home-Shoes-Register of architectural monuments of federal significance. The concept of a cultural heritage object (historical and cultural monuments)

Register of architectural monuments of federal significance. The concept of a cultural heritage object (historical and cultural monuments)

Object concept cultural heritage(historical and cultural monuments)

The concept of “cultural heritage objects” has been included in legal circulation relatively recently. One of the first legislative acts where this term appears is the Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Russian Federation on Culture (Article 41), adopted by the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation in 1992. At the same time, in the RSFSR Law “On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments,” as well as in industry-specific regulatory legal acts issued before the collapse of the USSR, the term “historical and cultural monuments” was used. Currently, the concepts of “cultural heritage objects” and “historical and cultural monuments” are used in Russian legislation as identical to designate real estate that has historical and cultural value. Along with the above concepts, federal legislation uses similar ones in meaning, but having independent meaning terms: “cultural values”, “cultural heritage”, “cultural heritage”, “identified objects of cultural heritage”, “objects that have the characteristics of a cultural heritage object”, “objects of historical and cultural value”, “objects of archaeological heritage” .

In the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which enshrines cultural human rights and freedoms, the terms “cultural values”, “historical and cultural monuments”, “historical and cultural heritage” are used to designate values ​​created by people (Articles 44, 72).

The essence of the term “cultural heritage”, as follows from dissertation research and published scientific works, V to a lesser extent Scientists are interested in the essence of cultural values. As an independent concept, it is relatively rare in national legislation and is used mainly in relation to movable and immovable property. cultural values created in the past and belonging to peoples Russian Federation. IN in rare cases Russian legislation provides for the classification of intangible assets as cultural heritage. Thus, according to the preamble and Article 11 of the Federal Law of December 18, 1997 N 152-FZ “On the names of geographical objects”, the names of geographical objects are integral part historical and cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation. As a rule, the term “cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation” is used in regulatory legal acts in combination with the word “objects”.

In the legal literature, the point of view has been repeatedly expressed about the identity of the concepts “cultural values” and “cultural heritage” used in current international legal documents. Boguslavsky M.M. Cultural values ​​in international circulation: legal aspects. M.: Yurist, 2005. P. 17; Potapova N.A. International legal problems of the protection of cultural property and legislation of the Russian Federation: Author's abstract. dis. ...cand. legal Sciences: 12.00.10. M., 2001 However, this conclusion cannot be extrapolated to national legislation. In our opinion, cultural heritage occupies an intermediate position between cultural values ​​and objects of cultural heritage. The difference between cultural heritage and cultural values ​​is that cultural heritage always has the property of antiquity. The relationship between these concepts can be presented as follows: not every cultural value can relate to cultural heritage, but everything that belongs to cultural heritage is a cultural value.

It should be noted that many researchers studying the problems of legal protection of cultural heritage give their own scientific definitions this concept and propose to use them as legal definitions. So, E.N. Pronina proposes to understand cultural heritage as “the totality of material and spiritual cultural values ​​created in the past, inherited and adopted from previous generations and important for the preservation and development of the identity of the people, regardless of their origin and owner.” Pronina, E.N. Technical and legal study of the legislative definition of “cultural heritage objects” / E.N. Pronina.//Law and State. -2009. - No. 6. - P. 138 -140

A number of scientists have examined cultural heritage from cultural and philosophical points of view. K.E. Rybak believes that cultural heritage should be understood as “a set of objects material culture and joint creations of man and nature, regardless of their location, as well as objects of spiritual culture, significant for the preservation and development of local cultures, having universal value for culture (art, science) and promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.” Rybak K. E. Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and Protection of Cultural Values ​​// Culture: management, economics, law. - 2006. According to A.A. Kopsergenova, cultural heritage is the totality of all cultural achievements society, its historical experience, preserved in the arsenal of social memory. “The essence of cultural heritage,” she notes, “is those values ​​that are created previous generations, are of exceptional importance for the preservation of the cultural gene pool and contribute to further cultural progress.” Kopsergenova A.A. Cultural heritage: philosophical aspects of analysis: Dis. ...cand. Philosophy: 09.00.13. Stavropol, 2008. 184 p. From the point of view of A.P. Sergeev, cultural heritage forms “the totality of material and spiritual cultural values ​​inherited from past eras that are subject to preservation, critical assessment, revision, development and use in accordance with the specific historical tasks of our time.” Sergeev A.P. Civil protection of cultural property in the USSR. L.: Publishing house Leningr. Univ., 1990. pp. 16 - 17. A.A. Mazenkova considers cultural heritage as an information subsystem of culture that has significance (positive or negative) and is based on the experience of previous generations. "Within systematic approach, she notes, cultural heritage is sociocultural system values, preserving sociocultural experience based on the characteristics of collective memory.” Mazenkova A.A. Cultural heritage as a self-organizing system: Author's abstract. dis. ...cand. Philosophy: 24.00.01. Tyumen, 2009. P. 12. S.M. Shestova understands cultural heritage as a set of historical and cultural monuments. Shestova S.M. Historical and cultural analysis of normative regulation of the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments in Russia: Author's abstract. dis. ...cand. cultural Sciences: 24.00.03. St. Petersburg, 2009. P. 16

In general, we can agree with what was proposed by E.N. Pronina's definition of cultural heritage. This concept can be used in relation to any cultural values ​​(tangible and intangible, movable and immovable) created in the past, regardless of whether these values ​​are included in special lists (registers). Such cultural values ​​may have a certain cultural significance, both for individual peoples, municipalities, states, as well as other state entities within states and for the entire world community.

In modern Russian legislation, in relation to immovable cultural assets created in the past, the term “objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation” is used. This term is relatively new. The 90s of the last century were characterized by instability of the concepts used in regulatory legal acts to designate immovable monuments of history and culture. In a number of acts, along with this concept, other terms were used: “objects of historical and cultural heritage”, “objects of historical and cultural heritage”. A special category included “particularly valuable objects of the cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation.”

