Authorities Challenge Expert's Finding on Kazan's Gurevich House
Expert Alexander Martynov, who previously opposed designating the Vakhitov House, conducted the assessment.
Another expert assessment on an old building in Kazan has been sent for revision. This time, the Tatarstan Committee for the Protection of Cultural Heritage Objects is asking to redo the study on the Gurevich House. The same expert Alexander Martynov, who caused controversy around the Vakhitov house, considered the Gurevich House insufficiently valuable for inclusion in the register of cultural heritage monuments. This was reported by the press service of the state committee.
In his assessment, Martynov noted that the building has lost its historical appearance.
«Despite the loss of original interiors and layout changes in later periods, the object retains significant architectural and artistic value,» disagreed committee chairman Ivan Gushchin.
According to him, the preservation of the building«s composition, its facade, and decorative elements are sufficient grounds to continue work on its state protection.
The Gurevich House is located at the intersection of Astronomicheskaya and Ostrovsky streets. It was built in 1881 according to the design of architect P. I. Romanov. The building is considered an example of urban residential architecture from the late 19th century. Over the years, it has housed trade rows, living quarters, the bread shop of merchant Shamov, and the office of dentist Burlyand. The building is not yet included in the register of cultural heritage monuments.
Earlier, Kazan city defenders expressed concern about another case where a historical building might not be recognized as a monument due to the conclusions of expert Martynov. They wrote a letter of protest to the committee for the protection of cultural heritage.
This is not Martynov«s first assessment with a negative conclusion. He also did not see value in the house where Mullanur Vakhitov was born and proposed not to include it in the register of cultural heritage monuments. City activists were outraged by his conclusions and expressed protest. After revision of the assessment, the building was decided to be included in the cultural heritage register.
