Land Relations
BEHIND THE SCENES: land. For people, it has always been, and always will be, an
indisputably valuable material possession. People fight over land, divide it, buy it,
and sell it. As a result, we—everyday citizens—get new, unexpected buildings
downtown. This material will be about the peculiarities of land relations in Karelia’s
capital…
BEHIND THE SCENES: the Petrozavodsk Municipal Court. Not that long ago, a
hearing about one of these new buildings was finished here. The architects
Vychislav Orfinsky and Irina Grishina made a case against the construction
company, Barents Group. The community members’ main concern was the height of
their building, which exceeds what is normally allowed. The apartment complex,
Panorama, is being erected on Fedosova Street, which neighbors a protected zone of
Petrozavodsk’s historical architecture—this means it’s located in a regulated
building zone, where construction height is limited to 12 meters.
SYNOCHRONOUSLY: Irina Grishina, deputy director of Petrozavodsk State
University’s Research Institute for Historical and Theoretical Problems of
Traditional Architecture, Advisor at the Russian Academy of Architecture and
Constructional Sciences.
1.32 Legislation provides the organization of zones where construction is regulated
in order to preserve the natural environment of the city’s historical and cultural
legacy. When we construct buildings of such a large height, which won’t be covered
by any trees, it destroys the so-called historical environment of the city’s cultural
heritage.
BEDHIND THE SCENES: However, throughout the course of the court’s proceedings,
it was discovered that parts of the government’s 1996 written project to protect
historical zones did not match its graphs. According to the maps, Fedosova Street is
included in the regulated area, but it is not included in the descriptions.
LIFE-COURT: A piece (6598) of Land Use and Construction Law 1.55 includes both the
text and graph sections. When determining the regulatory regimes, one must use the
order’s text, but also the map, which lays out the law’s particular conditions for
construction and land use in the city of Petrozavodsk 2.11
BEHIND THE SCENES: According to the document, it turns out there are no
construction limits in this particular zone, that is, it is likened to the city’s outskirts. This
position was taken not only by the city’s administration, which gave the company its
building permit, but Karelia’s Ministry of Culture as well. The city’s court took their side
as well. The community members’ argument that this was a mistake was not sufficient
enough to convince the representatives of Themis. Thus, the court’s decision was in
developer’s benefit.
SYNCHRONOUSLY: Vyachislav Orfinsky—Doctor of Architecture, active member of
the Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences
7.46 Now there is a pretty paradoxical situation—Not only do the organizations that are
designed to defend our cultural heritage not defending it, they’re trying to blur the truth.
They’re doing this even when it’s obvious that something isn’t right. 8.00
BEHIND THE SCENES: An interesting fact contained in this history is that originally-in 2010—the developer was issued this lot to build an administrative building. On the
urban development map of 2008, the zone is marked off for public/business use.
However, on September 9, 2013, city officials signed an ordinance allowing for the
building to be reconstructed into a huge apartment complex. Ilya Gavrushev, the director
of Barents Group declined to comment about this change on camera. In a personal
conversation, he at first claimed that the area on Fedosova Street had always been
designated for housing. Although he soon recalled, that a small office building had
originally been built there, put into operation, but was then reconstructed. The developer
saw, that the demand and interest in this location was in housing. After all, to live on the
water was much more pleasant than in remote areas. So when the opportunity to build
apartments arose, these entrepreneurs decided to do so.
