The Soviet Heritage and European Modernism - Heritage ... - Icomos

More documents

Recommendations

Info

72 III. “Heritage at Risk“ – Case Studies from Moscow and the Former Soviet Union sity of traffic and extremely large operational load on the whole network have had a damaging effect especially on the earliest lines, which are in a poor technical state and have suffered losses. The drainage and ventilation systems, which are of primary importance in all underground spaces, need replacing. Structural elements and expensive materials used to decorate the stations are in danger of disintegration due to damp. Another source of danger is existing projects to reconstruct stations built in the 1930 s −1950 s to meet Moscow’s transport needs. There is still insufficient recognition of the fact that stations on the Moscow metro need to be restored in accordance with contemporary world practice for restoring monuments, or that restoration projects are extremely expensive affairs. Given the existing tendency to replace authentic materials with new ones that considerably alter both the concept of ‘heritage’ and the buildings’ appearance, the fate of these ‘station monuments’ remains highly uncertain. This is all the more so since what is needed in the present case is new methods of conserving artificially created underground spaces that are under constant and extreme pressure due to difficult terrain, heavy use, and damp. There is a very clear need today to secure official protection for the entire network of stations from the 1930 s to 50 s as a unified urban ensemble – a unique monument of international importance that deserves to be included in UNESCO’s World Heritage List as one of the most famous underground systems in the world. Mayakovskaya metrostation in Moscow, 1938, arch. A. Dushkin, artist A. Deineka. Condition in 2006 Several actions have been launched since the late 1980 s to establish a programme on the protection of Moscow metro. Currently, the outcome of these activities reveals the necessity 1. to continue the permanent campaign in the mass media to raise conservation awareness (of both authorities and public at large) regarding this unique system; 2. to treat the programme on metro protection as a national priority of strategic importance aimed at security and preservation of this historical transport infrastructure; 3. to register the whole complex of Moscow metro stations of the 1930 s −1950 s as an integral urban ensemble; 4. to list this monument as a cultural property of Federal significance leading to the World Heritage nomination; 5. to work out a conservation methodology (for shortterm and long-term perspectives) for the man-made underground spaces being under permanent transportation, ground and water pressure, based on the multidisciplinary involvement of hydro-geologists, engineers, architects, restorers, designers, technicians. Otherwise, the metro’s degradation is inevitable. _ Heritage @ Risk Special 2006
III. “Heritage at Risk“ – Case Studies from Moscow and the Former Soviet Union 73 Clementine Cecil The Melnikov House-Studio Melnikov house, view from the rear side in 2006 The Melnikov House-Studio was one of the most controversial sites to be discussed during the Heritage at Risk conference in Moscow in April 2006. A round table was dedicated to the fate of the house and it rapidly became clear that a lack of unity of opinion among Moscow’s preservation and architectural community concerning the future of the house, threaten it as much as its disputed legal status. The House-Studio was constructed in 1927–1929 by architect Konstantin Melnikov for himself and his family and it is an international icon of the Modern movement. At the time Melnikov was the star architect of the Soviet Union, having won the Grand Prix for his Soviet pavilion at the Paris Exposition in 1925. His was one of the few private houses to be built during the Soviet period. Although radical in appearance and reminiscent of American grain silos, peasant building techniques were employed in the construction of the house, making it extremely efficient economically. The hexagonal windows that pierce the interlocking cylinders of the house, are redolent of the ramparts of fortresses, while the rough plastered brick texture of the inside walls are taken from church architecture. Large internal spaces were possible thanks to innovative building techniques introduced by the architect such as self-reinforcing floors built from a waffle-like grid. Thanks to these windows the top studio is flooded with