Insufferable Constructivism

Achtung, investors!
In 1942, besieged Leningrad, barely alive, found the strength to save the building of the Frunzensky department store, which had suffered from enemy bombing, from destruction - it was repaired and reopened to customers in 1944. It was a completely different kind of strength - not the current one, which is measured by flexing financial muscles - but the kind of fortitude that, counteracting humiliation, straightens your back.
The current city leadership considers it possible to consider the most perverted quirks of those who want to use this or that part of the St. Petersburg body, it’s just a question of the price of the issue.
“We will fulfill any of your fantasies,” it’s just right to write on the doors of the Smolny Investment Committee, the head of which Maxim Sokolov sees nothing wrong even in using the necropolis for underground parking, which is so unprofitably occupied by the remains under the Champs of Mars. In a recent television interview, Sokolov said that the department he heads supports the project involving the demolition of the building of the Frunzensky department store - “the only acceptable option” that allows the investor to profitably use this site for the construction of a class “A” business center, which cannot be fit into the old walls .
“But the department store building has a burden - as a newly identified protected object,” recalls Mikhail Milchik, a member of the federal and city councils for the preservation of cultural heritage. “And whoever bought it knew this very well.” It was with this reality that you should have measured your plans, and not turned everything upside down: first you received a monument, and then “suddenly” you realized that it was not suitable for adaptation to the intended purposes!

You weren't standing here
The question arises: why did Sokolov’s committee accept such an investment proposal for consideration if it was initially clear that the layout of the historical building with high interfloor ceilings does not allow it to be used for office space? Probably because something else was also clear - there is no need to proceed from the interests of preserving the monument when the interests of such nice people as Vice-Governor Yuri Molchanov and not the governor’s namesake Sergei Matvienko are at stake. Business Link Development LLC, created by Molchanov, is in fact driving this project - in official language, “it acts under the power of attorney of the JFC Group joint-stock company, the owner of the land plot. VTB Capital, a subsidiary development company of Vneshtorgbank, headed by Sergei Matvienko, according to the Kommersant newspaper, is also interested in new construction on the site of Frunzensky - as colleagues suggest, Matvienko’s son’s company has the intention to buy up the department store building.
Matvienko-mother, responding to an appeal from deputy Alexey Kovalev, concerned about the fate of the unique monument of constructivism, dryly reported that, at the request of Business Link Development LLC, the Committee on Urban Planning and Architecture informed the Construction Committee “about the need to develop a project for planning the territory of the quarter, limited by Moscow, Malodetskoselsky Avenue, Bronnitskaya Street and the Obvodny Canal embankment, combined with the land surveying project.” And that the decision to implement the construction of a business center on the site of the newly identified monument “can be made based on the results of the development of the specified documentation, taking into account the conclusion of the KGIOP on this issue.”
It is noteworthy that Governor Matvienko, who two years ago personally signed the “St. Petersburg Strategy...”, declaring the priority of preserving cultural heritage, does not at all express any intention to find ways to implement this principle in relation to the constructivist monument, but only talks about ways to “implement the construction of a business center.” And Smolny, it seems, is not at all embarrassed by the fact that even before the announcement of the historical and cultural examination and a possible revision of the status of this object, before the official decision is made, the customer is already negotiating with the Association for the Demolition of Buildings, whose representatives have been publicly discussing for several months with which technical difficulties will be encountered when dismantling a historical object. And in television reports it is quickly reported - also as if the matter has already been decided - that a whole number of houses adjacent to Frunzensky have to be resettled. Where, by the way, do people live? Today they know nothing about what will happen to their property, how the dismantling of the department store will affect the condition of the neighboring buildings - some of which are of cultural value. It is hardly possible to list them all as emergency at once - many houses have undergone major repairs. By the way, Fruznensky itself was overhauled after the fire of 1988.
In the architectural workshop where they are working on the ordered layout of this quarter, they admit that they really wanted to proceed from the preservation of the unique constructivist building. But the attitude was completely different - they say, draw as if he was no longer here.

