PLANNING SCHEME DOESN'T STOP BEFORE DEMOLITION OF ONE OR ANOTHER MONUMENT, IF IT'S ON THE WAY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT L.KAGANOVICH, OFFICER FOR MOSCOW Moscow general plan curated by Kaganovich&Stalin 1935

Sergey Polonsky , real-estate developper

WE HAVE ENORMOUS SET OF ARCHITECTURAL AND TECHNICAL MEDIA TO REJECT THE THREAT OF DEMOLITION OF ARCHITECTURAL MONUMENTS AN ENRICH CITY IMAGE. EXCESSIVE SIZES OF SQUARES AND STREETS ARE UNPROFITABLE AND THREATEN TO HERITAGE G.KRUTIKOV, PROTECTION INSPECTOR,

Marina Khrustaleva activist, journalist, Archnadzor Sergey Gordeev, ex-senator, Russian avanguard foundation

G.Krutikov

Vladimir Ressin (building department supervisor), Vladimir Putin (prime-minister), Jury Luzhkov (ex-mayor of Moscow)

Alexander Kibovsky, head of Moskomnasledie Natalia Dushkina, expert on preservation of modern architecture

Grigory Revzin, architectural critic, journalist

Quantity of

8834 (1995)

monuments

activity. I propose lifting communication barriers between all participants, creating an operational vocabulary of terms and forms of interaction not only within the preservationist sphere but also outside it. The present publication is intended for mass media including the Kommersant-Vlast’, the Russian Reporter, the New Times, the Gazeta.ru, the Expert, etc. Our principal experts in this area were: Alexander Margolis (Memorial, Unesco expert, Spb), Alexander Kibovsky (Head of Moskomnaledie), Marina Khrustaleva (activist, journalist, Archnadzor), Clementine Cecil (MAPS, journalist), Grigori Revzin (architectural critic), Tatiana Krasheninnikova (deputy director of Kremlin Museum), Boris Kirikov (head of Saint-Peterburg branch of Institute of Theory of Architecture and Urbanistic, NIITAG). A related event was our participation in the conference of the NIITAG RAASN titled “Urban Problems of Preservation” (June 9–10, 2011), with a report on the interaction between the old and new city.

478 (2000)

TO PRESERVACTION? 15 mln members (1981)= 3/4 communist party

6 mln members (1971)

sts

VOOPIK: own budget/workshops

ies

established (1966)

VOOPIK All-russian society for protection of historical and cultural monuments

in federal li

cit istorical Listed h

Archnadzor 6/02/2010 up to 700 participators in protest manifestation

6515 (1974)

mentioned

536 (1990)

Voopik/Archnadzor

MAPS Russian mansion amateurs etc. DO.CO.MO.MO ICOMOS UNESCO

Russian avantguard Archnadzor foundation

PUBLIC SUPPORT

Academy of Architecture Production bureau (group) for protection and usage of historical and cultural heritage

Scientiﬁc-production center for preservation of historical and cultural heritage

115 (1986)

Regional scientiﬁc-production center for Regional department of culture preservation of historical and cultural heritage

PRIVATE/COMMERCIAL

VOOPIK's restoration workshops Central state restoration workshops 41 (2010) Regional restoration institutes&workshops Federal center for protection of architectural and urban planning heritage

VOOPIK's restoration workshops

RosSvyazOhranKultura/Federal service for protection of mass media and cultural heritage

Ministry of culture 1967

Ofﬁce for state protection of heritage

GOVERNMENTAL

1977

1987

1997

2007

STRATEGY OF PRESERVATION

The third direction of our media campaign suggests a possible strategy of heritage preservation and opens a potential new sphere of activity (or a new sector of market) for professionals like developers and middlemen. The article is based on case studies of the interaction between the processes of preservation and destruction which led to various results, including favorable ones. The transformation of the very hub of that interaction—which took place in bureaucrats’ offices, at architects’ desks and even on building sites—is demonstrated. Another aspect of the paper concerns the object of preservation. What will it be: the historical environment, some spatial structure, or some incorporeal, intangible constituent? We have so far two government initiated cases in Russia: the pilot project of Block 130 in Irkutsk and the transformation of the Gorky Park in Moscow. The Irkutsk project features traditional wooden architecture of mid-19th century, while the Gorky Park basically involves landscape architecture reproducing the Czar’s palace and structures of early Soviet era. Both cases illustrate the interaction between parties previously regarded as antagonists whose conflict of socio-economic and political interests is now resolved beyond the framework of architectural projects. There is an organizational structure suggested for Block 130. The foundation and management company involved in it tried to take into account the interests of all concerned parties: investors, owners, architects, restorers, the state and of course the prospective end users. As regards the Gorky Park project, a system of preliminary discussions was put forward. Those discussions are supposed to align the attitudes of participants and to define the object of preservation. The extremely diverse range of people (professional architects, landscape designers, keepers, social scientists, investors, art directors, various officials, local residents, etc.) attracted by those discussions all ended up “in the same boat.” Trying to find common ground they discussed various issues sitting literally on the same level, without a central stage. There was a “roomful of kids of different ages,” as Fred Manson (urban renewal specialist from the United Kingdom) described the participants of the Gorky Park preservation round table. The object of preservation includes something more than just blueprints, archaeological layers and the remains of buildings from various eras. These are memories and feelings. The object of the project is an extremely subtle combination of various traditions that emerged, relative to the park, in different generations, involving different spaces and scenic effects that express them. The interesting part is that the park becomes a stage for an ever-changing set of actors—ordinary people who visit it and bring to life the preserved

Blasting/recycling New Moscow 1935

destru future h Urbanization

socialist ideology& industrialization +present afﬁrmation STATE REGIONAL PROFESSIONALS PUBLIC SUPPORT

socialist ideology& urbanization +futuristic position STATE REGIONAL PROFESSIONALS PUBLIC SUPPORT

Mansion/palace museums

Tower of Ust-Ilim fortress in museum (Irkutsk)

preserva Postwar palace renovation

Kazan cathedral as museum of religious history and atheism (Spb)

Preservationist

Planner&owner

1930(-75%) 1966(+75%) Museum of wooden architecture in Kolomenskoe (Msk)

veracity& veracity& authenticity authenticity +futuristic position +balance old/new Architects,

painters, restorers STATE + of REGIONAL defending religious values PROFESSIONALS PUBLIC SUPPORT

Architects,

painters, restorers, STATE historians, ethnographers REGIONAL +tourists, peasants PROFESSIONALS PUBLIC SUPPORT

defen

Sukhareva square 1935 New Moscow 1924

uction/ heritage

Restorers, historians, ethnographers + citizens, nimby

STATE REGIONAL PROFESSIONALS PUBLIC SUPPORT

commercialization afﬁrmation of selfidentity

traditions and spaces. Kids laugh, old men noisily move chess pieces, reenactment aﬁcionados recreate the universe of Tolkien or the Napoleonic invasion. The just described process of mediation is not unique even in the case of Russia—similar models were being used for about 30 years. However, the critical mass of the process of social-oriented design, especially in the sphere of heritage protection, may prove a turning point in architectural history, attracting professionals of all descriptions. Our experts were: Grigory Revzin (architectural critic), Mark Meerovich (methodologist, architectural historian), Alexander Margolis (deputy chief of Spb “Memorial” branch, historian). A related event: “The Gorky Park: The Past and the Future,” a round table at Strelka (May 18, 2011, moderated by Nikita Tokarev). Gorky park in Moscow: from Assoult of fountain to New old symbols.

next ation>>> Megaprojects, Ust-Ilim Hydroelectric power station, 19601980

REGIONAL

PROFESSIONALS

PEOPLE

Media&architect +owner

2011(-90%)(city) veracity& authenticity +image of the past STATE REGIONAL PROFESSIONALS PUBLIC SUPPORT

nse

Recreation of Palace in Kolomenskoe (model of 1947, application in 1978), demolished in XVIII century

PUBLIC SUPPORT

PROFESSIONALS MIDDLEMAN

STATE

History of planning structure

Aggressive formulation of the problem for the preservationist community and the breaking of the latter’s restrictive circle; exposure of the current heritage preservation system and the motivations of its participants, with the arrangement of their dialogue in the media; the creation of an adequate vocabulary for such a dialogue; the suggestion of new approaches and mechanisms—all those are but initial steps in the possible transformation of the heritage preservation system based on the study of its ideology which was shaped in the Soviet period.

It all started from very personal impression and then grew unexp photo by Andrey Goncharov

THE PALACES OF PIONEERS PRESERVATION THROUGH CHANGE by Olga Khokhlova STUDIO PRESERVATION NEXT

PRESERVATION AS DESIGN Director: Rem Koolhaas Supervisors: Anastassia Smirnova, Nikita Tokarev

pectedly to something of public concern and worthy of discussion.

I would like to start from the bold statement that the study titled “The Palace of Pioneers” is not finished. In self-defense, I can say that it can’t be finished—not now, at least. We’ve just discovered a box full of issues to investigate which requires the collaboration of all parties involved. What is entirely clear is that the preservation of the Palace—we speak here about the preserving of buildings, landscape and activities—can be only achieved through changes. But the meaning of these changes needs to be made clear to everybody, and not be concealed in the interests of a certain individual.

The main developments on the way to the appearence of the Palace of Pioneers on the Lenin Hills.

1909

25 February, 1956

Khrushchev denounced Stalin in his Secret Speech at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party. He declared, “It is impermissible and foreign to the spirit of MarxismLeninism to elevate one person, to transform him into a superman possessing supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god.” The idea appeared to move the administrative and cultural centre of Moscow to the south-west.

initiation of the Scout Movement in Russia by the colonel Oleg Pantiukhov. From 1919 the movement was persecuted up to the full ban in 1923.

1921

Nadezhda Krupskaya (Lenin’s wife) came out for the creation of a children organization which will be “scout’s in the form and communistic in the content”.

4 November 1955

Central Committee of the Communist Party issued a decree “About elimination of unnecessary extravagance in architecture” where the ostentatious exuberant style was criticized.

19 May 1921

consideres the official birthday of the Pioneer Organization.

21 January, 1924

the day of Lenin’s death, the Pioneer Organization receives new name, and from 1926 its official name becomes Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization.

6 September, 1935

first Palace of Pioneers in USSR opened in Kharkov. There also the first Soviet New Year with “Christmas Tree” was celebrated.

1958

A competition was announced for the project of the Palace of Pioneers. Four teams participated, the winner became a group of young architects (Pokrovskyi, Novikov, Egerev, Kubasov, Palui, Khazhakian, Ionov) with a very modernist concept.

29 October, 1958

in commemorating of the 40th anniversary of the VLKSM (Union of Communistic Youth) laying of the foundation stone of the Palace took place.

September 1961 29 June, 1936

opening of the Moscow City House of Pioneers and Oktyabryat; the refurbishment of the former mansion was made by famous architects - Alabyan, Leonidov, Vlasov, artists - Favorskyi, Bruni and others under the personal guidance of Khrushchev.

1941-1945

more than 15000 of pioneers earned the medal “For the Defence of Leningrad” and near 20000 “For the Defence of Moscow”.

the Palace of Pioneers was announced a high-velocity construction - more than 50000 of volunteers and nearly 300 enterprises participated in its building. Half of money were taken from the lottery of the 6th World Festival of Youth and Students in Moscow.

1 June 1962

opening of the Palace took place. Seeing round the building Khrushchev declared, “I think, it’s difficult to come to one opinion in the assessment of such building. Somebody likes, somebody doesn’t. But I like your Palace, and I’m telling you my opinion!”

Our first visit to the Palace resulted in a culture shock for me, as I had never been to such a kind

of place. It was amazing how it had functioned till our days, managed to combine some air of Soviet mentality and kitsch, a great modernist construction and interiors slightly spoiled by several refurbishments, the spaciousness relaying a sense of vast countryside, the atmosphere of a space specifically intended for children and, of course, the children themselves—of different ages but invariably very up-to-date. For a newcomer that I was, it looked like a mess, but a very harmonized one. It became a captivating idea to find the clue which preserved the Palace to this day in such a condition as I witnessed then.

As I delved into the history of the pioneer organization and the Palace’s construction, three large

themes emerged—Childhood, Architecture, Politics—whose interplay highlighted the dramatic story of the development of childhood as a concept in the USSR and Russia, of the attitude towards children, of the use of the notion “child” in the presentation of political ideas. It’s quite understandable that, creating new society, the ruling class used children as a picture of a future in which all their ideas will have come true. For children’s sake, the adults would be willing to endure any hardships on the way of “socialist construction.”

All this resulted in representing childhood as an autonomous period of absolute happiness and

joy, without any sorrows. Nevertheless, the reality of the adult world always cast a shadow on the playful innocence of the Soviet childhood. Analysis of Soviet literature and animated cartoons for children shows that they were full of grief and melancholy. “Soviet childhood was a (noble) impulse which was condemned to desecration,”1 according to the modern artist Pavel Pepperstein.

But this general feeling was not always uniform—we can trace a shift in the interest in childhood during the 20th century. Before the revolution of 1917 and during the first years of the Soviet State, there was a boom of sundry educational systems emerging everywhere, also the principles of the Pioneer Organization were established by Nadezhda Krupskaya (Lenin’s wife). Later, as Stalin’s personal power consolidated, the educational system—both formally and informally—became more uniform, and the Pioneer Organization became absorbed by school. The Child and especially the Pioneer became a medium of the snitching ideology during the process of collectivization (Pavlik Morozov’s story presenting a dramatic proof of it). And, with the start of the Great Patriotic War (mostly known in the West as WWII), the Child’s role became that of the little hero who acts on a par with the adults—infiltrates enemy lines, kills Nazis, ferrets out the enemy’s plans. Logically, a pantheon of little heroes was formed after the war, analogous to that of adults heroes, their names and stories were entered in the Book of Honor of the Pioneer Organization. Khrushchev’s coming to power brought a new political vector—the denunciation of Stalin cult,

the rejection of architectural extravagances, and the trend towards standardized mass construction. Architecture and children became the evident tools for demonstrating the new ideological principles using something at once material and appealing to everyone’s finer feelings. Khrushchev’s famous statement, “The present generation of Soviet people will live under communism!” was perfectly realized in the construction of the new Palace of Pioneers on the Vorobyevy Gory (lit. “Sparrow Hills,” during the epoch in question: “Lenin Hills”). It was an attempt to create a perfect socialist environment at one stroke, to show vividly the future life of Soviet people. A lot of various factors came together in one place: the young architects who designed the Palace; its totally modernistic project; the help of Komsomol (the Communist League of Youth) with everything needed—for example, foreign currency for buying goods that were scarce in the USSR; the beautiful location; the cumulative experience of teachers; the general feeling of enthusiasm and something new in the air. All this turned the construction into a great success. But, according to the art historian Viktoriya Lebedeva, the Palace— “one of the most popular constructions in Moscow, a focus of the romantic strivings of art of those times; it was received with loving rapture by artists and critics—but quite quickly grew morally outdated.”2 1 2

“Concepts of Childhood”, television program Gordon: Dialogues, 1 April, 2002, http://intellect-video.com/1401/Gordon-Kontsepty-detstva-online/

Lebedeva Viktoriya, Irina Lavrova, Igor Pchelnikov (Moscow: Sovetskiy khudozhnik, 1985). The translation of the citation is taken from Susan E. Reid, Khrushchev In Wonderland: the Pioneer Palace in Moscow’s Lenin Hills, 1962 (Pittsburg, PA: Center for Russian and East European Studies, University of Pittsburgh, 2002).

The Palaces of Pioneers before the period of Khrushchevâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Thaw (before the mid 1950s).

The Palace of Pioneers on the Lenin Hills (today: the Palace of Children and Youth Creativity on the Vorobyevy Gory).

The cities where the Palaces of Pioneers were built upon the individual modernistic projects.

The standard buildings of the Palaces of Pioneers.

The unique buildings of the Palaces of Pioneers.

In spite of the wave of enthusiasm concerning the Palace of Pioneers, distrust and disillusion with regard to the state ideology grew, bringing closer the collapse of the USSR. And it is logical to assume that the Palace—as a container (= the “shell”) of the Pioneer Organization—had to collapse together with the USSR. But its basic idea of taking care of children and encouraging their craving for discovery and knowledge saved it from disappearing. Looking back on the past through the perspective of years, we can say that this inherent quality always helped the Palace to digest the diverse changes in the mood of society. What we see today is, to some extent, a repetition of situations that happened to the Palace in the

past, but it’s happening under new conditions and with new people now. Today, Russia is on the way of modernization again, and the concept of childhood and educational system is subordinated to this process. It’s quite clear to all of us that quite a lot can be done in the light of president Medvedev’s recent statement: “Everything we do, we do for those whom we love most of all—for our children.” Making use of this slogan, some people might set about realizing their own vision of a happy childhood destroying everything in their path, including things worthy of preservation.

Unfortunately, such concerns that became evident in the process of our research started to be justified. The gossips about the privatization of the Palace under the pretense of reconstruction circulated more and more frequently. The former director of the Palace quit supposedly under constraint; someone said that the Palace would become “autonomous,” meaning that it would not receive money from the city budget and education would no longer be free; the Academy of Gymnastics of Irina Viner decided to place one of its branches in the building of the Palace; etc., etc. Such news about the Palace raised a wave of activities in its defense but, as Yuri Saprykin wrote in the Afisha magazine: “Even the most ardent defenders of the Palace can hardly say what exactly threatens it.” And then, ibidem: “We don’t know yet what the threat is, but we readily agree that it does exist.” Therefore, the urgency of exposing the issues bearing on the Palace of Pioneers is fully justified, and thus our research gains its immediate practical importance. Today it seems that we are past the peak of anxiety—the new director of the Palace looks a re-

sponsible and sensible person, and the MosKomNasledie (the Moscow Committee of Heritage) initiated work on documenting the objects to be placed under protection at the Palace. However, it’s still not clear what the strategy of the Palace’s preservation will be. The fact that this is a case where preservation means change becomes more and more obvious. And we have a unique opportunity to make the preservation of the Palace a standard case to be followed, a perfect example of how to preserve and develop historic buildings. So, the task now is to break through the wall of public distrust in any changes made by the government, its officials and big business, and to find solutions for efficient collaboration. For the benefit of the continued activity of the “shell” (the Palace) and its “shellfish” (children), the Palace ought to be preserved, with the necessary changes taken into account.

Special thanks to the staff of the Palace of the Children and Youth Creativity (former Palace of Pioneers), especially to Miagkova Valentina Stepanovna and Kostieva Svetlana Mikhailovna, Anatoly Kovalev, Clementina Cecil, Janna Bystrykh, Julia Liderman, Felix Novikov, Sergey Sitar.

