MSc Thesis Project | Reinterpretation of Heritage_Recovering the City

Dedicated to our parents, who made every step in our lives possible

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi

|3

4|

Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

POLITECNICO DI MILANO SEDE DI PIACENZA SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, URBAN PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

MASTER IN SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN

Reinterpretation of Heritage_Recovering the City

SUPERVISOR: PROF. HOFERT FEIX KARIN ELKE AUTHORS: LEVCHENKO ANASTASIA_851331 TSAMISI THEODOTA_851326

DATE OF DISCUSSION: 22.12.17 A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi

|5

ABSTRACT A great part of the history of the Soviet Union is among others this very concept of collectivity and internal autonomy. Soviet industry and crafts have flourished during the Union, and all parts of the country were producing something special, thus enabling cities to be kept alive and crowded. In this way the cities kept developing and distinguishing themselves in terms of Architecture, based on their heritage, traditions and habits of their inhabitants.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, the economy sector suffered a major blow, and gradually the individual cities began to lose their momentum. People resorted to internal migration, having as a result a huge, population-based, capital (Moscow), while a few cities may have followed, that tries to satisfy the entire population by accumulating all the activities in her urban boarders. In contrast, the province has begun to fall, to be deserted and almost to die.

We observe that architecturally, although there are facilities and landscapes to preserve their vitality, there is no mood for dealing with the cities. Neither from the governmental sectors nor from the citizens.

Moreover, in times of the most inevitable globalization, the natural heritage of cities has fade out in front of the need for accumulated education, production and entertainment.

However, today, through architecture, we observe that there is an attempt to create a new form of a city, a tendency to promote the accessible city towards humanity. We step aside from the impersonal examples of the megacities and try to create quality living conditions at every level.

In our case, we decide to take advantage of this particular situation.

Inspired by the long history of Ivanteyevka, located in the Moscow embolization radius, and its rich tradition in the craft sector, we decide to regenerate the heart of the cityscape in a place of essential education, production and entertainment. We believe that by preserving and highlighting the existing architectural wealth of the city and by empowering with adding new contemporary elements, we are reestablishing city’s lost glory, as well as to bring back the inhabitants that have abandoned the city while also in parallel to invite new people, both from the cultural and commercial sectors.

6|

Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

The project itself, therefore, involves the re-use of a former industrial zone and its transformation to a university with a textile-related education study plan. At the same time, the open space is designed in order to create conditions of hospitality for the people of the city, as a public space, with particular emphasis on the vivid natural landscape of the area since it concerns a riparian one.

Our goal is through our architecture proposal to provide a vital solution in the question of urbanistic as well as landscaping development of our cities.

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi

|7

8|

Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

TABLE OF CONTENT

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi

|9

LIST OF FIGURES 12 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 15 RESEARCH TOPIC

16 CHAPTER ONE_INTRODUCTION 19 1.1 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 20 Industrial Revolution and its socioeconomic character 20 Textile Manufacture during the Industrial Revolution 22 1.2 INDUSTRIALIZATION OF RUSSIA 24 Registration of the Industries 24 Russia until 1860 24 Russia after the Industrial Revolution 26 Industrialized Russia of the 20th century 30 1.3 THE VALUE OF THE INDUSTIAL HERITAGE

33 1.4 CONCLUSIONS RELATIVE TO THE ISSUE OF

35 INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE Why should we maintain and reuse industrial buildings?

35 Problems arise from the reuse of the industrial heritage 36 Benefits for the cities 36 Case Studies 38 CHAPTER TWO_SITE INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS 45 2.1 RUSSIA 46 2.2 MOSCOW 50 2.3 IVANTEYEVKA 58 History 63 Wide and Local Urban System of the City 68 2.4 STUDIED SITE 73 Closer Urban Context Analysis 73 Concept Approach Principles 76 CHAPTER THREE_SOLUTION, LANDSCAPE APPROACH 79 3.1 STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN 80 Axis of Entrances 80 3.2 SOLUTION 87 CHAPTER FOUR_ SOLUTION,ARCHITECTURAL APPROACH 105 4.1 THE UNIVERSITY 106 4.2 THE CUBE 117 BIBLIOGRAPHY 129 APPENDIX_PRESENTATION 131

10| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |11

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig.0: The studied factory in the early 1900s.

Fig.1: A Russian factory worker in the early 1900s.

Fig.2: Kunming People’s Goverment Fig.3: CaixaForum Museum Fig.4: Technopolis Industrial Museum Fig.5: Demographics of Russia a Fig.6: Demographics of Russia b Fig.7: Demographics of Moscow Oblast Fig.8: Demographics of Moscow b Fig.9: Demographics of Moscow b Fig.10: Demographics of Moscow c Fig.11: Hours that Moscow Commuters spend in Traffic Each year source: The Statics Portal Fig.12: Ivanteyevka compered to Moscow Fig.13: Ivanteyevka’s growth a Fig.14: Ivanteyevka’s growth b Fig.15: Ivanteyevka’s growth c Fig.16: Chronology of town’s industries Fig.17: Chronology of industries’ workers and other important buildings Fig.18: Ivanteyevka in the urban network of surrounding cities Fig.19: Ivanteyevka’s green zones, main accesses and nodes Fig.20: Ivanteyevkas’ buildings density Fig.21: Urban connector corridors Fig.22: Projected municipality’s plan Fig.23: Ivanteyevka’s urban form Fig.24: Closer Urban Context Fig.25: Land Uses Fig.26: Demolished building Fig.27: Part of newer additional building demolished Fig.28: Demolished constructions Fig.29: Mantained Buildings Fig.30: Map of demolished Buildings Fig.31: Inside Movements & Accessibility Fig.32: Open Spaces Fig.33: Mantained Buildings Fig.34: Strategic Masterplan Fig.35: Trees List Fig.36: Pavement List Fig.37: Lighting List Fig.38: Urban Furniture List Fig.39: Technical Masterplan Fig.40: Masterplan Sections a & b Fig.41: Masterplan Sections c & d 12| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.42: Birdview Masterplan Fig.43: Entrance_open Market Fig.44: Entrance b Fig.45: Culture “Secret” Garden Fig.46: Z3.Winter Scene Fig.47: Open green Area_Z11.

Fig.48: Existing Situation Fig.49: Museum Entrance Fig.50: Ground Floor_University Fig.51: 1st Floor_Museum Fig.52: 2nd Floor_University Fig.53: 3rd Floor_University Fig.54: Architectural Section Fig.55: 3D Section Fig.56: Spacial Organization Fig.57: Door Reinforcement Fig.58: Floor Construction Fig.59: Entrance c_The Cube Fig.60: Ground Floor Fig.61: 1st Floor Fig.62: 2nd Floor Fig.63: Section aa Fig.64: Section bb Fig.65: Section cc Fig.66: Construction Detail Fig.67: Perspective Section a Fig.68: Perspective Section b Fig.69: Perspective Section c Fig.70: Panel 1_Analysis Fig.71: Panel 2_Analysis Fig.72: Panel 3_Analysis Fig.73: Panel 4_Analysis Fig.74: Panel 5_Analysis Fig.75: Panel 6_Masterplan Fig.76: Panel 7_Masterplan Fig.77: Panel 8_Masterplan Fig.78: Panel 9_The University Fig.79: Panel 10_The University Fig.80: Panel 11_The University Fig.81: Panel 12_The Cube Fig.82: Panel 13_The Cube Fig.83: Panel 14_3D Representation Fig.84: Model 1_1000 Fig.85: Model 1_500 A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |13

14| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

ACKNOWLEGMENT First of all, we would like to thank our proffessor Karin Hofert for her kind advising and supporting through our work. We appreciate much her dedication and willing to teach.

We are gratefull for all the knowledge that we received throuout these 2 years in Politecnico.

Moreover we are expressing our warmest appreciation to our families, that were always there for us.

Last but not least, we would like to express our special thanks to all our precious friends, who made these 2 years full of life and joy, and of course those special people that helped making this thesis a reality.

Ahmed Mahmoud Abdelrazek Andreas Kyriakou Daniyal Sherafat Hossein Mohammad Rezaei Ioulieta Chatzaki Nigar Ibrahimzade Ucha Zghudadze

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |15

RESEARCH TOPIC Historically the research, need and challenge of sustaining existing abandoned industrial site was always present. However only quite recent this very same phenomenon has gained the appropriate attention. In respect to this new attempt of mantaining our heritage and our planet by saving and reusing zones, within or outside the urban textile, this thesis is dedicated to intergrade an approach of sustaining a post-industrial site at the city of Ivanteyevka, in Russia, both from regenerated and landscape value.

