Uninvited guests from the future

One of the main documents presented at the well-known exhibition of the Okhta Center, which claims to have a “deviation” of up to 396 meters in height, is the summary conclusion of the Committee on Urban Planning and Architecture, signed on September 14, 2009 (the author did not mix up anything - it is September that is on the document: as they say, they were ahead of their time).

Officials are afraid to take responsibility for the construction of a gas scraper

Lunar landscape of the Okhta Center

Disability Committee
The document, in accordance with city government decree No. 684 dated June 23, 2009, brings together the conclusions of the key administration committees on the issue of granting the said permit: KUGI, KGIOP, Committee on Land Resources and Land Management and others. Based on this conclusion (as well as on the recommendation of the land use and development commission), a decision is made whether to grant permission or not.
The most interesting of the departmental conclusions was sent by KGIOP, which is in the most delicate situation. Indeed, according to the specified government resolution, he must assess “the compliance of the requested deviation with the legislation of the Russian Federation and St. Petersburg on the protection of cultural heritage sites in terms of the impact of the requested deviation from the maximum parameters on the visual perception of protected panoramas and views.” Meanwhile, just one glance at the “visibility assessment materials” of the 396-meter tower, presented at the exhibition and commissioned by the Okhta ODC (this was discussed in detail in the last issue of Novaya), is quite sufficient to make a categorically negative conclusion about “compliance with the law” - everything is extremely clear...
And what does KGIOP report?
In a letter dated August 14, the chairman of the committee, Vera Dementieva, indicates that the capital construction project for which permission is being requested “is not classified as a cultural heritage site,” and the land plot is located “partially within the boundaries of the regulated development zone ZRZ 2-1, partially within the boundaries of the territory of the identified cultural heritage site “Nienschanz.”
It is further reported that “On February 10, 2009, the KGIOP approved an Act based on the results of the state historical and cultural (urban planning) examination of the height of local increases in the maximum height parameters for the development of St. Petersburg, carried out on behalf of the KGA.” According to the appendix to this act, “within the boundaries of the land plot with the capital construction project, local increases have not been adjusted.”
At the same time, “the regime of the ZRZ 2-1 zone provides that the maximum height parameters are determined in accordance with the Land Use and Development Rules of St. Petersburg,” which set for this site “as the limit parameters 48 meters along the street front and 100 m intrablock and along the building front.” And since “other studies, including the results of landscape-visual analysis, on the issue of high-rise construction in this area were not submitted to KGIOP and were not considered by KGIOP,” an elegant conclusion is drawn: “for this reason, at the moment, KGIOP is not able to assess the degree of influence of the requested deviation from the limit parameters on the visual perception of protected panoramas and views.”
Moreover, as Vera Dementyeva reports, “according to paragraph 1.7 of Appendix 2 to the Law of St. Petersburg dated December 24, 2009 No. 820-7 (law on the boundaries of protection zones of cultural heritage objects and regimes of protection zones - B.V.), KGIOP is authorized to issue conclusions on the issue of deviation from the limit parameters only within 10 percent,” and “construction of buildings, structures and buildings that are of particular importance for the social, economic, cultural and other development of St. Petersburg, with deviations from the requirements of the regimes, are permitted subject to a positive conclusion of the state historical and cultural examination on the compliance of the deviations with the requirements of state protection of cultural heritage sites and based on the results of public hearings.”
In other words, Vera Anatolyevna carefully steps aside, clearly not trying to take on the main responsibility for resolving an extremely sensitive issue.
Strictly speaking, this answer alone is enough to postpone the hearing until the KGIOP gets acquainted with the results of the “landscape-visual analysis” (which, as already said, is on display) and draws a conclusion about the influence of the gas scraper on the “visual perception” of panoramas and views protected by law. And it’s not difficult to predict this conclusion - but, apparently, this is exactly what Smolny really doesn’t want to do: well, how can you say that black is white?
Of course, it can be published in the “Petersburg Diary”, but paid propaganda is one thing, and the official conclusions of state bodies are completely different: after all, you’ll have to answer for them... And where can you get the “positive conclusion of the state historical and cultural examination”? Who in their right mind and clear memory will sign it without risking their position (not to mention their reputation)?