Since 2001, the term “cultural heritage objects” has already been firmly rooted in Russian legislation. This is due to the fact that in 2001 several important federal laws were adopted, which already took into account the new conceptual apparatus of the draft sectoral Federal Law “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation” considered in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. With the adoption of Federal Law No. 73-FZ in June 2002, we can talk about a final update conceptual apparatus, formed in Soviet era. New concepts and their definitions were included in the legal circulation. It should be emphasized that modern understanding the term “historical and cultural monument” does not correspond to its understanding in the meaning defined by the 1976 USSR Law “On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments” (later - the 1978 RSFSR Law of the same name).

Unlike the previous definition, the modern definition of this concept, enshrined in Article 3 of Federal Law No. 73-FZ, excludes movable and intangible cultural assets. Some researchers see this as a drawback and propose to include movable things in the legal definition of the concept “objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation.” Alexandrova M.A. Civil legal regime of cultural property in the Russian Federation: Author's abstract. dis. ...cand. legal Sciences: 12.00.03. St. Petersburg, 2007. P. 11. Others consider it necessary to separate movable and immovable property into separate legal categories. So, K.A. Dikanov proposed to understand “cultural values” only as movable property, and “historical and cultural monuments” as real estate. The unifying (generic) concept, in his opinion, should be the term “objects of cultural historical heritage"Dikanov K.A. Combating criminal attacks on cultural values: criminal legal and criminological aspects: Abstract of thesis. dis. ...cand. legal Sciences: 12.00.08. M., 2008. P. 13. From our point of view, the allocation of immovable cultural property to a special legal category is justified. First of all, this is due to the fact that in relation to immovable and movable things, due to their natural properties, a different legal regime is established. Also, public relations that develop regarding real estate have their own characteristics and are regulated not only by civil, administrative and criminal legislation, but also by land legislation, legislation on urban planning and architectural activities. Accordingly, the legal regulation of social relations arising regarding movable and immovable cultural values ​​should be carried out separately. However, we cannot agree that cultural values ​​should be understood only as movable things. This approach does not correspond to the modern doctrinal interpretation of cultural values.

The main disadvantage of those formulated in the literature scientific definitions the concept of “historical and cultural monuments” is that monuments are considered exclusively as a special type of property with a set of specific signs, properties and therefore subject to conservation in the interests of a particular society, regardless of the will of a person.

The legal definition of the concept of “cultural heritage objects”, enshrined in Article 3 of Federal Law N 73-FZ, has been deservedly criticized by scientists and practitioners. Some of them came to the conclusion that this definition does not reflect the necessary essential features of the objects under study and, in general, is amorphous and artificial in nature. Aleksandrova M.A. Op. op. pp. 10 - 11. It’s hard to disagree with this. However, consideration of this issue will not be complete without an analysis of other similar terms that make up the conceptual apparatus of Federal Law N 73-FZ.

Article 3 of this Law establishes the definition of “cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation” and a new classification of these objects by type: monuments, ensembles and places of interest. Objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation are understood here as objects of real estate with associated works of painting, sculpture, decorative and applied art, objects of science and technology and other objects of material culture that arose as a result historical events, which are valuable from the point of view of history, archaeology, architecture, urban planning, art, science and technology, aesthetics, ethnology or anthropology, social culture and are evidence of eras and civilizations, genuine sources of information about the origin and development of culture.

A detailed examination of Part 1 of Article 3 of Federal Law No. 73-FZ gives grounds to believe that the term “cultural heritage objects” can be applied to any real estate objects of historical and cultural value, including in relation to identified cultural objects heritage. Meanwhile their legal status different.

Thus, we can conclude that the use in the text of Federal Law N 73-FZ of various concepts that are similar in content indicates the internal inconsistency of the document, the provisions of which are difficult to understand and interpret. Often such inconsistency of the conceptual apparatus leads in practice to legal disputes, adoption by government authorities and bodies local government wrong decisions.

It is obvious that the definition of “cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation”, enshrined in Article 3 of Federal Law No. 73-FZ, needs to be revised.

Summarizing the definitions of authoritative scientists indicated above, and taking into account all the inaccuracies of the definitions, taking as a basis the authoritative opinion of A.N. Panfilov, we can conclude that objects of cultural heritage should be understood as a set of immovable cultural values ​​created by man or subjected to his purposeful influence in the past, included in the Unified State Register of Cultural Heritage Objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation on the basis of a regulatory legal act of the authorized public authority. Only in relation to a real estate object registered in the register should the state establish special treatment protection, ensuring its authenticity in the interests of society. A.N. Panfilov “Cultural values ​​and objects of cultural heritage: the problem of unification of concepts” / “Law and Politics”, 2011, N 2

Objects of the cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation are objects in the form of real estate or other objects in the form of a monument or sculpture that have historical value. To preserve the historical heritage, Federal Law No. 73 was adopted.

The current Federal Law includes norms and rules that contribute to the protection of the cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation. Every citizen of the Russian Federation is obliged to protect monuments and preserve sculptures. The legislation is also aimed at implementing the rights to develop and preserve information in a primary form for the creation own culture. Objects of cultural heritage (monuments, sculptures, etc.) are of particular value for the people of the Russian Federation. Such objects form part of the world's cultural heritage.

The bill was adopted on May 24, 2002, and came into force based on a decision of the Federation Council on June 14, 2002. The last amendments were made on March 7, 2017.

The Law “On Objects of Cultural Heritage of the Peoples of the Russian Federation” includes the following aspects:

  • Determination of the subject of regulation of the current Federal Law;
  • Determining the powers of authorities to preserve, use or restore historical monuments;
  • Providing funding for activities that contribute to the preservation, popularization and creation of one’s own cultural heritage;
  • Accounting for historical properties;
  • Conducting an examination;
  • Creation of methods for the preservation of historical monuments;
  • Definitions of situations in which property rights to such types of real estate and historical objects arise or terminate;
  • Listing the conditions for renting cultural heritage real estate;
  • Determination of liability in case of violation of the current Federal Law.

Download

The Law “On Objects of Cultural Heritage of the Peoples of the Russian Federation” includes 14 chapters and 66 articles. It also describes how to protect historical items and objects. It should be said that the protection of monuments or sculptures is one of priority tasks government bodies of the Russian Federation, as well as local government bodies of the Russian Federation. To view the latest version of the current Federal Law, please click on the following.