Having studied similar case studies in Europe, it is visible that the cities of today keep trying to discover their historical character and their roots by giving life to zones that, nevertheless once were included in the livable part of the city, but now remain untouched both by the state and the citizens.

Even if part of the Russian country has a European approach, it is a fact that the country has always followed an individual rhythm of living, concentrating all the social action within its borders.

We may notice that after the Fall of the Soviet Union, the country has suffered a significant decrease both in terms of economy and culture factor.

Since Moscow plays the major role in any action connected to Russia, we have decided to explore the Region and discover the valuable heritage that lies there. The most interesting outcome from the research was the fact that Moscow Region, (or Moscow Oblast as it is known) consist of 62 urban regions, that most of them live under the shadow of Moscow city. Due to the economic crisis that exist at the moment in the country, most of the people that live in areas nearby Moscow city, either have abandoned their origin homes and has moved to the metropolitan area of Moscow, either live under the everyday habit of moving back and forth from the periphery to Moscow, in order to reach their work place, education or leisure.

Our goal, proposing this thesis subject, is to empower smaller cities, which, by all other terms, have the necessary profile and background, in such way that they will allow the redevelopment of the lost livable character.

16| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

The selected city, Ivanteyevka, offers an ideal example for our purpose, since it ranks among the oldest cities in the area, and has played a vivid role in the development of the industrial heritage of the country. The selected site lies on the banks of River Ucha and consist part of the first factory block built in the city, in 1903 by the architect Lev Kekushev. Nowadays this factory block, despite the fact that it exists in a very central point of the city, remains abandoned and unused. Our proposal is to restore buildings and landscape around the site and bring a university unit, relative to textile manufacturing.

In particular, Ivanteyevka belongs among the industrialized cities of Russia, specialized in fine textile industry. In general cotton textile has been the most important branch of light industry of the country, which has production centers mainly in Ivanovo, Kostroma, Yaroslavl’ and about two dozen smaller cities between the Volga and Oka rivers east of Moscow. The economic slump of the 1990s had a dramatic effect on textile production and other light industries. In 1995 Russia’s light industry suffered the sharpest drop in production of all economic sectors, slumping by an estimated 25 to 30 percent compared with the previous year. Prices for light-industry goods increased by an average of 2.9 times in 1995 after having increased by 5.6 times in 1994.1 Following below we present a precise study of industrialized Russia, aiming in such way to make understandable the vital need of “Recovering the City through the Reinterpretation of the Heritage”, and this consist the base of the proposed thesis.

1

Library of Congress, July 1996

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |17

18| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

CHAPTER ONE_

INTRODUCTION

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |19

1.1 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION Industrial Revolution and its socioeconomic character Industrial Revolution, studied from both an economic and social point of view is one of the main reasons that has given birth to the industrial heritage. As a phenomenon it had a significant impact on a great number of population, and therefore, the evolution of History itself.

Even from the end of the 18th century, has appeared the introduction of the machines, in the production sector, aiming to the massive production and the automobilization, events that had already presage the industrial revolution.

Economic progress in the modern West World, for the time before 1750, could has been characterized from the progress and extension of the industrialization. Significant element of this phenomenon is the constant economic evolution as well as the tend of exploring and revive new opportunities, in such level that there is no actual need to use the terms 1st and 2nd Industrial Revolution.

However, “from the invention of James Watt to the present day, industry has been discovered three times: a first time by the business bourgeoisie social class as a tool of economic and social dominion.

A second by the art in general as a tool of aesthetic renewal and social critique in the 20’s and a third recently by science as a tool for preserving memory.� (Kalegris, 1986) Conditions such as the spread of trade, the finding of raw materials from the colonies, the rise of bourgeoisie social class, the political stability, the scientific and technological achievements, as well as the improved transport enabled a rapid industrialization. The Industrial Revolution was a complex system of rapid changes -technical, economic, social and intellectual- that has led to the first appearance of the industrialized society in Great Britain between 1760 and 1860.

These changes had as an outcome further changes (but not of an identical perspective) and industrial revolutions in other European societies. France and later the USA were particularly affected in terms of how both the economy and social status functioned. The new economic data also affected the spatial-social organization of life.

20| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

In particular, industry as a production process and a way of organizing production, has positively contributed to the creation of new production areas, of new industrial zones, of social changes and to the creation of a new “popular� culture. The previous economic organization with small towns, workshops, local markets, and limited foreign trade has given its place to a system of densely populated areas, a trade that covered the whole world and a division of labor not only of technical terms but also according to the social status.

It is a fact that any socioeconomic change, according to its level of influence, affect not only individual zones but also the way that cities form and get organized. In such way, as a result of the rapid industrialization after the Industrial Revolution and the rise of bourgeoisie, as well as the great migration of the working class (from the inner country to the big cities), we may notice huge changes in a very limited time related to the construction of the historical industrial cities. A characteristic example could be London, which at the end of 18th century has already 1 million inhabitants while only in 1841 has managed the number of 2.235.000, becoming so the most populated city of this period.

In architectural terms, besides the urban mew motives that the architects were called to serve, has also arise the need of new building typologies, social housing buildings and buildings of production that would correspond to the new requirements of the era, and would become the contemporary evolution of the traditional craft making / industry.

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |21

Textile Manufacture during the Industrial Revolution The four key drivers of the Industrial Revolution were textile manufacturing, iron founding, steam power and cheap labor.

Before the 18th century, the manufacture of cloth was performed by individual workers, in the premises in which they lived and goods were transported around the country by packhorses or by river navigations and contour-following canals that had been constructed in the early 18th century. In the mid-18th, artisans were inventing ways to become more productive. Silk, wool and fustian fabrics were being eclipsed by cotton which became the most important textile.

The two most important events that enable cotton mill construction and the move away from home-based production were when in July 1761 the Duke of Bridgewater’s canal connected Manchester to the coal fields of Worsley and when Matthew Boulton opened the Soho Foundry engineering works in Handsworth, Birmingham in 1762. In 1764, Thorp Mill, the first water-powered cotton mill in the world was constructed at Royton, Lancashire, England. It was used for carding cotton.

The multiple spindle spinning jenny was invented in 1764. James Hargreaves is credited as the inventor. This machine increased the thread production capacity of a single worker, initially eightfold and subsequently much further. Others credit the original invention to Thomas Highs. Industrial unrest forced Hargreaves to leave Blackburn, but more importantly for him, others exploited his unpatented idea.

He finally patented it in 1770. As a result, there were over 20,000 spinning jennies in use (mainly unlicensed) by the time of his death.

Innovations in carding and spinning enabled by advances in cast iron technology resulted in the creation of larger spinning mules and water frames. The machinery was housed in water-powered mills on streams.

Richard Arkwright first spinning mill, Cromford Mill, Derbyshire, was built in 1771. It contained his invention the water frame. The water frame was developed from the spinning frame that Arkwright had developed with (a different) John Kay, from Warrington. Thomas Highs again claimed the original design: which he purposed he had patented in 1769. Arkwright used waterwheels to power the textile machinery.

22| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

His initial attempts at driving the frame had used horse power, but a mill needed far more power. Using a waterwheel demanded a location with a ready supply of water, hence the mill at Cromford. This mill is preserved as part of the Derwent Valley Mills Arkwright generated jobs and constructed accommodation for his workers which he moved into the area. This led to a sizeable industrial community.

Arkwright protected his investment from industrial rivals and potentially disruptive workers. This model worked and he expanded his operations to other parts of the country.

Matthew Boulton partnership with Scottish engineer James Watt resulted, in 1775, in the commercial production of the more efficient Watt steam engine which used a separate condensor.

Samuel Crompton of Bolton combined elements of the spinning jenny and water frame in 1779, creating the spinning mule. This mule produced a stronger thread than the water frame could. Thus in 1780, there were two viable hand operated spinning system that could be easily adapted to run by power of water. As early mules were suitable for producing yarn for use in the manufacture of muslin, and which were known as the muslin wheel or differently the Hall-ith-Wood wheel. As with Kay and Hargreaves, Crompton was not able to exploit his invention for his own profit, and died a pauper.

In 1784, Edmund Cartwright invented the power loom and produced a prototype in the following year. His initial venture to exploit this technology failed, although his advances were recognized by others in the industry. Others such as Robert Grimshaw (whose factory was destroyed in 1790 as part of the growing reaction against the mechanization of the industry) and Austin developed the ideas further.

The need for more power stimulated the production of steampowered beam engines, and rotative mill engines transmitting the power to line shafts on each floor of the mill. Surplus power capacity encouraged the construction of more sophisticated power looms working in weaving sheds.