Letters of recommendation
No less interesting is the conclusion made by the KGA itself - on the “assessment of the visibility of the planned facility in relation to protected panoramas and surrounding buildings,” signed by the deputy chairman of the KGA, Viktor Polishchuk. It recognizes that the object “will have an impact on the formation of the compositional and environmental characteristics of the urban environment, as a new dominant feature in the new reconstructed development of the right bank of the Neva River” and – what is much more significant – that “based on the results of the visibility assessment, taking into account the requested deviations, the object will also have an impact on the urban space of the central districts of St. Petersburg, as a new dominant feature against the backdrop of panoramas of streets, squares, embankments, gardens and parks.”
After which a remarkable conclusion is made that “the issue of the admissibility and nature of the influence of the planned construction project on the city’s panoramas, including historical ones, if the height of 100 meters established by the regulations is exceeded, should be considered by the Town Planning Council of St. Petersburg” (!).
In other words, Viktor Efimovich, no less carefully than Vera Anatolyevna, makes it clear that he does not want to bear personal responsibility for the scandalous resolution, and turns the tables on the Town Planning Council. At the same time, not a single legal act provides for the slightest legal participation of this purely advisory body in making decisions on “deviation”. As in making other decisions: in the regulations on the City Council it is directly written: “The decisions of the council, recorded in the minutes of meetings and approved by the chairman of the council, are advisory in nature.”
The meaning of this “psychotechnique,” ​​meanwhile, is quite clear: if the city council considers the influence of a 396-meter tower acceptable, officials will rely on it, abdicating responsibility. And if he considers it unacceptable, it’s easy to dismiss his recommendatory position...

Dictation for officials
Finally, the conclusion of the Committee on Land Resources and Land Management dated August 13, signed by acting. O. Chairman Gennady Lebedev. It is notable for the fact that word for word it repeats... the “justifications” sent by the Okhta Center! Because it says that the land plot has precisely those supposedly “unfavorable for development” characteristics, on the basis of which Gazprom’s people are asking to be allowed to build not a 100-meter building, but a 396-meter building. And for those who do not understand, it is separately written that the committee “does not object to the consideration by the Land Use and Development Commission of the issue of granting a variance permit.”
If someone thinks that in this case we are not dealing with a conspiracy of businessmen and officials who, without hesitation, show that they are playing on the same team, find another word. And it seems very likely that the officials received an unequivocal go-ahead from their superiors to, regardless of the law, push through what was ordered at all costs.
If they succeed, the precedent created (for all its enormity, given the influence of the gas scraper on the historical views of St. Petersburg) will be even more dangerous than the fact.
Because the entire system of urban planning and security legislation will be destroyed in one fell swoop.
If a developer can obtain permission to deviate, whose only argument will be that it is unprofitable for him to build within the parameters established by law, then why do we need a law at all? Indeed, in this case, others will immediately follow the path trodden by Gazprom, declaring that it is also not profitable for them to comply with the law, but it is profitable to break it...
The corruption of this construction does not require proof - and what about Dmitry Medvedev’s constant statements about the rule of law, legality and a merciless fight against corruption?
And what about these remarkable statements?
“The land use and development rules are addressed to everyone who wants to know where and what can be built. And where and why - it’s impossible. It is impossible to bypass the PZZ. I would compare them to a “dam” that protects the city from waves of administrative resources, lobbying and commercial appetites.”
“The law on protected zones is nothing more than a certificate of protection for the historical center. An end has been put to the voluntarism of owners, investors, developers, officials, and architects. The historical landscape, its silhouette and panoramas are protected.”
This is from the last message of Governor Valentina Matvienko to the Legislative Assembly.
In light of the events described, these pretentious statements sound like cynical mockery.
However, even when this was said, some skeptics (like the author) believed that these words were not even worth the paper on which they would be printed.

Boris VISHNEVSKY
Photo by Alexander KULEBYAKIN

Meanwhile
As Novaya was told, yesterday at the Laminated Plastics Plant on the Revolution Highway, Gazprom workers gathered “foremen” who were supposed to bring people from their enterprises and organizations to the hearings on September 1 and allegedly distributed to them questionnaires prepared for future discussion, on which the extras should rely. It is proposed to ask about anything, but not about the merits of the matter - that is, about the legality of granting permission to “deviate”. It is likely that the crowd will blurt out this key issue, replacing it with a discussion of improvement, job creation, construction of “cultural centers” and other favorite topics of the Okhta Center PR people.
Well, tomorrow the “Civic Coalition in Defense of St. Petersburg,” which includes representatives of “Living City,” “Yabloko,” the Movement of Civil Initiatives, “Okhtinskaya Bulge,” the ECOM Center and other organizations, intends to file a lawsuit to declare the appointment of hearings illegal, since both federal and city legislation were grossly violated during their preparation.
At the same time, since Monday, a collection of signatures against the gas scraper, organized by the coalition, has been going on on the Internet at http://bashne.net/.