Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Khabarovsk's climate isn't bad, except in summer, when it's impossibly humid and hot for months. It's almost like a tropical jungle's heat/humidity. Unbelievable! At least the city finally got air conditioning, thanks to Vlad Vladich bringing about new hydro-electric development. That's one thing we can thank him for.
Attitude of Russians and law is described by old vulgar joke:
- Поручик, как вам удаётся так успешно знакомиться с женщинами?
- Всё очень просто, подходите и говорите: "Мадам, можно я вам вдую?"
- Но, поручик, там можно и по мордам получить!
- Можно получить, а можно и вдуть...
I am following with a big interest the latest mass protests against the attempts of the so-called "renovation" of Moscow, pushed by the current Moscow's mayor and his team.
The organizers of this rally put the number at 60,000 and the signs people carry in this pic say "NO to the skyscraper jungles," "Fix the buildings, don't demolish them." Russians don't want to live in some "Chinese Shanghai" - that's what they were saying in their petitions.
This particular article in Reuters does not adequately explain the situation with the "five-story buildings" though. While it's true that there are plenty of buildings of sub-par quality built during Khrushev times, ( and dubbed as infamous "khrushevki") that need demolition and resettlement of their inhabitants, there are plenty of five-story buildings from Stalin's times as well, which are still of excellent quality - better than more contemporary hi-rises. And judging by the buildings that were put on the list for demolition - these buildings in the older part of Moscow were targeted as well, as long as they were located in part of Moscow that was coveted by the developers. All while other buildings, being in truly dilapidated conditions were left alone, as long as their location was of no interest for developers. So Moscovites of course understand what kind of "renovation" the authorities are pushing for, and who is going to be the ultimate winner and who is going to be the ultimate loser.
And this is what Maxim was referring to with that song in the video;
The current mayor of Moscow, that belongs to the "United Russia" party was born in Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug so a lot of Moscovites ( particulrly the native one,) refer to him as the "deer shepherd" - that's the reason you see all these deer in the video. And the refrain in this song questions "we'll see who is the herd here, and who is a shepherd." Something like that.
Quote:
The law works and protects a buildings.
It really doesn't. Because under Luzhkov alone over 100 historic buildings were demolished/turned into the replicas, since it was bringing money personally to his wife and her construction company.
The BS continues under Sobyanin.
Quote:
But big money is big money. I think that Russia is not some exceptional country in this regard.
Let's see here...
"Big money is big money" goes to the US first of all. But the US doesn't have much of architectural value, so they simply tear down those boxes and replace them with the newer ones.
However look at European capitals, and see how THEY protect their history and their architecture.
So Russia IS an exception in this case, unfortunately.
P.S. I'm sure Putin is watching the situation closely too. And he is going to join the "winning side" most likely)))))
It really doesn't. Because under Luzhkov alone over 100 historic buildings were demolished/turned into the replicas, since it was bringing money personally to his wife and her construction company.
The BS continues under Sobyanin.
The law raises the cost. This creates problems for developers and sometimes save the buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
However look at European capitals, and see how THEY protect their history and their architecture.
So Russia IS an exception in this case, unfortunately.
You are certainly right, but I wonder why this is so. Russians really do not care much about their history. I have a few thoughts on the matter (probably, wrong ), I will try to write later, it's hard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
P.S. I'm sure Putin is watching the situation closely too. And he is going to join the "winning side" most likely)))))
In general, it is not his concern. But it is unlikely that he will be able to stay aloof in the end.
You are certainly right, but I wonder why this is so. Russians really do not care much about their history. I have a few thoughts on the matter (probably, wrong ), I will try to write later, it's hard.
In the continuation. I think that Russians are a nation with a broken history. It was broken at "a family level" and at "a level of state/of religion".
Ask any Russian what he(she) knows about his(her) great-grandmother/great-grandfather. I think that most will not say almost anything.
Family level, my story.
When I was in school, a teacher told us (I was 12 years old) that while our grandmothers are alive, we should ask them about our ancestors. I took a pencil and notepad and came to my grandmother. She asked me "Who sent you to ask?" and "Why do they want to know this?". Then she said that she was born in an ordinary family, she worked all her life on the collective farm and other nonsense. Later I found out that she had lied. Her mother studied in St. Petersburg and knew French. But she did not tell me about it. The history of the family was broken.