In the 1790s industrialists, such as John Marshall at Marshall’s Mill in Leeds, started to work on ways to apply some of the techniques which had proved so successful in cotton to other materials, such as flax. In 1803, William Radcliffe invented the dressing frame which was patented under the name of Thomas Johnson which enabled power looms to operate continuously.

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |23

1.2 INDUSTRIALIZATION OF RUSSIA Registration of the Industries Russian Industrial Statistics in Imperial Times Efforts to compile official industrial statistics in the Russian Empire date back to the early 18th century. Precisely, in 1719, the government of Peter the Great established two central offices of Berg-kollegiia and Manufactur-kollegiia for the purpose of developing and controlling industry, which had been emerging in many places in Russia at that time. Thereafter, a 1724 decree required all factory owners engaged in manufacturing and mining to submit business reports twice a year to the Manufactur-kollegiia and Berg-kollegiia respectively. However, it is generally considered that “the historical value of the so-called factory reports in the 18th century is not very high� (Arima, 1973, p.

10), because there were no consistent rules about which factories or workshops (zavedinie) should be included in the survey, there were frequent changes to stipulations about items to be reported, and there was insufficient consideration given to guaranteeing the accuracy of the statements among other problems.

Russia until 1860 Even though Russia covers over 6.600 million square miles and spanning the continents of both Asia and Europe, that is the largest country in the world and that in the 19th century it had a much higher population than the rest of Europe, Russia lagged its European neighbors both economically and industrially.

In the mid-19th century, the vast majority of the Russian population lived in rural agricultural communities. Most of Russian farmland was divided into large estates owned by the Russian nobility and worked by peasants and serfs. Although Russia was one of the world’s largest wheat exporters during this period, farm workers still relied upon primitive tools and techniques.

During the early 19th century Russia developed trade relationships with other European countries and exported large amounts of grain.

24| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

But most of the export revenue that flowed into the empire simply lined the pockets of aristocrats and powerful land-owners; it was not used as capital to develop an industrialized economy. Industrial projects and incentives were often proposed – but they were rarely embraced, since they threatened the financial interests of conservative landowners.

In 1860, what centers of industry existed were clustered around Moscow, St. Petersburg and other urban centers in Central and Western Russia. However, these industrial centers lacked heavy industry, like metal refining and industrial tools (there was some heavy industry – mining, steel production, oil and so on – but this was small when compared to Russia’s imperial rivals: Britain, France and Germany) and focusing instead on things like textile manufacturing.

It took defeat in the Crimean War (1853-56) to expose the empire’s lack of development and the urgent need for Russian industrialization.

Russian factories were unable to produce sufficient amounts of weapons, munitions or machinery. There was very little technical innovation; most of Russia’s new technologies were imported from the West. And the empire’s railway system was woefully inadequate, with insufficient rail lines and rolling stock to move men or equipment in large amounts.

While several factors affected the growth of agriculture and industry in the late 19th century, the most important was when Emperor Alexander II emancipated the serfs in 1861. As a historical tradition and practice, serfdom tied the Russian peasantry to the land and their landlords. In contrast to the slaves in the American South, the Russian serfs were bonded to, rather than owned, by their masters.

The elimination of this widespread practice irrevocably changed Russian society.

By freeing approximately 20 million serfs, Emperor Alexander II hoped to create an enormous new work pool of mobile Russians. This action was something far beyond of a just social reform. Specifically, according to Alexander’s view, the once upon serfs rather than being tied to the land and in reality, to be forced to farm the same plots every year, he expected them to help industrialize Russia by developing more efficient and productive ways of farming.

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |25

In addition, in order to compete the European and global market, Russia had to develop new industries and an internal transportation system, while also the country needed an export surplus and a stabilized ruble, the Russian monetary unit, in order to borrow foreign capital.

While the mobility of the serfs did not live up to Emperor Alexander II’s expectations, Russian industry took off, especially in Moscow, St.Petersburg and areas now part of the Ukraine and Poland.

Russia after the Industrial Revolution The Industrial Revolution hit the Russian Empire later than most other European and Western nations.

The emancipation of the serfs in 1861 aided Russia in its transition from a predominantly agricultural society to a more industrialized society and the masses looked toward to the cities for jobs.

The initial phase of the Russian segment of the Industrial Revolution began in the 1880s with the establishment of large scale factories that produced textiles and steel, while coal mining became increasingly important. The steel was used to construct railways while textiles were used for uniforms, mainly for the Russian military.

Between 1860 and 1890, industrial use of coal grew by over 1,200%! By 1890, Russia had over 32,000 kilometers of railroads as industrialists hustled to connect their new factories to markets throughout the country. In stabilizing the ruble, the country was also able to borrow the money it needed to develop new industries and the Trans-Siberian Railroad, which provided Russia with access to the Pacific Ocean.

Despite this rapid growth, Russia still found itself outpaced by Great Britain, Germany, the United States and other nations that began industrializing far earlier. In the 1880s, Russian manufacturing required government subsidies and high tariffs before the country’s industrial goods could compete in the global market.

The emancipation had significant social outcomes but it failed to contribute much to Russia’s economic development. In the 1870s the government initiated several large infrastructure programs, particularly the construction of railways. Under Emperor Nicholas II (reigned during 1894–1917), the Russian Empire slowly industrialized while repressing political opposition in the center and on the far left.

26| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

The 1880s saw the emergency of Sergei Witte, a qualified mathematician with a proven record of accomplishment of achievement, both in the tsarist bureaucracy and the private sector. In 1889 Witte was placed in charge of the Russian railway system, where he oversaw the planning and construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway. By 1892 Witte was minister for transport, communication and finance.

Identifying a need for capital investment, Witte made it easier for foreigners to invest in Russian industrial ventures. Existing barriers were removed, while foreign individuals and companies were offered incentives if they invested in certain industrial and manufacturing sectors. Witte also undertook currency reform: in 1897 he moved the Russian ruble to the gold standard, strengthening and stabilizing it and improving foreign exchange. He also started to fund public works and infrastructure programs including new railways, telegraph lines and electrical plants.

During the 1890s, Russia’s industrial development led to a large increase in the size of the urban middle-class and of the working class, which gave rise to a more dynamic political atmosphere and the development of radical parties. Because the state and foreigners, mostly from France and Britain, owned much of Russia’s industry, the Russian working class was comparatively stronger and the Russian bourgeoisie comparatively weaker than in the West.

“The state participated directly in the nation’s economy to an extent unequalled in any Western country. In 1899 the state bought almost two-thirds of all Russia’s metallurgical production.

By the early 20th century it controlled some 70 per cent of the railways and owned vast tracts of land, numerous mines and oil fields, and extensive forests. The national budgets from 1903 to 1913 indicated that the government received more than 25 per cent of its income from various holdings. Russia’s economic progress in the eleven years of Witte’s tenure as minister of finance was, by every standard, remarkable. Railway trackage virtually doubled, coal output in southern Russia jumped from 183 million pods in 1890 to 671 million in 1900.” (Abraham Ascher, historian)2

Abraham Ascher: Author of “Russia”, distinguished Professor of History at the Graduate School of the City University of New York.

2

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |27

Witte’s reforms had had a visible impact on the Russian economy.

The Russian Empire was the world’s fourth-largest producer of steel and its second-largest source of petroleum. New railways allowed transport into remote parts of the empire, allowing the construction and operation of factories, mines, dams and other projects there.

Russia’s industrial economy had progressed more in one decade than it had in the previous century. Its development was so rapid that the economic historian Alexander Gerschenkron3 later dubbed it “the great spurt”.

But for all its advances, the economic transformation of Russia also delivered unforeseen consequences, some of them problematic for the regime. The construction of new factories drew thousands of landless peasants into the cities in search of work. In time they formed a rising social class: the industrial proletariat. Russia’s cities were not equipped for the rapid urban growth that accompanied industrialization.

In the early 1800s only two Russian cities (St Petersburg and Moscow) contained more than 100,000 residents; by 1910 there were twelve cities of this size. In the decade between 1890 and 1900, St Petersburg swelled by around 250,000 people. This growth was not matched by the construction of new housing, so industrial employers had to house workers in ramshackle dormitories and tenements. Most lived in unhygienic and often freezing conditions; they ate meals of stale bread and buckwheat gruel (porridge) in crowded meal-houses.

Things were even worse in the factories, where hours were long and the work was monotonous and dangerous. By 1914, 40% of Russian workers were employed in factories of 1,000 workers or more (32% in 1901). 42% worked in businesses of 100 to 1000 workers, and 18% in businesses of 100 workers or less (in 1914 the United States had equivalent figures of 18%, 47% and 35% respectively).

