Role of Leningrad architects in last-recovery repair of center of Sevastopol and problem of preserving their heritage

Destroyed in Sevastopol in 1945, it was restored by architects from Leningrad engineering organizations: Centroamerica, Langosteira and Logoinstant, as well as architects from Moscow and other Russian cities. The purpose of the study: to show the influence of representatives of the Leningrad architectural school on the formation of the post-war image of Sevastopol. Methods: publication of historical data not previously entered into scientific circulation, based on the materials Of the state archive of Sevastopol. Results: archival materials about the work of Leningrad architects in Sevastopol were identified, and their implemented projects were reviewed.


Introduction
Until recently, there were no scientific publications about the post-war architecture of Sevastopol, since the city was closed, and local historians gave priority to several preserved pre-war buildings. The unique integrity of post-war ensembles is still not obvious to everyone. This is not reflected in the accounting documents of Sevgornasledie (Sevastopol Heritage Preservation Department) not considered in restoration practice when the same ensembles "by the piece" restaurerede and repaired different, unrelated organizations, and the improvement of the most valuable parts of the city is carried out without the consent of the local authority of heritage protection.

Materials and methods
The subject of the study was unpublished projects and the buildings of Leningrad architects existing in Sevastopol, implemented in post-war Sevastopol in [1949][1950][1951][1952][1953][1954][1955][1956][1957][1958]. Since this city is a military port, it was closed to the general public (from 1965 to 1995), it was not included in the literature on the restored cities of Europe, for example "Construction and Reconstruction of cities. 1945-1957" [1]. Three cities from the following countries were represented in this book: Germany, Bulgaria, China, Korea, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Hungary, Japan, Norway, Poland, Romania, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia. With regard to the USSR, detailed information was given about Leningrad, Kiev, Minsk, Stalingrad, Zaporozhye, Kalinin, Rostov-on-Don, Pskov, recovered after military operations and bombings, as well as about Moscow, Tashkent, Yerevan, Magnitogorsk, Stalin, New Kakhovka and Rustavi. Sevastopol was not described as a post-war architectural phenomenon even in Russian scientific literature devoted to its history [2][3]. In fact, he did not become the subject of interest of historians of Soviet architecture. The works of local authors, such as one of the main architects of the city A.I. Bagli, include only individual objects whose authors are not specifically indicated, and even more so without information about their origin and architectural background (1975), a scientific assessment of the significance of the work of Leningrad architects, authors of Sevastopol buildings, however, is necessary to understand the general architectural planning concepts and the specific challenges facing everyone who revived the city in the 1945-1950s. This study is based on a comparative historical analysis of scientific literature and unpublished materials from the State Archive of Sevastopol (GAGS, F. 308, OP. 2); materials for recording cultural heritage sites in Sevastopol.

