THE CONSTRUCTIVIST PROJECT

On Monday I went to the Central House of the Architect to listen in on the panel discussion “The architectural heritage of Vladimir Shukhov in a modern city.” While I usually post photos, this time around I thought I’d share some of my notes as well since there were only about 20 people present at meeting. So please bear with me, there are more words than pictures in this post. I can’t claim to be an engineering expert, nor do I claim to be impartial observer. It was in fact a photo of Shukhov Tower by Alexander Rodchenko (see photo below, 1929) that set me on the path to become a photographer and enthusiast of avant-garde architecture. Logically, the fate of those structures that I love to photograph, in this case what I fondly refer to as my “favorite tower,” is of great importance to me.

The meeting was opened up with the chilling words,
“MAYBE IT SHOULD JUST FALL DOWN?”

This was not meant to wish ill to the tower, but in protest to make a point, in desperation to offer up the tower as a sacrifice. Two other well-known monuments of the avant-garde era also in “near-death” situations come to mind, the Narkomfin building and the Melnikov House. Either one of these could also serve as a regrettable sacrifice. As time drags on, and repairs aren’t made, arguments and ownership battles continue, and nothing gets done, while all those working hard to do something about it, and those near and far helplessly watching news story after news story reporting on that “famed [insert monument of architecture here]’s situation is just getting worse”… well one of these days, it might just fall down. That will be our lesson – a lesson of a loss that could have been averted. Despite this bit of digression, I do think the circumstances surrounding Shukhov Tower are not unique, and in fact shed light on the difficulties of preservation in Moscow.

As far as the fate of Shukhov Tower is concerned, time just keeps going by as there are continuing disagreements between groups involved, and funding and engineering obstacles prevent work from getting underway.

What was discussed throughout the evening can be categorized around 3 main themes:

1. PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE: HOW DO WE TREAT SHUKHOV’S TOWER,
AS A SCULPTURE OR AS A FUNCTIONING PIECE OF EQUIPMENT?
– what would Shukhov do?
– restoration vs. reconstruction
– the tower as a sculpture and an engineering work of art, decorates the city, and is a symbol of that time period
– to view the tower from a historical viewpoint puts emphasis on its “museumification” and as one speaker put it, “to preserve the aroma of that time period”
– Can tourism save monuments of architecture?
– look to foreign examples of restoration projects, such as the restoration and commercialization of Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex in Essen

2. TECHNICAL ISSUES: ENGINEERING OBSTACLES
– working at a height of 150 meters (wind factor & getting materials up to that height)
– proximity of nearby buildings
– feasibility of taking the tower apart in sections and moving to another location to do the restoration work
– estimate that 70% needs to replaced
– the metal used was what was available then, so is it supposed to be saved/protected?

3. FUNDING
– money allocated for restoration project way below actual cost of work
– monuments of architecture can only be restored in certain ways to retain their authenticity. To allow Shukhov Tower to be a UNESCO world heritage site candidate, special attention (translation: more MONEY) to methods and materials will need to be paid
– to receive federal money, the tower needs to have federal status, which in its current poor condition prevents it from getting federal status (see the problem?)

Some other comments that stood out to me:
“It’s embarrassing to stand next to it as it’s going to ruin” – this not only applies to the tower but other internationally recognized monuments (again, the Narkomfin building and Melnikov House come to mind)

“The tower is a diamond to give to next generations” – coming from 2 days of talks at the Moscow Urban Forum, several times Moscow’s asset of heritage & historic value was pointed out, and Shukhov tower easily falls into that category.

The proposals for how to go about the restoration work can be summed up as follows:
1. Take apart the tower in sections, move to a different location to do the repair work, and reassemble
2. Attach cable supports to stabilize the tower as work is done to it
3. Create a temporary structure around the tower for the duration of the restoration work

For what it’s worth, I was the most sold on option #3. Let me explain. The structure is only temporary. If scaffolding needs to built around it, might as well make the most of it. At the top of the structure, a viewing area is planned. And frankly, I think it’d be pretty neat to have the opportunity to see Moscow from such a height (and I think a whole bunch of tourists would as well, aka $!). Also, having an enclosed space would solve the problem of working at a height of 150 meters.

What’s frustrating is that while there is a consensus about the tower’s importance, an agreement on how to proceed is nowhere in sight. Despite sincere best intentions, inaction is not doing the tower any favors. And of course, sufficient funding wouldn’t hurt and neither would support from the authorities. If only the tower would have the same luck as new development projects: backed with lots of money, cut right through all the red tape, and executed with ambitious speed. I understand it’s no shiny and new Moskva-City, but the city of Moscow would not be the same without Shukhov tower in its skyline.

I REALLY HOPE THE TOWER DOES NOT FALL DOWN

Sometimes being a bit dramatic helps to get the point across…