Witte’s economic reforms had met, even exceeded national goals – but they also gave rise to a new working class that was exploited, poorly treated, clustered together in large numbers and therefore susceptible to revolutionary ideas.

Alexander Gerschenkron: Ukrainian-born American Jewish economic historian and professor at Harvard University, trained in the Austrian School of Economics.

3

28| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.0: The studied factory in the early 1900s.

Fig.1: A Russian factory worker in the early 1900s.

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |29

Industrialized Russia of the 20th century With the outbreak of World War I in 1914 and the immediate Russian involvement, the Russian military and government needed a copious supply of goods and money for the war effort.

By the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian government initiated programs to protect Russian industries with the implementation of tariffs, while the Russian banking system was reformed to keep up with the new industrial and economic system.

Beginning in 1921, Lenin’s4 Soviet government made industrial modernization a priority. But it was under Joseph Stalin5 that the system of central planning was fully developed and the industrialization of the Russian Republic reached its peak. In November 1927, Stalin launched his “revolution from above” by setting two extraordinary goals for Soviet domestic policy: rapid industrialization and collectivization of agriculture. His aims were to ease all traces of the capitalism that had entered under the New Economic Policy of 1921 and to transform the Soviet Union as quickly as possible, without regard to cost, into an industrialized and completely socialist state. Stalin’s Fist-Five-YearPlan, adopted by the party in 1928, called for rapid industrialization of the economy, with an emphasis on heavy industry. It sets goals that were unrealistic, a 250% increase in overall industrial development and a 330% expansion in heavy industry alone.

All industry and services were nationalized, managers were given predetermines output quotas by central planners and trade unions were converted into mechanisms for increasing worker productivity.

Giant factories that were like communities, since they provided housing, schools and hospitals for their workers, were built throughout the country, while industrial towns were created from scratch around resources in the Ural Mountains ad Siberia and economic incentives were given to people to go and work there.

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known by the alias Lenin was a Russian communist revolutionary, politician and political theorist.

4

5

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin: Georgian-born Soviet revolutionary and political leader.

30| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

But because Stalin insisted on unrealistic production targets, serious problems soon arose. With the greatest share of investment put into heavy industry, widespread shortages of consumer goods occurred.

Considering the registration of the industries at that time, on the contrary to the “golden age of statistics,” during the period from the second half of the 1930s to the first half of the 1950s, the Soviet central statistical authorities were almost completely silent. Instead, the sole source of statistical information on the Soviet economy was press reports on speeches by leaders of the Communist Party or cabinet ministers on the results of five-year plans and the like.

The situation changed dramatically following criticism of Stalin by Nikita Khrushchev in 1956 and shortly thereafter publication of a statistical book entitled “National Economy of the USSR.” Michael Kaser pointed out that a significant event in terms of the disclosure of statistical information was a summons served on statisticians to attend a special conference in 1954. The conference was held on a large scale in response to pressure from economists and economic bureaucrats who were disadvantaged by being unable to show their full abilities in analyzing the national economy because of the concealment of statistical data.

In addition to some other efforts, in 1957, a Statistical Yearbook for the Russia Republic began to be published. Although remarkable progress was made in this period regarding the disclosure of statistical information, statistics from the early days of the USSR to the Stalinist period have never been disclosed in detail, and meager information has been published only for benchmark years, like 1913, 1928, 1932, 1937, and 1940. In addition, the Soviet authorities were not very eager to publicize information that seemed to be unfavorable to themselves.

For these reasons, only production, labor, and capital statistics that are available serially for relatively long time are displayed at the end of the paper.

Nikita Khrushchev: Soviet statement, First secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from1953 to 1964 and Premier from 1958 to 1964.

6

Michael Kaser: British economist, specialized on Central and eastern Europe and the USSR and its successor states.

7

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |31

All in all though, Russia attained impressive economic development in the century from the emancipation of Russian serfs to around 1960, although growth was interrupted by the October Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II. The mainspring of Russia’s advancement was industrial growth. The mainly agrarian economy, in which the rural population accounted for about 80% of the total at the end of the 19th century, underwent a complete change in economic structure.

This Russian success, however, came to an end at the end of the 1950s and beginning of the 1960s. The mining and manufacturing industries, which until then had led the economy, lost vigor, and the industrial economy withered. This deterioration led to the collapse of the Soviet Union by the end of the 20th century and the start of systemic transformation to capitalism.

In the 1990s Russian industry was in terrible shape, Factories were filled without out-of-date machinery and there was no capital to retool and restructure them. Industrial production fell 50% between 1991 ad 1996, a sharper decline than in the United States during the Depression. For example, the 44 mills in the town of Ivanovo were producing the two thirds of the cotton fabric in the Soviet Union and were making uniforms for the Soviet army and suits for the members of the Central Committee. After the collapse of the Soviet Union all but one of the mills were closed and tens of thousand of workers were suddenly lain off en masse, in the 1990s, the mills served as warehouses for fabrics that were much better quality and cheaper that anything Russia could produce.

Unemployment in Russia’s textile production centers has been among the highest in the country. In early 1996, an estimated 70% of workers in the industry were in furlough or working part-time.

32| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

1.3 THE VALUE OF THE INDUSTIAL HERITAGE Industrial heritage is part of the cultural heritage that influenced the formation of modern human civilization. Alfrey and Putnam, with the term “industrial heritage”, meant all the sources of the industrial past that contribute to the knowledge of the history of the productive activities of a country or population and have mentioned also that the industrial heritage structure involves managing the relationship between a range of potential resources (industrial waste) and possible uses. The range of industrial heritage remains broad and includes old constructions and industrial landscapes, equipment, printed matter, product records and other kinds of evidence. In summary, industrial heritage can be: • The assemblage of older or newer remaining of the industry section in order to gain a complete understanding of their function.

• The protection and maintenance of buildings, areas and machines due to theirs technical, historical and aesthetic interest.

• The discovery of a new usage value for the abandoned, but yet irreplaceable, pieces of the industrial landscape.

• The restoration and refunction of disposable machines from industrial sites.

In general terms by understanding our industrial heritage we would have access in the historical knowledge and could understand the contemporary social history, as it has been developed -or better formed – from our contemporary past.

At this point though we should mark that the term “industrial heritage” vary from research to research. It depends from the objectiveness of the knowledge of the researcher, his experiences, his aesthetics, as well as the level of industrialization of his country.

The German industrial archeologist, Rainer Slotta tries to set a relationship between the technical monument and art, in terms that culture consist both from the “arts” and the “technic”. Therefore, the technical monuments could be at the same time monuments of art if they have been decorated in a specific way with aesthetic elements.

Of course though there are also other terminologies of what industrial heritage could be, mostly form an anthropocentric and social point of view, such as the following expressed by Kalogri: A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |33

“the industrial monument is the only testimony of the working class conditions of leaving, is the other way to express the culture around the question of what is industrial heritage. It is the monument that has built for a class that has no other possibility to mark herself through the history, because of the lack of means (economical etc.). In such way the only testimony we have from these people and their lives is the place that has been built for them, the buildings that gave them the name of “working class”, the factory.

Concluding we could accept that all in all the contemporary industrial heritage is characterized by 5 specific values: • Historical value, since it consists the testimony of actions and way of living that still have an ecumenic aspect.

• Social value, since it gives away a sense od identity of the place • Technological and scientific value, since it recounts the story of restoration of machines and constructions.

• Aesthetic value, towards the quality of the architecture, construction, and design.

• Rarity value, according to the confirmation of specific typologies of spaces and landscapes.

34| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

1.4 CONCLUSIONS RELATIVE TO THE ISSUE OF INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE Why should we maintain and reuse industrial buildings?

As we have seen above, even after World War II, the interest and the need to preserve the cultural heritage and the industrial remains to a varying degree in each country were activated. Apart from historical and social value, we also believe that there are further factors (economic, urban) that could also promote the protection of industrial heritage.

From what has been argued above regarding the evolution of the industrial revolution, we could say that some criteria of locating the first industrial units are identified. These criteria are differentiated according to the type of industry, the structure and infrastructure of the city, and of course the technological developments.

Starting from the location argue, it is easy to understand that factories were placed in positions where they could have direct and independent access to raw materials, labor, capital and sources of energy (rivers etc.). In other terms their location was carefully planned and usually proved to be in a central and well-organized network, taking also into account the absence of means of transport the workers’ access to them had to be easy. With population growth, of course, and the expansion of cities, industries have ended up being even more central rather than remote.

