XX XIX XVIII XVII XVI >XVI

C A omissar of enlightnment natoly SOVIET IDEOLOGY OF PRESERVATION: HOW IT WORKS TODAY? L

unacharsky BY EFIM FREIDIN TEXT TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY ANATOLY KOVALEV world war FOR MEDIA CAM PRESERVACTION. PLAN an “each-to-his-own” situation. L adamantly believes his(or hers)to betherightone. different motivationsandmethodsof work. “working” withhistorical monuments. of thelistof actors involved, oneway oranother, in of numerousprojects formversion butashorter real-estate developers, theauthors heritage, restorers andarchitects, movements aimedatprotecting urban T destruction of culturalheritage. or offices—equally leadsto the them to make way for new housing historic buildingsorto demolish that isbeingdone—eitherto preserve T still failsto operate in cases andwithmany it individualparticipants market economy—became prevalent, thoughinmany the U potential objects of state protection. buildings andcreationsof post-war modernismbecame endangered monumentsof constructivism, “ is stillinuse, insomecaseseven inhabited. relatively new T derelict, long-abandonedmonumentsof thepast. then created anew. T to theauthorities, architects, buildingcontractors, etc. stratum” andthenecessary presence of socialopposition concomitant threat of physical destruction of the “cultural system’s inrevolutionary birth conditions withthe predecessor. of historic objects isgenetically related to its with confidence thattheRussian system of preservation L preservation in current situationinthesphereof heritageprotection and research. These people doubtlessdefinethesubject matter of my inourprojects.range of whoparticipated experts administration of ourstudioandinstitute for thewide F empire collapse ooking back onthelastfew months, ooking fromtheoutside, you canplainly see thatit’s irst andforemost, he system of state protection, the he situationiscritical:everything he new epochhasbroughtonnew conditions: the he system wasbeingdestroyed morethanonce and Head of I gor SSR G rabar, historian, art , anew through mechanism of interaction—viz., T R estoration workshops heir positionsrepresentandillustrate the I Head of museumdepartment N 1917 T atalya he hereditary symptoms includethe S R oviet heritageisnotabandoned—it 1918 ussia. S edova ( 2870 (1923) civil war I I would like to thank the t involves theknow-how to protect R ussia. T rotskaya) keeper, founder of of keeper,founder C restorer, founder of museum in Piotr ount B T V aranovsky, o achieve ageneral alentin Zuboff, historian, art P AIGN A I T fter thecollapse of canmaintain hey allhave very G atchina museum S E T talin-style” ach of them he once S oviet K olomenskoe 1934 founder of of founder member of V 8000(1930) 2000 (1930) ladimir in Kolomenskoe Museum of wooden architecture Moscow the Saviour cathedralBlasting in of the Christ B.Iofan House ontheembankment, New Moscow plan, 1935 V masterplan supervisor, politic inogradov, M O useum of ld konstructivist George Krutikov, M -75% oscow, Lazar Kaganovich, Kaganovich, Lazar A rchitecture world war in Soviet period. Heritageismostly inuse. Listing of new (100y.o.) architecture started > XX XVI XVII XVIII X XVI I II X 1948 industrialization socialistic reconstructionJozef Stalin, and architect of and towns Postwar restoration of palaces 550 (1947) urbanization (1960s), last part of Nikita Kchrushev, masshousing, industrialization

1960 1966 1966 1970 project—“ this intervention—and, likewise, my of itspreservation. lose boththeheritageandsphere activity. of anexternal force inthissphereof for urgentaction, for theintervention T he above-described situationcalls see themon publications. from internet forums, magazinesandother online, addressingtheirrespective supporters encroachment of theothers. protect architectural heritagefromthedestructive or atabuildingsite—where theonestry to negotiating table, meet eachotheringovernmental ofﬁces, oratthe involved.inﬂuence allparties Sometimesthey consensus, you’ll probably have to somehow F 6515 (1974) ailing that, we mighteasily P reserva 1978 TV I t ismuchmorerarely thatwe c andinopendisputes. tion.” T

hat is why U SSR 1986 collapse T hey alsomeet (1986) 1991 I call 115 -90 (1990) 536 1995

