Randomnicities

The building at "3 Potapovsky Pereulok, Building 1" (Basmanny District, Central Administrative Okrug of Moscow, near Chistye Prudy metro station) is a former printing house constructed in "1930–1934" (with 1931 often cited as the key year).

It was purpose-built for the publishing house and printing plant of the newspaper "Rabochaya Moskva" (Workers' Moscow), later associated with "Moskovskaya Pravda" and other Soviet publications. The project was designed by architects I. Bibikov, V. Ershov, B. Vilensky, and A. Nazarov.

The structure is a five-story brick building with a functional, austere appearance typical of early Soviet industrial and polygraphic architecture from the transitional period between constructivism and more monumental styles. It is non-residential and features a relatively plain facade without elaborate decoration, reflecting its original utilitarian purpose.

Historically, the site had older properties dating back to the 17th century, but the current building fully belongs to the Soviet era. In later decades, it housed editorial offices, printing facilities, and various institutions. Today, it operates primarily as a "business centerwith" office spaces (approximately 5,000 m²), accommodating companies and organizations, including the research institute "MosTransProekt" (НИИ «МосТрансПроект»).

A notable feature is the "memorial plaque" to journalist "Anna Politkovskaya", installed in 2013, commemorating her work (the building has had connections to media outlets, including at times the editorial office of "Novaya Gazeta").

12A Chistoprudny Boulevard, Building 1 is one of the characteristic monuments of Moscow avant-garde architecture of the 1920s, known as the Leather Syndicate Building (Kozhsindikat Building).

What this building is

This is a constructivist building constructed in 1925–1927 by architect A. P. Golubev (at the time a student of VKhUTEMAS) together with engineer E. Izrailovich.

It was built for the All-Union Leather Syndicate, which is where the name comes from.

Architecture

The building is a classic example of early constructivism:

the reinforced concrete frame is expressed on the façade and defines its rhythm

strict geometry and an almost complete absence of decoration

windows of different sizes depending on the function of the interior spaces

a composition featuring two projecting volumes (risalits)

For the mid-1920s, this was a fairly advanced engineering solution.

Function (how it was used)

Originally, the building had a mixed-use program:

lower floors — administrative offices of the syndicate

upper floors — apartments for employees

Later its functions changed:

People’s Commissariat of Light Industry

Ministries of procurement and grain products

since the late 1980s — a children’s cinema and television center (associated with Rolan Bykov)

Interesting facts

It was built on the site of the 1912 panorama pavilion of the “Battle of Borodino.”

It is considered one of the few realized buildings connected with VKhUTEMAS.

It appears in the film “Podkidysh” (1939).

An additional floor was added in 1948.

Today It is:

an architectural monument part of the ensemble of Chistoprudny Boulevard

The building at 7/21 Nizhny Kiselny Lane, Moscow (at the corner with Rozhdestvenka Street) was one of the most striking examples of early-1930s Moscow Constructivism.

It was built in 1929–1930 (sometimes broadly dated to the early 1930s). The architect was Nikolai Yakovlevich Kolli, best known for his collaboration with Le Corbusier on the Tsentrosoyuz Building on Myasnitskaya Street, as well as for a number of other avant-garde projects.

The style is classical Constructivism: strict geometric volumes, horizontal ribbon windows, an almost complete absence of decoration, and a strong emphasis on functionality. The building rises seven storeys, and its corner position makes it especially prominent in the perspective of Rozhdestvenka.

The original function was a communal house known as “Izoterma” (ZhSKT Izoterma — a housing cooperative for workers of the refrigeration industry / the Khladostroy trust). It was conceived as an experimental residential building for workers and employees, with small apartments, shared kitchens, laundries, and childcare facilities — a textbook embodiment of the communal lifestyle ideals of the late 1920s and early 1930s.

One part of the building was residential, while another housed administrative and communal spaces. Remarkably, the house retained many of its avant-garde features even after the war, though over time it fell into a state of disrepair.

It was built as a private cooperative project, which was relatively rare in the Soviet context, where most housing was departmental or state-owned. During the Soviet period, it functioned as both a residential and administrative building.

From the early 2000s onward, the building stood abandoned: residents were relocated, and it was officially declared unsafe. In 2025, demolition began. According to media reports and heritage activists (as of October 2025), parts of the complex were destroyed despite protests, marking the loss of a significant avant-garde landmark.

That very “grim” house of 1930

You’ve captured its atmosphere with great precision. This building is a living embodiment of a moment when architecture stopped being “art for the eye” and became a “machine for living,” yet had not yet acquired the decorative excesses of Stalinist Empire style.

Hard Functionalism: This is a case where constructivism’s austerity was retained, but its lightness and expansive glazing were stripped away. The result is a massive brick monolith that today feels like a set piece from a noir film about Moscow in the 1930s.

The reputation of “the most depressing house”: In local urban forums it is often referred to as a “ghost house” or “the bleakest building in the Basmanny district.” This reputation stems from several factors:

Color and texture: Aged brick and the absence of any decorative finish create that unmistakably worn, battered look.

