Regional Co-operation for Cultural Heritage Development
რეგიონალური თანამშრომლობა კულტურული მემკვიდრეობის განვითარებისათვის
Տարածաշրջանային համագործակցություն հանուն մշակութային ժառանգության զարգացման
Національна політика щодо культурної спадщини
Mədəni irsin inkişaf Etdimilməsi üçün regional əməkdaşlıq
Рэгіянальнае супрацоўніцтва ў мэтах развіцця культурнай спадчыны
 
E- Journal №2
Architectural Heritage
Post-socialist Architecture of Armenia: The Free Language of Independence or Authenticity Destruction?

Dr. Nune Chilingaryan
ICOMOS Armenia
Yerevan State University of Architecture and Construction


Since 1991, the past two decades have become for Armenia an intense period of radical revisions of priorities and values in its all realms, political, architectural, etc... The realization of Armenian nation’s centuries-old aspiration, the gain of independent State of their own with anticipation for positive changes, at the same time became a catalyst of serious destructive processes, particularly in heritage protection policies. These processes considerably affected the capital city of Yerevan, transforming the image of the city to a greater extent. We will try to understand the character and the consequences of these processes, by answering the following questions:

  • What kind of attitude on heritage protection have we inherited from the socialist period?
  • Which values of architectural heritage were subject to complete revision?
  • What is the architectural language that tries to express the new society emerged from the prejudices of socialism?
  • How has public and professional opinion regarding heritage evolved throughout the time of independency of more than twenty years?

It is necessary to objectively acknowledge that during Soviet times, despite its economic and ideological problems, administrative slowness and sluggishness; however, strict state policy, legislative base and mechanisms were maintained in the field of heritage use and protection. Yet thanks to that sluggishness, it was impossible to make spontaneous and unprofessional decisions concerning all kinds of architectural heritage, independently from dates of its construction. So, paradoxically, the stagnation was the safety guarantee of the heritage.

Back then professionals and public in general had ambiguous position towards architectural heritage, and heritage of Yerevan city in particular. The actively practicing architects of 1960’s were considering the heritage of the city (except the cult buildings) as physically worn out unnecessary ballast that needs to be cleared and liberated from, in order to facilitate further modernization of the capital. Due to such mentality, first high-rises were built mostly on random, arbitrary spots in terms of urban-planning. They obscured the silhouette and the integrity of overall composition of the small centre. The opinion of the non-professional public was influenced by the new construction enthusiasm which symbolized progress and better life conditions.

Only few architects and urban-planners were able to oppose the physical and moral devaluation of heritage. And thanks to the opposition of that minority, together with most progressive representatives of power, it was possible to preserve some of the heritage that today serves as a visit card of the city and a proof of its rich historical past, despite its extremely adverse present environment. Contrary to the popular belief of western countries that the totalitarian socialist regime was suppressing free expression of professional opinion and creativity, most significant renovation and reconstruction projects were required to be submitted to the professional discussions. And based on the outcome only could Government approve or disapprove projects. The conclusions made by the Architects’ Union of Armenia had great influence on final decisions. The city’s main architect, who used to be a supreme representative of the profession in the decision-makers, had a say in these matters. Whereas today he has the opposite role: first of all he is the representative of the power itself, rather than the profession. In most cases the city’s main architect is responsible for realizing the architectural manifestations of the already approved programmes of municipality and Government, often ignoring professional opinion, let alone public opinion.

During the socialist period (1920-1991) the heritage of architecture and urban-planning in Yerevan represents a rich palette of styles that were generated by the interaction of two leading notions: to preserve local artistic traditions and to develop a new vocabulary of Armenian modernism.

1924-1965: The predominance of the neo-classical architecture, a unique revision of the medieval Armenian architecture and European classicism incarnated in monumental-heroic scale.

1930-1940: The formation of Armenian constructivism.

1965-1988: First courageous attempts to radically change the architectural language and building technologies, to occupy spaces by huge volumes of concrete and glass.

During the first years of independence (declared in 1991), the main economic source of the country became the foreign investment in tourism and real estate rather than the potential industrial development. It led to a building boom, which first affected the capital city, then other regions of the country.

Here we find the main cause of today’s negligent policy of heritage. Once being a national basis of identity, today it became one of the most vulnerable and unprotected fields. It is important to stress that, contrary to the widespread opinion, this negligence has not only affected the socialist heritage, but also all the historical layers of the city without exception. This phenomenon has not solely ideological explanation. And it is far from the concept of simply rejecting the socialist architecture along with its old regime. As a matter of fact, the socialist heritage, being the youngest and recently realized, has not yet taken its true place and importance especially in the minds of the new power, and has appeared in the forefront of potential victims of mass modernization and reconstruction.

In the beginning the process of establishing a new policy seemed to be a simple matter of jurisdictional update. In 2000 all the ministries and departments were required to submit the statutory acts of the Soviet period to the Government for revision and re-approval. In 1990, just one year before the disintegration of the USSR an expansive project called “Protection of historical and cultural heritage of the city of Yerevan” has been developed and approved (Authors: A. Grigoryan, O. Sanamyan, A. Gjulnazaryan, K. Grigoryan). Along with in-detailed descriptions of buildings significance, protection and mode of use, a list of 871 landmarks has been elaborated, among which 457 landmarks belonged to the Soviet period. However, the new municipal authorities, essentially being the clients themselves, and theoretically the most interested parties, did not submit the above mentioned project in time. In the meantime the existing list of landmarks was declared ineffective. This resulted in an unprecedented case when the city de jure had no architectural heritage during four years. During these years of chaos Yerevan became very attractive to foreign investors, and particularly to those from Armenian Diaspora, who aimed to invest their finances mainly in two directions: in building churches, or building real estate in a small city centre, where the most valuable architectural heritage from 12th to 20th centuries is concentrated. Later the new generation Armenian financial oligarchy took over these tendencies.