Bibliography 1. Arkhitektura SSSR, no. 10 (1936). 2. Arkhitektura SSSR, no. 9 (1962). 3. Arkhitektura i Stroitelstvo Moskvi, no. 8, 11 (1958). 4. Boguslavskiy M.V., “Istoriya Rossiyskogo Obrazovaniya XX veka: Desiatiletie za Desiatiletiem”, Vestnik Obrazovaniya, no. 15, 17-24 (2003), no. 1, 2 (2004). 5. Efimova E.A., Miagkova V.S. , Ot Doma Pionerov Na Stopani - K Dvortsu Na Leninskih Gorah (Moscow: Redaktsiya zhurnala “Pioner”, 2009). 6. Egerev V., Moskovskiy Dvorets Pionerov (Moscow: Stroiizdat, 1963). 7. Kelly Catriona, Children’s World: Growing Up in Russia, 1890-1991 (Yale University Press, 2007). 8. Kukulin I., Lipovetskiy M., Maiofis M., Vesyolie Chelovechki: Kulturne Geroi Sovetskogo Detstva (Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 2008). 9. Medynsky Eugene, “Schools And Education in the USSR”, American Sociological Review, vol. 9, no. 3, June (1944). 10. Novikov F. , Belogolovskiy V., Sovetskiy Modernizm, 1955-1985 (Ekaterinburg: TATLIN, 2010). 11. Novikov Felix, Zodchie i Zodchestvo (Moscow: URSS, 2010), ed. 4. 12. Obukhova A.S., Tendryakova M.V., Rebyonok v Istorii i Kulture, (Moscow: Biblioteka zhurnala “Issledovatel/Researcher”, 2010), ed. 4. 13. Reid Susan E. , Khrushchev In Wonderland: the Pioneer Palace in Moscow’s Lenin Hills, 1962 (Pittsburg, PA: Center for Russian and East European Studies, University of Pittsburgh, 2002). 14. Veriuzhskiy A., “Dvorets Mechty”, Molodaya Gvardiya, no. 11, November (1963). 15. Archive of the Palace of Pioneers, Moscow.

photo by Andrey Goncharov

THE ECONOMY OF PRESERVATION World Heritage as economic value Denis Leontiev Project consultant: Sergey Sitar

The Heritage market Coincidence or not but the economic crisis of the early 70s came roughly at the same time as launch of a global heritage market initiated by the signing of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (Convention) in 1972. This paper looks at the correlation between the development of the free market and developments in the field of historic building preservation. Outlines potential scenario of UNESCO funding restructure and its effects on the World Heritage market. Economy The early 70’s signaled the end of a long period of continuous growth in the Western world by the failing of the Breton-woods financial system in 1971, oil crisis of 1973 and the banking crisis of 1974. It was a time of rethinking of economic paradigm which has prevailed since World War II. Just before in the late 60s, concurrent initiatives of the UNESCO and the White house laid the foundations for a World Heritage Convention. In 1972, during the recession UNESCO Convention was adopted. The idea of the protection of the world heritage had been discussed in various forms during the1960’s. In 1965 the UNESCO supported the establishment of International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), and with its assistance starts the preparation of a draft convention on the protection of cultural heritage. In the same time the United States actively promotes the idea of establishing the World Heritage Trust which would protect natural and historic areas around the globe. Though the ideological foundations of this new world heritage organization had been developed during the economic conditions of Post World War II economic expansion, its implementation started in new economic reality - the period of Washington consensus. This term “Washington consensus” was coined by John Williamson in 1989 to summarize reforms which developing countries should follow: “The three big ideas here are macroeconomic discipline, a market economy, and openness to the world”.1 Later the term has been wider interpreted and argued.2 I use this term to label an new period of economy globalization which absorbed developing countries in the global economy. The Washington Consensus is started in the 1980’s and finished during the economic crisis of 2008. Among the most growing sectors of the service economy have been: tourism, entertainment technology and information-based services. The introduction of the World Heritage List and subsequent listing of many heritage sites corresponded with the rapid increase of tourism and number of national heritage trusts members. Global mass tourism inevitably transforms World Heritage Sites to economic assets and lies on the basis of a World Heritage monetization. Annually preservation of UNESCO World Heritage generates through its 911 sites at least 60 billion euro of income.3 Although this is only 1% of total global tourist economy,4 the potential economic benefits which UNESCO World Heritage status gives to the site has the tendency to prevail over the cultural aspects of preservation. “To get the World Heritage status is important,” revealed Gao Zhikai, an official at the Yin ruins in Henan province. “In China, once you get the title, you get a large budget for protection”.5 With the estimated growth of tourism this annual income will most likely double by 2020. Gradual transition of heritage into the domain of the market economy lead to the fact that economic benefit has inevitably become a central motivation for preservation of cultural monuments: as a result, preservation today can be compared to an industry. This tendency raises the question of the initial goals of World Heritage Convention, such as “ ... provides that it will maintain, increase, and diffuse knowledge, by assuring the conservation and protection of the world’s heritage“.6

Williamson, John, Did the Washington Consensus Fail?. Speech at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, Washington, 6.11.2002. Williamson, John, A Short History of the Washington Consensus. Conference “From the Washington Consensus towards a new Global Gov ernance Barcelona: 24–25.09.2004. 3 It can be calculated as 420 mln international visitors * 140 euro (daily tourist expenses) = 58,1 bln euro. Even we will add local tourism: 200 mln local tourists * 30 euro (daily tourist expenses) = 6 bln euro. In total it will be 64 bln euros. 4 Tourism 2020 Vision Study, UNWTO, 2002. 5 China spends billions on restoration as it touts for tourists. The Telegraph, 29 Jan 2011. 6 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO: Paris, 1972. 1 2

WW II

Kennicott, Philip National Trust’s chief retiring, Washington Post, 4 November, 2009

NT for Historic Preservation USA Annual Report . 2009

UNESCO Statistic, 2010

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-trust/w-thecharity/w-thecharity_our-past/w-history_trust-timeline.htm

0 ,26 mln 0,26

200 mln

World heritage ge Trust 1972

National Trust Timeline (1895-2007)

UWTO Statistic, 2009

Financial & oil crisis 1971-1979 Unesco World d heritage convention 1972

Williamson, John «Review of Globalisation and its discontents» conference by Peterson Institute for International Economic, 1989

1970

1945

Juxtaposition of economic & heritage periods

Post WW II economic boom 1945-1970

300 mln

29 mln $

335

500 mln 2,19 2 ,19 mln

Washington consensus 1979-2008 1

690

700 7 00 mln

2008

275 mln $ 2 National Trust N of America o ttotal assets

911 9 N Number of World Heritage W properties p

3,5 mln3 3 N Number of N National Trust o of UK m members

880 mln 8 Number of N international in tourist to

Dow Jones index

Current economic crisis

free ticket max

min

€

Visitors Amazon J-Store International books Mentioned

Distance to airport km

Visitors National

Distance to McD km

Admission fee euro

World Heritage Site Name

quantity of criterias

states

date of inscription

World Heritage Sites parametre Direct Flights from 10 most tourist active countries > 8 direct flights from countries till the site

> 5 mln visitors

> 1000 books

> 10000 articles

<4 km

7 000 000

433

2866

CAN,CHN, US, JPN, GER, UK

4 429 272

2456

44615

0,5

RUS,CAN,FR,NL,IT,UK,US,C HN, JPN,GER

3 200 000

408

891

376

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Australia

Sydney Opera House

2007

Austria

Historic Centre of Vienna

2001

France

Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay

1979

France

Chartres Cathedral

1979

free

1 500 000

2867

0,5

114

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

France

Palace and Park of Versailles

1979

€ 33

2 800 000

561

24194

0,7

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

France

Palace and Park of Fontainebleau

1981

€ 11

3 000 000

127

5956

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

France

Pont du Gard (Roman Aqueduct)

1985

€ 12

1 100 000

202

1472

4,8

130

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

France

Paris, Banks of the Seine

1991

€ 35

10 000 000

14628

359413

0,4

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

France

The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes

2000

€ 10

800 000

211

2353

200

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Germany

Cologne Cathedral

1996

free

9 000 000

3808

0,1

16,3

RUS, FR,UK,NL, GER, IT

Greece

Acropolis, Athens

1987

€ 12

1 355 720

206

6437

0,7

RUS, CAN, US, CHN, GER, IT, FR, UK, NL

Italy

Historic Centre of Florence

1982

€ 50

3 150 000

2832

51748

0,9

RUS, FR, US, UK,NL,GER, IT

Italy

Venice and its Lagoon

1987

€ 33

2745

35267

1,1

RUS, FR, US, UK,NL,GER, IT

€

2 091 596

5 455 718

Italy

Early Christian Monuments of Ravenna

1996

€

820 000

247

5600

GER, FR, IT, UK

Italy

City of Verona

2000

€

min 1 million

340

8958

0,1

GRE, FR, IT, GB, RUS, NL

Holy See

Historic Centre of Rome, the Properties of the Holy See

1980

€ 25

10 000 000

5600

109 533

0,8

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Holy See

Vatican City

1984

€ 15

4 200 000

160

17 569

0,8

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Japan

Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities)

1994

€ 10

1313

24160

117

FR, CHN, IT, US, NL, GER, JPN

Japan

Itsukushima Shinto shrine

1996

€

CHN, JPN

Peru

Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu

1983

€ 44

Spain

Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzn, Granada

1984

€ 11

Spain

Works of Antoni Gaudi

1984

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites

1986

Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church

Cambodia

1 000 000 2 600 000

135

232

660

2 900 000

222

2128

€ 11

min 2 000 000

€ 10

1 100 000

1987

€ 10

1 394 427

Angkor

1992

€ 14

400 000

Egypt

Memphis and its Necropolis the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur

1979

€ 48

India

Taj Mahal

1983

Indonesia

Borobudur Temple Compounds

1991

Iraq

Samarra Archaeological City

2007

600 000

800 000

5,1

200

140

RUS, UK, GER, NL, IT, FR

348

1,5

RUS,NL, FR, IT, UK, US, GER, CAN

227

2031

116

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK, NL, JPN, GER, IT

9380

0,7

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

2 100 000

352

232

CHN

400 000

4 600 000

282

2575

3,2

RUS, GER, FR, IT, UK, CHN, US

€ 10

1 200 000

141

843

2,6

218

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

€ 14

2 468 864

111 136

263

540

CHN, JPN, NL, GER

886

100

NL, FR, IT, UK, US, GER,CHN, RUS, CAN

Jordan

Petra

1985

€ 39

320 000

1 280 000

139

2187

128

214

Morocco

Medina of Marrakesh

1985

€

200 000

900 000

793

2,7

FR,IT,UK,GER,NL

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

China

The Great Wall

1987

€

16 000 000

8 200 000

519

37293

China

Imperial Palaces of the Ming and Qing Dynasties in Beijing and Shenyang

1987

€

5 200 000

1 800 000

132

7736

2,6

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

China

Temple of Heaven: an Imperial Sacrificial Altar in Beijing

1998

€

around 12 000 000

6223

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Iran

Meidan Emam, Esfahan

1979

no visitors statistic

450

JPN, CHN, GER, IT, NL, UK, RUS, FR

Mexico

Pre-Hispanic City of Chichen-Itza

1988

165

1640

155

US, IT

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Russia

Kremlin and Red Square, Moscow

1990

free 5€ 12 €

1 200 000

1 400 000

1 00 673

5699

0,3

World Heritage statistic

State filters

World Heritage replicas and copies (buildings and theme park copies)

GDP: Employment: Occupation GPD per Tourism Total AG/IND/SE capita Total Contribution RV Contribution (Tourism)

most copied sites

Tourism depended

Tentative list

>20

Theme Park Shenzhen (CHN), Huaxi Village (CHN), Minimundus (AUS), Minisiam (TH), Aiins world(KR)

$41 300

4/21/75

13,0%

16,2%

Aiins world (KR), Minimundus (AUS)

$40 300

5/27/67

11,8%

12,7%

$33 100

4/24/72

9.1%

10,2%

Window of the world (CHN), Minisiam(TH)

$35 900

2/30/68

4,6%

4,9%

Nashville, Tennessee (US), Walhalla temple(GER), Scottish Acropolis(UK), Window of the world(CHN), Minimundus (AUS), Tobu world square (JPN), Minisiam(TH), Aiins world (KR).

$30 200

12/22/65

15.8%

8,0%

$30 700

4/32/65

8.6%

3,7%

no data

$34 200

4/26/70

6.8%

7,1%

$9 200

1/24/76

10,4%

8,8%

$29 500

4/24/72

14.4%

12,7%

$35 100

1/18/80

6.9%

7,6%

Window of the world (CHN), Tobu world square (JPN), Minisiam (TH), Aiins world (KR)

$9 800

18/13/68

19,7%

17,1%

Falconcity of Wonders (OAE), Window of the world (CHN), Las Vegas (US), Tobu world square (JPN) Aiins world (KR)

$6 200

32/17/51

15,8%

13.9%

$3 400

52/14/34

4,5%

7,5%

Window of the world (CHN), Minimundus (AUS)

$4 300

39/13/49

9,1%

8,1%

Samarra Mosque (Islamic Civilization Park)

$3 600

22/19/60

no data

Aiins world (KR), minimundus (AUS)

$5 300

3/20/78

20.3%

18.1%

Walt Disney World’s Epcot (US)

$4 900

45/20/35

19,5%

17,3%

$7 400

38/28/34

8,60%

8,20%

Islamic Civilization Park, Tobu world square, Aiins world korea

$11 200

25/31/45

6.2%

5,60%

Minimundus (AUS), La Isla Dorado, Quintana Roo, MX, Window to the world (CHN), Aiins world (KR)

$13 800

14/23/63

13,00%

14.8%

Window of the world CHN, Wow Kremlin Palace Hotel TR, Tobu world square (JPN), Minisiam TH, Aiins world KR

$15 900

10/32/58

5,5%

5,90%

Window of the World (CHN) Aiins world (KR) Window of the World (CHN) Tobu world square (JPN), Aiins world (KR), Los Angeles Theater (USA) Fontainebleau Hotel, Foshan (CHN), TIENS Palace (CHN), Beijing Laffitte Hotel (CHN), Aiins world (KR) Window of the World (CHN) Las Vegas(US), San Francisco City Hall (US) Eifel towers: Tokyo Tower (JPN), Window of the World (CHN), Mini Paris Tianducheng (CHN), New South China Mall Dongguan (CHN), Miinimundus (AUS), Walt Disney World’s Epcot (US), Fayetteville (US), Bloemfontein (ZA), Da Lat (VN), Parizh(RUS), Slobozia (ROM), Falconcity of Wonders Dubai (OAE),Dubai Global village(OAE), Genting Highlands (MY), Minisiam (MY), Filiatra (GR), Aktau (KZ), Tobu world square (JPN), , Ains World (KR). Tobu world square (JPN) , Aiins world(KR)

Window of the world ( Piazza della Signoria ) Venetian Macao(CHN), New South China Dongguan (CHN), Window of the world (CHN)Daniels & Fisher Tower (US), Walt Disney World’s Epcot (US), Venetian hotel (US), St Mark's Campanile (US), Falconcity of Wonders (OAE), Genting Highlands (MY),Tobu world square (JPN), Power house Taplin Gorge Dam (US) St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church Wilmington, Delaware (US) Caesars Palace Las Vegas(US), minimundus(AUS), New South China Mall Dongguan (CHN), Tobu world square (JPN), Lote world korea (KR), Minisiam (TH), Aiins world (KR) Walt Disney World’s Epcot(US), Tobu world square (JPN), Metropolitan Cathedral Brasilia (Pieta), Minimundus (AUS) Byodo-in Temple, O'ahu, Hawaii (US) Walt Disney World’s Epcot (US), Tobu world square (JPN), Window of the World (CHN) Aiins world (KR) Islamic Civilization Park (MY), Tobu world square (JPN), Window of the world (CHN) Tobu world square (JPN) Window of the world(CHN), Aiins world (KR) Minimundus (AUS) Stonehenge Kerville (US), Maryhill Stonehenge Washington (US), Foamhenge, Virginia (US), Stonehenge Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), Window of the World (CHN), Aiins world (KR) Tobu world square (JPN), Window of the world (KR), Aiins world (KR).

Minmundus (AUS), Falconcity of Wonders(OAE), Dhaka (BD), Window of the world (CHN), Tripoli Shrine Temple (USA),Trump Taj Mahal (USA), Islamic Civilization Park(MY), Tobu world square (JPN), Ains World (KR) Johor(MY)

Falconcity of Wonders OAE, Minimundus AUS, Cebu Taoist Temple PH, Huaxi Village CHN, Tobu world square JPN, Aiins world KR Aiins world (KR), Forbidden Gardens Texas (US) Bryant University Rhode Island (US) Walt Disney World’s Epcot US, Tobu world square (JPN), Minisiam (TH) Toronto (CAN)

> strelka denis leontiev World Heritage as economic value 2011

Institutions Today World Heritage is the main concern of national governments, non-governmental national and global trusts and of course UNESCO World Heritage Center. The convention was adopted at UNESCO General Conference during its 17th session in Paris on 16 November 1972. Although its international nature of the convention indicates that the nation State itself remains primarily responsible for the preservation of the World heritage property. “Each State Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State.” UNESCO World Heritage Convention To fund its efforts the Convention decided to found the World Heritage Fund (WHF). The Fund is financed by State parties and voluntary contributions. Each state pays into the Fund maximum 1 % of total of its annual contributions to UNESCO.1 In 2010 the annual budget of the World Heritage Fund was about 7 $ million.2 A comparison of the annual income of WHF with other mayor organizations in the field of preservation shows a huge gap between their financial possibilities. (fig. 1) This financial gap is the result of strategic choice made by UNESCO in 1972. Six months before adoption of the Convention, the United States proposed to organize an alternative World Heritage Trust. The concept was presented at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm in June 1972. The proposal for preservation of unique natural and cultural sites was widely supported by countries. For the first time the idea of the World Heritage Trust was announced on the White House conference in 1965. Later it was used by the American President Nixon in his speech to Congress in February 1971. “It would be fitting by 1972 for the nations of the world to agree to the principle that there are certain areas of such unique worldwide value that they should be treated as part of the heritage of all mankind and accorded special recognition as a part of a World Heritage Trust.” Richard Nixon3 From the beginning UNESCO authorities were skeptical to this proposal: “I did not pay much attention to the proposal itself because of the word “Trust” not translatable in French, conveying to me a sort of private philanthropic foundation & not at all an intergovernmental mechanism based on an international conventions” Michel Batisse Director of Natural Resources Research Division UNESCO4 The concept of the Trust approved at the Stockholm conference now questioned the possibility of initiation of UNESCO World Heritage Convention. However, René Maheu, UNESCO General Director, insisted that the UNESCO proposal had to be chosen and realized.5

World Wild Life fund 489 mln euro

National Trust UK 440 mln euro

National Trust USA 40 mln euro

UNESCO WHF 7 mln euro

Figure 1 World preservation organizations annual revenue (Source: Annual reports 2009) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO: Paris, 1972. Article 16. World Heritage – Challenges for the Millenium. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2007. p.22. 3 Train, Russel. Polution, Politics, & Pandas. Enviromental memoir. Washington: Shearwater, 2003. p. 142. 4 Abdulqawi, Yusuf. Standard-setting in UNESCO. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007 p.269 note 9. 5 Burek, Cynthia, Prosser, Colin. The History of Geoconservation. Bodmin: MPG, 2008 p.280. 1 2