8834 (1995) (2000) 2002 478 2002

“destroyers.” in thespeciﬁed sphere, includingthe and strategies interacting to allparties (3) itwould offer workable approaches levels) intheactivity of preservation; (especially decision makers on various (2) itwould involve various groups of theproblemunderdiscussion; to expound in detail various aspects each of them:(1)itwould attempt addressing adifferent messageto be targeted atdifferent audiences, S solvable by aspecial mediacampaign. and the “preservationists” isatask relationship between the “destroyers” T

o induce changeinthenatureof the uch asweeping campaignwould

L -90% cities historical isted 2010 2010 (2010) 41 L cities L L ist of monuments ist of historical aws

>15000 (2010)

Quantity of monuments mentioned in federal list federal in mentioned monuments of Quantity 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 №3898 Law 4) 17 p. on...», «Articles Tschenkov 3) 1991 O. Platonov 2) database) culture' of (ministry http://kulturnoe-nasledie.ru 1) sources: 1991 >15000 (2010) USSR collapse

consensus, you’ll probably have to somehow sources: (ministry 1) http://kulturnoe-nasledie.ru of culture' database) 2) Platonov O. 1991 3) Tschenkov p. 17 4) Law on...», «Articles №3898 14/10/1948 Ust'-Ilim hydro power Kolomenskoe, Palace of station inﬂuence all parties involved. Sometimes they Tzar (1750s, 2009) 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 Sergey Polonsky , real-estate encroachment of the others. They also meet developper online, addressing their respective supporters from internet forums, magazines and other publications. It is much more rarely that we Marina Khrustaleva see them on TV and in open disputes. activist, journalist, Archnadzor Sergey Gordeev, ex-senator, The above-described situation calls Russian avanguard foundation for urgent action, for the intervention of an external force in this sphere of Vladimir Ressin (building department supervisor), Vladimir Putin (prime-minister), activity. Failing that, we might easily Jury Luzhkov (ex-mayor of Moscow) lose both the heritage and the sphere of its preservation. That is why I call Alexander Kibovsky, this intervention—and, likewise, my head of Moskomnasledie Natalia Dushkina, Grigory Revzin, expert on preservation of modern project—“Preservaction.” architectural critic, architecture journalist Quantity of monuments mentioned in federal list

8834 (1995) To induce change in the nature of the relationship between the “destroyers” and the “preservationists” is a task solvable by a special media campaign. New Arbat Restoration of stalin style Opera Such a sweeping campaign would and ballet theatre in Novosibirsk (1980-2004) be targeted at different audiences, addressing a different message to each of them : (1) it would attempt to expound in detail various aspects 536 (1990) of the problem under discussion; (2) it would involve various groups 6515 (1974) (especially decision makers on various levels) in the activity of preservation; 478 Yekaterina Furtzeva, (3) it would offer workable approaches minister of culture (2000) and strategies to all parties interacting Suzdal: city as museum of in the speciﬁed sphere, including the architecture “destroyers.”

isted historical cities

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

Archnadzor public support of preservation

115 41 (1986) -90% (2010) Model of Tzar Palace in Kolomenskoe (1940s)

1970 1986 -90 2002 2010 List of historical cities List of monuments

1966 1978 1995 2002 2010 Laws world war I 1917civil war empire collapse

The preservationist community is fairly Kazan cathedral on the Red square in clannish; it obtains the necessary data Moscow: disclosure, from professional publications like The restoration (1925), demolition (1934), Hermitage magazine and Our Heritage replication and from conference reports. (1989) 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

ISTORY anew). Renovation on new place (in

H The exponents of either group are, as a rule, Kolomenskoe, conversant with the history of their profession, Moscow from adhering to particular schools and certain Irkutsk region) principles of which their circle possesses quite

T ON a few. They can be easily contacted, once you Modern movement found common ground, and they set great H 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 1948 Prepared the list of his own manner. Zubov gradually came to architectural monuments for Moscow 1943 Execute documentation on different sites in Moscow: Krutitskoe podvorie, adopt the attitude of a keeper that he put Church and palaces on Bersenevskaya embankment into practice at the former Palace in Gatchina, Old russian style 1940 Made a critical report on Moscow reconstruction plan and preservation of while Baranovsky became a model restorer, historic buildings 1928 Graduated from Ladovsky studio in VKHUTEMAS with working in that official capacity from 1918 widely known diploma project until the 1980s. Zuboff was a champion on Future cities. Chief of of wholeness, striving to preserve cultural Сollaborator Moscow Deputy heritage in its context, together with entire of branch of сhief 1939 1940 1951 1958 1933 1946 historical strata in their transformation. Comission on State First >Moscultprog protection of inspection for tour: Church and monuments in protection of Palaces of Kirillov Emotional bonding with the object of Academy of monuments on Bersenevskaya architecture embankment preservation was very important for him. Baranovsky, on his part, valued most of all Khan-Magomedov S.O. «G.Krutikov» George Krutikov, konstructivist, under influence of Piotr ER AND RESTORER: SIG Baranovsky became keeper, then - head of Moscow system of the genuine look of a monument as it was in preservation (1946-56) P its heyday, not its current appearance with