SYNCHRONOUSLY: Anastasiya Ulyanova—Head of the Department of Architecture
and Urban Development of Petrazavodsk-2.45 Originally, if we are a speaking about
Aquamarine, this piece of land was granted for the construction of an administrative,
public complex. Recently the developer, having completed the first stage of construction,
claimed ownership of the building, and acquired ownership of the land. 3.12
BEHIND THE SCENES: In accordance to the General Plan, this piece of land is also
located in a public-business zone. It was issued to be a public-administrative complex
with underground parking in August 2007, and on December 17, the Ministry of Industry
and Natural Resources of Karelia made the preliminary decision that the company Kapel
would be the developer. However, three years had passed and no construction was
conducted. Only on July 16, 2010 did the Ministry of Natural Resources of Karelia,
without an auction or bids, grant Kapel the land, and close a deal about the construction
of a administrative-public complex. In April 2011, the internet newspaper Capital on
Onego, wrote of how July 16, 2010 was no accidental date:
BEHIND THE SCENES: Then, in the spring of 2011, colleagues of Petrozavodsk’s
administration were constantly asking the question—what was going to be built on the
shore of Lake Onezhsky? The answer was an administrative-public complex. What
resulted—we see today. Aquamarine takes up only part of the area on which the
developer was to build an administrative building. As one can see on the public cadastral
map, Aquamarine takes up 5 hectares. A building is being constructed on the remaining
3.5, and it’s not administrative in the least.
SYNCHRONOUSLY: Ulyanova 3.12 The land code provides building owners the right
to acquire the land on which it is built. Recently, after the developers became the land’s
owners, they changed what they were allowed to build into a multistory apartment
complex. Housing construction is allowed in this area. It was through this mechanism
that it became possible on this piece of land. 3.50
BEHIND THE SCENES: It turns out, that the land was issued to the developer to rent. In
the City Hall, they’ll confirm that rent for social organizations is much less than housing.
After several floors are constructed, it can be redeemed, and according to statute 36 of the
Land Code, the owner acquires the land, which he has the right to do whatever he wants
with. As a rule, he wants to sell expensive housing. Builders are also assisted in their
plans by the updated Water Code of 2007. Building housing on the water—in a
conservation zone—has become much simpler. Earlier, privatization of such areas was
forbidden, so building without the permission of the Federal Water Resource Agency was
problematic. As of 2007, these restrictions have disappeared.
BEHIND THE SCENES: In 2010, the city’s administration rented land to the company
Investment Partnership for them to build a social enterprise. No work was conducted for
two years. Construction began in 2012, and was completed in 2013 as a youth club with
an internet café. But that is only according to the documents. In reality the enterprise
looked like this—a single story building without windows, doors, or a roof. By August,
this so called “social enterprise” was bought by the company Clean City. However, in
December, the company received permission to reconstruct the building into a 9-storied
apartment building. Residence of buildings nearby were against such a change—they met
with the developers and city administrators, wrote complaints to the Public Prosecutor’s
Office, and were even ready to go to court. However, on January 22, 2014, Clean City
posted an announcement on their official site which declared:
GRAPHICS “As a result of citizen disapproval, the management of Clean City has made
the decision to not build a 9-story apartment building at Karelsky Prospect 8.”
ULYANOVA: 14.38 We checked the documents and found that the administrative
building’s entry way violated their conditions, so on the basis of this, we, the
administration, based on the decisions of the Ministry of Construction, canceled the
decision to reconstruct it. 15.02
BEHIND THE SCENES: The scandal over the supposed administrative building heated
up in the beginning of 2014. At that time, a sign appeared on the fence around the Nature
Center’s construction site, which announced that block sections of it were up for sale.
The price of one square meter was 55 thousand rubles. Outraged, the public demanded
that the owners be controlled.
SYNCHRONOUSLY: “If it was planned as a Nature Center, if that is what had been
thought up, then let there be a Nature Center. These innovations are only of interest to
developers—to make a profits,”—says Natalya Todua, a Petrozavodsk resident.
BEHIND THE SCENES: According to all the documents, alongside culturally significant
architecture of the 19th century, the developer was supposed to construct a building for
cultural and historical purposes—the Nature Center of Karelia. That was what it was for,
at least if we are to believe the public cadastral map. However, the administration had no
legal leverage over the developers. The site had been private for a long time, which
means the owners can do whatever he wants with it. The original intention, under which
the lot was issued, doesn’t matter. The owners themselves made no effort to hide this—
the name “Nature Center” doesn’t obligate them to anything.
SYNCHRONOUSLY: “Our customers choose the allotted block sections themselves—
they can be used as a public organization, offices, or as living quarters,”—says Yelena
Smirnova, a representative from the developing company, Elite Trade Service.
