House of Sveshnikov: Can't be demolished? Category of historical and cultural significance.

Vladimir merchants Sveshnikovs

At the turn of the XVIII and XIX centuries. in Vladimir, there were up to a dozen and a half brick establishments, of different sizes. The most significant of them was the factory of the merchant A. Sveshnikov. Brick factories worked 6-7 months a year, from May to September.

G.T. Mansion Meshcheryagin (, d. 2) was built in 1792. The history of the construction of this city estate began in 1783, when a small area near the Golden Gate was assigned for development to Grigory Tarasovich Meshcheryagin, the manager of the estate of Count A.R. Vorontsov in the village of Andreevsky. The Vorontsovsky manager was a rich man and decided to build up this place "first number". In addition, G.T. Meshcheryagin was an influential citizen of Vladimir and easily achieved the annexation of neighboring territories. As a result, the decision on the land allotment was as follows: “To him, in a fifteen-yard measure, nine sazhens depart from the merchants Alexei Lukovnikov, Andrey Sveshnikov, two arshins, on which the land consisted of a wooden structure, Lukovnikov had a kvass, a shop and a back hut, and Sveshnikov from a yard” .

Spasskaya street, 1


The house of the merchant A. Sveshnikov. Bolshaya Moskovskaya street, 8

House number 8 was built in con. 18th century Vladimir merchant Andrey Sveshnikov, who received income "from the inn". Then the merchants Morozovs bought the house, and in 1864 the merchant of the 2nd guild, Vasily Vasilyevich Elagin, owned the house, who rented one room on the ground floor for a workshop in the basement, and the rest of the rooms on this floor were used for a ready-made dress shop. The owner himself occupied the entire top floor. He had income "from tailoring".
Subsequently, the house was bought by the merchant Petrovsky, who kept a confectionery shop here with a very refined assortment: sugar, tea, coffee, sweets, confectionery, cigarettes.
In the documents of the middle of the 18th century, the merchant Sveshnikov in 1754 had land "... on a large street, going from the Golden Gate on the left side." In 1787, the Vladimir spiritual consistory - a special institution under the bishop for managing the diocese - anxiously reported to the Vladimir viceroy that the Vladimir merchant Andrei Sveshnikov intended to build a stone house on church land. In 1787, the Vladimir architect Nikolai von Berk wrote that he measured out the land to Sveshnikov, “going to the Golden Gate from the trading bridge on the right side to build a stone house according to the 2nd number ... the first line by measure, going from the tradesman Matvey Budylinsky along big Zlatovratskaya street, seven sazhens one arshin fourteen vershoks, 2nd line turn to the right... thirty-one sazhens, 3rd line... thirty-one sazhens, totaling two hundred seventy-three square sazhens and three square arshins... ”, on the very spot where the cinema building is now located. In December 1788, the merchant Andrei Sveshnikov reported that he had built a stone house on the allotted land, and asked to issue a “owner’s decree” on it. Such documents were issued to each developer.
Old photographs have been preserved showing a stone two-story house at this place, built according to an exemplary project by the merchant Andrey Sveshnikov, who had income from an inn and trade in various goods.

In 1817, the house was acquired by the merchant of the 1st guild, Pyotr Ilyin, who was famous at that time for his wealth, acquired by supplying provisions to the army (see).
In 1790, the mayor, with verbal and conscientious judges and builders, merchants Alferov, Grigory and Yakov Petrovsky, Spiridon Somov and Semyon Lazarev, made a quotation for the shops and recognized their owners by lot. From the register of shops it can be seen that in the then Gostiny Dvor 51 nos. were arranged, of which, starting from the first inversion against Lazarev’s house, from the first shop on the corner of the square, 12 shops were identified for the vegetable, iron and drinking row (No. 1 - taken 350 R. - given to Andrey Sveshnikov; 2 - 350 rubles - to Ivan Motorin; 3 - 450 rubles - to Andrey Sveshnikov; 50 and 51 - 600 rubles - to Andrey Sveshnikov).

(1765-1818) in 1803, he sold his bookstore in Gostiny Dvor to the Sveshnikov brothers, but not because he went bankrupt, but because publishing activities took him a lot of time.

On September 12th, 1879, the Board opened its operations. The management of the plant was grateful to the local candle specialist, I. V. Sveshnikov, for his many helpful points and messages.