The Trust ideologist was the American nature preservationist Russel E. Train. He was the chairman of Council on Environmental Quality and the adviser of the American President Richard Nixon on environmental issues. Russel E. Train believed that such a global organization should be realized as a non-governmental organization based within the context of United Nations, but outside the context of UNESCO. “From the beginning, I have seen the purpose of the World Heritage as being something more than simply helping to assure protection and quality management for unique natural and cultural sites around the world –as critically important as that goal is. Above and beyond that goal, I see the programme as an opportunity to convey the idea of a common heritage among nations and peoples everywhere! I see it as a compelling idea that can help unite people rather than divide them. I see it as an idea that can help build a sense of community among people throughout the world. I see it as an idea whose time has truly come.” Russel E. Train1 However, the concept of a non-governmental global preservation organization didn’t disappear. Russell E. Train was involved in initiation and development of most financially successful global preservation fund – the World Wild Life Fund (WWF). Today the WWF has the budget 70 times bigger than UNESCO World Fund and 5 mln global members.This gives us an idea of how the World Heritage Trust could have looked like today. The long-established heritage organizations, like National Trust UK and the USA, realized the monetization of built heritage on the national level. Today trusts are very wealthy and highly influential non-governmental organizations. The National Trust UK is the largest non-governmental heritage organization in the world. From the end of the 19th century, when it was founded, the Trust progressed through three main development stages: 1.Establishment of organization aims; 2.Acquisition of main heritage assets in the first part of 20th century; 3.Monetization of heritage assets in the second part of 20th century; ‘With 630,000 acres, most of them in rural areas, it’s the second largest landowner in the country.” 2 These heritage assets as well as 60 million annual visitors and 3,6 million members generate income of 440 mln euro (2009) per year.3 In the end of the 19th century Robert Hunter, one of the Trust founders, formulated the social aim of the organization as: “The central idea is that of a Land Company, formed not for the promotion of thrift or the spread of political principles, and not primarily for profit, but with a view to the protection of the public interest in open spaces in the country.”4 In comparison, in 21 century The National Trust’s policy on heritage acquisition states: “The property should be, and should be expected to remain, financially self-supporting.”5 Returning back to the UNESCO World Heritage Center (WHC) I can say that the progress of non-governmental organizations like The National Trust of the UK and US, WWF or Global Heritage Fund (GHF) allow them to advise UNESCO on the new strategy. “The biggest problem is UNESCO’s failure to tap philanthropists and corporations. If you’re Coca-Cola, you don’t want to sink money into the UNESCO bureaucracy” Jeff Morgan. Executive Director, GHF Fund6 In 70’s UNESCO developed a strategy which did not imply the monetization of the world heritage. But current UNESCO initiatives give us understanding of the direction in which UNESCO will develop further: “Therefore the main possibility for providing support and increasing the system’s capacity to assist sites lies in the growth of other public and private contributions, and in the development of new forms of fund-raising and financing. Examples include: • involvement of the tourism industry in informing the public and in supporting, directly and indirectly, conservation activities; • increasing role of the Convention in the area of social and ethical investments of banks, insurances and corporations; • launching of public fund-raising and membership programmes; • creation of regional or national funds – such as the recently established African World Heritage Fund.” Francesco BANDARIN, Director, UNESCO World Heritage Centre7

Train, Russel. World Heritage Convention 30th Anniversary speach, Venice, Italy, 16 November 2002. Who really owns Britain?. Counrtylife magazine Online: 16 November 2010. 19 June 2011 <http://www.countrylife.co.uk/article/506200/Who-really-owns-Britain-.html 3 National Trust. 19 June 2011. <http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-trust/w-thecharity.htm 4 Hunter, Robert (sir). A suggestion for the better preservation of open spaces, a paper. Oxforf university, 1884. 5 National Trust. 19 June 2011. <http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-trust/w-thecharity/w-acquisitions.htm 6 Is Unesco damaging the world’s treasures? The Independent Online: 29 April 2009, 19 June 2011 <http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/is-unesco-damaging-the-worlds-treasures-1675637.html 7 World Heritage – Challenges for the Millenium. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2007. p.22. 1 2

Judging by recent tendency we could imagine that instead of contributions made by states, UNESCO will be financed predomenantly by private and corporate donations. If that happenes this will shape the new World Heritage List which will represent the mass market opinion on the global heritage. Accordingly, the concept of E.Train which failed to be realized in the 70’s would be realized 40 years later. This means that the World Heritage Trust of E. Train is the UNESCO World Heritage Committee closest future. Global Park The concept of “world heritage” is one of the aspects of continuing world globalization process. By the middle of the 20th century society formulates the idea that national heritage is not only the national endowment any longer - it reflects the universal values which are now common for all mankind. This idea results in adoption of UNESCO convention which legally recognizes the heritage as world heritage sites. The sites included in World Heritage List are now stated to have «outstanding universal value and meet at least one out of ten selection criteria». Outstanding universal value is gained on the basis of UNESCO authority. Once the site gets the UNESCO status it becomes famous and prestigious. By this reason tourist industry converts World Heritage site’s symbolic value into economic value. The heritage site acquires the features of global brand. Thus, the very basis which acknowledges the universal value of the site is being transformed. First its universal value is acknowledges by UNESCO symbolic value, but after monetization it reaffirms itself with the economic value. UNESCO list now has 20% of the heritage sites which universal value confirms by the market economy. This World Heritage Sites are transformed into World Heritage Hubs. World Heritage Hub (WHH) is a UNESCO World Heritage Site which has intense international tourist flow more than 1 million visitors per year and has at least one replica in the world. Contemporary media, mass tourism and infrastructure connected such heritage sites into unified global net – Global Park. Global Park is a global cumulative brand which represents World Heritage in the market economy. If most of UNESCO World Heritage list represents national cultures, the Global Park formulates new global supranational image of cultural identity and becomes a representation of ongoing globalization process. Unlike UNESCO Global Park uses market mechanisms to confirm the universal value of heritage. In order to be included into Global Park the site should comply with the transformed UNESCO criteria. The criteria key words as Significant, Outstanding and Exceptional are replaced with Attractive, Spectacular and Extraordinary. Universal value of the World Heritage Site is put in doubt by market economy if site does not correspond with the Global Park criteria. «Most of the cultural and natural heritage sites on the list are nowhere as famous or impressive as the Taj, Great Wall or Petra in Jordan; in fact, many are little-known sites. If they can be on the list, surely Singapore has a shot».1 Continuing competition between scientific and market approaches for the right to approve the universal value of heritage sites is the key facrctor for the directions of development of heritage institutions. According to UMWTO prognosis by the year of 2020 there will be a double growth of international tourists – up to 1,5 billion people. Most of tourism growth will concentrate on World Heritage Hubs as well as the sites which are to be included into the Global Park, like Mount Fuji which is still in the UNESCO Tentative list. Continuation of tendency for the growth of tourist flows will lead to the fact that the right to approve the universal value of heritage sites will remain on the site of the market economy. In this perspective the new UNESCO regulations which control the amount of new inscriptions to World Heritage list up to 45 sites per year will be understood as tool to regulate the access to the Global Park.

Special thanx to: Sergey Sitar, Alexey Novikov, Stephan Peterman, Janna Bystrykh, Maria Kolmakova

Bibliography Ruskin, John. A Joy Forever” and Its Price in the Market, or The Political Economy of Art. London: Ballantyne, 1904. Peacock, Alan and Rizzo, Ilde. The Heritage Game Economics, Policy, and Practice. New York: Oxford, 2008. Groys, Boris. The Total Art of Stalinism. Princeton Univ. Press 1992. Timothy, Dallen and Nyaupane, Gyan. Cultural Heritage and Tourism in the Developing World. New York: Routledge, 2009 Mason, Randall. The Once and Future New York. Historic Preservation and the Modern City. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2009. Train, Russel. Polution, Politics, & Pandas. Enviromental memoir. Washington: Shearwater, 2003. Burek, Cynthia, Prosser, Colin The History of Geoconservation. Bodmin: MPG, 2008. Abdulqawi, Yusuf. Standard-setting in UNESCO. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007. 1

Dawn Wei, Tan. World Heritage site in S’pore?, The Straits Times. Feb 20, 2009

19 June 2011. < http://www.asiaone.com/Travel/News/Story/A1Story20090220-123355.html

Data used in the poster was taken from: World Heritage Convention site Lonely planet guides Unesco statisctic on World Heritage Properties National statisctic on World Heritage Properties

Web resources:

World Heritage Hub

Pre-Hispanic City of Chichen-Itza Entrance fee: 44 € Annual tourists ȍow: 1,4 mln

Pre-Hispanic City of Chichen-Itza Entrance fee: 5 € Annual tourists ȍow: 2,6 mln

Grand Canyon National Park Entrance fee: 17,5 € Annual tourists ȍow: 4,4 mln

Brasilia

Nubian Monuments from Abu Simbel to Philae Entrance fee: 34 € Annual tourists ȍow: 2 mln

Borobudur Temple Compounds Entrance fee: 14 € Annual tourists ȍow: 2,5 mln

Angkor Entrance fee: 14 € Annual tourists ȍow: 2,5 mln

Taj Mahal Entrance fee: 10 € Annual tourists ȍow: 2,4 mln

Saint Petersburg Entrance fee: 41 € Annual tourists ȍow: 2,5 mln Kremlin Entrance fee: 12 € Annual tourists ȍow: 2 mln

Memphis and its Necropolis the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur Entrance fee: 8 € (ferry) Annual tourists ȍow: 5 mln

Statue of Liberty Entrance fee: 12 € (ferry) Annual tourists ȍow: 3,8 mln

Global Park formulates new global supernational image of cultural identity and becomes a global cumulative brand which represents World Heritage in the market economy. Global park uses market mechanisms to conȌrm the universal value of heritage.

Contemporary media, mass tourism and infrastructure connected such heritage sites into uniȌed global net Global Park.

Heritage Hub is a UNESCO World Heritage Site which is monetized by mass culture, has intense tourist ȍow not less than 1 million visitors per year and has at least one replica in the world.

Cologne Cathedral Paris, Banks of the Seine Palace and Park of Versailles Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay Pont du Gard Historic Centre of Prague Acropolis, Athens Historic Areas of Istanbul Historic Centre of Vienna Historic Centre of Rome Venice and its Lagoon Vatican City Historic Centre of Florence Piazza del Duomo, Pisa Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzn, Granada Works of Antoni Gaudi Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites Tower of London Total entrance fee: 312,2 € Annual tourists ȍow: 65 mln

http://www.asiaone.com/ Travel/News/Story/A1Story20090220-123355.html > strelka

denis leontiev World Heritage as economic value 2011

Sydney Opera House Entrance fee: 7€ Annual tourists ȍow: 7 mln.

Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range Historic Monuments of Ancient Nara Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities) Itsukushima Shinto shrine Total entrance fee: 24,7€ Annual tourists ȍow: 9 mln.

The Great Wall Imperial Palaces of the Ming and Qing Dynasties Mount Huangshan Temple of Heaven: an Imperial SacriȌcial Altar in Beijing Longmen Grottoes Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties Total entrance fee: 65€ Annual tourists ȍow: 37 mln

World Heritage Hub distribution

Global Park

Brasilia Chichen-Itza Machu Pichu

Notice

The regions presented here are defined by UNESCO for its activities, and do not necessarily reflect the actual geographical location of countries.

Paris, Banks of the Seine

Palace and Park of Versailles

Asia and PaciȌc

Tobu World Square (JP)

Aiins World (KR)

5 5

> strelka

denis leontiev World Heritage as economic value 2011

Memphis and its Necropolis the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur

Nubian Monuments from Abu Simbel to Philae

Arab states

Petra

Angkor 4 Sydney Opera House 6 Meidan Emam, Esfahan TajImperial Palaces of the Ming and Borobudur Temple Compounds 25 Mahal Qing Dynasties in Beijing 11 Palace and Park of Fontainebleau Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto The Great Wall 6 Himeji-jo 4 Historic Centre of Vienna Itsukushima shrine Kremlin and Red Square, Moscow Temple of Heaven: an Imperial SacriȌcial Altar in Beijing Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg

Europe and Nort America

>50 copies

Islamic Civilization Park (MY) Tropical Village (MY)

Falconcity of Wonders (OAE) Dhaka (BGD)

Window of the World (CHN)

Minmundus (AU)

World Heritage copies global distribution

Tower of London Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites Westminster Palace Cologne Cathedral Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzn Works of Antoni Gaudi The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes

Tripoli Shrine Temple (US)

Statue of Liberty

Data used in the poster was taken from: heritage Theme park sites Wikipedia flickr photobank

Acropolis, Athens

Web resources

Latin America

Piazza del Duomo, Pisa

Historic Centre of Rome

Venice and its Lagoon

Number of World Heritage copies

5 3 2

13 11 9

Trump Taj Mahal (US)

India Angry over fake Taj Mahal A spokesman at the Indian High Commission in Dhaka fumed: "You can't just go and copy historical monuments.” Sky News 12:49 pm UK, Friday December 12, 2008

“Copy-Paste” heritage

China

Data used in the poster was taken from: World Heritage Convention site World travel and tourism council CIA factbook Wikipedia

Web resources

India

38 mln 65 mln

153 million jobs total contribution* of tourism to employment in (agri)cultural countries

Cape Verde 39,5% 1 5T

Morocco 17,3% 8 11 T 45%

Indonesia

Combodia 17,1% 2 9 T 57 % Vanuatu 37,7% 1 5 T 65%

% of population occupied in agriculture

Number of Sites on the UNESCO Tentative list

Number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in (agri)cultural country

% of total contribution of Travel & Tourism to employment, including jobs indirectly supported by the industry

> strelka

Unesco Tentative List 1524 sites total

940 sites

denis leontiev World Heritage as economic value 2011

Unesco World Heritage List 911 sites total

258 sites

This explains why today more then 60 % of Heritage Sites in the Tentative list belong to (agri)cultural world.

World Heritage becomes a tool to replace the agricultural economy with the service economy.

Tourism is the reason for such countries to apply to UNESCO Tentative list with new sites.

In agricultural countries like Cambodia more than 15% of population has jobs related to tourism.

Global Heritage in developing countries with 30% of population occupied in agriculture

World of (agri)culture

Burkina Faso Cameroon Central African Rep. Solomon Islands Papua New Guinea Mozambique Ghana Pakistan Romania Haiti Sri Lanka Turkey Botswana Haiti Laos Madagaskar Senegal Tazania Egypt Philipines Thailand South Africa Honduras Cambodia Morocco Dominican Rep. Congo Gabon Niger Nigeria Sudan Togo Bolivia Bangladesh Ethiopia Kenya Malawi Mali Nepal Uganda Yemen Zimbabwe Armenia Azerbajan Guatemala Kyrgistan Mongolia Viet Nam Cape Verde Vanuatu Morocco Albania

LUZHKOV ERA A G I N G O F C O N T E M P O R A RY A R C H I T E C T U R E â&#x20AC;&#x201C; P R E S E RVAT I O N A S D E S I G N Daria Paramonova

Studio Preservation Next Director: Rem Koolhaas Supervisers: Anastasia Smirnova, Nikita Tokarev

Special Thanks to my experts: Grigory Revzin, Natalia Dushkina, Kiril Asse, Sergey Sitar, Elena Gonsales

Strelka institute for Media, Architecture and Design, 2011

Introduction My 90-s It seems the 90-s are in fashion now. It’s nice, though in fact my attitude to the last decades is dual. From one side, I look at this time as a professional, practicing architect; from the other, I am screening it through the prism of the personal experience of the Þrst-hand participant of this epoch: I am thirty Ð ÒweÕve grown up togetherÓ. Everything happened in the country directly touched me and my family and friends, what happened to Moscow, say, happened to my house, my district Ð hereof IÕve got this affection. After all, the professional architect’s attitude is the acquired knowledge sup-

ported by the society’s judgment, and, of course, my own intuition. Exactly here the problems started, more precisely the alternating personality. The emotional affection to the 90-s, as a part of my past, differs from the opinion of my educated and sophisticated colleagues about the architecture of Moscow of that period. More often it is openly abused, particularly after the former Mayor ÒretirementÓ.

My family, 1995

During the Mayor Luzhkov governing the criticism mainly came from the scanty intellectual elite, but after a number of publications and TV programs a considerable part of population joined them. The post-Soviet architecture was considered to be a compromise; most probably it is the result of complicated socio-political and economic conditions, than an artistic phenomenon. ! Liquid Russia 1 After the USSR breakdown the ideological emptiness appeared and instead of the disappeared socialist values Ð Òlabor, justice, equalityÓ Ðrapidly appeared new

ones Ð ÒproÞt, property, democracy”. At the same time the necessity appears to build the material world, so despised in the Soviet years, nearly from scratch. The community rushed to praise the comfortable capitalist world. “I conceive that the most important achievement of the last 20 years was the historically unprecedented leap from the economics of deÞcit to the consumer society.Ó2

From the economy of deÞcit...

To my opinion, the last 20 years clearly broke into two phases. The post-Soviet Russia is rapidly changing exactly till the Þnancial crisis of 1998.

In the Þrst decade the Western model of development has been used, including democracy, free market, private property, personality priority, but the dreams of happy capitalist future have been replaced by the capitalist present. There always have been the doubts that we were going the wrong way Ð not our own! Ð but nowadays it is proved by the crisis, and we have to Òrestructure” again. Despite the radical nature of changes in the society, the Moscow appearance is changing insigniÞcantly, and new construction is being perceived enthusiastically as a longawaited renewal after the time of a damp.

...to a society of consumption

The crisis becomes a turning point, and the revolutionary strategy of the Þrst decade is being replaced by the strategy for stability: the exposure of the corruption 1

The title of the chapter is inspired with the book “Liquid Modernity” by Zigmunt Bauman

Auzan Alexander. Institutional economics for dummies.// Esquire, May 2011.

S t r e l k a I n s t i t u t e f o r M e d i a , A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d D e s i g n!

Luzhkov Era 6

schemes, the social policy, and the development of the future growth strategy. The visibility of civilized development is being created. The selective re-habilitation of the Soviet past took place and the admission of a number of its “objective” advantages, including the high level of science and military complex development. There is an opinion that “not always adequate” (especially in the last years of the Presidency) president Yeltsin and the persons manipulating him under the code name “The family” are responsible for the hard economic consequences of the Þrst decade. If the Þrst period built the future, denying the Soviet state past, the second goes ahead turning back. The wild capitalism and the conditional democracy exist in a strange way with the ghosts of the past in the hierarchic system of

the governance. A combination of the enforcing chain of command and selective re-habilitation of the past makes an interesting impact on the Moscow architectural heritage. Under the lee of the idea of saving the historical environment the city is rapidly destroyed due to new massive construction of the so called “contextual buildings”. Many historical buildings are being demolished by the will of the

city Mayor to be revived as “nearly identical.Ó ItÕs appropriate to recollect here the phenomenon of the cycle of change of the cultural paradigms in Russia, described in Vladimir Paperny thesis (ÒCulture 2Ó publication). If one can look through this prism, the uniqueness of the 1990-2010 period is that two cultures – vertical and horizontal replace each other within a short period of 20 years. The time is shrink-

Liquid Russia. Mix of two cultures

ing, the events are being compressed.