BEHIND THE SCENES: To this day, remodeling is being carried out in two of the
Nature Center’s sold sections—a timid construction worker confirmed that two out of the
three block sections have been sold. In the City Hall they say that according to all the
documents, the building is still considered administrative.
SYNCHRONOUSLY: Ulyanova: 11.20 This structure is labeled as an administrative
building. It was built as an administrative building. Today, the Nature Center is an
administrative, not residential. 11.30))
BEHIND THE SCENES: But no one is forbidding anyone from living in such a
building—one of its main inconveniences is higher utility fees. But is that really a
problem for people who can afford to buy an apartment for 10 million rubles?
BEHIND THE SCENES: There’s other, no less cunning maneuvers for getting tidbits of
city land to build housing. Not that long ago, the movie theater, Sampo, an undeclared
piece of Petrozavodsk’s cultural heritage, still stood. Today, a massive apartment
complex is being built in its place. The community member, Gregory Fandeev, who two
years ago fought for the movie theater’s preservations, calls today’s undertakings
“vandalism.”
SYNCHRONOUSLY: Gregory Fandeev: 1.03 The building struggled, obviously no one
wanted to keep it up, then it was left in a terrible state, that is, its heating and electricity
were turned off, then it went into hibernation, a few seasons passed, and we were told
that supposedly there’s not enough money to renovate it, the land beneath it was
privatized, and became generally larger than what was necessary to operate the building.
1.20
BEHIND THE SCENES: That’s what happened with what is already the former Sampo.
The building wasn’t used according to it’s original function since the 2000s. In 2009,
officials decided the building’s upkeep was too expensive, so they put it up for sale. In
2011, with the city council’s support and consent, the new owners, Rinda, increased the
area and turned it into a residential zone, and in 2012, set about demolishing the building.
All of the community’s attempts to prove that the 1941 structure should be considered a
piece of cultural heritage were in vain. Now citizens are watching the construction of yet
another high rise.
BEHIND THE SCENES: According to the rough estimates of volunteers, an adjusted
map shows that in the past 5 years, around 40,000 square meters of administrative
buildings have been converted into housing. Oftentimes decisions about such
construction was brought to the public’s attention only after it was too late. Today, it is
mandatory that all changes in urban developments plans are submitted to a public
hearing, and discussed by the city’s urban development council. However, in previous
years this rarely happened.
SYNCHRONOUSLY: Yelena Itskikson—architect: 3.12 The last administration
organized council meetings for urban development very rarely. Although they did
nominally exist, and there were statutes, there was basically no council. It happened that
if a decision was categorically opposed or argued against, then it would simply not be
brought before the council. 3.43
BEHIND THE SCENES: According to city council member, Oleg Fokin, today the order
by which land is changed from one zone to another is much more transparent than it was
in the early 2000s.
SYNCHRONOUSLY: Oleg Fokin, Petrozavodsk City Council member- 6.40 No matter
the type of zone, it is first brought before a public hearing, after which the commission
meets in the City Hall, where they examine the project and then submit it to the deputies
for further examination. 6.52+2.39 There are examples of dishonest entreprenuers who
were able to maneuver around today's legislation.
BEHIND THE SCENES: Some deputies play a much larger role when it comes to
construction on the city's territory.
BEHIND THE SCENES: In the meantime, citizens of Petrozavodsk are pained by the
new look of their city. It changes with every year, with new buildings popping up like
mushrooms after the rain. One after another, Panorama, Aquamarine, the Nature Center
could appear here—on the banks of the Neglinka River, at the site of a two-storied
wooden house. For now, Russia's political atmosphere regarding urban planning is
threatened only by these words of conventional wisdom: «Generally speaking, it's
forbidden to build housing on land alloted for administrative establishments. But if you
really want to, then you can.» The blind spots in Russian lawmaking, with which deputy
developers are well aquainted with, allow them to easily bypass all possible obstacles to
their making maximum profits. Their only possible limitation—moral conventions—
ceased playing a role in the dismanteled conventions of the construction business long
ago.
Anya Yarova
Translated by Anne Redmond