For 1893 we learn about the following donations: “... For equipment: 1. M.F. Morozov for sisters' dresses - 80 arshins of black castor, 125 arshins of lekoton and 1 pood of cotton wool. 2. Merchant N.D. Sveshnikov- skins for 18 pairs of shoes ... "
On April 9, 1895, a meeting of founders was held in the chambers of Bishop Sergius. On it, the bishop read the above-mentioned rescript of the Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, spoke about the departments of the IOPS already created in other provinces. Later, the participants proceeded to the election of officials of the department. Bishop Sergius was unanimously elected its chairman. This kind of choice was not unusual; the heads of other departments were also diocesan bishops. Bishop Tikhon of Murom became Comrade Chairman (i.e., his Deputy), and State Councilor Ivan Stepanovich Krutikov became Treasurer, merchant Nikolai Dmitrievich Sveshnikov was chosen as a candidate for him in case of retirement. N. P. Urusov, A. A. Shilov, N. A. Pyshkin, V. N. Muravkin, A. F. Petrovsky, I. K. Pavlov were elected members of the department council.
1912 "The boarding establishment of Nikolai Dmitrievich Sveshnikov (

The site has repeatedly raised the issue of preserving the only wooden structure of the Morozov era remaining on Lenin Street (formerly Nikolskaya) - the house of the former house of the director of the board of the partnership of manufactories "Vikula Morozov with Sons" Stepan Nikiforovich Sveshnikov, located opposite the modern Administration building:

Recall that the Sveshnikov House is a perfectly preserved example of a city estate of the late 19th century. It is notable primarily for the beautiful carved decor of the main facade, made in the style of traditional Russian wooden architecture and gives an idea of ​​the features of urban development in Orekhovo-Zuyevo at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Orekhovo-Zuyevo local historians V.S. Lizunov, G.D. Krasulenkov, V.N. Alekseev. At the beginning of 2012, the initiative group sent a letter to the Ministry of Culture of the Moscow Region with a request to prevent the demolition of the Sveshnikov house, to which a positive response was given. former minister culture of the Moscow region G.K. Ratnikova.

Unfortunately, the situation is complicated by the fact that a tuberculosis dispensary has been located in the building since the 1930s. In connection with the withdrawal of this institution outside the city, the Administration of the urban district of Orekhovo-Zuyevo decided to liquidate the building. In 2013, representatives of the Morozovtsy initiative group, whose goal was to protect the architectural monuments of the Morozov era preserved in Orekhovo-Zuevo - Lyubov Malyutina, Sergey Zharkov, Klim Bulavkin - repeatedly appealed to the city administration and the Ministry of Culture of the Moscow Region with a request to save the unique building from demolition and preserve it for future generations.

It is clear that, given the mood of the townspeople, who are concerned about the problem of tuberculosis, the question of saving Sveshnikov's house from demolition seems to many to be a senseless undertaking. However, before destroying a cultural and historical object, it is still worth once again to properly weigh all the arguments “for” and “against”. Collecting materials on the history of this house, I found very interesting information that makes me re-evaluate its significance for the history and culture of Orekhovo-Zuev.

An unusual exhibit is kept in the MGOGI museum - a typewritten literary and artistic almanac of 1957 edition, where, under the editorship of Professor Avraamy Alekseevich Kaiev, the works of teachers and students of Orekhovo-Zuevsky Pedagogical Institute that time. The circulation of this almanac is only 4 copies. Among other materials, there are memories of a certain K.I. Malyshev, recorded by student A. Shavrin, under the title "From the history of the revolutionary movement in the city of Orekhovo-Zuyevo." We are talking about the work of one of the first revolutionary circles that arose in the city, whose members carried out propaganda of social democratic ideas among the workers of Morozov's factories. In particular, K.I. Malyshev recalls: “... By the middle of 1905, the circle had accumulated a lot of illegal literature, ranging from Iskra and proclamations to reputable publications. The librarian was A.L. Balkin. Balkin kept literature with his aunt, who lived in the house where the TB dispensary is now located. She was Savva's housekeeper. Savva stayed in this house when he came to Orekhovo, but for the most part he lived in Moscow (detail: both aunt and Savva were very fond of tea and knew a lot about it). And so, if the circle needed literature, then Balkin went to the bathhouse and, under this pretext, went to his aunt for linen, capturing literature on the way back. No one suspected that illegal literature was stored in the chest, under the linen, in Morozov's house. Balkin kept the place of storage of literature a secret from all members of the circle and only later informed Malyshev and Anufriev about this ... ”(p. 92)