light, especially in the morning, and after he was ostracized from Moscow’s architectural community in the 1930s, Konstantin Melnikov spent his days here painting. After his death in 1974, his son, Viktor Melnikov, also a painter, lived and worked in the house. Viktor died in February 2006, leaving his part of the house to the Russian state, on the condition that they create a museum to Konstantin and Viktor Melnikov in the building. Though Viktor was resident in the house until his death, he owned only half of it. His sister, Ludmila Melnikova, owned the rest. She died in 2003 and her son, Alexei Ilganaev, inherited her share. Long before Viktor’s death he fell out with his youngest daughter Elena, who deceived her father into signing his share of the house over to her. He fought her in the courts for the last two years of his life. In December 2005, Viktor and Ekaterina defeated Elena’s claim to own half of the house. In March Elena finally dropped her appeal against the court ruling. However, the situation was complicated when it transpired shortly after Viktor’s death that Ilganaev had sold his half of the house to Russian senator Sergei Gordeev. Gordeev professes to want to create a museum in the house. However, Viktor Melnikov clearly stated in his will that he wants the house to be a state-run museum and his daughter Ekaterina, executor of the will, is determined to fulfil her father’s wish. Senator Gordeev’s intentions are laudable but there is no precedent of a privately-owned museum in an architectural monument in Russia and Ekaterina and Russia’s preservation community are therefore nervous about such a possibility. The Cultural Ministry have not declared an interest in the house. They appear unwilling to enter into negotiations in this complicated situation. Viktor’s will comes into force on August 6 th 2006, six months after Viktor’s death. These ownership disputes have paralysed the maintenance of the house. The Moscow Architecture Preservation Society (MAPS) raised £ 15,000 from the Boris Yeltsin Foundation in December 2005 to conduct a survey of the house following increasing subsidence problems due to intensive development in the area. However, in the light of the property dispute that followed Viktor’s death, the Foundation wisely chose to withdraw the grant until the dispute be settled. In June 2006 the archive of Konstantin and Viktor Melnikov was transferred to the Russian State Shchusev Mu- _ Heritage @ Risk Special 2006
Page 1:
The Soviet Heritage and European Mo
Page 4 and 5:
Heritage at Risk Special Edition ed
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Alexander Lozhkin House of
Page 8 and 9:
Editorial
Page 10 and 11:
10 the Technical University of Ber
Page 12 and 13:
12 МОСКОВСКАЯ ДЕКЛА
Page 14 and 15:
Initial Statements
Page 16 and 17:
16 Initial Statements ICOMOS, The W
Page 18 and 19:
18 Initial Statements agement and p
Page 20 and 21:
20 Initial Statements Almost Full C
Page 22 and 23: 22 Initial Statements Maristella Ca
Page 24 and 25: 24 Initial Statements John Stubbs M
Page 26 and 27: 26 Initial Statements Narkomfin Bui
Page 28 and 29: I. The International Day for Monume
Page 30 and 31: 30 I. The International Day for Mon
Page 48 and 49: II. Heritage Saved from Risk - Case
Page 50 and 51: 50 II. Heritage Saved from Risk - C
Page 62 and 63: III. “Heritage at Risk” - Case
Page 64 and 65: 64 III. “Heritage at Risk“ - Ca
Page 100 and 101: 100 III. “Heritage at Risk“ - C
Page 102 and 103: IV. World Heritage Sites of the 20
Page 104 and 105: 104 IV. World Heritage Sites of the
Page 122 and 123:
122 IV. World Heritage Sites of the
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
V. Moscow - Berlin: Interchanges an
Page 140 and 141:
140 V. Moscow - Berlin: Interchange
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
172 Monuments of Modern Architectur
Page 174 and 175:
174 Monuments of Modern Architectur
Page 176 and 177:
Photo Credits If not indicated othe
Page 178 and 179:
178 Colour Plates Gosplan Garage of
Page 180 and 181:
180 Colour Plates Narkomfin Commune
Page 182 and 183:
182 Colour Plates Powerstation of t
Page 184 and 185:
184 Colour Plates The spiral stairc
Page 186 and 187:
186 Colour Plates Bauhaus Building
Page 188 and 189:
188 Colour Plates Bruno Taut (1880
Page 190 and 191:
190 Colour Plates Housing block in
Page 192 and 193:
192 Colour Plates Dormitory of the
Page 194:
Authors Omar Akbar Architect. Profe
show all

The Soviet Heritage and European Modernism - Heritage ... - Icomos

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?