Latest changes made to the law “On cultural heritage sites”

According to the law, the last changes were made on March 7, 2017. They touched upon the change of the name of Article 52.1 and the addition of paragraph 7.1 to this article.

Title of Article 52.1

At latest edition The title of the article was changed, namely the word “federal” was replaced with “state”.

Addition of Article 52.1 with clause 7.1.

According to the law, additional institutions have been listed that are included in the list of those to which the authority is transferred to restore and protect monuments and sculptures.

These are:

  • Municipal educational organizations;
  • State municipal organizations;
  • Scientific organizations/institutions.

In addition to the above changes, the following articles are discussed below:

Article 18

Article 18 73-FZ defines the procedure on the basis of which property objects (including monuments) can be registered as cultural heritage property. In order for the characteristics of the object to correspond to cultural values, it is necessary to conduct a state historical and cultural study.

Article 25

Article 25 of the law includes the grounds on which the right to include a property in the list is determined.

In order for at least one of them to be included in the list, the monument, sculpture or other object must provide the following value:

  • Scientific;
  • Artistic;
  • Aesthetic;
  • Anthropological.

Article 45

73-FZ Article 45 describes the procedure for carrying out restoration work to preserve the integrity of real estate, including monuments or sculptures. Restoration work is carried out only after a special order from local or state authorities. In accordance with the law, before you begin to carry out construction or restoration work, permission must be obtained.

To view the changes made during the last revision, download the law from the following.

Cultural heritage must be protected by the state. This is evidenced by Article 72 of the Russian Constitution, as well as Federal Law-73 “On Objects of Cultural Heritage,” which will be discussed further. So, more details.

On the subject of regulation of the law

According to Article 1 of Federal Law-73 “On Objects of Cultural Heritage”, the following points are subject to regulation of the normative act:

  • the process of forming and maintaining a register of cultural objects;
  • relationships that arise in the field of searching, preserving and using cultural objects;
  • features of ownership and disposal of cultural objects;
  • compliance general principles security cultural sites government agencies.

Article 2 talks about legal regulation represented area. It is worth noting here that Federal Law 73 “On Objects of Cultural Heritage” is far from the only legal source that regulates relations in the field of culture. Here it is necessary to highlight, of course, the Russian Constitution, civil legislation, thanks to which property relations are regulated, as well as Land Code and some other regulations.

About cultural sites

Article 3 of Federal Law 73 “On Objects of Cultural Heritage” establishes the main groups of these objects. What is worth highlighting here? According to the law, objects are objects of material culture, namely: individual species real estate, works of painting, sculpture, scientific and technical means and other elements.

What is meant by objects of archaeological culture? According to the law, these are traces of human existence hidden in the soil. The objects of archeology are mainly fortifications, settlements, objects of art, tools, etc.

Cultural objects are divided into the following types:

  • monuments, namely individual structures or buildings;
  • ensembles, that is, groups of monuments;
  • places of interest, namely particularly valuable creations of man or nature.

All presented types of cultural heritage must be stored under the strict supervision of the state. It is about control by the authorities that will be discussed further.

Powers of the state in the field of storage of cultural heritage

Article 9 of Federal Law-73 “On Objects of Cultural Heritage” establishes the main types of government functions in the area under consideration. It is worth recalling that work with cultural objects is noted in Article 72 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which talks about the delimitation of powers of the federation and its constituent entities. That is why regional authorities can also perform certain types of activities:


The most important function of the state in relation to cultural objects remains, of course, control and supervision activities. It is about her that will be discussed further.

About state supervision

In Article 11 of Law 73-FZ “On Objects of Cultural Heritage,” what is meant by state supervision? This is the activity of the relevant federal bodies to prevent, suppress, and identify crimes and offenses aimed at intentional or unintentional damage to elements of culture.

The subject of state supervision is compliance by the relevant authorities with the following requirements:

  • maintenance and use of cultural objects;
  • carrying out activities within the boundaries of cultural heritage sites;
  • compliance with the requirements of urban planning regulations within the boundaries of a cultural object.

What rights do they have? officials? This is what is highlighted in the regulation:

  • requesting and receiving information from authorities;
  • unhindered inspections of relevant cultural objects;
  • issuance of special instructions.

Bodies for the protection of cultural objects may be involved by the court to participate in the relevant paperwork.

On conducting an examination of a historical and cultural nature

Historical expertise is the most important component in the field of working with cultural heritage objects.

What kind of examination is this, why is it needed? Article 28 of Federal Law-73 “On Cultural Heritage Objects” (as amended in 2017) states that holding this kind examinations are necessary for the following purposes:

  • holding discussions regarding the inclusion of a particular object in the register of cultural heritage;
  • definitions of the type and category of something cultural site;
  • justification for changing the category of an object;
  • establishing requirements for urban planning regulations;
  • clarifying information about the object, etc.

Carrying out an examination allows you to preserve cultural objects. It is these processes that will be discussed further.

On the preservation of cultural objects

Article 40 of the normative act under consideration speaks of measures aimed at ensuring high-quality physical preservation of historical and cultural values. Restoration, repair, conservation work - all this is included in the conservation of certain cultural objects.

Article 47.2 refers to the need to provide funding for relevant cultural funds involved in working with cultural objects. Such funds may be held liable for failure to fulfill their professional duties. This is stated in Art. 61 Federal Law-73 "On objects of cultural heritage". Individuals or legal entities may be subject to criminal, administrative or civil liability for violating the norms specified in the law in question. Article 61 also refers to the need to compensate for damage if damage has been caused to a cultural object. The same applies to restoration work during archaeological activities. Thus, restoration of a cultural object after causing damage to it still does not exempt from liability.

What changes were made to the law in 2017? The content of Article 52.1 and the synopsis have slightly changed in the regulatory act.

A supplement to the magazine “Parish” has been published on a CD “Arrangement, preservation and construction of the temple. Architectural, construction and engineering solutions."

The CD includes articles and illustrative materials devoted to the arrangement, preservation, restoration and construction of new churches. The materials are intended for rectors and parish members whose responsibilities include these issues.

The author of most of the articles and the compiler of this publication is the architect M.Yu. Kesler, under whose leadership the Architectural and Artistic Design and Restoration Center of the Moscow Patriarchate ACC “Archtemple” developed the Code of Rules “Buildings, structures and complexes” Orthodox churches"(SP 31-103-99).