Thus, from this text we learn that S.T. Morozov in last years life, coming to Orekhovo, he often stayed in Sveshnikov's house. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall that among the Orekhovo-Zuev writers up to the 50s of the twentieth century there was an opinion that A.M. Gorky, arriving in Orekhovo to Savva Morozov. This, in particular, was heard by our famous writer, head of the "Osnova" V.A. Bahrevsky from the senior mentor of many Orekhovo-Zuevsky poets A.A. Kayeva. Considering the fact that Savva, when he came to Orekhovo, preferred to stay at Sveshnikov's house, it is very likely that he received Gorky there as well. It is also noteworthy that already after the revolution, in 1925-1926, the first meetings of the Osnova literary association, which was then created in Orekhovo-Zuyevo, were held on the veranda of this house.

Sveshnikov's house is indeed a cultural heritage of our city, and it would be a big mistake to thoughtlessly destroy it, as 30 barracks, Konfeev's tavern and many other monuments of city history were destroyed. Of course, the fact that a tuberculosis dispensary was located in Sveshnikov's house greatly complicates the problem of preserving and further using the building. However, today there is an Institute for Special Restoration, there are modern technologies to make the building safe, and consultations with the management of this organization are already underway. It's not easy, but if we really love our city, its history and culture, shouldn't we try to save the monument from destruction?

Photo by Tatiana Alekseeva

Registration number

Category of historical and cultural significance

regional importance

Object type

Monument

Basic typology

Monument of urban planning and architecture

Creation date information

turn of the XIX-XX centuries.

Object address (location)

Moscow region, Orekhovo-Zuevo, st. Lenina, d. 54

Name, date and number of the decision of the state authority on putting the facility under state protection

Decree of the Ministry of Culture of the Moscow Region No. 14РВ-81 dated April 8, 2015

Description of the subject of protection

<1>The subject of protection can be supplemented in the process of complex scientific research and implementation of restoration works. The subject of protection of the object of cultural heritage of regional significance "The House of Sveshnikov, the turn of the XIX-XX centuries." are: 1. Location and town-planning characteristics of the Sveshnikov House turn XIX-XX centuries, its role in the spatial planning structure of the historically developed territory. 2. Volumetric-spatial composition of an L-shaped house at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, complicated by projections and volumes of porches, including elevation marks along the crowning cornices. 3. Roofs of the turn of the 19th-20th centuries: gable main volumes with lucarne windows, including risalit roofs, ridge elevations, structures, slope angle, material, configuration, nature of the roofing, color solution. 4. Compositional solution and architectural and artistic design of facades at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, including the location, shape, size, design of window and doorways, wooden carved window casings with sandriks and aprons, style carved decor of crowning cornices on carved brackets, pediment slopes , porches, including carved overhead details of pilasters and porch pillars. 5. Material and character of processing of facade surfaces at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries: log walls, chopped into a "burl with the rest". 6. Coloristic solution of facades at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries (to be specified in the process of restoration studies). 7. Spatial-planning structure of interiors at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries within the limits of the main walls, original partitions, initial marks of floors and ceilings, doorways. 8. Design and material of capital walls, partitions, ceilings at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. 9. Architectural and artistic design of interiors at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, including drawn profiled ceiling cornices. 10. Wooden staircase of the turn of the 19th-20th centuries with wooden railings and balusters: location, design, material, design. 11. Joinery window and door fillings of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, including wooden paneled doors with hardware - material, design, manufacturing technique, color scheme.

For an architectural monument left unattended and almost burned down, the authorities want to call to account the owners of apartments evicted after the fire of 2010

Sveshnikov's house on Kavi Najmi, which has survived two fires over the past 7 years, will not be demolished for the sake of a tidbit of land in the city center, assured " real time»Deputy Minister of Culture of the Republic of Tatarstan Svetlana Persova. All responsibility for the failure to preserve the cultural heritage of Kazan will fall on its owners, who, by the way, are individuals. They will also have to ensure its safety while preparing all the necessary documentation for the further reconstruction of the building. Details are in our material.

Responsibility shared between owners

As it became known to Realnoe Vremya, the inspection of the Ministry of Culture of Tatarstan on the fact of the fire on November 7 in the Sveshnikov House has not yet been completed, but this moment The fire was determined to have started in an extension of the building.