Contrast: Squeezed between the noisy academic buildings of Bauman University and later developments, it feels like a forgotten island from another era.

The courtyard: Its cramped space and the constant rows of cars belonging to students and university staff add to the sense of chaos.

Why does it look like this? In 1930 the country was at the height of industrialization. Buildings were erected quickly, cheaply, and as densely as possible.

Thick walls: Despite its rather intimidating appearance, the brickwork is solid and well made. The house has stood for nearly a century and seems capable of standing just as long—unless renovation finally catches up with it.

The Building of the All-Union Council of Industrial Cooperatives: an Architectural “Bridge” Between Eras

This building is a perfect example of how the avant-garde of the 1920s gradually transformed into the monumental Stalinist style. It appears almost timeless, precisely because of its restraint and clarity.What makes this building special? Oswald Schneidratus: The architect was a German communist who relocated to the USSR. His approach combined German practicality and precision. This is why the building still feels contemporary today: there is no superfluous decoration — only a deliberate play of volumes.

Innovative cladding: You are absolutely right to note the use of ceramics. This was one of the earliest large-scale applications of terracotta tiles on façades in Moscow. The tiles not only protected the brickwork but also gave the building its distinctive noble gray tone, one that has not faded over decades.

“Chest-like” massiveness as a style: Its heavy, box-like form was a conscious architectural choice. In the early 1930s, architecture was expected to convey stability and the strength of the state system.

Cooperatives and ministries

Notably, the All-Union Council of Industrial Cooperatives — the organization for which the building was originally constructed — served as an umbrella body for all artisans and cooperatives across the country. In essence, it functioned as the headquarters of Soviet small-scale industry at the time.

Later: The building was soon taken over by major state institutions. At different periods, it housed the Ministry of Finance of the RSFSR and the Ministry of Automobile Transport.

Today: The building continues to serve the state: it now accommodates departments of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and other governmental agencies.

A curious fact

At the address Ilinka Street, 23 / Novaya Square, 16 stands one of the most expressive architectural ensembles in central Moscow — the complex of the Northern Insurance Society. This building is not only an architectural landmark but also an important site on the political map of contemporary Russia.

History and Architecture The complex was constructed in 1910–1911, at a time when Ilinka Street functioned as Moscow’s “Wall Street” — the city’s principal business district, where insurance companies competed in the scale and representativeness of their headquarters.

The project involved outstanding architects: Ivan Rerberg (the author of Kyiv Railway Station), Marian Peretyatkovich, and Vyacheslav Oltarzhevsky.

Executed in the Neoclassical style, the building appears strict, monumental, and remarkably well integrated into the curvature of the square. The ensemble consists of two five-storey wings (the Eastern and Western blocks), connected by an internal passage. Its most iconic feature is the corner tower with a clock and a domed rotunda, which elegantly completes the perspective of Ilinka Street.

The history of this address has always been closely tied to power and finance.

Before the Revolution, it housed the Northern Insurance Society, along with numerous commercial offices and warehouses. During the Soviet period, following nationalization after 1917, the complex accommodated major state institutions, including the Party Control Commission, the USSR People’s Control Committee, and various departments of the Central Committee of the CPSU.

For its time, the building was technologically advanced. The use of reinforced concrete structures made it possible to create large shopfront windows on the ground floors. The façades are articulated with classical columns and bas-reliefs, emphasizing the reliability and solidity associated with the insurance business. The clock on the tower, still in operation today, is considered one of the most recognizable in Moscow’s historic center.

The building stands out for: • its powerful, monumental forms • high ceilings (approximately 3.2–3.3 meters) • a separate service staircase • two chimneys per apartment (originally allowing for fireplaces) • an unusually small number of apartments — only about ten in total for such a large volume

Today, it is a standard residential building with highly valuable apartments and is considered one of the most atmospheric pre-revolutionary income houses in the area.

Ilinka Street, 13 is one of the key buildings of Moscow’s historic financial quarter. The address refers to the former Moscow Exchange / Accounting and Loan Office, which at different times housed the Moscow Stock Exchange, the Accounting and Loan Bank, and later the Foreign Trade Bank (Vneshtorgbank) of the USSR.

History of Construction • Years built: 1873–1875 • Architect: Alexander Kaminsky (a student of Konstantin Ton, a notable master of Moscow Neo-Renaissance)

Later alterations: • Early 20th century — interior and façade modernization by Fyodor Shekhtel • Soviet period — restructuring and reconfiguration for banking institutions

The building was designed from the outset as a financial center, accommodating exchange offices, brokers’ rooms, and settlement and credit departments serving Moscow’s merchant class.

Address and Identification

Address: Moscow, Ilyinka Street, 11/10, Building 1 Historical Names: Mertens House → Headquarters of the All-Union Textilimport Foreign Trade Association → later various state offices. Period: Late 1910s – early 1920s Architect: Roman Klein, with the participation of M. Merkulov’s bureau. Style: Late Art Nouveau Neoclassicism (often referred to as Moscow Neoclassicism of the 1910s).