EE possible later additions or subtractions. He

K found inspiration in research and imaginative Museum of wooden architecture reconstruction of history. in Kolomenskoe 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 above- mentioned ﬁgures and demonstrating the Interior of Gatchina palace controversial nature of the decisions they made, I “cracked”—so to speak—the genetic code of national system of preservation

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

Count Valentin Zuboff, art historian, keeper, founder of Gatchina museum immigrated in 1925 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 Kazan cathedral on the Red square think about relevant problems in this ﬁeld. For in Moscow: disclosure, restoration better or worse, the results of older and more (1925), demolition (1934), replication (1989) 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 Wooden palace in Kolomenskoe logical continuation of this trend. 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 Andrey Erofeev, curator, art critic, expert Sergey Nikitin, art historian, founder Russian Architecture on New Avantguard 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 Stalin/Tschussev dialogue >15000 (2010) dialogue about creativity about future IN MY OPINION THE DECISION (DEMOLITION OF TOWER) WAS RIGHT, I SUPPOSE, THAT SOVIET PLANNING SCHEME DOESN'T STOP BEFORE Our society is able to create PEOPLE COULD CREATE GREATER AND MORE DEMOLITION OF ONE OR ANOTHER the beauty, immensely more MEMORABLE EXAMPLES OF ARCHITECTURE THAN MONUMENT, IF IT'S ON THE WAY OF URBAN excellent than all, what could be SUKHAREVA TOWER DEVELOPMENT dreamt about in the past L.KAGANOVICH, OFFICER FOR MOSCOW V.Lenin, 1918 Moscow general plan curated by Kaganovich&Stalin 1935 Nowhere people could learn 1934 such artistic range as that was Blasting of Sukhareva tower by done by nobility at its zenith trafﬁc reason (ofﬁcially) A.Lunacharsky «Why we protect Romanov' 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, A.Lunacharsky DEMOLITION OF TOWER IS INAPPROPRIATE, IF G.Krutikov The head of 1918 1929 THE TARGET IS ADJUSTMENT OF TRAFFIC, THE 1933 Bombing of NarKomPros RESULT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY OTHER MEDIAS Moscow Kremlin Commissariat of A.TSHUSSEV AND GROUP OF ARCHITECTS by bolsheviks enlightenment

1907 1917 1927 1937 1947 1957 1967 1977 1987 1997 2007 The second target audience of our planned campaign history and its heritage. The structural transformation activity. I propose lifting communication barriers are decisions makers, including state officials, and of the protection system itself, the involvement of between all participants, creating an operational members of movements protecting urban heritage. public support in it became new characteristics of the vocabulary of terms and forms of interaction not only The goal of this publication is their serious, non- “state–heritage” situation. within the preservationist sphere but also outside it. formal involvement in the sphere of heritage It is important that private enterprise which, starting The present publication is intended for mass media preservation, as well as the definition of the current from the 1990s, became part of the system after including the Kommersant-Vlast’, the Russian Reporter, state and structure of that sphere and an attempt to legalizing the self-financed building projects that had the New Times, the Gazeta.ru, the Expert, etc. create an efficient vocabulary for interaction within existed unofficially before can no longer be controlled Our principal experts in this area were: Alexander it. The article is based on a reconstruction of the by the state: the entire activity is now contract based. Margolis (Memorial, Unesco expert, Spb), Alexander historical context of current state of dissonance in the The same applies to the parties renting monuments— Kibovsky (Head of Moskomnaledie), Marina sphere of urban development, especially as regards they work under contract, on mutually beneficial terms. Khrustaleva (activist, journalist, Archnadzor), the demolition of historic blocks of the capital. It Who but the state authorities and urban protection Clementine Cecil (MAPS, journalist), Grigori Revzin Quantity of monuments mentioned in federal lists is important for the parties involved to see one movements backed by civil society has the real power (architectural critic), Tatiana Krasheninnikova (deputy ER AND HERITAGE AND ER another as parts of the same system, to have a clear over our heritage? For even the owners of historic director of Kremlin Museum), Boris Kirikov (head W perception of the history of their relationship. During buildings have no real power to preserve or destroy of Saint-Peterburg branch of Institute of Theory of 8834 (1995) the Soviet epoch they were all technically the gears them. Architecture and Urbanistic, NIITAG).