The fire broke out in an outbuilding, which is only partially related to the monument. Most of the outbuildings do not belong to the monument. That is, it was not the monument itself that burned, but the building adjacent to it. But we are still restoring the degree of damage and on whose territory the fire occurred, - said Deputy Minister of Culture of the Republic of Tatarstan Svetlana Persova.

The cause of the fire has not yet been reported - after the examination, relevant information should be provided from the Ministry of Emergency Situations in the Republic of Tatarstan.

The situation is complicated by the fact that the building has several owners, each of whom owns several premises. All owners are individuals. Their names were not reported to the editors, but they could be both former residents and people who bought the premises from them.

In any case, the burden of maintenance and responsibility for the safety of the monument in our country, according to the law, is borne by the owner, therefore here the owner is entirely responsible. In any case, the owner will be held administratively liable, and we will continue to encourage them all to carry out necessary work in accordance with the law, - comments the Deputy Minister of Culture of Tatarstan.

“In any case, the owner will be brought to administrative responsibility, and we will continue to encourage them all to carry out the necessary work in accordance with the law,” comments Svetlana Persova. Photo by Timur Rakhmatullin

Persova explains that a security obligation agreement was not concluded with these owners, since by law they are already obliged to take care of the preservation of the cultural heritage site. Based on the results of the inspection, the owners may also be held administratively liable for not carrying out any work on the Sveshnikov house after the 2010 fire.

How people who survived the fire could do something with the building to save it from destruction is not clear. The fate of the tenants is also unknown, as well as why, for example, the same ransom procedures were not applied to them, as in the case of the Mergasovsky house.

Executive Committee: “Letters were sent to the owners about the need to take measures to restore the facility”

Realnoe Vremya also asked the mayor's office for a comment to learn more about what happened to the cultural heritage site in recent years. From there came a very concise answer.

“In response to your request, we inform you that all the premises in the building on the street. K. Najmi, 10 belong to private individuals. Based on the results of a tour of the facilities with the participation of the President of the Republic of Tatarstan in 2016, letters were sent to the owners about the need to take measures to restore the facility.”

With a ghostly fate, but without demolition

Meanwhile, Svetlana Persova dispels very unfounded fears about further fate buildings in the first half of the 19th century. It is enough to remember the newly rebuilt Kazan Hotel on Bauman Street, the Bulgar rooms, dozens of lost monuments, to understand what happens to such historical objects.

It is impossible to demolish it [the House of Sveshnikov], because demolition will be equal to destruction,” comments Svetlana Persova.

According to Persova, the development of projects for the reconstruction of the building is also the responsibility of the owners. Photo by Oleg Tikhonov

According to her, there are no projects for the reconstruction of the building yet, since their development is also the responsibility of the owners. Now the Ministry of Culture will try to get them to carry out first of all emergency response measures, so that full-fledged project documentation can be developed and the building will be mothballed at least for the period of design work.

Further, the project determines the sequence, the required scope of work, and adaptation, since no proposals for adaptation have been received from the owners to date, - Persova comments on the fate of the House of Sveshnikov.

“I think everything will be fine here, since the Ministry of Culture keeps this issue under control”

Architect Sergei Sanachin, no less concerned about the fate of the building, on the eve of the city planning council also asked the Deputy Minister of Culture of the Republic of Tatarstan Svetlana Persova with questions, who told him that the building is registered with them and no one will take this place.

I think everything will be fine here, since the Ministry of Culture keeps this issue under control, - summed up Sanachin.

Discussing the fate of the building with a Realnoe Vremya correspondent, the architect noted that in some countries certain terms are prescribed by law, and if there is no development in the city center during this time, then the state or the municipality has the right to buy out. The expert proposes to follow this path and, in the case of abandoned cultural objects, save them with the help of federal law, where an appropriate scheme can be prescribed.

“I think everything will be fine here, since the Ministry of Culture keeps this issue under control,” Sergey Sanachin believes. Photo by Maxim Platonov

Recall that earlier the assistant to the President of the Republic of Tatarstan Olesya Baltusova said that the building at Bauman, 32 was withdrawn due to improper maintenance. A similar issue is being worked out for a number of other buildings.

Whether such a scheme will be involved with the Sveshnikov house, given the lack of interest in the object by the owners themselves, is unknown. The possibility of transferring the building to state ownership by court, according to Svetlana Persova, has not yet been discussed.

Realnoe Vremya continues to monitor the situation.

Maria Gorozhaninova, Dmitry Semyagin