Travel to Russia - Reisebuero WELT - Russia Travel Tours - Russian Visa - Moscow hotel - St. Petersburg hotel

Few subjects of public debate cause as much hand-wringing and righteous indignation as the issue of architectural preservation. Moscow today faces the intractable problem of safeguarding its architectural past in the midst of an unprecedented construction boom, when evolving tastes, profit-driven projects and the insatiable demand for space are often at odds with the measured approach required for an effective and far-sighted preservationist policy.

Conserving and maintaining old buildings is almost always the more costly option. The intangibles thus come with a hefty price tag, and the ethical imperative of preserving the past often eludes city administrators, developers and architects motivated by other, more immediate concerns.

Architectural preservation efforts usually conjure up campaigns to protect age-old structures, but the present discussion in Moscow centers as much on saving the legacy of the Soviet period as on the extant monuments of the more distant past. Soviet heritage poses additional problems stemming from the use of shoddy materials and years of neglect. In addition, Soviet relics hardly recall the kind of evocative and scenic construction that ordinary people find worth defending. From the pioneering forms of the early Soviet avant-garde to the unwieldy silhouettes of the Brezhnev era, Soviet architecture scarred the face of cities across the country, and was often driven by visions of social engineering as much as a concern for human comfort.

A high-profile international conference called “Heritage at Risk” convened in Moscow at the end of April to outline strategies for preserving 20th-century architectural monuments at a time when the situation in Russia is reaching crisis proportions. The meetings aimed to mobilize public support and coordinate the work of specialists engaged with similar concerns around the world. The scale and level of representation at the conference was unprecedented in the capital’s recent history.

Held under the aegis of the International Council on Monuments and Sites, or ICOMOS, the conference featured lectures, city tours and roundtables to discuss worldwide experience and conservation methodologies, placing Russia’s predicament in a broader context. One of the ironies of the conference was that the mayor of Moscow presided over the organizing committee while the event itself was chiefly sponsored by Capital Group, a prominent Moscow developer. The patronage extended by these two players, often scapegoated for a leading, if not decisive role in the demolition campaign, represented either a timely reassessment of priorities or a smoke screen in front of an eminent international audience.

The conference was largely preoccupied with countering the notion that the general public is lukewarm toward the avant-garde projects of the early Soviet period. Experimental in spirit and devoid of ornate detailing, these buildings privileged the functional elements of design, defying the surroundings and repudiating what were judged to be outmoded architectural concepts. Constructivism, the movement that arose in the early 1920s and thrived until the ideological reversals of the Stalin era, is often considered to be Russia’s most lasting contribution to world architecture. Around 300 buildings went up in Moscow alone between 1925 and 1932, and as many as two thirds survive today. Only a few of these structures have the status of protected monuments, however. Even the iconic designs often languish in neglect and obscurity, subject to arbitrary conversions and ill-conceived repairs.

hotel russian visas air tickets and train tickets transport services	conference facilities sightseeing tours special offers