Many materials were published by the author on the pages of the magazine “Parish” and have now become difficult to access. The disc also includes other articles taken from other open sources and more fully revealing the range of issues discussed, including the spiritual foundations and traditions of Orthodox church building. For those wishing to obtain detailed information on the issues under consideration, a list of recommended literature and Internet resources is provided.

Rich illustrative material will help users of the disk find examples of architectural solutions, elements of arrangement and decoration of churches and chapels. For selection finished project Attached are catalog sheets indicating the authors who can be contacted to use the project.

Full information about the disc is available on the website of the magazine “Parish” www.vestnik.prihod.ru.

Legislation in the field of conservation, use and state protection of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments)

Federal Law of June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation” in Art. 3 talks about objects of cultural heritage, which are real estate of a special kind and with a special legal regime.

According to this article, to objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, incl. religious purposes, include real estate objects with associated works of painting, sculpture, decorative and applied art and other objects of material culture that arose as a result of historical events and are valuable from the point of view of history, archeology, architecture, urban planning, art, aesthetics, social culture and are sources of information about the development of culture.

Objects of cultural heritage for religious purposes, in accordance with this law, are divided into the following types:

  • monuments - individual buildings, buildings and structures with historically established territories (churches, bell towers, chapels and other objects specifically intended for worship); mausoleums, separate burials; works of monumental art; objects, the main or one of the main sources of information about which are archaeological excavations or finds (hereinafter referred to as objects of archaeological heritage);
  • ensembles - groups of isolated or united monuments and buildings clearly localized in historically established territories: temple complexes, monasteries, farmsteads, necropolises;
  • places of interest - creations created by man, or joint creations of man and nature, including fragments of urban planning and development; places of religious ceremonies.

Objects of cultural heritage are divided into the following categories of historical and cultural significance:

  • cultural heritage sites federal significance- objects of historical, architectural, artistic, scientific and memorial value, having special meaning for the history and culture of the Russian Federation, as well as objects of archaeological heritage;
  • cultural heritage sites regional significance— objects that have historical, architectural, artistic, scientific and memorial value, which are of particular importance for the history and culture of the subject of the Russian Federation;
  • objects of cultural heritage of local (municipal) significance - objects that have historical, architectural, artistic, scientific and memorial value, and are of particular importance for the history and culture of the municipality.

Thus, historical and cultural monuments are understood only as real estate objects.

However, many of the buildings and structures are in ruins and can hardly be called historical and cultural monuments. The question arises whether the destroyed buildings are classified as cultural monuments and what percentage of destruction is necessary in order to state their complete physical destruction. It seems that this issue should be resolved more clearly in legislation.

Objects recognized as historical and cultural monuments are subject to a special legal regime and are under special legal protection. In order for a particular object to receive special legal protection, it is necessary that it be recognized as such in the manner prescribed by law. It should be borne in mind that there are no objective signs for recognizing them as such. Each time this issue is resolved individually based on the opinion of specialists.

Monuments of history and culture can be owned by any entity civil rights, however, most of the historical and cultural monuments are in federal state ownership. The inability of the state to provide adequate protection to cultural monuments is evidenced by the fact that over the past ten years, Russia, according to the Ministry of Culture, has lost 346 monuments of federal significance.

In this regard, the question of the need to transfer cultural monuments from federal ownership to the ownership of other subjects of civil law has long been raised.

A special regime was established for cultural heritage sites for religious purposes. So, according to paragraph 2 of Art. 50 of the Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage, objects of cultural heritage for religious purposes can be transferred into the ownership only of religious organizations in the manner established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.

On December 3, 2010, the Law “On the transfer of state or municipal property for religious purposes to religious organizations” came into force. How religious organizations will ensure proper preservation of church values ​​transferred by the state - an issue that concerns not only museum workers, but also the church organizations themselves.

Concern for the preservation of cultural heritage must be recognized as a task for the entire Church.

State system for the protection of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments)

Under state security objects of cultural heritage in Federal Law No. 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation” is understood as a system of legal, organizational, financial, material, technical, information and other adopted by public authorities of the Russian Federation and public authorities subjects of the Russian Federation, local government bodies, within their competence, measures aimed at identifying, recording, studying cultural heritage sites, preventing their destruction or causing harm to them, monitoring the preservation and use of cultural heritage sites in accordance with the Federal Law.

In accordance with Art. 8 of the said law religious associations has the right to assist the federal executive body, specially authorized in the field of state protection of cultural heritage objects, in the preservation, use, popularization and state protection of cultural heritage objects in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.

Control over the safety of cultural heritage objects is carried out by the Federal Service for Supervision of Compliance with Legislation in the Sphere of Mass Communications and the Protection of Cultural Heritage, formed in accordance with Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 17, 2004 No. 301, which is a federal executive body. It is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation. According to clause 5.1.3 of the said resolution, it exercises state control over the preservation, use, popularization and state protection of objects of cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation (historical and cultural monuments), including jointly with government authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Sources of financing for conservation, popularization and state protection of cultural heritage sites are:

  • federal budget;
  • budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;
  • off-budget receipts.

At the meeting working group at the President of the Russian Federation on the restoration of cultural heritage sites for religious purposes, held on June 17, 2011 in the Kremlin, Patriarch Kirill spoke about the problem of financing the restoration of destroyed shrines in Russia. Within the framework of the federal target program “Russian Culture (2006-2011),” 1.2-1.4 billion rubles are allocated. per year for more than a thousand religious sites alone that need to be restored. In reality, about 100 billion rubles are needed to restore churches and monasteries. Patriarch Kirill emphasized that no one is asking to allocate such money in the near future, “financing needs to be correlated with real needs,” however, if the level of investment remains the same, then while some monuments will be restored, many others will be completely lost. Temples in ruins simply cannot wait their turn - examples can be found in the Yaroslavl and even Moscow regions.

“As for the preservation of our cultural heritage, this, of course, is primarily the concern of the state, although responsibility should not be removed from both the Church and the relevant institutions of civil society,” the Primate emphasized at a meeting in the Kremlin.