So, we may conclude that for several decades, industries were identified: • Within the urban fabric • In urban waterfronts • In extra-urban areas only in the case of a natural resource Therefore, since we are talking about urban central areas, we understand the economic value of urban land occupied by inactive industries. In addition to their historical, architectural and social value, the existence of industrial shells in city centers can most likely give birth to the interest and debate about the future of these buildings.

Among the alternatives, of course, there is demolition, even though their reuse is economically more advantageous.

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |35

At the same time, the issue of urban gaps that the demolition of these building will create, raise another problem around the recovery of the urban fabric and its return to the city.

Problems arise from the reuse of the industrial heritage • The difficulty of recognizing the industrial heritage in public consciousness.

• Lack of documentation and recording of all industrial landscapes • The large scale of the industrial landscapes and the necessity in financial resources to maintain them • Complexity or lack of adequate legislative framework • Their controversial aesthetics and uniformity between them • Risks of historical counterfeiting • The dilemma of maintenance or demolition • Problems due to long-term abandonment • Possibly little awareness and public involvement

Benefits for the cities Trying to analyze the opposite side of the facts, the restoration and reuse of the industrial buildings could be desirable while creating economic, social and cultural advantages for the local community and stimulating the sense of pride of the inhabitants. Absence of uses in empty shells creates urban gaps and at the same time, industrial uses previously in the region may have reduced land prices. The issue is, therefore, to instigate an economic activity that will bring about growth or at least the issue of economic development re-emerges with new activity based on new principles and developing new spatial relations. Urban compositions and changes in the physical form of space are the most easily perceived way to evaluate and assess the success or not of a change. Every transformation, whether it concerns a local action or even buildings, facilities, etc. at the same time contributes substantially by changing the organizational structure of the urban space.

36| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Speaking in terms of spatial change, the introduction of a new function directly enhances the creation of new architectural forms either through the construction of new buildings or through the modernization and adaptation of existing shells. The re-use of old industrial buildings cannot only shape the character of an area with a mix of land use, but also can help to revitalize a building stock of more robust construction that gives a sense of historical continuity and pride to the local community.

Through the reuse of industrial buildings, many benefits can be gained both in the region in which they are located and across the city. Specifically, industrial buildings can remodel the area on many levels and can be used for residential, commercial, recreational, cultural, educational etc. activity.

The adaptive re-use of industrial buildings may lead to an upgrading of the area by improving the image of the region and making it more competitive in terms of tourism. The reuse of buildings is not just another romantic idea. Old buildings are dynamic resources that, when used positively, can promote buildings suitable for new and growing businesses. Finding new uses, wear can stop and whole neighborhoods renewed while maintaining the sense of time and space.

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |37

Case Studies Kunming People’s Goverment Where?

When?

Who? Area?

Type?

Kunming, China 2011/17 Kokaistudios 10.000 m2 / built volume 30.000 m2 Renovation/Rebuilding

5 old factory buildings were adaptively reused and the signature smokestack which was kept as the highest structure in the area.

The original facade was strengthened with steel, metal and glass to create a strong contrast. Restored areas include the atrium of the new mixing building, the glass hall of the old mixing building roof, the outdoor terrace and the staircase; the connecting building bridge; the metal roof of the boiler room and the outdoor staircases. These new contemporary structures and components stand in clear contrast to the heritage portions of the project; thus valorizing both the old and new. A brand new lifestyle hub is in front of people: the old mixing building has become a creative loft; the former workshop building has become a lifestyle center accommodating retail, cafes, restaurants and gym facilities; the machine parts workshop has transformed into a brewery; the boiler room is a club now and the tape workshop has evolved into a retail and office space.

38| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.2: Kunming People’s Goverment A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |39

CaixaForum Museum Where?

When?

Who? Area?

Type?

Madrid, Spain 2001 Herzog & de Meuron 8000 m2 Renovation/Rebuilding

The CaixaForum Museum is housed in the old Central Power Station of Madrid Electrica del Medioda“, a building constructed in 1899 by the architect JesĂşs CarrascoMunoz Encina and engineer Jose Maria Hernandez, who was responsible for her installation of mechanical equipment. It consists of two parallel longitudinal buildings, made of solid bricks, placed on a granite stone base. This building is one of the few examples of industrial architecture that have been preserved in the historical part of the city. The architects used four basic principles when redesigning building: - get rid of the stone base around the factory - create a new, public and open square - restore the outer brick casing with traditional techniques and - add some volume

40| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.3: CaixaForum Museum A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |41

Technopolis Industrial Museum Where?

When?

Who?

Type?

Athens, Greece 2013 Company for the unification of Archaeological Sites of Athens Renovation/Reuse

Today, Technopolis, is a living museum of industrial heritage and place.

Conducting large-scale cultural activities such as festivals, concerts, conferences, press conferences, theatrical and dance performances, children’s events and visual arts. An active role in today’s operation is held by the outdoor area of the complex, which has been adapted to suit every use. The design strategy that has been followed was the preservation and transformation of the space into a living museum of production gas. Buildings have retained their original morphology with very small interventions, so that the new use does not affect its character, but highlights its historical memory. The aim of the Technopolis Industrial Museum is to highlight its technology old factory, one of the few industrial heritage sites of Greece, along with its mechanical equipment. The project is a source of knowledge and a monument of the past. Buildings renovated: The gas gutter and the old ovens room.

42| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.4: Technopolis Industrial Museum A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |43

44| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

CHAPTER TWO_

SITE INTRODUCTION

AND ANALYSIS

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |45

2.1 RUSSIA Russia, officially as Russian Federation, in a sovereign country in Eurasia and in fact the largest country in the world by covering more than one-eight of the Earth’s inhabited land area.

Considering the population Russia ranks ninth in the word with over 146.000.000 million people, with almost 77% of this population to live in the western part, which ends up to be more populated and urbanized than the eastern one. Other major urban centers include Saint Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Ufa and Kazan.

Religiously the majority of Russian believes in Orthodox Christianity, as the rest of the East Slavs, who emerged as a recognizable group in Europe between the 3rd and 8th century and the rest Balkan countries.

Following the Russian Revolution, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic became the largest and leading constituent of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the world’s first constitutionally socialist state. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, twelve independent republics emerged from the USSR: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and the Baltic states regained independence: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania; the Russian SFSR reconstituted itself as the Russian Federation and is recognized as the continuing legal personality and sole successor state of the Soviet Union.

46| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.5: Demographics of Russia a A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |47

By the end of 1990, the Soviet Union had the world’s second largest economy, largest standing military in the world and the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Nowadays, the Russian economy ranks as the ninth largest by nominal GDP and sixth largest by purchasing power parity in 2015. Russia’s extensive mineral and energy resources are the largest such reserves in the world, making it one of the leading producers of oil and natural gas globally. The country is one of the five recognized nuclear weapons states and possesses the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

Top industries of Russia include agriculture, fuel and Energy, Chemicals, Metallurgy, and Machine Construction.

Concluding, Russia has the most college-level or higher graduates in terms of percentage of population in the world, at 54%. Russia has a free education system, which is guaranteed for all citizens by the Constitution, however entry to subsidized higher education is highly competitive. As a result of great emphasis on science and technology in education, Russian medical, mathematical, scientific, and aerospace research is generally of a high order.

48| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.6: Demographics of Russia b A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |49

2.1 MOSCOW Moscow as mentioned above together with other 62 regions form Moscow Oblast. Moscow is the largest city in Europe and its population is more than the half of the entire Moscow Oblast, reaching the number of 12,228,685 inhabitants, with 80% of it to be urban and the rest 20% to be rural.

Moscow as a city is not much ethnic with more than 90% of its’ population to be Russian and rest origins from neighbor countries and ex-USSR parties.

As a capital, Moscow couldn’t but concentrate a great number of education facilities within its limits with 257 universities while Moscow’s State University after the name of Lomonosov ranking in QS for 2018 gained the 95th position.

Moscow has a hemiboreal climate with long, cold (although average

by Russian standards) winters usually lasting from mid-November through end of March, and warm, comfortable summers. On average Moscow has 1731 hours or 34% of possible sunshine per year, varying from a low of 8% in December to 52% from May to August.

Economically speaking Moscow has taken an increasing path the last 53 year after the major decrease in her economic status in 2015, while the unemployment level remains in low numbers. Industries that present themselves the most are Chemical, Energy Production, Food, Furniture, Machinery, Metallurgy, Software Development, and Textile.

