Moscow has almost ten decades of history. However, not a single building or structure remains that was built when the city was founded. By comparison, none of Rome’s rulers, a city with twenty decades of history, dared to even consider “touching” the ruins of its ancient buildings.
Moscow’s reality is that in the last ninety years unique buildings were deliberately wiped from the city’s face, many of which were historical monuments or architectural masterpieces. Is it possible to revive the city’s historical appearance?
Is tradition necessary?
It is impossible to envisage a cultural legacy without historical architectural monuments, without museums, estates, theaters, cathedrals, unique buildings and squares … Without architectural masterpieces it is difficult to “identify” the city. Spassky Tower, Stalin’s high-rises, St Basil’s Church are to some extent distinctive features, without which Moscow would not be Moscow and would become lost among thousands of other faceless cities.
Currently, there are three main methods for regenerating a city’s historical aspect: restoration, reconstruction and erecting new buildings in ancient style based on drawings and photographs.
Restoration
Restoration involves accurately returning decrepit or ruined buildings or artistic monuments to their former original appearance. It differs from all other methods of repair and construction in that the building is returned exactly to its original state, using the same materials, technologies, etc. “Restoration is really a long, arduous, painstaking task”, observes Yulia Tryaskina, UNK Project architect. “In Moscow, architectural monuments are fully restored, from the walls to the pattern in the parquet flooring, ceiling frescos, and plasterwork right down to the furniture”.
Restoration projects start by preparing the full set of project documentation. This process involves a series of tasks in various stages. In the first stage, the building permits and authorizing documents are prepared. In the next stage, specialists engage in deeper scientific research, which serve as the basis for the project’s solutions. This may entail historical-archive or bibliographic research, general drawings, architectural research, archaeological or technical engineering works, or research on the interior fittings. All works are recorded with detailed photographs, necessary for the building’s precise restoration. Only once this stage has been completed, can the restoration project and works budget be prepared.
“The last two stages apply to any construction project. Documents, research and works are prepared in line with the “Restoration rules and norms” stipulated by the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Culture. Public authorities for the protection of monuments and preservation of the cultural legacy supervise restoration works”, explains Viktor Mosin, deputy General Manager of KROST concern for economics and finance.
Restoration and reconstruction projects are monitored together with all other types of construction by authorities such as the State Construction Archive Inspectorate (IGACN). If restoration work is on a national architectural monument, the works are additionally supervised directly by the federal or national Monuments Preservation Inspectorate (depending on the building’s status). Experts believe that the quality of restoration today leaves much to be desired. The reason is that building’s handover to the State Commission – the final phase of any construction and in particular, restored construction – is only accepted by the IGACN. This allows contractors to simplify the technology used in the works. In practice, there are many breaches of the principles of restoration.
Restoration work does not tolerate conceit. “The restorer’s primordial task is to enter the spirit of the building’s historical period and to try and recreate the building in full, excluding the possibility of incorporating any personal elements” notes Dmitry Geichenko, head of the Geichenko Architectural Bureau. “I remember my impression on my last visit to Tsarytsino, which was built by the architect Bazhenov. In the old brick cladding of Bazehnov’s era there was a bizarre “implant” in a section of brick, the restorer apparently thought that its color was near enough to the original. It was impossible to look at this “fake” restoration. It’s the same as trying to restore a Leonardo da Vinci fresco by using bright colors to color in the missing parts to see it better. The problem lies in the attitude towards the restoration’s object. Many of our builders do not care a jot what happens once the cultural monument has been restored”.
Of course, there are examples of successful restoration: the National Hotel, the French and British embassy buildings, etc. However, as professionals, examples of unsuccessful restoration are much more common. “This is because there are no special sanctions for failing to comply with Restoration norms. No special measures are taken against the builders of restored or reconstructed works and there are no special criteria for granting a license for restoration works. Builders are simply liable on the basis of existing legislation for any breach of construction norms”, observes Viktor Mosin.
There is a reduced circle of genuine professional restorers and appraisers of original old works. Because of this, many buildings end up in the hands of builders who are unskilled at restoration works and who are frequently inclined to make savings. Often, even the customer is uninterested in art and culture. All of these factors contribute to the concept of “restoration” becoming “renovation”, and restored buildings becoming a cheap replica.
However, it is important to note that restoration can be up to ten times more expensive than other renovation works. “Investors, builders or owners always want to make savings, which, naturally, reduces the quality of the work. Moreover, often a building’s elements or basic features may be irrecoverable. To give the building its exact original appearance may only be achievable by a genuine professional, who, naturally, costs more. This is one reason why we mostly see unsuccessfully restored buildings. As a result the city’s historical architecture suffers”, observes Dmitry Geichenko.
Owners of architectural monuments should consider the fact that it is not easy to manage a masterpiece. It is worth asking whether it is possible to incur in the kind of expenditure required by restoration, and not find oneself following in the footsteps of Nikolay Pryakhin of the Golden Calf, who, as we know, lived by the principle “This is what we want, this is what we’ll do!”