To make the “Culture of Russia” program more effective, the Patriarch proposed reducing the list of applications and concentrating on those objects that have already begun to be restored. “It’s better for us to finish what we started than to take on new facilities and thus put the entire program at risk,” he emphasized.

The Patriarch also did not rule out the possibility of highlighting other priorities when choosing churches that require restoration. For example, more attention can be paid to the restoration of churches, the history of which is tied to historical names, dates, and events, the Patriarch suggested. It is also wise to restore monuments that have become centers of pilgrimage and tourism.

The Russian Federation maintains a unified state register of cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the register), containing information about cultural heritage objects.

The register is a state information system that includes a data bank, the unity and comparability of which is ensured through the general principles of formation, methods and forms of maintaining the register.

The information contained in the register is the main source of information about cultural heritage objects and their territories, as well as about protection zones of cultural heritage objects in the formation and maintenance of the state land cadastre, state urban planning cadastre, other information systems or data banks that use (take into account) this information.

In accordance with the law, the register is formed by including in it objects of cultural heritage in respect of which a decision was made to include them in the register, as well as by excluding from the register of objects of cultural heritage in respect of which a decision was made to exclude them from the register, in the order established by Federal Law.

In accordance with the Federal Law of June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation,” a Code of Restoration Rules (PSR, 2007) was developed, including recommendations for all types of research, survey, design and production work aimed at researching and preserving cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, with associated works of painting, sculpture, and decorative and applied art.

The set of restoration rules meets the requirements of the Orders Federal service for supervision of compliance with legislation in the field of cultural heritage protection (Rosokhrankultura).

However, the presence of such a document does not guarantee a professional approach to the restoration of cultural heritage. Protect Russian monuments from... restorers. This call was made at a press conference held in Moscow by leading specialists in the domestic restoration industry. And this is not a paradox. While the state entrusts the restoration of masterpieces of architecture and art to non-professionals, the country’s cultural heritage is under threat. The reason is the imperfection of legislation. According to federal law No. 94-FZ “On placing orders for the supply of goods, performance of work, provision of services for state and municipal needs,” adopted in 2005, a competition should be held among restoration firms. Anyone who has a license can win it, which is not so difficult to obtain. As a result, the same object is completely restored different organizations. There are companies that specialize in winning competitions and then sell subcontracts to performers. If earlier the problem was that there was no money for restoration, and the monuments were destroyed over time, now there is money, but every year it goes to different companies. Masterpieces of ancient Russian architecture perish from too frequent changes of “guardians”, who, for the sake of tasty morsel Reduce work time and lower prices.

From Moscow to the very outskirts - vandalism takes place like a master

“Keepers of the Legacy”

Continuing to take stock of the past year, we are publishing a martyrology of the historical and architectural monuments of Russia that perished in 2015. Of course, there were much more heritage losses in 2015; Our publication presents the most valuable and interesting lost monuments and objects of the historical environment. And also the most typical causes and methods of their destruction. And also - complete impunity for the organizers and performers.

1-2. Wine-Salt Court building and buildingXIXcentury on the Island in Moscow

Bolotnaya embankment, 15, buildings 10 and 11.


Building 10 was sentenced to demolition at a meeting of the Moscow Government Commission on Urban Development in Cultural Heritage Protection Zones on December 24, 2014. Researchers released information that building 10 was part of the Wine-Salt Dvor complex, demolished in the 1920s-1930s. , and its ground floor may date back to the 18th century. Upon visual inspection of the building, it was obvious that the ground floor was older than the two upper floors of the 19th century: its walls were much thicker, made of large bricks, and iron beams were visible inside the masonry.

Along with building 10, the neighboring building 11 (19th century) was also demolished - without any permission. The contractor was Stroy Garant LLC, the subcontractor was Sip-Energo LLC, and the customer was United Energy Company OJSC.

The buildings did not have the status of monuments. A new power substation was built in their place.

3. Transfiguration Church in the village of Zagorodye

Tver region, Maksatikhinsky district.


The wooden temple of 1866 burned down in just over an hour. IN The possible cause of the fire, which started at night, was said to be an electrical fault. The temple retained the original iconostasis and interior decoration, itThere were icons and wooden sculptures from neighboring churches and monasteries that were closed during the years of Soviet power.

4. Facade wall of the Foundry shop of the ZIL plant in Moscow

Avtozavodskaya st., 23, bldg. 4.


The foundry, a magnificent example of industrial architecture of the early 20th century (built according to the design of the famous design engineer Alexander Kuznetsov in 1916), was demolished to the façade wall at the end of May 2013.



Despite the fact that the demolition took place without any permission, the city authorities did not even try to find those responsible. They limited themselves to the decision to preserve the facade wall, but it was also destroyed by the next developer of the ZILovsky territory - a certain Matiko LLC - also without any permission. As it turned out during the proceedings, the city authorities do not have any legal leverage to force the developer to restore the demolished façade. As a result of authorized and unauthorized demolitions in 2014-2015. The entire façade line of the ZIL complex on Avtozavodskaya Street was destroyed (with the exception of the Plant Management building, which is under state protection).

5. "House with a belvedere" in Nizhny Novgorod

New street, 46.


On the first working day after New Year holidays, as Nizhny Novgorod city defenders feared, holding pickets in defense of the city estate, which had been deprived of its protective status, its demolition began. On the morning of January 12, the Department of State Protection of Cultural Heritage Objects of the Nizhny Novgorod Region received a state act historical and cultural expertise, who justified the inclusion of the estate in the state register of monuments of regional significance. The prosecutor's office and police suspended the demolition of the house, but only until the next day.

6-8. Complex of houses of the merchant Privalov in Moscow

Sadovnicheskaya street, 9, building 1, 2, 3.



A wooden house from 1905, one of the rare examples of wooden architecture in Yaroslavl. The façade was decorated with numerous carved details. Demolished on January 30, 2015 without permission from the city authorities. Before demolition, an examination of the historical and cultural value of the building was not carried out, as required by the current urban planning regulations of protection zones.

14. Outbuilding of the estate N.B. Yusupov in Moscow

Bol. Kharitonyevsky lane, 19, building 1.



Demolished in January 2015.