The Capital and the Mayor Moscow became a kind of a model of all – and for all! – country. The city appeared to be inseparably tied with the name of Yury Michailovich Luzhkov, who

has occupied the Mayor position since 1992 up to 2010. The fact that after 20 year of his ruling he was removed from the position Ð retired, ofÞcially closes the entire epoch of the Capital city history, but bears the symbolic meaning as well. The Mayor Þring proves the fact that his time has passed and the rigid vertical chain of command shows a strong dislike for such persons. Yury Luzhkov was assigned to his position in 1992 instead of Mayor Gavriil Popov. As it was said, the “manager” replaced the “Politician” - it was necessary to introduce a proper order and to build a new life after the “interlunation”. His image changed during the entire governing period, as the state changed and Moscow itself. The Chairman of Mosgorispolkom (the Moscow city government)

Mayor Gavriil Popov with president Boris Yeltsin

in the Soviet times, a member of CPSU till its last day, Moscow deputy Mayor, economic executive Mayor, - politician, - businessman, - exile.3

Starting with the city clean-up he switched to the large-scaled projects of the revival of the “Moscow of bygone days”, the way he saw and understood it, and then he made a bold push for Russia, but was defeated in big politics and remains within the borders of his town, where ruled like an actual owner. The corruption level has grown immensely during his times: it was the system made of labyrinths of interconnections and private interests, the Þght against from outside was useless. At the same time, the schematically primitive social policy, performed by Luzhkov, brought to him popularity among pensioners and low-income population group as a part of budget funds was really distributed for the additions to pensions, beneÞts and bonuses.

New mayor Yury Luzhkov...

The ofÞcial biography of Y.Luzhkov, http://www.bfs.ru/libs/lid_683.html

S t r e l k a I n s t i t u t e f o r M e d i a , A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d D e s i g n!

Luzhkov Era 7

Luzhkov was the ambiguous but undoubtedly bright personality. He is a representative of the Þrst generation of the media politician, celebrity politician, businessman politician, populist politician. His image was created on simple, peopletransparent patterns: peaked cap, honey, broom. His income, his private life are discussed in the press and community even after his resignation. His personal activities have changed the Moscow panorama in such a way, that more than one generation of historians will examine what had happened.

Luzhkov, I might say, loved culture, particularly the theatre, music and sculpture. But namely, the architecture became his passion with the lapse of time. The Mayor resolutely changed the city space, guided by his personal taste. The mix-

ture of democracy with the ÒownerÓ ideology which came from the past epoch enabled him to modify Moscow so radically by the will of one man, one personality. ItÕs worth noting that the MayorÕs private taste matched the taste of the population sweepingly coped the joy of the new material values. Love to the renewed, understandable, positive and ÒantiqueÓ Ð the authorities and population of Mos-

...as a worker...

cow are united here. His statements about the advantages of the replica before the original made him a reputation of a boor4, and a number of the alien projects in the historical environment Ð a reputation of the enemy of Moscow heritage admirers. The LuzhkovÕs personal participation in projectsÕ decisions practically made him a founder of a new stylistic trend in architecture. ÒThe Luzhkov styleÓ, as critics called it, is the synonym of the kitsch, tastelessness, bluntly commercial architecture which reminds the stylized decoration. Does such architecture have a chance?

Why How could we treat the Òarchitectural consequencesÓ of the 90-s? What will happen in 30-40 years, when many buildings, built in the 90-s will physically break

down? What of the currently erected will be perceived as a valued historical heritage in the future? Many contemporaries, and in the Þrst turn, professionals think that the architecture of these years is simply disreputable to exist further. During the project preparation IÕve talked to two experts in contemporary architecture and preserva-

...as a dancer...

tion of historical sites, Grigory Revzin and Natalia Dushkina, and they have the same opinion: Òthe absence of the subjects of preservation”, “physical frame is unable to exist over 50 years”, “juvenal culture extruding the old objects” - the ÒheritageÓ of this time is doomed to disappear. More over, by the opinion of N. Dushkova, Òthe demonstrative demolitionsÓ of LuzhkovÕs era heritage could serve as a good warning for architects. Such a thing should never occur again.

To prove that architecture of those times has no value is rather simple. It is really not novel, socially insignificant and made of casual materials of low quality as a rule. But there is the esthetically valuable architecture and there is another. It is architecture which is linked with the events. In the world history there are extraordinary moments, and the USSR collapse is one of them. In my project I'd try to prove that the architecture of the last 20 years is extremely important as a witness of Moscow modern history. The disappearance of such heritage is the disappearance of recollections.

...as a wizard! 4

Maslov M., Ivanov V. What is may be more precious to the Muscovite - phantom or copy?// http://old.sob.ru/issue3044.html

S t r e l k a I n s t i t u t e f o r M e d i a , A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d D e s i g n!

Luzhkov Era 8

Prehistory It seems to be, that all it happened not long ago, but much of it has already been forgotten. Numerous events of the Þrst years of Perestroyka invoked the irreversible process of the country transformation. The TV-bridge in 1982 was Þrst attempt to enter into dialogue with the West, permission for the self-employment

and publicity in 1987, the Þrst party elections in 1989, the Þght to abolish the 6 Article of the USSR Constitution on the CPSU ruling role, the law on the freedom of confessions in 1990, all this “acupuncturally” changes the society structure. The complicated mutation of the socialist society reßects the city and architectural mutations like in the looking-glass. To me, the transformation of the building complex at Turgenevskaya square seems to be the convincing example of such mutation. The construction of the Soviet modernism epoch (F.Novikov, 1967-1993) accumulates the stylistic elements of the entirely different architecture (D. Solopov, 1993-1998). The new author adds the geometric volumes with the “actual” elements and changes the complex’s facades in order to visually and functionally adapt the building to the new times requirements: non-functional, but aesthetically vital space of the empty niches are built on for the purpose of the leaving area extension, the solid insulated glazing units with the plate glasses, sculpture elements appear to “modernize” the façade. Generally, the space-ideological structure has been saved; the new epoch

Mutation of the socialist society - new features from another world

elements simply overlap the Soviet past.

In these years there has been made a number of decisions abolishing the previous Soviet decrees, in particular, the rehabilitation of the political repression victims and return of Academician Sakharov from his exile. The correction of the ideological mistakes of the past years inspires the criticism against the Soviet regime and appeal to the “pre-Soviet” historical epochs.

The Þrst ideas of the historical architectural environment revival appeared in MAI ( Moscow Architectural Institute) with Professor Boris Eremin. Some diplomas with the representative titles ÒRetro-developmentÓ (1985-1986), ÒThe revived

MoscowÓ (1989-1990) propagate the ideas of recreation and reconstruction. The main slogan of the EreminÕs concept is Òto develop by reviving, to revive by developing!Ó Eremin himself deÞnes the Òretro-developmentÓ term as a Òcommitted revival of the lost historical architectural values of the city which enables to reconsider and adjust the value system, established in the public conscience due to

The mix of two epochs. Transformation of the building at Turgenevskaya square. F.Novikov, 1967-1993, D. Solopov, 19931998

the prolong neglect of the heritage.” 5 The expressive graphics, courageous ideas and the impressive scope made these projects famous in the professional circles. The cultural losses caused by the Soviet modernism must be compensated – this opinion is shared by almost all the cultural community of the Þrst decade of the post-Soviet period. The utopian method of the “historical justice revival” will be

applied to Moscow center. But in reality the cultural utopia will be accompanied by the commercial one. Their union further will lead to the appearance of such mutant objects as Cathedral of the Redeemer, the cathedral with the underground parking and car-wash in the stylobate part.

“The revived Moscow” – resurrection of selected heritage for creation of new compositions. Diploma project led by Boris Eremin

5 Gandelsman B.. Great Moscow by Boris Eremin.// Arkhitektura i Stroitelstvo Moskvy, !1, 2002 S t r e l k a I n s t i t u t e f o r M e d i a , A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d D e s i g n!

Luzhkov Era 9

After the meeting of Gorbachev and ROC representatives in 1988, the church recognition and co-operation with the authorities began. The spiritual idea of the “penance” and as a result the idea of the “revival” ideologically matches the Eremin’s ideas of the revival and reconstruction. The confession is re-united with architecture; the Þrst manifestation of this is the reconstituted Church of the Kazan Holy Icon of Our Lady (1990-1993). The church was reconstructed in its original look by using the remained measures. The idea of resurrection embodied in a phenomenon, which I call Phoenix - an attempt to create new values, new history and new memories. Religious buildings, demolished in the Soviet times, were literally built up. This phenomenon

Literal resurrection of the pre-soviet history. Reconstruction of the demolished Church of the Kazan Holy Icon of Our Lady, 1991

has been changing several times during the last two decades.

The so called “environmental approach” began to play a large role in architecture; one of its founders was A.Gutnov. In practice, this approach transformed and reappeared as several stylistic directions, which I call as following: the “authentic

imitation” –the historical style which includes the main principles and original canons, the “reconsidered history” – the modern interpretation of the historical styles and the “contextual modernism” described as the modern architecture rhythmically and dimensionally inserted in the environment. As an example we could name the OfÞce center at Palashevsky lane, Balchug Hotel and McDonaldÕs

Phoenix phenomenon. The Þrst generation of the resurrected buildings is close to the original. 1990-93

ofÞce at Tverskaya Street. The Ostozhenka district reconstruction is the beginning. After the scandal related to the demolition of the historic landmark in this district and the construction of the new house for PartyÕs nomenclature at 7a, Pozharsky lane, the decision on the development strategy for the entire district territory was made. The project has been ordered by the independent art school

of SPC MAAI, and the whole district turned to be a ground for the Òenvironmental approach”. The ideological platform developed by Gutnov and his colleagues as far back as in the Soviet times, would be employed actively in the postSoviet times. As a addition to the new economic demands the ÒGolden MileÓ block appeared, the Moscow most expensive block, ghetto for the rich dwellers.

“Environmental approach” – “authentic imitationÓ. OfÞce center at Palashevsky lane, Mosproekt, Atelier !22, A.Meerson, 1989-91

“The complex build-up meant for the district only one thing – at the end of the Soviet epoch everything was ready for developers here, who could master the territory entirely, not being tied up by the limitations of the “dot” construction. The successful positioning and advertizing Þnished the deal.Ó6

In 1986 the self-employment was permitted, the Þrst co-operatives appeared. The extraordinary enterprising citizens began to make Þrst capitals. It is worth

noting that namely the future Mayor of Moscow at that time was a Chairman of the co-operatives commission, and it was him, who issued the permissions for the opening of the Þrst co-operatives in Moscow, i.e. stood at the backgrounds of society “commercialization” 7

“Environmental approach” – “reconsidered historyÓ. Balchug hotel, Mosproyekt, Atelier !19, V.Kolosnocin, 1988-91

A signiÞcant event of this period is construction of ÒAtriumÓ restaurant in 1987

(the project of A. Brodsky and I. Utkin). The futuristic projects of the Òpaper architecture” representatives already popular in the West thanks to the triumphs at the international contests, for the Þrst time gained an ofÞng to be realizes due to the 6

Abakumova Mariya. The Soviet secret of Ostozhenka

//http://www.forbes.ru/ekonomika/nedvizhimost/37907-sovetskii-sekret-ostozhenkilivepage.apple.com 7

“The law on self-employment”, USSR, 19.11.1986; “On cooperation in the USSR”, USSR, 19.05.1985

S t r e l k a I n s t i t u t e f o r M e d i a , A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d D e s i g n!

“Environmental approach” – “contextual modernismÓ. McDonalds ofÞce and restaurant, ÒArchitectural ofÞce VorontsovaÓ, 1989-93

Luzhkov Era 10

appearance of the private clients. ÒAtriumÓ is one of the Þrst examples of the interior projects in the modern sense of the term. This is the implementation of the will and the taste of a private person in the interpretation of the architect. It was also the beginning of the rush for singularity: further the interior designers would invent the Òspecial ideasÓ and Òunconventional solutionsÓ to satisfy the Client and to

shock the society. The interior identity, its material value are in opposition to the state ofÞcial ideology which still remains (equality, etc.), as well as the independent youth sub-cultures appeared in the middle of 80-s and known as Òinformals”, the new generation of architects does not serve in Mosproekt8 and is out of the system; the alternative to the state service appeared. One of the authors of catalogue on the paper architecture ÒPapierarchitektur” Professor H. Klotz describes the new interior environment as follows: ...here these tall pillars are perceived as the secret dreams realization, seemed to be impossible earlier, as the courageous protest against all that the directed towards politics and economics only sense imposes to people from outside.” 9

An “ideal world” for a private client, “Atrium“ restaurant, A.Brodsky and I.Utkin,1987

It is even not an opposition; itÕs rather the denial of reality, an attempt to build-

up an ideal world, which could not be built-up outside. That is why the interiors in post-Soviet environment acquired such important meaning: the ideal, comfortable and hermetical worlds creating the diverse reality illusion of the authorsÕ imaginations and their clientsÕ scope. One of the projects which also build up the diverse reality became the interior of Mayakovsky Museum by A.BokovÕs design (1987-

1989). In this project the words were practically visualized literally, every scroll in the space matched the Mayakovsky lines expressed in verse. The architects like the magicians try their magic powers, and the public, missing without miracles, slowly begins to be turned on.

“Hand made world” of ordinary people, Sergey Kiselev`s apartment,1988

But on the level of ordinary person the private interior of the apartments looks

quite different as yet. Due to the fact that Soviet citizens have no chance to simply buy the furniture elements or the Þnishing materials for the interior, they show the extreme quick wit. Thanks to the correspondents from European socialist block and the improvised means, the people create in their apartments with their own hands the analogs of the comfortable and original interiors. The touching self-made book-shelves, tables and even sofas disposed in the small-sized ßats, often combine the several functions: chair-chest, ßap bed, transforming into the table in the day-time, the pier with the installed sewing machine. The article about the apartments of an architect Sergey Kiselev have been published in I 5

issue of the Moscow Architecture and Construction magazine in 1988 is the pure example of such self-making Ð almost everything in the apartment was made by the hands of Sergey and his wife. The owner of the apartments discussed the interior as a self-portrait, the reßection of the identity. Namely the aspiration to the architectural identity, which was so much disapproved in the Soviet years, did not

First gated community – isolation as the exclusiveness, Park Place complex, Mosproekt, Atelier !11, J.Belopolsky, 199092

Þnd the way to escape in the panel small-sized ßats, when it broke loose it would Þll in the near future the Moscow streets with the buildings, shouting about their identity. At the same time, the ideal hermetic worlds are swelling, reaching the serious

size. The Park Place housing complex (1990-1992, art school I 11, Y. Belopolsky)

Mosproekt - State Unitary Enterprise of Moscow OfÞce of the design of public buildings and constructions

www.walkingcity.ru

S t r e l k a I n s t i t u t e f o r M e d i a , A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d D e s i g n!

Luzhkov Era 11

is mostly the pioneer of this trend. Initially, ordered by UPDK and designed as the isolated world for foreigners, it transforms into the isolated world for a new well-to-do class of the society. The complex is a sui generis “forefather” of the so

called gated community, ! the fenced housing with a check-point at the exit. In the Soviet state the isolation customary meant the exclusiveness or the difference of the position in the society: foreigners, ruling elite – in the new country the isolation means the droit of the well-to-do class. In 1990 the old names of the streets and the Metro stations are returned or the new polysemantic names are created. It’s another back lope through the Soviet history. It changes geography and reßects the current contradictions of the society - The Sakharov and Andropov prospects exist at the same time, in the same point of the globe.

Public support of Boris Yeltsin, March 1991

th The amendment of the 6 Article of the USSR Constitution and the declaration of political pluralism in 1990, legalized the pluralism in the real world, including the architectural one. From this very minute all things are permitted.

In 1991 the Law on the new territory administrative division of Moscow was issued. Instead of 30 districts of the Soviet times, Moscow has 10 districts consist-

Revolution in Moscow, 1991

ing in their turn of the municipal districts (in 1995 they were replaced by the municipal regions).10 Both prefects and heads of the town councils received their positions by the Mayor’s decree. In other word, the chain of command in Moscow is being built up ten years ahead the federal level. The abolition of the selfadministration of the district Deputies councils appears within the frames of the Þght against the Soviet system of management. A new two-step management system by the authorities’ decision per se deprived the powers of the local authorities, from the other side, such management system made possible to implement the really scaled projects. Unlike the Western horizontal system, such rigid hierarchy enables Mayor to get the authority over the city as a whole, and the each district separately through the district management, i.e. through the government ofÞcer doing only communicative role between the Mayor and the subordinate districts. The scaled projects of the 90s is partly the cause of this administrative changes, spreading the authorities’ and the servants’ mechanism capabilities.

Boris Yeltsin is the President

In conclusion, I would like to note once more that all current events are, from the one hand, an attempt to rupture links with the Soviet system: the lope through the history, the pluralism, the private interests, and from the other hand, it is an attempt to use some of its elements, but in the renewed, modiÞed, transformed form: the elite isolation, the chain of command, the servants’ machine. 1991 – the terminal USSR break-out, Yeltsin is a President, Moscow is the Capital of Russia.

Moscow is the new Capital

Order of the Mayor dated September 12, 1991 N 146-RM "On establishing the temporal limits of the municipal districts of Moscow”

S t r e l k a I n s t i t u t e f o r M e d i a , A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d D e s i g n!

Luzhkov Era 12

1992, The Pre-determination The Þrst year of the peaceful life of the society after the Soviet Union break-down, after the Revolution. The year of Yury Luzhkov appointment for the Moscow Mayor position. Yeltsin begins to reform the New Russia, Luzhkov begins to reform Moscow.

Free Trade decree. The initial decree permitted citizens and enterprises to trade “in any comfortable for them places, excluding the roadway of the streets, Metro stations and the territories closed to the government bodies buildings.” 11 By the time, the profit earning became the main target of the performing actions and gives the character and the features for any city’s spatial change, both from the point of view of the space and planning tasks, or from the esthetical point of view. It is important that not only the consciously designed, “purposive” architectural objects, but the city texture itself, its behavior obey the new rules. The commercialization aspect began to play the important part too, as well as esthetically or typologically. I’d propose for this phenomenon the following term “Commercial functionalism” –

the possibility to use any city area as a potential income source. And not only have the ground surfaced, the city territory, but even the air space between them. The most aggressive not wanted in the architectural cover reaction on the commercial functionalism became the phenomenon which I call Fungus. They “grow” in any part of the city, where it is possible. I refer to fungus the stands, advertisements,

“Free Trade decree” changed the whole city. “Commercial functionalism” captured urban space and resulted with phenomenon, which I call “Fungus”

trading centers and the marketplaces – the object places for which the commerce became the main and single function. The most fungus do not have their authors, they are illegal and “grow” without any control. This phenomenon radically changes the city space, its texture, as well as the behavioral model of its dwellers.

The commercial functionalism is the main trend of the Capital city of the Transformation period; it adapts the socialist space of the city to the new capitalist needs.