PO of the same governmental clockwork, with each gear By unfolding the socio-political topic of power and A related event was our participation in the conference acting in the interests of the whole machinery. history, by delineating my own map of the world of the NIITAG RAASN titled “Urban Problems of The dynamics of listing architectural monuments and demonstrating that the old leviathan tears the Preservation” (June 9–10, 2011), with a report on the entitled to protection—as regards their number historical fabric of the city to pieces with appalling interaction between the old and new city. and identity—show the state’s changing attitude to efﬁciency, I try to involve a wide audience in our 8000(1930) 536 (1990) Rudmetalltorg – ofﬁce of metall Gostorg stocking and trade in Moscow for industrialization 478 (2000) needs Archnadzor

6/02/2010 L 6515 (1974) up to 700 participators 2% in protest manifestation isted historical cities of industrialization needs 40% or TO PRESERVACTION? of cost came to the price of Tractor plant in budget of city Tchelyabinsk

25 VOOPIK: own budget/workshops MLN RUBLES 15 mln members (1981)= 60% 3/4 communist party of cost came back to from sales from State museum Hermitage and other 6 mln members (1971) museums' collections Antiquariat auction trade from museum collections for Recycling of bells by Rudmetalltorg inustrialisation needs established (1966) Ю.Б. Галай Нормативные акты об охране колоколов и их практическая2870 реализация в Нижегородской(1923) губернии Source: Osokina «Gold for industrialization», Jukov «Stalin: operation Hermitage» MAPS VOOPIK Old Moscow, All-russian society Russian mansion amateurs etc. Russian avantguard Archnadzor Public organisation Old Saint-Petersburg Russian mansion for protection of historical and cultural monuments DO.CO.MO.MO foundation amateurs etc. ICOMOS International UNESCO support Professional Academy of Architecture society Academy of Architecture Ethnographers' -75% Production bureau (group) for protection and Scientific-production center for preservation of Regional bureau branches Regional inspections for protection of monuments usage of historical and cultural heritage historical and cultural heritage Office for state protection of heritage network Gubmusei Ethnographic museums Regional office of culture Regional scientific-production center for Regional department of culture (regional museums) 2000 (1930) 115 (1986) preservation of historical and cultural 550 (1947) heritage Professional Central state restoration workshops Central state restoration workshops restorers VOOPIK's restoration workshops VOOPIK's restoration workshops Central state restoration workshops 41 (2010) Regional restoration institutes&workshops Federal center for protection of architectural and urban planning heritage State Museum department State inspection for protection of monuments Organisation of Glavnauka (Science) Comission of Academy of Architecture RosSvyazOhranKultura/Federal service for protection of mass media and cultural heritage Narkompros Ministry of construction Ministry of culture Laws

State/private/public 1907system of preservation 1917 1927 1937 1947 1957 1967 1977 1987 1997 2007 Krutikov/Kaganovich dialogue >15000 (2010) about urbanization IN MY OPINION THE DECISION (DEMOLITION OF TOWER) WAS RIGHT, I SUPPOSE, THAT SOVIET PLANNING SCHEME DOESN'T STOP BEFORE Our society is able to create PEOPLE COULD CREATE GREATER AND MORE DEMOLITION OF ONE OR ANOTHER the beauty, immensely more MEMORABLE EXAMPLES OF ARCHITECTURE THAN MONUMENT, IF IT'S ON THE WAY OF URBAN excellent than all, what could be SUKHAREVA TOWER DEVELOPMENT dreamt about in the past L.KAGANOVICH, OFFICER FOR MOSCOW V.Lenin, 1918 Moscow general plan curated by Sergey Polonsky , real-estate Kaganovich&Stalin 1935 developper Nowhere people could learn 1934 such artistic range as that was Blasting of Sukhareva tower by done by nobility at its zenith trafﬁc reason (ofﬁcially) A.Lunacharsky «Why we protect Romanov' 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 A.Lunacharsky DEMOLITION OF TOWER IS INAPPROPRIATE, IF G.Krutikov activist, journalist, Archnadzor The head of 1918 1929 THE TARGET IS ADJUSTMENT OF TRAFFIC, THE 1933 Bombing of NarKomPros RESULT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY OTHER MEDIAS Sergey Gordeev, ex-senator, Moscow Kremlin Commissariat of A.TSHUSSEV AND GROUP OF ARCHITECTS by bolsheviks enlightenment Russian avanguard foundation

