Etched into memory: historical objects will be deprived of the presumption of safety
In the first reading, the State Duma adopted two bills at once that could have a significant impact on the preservation of cultural heritage sites. The first one provides investors with a mechanism for restoring crumbling monuments. Industry experts are rather optimistic about this initiative. But experts on the preservation of cultural heritage are seriously afraid of the second bill: it gives the subjects of the Russian Federation the right to independently remove regional and local windows from protection, which could potentially lead to the destruction of certain objects. Izvestia has figured out how they are going to change the system of working with historical heritage in Russia.
What kind of mechanism is given to investors
The first draft law, adopted in the State Duma in the first reading, proposes a new mechanism for restoring crumbling monuments. It allows investors to sell cultural heritage sites in poor condition along with the land plots under them, sometimes as part of territorial development projects. It is assumed that the profit from development projects will offset the cost of restoration: in exchange for the obligation to restore the historic building, the investor will be able to develop the site. The initiative aims to bring into economic circulation dilapidated cultural heritage sites, many of which are currently being destroyed due to lack of funds for restoration.
The explanatory note to the draft law states that "a significant part of cultural heritage sites is in poor condition, and the cost of their restoration may exceed the subsequent income of the investor many times." Therefore, it is proposed to create a mechanism by which the building is transferred simultaneously with the lease or sale of the land on which it is located.
The mechanism applies to objects that are federally owned. DOM.RF will be the key operator, which conducts auctions, forms lots and monitors the fulfillment of obligations.
The key condition for the investor is the restoration of the cultural heritage site. If the obligation is not fulfilled, the contract is terminated and the object is returned to the state. It is not allowed to sell the monument, transfer the land or resell the development project until the restoration is completed.
The bill is aimed at more actively involving development companies in the process of restoring cultural heritage sites, which are usually engaged in mass residential development or integrated development of the territory, said businessman Alexei Shkrapkin, who is engaged in the restoration and development of the Skornyakovo and Repets estates in the Lipetsk region.
— The initiative allows a developer to purchase a building site from the state at a lower price or with less competition, but with the obligation to restore a particular historical monument that may not be located on this territory. That is, here we can talk about some form of additional social burden," he explained to Izvestia.
Why it will be interesting for investors
This approach will not radically change the situation, but it will provide another effective measure of support to investors along with rent for rubles and preferential loans, Alexey Shkrapkin believes.
At the same time, Evgeny Neighbors, the head of the Conservation project, does not really believe in optimistic forecasts regarding the increase in the commercial attractiveness of cultural heritage sites.
— The attractiveness of these facilities, along with the provision of a land plot, will greatly increase only if it is possible to build on this land plot. And, as we know, monuments are usually surrounded by a protected area — there is a security zone system that restricts construction near the cultural heritage site. Therefore, it is unlikely that this will be of any decisive importance," the expert noted.
At the same time, the lands under monuments are often problematic: for example, the fragmentation of the historical territory, which may belong to different owners and have different modes of use, Alexey Shkrapkin added. It may take years for an investor to "put this puzzle together," the source told Izvestia.
It is still possible to privatize the land under the monument, but the purchase price is often equal to the value of land under residential buildings located in the neighborhood, although their usage modes are not comparable, he added. The consequence of this is the huge land tax that the future owner of the historic property has to pay.
— There are a lot of systemic problems, and, in an amicable way, legislators should also be puzzled by their solution, — the businessman noted.
Mikhail Popovsky, head of Brokerage at the Neo consulting company, also called the gap between the legal regime of the building and the land plot under it one of the key problems in involving WINDOWS in economic turnover.
"Developers who are already working with historical buildings do this only in cases where the land issue has been settled in advance," the source told Izvestia. — Restoration and adaptation of windows pay off due to the marginality of the entire development project, when the monument is located within the boundaries of an investment-attractive site. The legislative initiative transforms this model from the category of individual agreements into a system mechanism.
The scenario in which a cultural heritage site is provided to a developer with a building permit for its territory raises concerns among Evgeny Neighbors. This, according to the expert, will lead to new urban planning conflicts. An example is the situation with the Opalikha-Alekseevskoye estate in the Moscow region, where an investor was given an 18th-century park, which was then built up by more than half.
Viktor Ageev, First Deputy General Director of the Institute of Urban Economics Foundation, Director of Urban Planning and Real Estate, also called the absorption of the window and its surrounding context by new buildings a serious risk.