The Bolsheviks destroyed old religion and culture and created a new: "Communism". This required huge sacrifices, the process was long and very bloody. Even in 41-42, many in Russia were against Soviet power and hoped that Hitler came to free them from Bolsheviks. But Bolsheviks were able to complete the process. Empire history was so taboo that the USSR was filming... Westerns. I like Westerns, but ... in the history of Russia there are many similar topics (joining the Wild Field, Ermak in Siberia, the great sea discoveries in Asia, Alaska, California and Fort Ross, etc.) - hundreds of stories. But these were imperial stories, it was forbidden. Bottom line: we know very little of our history. It is humiliatingly bad.
People with the broken history have different kinds of excesses.
Returning to the topic. When I read Gilyarovsky, I understand that we have lost the old Moscow. But it started not under Luzhkov, but in 1917. Luzhkov just used the destroyed immunity.
I hope that over time the balance between the church, soviet history and imperial history will be found. And Russians will learn to appreciate history in everything, including old buildings.
Last edited by Maksim_Frolov; 05-20-2017 at 04:58 PM..
In the continuation. I think that Russians are a nation with a broken history. It was broken at "a family level" and at "a level of state/of religion".
Ask any Russian what he(she) knows about his(her) great-grandmother/great-grandfather. I think that most will not say almost anything.
Family level, my story.
When I was in school, a teacher told us (I was 12 years old) that while our grandmothers are alive, we should ask them about our ancestors. I took a pencil and notepad and came to my grandmother. She asked me "Who sent you to ask?" and "Why do they want to know this?". Then she said that she was born in an ordinary family, she worked all her life on the collective farm and other nonsense. Later I found out that she had lied. Her mother studied in St. Petersburg and knew French. But she did not tell me about it. The history of the family was broken.
You puzzled me for a second. But I remember that I was already puzzled like that already once before in my life. Back in the 80ies, when the movie "Repentance" came out, and one of my former classmates called me and asked me "Did you know all that - about the camps, about Stalin?" I was very puzzled at that point and asked "And you did not?"
So obviously I do not dismiss your point completely, I just want to bring you a different perspective, that ENOUGH of people ( and I am talking specifically native Moscovites,) who lived there generation after generation and knew perfectly well, who their ancestors were, where they came from and what they went through - the "rotten intelligentsia" you know. )
My Russian part of a family ( from both mother's and father's sides) made damn sure I'd know who they were before the revolution, and what they've been through. I won't mention the others here, but sure enough I am aware about their background/their roots as well.)
So no, although you do have a valid point, it covers only PART of population. The OTHER part ( although may be smaller part,) kept the history, pre-Soviet history including.
Quote:
The Bolsheviks destroyed old religion and culture and created a new: "Communism". This required huge sacrifices, the process was long and very bloody. Even in 41-42, many in Russia were against Soviet power and hoped that Hitler came to free them from Bolsheviks. But Bolsheviks were able to complete the process. Empire history was so taboo that the USSR was filming... Westerns.
What are you even talking about?
Quote:
I like Westerns, but ... in the history of Russia there are many similar topics (joining the Wild Field, Ermak in Siberia, the great sea discoveries in Asia, Alaska, California and Fort Ross, etc.) - hundreds of stories. But these were imperial stories, it was forbidden. Bottom line: we know very little of our history. It is humiliatingly bad.
No they were NOT. They were part of "Russia's history" curriculum during the history lessons. "Soviet history" was a different text-book.
Quote:
People with the broken history have different kinds of excesses.
Returning to the topic. When I read Gilyarovsky, I understand that we have lost the old Moscow.
No we did not. Although Bolsheviks DID some damage ( no doubt about it,) but their damage was not fatal. Moscow of Gilyarovsky couldn't be kept in its original form, since it included a lot of slums. ( Remember, that this was "Gilyarovsky's Moscow too...)