Historical Context

Ilyinka Street was the main commercial artery of old Moscow, home to the Gostiny Dvor, money changers, and merchant trading rows.

The building at No. 11/10 was originally constructed for the prominent Mertens trading firm, a major supplier of furs and textiles. After the Revolution, the building was nationalized and transferred to Textilimport, the Soviet foreign trade office responsible for negotiating large-scale procurement of textiles and industrial equipment abroad.

Thus, the building became one of the key administrative hubs in the restructuring of the early Soviet economy — a place where international trade missions and state-level negotiations were conducted.

Architectural Characteristics

Roman Klein conceived the building as a dignified “urban commercial palace,” in which both the façade and the interior would convey a sense of reliability and financial solidity.

Façade:

Clear axial symmetry along the street

Rusticated ground floor

Large Corinthian pilasters

Broad display windows for commercial use

Calm, monumental articulation

The architectural language is neoclassical in its gravity and order, yet the detailing still carries traces of the fluid, refined plasticity of late Art Nouveau.

Interiors

The original interiors were richly finished:

parquet flooring

stone staircases

decorative plasterwork and ornament in Roman and Greek motifs

After nationalization, many rooms were simplified, though the main staircases and portions of the ornamental décor remain intact.

Urban and Cultural Significance

The building is a notable example of a pre-revolutionary commercial structure that was seamlessly integrated into the Soviet administrative system — not as a bank or a marketplace, but as a center of international economic exchange.

It forms part of the historic business belt around Red Square, alongside:

the GUM Department Store

the former Commercial Bank (now the State Duma)

the Metropol Hotel

Additional Notes

The well-known Mertens House on Nevsky Prospect in St. Petersburg — with its famous glazed corner façade opposite Kazan Cathedral — was built for the same trading company. → This links Moscow and St. Petersburg architecturally through a single commercial brand.

Roman Klein is also the architect of the Museum of Fine Arts (now the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts). His style is marked by a pursuit of monumental classicism tempered by refined, expressive detail.

In the 1930s, portions of the building were used for confidential diplomatic trade negotiations.

Interpretive Summary

If one were to describe the building metaphorically:

This is not a “temple of commerce” like GUM, nor a modern urban showcase like the Mertens House in St. Petersburg. It is a fortress of negotiations — a form that declares:

The Dormitory Building Ensemble of the Communist University of the National Minorities of the West named after Julian Marchlewski (KUNMZ) Address: 6–8–10 Petroverigsky Lane, Building 1 (and Buildings 2 and 7).

Construction Period: 1929–1931.

Architects: Grigory Dankman (Dankman), with the participation of M. Rusanova and P. Simakin.

Architectural Style: Constructivism.

Heritage Status: Cultural Heritage Site of Regional Significance (Moscow).

Historical Background

The Communist University of the National Minorities of the West (KUNMZ) was established under the Comintern in 1921 to train political workers from among the national minorities of the western regions of the USSR.

As the university expanded, the need arose for a large student dormitory. The project by architect Grigory Dankman won the competition and was subsequently realized.

The complex is situated on the slope of Ivanovskaya Hill, between Maroseyka Street and historic pre-revolutionary urban fabric.

Today, the ensemble is partially in use, although numerous sources indicate that its condition is deteriorating and that it requires restoration.

Architectural Characteristics

The complex occupies an elongated site and consists of several interconnected buildings unified through a single planning concept.

A distinctive feature is the use of semi-cylindrical stair-tower projections, pronounced volumes, and continuous horizontal window bands — characteristic elements of Constructivist architecture.

The varying height of the slope was compensated architecturally to create a visually cohesive main façade.

Material treatment and design emphasize:

clarity of form,

functionality,

minimal ornamentation — all hallmarks of Constructivism.

Significance

This ensemble represents one of the most notable examples of Soviet avant-garde residential architecture in Moscow, particularly within the typology of dormitory housing.

It stands as a built illustration of the ideology of the late 1920s and early 1930s:

collective living,

social transformation,

and the creation of a new aesthetic environment.

Historical Significance (Aviation “Sharashka”)

The most well-known chapter in the history of this building is connected with the years of the Great Patriotic War and the postwar period. In the 1940s, the building became one of the divisions of the A. N. Tupolev Experimental Design Bureau (OKB). It housed the so-called OKB-156 — one of the famous Soviet “sharashkas” (closed research and design bureaus where repressed scientists and engineers were compelled to work).

Under the leadership of A. N. Tupolev, such outstanding aircraft designers as V. M. Myasishchev, M. I. Gudkov, V. M. Petlyakov, and others worked here.

An important detail: according to some accounts, the engineers lived on the upper floor of the building, and were allowed walks only on the roof. It was here that legendary Soviet aircraft — including the Tu-2 and Pe-2 — were designed.