Fig.7: Demographics of Moscow Oblast 50| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.8: Demographics of Moscow a A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |51

Fig.9: Demographics of Moscow b 52| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.10: Demographics of Moscow c A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |53

From architectural point of view Moscow’s architecture is worldrenowned. For much of its architectural history, Moscow was dominated by Orthodox churches, with most important Saint Basil’s Cathedral, remarkable for its elegant onion domes.

Medieval Moscow’s design was of concentric walls and intersecting radial thoroughfares. This layout, as well as Moscow’s rivers, helped shape Moscow’s design in subsequent centuries.

The Kremlin was rebuilt in the 15th century. Its towers and some of its churches were built by Italian architects, lending the city some of the aura of the renaissance. From the end of the 15th century, the city was embellished by masonry structures such as monasteries, palaces, walls, towers, and churches.

The city’s appearance had not changed much by the 18th century.

Houses were made of pine and spruce logs, with shingled roofs plastered with sod or covered by birch bark. The rebuilding of Moscow in the second half of the 18th century was necessitated not only by constant fires, but also the needs of the nobility. Much of the wooden city was replaced by buildings in the classical style.

During Stalin’s time there was a large effort by him to “modernize” Moscow and as a result to change drastically the city’s overall appearance by demolishing and destroying old but yet notable architecture pieces and constructing a brand-new network of avenues and roadways, as well as various skyscrapers, with most famous the so-called Seven Sisters, seven massive skyscrapers scattered through the city at about an equal distance from the Kremlin. Stalin’sera buildings, mostly found in the central part of the city, are massive and usually ornamented with Socialist realism motifs that imitate classical themes.

However today there are some attempts towards the restoration of many of the city’s best-kept examples of pre-Soviet architecture. These restored structures are easily spotted by their bright new colors and spotless facades. There are a few examples of notable, early Soviet avant-garde work too, such as the house of the architect Konstantin Melnikov in the Arbat area. However, many of these restorations were criticized for alleged disrespect of historical authenticity.

Later examples of interesting Soviet architecture are usually marked by their impressive size and the semi-Modernist style employed, 54| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

such as with the Novy Arbat project, familiarly known as “false teeth of Moscow” and notorious for the wide-scale disruption of a historic area in central Moscow involved in the project.

Moscow is infamous for its traffic jams, expensive housing and crowded public transport. It ranked 167th out of 230 cities in this year’s quality of living index by the consulting firm Mercer. And at the heart of its terrible congestion is the fact that up to 45% of workplaces are located in the city center, which is surrounded by a “rust belt” of little-used industrial areas and then an endless sea of residential high-rises Moscow chief architect Sergei Kuznetsov on an excursion during the Moscow Urban Forum in June has said that by redeveloping Soviet industrial zones in particular will “deconcentrate the center and create a multifunctional urban plan”. To this end, the city has spent 100bn rubles on the Moscow Ring Railway project to repurpose railroads between the rust belt factories for public use, which are already opened from last autumn.

In addition, Marat Khusnullin, deputy mayor for urban development and construction, has claimed: “There’s no transport [in industrial zones], they aren’t working, there aren’t good roads there, no workplaces, they aren’t paying much in taxes, so it’s a wasteland and a burden on city”.

In fact, out of the 9 million square meters of real estate put into exploitation in Moscow in 2015, 2.2 million was in former industrial areas, according to city hall. At least 2 million more are built in these areas in 2016. The biggest project under way is the redevelopment of the Hammer and Sickle, a former steel factory that at 87 hectares is twice the size of the Vatican, by a consortium of Dutch and Russian architects. It is mainly new construction, although the architects preserve the street network and some of the factory buildings.

The most celebrated redevelopment projects, such as the Sulzerareal former steel plant in Winterthur, Switzerland, or London’s Tate Modern, hinge on the “adaptive reuse” of existing structures, rather than demolishing them.

Several such projects in Moscow have become creative clusters and nightlife hotspot recently, including wine factory Winzavod, pressure gauge manufactory Artplay, and chocolate factory Red October.

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |55

Rem Koolhaas’ Garage Museum of Contemporary Art in Gorky Park set a new high point for adaptive reuse lately, covering a voluminous Soviet restaurant with a shimmering polycarbonate skin while preserving mosaics, tiles and brick inside.

56| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.11: Hours that Moscow Commuters spend in Traffic Each year source: The Statics Portal A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |57

2.3 IVANTEYEVKA Ivanteyevka - the city district of the Moscow region, is located 13 km along the Yaroslavl highway from Moscow to the north-east of Moscow, on the Ucha river and its tributary Skalba.

Its population counts 58,626 inhabitants in 14,49 km2 urban area, 0.31% of the entire Moscow Oblast Area.

Besides the fact that the city is only 13km away from Moscow, which means 35’ minutes travelling by car or 45’ by bus, due to the heavy traffic that we mentioned above, the hours necessary to reach Moscow main Bus or Train Station reach up to 1-1.5 hours or 53’-56’ respectively.

58| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.14: Ivanteyevka compared to Moscow A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |59

Fig.13: Ivanteyevka’s growth a 60| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.14: Ivanteyevka’s growth b A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |61

Fig.15: Ivanteyevka’s growth c 62| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

History At the end of the 16th century and for the first time in the scribal books of the era, the old villages of Vantejevo, Kopnino and Novoselki are mentioned. Initially it is mentioned that the village of Vantejevo used to belong to Vasily Parfyonov, the son of Ugrimov.

It is really important to mention that on the initiative of Tsar Ivan IV and Metropolitan Makarii, in the middle of the 16th century, has begun the first book printing in Russia. And it is also relevant by this time the creation of Russia’s first “paper” mill on the river Ucha in the village of Vantejevo.

Later on, both villages of Vantejevo and Kopnino changed owners, mainly from poor nobility and merchants and by developing has merged to one-unit village, which after the time was simply known after the name of Ivanteyevka.

In the following sectors of the history it is known that Russia expanded its needs in paper and the Russian merchant YM Evreinov in 1736 has set up a paper mill factory on the river Ucha, where 130 people were working for producing writing paper.

In 1743 he built the second paper factory, always on river Ucha, which has been followed by a third one and by 1831 3 factories with more than 900 workers and a producing value of 86.9 thousand rubles were bought by the merchant I. Schekin.

From architecture point of view important fact was the built of the church in honor of St. George the Martyr, in 1737. In next century Russia got a lot of notorious architecture buildings and structures by the famous architect M. Kazakov and his student, Bakarev, has built a stone church of St. John the Baptist in Ivanteyevka from 1803 to 1808.

After the death of I. Schekin (1864), land and factories were owned by his wife Anna Fedorovna for a short time. In 1866 a great fire broke out at the enterprises and unable to restore the factories, in 1867, she sold them to the Austrian industrialist Johann Zipser. In the postreform period a new stage of industrial development of Ivanteyevka began.

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |63

In 1871 A.Lyzhin became the owner of the factory, which by the end of the 80s had a complete production cycle: spinning, weaving, dyeing and finishing. However, at the end of the 1980s, the factory suffered from a fire and was restored for a decade.

In June 29, 1884 has been approved the Charter of the Association of a dyeing factory, owned by Yu. Vatreme. The fixed capital of the Partnership was 800 thousand rubles, and was divided into 800 shares, 1,000 rubles each. The Board of the Partnership at the establishment consisted of: the managing director of the French citizen Julia Vatrem and rest directors of Pavel Pavlovich Petit and Alina Pavlovna Vatreme. It was also destroyed by a major fire at the late 80’s and restored already in 1890.

In 1900, Vatreme sold the factory to the Frenchman E. Gilles and the factory was managed by his son-in-law Emil Darken. For himself, Brown built a wooden house, decorated with carved plat bands. The house has survived to our days and is located on Khlebozavodskaya street.

In 1903 we had the first factory block construction, which as we mentioned already in our introduction will be the study area of the proposed thesis.

During the USSR times, in 1926 there were 4,113 people living in Ivanteyevka, of which 1940 men and 2,173 women and in 1930, Ivanteyevka’s knitted technical school accepted its first students.

In 1929-1930 through the village passed the railway Bolshevo Fryazino, which connected it with the railway line of the Yaroslavl direction. In 1931, all three factories were a knitting unit, in which 3768 workers were employed while by 1933, 6,6 thousand of workers were employed in the factories of the village.

During the 40’s St. George’s Church faced the sad fate like many churches in Russia in this period; the building was used for household needs while domes and crosses were removed and all church property disappeared. Its restoration started only after 1958 and the works continued for over 20 years in order to reach the previous stage of its appearance in 1989 when it renamed to Temple of the Smolensk Mother of God. In the documents saved mentioning the factory of our intervention, is written that during the 60’s, there was the first unit of artificial fur production.

64| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Close to the Fall of the Soviet Union already 300 enterprises, institutions and various organizations were active in the town of Ivanteyevka, which after the collapse immediately reduced to the poor number of only 10 units: LLP Trikotazhnik (top knitwear, linen, artificial fur), AOOT Ivanteevka thin-wool factory, JSC Ivnit (cotton yarn), AOOT Osnastka (specialpurpose) , OZ NIItracleselkhozmash (automatic lines for tractor machinery), AOOT “Elevatormelmash” (equipment for feed mills and mills), LLP plant ZhBK LTD (reinforced concrete structures), AOOT “HydroEM” (samples of equipment for construction, road and municipal machines) , AOOT “Khlebokombinat”, about educational workshops of the mechanical and technological technical school (production of consumer goods), employing a number of 20,000 people.

Today, in 2017 we have 6 active factories of various production, with a dynamic power of 25,000 workers, a number that shows the slow development, or better the stable position in which the city has fallen in the last 2 decades.

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |65

Fig.16: Chronology of town’s industries 66| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.17: Chronology of industries’ workers and other important buildings A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |67

Wide and Local Urban System of the City Considering the general geographic location of the city borders on the north and west - with Pushkinsky district (west by Ivanteyevskoe highway Kavesino village, the city Pushkin, Kolkhoznaya Street to the north-east - Komyagino and Levkovo, south-west - the villages of Lesnye Polyany and Tarasovka), in the south - with the city of Korolev, in the east - with the Shchelkovo district (south - the village of Obraztsovo, southeast – Baibaki).Analyzing its main transportation system, we could see that the main entrances to the city are either from the south, where the train station is located and from the northwest where there is the exit from the highway, which leads directly to the “supposed” city center.

The buildings quality of the city is divided in urban blocks of average height and multi-story residential buildings and industry sites, some of them active, but many of them inactive as well. Focusing on the selected site for the proposed thesis, we could notice that it lies approximately to a central point of the urban fabric, surrounded by the river and rest industrial zones.

In reality the city has not formed any city center, since its construction has been based around Ucha river and the factories that were active around it. We may notice that there are only 3 possible ways to cross the city from one side of the river to the other, with one been the railway and the other 2 car roads crossing exactly on the boarders (north and south respectively) of the studied area. Nowadays there is also a projected fourth urban connector corridor in the northern part of the city.

In addition to that lately there is a study form the municipality of protecting specific green and industrial zones and creating new attraction spots of education interest, green activity and health services.

68| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.18: Ivanteyevka in the urban network of surrounding cities

Fig.19: Ivanteyevka’s green zones, main accesses and nodes A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |69

Fig.20: Ivanteyevkas’ buildings density

Fig.21: Urban connector corridors 70| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.22: Projected municipality’s plan A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |71

Fig.23: Ivanteyevka’s urban form 72| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

2.1 STUDIED SITE Closer Urban Context Analysis On the closer study of the site 3 are the main points that arise: • Random urban planning • Streets without identity that either vicomte dead-end streets either get very narrow or inelegant.

• Rich presence of nature Precisely nature presence has a lot of typologies. It may appear as urban parks, smaller or larger, between the built zones, it may appear as green primary zone, that form a separate landscape, like the one next to the river or it may exist as planted trees all across the road system throughout the city.

Considering the functional uses of the building around it is notable that, besides the residences, primary we meet shopping stores, followed by public services, administrations and culture/sport activities and last education.

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |73

Fig.24: Closer Urban Context 74| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.25: Land Uses A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |75

Concept Approach Principles As we can already understand the site offers itself as a small community inside the city, as anyway it used to be a community, following the guidelines of the factory zones of the previous centuries. In this aspect we choose to treat with it as a small urban core, that should from the one hand keep its independent character but from the other hand to create better connections with the surroundings. In addition, another fact that will empower its revivability will be the transformation of itself from the inside, that means the actions that will be held by the users themselves, most probably by the university students. In such way we could say that we borrow some main principle from the Tactical Urbanism phenomenon and rearrange them according to our scale and measurements inside our functional program and design.

Tactical Urbanism Tactical urbanism is a deliberate approach to city-making that features the following five characteristics: • A deliberate, phased approach to instigating change • An offering of local ideas for local planning challengers • Short-term commitment and realistic expectations • Low-risks, with a possibly a high reward and • The development of social capital between citizens, and the building of organizational capacity between public/private institutions, non-profit/NGOs, and their constituents.

Indeed, for the future of offering local ideas for local planning challenges studies have shown that if the public is able to physically participate in the improvement of the city, no matter how small the effort, there is an increased likelihood of gaining increased public support for more permanent change later. Moreover, in an increasing number of instances, municipalities follow the lead of their citizens by more permanently implementing the short-term, low-budget livability improvements initiated by citizens-activists.

Recent overlapping trends appeared to attribute and support the phenomenon of tactical urbanism, such as the Great Recession, the Shifting Demographics and of course the Internet, as a toll of building the civil economy.

76| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

First, a benefit of the recession is that it slowed the North American growth machine. This effectively forced citizens, city departments and developers to take matters into their own hands, get creative with project funding and concentrate on smaller, more incremental efforts.

This has occurred while increasingly more people -especially the young and well educated- have continued to move into once forlorn walkable neighborhoods. This cohort includes retirees, who are also interested in remaking their chosen neighborhoods. Interestingly, some of the young people also moving into government leadership positions as the baby boomers retire.

Finally, the culture of sharing tactics online has grown tremendously and is becoming more sophisticated.

8

Tactical Urbanism 2. Short-Term Action || Long-Term Change. Street Plans, Miami, New York.

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |77

78| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

CHAPTER THREE_ SOLUTION, LANDSCAPE APPROACH

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |79

3.1 STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN Axis of Entrances Base for planning the site entrances was mostly the understanding of, the clear appearance of the site, that means the building that will be present after the intervention, the larger group areas that these buildings will form as well as the users for our proposed project.

In the site now, we may find around 20 constructions, most of the permanents or additional to the main buildings structures and storages.

After a careful study of the historical value of each structure, as well as the state of its construction (whether is in a good or bad condition and whether the restoration need overcome a maximum effort), we present the map with the structures to be demolished or removed from the site and the final aspect of it. Since the functional project of our intervention has as main activity the education system, by preparing the site for a textile manufacturing university unit, it is understandable that the larger and more central building will host this function. Having in mind that the size of the site permits this effort, we propose some additional functions, of economic and cultural character, supported always though by the university itself. Thus, market and leisure activities start framing the scene.

By dividing the site in two parts, one north of the building and another from the south, we achieve to create 2 cores of public spaces, one for the general public, the users of the city therefore, and one for the direct users of the university. From this action we gain our primary inside movements and the needs for accessibility from the city.

80| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.26: Demolished building

Fig.27: Part of newer additional building demolished A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |81

Fig.28: Demolished constructions

Fig.29: Mantained Buildings 82| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.30: Map of demolished Buildings

Fig.31: Inside Movements & Accessibility A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |83

Fig.32: Open Spaces

Fig.33: Matained Buildings

84| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Supporting the above mentioned strategic movements with the existing light transportation system of the city, we end up proposing 3 main entrances.

• A. From Northwest.

Taking the axis from the green alley existing in the city urban structure we cross in a diagonal way the north part of the site. This area, from now on called area 01, will become the new “city heart”, concentrating all the public facilities.

• B. From Northeast.

We have already mention the problem of the division of the city by the river, in west and east part and the lack of connectivity between these two. However, taking as an advantage the fact that two of the urban connector corridors, presented above (see figure.21) crossed near the site we keep the opportunity to have access in the site from the east creating a new gate, leading in area 01.

• C. From Southwest Last, we should take care of the accessibility directly to the university services for students and professors, by giving them the opportunity to use another gate, mostly private and closer to a light mobility system. It is understandable that besides from the people living in Ivanteyevka, the university should be easily accessible from people arriving from other areas and, as a result from the train station. For this reason, is proposed a new light mobility path for bicycles and electric vehicles, which has as a starting point the train station and arrives to the third gate of our project. This gate has direct access to the areas numbers 02 and 03, the “student life” and the “nature life” respectively.

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |85

Fig.34: Strategic Masterplan

86| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

3.2 SOLUTION From all mentioned above we can present the final solution of our intervention, followed by functional program and landscape research.