Commerce became equally important to esthetics and typology

One of the largest Fungus-objects of Moscow will be the Cherkizovsky marketplace, appeared in the beginning of the 90-s (for the reference – by 2009 as much as 78 different marketplaces worked in Moscow.). The marketplace is the largest of the scale example of the direct usage of the space for the profit gain. There are the characteristic specifically outside features of any Fungus-object in general and the marketplace in particular: the abundance of the bright font compositions, a primitive design, a cheat “light materials” – siding covers, plastic, profiled metal. The fragile structure marks the functional purpose – to gain the profit, and if necessary could be easily modified, transported, and renewed. The smallest fungus object is a stall.

The stalls are grouping and create the mycelium in the underground passages and nearby the transport infrastructure. The surface kind of the Fungus is the advertising, which especially luxuriantly grows on the large Moscow construction fencing in the center, underlining the scales of possible profits on the building ground. The closing of Cherkizovsky marketplace in 2010, the fight against the stalls by the new

“Fungus” sprawled all over Moscow, covering every “fertile” place – all areas which were suitable for trade

Mayor in 2011 definitely pointed the timely frames of the epoch. But as it was found out in the process of this fight, a rooted system – a mycelium! – it is not easy to grub out it.

Privatization of the state property, which began all over the country in 1992, made 11

The biggest “Fungus” is the Cherkizovsky market

Decree “On the free trade” ! 65 , 29.01.1992

S t r e l k a I n s t i t u t e f o r M e d i a , A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d D e s i g n!

Luzhkov Era 13

a great impact to life and the Moscow architectural image.12 For example, by the sharp stratification of the society (the oligarch’s appearance) by the level of income, became the appearance of the new types of the real estate onto the “different income”. New terms appeared in our terminology - elite housing, social housing and the business class housing. But the most obvious consequence became the appearance of the private property rights on the apartments. Per se the single property type in Moscow is the land which is entirely possessed by the State. Following the appearance of the private property on the apartments, the housing market appears and is developing rapidly. The own flat is a place of a real freedom, where the identity rules irrespective of the architectural advantages and the quality of the

Because of the privatization process, residential market was established

building where it is located: that is how in the panel houses the art-deco and the high-tech are flourishing.

The 90-s in the history of the real estate market are the years of the communal flats exchange. The getting rich citizens could demonstrate their independence only as the

owners of large apartments in the Center. The exchanged communal flats in Stalin’s buildings and houses built before the revolution had the required and underestimated potential. The appeared property on apartments and rooms gave the ability to carry out the exchange schemes: the room inside Sadovoe ring could be exchanged for an apartment in the dormitory district. The inner migration began in the city; the

New image of wealthy people. Bright look is the chance to show the different from others

prestige of Central district grew. The stories about the exchanges acquired emotions – the tenants could privatize their rooms only by consent from all their flat neighbors. The exchanges were performed by the realtors – another new word in the Muscovites’ lexicon. Money and crimes is a typical bunch of the 90-s and around ordinary realtors the “black” ones appear. The first criminal groups appeared, forcibly depriving citizens of their apartments – there were the first crimes of a new era, related to the real estate.

Apartment is the only type of property. Communal ßat is the only way to show Þnancial independence

The housing market development, monetization of the real estate led to the construction boom. The new Moscow districts such as Butovo, Mitino, Zhulebino be-

gan to be constructed, and the construction started in the 80-s is being completed. The new housing massives appeared with the support of the industrialized construction industry, developed as far back as in the Soviet years, the main planning principles of the districts have not been changed, and the problems of public (not subject to ownership ) land space are not recognized yet. The rapid rates of the

large territories development must solve the capital city housing problem which have not been solved yet, but with the lapse of time the new housing construction became the fast and simple way of gaining profit of gaining profit out of Moscow expensive land. The massive is one more feature of the transformed Soviet ghosts. With the time the mutation gains more expressive features: the variety of new series

The own ßat is a place for personal identity

will disguise the uniformity which contradicts the new ideals of the society.

One of the first districts, underlying a new class structure of the society and which was trying to develop the housing type principally opposite to the housing Massives was the cottage district named “Setun”. The private house within the city was

Butovo district. New districts as new cities. Appropriation of space for citizens as well as for proÞt

De"re of 15 July 1992 ! 490 Moscow

S t r e l k a I n s t i t u t e f o r M e d i a , A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d D e s i g n!

Luzhkov Era 14

a dream which came true. The material proof of the fact is that than everything would be the West-like soon – a cottage, an automobile and a barbecue in the back yard. In reality, the cottage building has not been seriously developed in Moscow. The city prefers to grow skyward.

The appearance of different groups of the society requires the diverse approaches to the outward and planning solutions for housing. Designers began to take into account a certain intuitive taste of the owner/client. The samples built by the architects must match the conceptions of the potential buyer. The accuracy of hitting the wished image provides the success and the implementation of the project. Later it

The Þrst gated community Ð Setun district. Cottages have not became popular in Moscow area. Mosproekt, Atelier !15, 1992-95

comes to the development of the housing construction by the individual design, opposite to the standard serial construction. In these times the images are really specific. The authors neatly contrive the original facades to attract the potential customer. One of the examples of the individual design, the building with an expressive façade, telling some story about the tenants is a house in Veskovsky lane (Mosproekt, Atelier 22, under the guidance of A. Meerson).

Later on the development of this direction of the individuality would lead to the situation that the architectural object image and style in general should fuse with the certain groups of familiar motives. One of the conditions of market success is

Massive Identity – a new phenomenon – residential house with individual design. Appartment building at Veskovsky lane, Mosproekt, Atelier !22, 1992-95

forming of the images the client himself identifies with. The real estate market is limited by the set of images, which could call the feeling of the needed and desired commodity. The Massive Identity is the integration of the individual images into the groups, clear and familiar to the different groups of population, which is the effective market tool.

The privatization in Moscow was made by the special forced scenario, the specially developed plan and schedule which were directly promoted by the Moscow Mayor. As a result, during the followed years the privatization in Moscow was performed more effectively than around the country. This rapid privatization, along

Moscow is a Þnancial center. New types of buildings Ð private bank. Bank at Prechistenskaya embankment, AB Ostozhenka, 1992-95

with other reasons, lead to Moscow transformation into the financial center. Large financial turn-over leads to the appearance of new types of buildings: the banks and office centers appear all over Moscow. The Bank on Prechistenskaya embankment which was one of the first designs of the “Ostozhenka” architectural office became a real token of the new world. Its appearance mostly is a result of the “envi-

ronmental approach” (the scale and rhythm of the windows with due regard of the embankment surroundings), but this project have been used modern materials and one may see the features of the “contemporary Western architecture”: one may say, that it’s one of the first representatives of the “contextual modernism”. The participation of the European architects J.Pallasmaa, Davidson and Lindeberg (Finland) and

Fantastic future ÒtodayÓ. Bussines center Zenith, Mosproekt, Atelier !11, 1992-...

the Contractor demonstrate a new quality of design and construction. But (good) intention to go a Western way further should be changed by the ambitions to find the unique Russian way. The bank architecture enthusiastically met by the professional society,13 was not mass-marketed maybe because it did not inspire the Moscow master, or maybe it seemed not to duly impress the city dwellers, which got

used to the emotional shocks since the Revolution. The building is too much “nor-

ÒMoscow-CityÓ Business District has to be the symbol of the new Þnancial capital. Still under construction

Project Russia, !1

S t r e l k a I n s t i t u t e f o r M e d i a , A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d D e s i g n!

Luzhkov Era 15

mal”. Another example of the architecture existence in the world of the financial flows became “Zenith” business center at Vernandsky Prospect (architects Y.Belopolsky, N.Lutomsky, L.Perini) - also a joint project with a foreign participation. The scale, the abstract forms and modern materials set force an effort to create the Russia’s fantastic future image here and right now. The light blue plate glass was used in the building, a “classic” symbol of architecture of the future, the entire volume reminds a huge iceberg, there is no the pair usual for sighting – the wall and the aperture, the overall glazing is the main “trump” in the authors’ intention to create the real architecture of the future and the atrium space of the interior, appeared in the bank at Prechistenskaya embankment would be the real hit of the

“Architecture bulletin” – new media for new architecture

followed 20 years. The alien architecture demonstrates the scope to create a brandnew Moscow, revolutionary allocated not in the center, but closer to the outskirt (though as all new which was made in Moscow in the past 30 years). Possibly this “diversity”, the revolutionary “outscirtness” further became the reason of the project failure and termination of the construction.

But the main symbol of the future world financial capital becomes Moscow International Business Center “City” – a business center of the “global type”. In 1992 supported by the Moscow Government the JSC City was founded – the main architectural-commercial utopia of the Luzhkov’s era, the most scaled example of

At the title page of the catalogue dedicated to the exhibition of projects for private houses Ð Villa Rotonda and its reßection as a modern house

the commercial functionality. As of today, a quarter of the planned objects are realized, another quarter is under construction, and the remaining part is withheld or terminated. 14

The appearance of the private property, monetization of the real estate and in gen-

Elena Gonsales and Irina Korobyna – the Þrst architectural curators

eral the formation of the market economy became a factor of the development of the architectural industry and its institutions. Now the alternative to the state design organizations appeared to be serious – the first private bureaus: “ABD” (1991), “Ostozhenka “, “Kiselev and partners”. Currently one can choose the bureau taking into account the prices, work experience, popularity. The new media publications

appeared – “Architecture bulletin” instead of the officious “Architecture of the USSR”. The first private architectural gallery of Irina Korobyna and Elena Gonsalez at the Center of Modern Arts holds the first exhibition of the private country houses designs. The country house is a second “available” method of the population massive individualization after an apartment. The catalogue cover, devoted to the exhi-

Boris Levyant and Alexander Skokan are representatives of a new formation of architects. There is an alternative to the almighty Mosproekt Ð private ofÞces

bition shows La Rotonda del Palladio and as its reflection the “modern version” of the private country house. There are a lot of projects, but only few have been implemented.

Describing this time, one cannot but note the MMM – the most famous financial

pyramid of the epoch: millions of the deceived investors, the primitive, “people transparent” advertising campaign, suits and criminal cases. In the construction and architectural business the “quick wit” à la MMM also will be a great merit soon: the profit gaining by different methods from the real estate, the overpricing, “back offs”. From the black realtors the thread will be pulled to the legalized con-

New public heroes: soap opera movie star and a representative of the society – Lenya Golubkov Ð were Þlmed in the MMM advertisement

struction pyramids.

www.citytowers.com

S t r e l k a I n s t i t u t e f o r M e d i a , A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d D e s i g n!

Luzhkov Era 16

TAMARA MURADOVA ( RE ) INHABITING RUSSIAN AVANT-GARDE The idea of promoting my project in the shape of a magazine was not spontaneous. As a form of interaction with the audience, a magazine is one of the most powerful media tools capable of relaying quite complex messages and of making them attractive. My effort to popularize a forgotten part of the avant-garde heritage is one of such messages. The publishing of the magazine which emerged as a result of my project is aimed at a wide audience. It offers the readers an interesting and visually arresting story. The narrative starts with the role played by avant-garde in the history of culture and goes on to draw the reader’s attention to the phenomenon of cultural amnesia. The latter poses a threat to that part of heritage which our study deals with - the “workers’ settlements” of the avant-garde epoch. It is focused on one of the these settlements, “Usachevka,” on its genius loci, its structure and the possible ways to preserve it. My message is presented in the form of a glossy magazine treating the reader to a captivating story intended to lead him to a new understanding of avant-garde heritage. Long forgotten, destroyed physically and nearly erased from cultural consciousness, it gets a chance to regain its erstwhile attraction, even to come into fashion once more. Editorial Every architect’s dream is to tell the world about the place he lives at. I was lucky to have been born where I was supposed to - or so I think. For nothing happens by chance in this life: people that we meet, events that influence us, places that we come to. I don’t recall when - and in what circumstances - I first heard the story of the apartment block where I live. I could remember neither the time of its construction nor the renowned names of constructivist architects who designed the earliest experimental residential “settlements” in Moscow. This issue of the Archiproba magazine is dedicated to the heritage of the period Konstantine Melnikov referred to as the “Brilliant Decade” - more exactly, to that part of Russian avant-garde which, by a strange twist of fate or because of historical circumstances, ended up in obscurity. Having composed a jigsaw puzzle of the entire live story out of microscopic pieces of available data, I’d like to thank people who helped me in that undertaking, especially those of them who replied to my letters, were willing to be interviewed and shared with me their most intimate, fondest memories. In a sense, I am a pioneer. And I am very glad to be the first to relate my personal account of the Moscow “workers’ settlements” - to be more exact, of my own “Usachevka” neighborhood. I know the place both as its adoring lifelong resident and as an architect acquainted with its inner features. special thanks to Natalia Dushkina Michael Turner Nikolay Vassiliev Clementine Cecil Anke Zalivako Kiril Asse Boris Bernaskoni Tatiana Tsareva Elena Solovieva Marina Maslennikova Bart Goldhoorn

(re) inhabiting russian Avant-garde

featuring: Rem Koolhaas, Natalia Dushkina, Clementine Cecil, Boris Groys, Kiril Asse, Moisei Ginzburg

special archiproba issue 2011

Research Midterm review

visible The Russian Avant-garde is one of the most popular issues during the talk about the architecture of the XX century in Russia. If we imagine the architecture of the Soviet avant-garde period as an iceberg, we can see that its pick is occupied by the all - known names. Their projects has been perfectly illustrated in S.O. Khan - Magomedov’s books “ 100 master - pieces of the soviet architectural avant-garde ” and in numerous foreign publications. archiproba # 03

Ginzburg

Golosov

Barkhin

Fisenko

Nikolaev

Movchan

Malevich

Melnikov

Vesniny brothers

Golosov

Krinsky

Klutsis

Korzhev

Lisitsky

Rodchenko

Ladovsky

Shukhov

Tatlin

Avant-garde iceberg:

invisible At the same time, the main part of the “ avant-garde iceberg ” is still under the water surface and is absolutely invisible. It is replaced by the “workers’ settlements”, housing for the workers of the nearby factories, erected in the middle of 20’s.

archiproba # 03

Tatlin

Lamtsov

Vegman

Schuko

Schusiev

Shusiev

Kolly

Vladimorov

Milinis

Krutikov

Movchan

Zholtovsky

Sinyavsky

Barsh

Ole

Leonidov

Khidikel

140

The “workers’ settlements” of the constructivist era were not, for a long time, counted among worthy samples of architecture: unlike certain unique buildings, they were merely standard projects whose goal was to provide the working class with housing. To put it differently, they were not masterpieces in the normal sense of the word. It must be noted, however, that the services of first - class experts of Soviet constructivism were enlisted for designing the settlements, and the experts masterly performed the tasks they were entrusted with, coming up with revolutionary and unconventional design solutions that are in many respects up - to - date even now. As of now, society still lacks a definite opinion as to the actual value of the settlements in question. The extremely few relevant publications in the press demonstrate the absence of a common opinion. Some think this episode in the history of architecture unworthy of attention; others see some worth in it. However, despite the fact that professional architects tend to defend the “workers’ settlements”, their value is seriously called into question. archiproba # 03

141

I find it hard to call to mind a more brilliant epoch in the history of Russian architecture than that of Russian avant - garde. That epoch, with its uncontainably future - oriented vector that foreshadowed many phenomena and discoveries, proved very special. There are things that are always “the talk of the town”, that are widely known and much discussed; there are other things that recede into the background, get eroded by the stream of time which carries them away out of focus. Cultural amnesia is conducive to the partial disappearance of some historic objects from the cultural map of Moscow. Technically, they continue to exist on certain maps; actually, they are now blank spaces in history. The emergence of this amnesia, with regard to a certain kind of avant - garde architecture and its typically Russian flavor, has a number of reasons. A major portion of architectural heritage was forgotten in Russia due to political situation and to the fiction - centric nature of Russian culture - literature was always in fashion, avidly read and discussed. What were the properties of cultural memory that forced certain parts of avantgarde architecture to leave the present field of vision ? Why have they been forgotten, partially erased from professional memory and - above all - completely erased from the mind of the general public ? by Tamara Muradova

archiproba # 03

Collection of spreads from the special issue of Archiproba magazine dedicated to Moscow workersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; settlements

| Anna Shevchenko | Strelka 2011 |

Russian Historic Heritage: The Potential

Russian Historic Heritage: The Potential List of Experts: Ekaterina Larina Daniyar Yusupov

The Country of Many Countries

Gulag Map

Vladimir Kagansky Vladimir Paperny Sergey Sitar

Socio-Economic

My research is an attempt to look at Russia in terms of its heritage in wider sense. Russian heritage is unexplored territory as we even donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have the proper list of our heritage, while Russian area itself is wild and undiscovered.

Is there any other archipelago? Russia consists of 83 regions and they differ so radically that it reminds of conditions of different countries rather than parts of one. Alexander Solzhenitsin saw Russia as archipelago of prisons. The question is - are there any other hidden archipelagos which are just not discovered yet?

Monuments by type

Monuments by category - } ' & Â&#x2019; { Â&#x201D; { Â&#x201C;

Fragmentation grows becoming the main feature of Russian territory. Socio-economic conditions depend mainly on natural resources â&#x20AC;&#x201C; oil&gas and diamonds. The federal government gives dotations to the poorest regions.

The map of Russian heritage distribution shows that there are regions with no heritage. Is that true?

Heritage

From the graph of GDP distribution and we can see that only few regions are not dependent on subsidies and only few regions economically satisfying, the rest is far from being wealthy. And this tendency is quite strong.

Conquest

16cent â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1970s

1970 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 2000s

Big Cities Growth

Migrations

Conquest The maps show the land invasion of Russia from 16 century to the middle of 20st century. These migrations were grounded on many causes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; for example, the migration of peasantry to Siberia after serfdom reform â&#x20AC;&#x201C; they went there for free land, another purpose is building prisons, migrations because of industrialization or forced migrations of nations made by Stalin. We can call it colonization of Russia, as this is more like conquest because of the difficulties connected to severe climate and long distances. We can see that the movement was directed towards new territories in Siberia whether they were voluntary or forced.

Â&#x201A; Âš* ĂŚ ĂŚ - Â&#x201D; From the 1970s the situation has changed â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

because of the urban growth and low efficiency of farming industry of Soviet type, the direction goes from remote regions towards the center. This is current situation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; people leave villages for Regional centers and Regional centers for Moscow and Saint-Petersbourg. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s like we return our colonies because we canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t maintain them. The post-colonial regions are left for degradation and decay. Now they got to crisis point that they have to overcome or die.

| Anna Shevchenko | Strelka 2011 |

Russian Historic Heritage: The Potential

Archipelago Quality of Life

Climate

Income

Hotels

Roads

Socio-Economic

Population First let’s look at the regions’ conditions in terms of economic development, population, income, climate, tourism, roads dencity and quality of life. If take different criteria and compare the regions, it becomes possible to see which regions are in good condition and which are in poor state. The dark grey colour is for satisfactory condition, the white is for poor. Now its obvious how irregular the population is distributed. Then we can see why it is distributed this way – because of good climate which the rest of area doesn’t have. Roads are spread along inhibited areas.

But higher income is in the different part of country because of the natural resources. Quality of life is unequal since it depends on the economic development of a region. Economic development is totally fragmented. And Tourism is concentrated along well-developed areas.