1907 1917 1927 1937 1947 1957 1967 1977 1987 1997 2007 The second target audience of our planned campaign history and its heritage. The structural transformation activity. I propose lifting communication barriers are decisions makers, including state officials, and of the protection system itself, the involvement of between all participants, creating an operational members of movements protecting urban heritage. public support in it became new characteristics of the vocabulary of terms and forms of interaction not only Vladimir Ressin (building department supervisor), Vladimir Putin (prime-minister), The goal of this publication is their serious, non- “state–heritage” situation. within the preservationist sphere but also outside it. Jury Luzhkov (ex-mayor of Moscow) formal involvement in the sphere of heritage It is important that private enterprise which, starting The present publication is intended for mass media preservation, as well as the definition of the current from the 1990s, became part of the system after including the Kommersant-Vlast’, the Russian Reporter, state and structure of that sphere and an attempt to legalizing the self-financed building projects that had the New Times, the Gazeta.ru, the Expert, etc. Alexander Kibovsky, head of Moskomnasledie create an efficient vocabulary for interaction within existed unofficially before can no longer be controlled Our principal experts in this area were: Alexander Natalia Dushkina, it. The article is based on a reconstruction of the by the state: the entire activity is now contract based. Margolis (Memorial, Unesco expert, Spb), Alexander Grigory Revzin, expert on preservation of modern architectural critic, architecture historical context of current state of dissonance in the The same applies to the parties renting monuments— Kibovsky (Head of Moskomnaledie), Marina journalist sphere of urban development, especially as regards they work under contract, on mutually beneficial terms. Khrustaleva (activist, journalist, Archnadzor), the demolition of historic blocks of the capital. It Who but the state authorities and urban protection Clementine Cecil (MAPS, journalist), Grigori Revzin Quantity of monuments mentioned in federal lists is important for the parties involved to see one movements backed by civil society has the real power (architectural critic), Tatiana Krasheninnikova (deputy ER AND HERITAGE AND ER another as parts of the same system, to have a clear over our heritage? For even the owners of historic director of Kremlin Museum), Boris Kirikov (head W perception of the history of their relationship. During buildings have no real power to preserve or destroy of Saint-Peterburg branch of Institute of Theory of 8834 (1995) the Soviet epoch they were all technically the gears them. Architecture and Urbanistic, NIITAG).

PO of the same governmental clockwork, with each gear By unfolding the socio-political topic of power and A related event was our participation in the conference acting in the interests of the whole machinery. history, by delineating my own map of the world of the NIITAG RAASN titled “Urban Problems of The dynamics of listing architectural monuments and demonstrating that the old leviathan tears the Preservation” (June 9–10, 2011), with a report on the entitled to protection—as regards their number historical fabric of the city to pieces with appalling interaction between the old and new city. and identity—show the state’s changing attitude to efﬁciency, I try to involve a wide audience in our 8000(1930) 536 (1990) Voopik/Archnadzor Rudmetalltorg – ofﬁce of metall Gostorg stocking and trade in Moscow for industrialization 478 (2000) needs Archnadzor

Ю.Б. Галай Нормативные акты об охране колоколов и их практическая2870 реализация в Нижегородской(1923) губернии Source: Osokina «Gold for industrialization», Jukov «Stalin: operation Hermitage» MAPS VOOPIK Old Moscow, All-russian society Russian mansion amateurs etc. Russian avantguard Archnadzor Public organisation Old Saint-Petersburg Russian mansion for protection of historical and cultural monuments DO.CO.MO.MO foundation amateurs etc. ICOMOS PUBLIC SUPPORT International UNESCO support Professional Academy of Architecture society Academy of Architecture Ethnographers' -75% Production bureau (group) for protection and Scientific-production center for preservation of Regional bureau branches Regional inspections for protection of monuments usage of historical and cultural heritage historical and cultural heritage Office for state protection of heritage network Gubmusei Ethnographic museums Regional office of culture Regional scientific-production center for Regional department of culture (regional museums) 2000 (1930) 115 (1986) preservation of historical and cultural 550 (1947) heritage Professional Central state restoration workshops Central state restoration workshops PRIVATE/COMMERCIAL restorers VOOPIK's restoration workshops VOOPIK's restoration workshops Central state restoration workshops 41 (2010) Regional restoration institutes&workshops Federal center for protection of architectural and urban planning heritage State Museum department State inspection for protection of monuments Organisation of Glavnauka (Science) Comission of Academy of Architecture RosSvyazOhranKultura/Federal service for protection of mass media and cultural heritage Narkompros Ministry of construction Ministry of culture Laws GOVERNMENTAL

1907 1917 1927 1937 1947 1957 1967 1977 1987 1997 2007 The third direction of our media campaign Blasting/recycling New Moscow suggests a possible strategy of heritage 1935 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 Urbanization RESERVATION bureaucrats’ offices, at architects’ desks and even P on building sites—is demonstrated. Another aspect of the paper concerns the object destruction/ 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: socialist ideology& socialist ideology& the pilot project of Block 130 in Irkutsk and the future heritage industrialization urbanization transformation of the Gorky Park in Moscow. The Irkutsk project features traditional wooden +present affirmation +futuristic position architecture of mid-19th century, while the Gorky STATE STATE REGIONAL REGIONAL STRATEGY OF OF STRATEGY Park basically involves landscape architecture reproducing the Czar’s palace and structures PROFESSIONALS PROFESSIONALS of early Soviet era. Both cases illustrate the PUBLIC SUPPORT PUBLIC SUPPORT interaction between parties previously regarded Mansion/palace Tower of as antagonists whose conflict of socio-economic museums Ust-Ilim fortress and political interests is now resolved beyond the in museum (Irkutsk) framework of architectural projects. There is an organizational structure suggested for Block 130. The foundation and management Postwar palace company involved in it tried to take into account renovation the interests of all concerned parties: investors, owners, architects, restorers, the state and of course the prospective end users. preservation>>> As regards the Gorky Park project, a system of preliminary discussions was put forward. Those discussions are supposed to align the Kazan cathedral as museum of religious history and atheism (Spb) attitudes of participants and to define the object Preservationist Planner&owner of preservation. The extremely diverse range of people (professional architects, landscape 1930(-75%) 1966(+75%) Museum of wooden designers, keepers, social scientists, investors, art architecture in directors, various officials, local residents, etc.) Kolomenskoe (Msk) attracted by those discussions all ended up “in veracity& veracity& the same boat.” Trying to find common ground authenticity authenticity they discussed various issues sitting literally on +futuristic position +balance old/new Architects, Architects, the same level, without a central stage. There painters, restorers painters, restorers, STATE + STATE historians, was a “roomful of kids of different ages,” as Fred defending of ethnographers REGIONAL religious values REGIONAL + Manson (urban renewal specialist from the United tourists, peasants Kingdom) described the participants of the Gorky PROFESSIONALS PROFESSIONALS Park preservation round table. PUBLIC SUPPORT PUBLIC SUPPORT 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 defense the project is an extremely subtle combination of various traditions that emerged, relative to the Sukhareva park, in different generations, involving different square spaces and scenic effects that express them. 1935 New Moscow The interesting part is that the park becomes a 1924 stage for an ever-changing set of actors—ordinary people who visit it and bring to life the preserved 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 destruction/ historian), Alexander Margolis (deputy chief of Spb “Memorial” branch, historian). Restorers, A related event: “The Gorky Park: The Past and the historians, ethnographers + Future,” a round table at Strelka (May 18, 2011, future heritagecitizens, nimby moderated by Nikita Tokarev).

Gorky park in Moscow: from Assoult of fountain to New old symbols. STATE commercialization REGIONAL afﬁrmation of self- PROFESSIONALS identity PUBLIC SUPPORT

Megaprojects, Ust-Ilim Hydro- electric power station, 1960- 1980 REGIONALnext preservation>>> PROFESSIONALS PUBLIC SUPPORT PEOPLE Media&architect +owner PROFESSIONALS 2011(-90%)(city)

STATE veracity& MIDDLEMAN authenticity +image of the past STATE REGIONAL History of planning structure PROFESSIONALS PUBLIC SUPPORT Recreation of Palace in Kolomenskoe Aggressive formulation of the problem for the preservationist (model of 1947, application in 1978), demolished in XVIII community and the breaking of the latter’s restrictive circle; defense century 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.

XX XIX XVIII XVII XVI &gt;XVI

XX XIX XVIII XVII XVI >XVI