Actually, criminal methods may also be used to avoid expensive restoration. It’s not a secret that they are used when an investor is interested in a specific plot of land and is prepared to do anything to reduce costs and receive the prized site. “Many architectural monuments are destroyed in Moscow. “Deliberate” fires generally break out in defunct historical buildings or in buildings that require full professional refurbishment. Even when restoration is possible on complex buildings, some believe that it is cheaper and easier to create an “unfortunate accident””, notes Yulia Tryaskina.
Excluding the Egyptian pyramids, there are no buildings that cannot be restored or rebuilt. At the end of the day, nowadays there are virtually no problems that cannot be solved – modern technology, materials and construction and assembly techniques make it possible to execute any type of work.
Despite the fact that restoration entails reinstating the original aspect, it does allow certain features of a building to be modernized. These works are called “restoration with elements of reconstruction”.
“At the same time, not to change something during restoration is practically impossible because in some cases wood after centuries rots beyond repair, which can make a building dangerous. It is possible to change a building’s internal components during restoration works because at the end of the day this will extend its life term”, comments Dmitry Geichenko.
A key moment on the road to successful reconstruction is the correct choice of builder. The main criteria should be experience in restoration work for other architectural monuments. All other achievements in the construction sphere have no significance whatsoever in this particular activity.
Reconstruction
Reconstruction is the fundamental rebuilding or recreation of a structure based on its remains. The main difference between reconstruction and renovation is the lack of strict requirements regarding the use of materials and technology, which enables builders to conduct work using modern construction methods. In general, the building’s façade must be maintained, but all other details can be changed. “The most common obstacle for reconstruction (and in fact restoration) is the need to correct project documentation. Changes and additions need to be made to the project and this must take place according to the construction process at all stages of production” notes Viktor Mosin.
There are more examples of successful reconstruction than restoration in Moscow. These include: the Romanov Dvor business complex. The project began in the context of the reconstruction of the entire historical district in Romanov pereulok not far from the Kremlin. O. Popov’s Architectural Workshop and French colleagues were responsible for the project. Construction was completed in 1997. As a result, Moscow received a seven-storey office complex with the historical façade of a profit-making building of the end of the 19th century.
During reconstruction of Romanov Dvor – II, on the first floor of which the museum-flat of the academic Kliment Arkadevich Timiryazev is located, it was decided to demolish the building down to the first floor since if the museum-flat had been destroyed it would have been practically impossible to restore it to its former appearance and then rebuild the historical façade using new technologies.
An example of unsuccessful reconstruction is the renowned case of the Manezh. Its not necessary to hold a referendum among Moscow’s inhabitants to reach the foregoing conclusion that their attitude towards the work is positive. The opinion of professional architects familiar with the classical project of Beauvais, who designed the Manezh, differs from that of most of the population. “Specialists recognize that the Manezh was carelessly reconstructed. Unfortunately, we were totally unable to influence the situation; everything was decided by the “totalitarian system”. We must give thanks to the authorities for keeping the façade as it was before the fire. Where the interior is concerned – it is yet another fake, which our children will be unable to detect. The Manezh’s roof is now a crude forgery, different from the original, which considerably changes its historical appearance. Now, it is a different building”, remarks Dmitry Geichenko.
In recent years, many bureaucratic buildings have been subjected to reconstruction and redesign. One of them is the main building of the Krasnaya roza factory, which was built even before the revolution. Now, it contains an office center.
Another popular trend is to reconstruct old mansions. Most of them are in the district of Zamoskvorechye, and others are dispersed on the outskirts of the Garden Ring. Generally, these buildings are reconstructed and rented out as office buildings.
Of course, reconstructing buildings in the center is more expensive than new construction. But the expense is worthwhile – given the high demand for office space within the Central Administrative District, and the fact that sometimes it is impossible to erect new buildings in this area, owners of reconstructed buildings are fully entitled to increase their rent rates accordingly.
New buildings in ancient style
In the historical part of the city, new buildings are designed in ancient style. Market participants’ opinion on this varies. “I am not skeptical about these old-style new-builds. Any appraisal is fairly subjective, and each person has their own understanding of harmony, and sense of beauty. I do not have a negative attitude towards this type of recreation. If the end result creates the appearance of a beautiful old building using new materials and technologies, I can only welcome this”, says Viktor Mosin.
Yulia Tryaskina also shares her opinion on this matter: “New buildings in ancient style do not hinder architectural development when the architect designs the project on the basis of old buildings adapted to new historical conditions. But I categorically dislike it when buildings in the “classical style” are built without any knowledge of the canons of construction in preceding centuries”.
Avoid disgrace…
In recent years there has been a worrying trend to demolish architectural monuments that presented no danger and to rebuild them with improved appearance and functionality. Voentorg, a fantastic example of the Russian modern style, and the Moskva hotel designed by the renowned Stalin era architect, Alexey Shusev, have been demolished. Now, the Rossiya hotel, an architectural symbol of its time, is being pulled downThese and many other buildings create a historical environment, and give the city its inimitable appearance. Now is the right time to consider how to regenerate the city’s face while preserving architectural monuments for future generations.