Date
Author
Николай ПЕРЕСЛЕГИН; Советник Председателя Москомнаследия
Source
Preserved copy
Translated material
Was there a monument?
According to the Moscow Heritage Committee, at the site of building 3 on 5th Radialnaya Street, where the fire occurred, at the beginning of the 20th century there was a dacha of the chairman of the first State Duma S.N. Muromtseva. However, during the Great Patriotic War, an aerial bomb that exploded nearby practically destroyed it. From what used to be a dacha, only the foundation remains. In the 60s, a wooden barracks were built on this site. It was dubbed “Muromtsev’s dacha.” It is clear that, apart from a geographical reference to the place, this barrack had nothing in common with the house where the Muromtsevs lived.
Twice, in 1990 and in 2008, attempts were made to give the building the status of a state-protected object. And twice the experts of the Department for the Protection of Monuments refused this, finding no signs of cultural heritage. Moreover, in 2009, Moscow Heritage Committee conducted independent historical and cultural research. Their conclusions were clear: there are no grounds for placing the barracks under state protection. According to experts, only the foundations of the brick gates of the Erokhovs’ dacha have signs of cultural heritage, but they are located on 7th Radial Street. And this is a completely different story...
Apparently, there is no monument. It exists only in statements by representatives of the public movement "Arkhnadzor", who by "Muromtsev's dacha" understand a plot of land, a wooden barracks, fragments of garden plantings and the foundations of the brick gates of the Erokhovs' dacha. From their suggestion, a myth appeared about the so-called “Muromtsev’s dacha” - “a beautiful, truly valuable monument house” (as defined by one of the capital’s tabloids).
Chairman of the Moscow Heritage Committee Valery Shevchuk commented on the situation: “In 2008, the territory on which the building was located, by the way, the last one was wooden, was allocated for the economic needs of the Tsaritsyno estate.” Undoubtedly, it is a pity that rarities of the 19th century, autographs of writers, sketches of artists, were damaged in the fire, but they could have been registered, insured, and preserved. This can still be done - what is left. But in this case, the conversation is about an idyll destroyed by someone. Russian people are susceptible to nostalgic longing for the lost cherry orchard. And many are ready to look for those to blame. But facts are a very stubborn thing.”
Representatives of the public movement “Arkhnadzor”, its coordinators, came to the defense of the fire victims of the Muromtsev dacha. Nikolai Boldyrev, one of the residents of the “Vorona Settlement,” willingly gives interviews in which he describes the fire and mentions the children and pregnant women who lived in the house. Meanwhile, as it turns out, the house on 5th Radialnaya was resettled back in 1979. People were given apartments in Moscow, the house was declared uninhabited. People occupied them, but did not leave the “dacha”...
According to Nikolai Boldyrev’s confession on television, in 1979, when the house was occupied, everyone was given apartments. But some families did not leave. Because, firstly, no one kicked me out. Secondly, everyone here has a farm: vegetable gardens, orchards. There's a huge apple orchard and all that stuff...
There is one more detail that may clarify why the so-called residents hold on to their “dacha” and advocate its “recreation.” Back in 2007, its inhabitants filed a lawsuit. Since at that time several generations of each family had already lived in the house, the residents decided that, according to the Civil Code, they could count on receiving ownership of the house. Not somewhere in Zelenograd, but in Tsaritsyno Park...
In this regard, the statement of the famous defender of Moscow antiquity, architectural historian, specialist in the restoration of historical buildings Alexei Klimenko, who often stands in opposition to the official policy of the Moscow authorities, is interesting: “Call the barracks Muromtsev’s dacha, say that it is a masterpiece of architecture, put this barracks under protection or To build a dummy in its place, a remake, is wrong. The only thing that can be done after the barracks burned down is to make a memorial place here, install a vandal-proof terminal, the content of which would be the story of Muromtsev’s dacha, the story of what it looked like, how Bunin met his future wife here, and also about the stay of Venedikt Erofeev and many other wonderful people in these places.”
PS It is appropriate to recall here that in the article “Barrack Ties” (“Vremya Novostey” dated January 18) , dedicated to the history of the fire in Tsaritsyn, we are not talking about the monument “Muromtsev’s dacha”; there it was reported that the Moscow Heritage Committee quite reasonably rejected the application of VOOPIK, in which it was proposed to take the house itself under protection, “since Muromtsev’s original dacha has not been preserved.” But it also states that in a new application submitted in 2009 by the public organization “Arkhnadzor”, it was proposed to preserve precisely the “remarkable place”, that is, the totality of the garden, driveway and house, Alexey Klimenko also speaks about this. But the fact that before the fire there was no decision to reject Arkhnadzor’s application is indirectly confirmed by Irina Markina, deputy general director of the Tsaritsyno museum, who told our correspondent that “the museum does not and could not have had any plans for the burnt house, because it included in the list of objects for historical and cultural examination.”