Forgotten Regions Method. If superimpose several criteria - we can see that some regions have natural resources, some have dence population, some at least have good weather, while there are still few regions that don't have any benefits according to statistics (no resources, no good climate, no dense population etc). These are 5 poorest regions of Russia - Zabaikalie, Tyva, Kalmykia, Altay and Jewish Region.

Is there anything else in terms of heritage?

Western capitalism. Uneven economic development makes voids forgotten by everyone but on the other hand they are Â&#x201D; from any disruptive development since nobody pays attention. As neglect equals preservation, we have these preserved territories as some kind of reservoir for future benefits inspired by the past and maybe it is possible to detect specific preservation modes or self-evolving mutations taking place on the territory.

Is it possible to find anything valuable in terms of heritage? Backwardness. At the time when globalisation is taking place elsewhere, there are regions in Russia that historically are unable to catch up with the dynamics of the

What is really working there? Does the heritage coincide with the history? If there's no historical heritage, maybe there is History itself embodied in something other than just buildings? Is there any processes that need to be preseved?

| Anna Shevchenko | Strelka 2011 |

Russian Historic Heritage: The Potential

Forgotten Regions - Chapaev and Emptiness What is Kalmykia? Endless steppes and fields of blossoming tulips, that is all. During the War the Kalmyks were deported to Siberia, Middle Asia, Kazakhstan and Altai because pat of their population has passed on the side of the Fascist Germany. The Republic was annihilated and restored only in 1958. As a result of repressions over 1/3 of evicted people died and many most important elements of material and spiritual culture were lost.

Area: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 731 sq.km Rural population: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,5% Population density: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,8 people per sq.km Unemployment rate: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16% (7 100 people) GDP: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 place

Nowadays Kalmykia is one of the poorest regions of Russia. The activity of President Ilyumzhinov who governed the country for 17 years impresses by its strive to bring glory to Kalmykia with the help of adventurous attempts; among them are: the desire to turn Kalmylia into New Vasyuki described in Ilf and Petrov’s novel by building Chess City, the attempt to fully switch the republic to renewables and a public claim that he has met aliens. He achieved media fame for Kalmykia, but not improvements in its people’s life. And finally, the President was dismissed from his post. Shall we hear about Kalmykia again?

Ice as a Means of Preservation

Area: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 903 sq.km Rural population: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,5% Population density: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,2 people per sq.km Unemployment rate: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,6% (4 400 people) GDP: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 place

Famous for its treasures of the nature, waterfalls and holy mountains, the mysterious region of shamans where a well known painter Rerich was looking for (and, according to the legend found) a mysterious land of Shambhala, and old believers who found shelter there believed that the mythical land of freedom called Belovodye was situated there. Mountain Altai became famous for rich archaeological discoveries of two thousand years’ depositions belonging to ancient Scythians and surviving till nowadays due to staying in frozen ground in mountains, the famous Princess of Ukok found in 1993 and Pazyryk burial mount, the treasures of which are pride of the Hermitage collection. Lately with growing national identity of the Altai people there has aroused the desire to make its history more ancient returning the princes from Novosibirsk science campus, where it is examined by scientists, back to Altai. The found the mummy was far from being a princess, but a representative of the middle layer of the Pazyryk’s society and belonged to the Caucasian race, while the local people were mongoloids.

Superstitions and Preservation Researches-anthropologists often come to the Tyva ethnic region (77% population are Tuvinians) to study Buddhism, and film director Werner Hertzog made a film in Tyva about faith and superstitions (Bells from the Deep, dated 1995).

Area: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 604 sq.km Rural population: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,8% Low population density: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,8 people per sq.km Unemployment rate: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,2% (9 600 people) GDP: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 place

Buddhism and Shamanism co-exist here from the ancient times, thus Buddhist lamas were obligated to marry sorceresses. Shamans here work in official “shaman clinics”, that are popular among the local population who are used to consult shamans in order to decide any problem.

Jail or Nature The Zabaikalye Territory consists of two parts: one – the Russian area the Chita Region famous for being place of exile for Decemberists and in the Soviet era – Gulag (Central Administration of Prison Camps), and now as prison for Khodorkovsky, the other part – a small ethnic Aginsk Buryat Autonomous District, situated inside the Chita Region and famous for its rich nature, holy mountains and pure healing springs. Area: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 892 sq.km Rural population: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37% Population density: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,5 people per sq.km Unemployment rate: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,9% (21 400 people) GDP: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 place

The two parts were united in 2007. Experts claim that the small ethnic region may loose because the minority rights are considered less as a result of such union, so there is the risk to vanish for both minor nations and their languages.

Forgotten Project The remote region situated on the boarder with China is famous for its unusual history of establishment, because it was the Evenkis that used to inhabit it rather than Jews. The Name of Birobidzhan derives from the Evenkis words Bira (river) and Bidzhan (cattle camp). Later on Cossacks have been sent there to guard the border of the Russian Empire. A project of resettling working Soviet Jews to the Far East for the land development and work in collective farms (kolkhozs) has appeared in late 1920-s, which was implemented (in 1934 the Region was officially established and the resettlement had been started a few years before).

Area: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 266 sq.km Low population: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188,7 thousand people Unemployment rate: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,1% (1 800 people) GDP: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 place

Although most of the Jewish population had left this undeveloped land – in 1930-s they would immediately come back due to hard life conditions, and in 1990-s they emigrated for Israel, there are some tracks of the past culture the Region – many attempts have been taken to revive Yiddish that used to be spoken here and vanishing now, and Jewish culture festivals are held from time to time.

| Anna Shevchenko | Strelka 2011 |

Russian Historic Heritage: The Potential

ĐĄhosen but Forgotten - }

Isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t it new God-given land?

State of Israel

Jewish Region

(7.6 mln ppl)

(176 thousand ppl)

1948

1934

Ideology: Zionism Religion: Judaism Language: Hebrew

Ideology: Communism Religion: Atheism Language: Yiddish

History In 1924 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 25 the Soviet system faced with faced a piquant situation: collectivization and industrialization were in full swing, while two and a half million of Jewish people were neither collective farmers (kolkhozniks) nor factory workers. Moreover they were on the verge of physical extinction. This was associated with the fact that Jews in the territory of Ukraine and Belarus, according to the law of the Katherine the Great, lived in residential area and at the same time had no right to own the land. Their occupation was minor craft but the Soviet system has extinguished private property. There was only one evident way out â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to grant land ownership to the Jews in order they work for the benefit of the socialist construction. Two organizations were established: KOMZET (Committee for Settlement of Working Jews on the Land) and OZET (Society for Settlement of Working Jews on the Land). The two organizations started searching areas of their historical dwelling, but discovered that in the huge territory of Ukraine and Belarus there was no unoccupied land â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the territories were already developed. So they started looking for the land.

Bauhaus in Birobidzhan

There was a whole range of variants: Caucasus, Crimea. But in Crimea local population went on strike â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Crimean Tatars, this is why the decision was taken to look for the land in the Asian part of Russia â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in underpopulated Far East, in Birobidzhan district, where a small expedition was sent headed by Brook, a scientist who specialized in agronomy. Brook reported the results of research explaining the advantages of the territory. The decision was taken to start the settlement. There were established centers for agitation; propagandists came and told about the benefits of the project. As a result first dwellers started coming to Birobidzhan district. The first flow of settlers in 1928 came from original Jewish settlements, situated in the territory of modern Ukraine and Belarus. Later on settlers even came from abroad, established communes and partnerships.

Hannes Meyer, once the director of Bauhaus School, also took part in Birobidzhan construction. Although his project wasn't built, his ideas had influence on the later development of the town.

| Anna Shevchenko | Strelka 2011 |

Russian Historic Heritage: The Potential

Сhosen but Forgotten: Fieldwork 29.05_Sunday_ Ź Interview with Golub Boris Mikhailovich, Associate of Geographic Sciences, Assistant professor at DVGSGA (Far Eastern State Academy for Humanities and Social Studies), Honored teacher of the Russian Federation. Ź A story about where the first Jewish dwellers came from to Birobidzhan, how Jews appeared in Russia and in the Far East, in particular, when mass migration to the Far East took place.

Birobidzhan fieldtrip report (27.05.11— 2.06.11) 27.05_Friday_

and composer, Director of the Federal state institution “Birobidzhanmeliovodkhoz Directorate” (Directorate for Soil Improvement and Water Resources of Birobidzhan). Ź A story about difficulties the first dwellers faced, the Yiddish language, theater, ensemble and a creative work.

Ź Festival performance in the open air with the Ź Rehearsal of the Children’s group of the participation of leading singing and dancing Jewish song “Ilanot”. Shooting the general groups of the city: “Ilanot”, “Alee Ineinem”, rehearsal of the performance devoted to the “Mazltov”, theater “Kogelet”. Day of City. Conversation with the managers, Natapova Irina Yurievna and Spivakova Anna Ź Walk around the city with a Birobidzhan citizen Vladimirovna, about the reasons for setting up Alexander Leikin. Alexander tells about the the group, tours, the Jewish song and colloquial Yiddish.

28.05_Saturday_ Ź The Day of Birobidzhan Ź ТA formal opening of the holiday in the hall of the Birobidzhan Town Culture Center. Felicitation by the Mayor of the city,

Ź Visit to Regional Museum of Natural History. city, its first barracks, kashrus, Sunday school, factories, farming, and first synagogues. Ź Travel through Pastisansky settlement, where lived some of the first dwellers. Ź Sights of the city.

performances of creative teams. Ź Shooting rehearsal of vocal ensemble “Alee Ineinem” - songs about Birobidzhan in Russian, Yiddish and French. Ź ,nterview with the director Naum Livant, an Honorary citizen of Birobidzhan, poet

First projects of resettlement – Crimea, Kuban, Caucasus, Altai, expeditions to Altai and the Far East. Advantages of geographic situation of the Region, natural resources. Ethnic composition of the Region – how many Jews live in the Jewish Region. How population was agitated in favor of resettlement. The first dwellers – who are they? The first communities. “Sotsgorodok” (Community town), the Amur river, floods. Reasons for collapse of the community. Attitude of the local population towards the new dwellers. Geographic features of the Region.

Ź An excursion with Eugenia Grishukhina, research officer of the museum. A story about the history of setting up the EAO, stages of the regional development. Density of population of the territory in the beginning of the 20-th century. Problems at the border. Deportation or voluntary resettlement? Agitation. What the new dwellers saw. Problems during resettlement. Return of part of population. First residences. First brick houses. Who came to Birobidzhan in the 1930-s. New dwellers from abroad. Development of cultural life. The tragic fate of “IKOR” community. Two waves of repressions – late 30-s and 1949 – accusing the Jews of cosmopolitism. Building of Mikhoels Theater. Symbols of the Region – the emblem and the flag.

Ź Far Eastern Center for Studying the Yiddish language and the Jewish Culture. Interview with Taras Mumanenko, a teacher of Yiddish. Conversation about the Yiddish language, activity of the Center, cooperation with the Holocaust Center.

Preservation Scheme

Ź Interview with Lee Tyan Wei, owner of “Druzhba” (Friendship) restaurant. Story about how Lee came to Birobidzhan and about the Chinese cuisine restaurant.

30.05_Monday_ Ź Visit to Birobidzhaner Stern newspaper office Interview with Elena Sarashevskaya, editor of the Jewish life division. Conversation about the foundation of the newspaper, dynamics of issuing and the Yiddish language. Ź Visit to Birobidzhan Jewish Religious Community “Freid” Interview with Leder Roman Isaakovich, the Head of the Community Council. Story about the activity of the Community, Jewish holidays, traditions, and rites. Ź Interview with Valery Kashtanyuk – senior teacher at historical and philological department of DVGSGA. Story about Birobidzhan repatriates in Israel, the Yiddish language.

Ź Visit to Birobidzhan Jewish Theater of Music and Drama “Kogelet”, rehearsal of the play “The King of Braces” after the feature film of 1937 “Searchers for Happiness” about the first Birobidzhan migrants. Interview with old-timers of the theater: Vladimir Gradov, Marina Smirnova and Igor Margulis about the history of establishing the theater, plays about Jews, and the Jewish culture of the past.

Ź Interview with Josef Semyonovich Brener, senior researcher at the Institute for Complex Analysis of Regional Problems, author of a book “Lechaim Birobidzhan!”. Story about unrealized project for designing of Birobidzhan by a Swiss modernist architect Hannes Meyer, director of Bauhaus School. Ź Visit to school No.23 with advanced study of languages and culture of the Jewish people. Interview with Director of the School Lilia Volfovna Komissarenko. Conversation about the history of establishing the school, activities to keep the Jewish culture and languages. Ź Interview with managers of “Mazltov” dancing ensemble Galina Olennikova and Svetlana

31.05_Tuesday_ Ź Visit to “Menora” kindergarten Performance of the kindergarten’s pupils, interview with Liliya Vladimirovna Valevich, music teacher, and with Sophia Yakovlevna Kirillova, Yiddish teacher. Conversation about the kindergarten’s activity, about keeping Jewish traditions, musical and gaming aspects, methods of teaching the Yiddish language to children.

Kireenko. Story about creative activities of the children’s ensemble and keeping the Jewish culture. Ź Visit to Religious Judaical Community “Beit Tshuva”. Interview with the Head of the Community and rabbi Andrey Lukatsky. Story about the activity of the Community.

1.06_Wednesday_ Ź Interview with Maurice Swirc – a journalist from Amsterdam, who came to Birobidzhan to prepare for shooting a program about local Jewish communities for the Dutch television. His impressions of the city.

Kuba Snopek

Belyayevo Forever – The Intangible Heritage

Studio Preservation Next

Format for the nomination of properties for the inscription on the World Heritage List

Director: Rem Koolhaas Supervisors: Anastassia Smirnova, Nikita Tokarev Strelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design 2011 Special thanks to my experts: Kirill Asse, Marina Khrustaleva, Sergey Nikitin, Dmitri Ozerkov, Vladimir Paperny, Andrey Prigov, Sergey Sitar, Dmitri Zadorin

1. Identification of the Property 1.a. Country

Russian Federation

1.b. State, Province or Region

Moscow

1.c. Name of Property

Belyayevo

1.d. Geographical coordinates to the nearest second

55° 39’ 17”N 37° 31’ 20”E 55° 38’ 30”N 37° 33’ 4”E 55° 37’ 53”N 37° 32’ 13”E 55° 38’ 25”N 37° 30’ 11”E

1.e Maps and plans showing the nominated property and proposed buffer zone

opposite page

1.f. Area of proposed property and proposed buffer zone

400h

Introduction My six-month long research at the Strelka Institute in Moscow was dedicated to preservation of mass produced residential architecture of the late modernism. In the mid-twentieth century, thanks to industrialization and modernization, a massive construction of large residential blocks started. Not only in Russia, but in the whole world, houses, general spatial layouts, plans of districts started following the same architectural and urban planning principles and, as a result, became very similar. Cities have been rapidly growing, augmented with zones of new architectural landscape of a very generic nature. Now, when this architecture reaches the threshold of 50 years, there arises a question whether it deserves to be preserved. If yes, then in what situations? This new architecture needs a new approach to preservation—the old methods focused on preserving uniqueness tend to fail in these new circumstances. From the very beginning, I had an assumption that the intangible values (the existing culture) may combine with the visible shell (architecture as such) and create a nice blend providing us with a sufﬁcient reason for its preservation. The architecture of the late modernism is very interesting for architects, yet underestimated by the general public. Because of its repetitive nature

and crude esthetics it is often found boring, ugly or simply uninteresting. Could the cultural content inﬂuence the architectural surroundings and make them more attractive to the common people? Would mating cultural content with architecture representing it make the latter more valuable? During my investigation, I have visited several neighborhoods of Moscow, where architecture was not enough to attract attention, but where there is a potential of architecture and its intangible content reinforcing each other. In the case of Russia, it was mostly the literati and poets who would create this kind of added value. At the end, I decided to take a closer look at Belyayevo—a typical residential block (lit. “sleeping district”) in the south of Moscow, which happened to be the home to many artists representing the movement of Moscow Conceptualism. It was tempting to take a closer look at a place displaying such a contrast between a generic architectural appearance (the crude outer “shell”) and sophisticated artistic content. I am a foreigner and an architect. During the research, I always looked at both Russia and the sphere of art from the standpoint of an outsider. And, once I have chosen this topic of research, I was immediately confronted with Russian reality, culture, art and language.

In order to fully understand the object of my investigation, I needed help from all imaginable quarters. Researching the connection between late modernist architecture in the USSR and the Moscow Conceptualism requires seeing the big picture—being aware of historical and cultural conditions, being familiar with local art, understanding Soviet and Russian architecture. Meetings with local architects were useful for understanding both an architect’s position in the Russia of today and the conditions of his/her work in the times of the USSR. It also helped me comprehend the complexity of the Soviet architectural heritage. Experts in the sphere of art and culture enabled me to penetrate into the world of Moscow Conceptualism and understand what lay behind this art. Finally, my Russian friends introduced me to their culture, acquainted me with their everyday life. They advised me on which movies to see, what exhibitions to visit or what literature to read. It had also required a great effort on my part: I had to learn Russian.

After collecting and analyzing this huge amount of information, I became sure that the initial assumption was right: there is a bilateral connection between modernist architecture and conceptual art. The architectural environment considered unattractive and even hostile actually turned out to be a cornucopia of ideas for art. The artists, on the other hand, did a lot to reassess the modern architecture when it was in total cultural neglect. The creation of this booklet—which is an attempt to apply for the inclusion of Belyayevo into the UNESCO World Heritage List on the basis of the assumption that the value of the place resides in the blending of architecture, art and something less deﬁnable but still important—was the setting of a new course. The fact that it had never been done before was a real challenge. The “Application for a Mixture of Tangible and Intangible Values” does not exist; those two types of values were always understood by the UNESCO as two separate things. This book is my attempt to adjust the existing UNESCO World Heritage application to the new situation when they interact and blend with one another.

P-3

1605/12

This and opposite page: drawings of plans and facades of the most popular series in Belyayevo

2.a Description of Property Basic information Belyayevo is a big residential district in the south-western part of Moscow. It is located between the third and the fourth communication ring, about 15km from the city center. It is connected with the central zone of Moscow by subway, and two important roads (Leninskiy Prospect and Profsoyuznaya Street). Belyayevo covers the area of about 400 hectars, residential area is the dominating function. Majority of the area is constructed with buildings from the original project from the sixties. Later on, many buildings were added. Those additions can be divided into two groups: the ones from the times of the USSR, and those which were constructed after its fall. Because of totally different social and economic conditions before and after Perestroika[1], their typologies vary. Above: Belyayevo on a scheme by Yakov Belopolski

[1] Perestroika (literally: “Reconstructing”) – a political movement within the Communist Party of the USSR, being an attempt to reconstruct the Soviet economic and political system. It led to the dissolution of the USSR and the end of the Cold War

Opposite page: situation of the district on the Moscow General Plan, 1971

P-44

II-68

Moscow Center

Garden Ring

Leninsky Prospekt

Belyayevo

MKAD

Khrushchev and art Khrushchev, being such a big follower of the modern architecture, paradoxically appeared at the same moment to be the biggest opponent of progressive art. And analogically to his influence on Soviet architecture, Khrushchev’s decisions had also a gigantic influence on art. On the 1 of December 1962 Khrushchev visited the “New Reality” exhibition in the Manezh exhibition hall. Being unprepared for reception of abstract art, he criticized the work of artists using abusive language. As a consequence of this event a campaign against formalism and abstraction started, heralding the end of the so called “thaw” in art. Since then, artists, who did not obey the rules of socialist realism, were not allowed to exhibit in the official state galleries.

