St. Petersburg city defenders were promised to be heard – Kommersant St. Petersburg

A scandal erupted in St. Petersburg after the publication of draft amendments to St. Petersburg Law No. 820-7, which regulates the treatment of historical houses. In the current version, the law protects from demolition all buildings built before 1917; in the new version, 389 buildings are recognized as not subject to protection as having no historical value. City defenders regarded this as legalizing the demolition of ancient houses and sounded the alarm; Smolny denies such an interpretation of the amendments and assures that the fate of each “valuable” historical building will still be decided individually based on an examination.

On November 16, KGIOP published a state historical and cultural examination of the project of joint zones for the protection of cultural heritage sites located on the territory of St. Petersburg. The project was developed by LLC “NIiPI “Spetsrestavratsiya”” and contains changes proposed to the Law of St. Petersburg No. 820–7 “On the boundaries of united protection zones…”.

Law of St. Petersburg dated January 19, 2009 No. 820–7 “On the boundaries of united zones for the protection of cultural heritage sites located on the territory of St. Petersburg, land use regimes and requirements for urban planning regulations within the boundaries of these zones” was adopted by the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg 24 December 2008. The law regulates the preservation of the historical environment in St. Petersburg, allowing or prohibiting certain actions in relation to historical buildings. Thus, almost all pre-revolutionary buildings, as well as “Stalinist” buildings in security zones, were protected from demolition.

In the new edition, historical buildings that are not objects of cultural heritage (according to KGIOP estimates, there are 14 thousand of them) are for the first time divided into categories depending on their significance: valuable environmental objects that form areas of compositionally completed spaces; environmental objects corresponding to the environmental characteristics of a specific area of ​​the historical and urban environment; non-environmental objects – individual buildings, structures, structures that have lost their historical environment or do not correspond to its environmental characteristics.

“It is important to emphasize that Law 820–7 will not regulate the issues of demolition (dismantling) of non-environmental buildings, including obliging the owners of these buildings to take actions for their reconstruction,” the department’s press release clarified.

After the publication of draft amendments to one of the main city laws regulating the treatment of historical buildings, city defenders announced on social networks that non-environmental buildings (there are 389 of them in the published amendments) are being farmed out to developers. “Presumably, almost all of them are pre-revolutionary,” said a post published in the telegram channel SOS St. Petersburg SNOS, “in the current version of the law they are protected, in the new version they will be demolished.”

Due to the uproar in the press, yesterday KGIOP organized a briefing for journalists. First Deputy Chairman of the KGIOP Alexey Mikhailov answered media questions. The official said that of the mentioned 14 thousand buildings that were not recognized as monuments, 8 thousand objects located in historical areas and border areas were examined and fell under the classification. The difference between an environmental object and a non-environmental object lies in whether the building (structure) preserves the historical environment and “the general idea of ​​its perception” or not, a representative of the KGIOP explained the terminology to journalists. Non-environmental objects will not be subject to protection regimes or conservation requirements. And even more so, they will not be subject to demands for demolition or transformation, Mr. Mikhalov emphasized: “I don’t understand at all where this word “demolition” came from, as if everything was lost, everything will be demolished. We are talking only about a certain differentiation, weakening of protection in relation to non-environmental buildings. The further fate of these stages is, of course, individual in each case.”

When asked whether the KGIOP, with the adoption of the new version of the law, will control what will happen to non-environmental buildings, the first deputy chairman first said that the department monitors any development that is located in the historical center. But then he added: “We do not have the authority to monitor everything that happens in the city. We highlight what is valuable and monitor this value so that the citizens and guests of St. Petersburg continue to receive an overall impression of our historical city.”

The city defenders who came were not allowed into the briefing, but they were still able to ask questions to Mr. Mikhailov on the street, near the KGIOP building. “You remove the security, thereby allowing the demolition of non-environmental buildings,” city defender Oleg Mukhin immediately outlined the essence of the activists’ claims. “These are your assumptions, concerns,” retorted First Deputy Chairman Mikhailov and assured the remaining media representatives that the committee accepts all proposals and concerns of citizens in the prescribed manner and will definitely voice them in further discussion of the draft amendments.

“You are opening Pandora’s box by removing the security,” insisted Mr. Mukhin. “Why remove it when half of the objects have not yet been examined? Does this mean that now there are 400 non-environmental buildings, and in the future the list may be expanded?” Mr. Mikhailov replied that the list could be expanded or shortened if the professional council makes an appropriate decision. Representatives of dissatisfied citizens doubted the professionalism of the experts who will take part in the further passage of the project through the authorities. “We were present during the raider seizure of VOOPIK,” activists expressed their subjective assessment of the situation with the change in the St. Petersburg leadership of the All-Russian Society for the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments, when Mr. Mikhailov named this organization among the experts.

Without answering “why did KGIOP recognize houses at specific addresses as non-environmental,” the representative of the department noted: “You overestimate my abilities, I don’t remember all the objects by heart,” and, once again inviting urban defenders to send questions, suggestions and comments to the specified email addresses, took his leave. In a calmer atmosphere at the briefing, Mr. Mikhailov managed to tell reporters that it would take several months to agree on the draft amendments to Law No. 820-7: KGIOP plans to submit the project to the working group of the St. Petersburg parliament only in March 2024, and the adoption of the law could take place already at the end 2024 or 2025.

Context

“Because of this proposal, the developers’ ears are sticking out so much that nothing can hide them.”

Public opinions regarding the proposed amendments to the Law of St. Petersburg of January 19, 2009 No. 820–7 “On the boundaries of united protection zones…” were divided.

Boris Vishnevsky, a city defender and member of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg from the Yabloko faction, sharply disapproved of the proposed changes: “Because of this proposal, the developers’ ears stick out so much that nothing can hide them. Of course, I am categorically against the idea of ​​KGIOP. And I will give the simplest argument: a complete lack of trust in those who developed this idea and ordered this examination,” the parliamentarian wrote in his Telegram channel.

Partner of the Syntaxis architectural bureau Alexander Starikov assesses the legislative initiative rather positively. “In my opinion, introducing these amendments and clarifications will allow us to revitalize the dead urban fabric and create new architecture that meets the current needs of society. Yes, St. Petersburg and its historical part have a special status in the public consciousness, and the attitude towards any changes and adjustments to working conditions is very careful and even wary. And yet, an excessive desire to preserve the old just because it is of a certain age, and in general the nostalgic fixation of a retrospective view on an idealized past, can greatly hinder the development of the city, mummifying important urban spaces.”

Vice President of the Springald Group of Companies Vitaly Nikiforovsky also evaluates the innovations positively: “Law 820-7 arose in the 2000s, when the scale of demolition of historical buildings reached frightening proportions. It was repeatedly refined and modified, but its main idea – to determine the categories of buildings by year of construction – remained unchanged. The work done is undoubtedly colossal, and in the proposed version the law describes the urban environment much better and better and protects what it is supposed to protect, on the one hand, and on the other, it solves development problems that have not previously been solved for years. There are dozens of buildings in the city, the status of which prevented the implementation of large-scale projects in the historical center, which have no cultural and historical value, but are protected by the current version of the law.”

“The proposed idea of ​​dividing into categories is a step forward towards the development of urban spaces; the implementation of this approach will give a powerful impetus to the involvement of buildings in the city center and private investment in the city’s economy. Moreover, we are not talking about the demolition of historical buildings, but about the possibility of a full reconstruction of non-environmental buildings with an increase in the number of floors and changes in the facades of buildings,” thinks Alexander Demin, member of ICOMOS, head of the Expert Center for Development in St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region.

Alexandra Ten