The main house of the city estate, which previously served as an outbuilding of the estate of N.B. Yusupov (1791; rebuilt in 1880) demolished in January 2015 - according to Arkhnadzor data, under the guise of repairs and emergency work. It had the status of a valuable city-forming object. Appeals from city defenders to the city authorities did not prompt them to stop the work.

15. Residential and office building of the Butikov factory in Moscow

Khilkov lane, 2/1, building 5.



Demolished in January 2015.

A fragment of the historical development of one of the lanes in the Ostozhenka area, where, after the urban planning bacchanalia of the 1990-2000s. there is almost none left. By according to Arkhnadzor, demolition of the building (1848; rebuilt in 1872) began in December 2014 and was completed in January 2015.

16. House of merchant Matryona Petrova in Moscow

Ladozhskaya st., 11/6.



Demolished in January 2015.

The 2-story building was based on the stone building of the German market with shops from 1802. according to Arkhnadzor, the house was demolished in several stages by private owners, under the guise of reconstruction, in December 2014 - January 2015. Numerous appeals from city planners to city authorities did not yield results.

17-22. Complex of houses XIXcentury on Bolshaya Dmitrovka in Moscow

st. Bolshaya Dmitrovka, 9, building 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.



The representative building (built in 1952 according to the design of one of the best Rostov architects of the twentieth century, Lev Eberg. The author of the bas-reliefs that decorated the main facade was the famous Rostov sculptor V.V. Barinov) on one of the central streets of the historical center of the city began to be destroyed on February 21 - for good measure traditions, secretly, from the rear, which is why the demolition was not immediately noticed. On February 23-24, most of the street facade was destroyed. The determination of the historical and cultural value of the building, which at the same time was carried out by the Ministry of Culture of the Rostov Region, did not prevent the subject of the proceedings from being liquidated.The police did not respond to signals from city defenders, althoughin December 2014, as Rostov media reported, the first deputy governor of the region, Igor Guskov, said that the regional Ministry of Culture and personally Minister Alexander Rezvanov had instructions to determine the historical and cultural value of the building of the Rostov newsreel studio, after which it would be possible to decide on the prospects for its preservation. According to the data local online media, in September 2013 the building was sold to the former vice-governor of the Krasnodar region Alexei Agafonov.

34. Postal-Yamskaya station in Tarasovka

Moscow region, Pushkinsky district, pos. Tarasovka, Bol. Tarasovskaya st., 9.



E the only building in the region (XIX V.) on the Yaroslavskoe Highway, connected both with the history of one of the oldest highways in Russia and with the history of the Russian post office, since 2009 it has been officially included in the list of buildings that have signs of a cultural heritage site.

On the night of February 28, activists from the district branch of VOOPIK recorded the dismantling of a building, presumably for the needs of widening the highway. In 2014, the Ministry of Culture of the Moscow Region intended to conduct a historical and cultural examination of the value of the building, but did not conduct it. When the demolition began, the region's Ministry of Culture tried to stop it, but was unsuccessful.

35. Stroyburo house in Korolev

Moscow region.



The last remnant of the complex of the Temple of Euplaus the Archdeacon, demolished in the 1920s, a classical house from the early 19th centuryV. was demolished without the sanction of city authorities 28-29 March, under the guise of reconstruction of the building. Signs of the dismantling of the building were noticed by Arkhnadzor on February 18, 2015, and appeals to the city authorities followed, but the latter were unable or unwilling to prevent the destruction of the house, whichwas officially listed as a “valuable city-forming object” located on the territory of the protected zone, i.e. was not subject to demolition by law.

The customer of the work on the building was Redut LLC, the contractor was Salyut LLC.

40-41. Buildings of the Konshin factory with chambers XVIII centuryin Serpukhov

Moscow region.



On March 29, 2015, heavy construction equipment began demolishing buildings from the 19th and early 20th centuries. on the territory of the Konshina Printing Factory in the very center of Serpukhov, one of which contains built-in chambers of the 18th century, a cultural heritage site of federal significance. On the evening of March 29, after repeated appeals from city defenders, the police arrived at the site, and on March 30 - representatives of the regional Ministry of Culture. Demolition was stopped. However, the developers' envoys managed to completely destroy the industrial building with an Art Nouveau façade and cause significant damage to other buildings, including Chambers XVIIIcenturies. All work was carried out without coordination with the authorities and monument protection bodies, which is required by the status of Serpukhov as a historical settlement.

42. Automatic telephone exchange in Art Deco style in Moscow

Serpukhovsky Val, 20.



Vyatka cultural figures recorded in early April the demolition of a significant section of walls (19th century) in the active Nativity of Christ Monastery in the ancient city of Slobodskoye. Work on the cultural heritage site was carried out without the sanction of the regional department of culture and pure form were the subject of a criminal article for the destruction of architectural monuments. The Department of Culture wrote a corresponding statement to the prosecutor's office, the case was set in motion, but in May 2015 the court did not establish the guilt of the Vyatka Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church in the destruction of the walls of the monastery.

45. Rzhevsky apartment building in Moscow

Sushchevskaya st., 16, building 8.



On May 19, the demolition of Matorina’s wooden house (19th century) began in Ufa. The house, known for its carved façade decoration, was previously on the list of identified architectural monuments, but was not included by the authorities in the register of cultural heritage sites. The demolition took place to “clear” the area for the construction of a new residential complex.

City defenders from Ufa Archprotection made a desperate attempt to save the house. The coordinator of the movement, Vladimir Zakharov, stood in the path of the excavator, and several city residents joined him. City defenders organized a vigil near the house. Activists on duty remained near the building until 10 pm, until the excavator left. However, at night the demolition resumed, and the returning activistsThe police did not allow access to the object.

52. Pavilion “Mushroom Vodnya” at VDNKh in Moscow

Prospekt Mira, 119, p. 562.



Demolished May 20, 2015 – according to information from Arkhnadzor, without obtaining permission from the city authorities. Since VDNKh came under the jurisdiction of Moscow, the demolition of historical buildings on the exhibition territory has become almost an everyday occurrence.

“Gribovodnya”, also known as the boiler room of the greenhouse complex, was also used as a transformer substation. The building was based on the construction of the original VSKhV complex in 1937.