Opposite page Nikita Khrushchev at the “New Reality” Exhibition at the Manezh, 1962 Right: one of Dmitri Prigov’s “samizdat”: “Literary portraits of the contemporaries”, 1983

This prohibition resulted with consolidation of the unofficial art. This underground movement became strong to that extent, that it even created its own internal organization modeled on the official one: unofficial artists had their hierarchy, archives, way of publication (the samizdat – handmade books), and even own ways of exhibiting.

All this is not necessary for the Soviet people. Prohibit! Prohibit everything! Stop this disgrace! I am ordering you! 50

The “Bulldozer Exhibition” The most important of the unofﬁcial exhibitions happened on September 15, 1974. Two underground artists Evgeny Rukhin[16] and Oscar Rabin[17] decided to organize an open-air exhibition in one of Belyayevo’s wastelands. This act of disobedience was immediately punished by the authorities: the exhibition was destroyed by the militia (police) – using bulldozers and water cannons. Due to the presence of Western journalists the destruction of the exhibition instantly became an event. A very strong image of bulldozers crushing pieces of art was broadcasted worldwide, immediately created a bad image of the USSR abroad and therefore forced the Soviet authorities to make concessions towards the artists. The next unofﬁcial open-air exhibition in Izmailovo, which took place two weeks after the one in Belyayevo, was already accepted by the government. The other “thaw” in art began.

self was chosen instead of other possible districts simply because of logistical reasons. Yet it would be too bold to state that this event happened exactly in Belyayevo totally by chance. At that time it was inhabited by very many promising artists, it was buzzing with artistic activity. Dmitri Prigov, Belayevo’s most famous inhabitant, mentions those who lived there, and who later left. “Here they are – Averintsev until he moved out to Vienna, Groys, until he moved to Cologne, Parschikov, till he moved to the very same Cologne, Erofeev, till he moved to Plyushchikha Street. Popov also moved. And Yankilevsky, but to Paris. And Rostropovich, and Rushdie. But still there are Kibirov and Sorokin. But Kabakov with Bulatov moved out. But still there are Insaytbatallo and Staynlomato. But Schnittke, Pärt and Konchelli moved out.”*

The participants of the exhibition mentioned, that the empty wasteland was chosen to prevent the authorities from closing the exhibition down using a typical “trafﬁc obstruction” excuse. Belyayevo it[16] Evgeniy Rukhin (1943, Saratov – 1976, Leningrad) – Russian painter, representing non-art

* Dmitri Prigov, “Belyayevo 99 and Forever”

[17] Oskar Rabin (born 1928, Moscow) – Russian painter, founder of an informal group “Lianozovo” – an association of postavangardists. His works are part of a collection of i.e. Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow, State Russian Museum in St. Petersburg

Moscow Conceptualism The movement of Moscow Conceptualism which would form itself parallel to all above mentioned events, seems to have many features in common with the architecture of those times. Being an architect, not an art historian, I might be very simplistic in my interpretations, though I will try to name a few features which I find crucial. Moscow Conceptualism, having developed in the conditions of socialist economy, was absolutely deprived of any commercial meaning. The Western artists would always be confronted with the commercial reality, whereas the Soviet artists did not even have such a chance. The architecture after Khrushchev’s Manifesto seems to follow the same logics. Buildings and flats are minimalistic, deprived of any excessive values, simply fulfilling their prior function. The real value is somewhere else – in the common buildings like houses of culture, cinemas. Moscow Conceptualists would use any language to tell their stories. They would write, draw, perform; they were not afraid of videos, internet. When writing, they would use both high and low language – finding them equally appropriate, not being afraid of any type of it. Therefore they would also not be afraid to investigate the modernist architecture – created with very raw and difficult architectural language.

Above: artists in Belyayevo during the Bulldozer Exhibition, 1974. From the right: M. Tupitsyna, V. Nemukhin, V. Tupitsyn, S. Bordachev

The rough esthetics of Khrushchev’s buildings, deprived of any unnecessary elements also could be linked with the esthetics of conceptual art. This art is directed to tell the message, to represent the concept – not to represent beauty understood in the superﬁcial way.

Duchy of Prigov

This page: Space of Belyayevo in the seventies – Duchy of Prigov? Opposite page: Absurd of text on the banner created by the artists versus absurd of the official propaganda

Justification for inscription: art-itecture To prove that there is a connection between the new typology of space where the Moscow conceptualists happened to live and the art they have been creating, one has to take a closer look at the main features of the conceptual art. Although Conceptualism was very diverse, it is possible to distinguish some certain features which are common for many artists. They easily may be related to the features of the Rayon.

“Workers of Moscow! We will show an example of the communist work at volunteer cleaning on April 18, 1981!”

I would assume the emptiness of the Rayon was inﬂuential on the work of many artists. The “Collective Actions”[18] group was using the emptiness of the suburbia as an integral element of their performances. Dmitri Prigov was referring to the emptiness of Belyayevo. When reading through the verses of the famous poem about the Militiaman, one can imagine him somewhere in the Rayon, trapped between its endless space and the sky. Finally, Prigov was calling the district his Duchy. Prigov was inspired by the spaciousness of his own neighborhood. The wastelands between buildings he was calling his realms, and himself – the duke. This I understand as a form of appropriation of space.

[18] “Collective Actions” Group – (founded 1976 by Andrey Monastyrsky) a group of Moscow artists, one of the key formations for the Moscow Conceptualism.

“I do not complain about anything and I almost like it here, although I have never been here before and know nothing about this place”

АПОФЕОЗ МИЛИЦАНЕРА (1978) Когда здесь на посту стоит Милицанер Ему до Внуково простор весь открывается На Запад и Восток глядит Милицанер И пустота за ними открывается И центр, где стоит Милицанер — Взляд на него отвсюду открывается Отвсюду виден Милиционер С Востока виден Милиционер И с Юга виден Милиционер И с моря виден Милиционер И с неба виден Милиционер И с-под земли... да он и не скрывается

Apotheosis of a Policeman (1978) When a Policeman stands here at his post An expanse opens up for him as far as Vnukovo To the West and the East looks the Pliceman And the void behind them opens up And the centre, where the Pliceman stands From everywhere a sight of him opens up From everywhere can be seen the Policeman From the East can be seen the Policeman And from the South can be seen the Policeman Also from the sea can be seen the Policeman Also from the sky can be seen the Policeman Also from under the earth… But he isn’t hiding, is he

Left: fragment of Andrey Monastyrsky’s “Elementary Poetry” versus a part of the original sketches of Belyayevo by Yakov Belopolski Opposite side: poem by Dmitri Prigov “Apotheosis of a Policeman”. Translation Stuart Norgate

The conceptual artists also seem to have been fascinated with the modernist rationality. Geometry and digits many times constitute the language of their works. Numbers, repetition of the same action certain number of times is a common element of Collective Actions’ performances. Monastyrsky’s[19] Elementary Poetry is full of numbers, graphs and diagrams – as if it was written not on poetry but on physics.

Newspapers, being a logical and hierarchical distribution of information, were often used by Prigov as a background of his graphics.

[19] Andrey Monastyrsky (born 1949 near Murmansk, USSR) – poet, artist, writer, one of the founders of the Moscow Conceptualism. Winner of Andrei Bely Prize in 2003 in the category for outstanding contribution to the development of Russian literature; In 2008 the winner of the prize “Companion”; Laureate of “Innovation” in 2009 in the category of “Theory of Art”; his art was shown on many exhibitions both in Russia and abroad

Annex: how to preserve Belyayevo Case of Belyayevo differs from the previous cases of preservation. We are not going to protect it because of the unique value of the architecture itself, but because of the existence of a valuable intangible component. It is a totally new situation, which needs a totally new approach. Nowadays we already have a set of standard rules and patterns connected to the question of preservation in the traditional understanding. There is a set of universal rules, which we follow to preserve architecture – also in case of inscription to the UNESCO list of the World Heritage. Protection of architecture because of existence of an intangible component is a totally different kind of phenomenon; there are not any patterns to follow. The immaterial cultural heritage cannot be treated the same as tangible architectural legacy. Culture cannot be counted, measured; there are no strict typologies. Therefore, each of such

cases should be examined individually; each of them needs their own strategy of preservation appropriate for the given location, type of cultural heritage, history, etc. The value of Belyayevo is supported by the existence of Moscow Conceptualism. As mentioned before, the connection between this art and architecture is complex. On one hand the architecture was inﬂuencing the artists. On the other hand, the artistic activity was deﬁnitely an added value to architecture. That is why I think the strategy of preservation should also be dual. On one hand the conceptual art should be used as an indicator of what is interesting in Belyayevo’s architecture. Based on that, a strategy of preserving architecture should be established. On the other hand, the cultural layer in Belyayevo, being so important, should not only support the preservation of architecture, but also be the object of preservation itself.

102

Duchy of Prigov As said before, the intangible heritage cannot be only an indicator of what is worth preserving – simultaneously it ought to be the object of preservation itself. It is impossible (and I think also pointless) to make any attempts to recreate the culture which existed in Belyayevo several dozens of years ago. But it should be an aim to create conditions for the new cultural activities to emerge, and therefore to save the brand of Belyayevo being a district ﬁlled with culture. I propose to rebrand Belyayevo, using the name “Duchy of Prigov”. The neighborhood should still be called Belyayevo, Duchy of Prigov should refer only to the intangible cultural activity happening parallel to the every-day life. There is already a big potential to support the development of culture. Belyayevo has its rich history and its legend of a cultural neighborhood. Potentially, there are places which can be used for cultural activity: two exhibition spaces (Belyayevo Art Gallery and the Bulldozer Square), a theatre (Vityaz) and a museum (Prigov’s ﬂat). There are also two amazing public spaces which might be used for any kind of events – the park around the pond

and the orchard. There are also people, who know Belyayevo and could be interesting in doing something for it. I propose to (re)fill the above mentioned places with possibly diverse and fresh artistic activity. As mentioned before, the Bulldozer Square can be used for example during the Moscow Biennale. Belyayevo Art Gallery which in the last years mutated into something similar to a local house of culture should be given back to contemporary artists. The cinema Vityaz could go back to its tradition of playing non-mainstream movies – maybe with a help of a well-deserved institution like for example Kino-Muzey[27], with experience in running cinemas. All those various activities should in my opinion be gathered under one name – Duchy of Prigov. Duchy of Prigov should definitely not be an institution – it ought to be not more than a wisely promoted brand, which would attract both the artists and the spectators. Those few possibilities of artistic activity, which I have mentioned are just examples – Moscow is filled with artistic life. I have no doubts that Belyayevo could quickly become home for some part of it. [27] Kino-Muzey (founded 1992) – is a non-profit, educational and cultural organization; is not only playing masterpieces of Russian and foreign cinematography, it also collects, classifies and describes the movie materials on history or film culture

100

103

TOWARDS ST. PETERSBURG Studio Preservation Next March 5-8, 2011

Boris Yeltsin’s Library is more Russian president’s pride than a library. It is a social and cultural center, where all the president’s events are held. The building has the following structure: on the first floor there is a space for visitors, on the second, ceremonial exhibition halls. On the third, the library proper, the fourth is occupied by technical facilities. As an additional feature, it houses 20 apartments, including one suite for the president, and one for the patriarch. All restoration work was inspired by two historical styles—empire and the old Russian style. To increase the total area of the building, a decision was made to cover the inner courtyard with a glass roof and thus create an atrium. After archaeological excavations, remains from the late 18th century were found on the underground level. The architect’s main pride is the principal staircase and the restored dome, possibly based on Carlo Rossi’s sketches. It was made using grisaille technique. Yet, we are not sure, if it was made on the basis of Rossi’s sketches. In this case, the value of the word “reconstruction” is jeopardized one more time.

An interesting fact: after the restoration, only 80 fireplaces and a few windowsills survived. Fireplaces and windowsills—is that a rudiment of the past or a tribute to the past times?

At first glance it looks ambiguous: I wonder if the idea was to recreate it in the former palace style or to substitute all the old beauty with new materials? In my personal opinion, which may be quite subjective, buildings are like people. And when talking about preservation, I perceive the total destruction of the inner structure as a kind of murder. Artificial plaster, artificial marble, artificial reality, artificial atmosphere and artificial memory—these feelings create the interior.

To enter Boris Yeltsin’s Presidential Library, one needs to pass the strict security system. Inside, at the entrance hall we met a guide—a representative of the architectural firm which had carried out the restoration. That was an architect named A. Mikhailov. He looked very proud of this work. All restoration and construction works took one and a half year to be completed and consumed an enormous budget.

By coincidence, the first place of our destination was Boris Yeltsin’s Presidential Library, opened in September 2009. It is located in the historic Synod building by Carlo Rossi, in one of the oldest and most beautiful squares of the city—Senatskaya Square. On the way to this place, we had an amazing walk through the park near the Admiralty buildings. Snow covered the alley leading to a beautiful building. It was a fantastic picture, which might be an image on a postcard.

I remember how many years ago, when I was preparing to apply to the Moscow Architectural School, I got to know the name of the architect Carlo Rossi for the first time. In our huge family library, which occupied half of the room, I found one book which instantly attracted my attention. It was an architectural album dedicated to the works of the famous Russian architect: Carlo Rossi. He had a great influence on the image of Saint Petersburg, as a city of imperial and sublime architecture. Endless squares, monumentality and grandeur—this is how I had imagined the city. From this book I had got the image of the city, and only after 8 years I visited it for the first time.

We arrived early in the morning. Saint Petersburg greeted us with its extremely dark atmosphere, its normal state. Deserted streets and imperial architecture created a feeling of a mysterious expectation. As we crossed the streets one by one, each time a wonderful perspective was opening to us. I was thinking that Saint-Petersburg was mostly a city of the past, because it perfectly preserved its intangible and elusive charm.

text by Tamara Muradova

Essay on Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library

photo by Dasha Paramonova

The restoration of the great Carlo Rossi’s historic Synod building was a big disappointment for me. Walking inside that building I had a feeling that I am at a luxury hotel, somewhere in an Asian country. It is a mix of disgust and terrifying feelings which are fatal for a young architect. I survived. But, if it is a long-term tendency, I doubt that I will.

For me, the time patina is one of the most important things in restoration. If that fluid disappears, buildings start to look as if they have just been erected. The value of such a building, for me, reaches its nadir. I think that, during a restoration project, it is very important to leave the “traces of time”: small pieces of the past, like brick masonry, antique wooden floors, original doors and windows, not recovered parts of paintings and fretwork. All that has its authenticity and a value difficult to estimate. All that underlines an inspiring charm of the past. Deceptive is that restoration which removes all that dust layer—an important visual time cycle.

photo by Dasha Paramonova

We have to notice that, although OMA lost the competition, its participation has left a significant mark—if not on material representation, then on the minds of the younger architects’ generation. The main challenge is widening our perception of ways of working with historical environment, new renovation strategies and understanding of contemporary notion of quality, not connected to the demonstration of power but directed towards improving environmental performance. If the notion itself changes, the reality also changes, as reality always reflects our beliefs.

We have to comment that the postmodernist style is only too suitable for representing imperial ambition—the 1970s style that was forgotten in the West but suddenly brought back to life by Russian architects. While the paradigm has changed and the West is concerned with effectiveness of building industry, we still associate effectiveness with Khrushev’s era mass construction, so we tend to return to the previous phase of pseudo-historical exuberance. We always take two steps back. We can’t be deceived by effectiveness, we know from experience—effectiveness equals shortage.

The project lost competition, since no one here understands why decrease the cost of such an ambitious project. Russians don’t think in terms of sustainability and cost reduction: it works the other way around—a show of wealth, privileges and power is synonymous with beauty. If we need to have renovation, then it ought to demonstrate pomposity and imperial ambitions rather than modesty and delicacy. Hence the massive staircase from which you can see nothing, the huge portals 14 meters high as if made for colossi and not for normal people, the major interior modifications of the building that ignore its structure. Because of lack of expenses on real quality, the final result resembles only fake settings for a B-grade movie. The fact that the Impressionists have to be exposed in paper decorations witnesses the hidden hatred towards any modernistic movement (for example, an old lady—the museum worker whom we asked about the location of Malevich’s Black Square—was highly displeased by the question).

If there’s no possibility to eliminate the notion of opulence, we have to change its concept. The project of OMA, “The Hermitage-2014: Master Plan,” called for modesty and cost reduction, it proposed minor modifications (reconstruction of only two courtyards instead of five). It also suggested such futuristic ideas as giving one room to a young artist for a year or using new technologies to operate within the intricate space of the museum.

In the Yaveins project the huge staircase that appears to embody the way to the sublime, as if the sublime needs to be introduced through such solemn means, operates more like a cheap scenery. Here we’re faced with the main problem of the local mindset: the notion of quality with regard to its outward presentation. Quality in Russia equals opulence that is usually expressed in visual pomposity. But any attempt to reach the same quality as seen in historical environment through modern technologies is doomed to failure. Carefully painted walls of the newly renovated General Staff Building remind us of European-style renovation that provides maximum commonisation of quality and thereby is in contradiction to the uniqueness of the Hermitage.

text by Anna Shevchenko

What could be said about the renovation?

photo by Olga Khokhlova

1. Director of the world’s largest museum exhibition design ﬁrm (ofﬁces in New York, London, Beijing). 2. A good example of such work, in my opinion, can be seen in Neues Museum, Berlin.

Naturally, a lot of problems are connected with poor funding—the collection of items was not renewed since 2003, the construction cracked a little due to the nearby underground works, some exhibition spaces are left unfinished. According to the director’s words, the Museum gained a Potanin Foundation grant for projecting the image of former interior décor on the walls using modern technologies. Who knows, maybe this means will make the spaces of the palace more coherent? Anyway, it will take a full revision of all exhibition rooms to make the Popov Museum of Communications a truly perfect example of the coexistence of an old shell and a modern filling.

Of course, there are several great examples of well-preserved spaces which are integral part of the Museum’s everyday life. These are the Main Gala Room (500 m2) and a small room with a rare double dome. Both have an authentic décor and are used for holding events of different scale. The “Treasury”—a storeroom for the unique collection of pre-1923 postage stamps—can be named as a good example of modern intervention into a historic monument. Nevertheless, the Museum of Communications leaves a general impression of uncoordinated spaces of widely varying quality. The surviving parts of original decoration, framed by modern finishing, look 2 like incongruous patches and don’t convey the image of former environment.

One of the reasons of such a state could be a very tight schedule to which the reconstruction project had to work. The whole work—from the concept till the installation of equipment—took only 1 year and 8 months. It was an initiative timed for the celebration of the 300th anniversary of Saint Petersburg and everything was done in a rush. To give an example: the “Luch” satellite had to be put in the Modern Communications Room, but the arch was closed up so quickly that the satellite was left at the entrance atrium.

