St Petersburg palaces to be privatised

[Vassili_Vorontsoff]

Hi,

For some who read french or can translate buy an autiomatic translator or anything else ,this is an interesting link to Le courrier de Russie a french newpaper in Russia (I've always talked about),they published actually an intyeresting news about the return of old nobles emigrants...and given the fact there is too few articles about it ,it is highly more passionating!

http://www.lecourrierderussie.ru/fr/magazine/?artId=1663

Vassili

[Vassili_Vorontsoff]

Another article on modernization of old estates in Russia...

http://www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/article.shtml?2005/11/21/100195

Vassili

If someone can send others,I'll appreciate!

[rosieposie]

This link has a news article which shows historic manisons and palaces being put onto the market.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/01/2107001.htm

[Alixz]

That is very like the conversion of the former "summer cottages" in Newport Rhode Island.  Of course the cottages weren't owned by royalty but by American Glided Age Capitalist Royalty.

I don't know how the descendants of those who built the massive homes feel about their history and family connections.  However some are purely tourist attractions such a Marble House and The Breakers and Chateau Sur Mer, but others have not been preserved by the Newport Historical Society and have been turned in to condominiums.

[Robert_Hall]

As the article points out, these old buildings are decrepit and costly to renovate and maintain. St. Petersburg probably has more of these than any other city in the world, there are more museums than people can go to! So why not market them to the Russian uber-riche? They can affprd to restore and maintain them, after all ? As I recall,  the integrity of the city's historical streets are to be maintained in any case.
 Just wish I could afford one of them!

[Puck]

Does anyone know why the Russian government didn't return confiscated property, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, to the original owners?  I believe several Eastern European countries did make "amends".  Have nobles claimed their properties back?

[Robert_Hall]

I do not think many, if any actually for them back. The ones that were not in ruins have long since been converted to other useful purposes- hospitals, old folks homes, government agencies,  childcare and orphanages, museums etc.  It would take a fortune to restore and maintan these  for private usage.  Some surplus has been sold, but only the Russian mega-rich or corporate hotel chains can afford them and the work involved. I have read some people have petioned for their old family property, but unless they are Russian citizens,  they are not eligible. and, when they saw what they would have to deal with, dropped the idea.  Moscow is slightly different, as foreign embassies have leased  a few for long term, as residencies. There is a lot more to this, technically and legally but this should get you off to a start.

[Twobsbob]

I was in StP last summer, and read an interesting article in the free English-language daily paper (can't remember the name of it right now) about restitution.  It said that at the end of the Soviet system, former Church properties were returned to the religious communities they originally belonged to.  (I would suspect that religious buildings that had been converted to museums, such as the Church on Spilt Blood, were exempted from these restitutions).

The article was about a dispute between Moscow University (I believe) and a religious community over a building near Red Square that had been used by the University for years, but had reverted back to the Church.  Given the sky-high property values in Moscow, the Church  wanted to sell the property and use the profits to repair its Church building.  The University (which had so far refused to vacate the building) protested the intended sale, arguing that the building should not have reverted to the Church, given that it was currently being used for the public good (ie: education); and that the University should have the right of first refusal if the property were to be sold.  The Church was refusing to sell to the University because it stood to make a substantially higher profit selling it to a private developer and was in desperate need of the money in order to repair the Church itself.

I have no idea what was the eventual outcome of the situation, but it is a good illustration of the problems related to ownership and restitutiion highlighted by Robert_Hall.  Obtaining ownership of a confiscated property is one thing, having the funds to repair, maintain and use it is a completely other matter.

[Alexander1917]

It's the same after the end of the GDR , some got their property back, some not... this legal situation was sometimes "easier" confiscation 1918/1945-6...some files are still open..(Wettin Claim to items in museum collection) or like the Lichtensteins in Eastern Europe (CZ or PL I think)....

The other question is, what would for example the claiment do with the grounds, palaces (ruins or part rebuilt)..etc...not all could became noble hotel resorts like Ropsha..

It's also a question who was the owner...private property, crown etc....think about the endless discussion about the Queen....

[Annetta]

This question is not so sharp in Russia now, as i see  it. Absolutely agree with Robert Hall that sumtuousness palaces could be provided only by extremely rich companies. there r enough wealthy persons who want to buy such ediffices. As a usual they dont want to acquire the ruins with a vast restoration needs. they r interested in houses in fashionable expensive districts of the city to turn them into hotels. on the other hand , we know that many european countries has a special laws for owner to open to the public such historical palaces. we have not.

what about the church. they give  their lands and property back for the loyalty to the government. they r silent and not opposive to state power's injustice. they build many gigantic cathedrals and small churches but they a empty in fact.
it's a symbol of a state power more than people's faith.

[Constantinople]

At least if the exterior is saved, the urban landscape can be preserved.  But I differ that there is no money in Russia.  At the minimum, Russia is sitting on the world's largest reserves of natural gas and a huge reserve of oil. Perhaps reallocation of resources could preserve more of Russia's architectural history.

[Constantinople]

The original wealth for the properties came from the State but in the guise of the Autocracy.  The State, in another guise merely took that property back after 1918  and reallocated its use.  Another view might be that after the fall of Soviet Union, all the properties should have reverted to their pre Soviet owners before anything was done, with the exceptions of those having a necessary public use such as hospitals and orphanages, libraries etc but fair recompense being substituted and first right to purchase that building when that use ended.  And this should have been augmented with building codes and laws to prevent the demolition of those historic buildings.