The new, shortened version of the list of landmarks was approved in 2004. Only 370 out of 457 landmarks of the Soviet period remained in the list, and the rest of 87 landmarks have lost their status.

However, it would be misleading to think that the socialist heritage which started to reappear in the new list is reliably protected. A very effective mechanism has been developed within the last few years. For example: a developer purchases a landmark and applies for its exclusion from the list of landmarks. After it is excluded, the owner is free to proceed with his desired project, which could be reconfiguration of the building, reconstruction (redevelopment) or demolition and realization of the new one. Another way would be to purchase a landmark, go on with the desired project, but to declare that there is solely an intention to renovate the monument.

Let's try to illustrate the short chronology of Yerevan’s recent rehabilitation works of socialist heritage and the evolution of public reaction. Here are several examples:

Pic.1. Hotel “Yerevan”/Intourist/, built in 1928 author N. Buniatyan
-Included in the heritage list of Yerevan of 1990
-Included in the heritage list of Yerevan of 2004
-Sold in 1999 to the foreign company
-Renovated in 1999-2000, architect N. Chilingaryan

This was the first experience of large scale renovation in Yerevan for this period. It is necessary to notice that the restoration has been completed before it was declared that the former list of landmarks was ineffective. Nevertheless, as author of renovation project, I had to meet serious difficulties for preservation of integrity of initial monument shape.

Pic.2. Hotel “Sevan”, built in 1930-1934, author N. Buniatyan
-Included in the heritage list of Yerevan of 1990
-Does not appear in the heritage list of Yerevan of 2004
-Privatized in 1995
-Demolished in 2004 under the permission of the prefect of the centre of Yerevan

The demolition of the hotel “Sevan” has caused drastic, however unorganized public protests and media discussions. The new project of the future business centre has not even been approved by that time, and for unknown reasons the construction of the new building has come to a halt.

Pic.3. “Palace of Youth” built in 1979, authors A. Tarkhanyan, S. Khachikyan, H. Poghosyan
-Included in the heritage list of Yerevan of 1990
-Does not appear in the heritage list of Yerevan of 2004
-Sold in 2004 to the foreign company
-Destroyed in 2006 under the mayor permission

Pic.4. Cinema "Russia“, built in 1974, authors A. Tarkhanyan, S. Khachikyan, H. Poghosyan
-Included in the heritage list of Yerevan of 1990
-Does not appear in the heritage list of Yerevan of 2004
-Privatized in 2004
-Transformed into the trade centre “Ayrarat”

This is one of many similar examples in Yerevan, when a cultural heritage is being degraded into a trade centre during the years of building hysteria.

Additions and extensions to this quite unique structure are being built until present day.

Pic.5. Cinema "Moscow", summer Hall, built in 1966, authors T .Gevorkyan, S. Kntekhtsyan
-Included in the heritage list of Yerevan of 1990
-Included in the heritage list of Yerevan of 2004
-Excluded from the heritage list of Yerevan in 2010 by the decision of Government

This interestingly designed café canopy has been already dismantled in the beginning of 1990 under the pretext of necessity to realize additional exits for the “Moscow” cinema. In 2010, despite the fact that Government excluded its summer hall from the heritage list, the demolition has been prevented thanks to more than 20000 signatures of citizens of Yerevan. The initiators of this protest were mostly youth supported by known architects, artists, musicians and writers.

The fact of preserving the cinema’s summer hall could be considered as the first, but not final victory of the public initiative which was named “We will not be silent!" Despite this small victory the fate of this beautiful building in not decided yet, as it is not restored into the list of landmarks.

Pic.6.Yerevan Central “Covered” Market, built in 1952. Authors G. Aghababyan, A. Arakelyan
-Included in the heritage list of Yerevan of 1990
-Included in the heritage list of Yerevan of 2004
-Privatized in 2010

The demolition began in 2011 and continues to present day. After the opposition of activists that led to broad discussions in mass media, the owner has tried to reassure the citizens that following restoration the building would get its initial image back. However the nature of site works does not quite look like restoration.

Undoubtedly, public and media received a shock from losing its heritage for the first time. And this shock helped to organize the media and the public reaction. Within the framework of a very interesting programme called “Yerevan of the 20th century” founded by the MEDIAMAX media company, every week one of the most significant landmarks is presented in a large cultural and historical context.

However, the reconfiguration of heritage actively continues. The capital city continues to grow, transform and disfigure. The more investors “modernize” the city, the more activists become experienced, better organized.

Where does this development lead to? Is it, maybe, time for a new shock? Time to turn the entire heritage into an untouchable cult? Otherwise, one of the oldest cities in the world will very soon speak without an accent, absolutely comprehensible, however, absolutely uninteresting language.

Pic.1. Hotel “Yerevan”/Intourist/, built in 1928 author N. Buniatyan
Pic.2. Hotel “Sevan”, built in 1930-1934, author N. Buniatyan
Pic.3. “Palace of Youth” built in 1979, authors A. Tarkhanyan, S. Khachikyan, H. Poghosyan
Pic.4. Cinema
Pic.5. Cinema
Pic.6.Yerevan Central “Covered” Market, built in 1952. Authors G. Aghababyan, A. Arakelyan
RCCHD Project:
Office 16b, Betlemi ascent, 0105 Tbilisi, Georgia
Tel.: +995 32 2-98-45-27
E-mail: rcchd@icomos.org.ge
© 2012 - Eastern Partnership Culture Programme