53. Church of the Assumption of Spirovskaya Kinovia

Tver region, village. Spirovo.



The wooden building of the former Assumption Church of the Spirovsky monastery (a small monastery, a “branch” of the Kazan monastery in Vyshny Volochek), built in 1878 according to the design of the famous Russian architect A.S. Kaminsky, was completely demolished by excavators on June 6, 2015. Despite its venerable age and the name of the architect, the building, rebuilt in the 20th century, did not have protected status. In 2011The Main Directorate for State Protection of Cultural Heritage Objects of the Tver Region refused to place it under state protection to city defenders and experts.In May 2010, the building was damaged by a fire, after which it gradually collapsed and was taken away for construction materials. Local authorities refused calls from local historians to preserve it.

54. Artesian well at VDNKh in Moscow

Prospekt Mira, 119, p. 594.



One of the small architectural forms VDNKh complex, a tower over an artesian well on the territory of the Sheremetyevo oak grove, was built in the 1950s. By according to Arkhnadzor, demolished on June 16, 2015 without permission from the city authorities. A typical example of senseless and merciless vandalism.

55. St. Nicholas Church in Vasilyevskoye

Moscow region, Serpukhov district.



The most valuable and rare monument (1689) of ancient Russian wooden church architecture, an object of cultural heritage of federal significance, died under unclear circumstances in the early morning of June 19, 2015. Firefighters managed to defend only three walls of the charred frame of the refectory. The unique pentagonal carved beams were also destroyed. XVII century, highly valued by researchers of the St. Nicholas Church. By no official version, the cause of the fire was arson as a result of the penetration of unknown persons into the existing temple. According to the priest,the door to the temple on the north side was broken open. Upon receiving news of the fire, the Ministry of Culture of the Moscow Region expressed its intention “toJune-July (! – Ed.) 2015check information about the destruction of the specified historical and cultural monument.

56. Apartment house Gradova in St. Petersburg

Esperova st., 16/23, letter A.


Demolition took place in June 2015, according to St. Petersburg city defenders.

The house was built in 1909 according to the design of A.I. Gavrilova. In 2014, the St. Petersburg authorities recognized the house as “unsafe and subject to demolition,” while its owner, TsentrStroy LLC, was instructed to “ensure the restoration of the external appearance of the building that forms the street front of the development.” “Living City” assumes that a new building will be built on the site of the demolished building. a new, larger residential building, to which a “recreated” historical façade will be attached.

57. Building of the Barykovskaya almshouse in Moscow

Barykovsky lane, 4, building 3.



Demolished in July 2015.

The protection of the unique Sokol village in the capital is organized in a very original way: the complex as a whole has the status of a cultural heritage site, but the individual buildings that make it up do not. Which, of course, creates the ground for various abuses, which resulted in the degeneration of the historical fabric of the complex. In July 2015, it became known about the destruction of another local building - the wooden House of the Vesnin Brothers (1924). The house was dismantled without the sanction of the authorities, according to information from city defenders - by the owners of the land plot.

59. Pavilion “Ryumka” at Sheremetyevo-1 airport

Moscow region.



D Wooden Assumption Chapel II half of the XVIII century, has been under state protection since 1985. The miniature (2.5 by 2.5 m) cell chapel once stood “on the stubble,” i.e. on water meadows. Therefore, its frame was raised above the ground on three lower crowns, between the logs of which special gaps were made to allow water to pass during the spring flood. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the chapel was moved to Krasny Bor. In the 1970s it was restored through the efforts of VOOPIK. According to eyewitnesses, the chapel burned down “completely, right down to the firebrands.”

65. Kochkin’s house in Ufa

st. Aksakova, 81.



The demolition of the house was discovered by Ufa Archdefense on the morning of September 2. City defenders stopped the demolition and called the police and representatives of the Ministry of Culture of Bashkiria. The Ministry of Culture of the Republic announcedon September 2 that the demolition was carried out by "unknown persons". The next day, the “unknowns” showed that the Ministry of Culture and the police did not order them, and they tore down the building.

19th century house It was empty for several years after a fire occurred in it in 2005, in which city defenders suspected arson. In 2013, Ufa media calledKochkin's house is among the cultural heritage sites that were included in the targeted program for the resettlement of citizens from emergency housing stock. Then these monuments were supposed to be restored with funds from investors and sold at auctions.

66. House of the late 18th century in Tver

Chernyshevsky street, 4.



The demolition of a cultural heritage site of regional significance in the very center of Tver was noticed by city defenders from Tver Vaults on September 3. At this point, from a residential building of the late 18th - early 19th centuries. only the western wall remained. The Main Directorate for State Protection of Cultural Heritage Objects of the Tver Region did not give any approvals for such work on the monument. In July 2014, a conservation project was agreed upon with fragmentary restoration and proposals for adaptation to modern use. Meanwhile, a notice about the construction of a new residential building at the address of the monument has been published on the Internet. The developer is Zhilstroyinvest LLC. The Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation explained to Tver Vaults that the regional government agency only approved work to preserve the existing site with compensatory replenishment and restoration reconstruction of the volumes of lost historical buildings.

67-69. Military hospital of the Red Cross in Lefortovo in Moscow

Krasnokazarmennaya street, 14a, building 20, etc.



Main hospital building .

Demolition of a memorial site associated with the history of the First World War - the Red Cross Hospital in Lefortovo, where thousands of defenders of the Fatherland were treated, who shed their blood for it, and where Emperor Nicholas II visited And Grand Duchess Elizaveta Fedorovna - was implemented by the developer while the Moscow City Hall was celebrating City Day - September 5, 2015.

A little earlier, on September 1, the Moscow city branch of VOOPIK submitted an application to the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage to include “an object that has the characteristics of a cultural heritage object” in the state register of historical and cultural monuments. But even earlier, the city authorities issued the developer, the Morton group of companies, an urban planning plan for the land plot (GPZU), which allowed massive new housing construction on the site of the historical buildings of the hospital complex. Even earlier, in April 2005, a resolution was issuedThe Moscow government on the implementation of a construction investment contract here with the demolition of 26 out of 37 buildings of the former factory complex, on the territory of which there was a hospital.