( This is a short article about the history behind this painting in Russian
So while they've destroyed some, they built some too ( the central part in particular) and SOME of their architecture from Stalin's time became Moscow's trademark with time. Their fault was not so much with destruction, but rather with luck of desire to restore and to properly maintain the older architecture. ( Do you remember I told you about the old mosaic - yeah, instead of restoring and taking care of it, they simply covered the building with grayish color instead - and voila, *problem solved.*)
Quote:
But it started not under Luzhkov, but in 1917. Luzhkov just used the destroyed immunity.
No, that's when the REAL destruction of Moscow started - the Bolsheviks kept a lot of history conserved - they just simply didn't care enough either to update it or to destroy it.
The "New Russians" with their greed were far, far more dangerous in this respect, so the older buildings ( including those that survived Communists and even fire during Napoleon's times) were destroyed by this locust.
Quote:
I hope that over time the balance between the church, soviet history and imperial history will be found. And Russians will learn to appreciate history in everything, including old buildings.
Unfortunately, it's getting too late for the old buildings, and this is how the destruction goes on.
As you can see, there are plenty of qualified people that understand what's going on; the problem is - there is nothing they can do to stop the thugs with money in charge of the country.
So obviously I do not dismiss your point completely, I just want to bring you a different perspective, that ENOUGH of people ( and I am talking specifically native Moscovites,) who lived there generation after generation and knew perfectly well, who their ancestors were, where they came from and what they went through - the "rotten intelligentsia" you know. )
I do not like them only when they are trying to make a revolution. But in general, I'm a lot closer to them than to a guys from a factory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
My Russian part of a family ( from both mother's and father's sides) made damn sure I'd know who they were before the revolution, and what they've been through. I won't mention the others here, but sure enough I am aware about their background/their roots as well.)
So no, although you do have a valid point, it covers only PART of population. The OTHER part ( although may be smaller part,) kept the history, pre-Soviet history including.
You confirm my theory. You like the history, because you know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
What are you even talking about?
Unfortunately, Soviets shot films (historical adventures) not about Russian history. Only films about the Civil War and this:
Spoiler
1936 Том Сойер
1946 Белый клык
1962 Деловые люди
1968 След Сокола
1973 Совсем пропащий
1973 Всадник без головы
1975 Смок и Малыш
1976 Мустанг-иноходец
1976 Марк Твен против…
1977 Вооружён и очень опасен
1981 Приключения Тома Сойера и Гекльберри Финна
1982 Трест, который лопнул
1982 Звезда и смерть Хоакина Мурьеты
1983 Витя Глушаков - друг апачей
1987 Следопыт
1987 Человек с бульвара Капуцинов
1990 Зверобой
1992 Сердца трёх
+ Tarkovsky, but this is different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
No they were NOT. They were part of "Russia's history" curriculum during the history lessons. "Soviet history" was a different text-book.
I think, that the popularization of Russian history was absent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
No we did not. Although Bolsheviks DID some damage ( no doubt about it,) but their damage was not fatal. Moscow of Gilyarovsky couldn't be kept in its original form, since it included a lot of slums. ( Remember, that this was "Gilyarovsky's Moscow too...)
( This is a short article about the history behind this painting in Russian
So while they've destroyed some, they built some too ( the central part in particular) and SOME of their architecture from Stalin's time became Moscow's trademark with time. Their fault was not so much with destruction, but rather with luck of desire to restore and to properly maintain the older architecture. ( Do you remember I told you about the old mosaic - yeah, instead of restoring and taking care of it, they simply covered the building with grayish color instead - and voila, *problem solved.*)
No, that's when the REAL destruction of Moscow started - the Bolsheviks kept a lot of history conserved - they just simply didn't care enough either to update it or to destroy it.
The "New Russians" with their greed were far, far more dangerous in this respect, so the older buildings ( including those that survived Communists and even fire during Napoleon's times) were destroyed by this locust.
Yes, I agree that the Bolsheviks did a lot of good things for the city. And I do not advocate to accuse them of all sins. They did what they had to do in that situation. But to build a new person (like and new Moscow) had to break a lot.
You talk about the destruction of family history.
Is it become many russians belong in fact to a minority (ukrainian, finns, vepsaa...) and have been assimilate to russian culture to avoid independantists movement?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are certainly right, but I wonder why this is so. Russians really do not care much about their history. I have a few thoughts on the matter (probably, wrong 