Suffice it to recollect Mr. Appelbaum’s high-tech projects of that period of time—Intel Museum (Santa-Clara, CA), Liberty Science Centre (Jersey City, NJ), Newseum (Arlington, VA)—to assume that he meant something different from what one can see in the Museum of Communications now: strange, unattractive constructions placed without any connection to the palace’s environment. It’s clear that the designers wanted to play with contraposition of old and new, but in the end all parts look discretely, sometimes dowdily. What seemed “cool high-tech design” at the time, looks over-detailed and even naïve 10 years later.

The Museum’s director—L. N. Bakayutova—mentioned that, right before the reconstruction started, she re1 ceived a piece of advice from Ralph Appelbaum during his seminar for museums’ directors in Saint Petersburg in 2000. Mrs. Bakayutova showed him the photos of the Museum’s building, and he said that “you’ll gain a lot if you make high-tech in an 18th century building.” This opinion was taken as a guideline, and the Saint Petersburg design office “Dizart” was invited to make this idea come true.

One can’t say that this example is not good. But I left the museum with the feeling that what I had seen failed to live up to my expectations. It appeared as an eclectic analogue of Moscow Polytechnic Museum with the same transparent boxes with objects. Eclectic— because of the exhibition design style that was chosen for the latest retrofit.

And now, imagine such kind of institution in Saint Petersburg—I’m talking about the A. S. Popov Central Museum of Communications which stands close to Isaac Cathedral. The Museum positions itself as a perfect example of combination of old and new: the 18th century palace of Chancellor Bezborodko and the brand new museum of communications. We were invited there to see a good example of adjusting an architectural monument to the needs of a contemporary museum of technology.

Have you ever been to the Polytechnic Museum in Moscow? If not, snatch an hour to visit it; in view of the Museum’s impending closure for refurbishment, this could be doubly important. You’ll see a lot of items of incomprehensible use standing in transparent cases and on pedestals, all in the hollow sounding halls of the 19th century building.

text by Olga Khokhlova

Essay on communication museum

The process of preparation of the momentous document started with a conflict between the exist3 ing declaration and the new requirements for it. It began with the sudden and cheerful agreement of a group of fifteen prominent independent experts to work—for free and to a very tight schedule—on an alternative declaration by order of the city administration. The uniqueness of this declaration is that St. Petersburg is the biggest site in the world heritage list. It is preserved as a great example of natural and architectural consensus and a perfect one-off created city and its agglomeration. The commission has to have a concordance on each item mentioned in the declaration: ranging from its description to a list of monuments. borders, buffer zones, etc. Another problem is to gather all this information in short time: from December 2010 to March 2011.

The lecture was delivered on March 6, 2011, at 2 the office of the international Memorial foundation, whose work is dedicated to the problem of postSoviet memory of Stalin’s repressions and post-war rehabilitations. This combination of the event, place and participators is yet to be evaluated properly in the future.

The lecture of Alexander Margolis was a significant event related to the recently started difficult process of re-evaluation and renomination of St. Petersburg as a world heritage site and highlighting the exciting field trip of the Strelka Studio—an important organization of Russian and International architectural and media communities of the opening decades of the 21st century. The renomination of St. Petersburg could be a perfect model example for other expert communities in the matter of application for the UNESCO list. The lecture was concerned both with St. Petersburg as a heritage and the declaration of its world value. It also covered the particularly interesting and complex process of analysis and group work in this field.

(ii) An oral representation of the declaration’s project was made, created during endless and important discussions of expert society, which included historians, architects, economists and other

The lecture’s topics ranged from discussion of formal requirements of UNESCO to the history of St. Petersburg listing as a site in 1990, and internal problems of application. Margolis was also asked about his preferences in contemporary architecture and current preservation practice. He artistically combined in his speech a great sense of humor with serious facts and even displayed peaceful reaction to seemingly provocative and silly questions, which he received before from amateurs. All these specifics represent the masterpiece of human creative genius, produced both by studio supervisors and Mr. Margolis.

(i) The lecture is a great example of free speech by a highly professional lecturer with an historian’s background, the head of prominent preservationist organizations, mainly independent, an expert of state commission for the protection of heritage, a representative of UNESCO, ICOMOS, the co-chair4 man of St. Petersburg branch of VOOPIK. His conversation is a perfect representation of intellectual and humanitarian culture of Russia of the late 1980s and of the contemporary academic community.

Details of the process of application are also very interesting from the standpoint of the crucial role of UNESCO in the accounting and popularizing of the world heritage. What really significant in St. Petersburg’s history and architecture could be made known to the international community? Could St. Petersburg win something as a result of being included in the list? What would it lose if it were excluded? All these questions were answered during that great Alexander Margolis’s lecture at the Memorial office during the Strelka Studio field trip.

text by Eﬁm Freydin

“Declaring St. Petersburg and Its Suburbs a World Heritage” 1 Lecture by the historian Alexander Margolis (A draft)

(iv) This type of lecture, combined with discussion and interviews, gives us another perfect example of

(iii) Exceptional impact on cultural tradition is produced by the fact of collaboration—rather than the traditional “war”—between experts and the state commission. Another important thing is the capacity to carry out the decisions prepared by UNESCO and local experts without the consent of a ruling party—experts and representatives of international organizations collaborate and prepare documentation for the government, and the state simply presents it to UN. The building of this “structure of interaction” as well as the public presentation (during this lecture) of reasons for the inclusion/ non-inclusion of cultural items in the lists show the event’s extraordinary significance. Margolis told us that listing and delisting as world heritage directly depended on two spheres—tourist exchange through the UNESCO system and the political reputation of a state with regard how it met obligations it took upon itself.

scientists and specialists, highly valued in St. Petersburg and on the international level as a multidisciplinary group, working on the most important project of our time, correcting the mistakes made during the 1990 listing and relevant to other UNESCO sites as well as to the Russian ones. The declaration is like a resolution of an internal conflict between highly professional groups in Russia and world wide. The consensus and process itself is a recurrent repetition of the joint work started in 1930 (the Athens meeting), continued in the 1960s (the Venice meeting) and then in 2007 (the St. Petersburg meeting). This dialogue between intellectually free, independent of the state experts is a trait specific to Russia. Not all proposed ideas were accepted during that process. It’s highly significant to show that it is still unclear whether the post-revolution history and architecture of the 1920s could be considered relevant part of the world heritage—perhaps we must not preserve unanimously everything that somehow got listed, and international experts are skeptical of certain proposed exponents of culture,5 like the Russian absurdist writer D. Kharms (Charms) who was considered unfit for wide publication.

(vi) “Memorial,” as well as Margolis himself, and the above-mentioned old “war” between experts (like Kirikov and others) and the government (and experts themselves likewise) represent the cultural layer of this lecture as a cultural heritage. This process of preserving St. Petersburg, re-listing it in the UN context, creating a new type of declaration and the resolving of the ongoing conflict create extremely interesting content descriptive of such activity particularly important for Russian and international heritage preservation experience.

(v) Traditional part of this lecture is the subject of “Memorial” as an active organization defending the memory of Stalin’s victims, the initiator of many researches, including those of historical archives and sites. One of the presented initiatives was to list forests (in Russia) where people were killed as historical sites. In relation to the UNESCO declaration, Margolis mentioned the proposition to consider in this connection the Green Belt, which was created during the Leningrad Siege and consisted of defenses and battlefields (a perfectly tangible site). This connection between a public group or foundation based on national or historical memory and heritage preservation activity is typical of Russian practice in this field. In the context of the lecture, this link was also partly represented through the locality.

contemporary rhetoric which is typical both of the preservationist community and intellectual circles. It is like a combination of the military argot and the pharmaceutical slang. He speaks of the city and its relation to architecture from the standpoint of a “doctor.” In terms of “war” he discusses the interaction between the state and society, real-estate developers and other opponents. The present situation is described by him as revenge after long years of fighting. At the same time, he uses expressions like “the parallelogram of forces,” “balance”; Kibovsky, the head of “Moskomnasledie” used the same wording, but with different shades of meaning.

A renovation of the space of an internal yard is seemingly a logical and natural step. An open space, so far used primarily for lighting, obtains a new function. Furthermore, renovation enhances the functionality of a building and profitability of the plot. Refurbished walls of the internal space finally become equally representative as the street façade. Covering the yard with a glass roof protects the interior space against the Saint Petersburg weather, while still providing enough sunlight.

Architectural modifications which triggered the most interesting discussions during our excursion were mostly renovations of old courtyards. The space of a yard is relatively small, yet extremely important in the structure of this particular city. Its significance seems even more evident after a renovation, which drastically changes its function and appearance. In a courtyard, one may see, as through a lens, the threats and opportunities of renovation.

Tremendous amount of renovations is quickly changing the image of Saint Petersburg. Yet it is not obvious if the effect of the ongoing changes is positive.

“Renovation of historic spaces brings certain new qualities, but may also strip the buildings of their magical aura.” On the photo: “The General Staff Building before and after renovation.”

text by Kuba Snopek

Two Faces

An unwise massive renovation may lead to the irreversible loss of this quality. An architect dealing with this kind of refurbishment will always face series of inevitable contradictions. Is it right to convert a space of secondary importance into a main highlight of a building? Won’t it deprive the city from its unique dualism? Isn’t it a huge intrusion into the structure of the entire city to totally close spaces that, once being partially open, constituted part of a bigger system? Is it appropriate to totally replace the patina and imperfection of decay with perfect contemporary materials? Finally, is it worth, instead of ultimately turning St. Petersburg into a place full of glamorous perfection, allowing it to remain a city with two faces?

The primary public spaces of Saint Petersburg are streets, avenues and squares. They are representative, glamorous, pompous—as public spaces of an empire’s capital should be. But just few steps behind the street façade bring us to a different world: a labyrinth consisting of small irregular courtyards. This face of the city is dark, gloomy; it is in a permanent penumbra. Mysterious, dangerous and therefore inspirational. This sharp contrast between the calming beauty of the exterior and the seductive evil of the interior is an uncommon quality which has been exploited by writers, movie directors, artists.

On the other hand, the fragmented process of renovation of small spaces does not necessarily add up to the improvement of the city as a whole. The consequences may be even opposite. It can lead to the disappearance of what is intriguing in Saint Petersburg’s layout: its dualism.

photos by Dasha Paramonova

The 7th of March 2011

The lecture by Kira Dolinina â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Greatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; St.Petersburg museums: imperial ambitions, territorial expansions, the test for contemporary art.

photo by Dasha Paramonova

Unlike most of the typical PHD institutes, the EUSP educational curriculum lasts for 3â&#x20AC;&#x201C;4 years and consists of lectures, seminars and conferences. It is famous for its critical attitude to the current government. This non-conformist attitude was even a reason for which the university was closed for a short period of time.

Her lecture took place at the EUSP. It is necessary to say a few words about the place itself. The European University is an NGO, it was founded in 1994 and began its work with a post-graduate program in social sciences in 1996. It is an example of a post-graduate university, a type of institution very rare in Russia.

Her research interest covers many areas, i.e. French art of the 19th century, symbolism in Russia and France, political iconography of monumental painting of the 19th century, and the history, formation and development of museums in Russia. In general, her sphere of interests lies where culture, power and issues of cultural life in modern Russia are overlapping.

Kira Dolinina is the author of more than 400 critical articles and essays in Russian and foreign publications, a participant and organizer of several international academic conferences and seminars. She is an art historian, critic and professor at the department of art history of the European University at St. Petersburg (EUSP). Currently she is also working as a journalist in the Kommersant newspaper.

text by Dasha Paramonova

The first part of the lecture was dedicated to the territorial expansion of the museum. Since the 1980s, the Russian Museum grew five times bigger. The Hermitage consists of six historic buildings, a few exhibition centres abroad and the General Staff Building, currently under reconstruction. Huge amount of square meters is not always used properly, but the museum’s self-confidence continuously grows. Paintings in the Russian Museum could be described in a few words: “big,” “political,” “popular.” Since the reign of Catherine II, the Hermitage has barely changed, even the position of each vase was written down and is still preserved untouched.

In her lecture, Ms. Dolinina described the existence of academic museums, their dependence on political regime and coexistence with contemporary art.

The university is located in a beautiful historic building which was donated at the time of Anatoliy Sobchak administration (1991–96). At that moment giving away such a building was a solution to protect it against the capture by private developers. Some original interiors are well preserved, some were totally destroyed in the Soviet period by the previous owner, the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. This constant struggle, in which the building and its content become inseparably entangled, is, by and large, a major trend in the entire city.

photo by Dasha Paramonova

However, capturing square meters in fact equals capturing people’s minds. Throughout the times of Mr. Putin, places related to imperial past became the paragons to be imitated by New Russia. Imperial ambition, as a consequence, became one of the most popular political trend in the past 20 years. I assume that this imperial awareness has spread—the physical bigness of the Hermitage reflects the geographical vastness of the whole country. This hypnotic bigness masks the absence of content, the stratification of society and the retrograde mood.

Moreover, the Hermitage employees exist in a sealed world protected from any encroachment of the outside universe. It results in the emergence of a special caste of people—a specific kind of aristocracy. The museums are full of well-educated people who are not able to generate a new approach to contemporary content. It is a very complex task to combine the imperial atmosphere with contemporary art. In other words, contemporary art is simply engulfed by vast spaces of the museums. There are only few curators capable of juxtaposing the space of a palace with modern content. As a result, the reception of contemporary art by the general public is unfavourable. But, at the same time, modern art is not exhibited by other institutions because of the huge ambitions of the “great” museums and the lack of private funding.

In 1989, the Council of Ministers of the USSR started the application procedure to include Soviet monuments into the world heritage list. Leningrad was included in it in 1990. The application form listed the historic city center, the centers of small towns, suburban palaces and parks, the city and suburban highways, railway, landscaped areas, landscapes along the Neva, its embankments, waterways, etc. ICOMOS reported: “The need for the inclusion of Leningrad into the World Heritage List is so obvious that a detailed substantiation seems unnecessary…” (S. Gorbatenko, one of the developers of the application). Using Prigozhin’s terminology (“order out of chaos”), one can say that preservation specialists saw Leningrad as a stationary system. Such a deterministic system treats the city as a mechanism that operates in linear conditions of order, stability and balance. “We serve a concept developed by UNESCO for our city as a single and unique urban development and historical-cultural monument, structurally divisible into systems and subsystems…” (A. Alekseev). On the one hand, the lack of tools to maintain such concept has led to increased conflicts between the public, experts on preservation, development businesses and politicians.

The first UNESCO declaration

The Heritage Conservation Strategy for St. Petersburg was developed by the State Committee of Control, Use and Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (KGIOP) in 2005. This text analyzes Heritage Conservation Strategy as an intermediate document between two UNESCO declarations: those of 1990 and of 2011.

Heritage conservation strategy was initiated and developed with the direct participation of Vera Dementieva who is the KGIOP chairperson from 2003. According to Boris Kirikov’s words (at the time the first deputy chairman KGIOP), the general idea of the document was to balance the current contradictions between society, business and bureaucracy. At the same time, the above-mentioned institutions weren’t involved in this process. The document is mostly a theory: it describes the benefits of the selected preservation pattern of city development, but suggests no practical steps towards its implementation.

Conservation strategy

I need to clarify that such institutions as construction and development organizations or government investment and construction bodies do not agree to preserve the city as a stationary system. At the same time, they advocate the basic principles of stationary systems. There are no significant changes in most of them for at least the last decade. For example, the “United Architectural Workshops” were created in 1999. That union consists of 16 architectural companies which almost completely control the market of architectural services in St. Petersburg. The city council consisting of government and semi-government figures includes the same architects.

Institutions

On the other hand, the city officials embraced the Declaration as a political gesture which does not entail any aftereffects.

text by Denis Leontiev

Conservation Strategy for a stationary system

Specialists involved in the preparation of a new application form are trying—as they did twenty years ago—to maximize the historic site area. Since, from 1989 on, the city found no adequate development mechanisms in the historic environment, this will lead to a new aggravation of contradictions in the new economic reality.

The new declaration

The contradictions are also in the fact that the preservation concept was developed during the time when the committee was supervised by St. Petersburg’s vice-governor, whose main task was “urban development, investment in real estate, capital construction and reconstruction” (from the website of the city government). Governor signed the Preservation Strategy in 2005. This didn’t not lead to any changes in approaches to the development of the historical environment of the city. We can say that two relatively stationary systems continue to ignore each other. Since the internal capabilities of such systems for change are very limited, they can’t resist the influence of open systems. World economic growth has provided the advantages of investment for the “construction system,” whereas the global economic crisis has provided benefits for the “preservation system.” Boris Kirikov said: “An economic crisis is a much better way to keep the historic center from destruction than any preservation declaration.” This partly explains the reason why the government asked the preservation community to prepare a new UNESCO declaration.

photo by Shi Yang

photo by Dasha Paramonova

INTERVIEWS

It’s not clear what exactly we’re saving in this building, which values are in it? So we’re preserving what is prescribed “to preserve a façade”.

“At a certain moment there rises a question: why do we need this old junk?

In the last 20 years a big economical pressure was put on the precious historical center of Saint Petersburg. This lead in many cases to destruction of the original atmosphere of the city. In the interview Alexei criticizes the ways how the city was developed in the last years. He totally rejects spatial policies from the nineties. He also suggests his solutions, how to deal with preservation issues in Sankt Petersburg in the future.

Interviewer

Shi Yang

Anna Shevchenko

Dasha Paramonova Kuba Snopek

Ekaterina Larina Architect, teacher, partner of u:lab spb group. Studied at SPb GASU and the AA. Member of the Anonymous Architects Society, Studio M, Gustafson&Porter. Daniyar Yusupov Studied at SPb GASU. Member of Project Baltia 2008 editorial staff. Member of the Anonymous Architects Society, Cultural Urbanistics and u:lab spb. Teacher at the SPb GASU 2004, winner of a number of architectural competitions, participator of many project seminars. Author of articles in professional press.

Alexey Levchuk author of numerous projects of public and residential interiors and buildings in St. Petersburg; Holder of the Grand Prix, 1 st Prize, two 3-x interior awards in competition Moscomarchitecture /2001-2006/. He introduced the concept of 2-D and 3-D architecture during the lecture, organized by the Moscow Center of Contemporary Architecture /2008/. Education: Academy of Fine Arts, Faculty of Architecture.

Elena Deshinova Dimitri Goldenberg

Oskar Madera Architecture, public art, installations 1998: Entrance to the meeting street - installation 2002-2003: Peterburg of the future 2005: showroom of “ROSAN” (active outdoor stuff) - interior 2009: Mechanical forest - installation

Yeﬁm Fredine Olga Khokhlova

Interviewer

Denis Leontiev Tamara Muradova

Russian architect is a “genius”. Genius and an artist. As a genius he is in constant search for his individual “genious” ways, what gives birth to “monsters”.

Interviewer

“If we try to preserve the city and to use the originality of its environment, we should not address to it as an object. Approach as an object – that is the modernist method.” “May be I’m not a good one to answer this, because I don’t adhere any position from a certain moment…. Why? Because when we come to the plane of notions, it turns that it’s possible to do like this or like that”.