Functional Program: Public Buildings: P1. - Private Shops P2. - Open Market

1. Info Point

2. Market Booths

3. Special Section P3. - Cinema / Theater

1. Supplies Entrance

2. Preparation

3. wc

4. Food Selling Point

5. Cafe

6. Smoking Area

7. Main Entrance - Foyer

8. Private Projection

9. Main Projection Room / Theater Stage P4. - Offices

1. Entrance

2. Gardaroba

3. Storage P5. - Administration Offices

1. Stairs

2. News Posting Point

3. Waiting Area

4. Assistant Offices P6. - Cafe / Restaurant

1. Coffee / Dinner Area

2. Bar

3. Preparation

4. Storage

5. Wc A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |87

Students’ Buildings: S1. - Dormitory

1. Entrance

2. Storage & Washing Rooms

3. Reception / Waiting Area

4. Common Room

5. Gym P2. - Open Market

1. Info Point

2. Market Booths

3. Special Section S2. - University

1. Industry Room

2. Emergency Exit

3. wc

4. Workshop

5. Storage

6. Fire Escape

7. Wardrobe

8. Main Entrance b

9. Stairs `

10. Research Center

11. Main Entrance a / Reception

12. Group Meeting Room S3. - Gallery S4. - Exhibition Area Public Zones Z1. - Product Outdoor Market Z2. - Bike Parking & Museum Entrance Z3. - Central Public Square

1. The Forest of Lights

2. Fountain (Summer)

Ice Skating Area (Winter) Z4. - The Culture Secret Garden Z5. - Chimney Meeting Point Z6. - Workshops’ Linear Park Z7. - “Sloppy” University Square 88| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Z8. - The Catwalk Z9. - “Belvedere” Z10. - Water Workshops’ Linear Park Z11. - Green Zone Z12. – Terraces New Intervention N1. - Open Theater

1. Stage

2. Backstage N2. - Outdoor Workshops N3. - Library

1. Entrance

2. “Chimney”

3. Cafe N4. - Water Workshops It should be underlined that the proposal is supported by 4 landscape factors: • Vegetation • Pavement • Lighting • Urban Furniture These 4 factors organize the circulation and arrangement of the public spaces designed, giving at the end the sense of a unity to the entire site.

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |89

Fig.35: Trees List 90| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.36: Pavement List A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |91

Fig.37: Lighting List 92| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.38: Urban Furniture List A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |93

Fig.39: Technical Masterplan 94| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.40: Masterplan Sections a & b A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |95

Fig.41: Masterplan Sections c & d 96| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.42: Birdview Masterplan A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |97

Fig.43: Entrance_Open Market 98| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.44: Entrance b A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |99

Fig.45: Culture “Secret� Garden 100| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.46: Z3.Winter Scene A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |101

Fig.47: Open Green Area_Z11 102| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

The remains of Soviet Era in the site, introduced by the scupluture of Vladimir Lenin.

Fig.48: Existing Situation A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |103

104| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

CHAPTER FOUR_

SOLUTION,ARCHITECTURAL

APPROACH

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |105

In the chapter below, we present the architectural solution given in two (2) selected buildings of the project: the old main factory building, which will be transformed in the university and a new projected by us, glass cubic building, which will be used as library.

4.1 THE UNIVERSITY In general terms, the existing building was in a very good condition and there was no necessity for further maintained actions, as it can be supported by the technical study on the structural elements of the building (see fig.57 & fig.58).

For the new proposed function, we use 4 floors of the building, 3 for the university activities (ground floor, 2nd and 3rd floor) and 1 for a museum relative to the textile industry (1st floor), while the last level (4rth floor) will remain for further exploitation.

The decision for the arrangement has taken under careful thought for the accessibility of the building. The ground floor, which host the workshops, is the main circulation core, since we could find 3 staircase units (2 primary and 1 for emergency purposes), which lead to the upper floors of the university. The first floor has its individual character by hosting the museum because already from the existing situation it has a private entrance with a ramp from the north part, which happens to be our public access (see fig.49). Thus, we decided to keep this floor as a neutral area of the entire construction.

Finally, since the university study plan is relative to textile manufacturing it is appropriate to leave the possibility for a future development of labs and classrooms, following the rapid technological development of our age.

106| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.49: Museum Entrance

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |107

Fig.50: Ground Floor_University 108| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.51: First Floor_Museum A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |109

Fig.52: Second Floor_University 110| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.53: Third Floor_University A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |111

Fig.54: Technical Section 112| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.55: 3D Section A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |113

Fig.56: Spacial Organization 114| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.57: Door Reinforcement A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |115

Fig.58: Floor Construction 116| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

4.2 THE CUBE The proposed building for the library services consist a contemporary solution and a touch of modernity inside the traditional character of the site. The glass reflections meet the red color of the brick buildings around and the green vast vegetation giving in such way an aesthetic notion to the entire site. Considering also the fact that from that point we have the third entrance, this building starts to work also as a gate to the site. The opening, surrounded by 3 walls, which is part of the constructive elements of the building, is projected to work also as a “tube� bringing cold air and removing the excess of heat and visaversa from the entire unique interior space.

Fig.59: Entrance c_The Cube A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |117

Fig.60: Ground Floor 118| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.61: First Floor A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |119

Fig.62: Second Floor 120| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.63: Section aa A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |121

Fig.64: Section bb 122| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.65: Section cc A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |123

Fig.66: Construction Detail 124| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.67: Perspective Section a A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |125

Fig.68: Perspective Section b 126| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.69: Perspective Section c A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |127

Glass building is not a new phenomenon for the Russian Architecture, as might one think considering its climate. In Moscow we may find a lot examples of new constructions, entirely made of glass, such as the complex of Moscow International Business Center.

Keeping in mind the climatological research from the beginning of the research, and the fact that in Moscow closed region (and therefore in Ivanteyevka as well) the percentage of the possible sunshine per year does not exceed the 34%, glass structures for public facilities such as conference halls, museums and libraries and conference are considered as an appropriate solution for making these spaces more attractive and welcome feeling.

Another example close to this technic could be the Garage Museum of Contemporary Art by OMA. Characteristically in the website it is written: “Exposed to snow, rain, and sun since it was abandoned in the 1990s, the former Vremena Goda restaurant – once a popular destination in Gorky Park – has become a ruin without facades. Even as a ruin it preserves the “collective” aura of the Soviet era: it is a sober public space adorned with tiles, mosaics and bricks. (…) The existing concrete structure is enclosed with a new translucent double layer polycarbonate facade that will accommodate a large portion of the building’s ventilation equipment, allowing the exhibition spaces to remain free. The facade is lifted 2.25 meters from the ground in order to visually reconnect the pavilion’s interior to the park.

The entrance to Garage Gorky Park is marked by two large facade panels that slide upwards to frame the art in the lobby’s double height space and provide a view through the building from the park.

128| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |129

Readings Industrial revolution, industrial city. Leonardo benevolo, Lazaridis Pantelis, editorial Lebanon The Industrial Heritage: Managing Resources and Uses, Jedith Alfrey and Tim Putnam Industrial Rehabilitation. The use of redundant buildings for small enterprises, Peter Eley and John Worthington Tactical Urbanism 2. Short-Term Action || Long-Term Change. Street Plans, Miami, New York, Mike Lydon and Anthony Garcia; Foreword by Andres Duany

Webpages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile_manufacture_during_the_Industrial_ Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1892%E2%80%931917) https://prezi.com/nohdiij0rdiu/the-industrial-revolution-in-europe-russiaand-japan/ https://selfstudyhistory.com/2015/03/25/industrialization-in-other-countriesrussia/ https://study.com/academy/lesson/russias-industrial-agriculturaldevelopment-1860-1905.html http://www.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/rrc/Japanese/pdf/RRC_WP_No66.pdf http://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/russian-industrialisation/ http://factsanddetails.com/russia/Economics_Business_Agriculture/sub9_7d/ entry-5175.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/aug/17/moscow-soviet-heritagerisk-redevelop-industrial-zil-car-factory

130| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

APPENDIX_

PRESENTATION

A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |131

Fig.70: Panel 1_Analysis 132| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.71: Panel 2_Analysis A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |133

Fig.72: Panel 3_Analysis 134| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.73: Panel 4_Analysis A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |135

Fig.74: Panel 5_Analysis 136| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.75: Panel 6_Masterplan A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |137

Fig.76: Panel 7_Masterplan 138| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.77: Panel 8_Masterplan A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |139

Fig.78: Panel 9_The University 140| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.79: Panel 10_The University A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |141

Fig.80: Panel 11_The University 142| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.81: Panel 12_The Cube A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |143

Fig.82: Panel 13_The Cube 144| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.83: Panel 14_3D Representation A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |145

Fig.85: Model 1_1000 146| Reinterpretation of Heritage _ Recovering the City

Fig.85: Model 1_500 A. Levchenko _ Th. Tsamisi |147