Results and discussion
This study shows the role of the first post-war chief architect of Sevastopol, a graduate of Liiksa-LISI Yu. A. Trautman and his Deputy, a native of the same University V. M. Artyukhov, who worked as a Deputy of all the chief architects of the city until 1978 and held this leadership post in 1960-1962 [4]. Thanks to them, it was possible in 1949 to correct the General plan of Sevastopol, developed by the Moscow architect G. B. Barkhin (1945), which was adopted as the basis. As a result, almost all the pre-war dimensions of Central streets, underground utilities, and many lower floors of houses with basements were preserved. This made it possible to quickly revive mass construction and abandon the gigantomania that was laid down in the projects developed in advance for the city.
It is important that in the 1948-1950-ies L. M. Polyakov, who from the mid-1930s worked in Moscow, but was a bright representative of the Leningrad school and consistently implemented the concept of classicist style, although in his personal workshop worked graduates of Moscow universities [4][5], led the construction of Sevastopol.
The most prestigious streets of the city-Bolshaya Morskaya, Leninsky and Nakhimovsky Avenues (Central street ring) were built up with architectural ensembles that are solid blocks [6]. Starting from Grafskaya Pier, Nakhimov Avenue rises along Primorsky Boulevard to Lazarev Square (which has changed its name several times). From this square begins Bolshaya Morskaya (its very name speaks of the Petersburg prototype) and rises to Ushakov Square (commune), from which Lenin street descends to Grafskaya Pier. This is the main street ring has an elongated from North to South form. It frames a Central hill with stair streets.
Restoration of the street began in the late 1940s according to the master plan of architects V. M. Artyukhov and N. N. Sdobnyakov and was completed in the 1950s [4]. The architectural appearance of the street is built as a system of a number of compositionally completed complexes consisting of two or three buildings on one side of the street or forming a more complex composition of 6 houses located opposite each other.
If you move from North to South along Nakhimov Avenue, its Western side was built at the insistence of V. M. Artyukhov, who fought for the principle of an open sea between preserved and carefully restored pre-war public buildings and a new drama theatre (unfortunately, later along the sea there were restaurants and souvenir shops).
The Eastern side of the street was built up with three-story residential buildings with shops below (no. 1, 2, 3, 5), designed by the workshop of L. M. Polyakov (architects E. P. Vulykh, N. I. Grishin, A. Z. Danilyak), and the 7th house was built for the administration of  Goldin with the participation of Sevastopol architect L. T. Kireev, which was not known to Sevastopol residents until now [7]. It is three-dimensional solution does not have an explicit Central axis. This arrangement was made not only because the Sailors' Club stands in the alignment of the two main streets that rise to Ushakov Square. The fact is that this required a high-altitude landmark, clearly visible from long distances, from the railway station, bus station and ship side, located far below the Central City Hill. Therefore, the dominant tower shifts to the edge of the Central City Hill. An outstanding master could only make such a decision. Despite the stereotypes, the desire in most projects of that era to create symmetrical axial ensembles, Gegello took into account the features, first of all, of the unique mountain landscape of Sevastopol. Most of the listed buildings in the Central city ring are listed as cultural heritage sites of regional significance. The facades of residential buildings will be repaired, and public buildings will be restored. Projects of such works have already been developed and reviewed by the expert Public Council under the State Council for state inheritance. However, unfortunately, a number of unresolved problems hinders the full preservation of such buildings. This is not accurate enough information about the authorship of construction projects in the passports of cultural heritage objects prepared by a non-core organization LLC "Guar", St. Petersburg; illiterate designation of the territory of monuments -along the contours of their walls, ignoring curds, courtyards, fences, arches between houses, retaining walls, balustrades, etc., created simultaneously with buildings of small forms and engineering structures; lack of understanding that the integral architecture of blocks is a sign of architectural ensembles. This approach has led to the fact that each project of restoration or a major repair of facades is carried out by small, separate organizations without coordination among themselves, and the improvement of Central streets is carried out by public services without coordination with Sevgornasledie. Even worse, all the work in the historical village of Sevastopol-a custom architectural competition for the development of Cape Khrustallny, the distribution of design work by tender, the removal of outstanding buildings from the list of monuments are carried out in private, without publication in the media, without discussion with the public expert Council of Sevgornasledie. This situation is aggravated by the imperfect legislation in the field of cultural heritage protection in General, which fully affects the private issues of preserving the post-war objects of the centre of Sevastopol.

Conclusion
The role of Leningrad architects in shaping the image of post-war Sevastopol is obvious, and archival materials that have not previously been published or studied confirm this. However, despite the fact that outstanding architects worked in the city, at least half of them were Leningraders, this has not yet been heard of in the scientific and popular literature. The prevailing myths about the" alienness "of architects who restore the city, especially the myths about the total deployment of "academicians" from Moscow, are untenable in a detailed analysis of the real situation, which is now much more interesting. Only both capitals of our country had a well-formed architectural school and could provide the release of young professionals, as well as the participation of major masters in the reconstruction of war-torn cities.
It was the Leningrad school that had the honor to significantly influence the creation of one of the integral neoclassical ensembles in Russian practice -the Central part of the city of Sevastopol. They, as well as representatives of other architectural schools considered the unique landscape and climate situation. All the architects here returned to neoclassical architecture, which corresponded to the scale of ancient prototypes, the Mediterranean climate and the mountain landscape. When using such proportions, divisions, decorative elements on facades, in small architectural forms and on the basis of the all-Soviet typology of apartment buildings of average height, the result achieved in Sevastopol is strikingly different from the special chamber and very convincing architectural scale of post-war ensembles, from post-war Leningrad and "exemplary" reconstructions of the centres of Minsk or Stalingrad.
Updated authorship of objects, as well as correction of records of cultural heritage objects would allow today to raise the protected status of the post-war development of the centre of Sevastopol to the Federal level. In all cases, it is necessary to immediately issue official documents for complete architectural ensembles with their complex territory in order to preserve small forms along with historical landscaping, which is being thoughtlessly destroyed in the centre of Sevastopol today.