#11 - JRL 7273
From: Guy Archer <guy.archer@publications-design.com>
Subject: Re: 7271-Moskva Hotel
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003
Jonathan Glancey's Moskva Hotel piece in the Guardian (#7271) glibly sidesteps many issues that concern those of us worried about Moscow's architectural preservation. I'm not clear why Mr. Glancey is unaware that the Intourist was torn down almost a year ago, or why he thinks the Leningrad Hotel has been restored (though there has been talk of restoring it only recently, with the usual guff coming from city administrators about 'world class hotels' and tenders and so forth). But never mind. Let's go to the basic question, mentioned though not addressed: why is a registered historic monument being torn down at all? In fact, why are such atrocities happening all over this city with so little local and international outcry?
Quite plainly, it is absurd to tear down a building and replace it with a replica. That is, unless the building is structurally unsound. Is the Moskva? Or is the concern simply to reduce the number of rooms to 400 - just for the sake of building another five-star hotel? And so close to the Kremlin and St. Basils...
Those interested in Moscow's architecture have plenty of reason for concern these days. Beautiful, old buildings are now left to rot - in fact, to get to the point where they are truly beyond repair and must be torn down. On the other hand, other gems aren't being destroyed, only ruined: the area around Patriarch's Pond and the Yeliseevsky Market come quickly to mind.
Tearing down the Moskva is a mistake - a permanent, irreversible mistake. The destruction of Moscow's older buildings is a subject that should be treated more seriously.
Top • Next
Aug. 1, 2003:
#7272 • #7273 • JRL Home
- Back to the Top -