TOP STORIES

City Plan Squares Preservation, Innovation

Staff Writer

Alexander Belenky / The St. Petersburg Times Alexander Viktorov: in favor of reform.

A new plan that aims to reconcile those eager to bring experimental modern architecture into the historical center of St. Petersburg and those who would like the heart of the city to be preserved was proposed Monday.

Vladimir Lisovsky, a professor at St. Petersburg's Repin State Institute for Art, Sculpture and Architecture and head of the local branch of the Society for the Preservation of Cultural and Historical Monuments, suggested that the whole city be divided into zones.

Speaking at a roundtable discussion organized by news agency Rosbalt in which the new chief city architect Alexander Viktorov took part, Lisovsky mooted a diversified system of restrictions specific to each zone.

This would protect the classical historical center from being ruined and, at the same time, provide opportunities for experimental architects to realize their projects, he said.

"The idea is that in some zones no construction would be allowed, only reconstruction, and under very strict conditions," Lisovsky said. "In other zones, construction would be possible subject to limitations and specifications."

Lisovsky also thinks that the term "historical center" is far too loose for professionals to operate with and should be used only in a literary context.

In notoriously conservative St. Petersburg, every modern project in its classical center causes a storm of emotions and contrasting opinions. The most recent such example is Dominique Perrault's design of a second performance space for the Mariinsky Theater.

A string of aspects related to construction in the city center were canvassed at the roundtable, with the key issue being whether a compromise could be found between the traditionalists and admirers of radical architectural solutions.

Chief architect Viktorov supported Lisovsky's proposal and criticized existing regulations for being too vague to apply to specific sites.

"Regulations have to be more detailed and varied depending on location," Viktorov said. "Setting out only a height restriction is not really helpful now, when computer modeling can show all the angles and allows us to say whether a new building actually fits into the environment."

But the proposal wasn't met with unanimous support. Some architects and representatives of the construction industry expressed reservations that long lists of regulations would suppress creativity.

Architect Yury Mityurev said architecture is art.

"Designers of buildings express their souls in their constructions, and they need to be inspired, rather than made to feel intimidated, " he said. "An object could fit in perfectly according to technical terms, yet stay worthless in aesthetic terms."

Vasily Sopromadze, president of construction company Corporation C, agreed, warning that censorship always risks killing art.

"Censorship is a very dangerous thing for architecture," he said. "The faultfinders would say 'just cut slightly here, expand it a little there and put an extra thing down there.' It doesn't sound like much harm, yet the design ends up completely distorted."

Sopromadze said beauty should be a major criterion for an architectural design. Applying it would make it easier for the public to judge buildings and would bypass the obstacles created by professional critics operating with measurements and exact categories, he said.

His approach would be more flexible than that proposed by Lisovsky and would not hamper creativity, he said.

"An architect should work on a project with all their heart, and then put it forward at a competition," he said. "If the jury likes it, they'll take it, if not, they'll reject it - it is that simple. In architecture, taste is more important than all those height and length limitations, and taste, as well as beauty, can't be measured."

Vladimir Popov, head of the St. Petersburg's Union of Architects, urged the professionals to be more attentive to the public's wishes. He is convinced closer contact is needed between the designers, decision makers and the general public.

The architect suggests that open discussions be organized around every significant project in the historical center, as was the case with the Mariinsky's second stage.

"This project, although accepted, may still survive some alterations but the main point is that the debates around it have shown a clear distinction in public opinion," Popov said.

"The older audiences tend to oppose Perrault's innovative design, while the youngsters welcome it with much enthusiasm. We shouldn't ignore the voice of the time. If we don't want our youngsters to flee the city as too conservative, we should be more respectful of their views."

The city administration representatives agree that a more coherent policy is needed for St. Petersburg to develop naturally, rather than in a contrived, artificial way. Vera Dementyeva, head of the Committee for the Preservation of the Historical Monuments, or KGIOP, said her office has become tougher in confronting violations of architectural restrictions.

"Three court cases are underway against construction companies that exceeded height limitations when reconstructing attics," she said. "The cases should present a clear warning to the other firms. The city center is our capital, which we all depend on, in which we spend and which we are in debt to."

More stories by this section:

Tyulpanov Eyes United Russia Boost | City Girl Gets Gold in World Math Olympiad

Or take part in the discussion below.