The hospital building (until 1914 – a complex of warehouses of the Russian Red Cross Society), a good example of the “brick style” of the early twentieth century, until recently retained many of the original elements of facade and interior decoration.

After the demolition in September, there was a media outcry real scandal, and city officials even spoke of the building's destruction as a flagrant violation of the law. But several months passed, and the developer, as if nothing had happened, continued in December 2015 with the demolition of other buildings that were once part of the historical complex.

70-71. Merchant Kulikov's house and building XIXcentury in Ulyanovsk

Orlova street, 31 and 33.


September nightin Rostov the Great, one of the best examples of classical urban development - a wooden house of the first half of the 19th century century Dekabristov Street. The fire, which started on the evening of September 27, was extinguished throughout the night. Firefighters announced that the fire had been “extinguished” in the morning, but the building was also liquidated: all that was left of it were three stoves sticking out among the smoldering ruins. An identified cultural heritage site, the house also had important urban planning significance, marking the intersection of the city streets Dekabristov and Frunze.

Rostov local historians emphasize that in last years wooden historical buildings are systematically destroyed by fires. On Dekabristov Street, they write, several more wooden houses have recently burned down: one stood next to a fire victim in 2015, it has already been demolished, the other, No. 34, still stands, covered with a banner after the fire, the wooden house opposite burned down in the first half of 2013 . And these are not all the cases of fires in the city's history in recent years.

74. House of the early 20th century in Zvenigorod

Moscow region, Zvenigorod, st. Shnyreva, 8.



Activists from the Moscow region branch of VOOPIK reported that a house in the first quarter of the 20th century in Zvenigorod died in fire. Since 1998, the building has had the status of an identified historical and cultural monument. According to social activists, the house was the victim of arson: “The building was cut off from communications, there are no homeless people in our city. Judging by the nature of the fire, it was obvious arson. According to neighbors, the building burst into flames throughout the entire area in a matter of minutes.”

Previously, the Zvenigorod branch of VOOPIK repeatedly, but to no avail, appealed to the Ministry of Culture of the Moscow Region with statements about the need to take measures to bring the owner of the house to justice due to the improper condition of the monument and the threat to its safety.

New residential development is planned in the adjacent area.

75-76. Barracks of the Alexandria Hussar Regiment in Samara

The territory of the former Fourth State Bearing Plant, buildings 6 and 7.



In October, Samara decided to include one building of the once extensive complex of hussar barracks (building 8) in the register of monuments, but buildings 6 and 7 fell victim to development. Back in the spring of 2015, on the basis of a historical and cultural examination, they were refused inclusion in the heritage register, and they lost their status as identified. The public, who fought for them for a long time, have lost their legal support.

77-78. The mansion and grain barns of Prince Gruzinsky in St. Petersburg

Sinopskaya embankment, 66, letters A and E.



An object of cultural heritage of regional significance - a house from the second half of the 19th century, accepted for state protection in February 1995, also had memorial value. At the beginning of the twentieth century, it, like the neighboring house No. 41, belonged to the Nurok family. B.L. Nurok was the head of the Vyazemsk city zemstvo hospital, and his brother M.L. Nurok - district doctor and head of the zemstvo pharmacy While working at the Vyazemsk city zemstvo hospital, the future famous writer Mikhail Bulgakov, who knew the Nurok brothers well, visited them several times.

According to regional media reports,demolition of the house is on the conscience of the local entrepreneur who bought it land plot and plans to build “a store or shopping center” on it.

80. BuildingMilitary School named after the All-Russian Central Executive Committee in the Moscow Kremlin

Moscow, Kremlin, 14 building.



Literally on the last evening, the Ivanovo region managed to make a worthy contribution to the agenda of the meeting of the Commission of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation on Culture and Art that took place on November 19, 2015, dedicated specifically to the problems of preserving wooden architecture. On the evening of November 18 in Ivanovo, in just over two hours, the wooden Assumption Church of the 17th century was completely destroyed by fire - the oldest temple in the capital of the region, one of the two surviving wooden cage churches of the 17th - early 18th centuries. in area. At a cultural heritage site of federal significance in 2014-2015. restoration was carried out.

The Ivanovo authorities, as if nothing had happened, are now informing the population that the “conservation” of the architectural monument is now taking place, and the governor has set the task of restoring the temple, and at the expense of the federal budget. In general, life goes on.

82. Residential building of the Shorygin factory

Moscow region, pos. Oktyabrsky, st. New, 2, 4.


In early December, Arkhnadzor discovered the complete absence of a cultural heritage site of regional significance on the site - the outbuilding of the Khludov city estate built in 1861. Instead wooden mansion behind the construction screen there was a vacant lot with a concrete slab.

According to the official version, “emergency work” is taking place on the architectural monument (customer - Media Consulting LLC, contractor - Profinvest LLC, architectural supervision - RSK LLC Architectural heritage"). The house was included in the “ruble per meter” preferential rental program, which provides for the restoration of monuments in record time. During the emergency work, again according to the official version, the monument collapsed, after which it had to be completely dismantled. Some of the historical logs have been sent for processing, some are supposedly stored on site, and some will be replaced with new structures.

84. Church of the Exaltation of the Cross in the village of Koprino

Yaroslavl region, Rybinsk district.

The demolition of the ruined temple took place .

In November, plans for the careful restoration of the Church of the Exaltation of the Cross in the former village of Koprino on the Volga were enthusiastically talked aboutmanagers of the Yaroslavl Seaside business resort, on whose territory he ended up. However, in mid-December, on the site of the remains of the temple there was already a leveled area with traces of equipment and earthworks. Local residents say that the walls of the 1787 temple were destroyed by special equipment. In "Yaroslavl seaside" they nominated alternative version: “There was a strong wind and the walls collapsed.”

P.S.The publication does not take into account objects that were partially preserved after collapses, fires, damage and dismantling works. Materials from the city protection movements “Arkhnadzor”, “Living City”, “Tver Vaults”, “ Real story", "Real Vologda", "ArchiGuard", "SpasGrad", "ArchZashchita Ufa" and others, regional media, network resources.

New Year's series "Watchmen" Legacies”:

on cultural heritage in Russia 2015.

about the fate of cultural heritage in Russia and the world in 2015.

To be continued.



Related publications: