The Developments around Moscow Cinema House. The Discussions at the Public Council.

‘The Public Council receives numerous letters that raise essentially the same question. What is the justification for the construction of a church building within the area of Summer Hall of the Moscow Cinema House? How legitimate is the decision of the government?’ said chairman of the Council Gagik Manasyan during today’s opening session of the sub-committee on cultural affairs.

The chairman of the Public Council Vazghen Manukayn made an appeal to the relevant sub-committee. The essence of the appeal was based on the multiply discussed issue as a result of the mentioned above numerous letters.

The Committee invited representatives of all parties concerned. However, the representatives of Armenian Apostolic Church of the Ararat marz and those of the Ministry of Culture did not attend the meeting.

The chairman of the Union of Architects of Armenia Mkrtich Minasyan said that the building of the Cinema House, the operation of which started in 1960, has significant value. The building was considered a new word and provided the continuation of the architectural development of the period following immediately after Tamanian. It left its influence within the realm of the Soviet architecture. ‘This construction raised the idea of environment to new heights. The reason is that it completes the environment where it is located,’ said he.

‘Who says that the operation of the building is unprofitable?’ Minasyan asks and then answers his question. ‘Many inhabitants of Yerevan could still remember that they were unable to book tickets in order to enter the building. Very small financial investment today can make the part of the Cinema House profitable again.’

On the 4th of March the government of the republic of Armenia made amendments in the official list of public monuments of culture and history according to which the Summer Hall is no longer in the list of protected buildings.

‘Any changes in the list of the protected monuments such as the exclusion or incorporation into it are a very long prolonged and difficult process,’ said Minasyan. ‘The requirements of the procedures to introduce changes are such that the modification of the list can be made on the basis of conclusions presented by a team of architects, historians and scientists. An arbitrary approach was demonstrated with regards to the issue. Our government, that is considered the guardian of the law, failed to stay at height. In this particular case our demand to the Ministry of Culture is that the supremacy of law shall be upheld. The rest is predicated on this condition.’

The head of the legal department of the government staff Artur Sargsyan said that before the adoption of the decision it had been sent to Yerevan Municipality and the Ministry of Justice. ‘We did not receive any negative opinions from those bodies,’ said he.  ‘The very same decision was subsequently placed on internet pages and it was never commented negatively there either.’

Architect Levon Igityan expressed his opinion that the mistake of the government can be logically understood since during the discussion of the decision no specialist was invited to reflect on the issue. ‘We are bewildered that the government is treating one of the most valuable pieces of the Soviet legacy in such a manner.’

Igityan continued to argue that the government must assume responsibility and redress the problem. According to him, this all did not pursue the construction of the church building but it in fact had other implication.

‘No church building is to be built there. It is a lie and an explicit demagogy. The future of the area is predetermined. After the completion of the demolition works, the area will be cleaned and it will stay so for a very long time. Thereafter it will be declared that the financing is not sufficient and an investor will turn up who happens to conduct construction activities around the area. The area of the Summer House will then be sold to this investor. This entire process started under such a pretext and it will continue in similar fashion.’ Igityan declined to go into details about the identity of the alleged investor. ‘That is one of my weapons that I can use as the time goes on.’

The head of the team and an architect responsible for maintaining the internet page titled SAVE Cinema Moscow Open-Air Hall and opened in the Facebook Sarhat Petrosyan said that the overall situation with the Summer Hall presents a summary of numerous other instances of the demolition of buildings in the city. The goal of the team is not aimed at just the preservation of the Summer Hall. It is also intended to show the overall attitude towards to the city. ‘We believe that the government and the Mother See will be reasonably clever and they will overturn their decision,’ said he. ‘We, nonetheless, appeal to all intellectuals that they change their attitude towards the city. The cities are not built up in one day. It is not permissible to create one layer of the city at the expense of the other.’

The representative of the government staff Arthur Sargsyan made it clear that the decision of the government about changes is related only to the list of the protected monuments. ‘The government cannot alienate private property. It cannot adopt a decision to demolish such a property either,’ said he. ‘Procedures are adopted to conduct demolition works of a building that must be carried out by a proprietor. The procedure should be implemented with the view of all necessary legal and professional requirements.’

The chairman of the Union of Architects of Armenia was notably surprised at the government reprepresentative’s commentary. ‘Firstly, the government breached the law and it is a fact,’ said he. ‘Besides, if a person’s passport is destroyed the given person ceases to exist from the point of view of law. When this fact has been registered, the demolition of the building is a matter of two days.’

The architect Petrosyan says that the administration of the Moscow Cinema House does not have the right to alienate the monuments, which are given to its care, to another proprietor. ‘We wish to emphasize that our struggle is not against the Church altogether,’ he said. ‘It had already been said that the saints Paul and Peter were not dwelling exactly at the area of the Summer Hall.’ ‘If the Church finds it possible to construct a new church within the neighborhood of the historical place of the previous building then it can also find it possible to construct at the backyard of the Artists’ Union of Armenia.’ ‘There is a huge and unused area there.’

The Architect Levon Vardanyan said that the Summer Hall is the amphitheater of the Armenia. To have an amphitheater in the 21st century and to demolish it is not possible. ‘No bulldozer can approach the area. All inhabitants of Yerevan will rise to their feet as one person.’

The artist Armen Atanyan shared with the auditory his discussion with the director of the Moscow Cinema House. The latter complained that he did not receive any proposal about the use of the area for many years and that the operation of the area is not financially profitable.

The head of the department of filmography of the National Gallery Melik Karapetyan Adonyan considered such explanations as ‘a pure speculation’.

‘The Hall may take up to 900 spectators and it is more spacious than the other three halls of the Moscow Cinema House altogether,’ said he. ‘Last year when the familiar to all of us festival was held there, people did not hesitate to pay 3000 for a ticket in order to watch the festival.’ ‘The first lady was present then there too. If it was so old and therefore subject to demolition why was the first lady present at such a place or why was it not taken into account that the place did not yield profits for 20 years?’

Describing the situation as undoubtedly unreasonable step and suggesting cancelation of the government decision, the Subcommittee on Culture of the Public Council prepared a protocol that was sent to the chairman of the Public Council Vazghen Manukyan.

On considering the protocol prior to its inclusion into the agenda for the full hearing session of the Public Council, the chairman Vazghen Manukyan presented the protocol for the discussion to the small Council that is to be held on the 18^th of March.