Split personalities
The head of the Committee on Urban Planning and Architecture (KGA), Alexander Viktorov, answering a question about his attitude towards Frunzensky, said: “As an official, now I treat him as a monument. If this status is removed from him, then I will not treat him as a monument.” And in conclusion, he shared the intimate experience of Viktorov the man, and not Viktorov, the chief architect of St. Petersburg: “This building somehow always frightened me...” It’s scary to even imagine what in this case will happen to the mobile psyche of the chairman of the KGA when he grows up on the banks of the Neva Gazprom Neft skyscraper.
The conclusion of the examination, ordered (and, accordingly, paid for) by the developer, was expected by April 12. However, the announcement of the verdict was postponed for another week. According to some information, serious battles have unfolded within the organization conducting the examination, and while in a stubborn battle with a substantial fee, professional honor still does not want to give up. Her victory could be a real gift for the International Day for the Preservation of Monuments, which was celebrated yesterday, April 18.

Alternative
Meanwhile, an alternative examination was initiated by the St. Petersburg branch of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Monuments. Its leadership team was re-elected last week. The co-chairs of the regional VOOPIiK were the historian Alexander Margolis and the architect Margarita Stiglitz (previously the head of the industrial architecture department of the KGIOP, disbanded after her forced departure), known for their inflexibility in protecting cultural heritage. The presidium was also fundamentally updated, which included young and energetic defenders of historical St. Petersburg - including “Living City” activists Elena Minchenok and Elizaveta Nikonova, as well as deputy Alexey Kovalev. The issue of effective participation in the fate of the Fruznensky department store became one of the first on the agenda of the new council of the St. Petersburg VOOPIiK. It was decided to involve leading specialists from the Academy of Architectural and Construction Sciences (Moscow) and DOCOMOMO International (architectural heritage of the 20th century) in conducting an independent examination.

Tatiana LIKHANOVA

Opinion
Chairman of the KGIOP Vera Dementyeva stated that she sees no reason to exclude this monument from the lists of newly identified objects, because its historical and cultural value and important city-forming role are undoubted. “It would be wrong to lose him,” says Dementieva.

Help from Novaya:
The building of the Frunzensky department store was built in the mid-30s of the last century by architects E. and L. Katonin, E. Sokolov and K. Johansen. It is an outstanding example of late constructivist architecture and has important city-forming significance in the development of Moskovsky Prospekt and the Obvodny Canal. The surviving architectural monument of this era is of exceptional value and is not only Russian, but also a world cultural heritage, as recorded in the recommendation for the protection of the architectural heritage of the twentieth century by the Committee of Ministers of the member countries of the Council of Europe, adopted on September 9, 1991.

Foster, be human!
The Living City public movement sent a letter to Norman Foster (the architect of the project to build a business center on the site of the Frunzensky department store), calling on the eminent British architect not to participate in the implementation of the project, paid for by the destruction of a unique monument of Soviet constructivism.
“You are one of the most outstanding architects of our era,” the address says. – We will be glad to see your works, complementing the beautiful architectural monuments of our city.
We understand that you cannot help but feel respect for the works of outstanding masters of past eras. Moreover, you cannot agree to create your creations in a place specially cleared of such works for you.
We are talking about the building of the Frunzensky department store in St. Petersburg on Moskovsky Prospekt and the bank of the Obvodny Canal. This building is a key monument of the Constructivist era. This is a monument of not only national but world cultural heritage. This is a monument to those gigantic efforts of the human spirit and intellect that gave birth to a new phenomenon - the architecture of the 20th century. Including the one of which you are an outstanding representative.
We appeal to you to use your authority as a world-class architect in order to convince the Administration of our city to abandon the idea of ​​demolishing the Frunzensky department store. This will be another wonderful work of yours.”
At the same time, a collection of signatures from townspeople has begun under an appeal to Valentina Matvienko, in which the governor is called upon to “reconsider his position in relation to the building of the Frunzensky department store and do everything possible to preserve it.”