— Unfortunately, there are examples when development has deformed the existing urban environment in almost all Russian cities with historical buildings, — said the interlocutor of Izvestia.
Nevertheless, the mechanism proposed by the bill can become an effective tool for saving what would otherwise die, Viktor Ageev admitted. Referring to the data of the State Duma, he recalled that only 2.8 thousand out of 14 thousand emergency windows are now attractive in themselves. The scheme, in which restoration becomes an entrance ticket to a profitable building site, is the only chance for crumbling estates and historical buildings.
At the same time, there are already examples of successful projects on the market that confirm the commercial viability of working with WINDOWS, Mikhail Popovsky said. He identifies three fundamentally different approaches to the economics of the restoration of cultural objects. The first is restoration for sale in the premium segment (this format works primarily in the central locations of Moscow and St. Petersburg).
The second is restoration followed by a long—term lease. According to the expert, the rental premium for the uniqueness of the facility is 20-40% of market rates.
The third is the integration of the window into a large development project, where the monument serves as an architectural dominant and marketing asset. The restoration of the monument is very important here: the building collapsing next door negatively affects the cost of new construction.
At the same time, working with cultural heritage sites is the way to a preferential lending rate, Mikhail Popovsky added. Through the program "HOME.RF" loans of up to 9% are available to investors at the current key rate, and up to 4% for 27 pilot facilities. There are also umbrella guarantees from the SME Corporation, which cover up to half of the loan amount, and a preferential lease program that has been in effect in Moscow since 2012: after the restoration is completed, the fee is 1 ruble per square meter per year with a lease term of 49 years.
The disadvantage is that restoration work is more expensive than new construction, and the payback period is 10-12 years, the source warned Izvestia.
— And for the vast majority of projects, the presence of a land plot around the monument is a necessary condition for payback. All major completed projects are built according to this logic: the historical object is being restored and becomes the architectural and image center of the complex, and the main revenue area is formed due to new construction on the adjacent site. Exceptions are possible only for small properties — mansions with an area of 300-800 square meters. m — in the most sought—after locations," he clarified.
How will the concept of protecting regional monuments change?
However, if the second bill is passed, which was approved in the first reading by State Duma deputies on March 11, many of these thousands of cultural heritage sites may not need a responsible investor. They can simply be removed from the WINDOWS registers and destroyed.
The document submitted to the lower house of parliament by the Duma of the Stavropol Territory changes the system of cultural heritage protection: it is proposed to transfer to the regions the right to independently exclude historical buildings of regional and local importance from the state register. Such decisions are now being made at the federal level. According to the authors, this will allow a faster response to situations when the building has lost its historical value or is actually destroyed.
— It is this bill that attracts the attention of the entire urban protection community, — said Evgeny Neighbors. — This bill, in fact, breaks the system of heritage protection, which since the 1940s has been based on the unconditional priority of preserving heritage, multiplying the number of heritage sites and maximizing the complexity of any procedures for removing the status of the window.
The expert called this approach "a very short-sighted and disastrous decision." According to the city defender, regional monument protection authorities may be dependent on local construction corporations, "from which 99% of initiatives to destroy cultural heritage sites originate." The adoption of this law will simplify and facilitate the procedure for removing the building from protection and its loss as a historical object. The support of the proposed initiative by the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation and State Duma deputies is puzzling, the Izvestia interlocutor emphasized.
Previously, any monument, regardless of its significance, could only be excluded from the register by the government of the Russian Federation, and this was a serious barrier to attempts to destroy and build up the territory of an object, recalled the first deputy Chairman of the All—Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments Denis Yudin. Initiatives to simplify this process have been lobbied for several years, he recalled.
— The first attempts to make such amendments were back in 2011, then in 2014, etc. But each time they didn't even go through the first hearing — there were people in the State Duma who understood that this should not be the case," the expert emphasized.
If the law is passed, the exclusion of monuments from the register may become a mass phenomenon, he admitted. A scheme involving the physical destruction of a historic building (for example, as a result of a fire) and its subsequent exclusion from the register will work much more effectively. There will also be more opportunities to conduct unfair examinations that will confirm the "loss of historical and cultural significance" of the object, Denis Yudin warned.
First of all, the bill may concern the most vulnerable objects: wooden architecture, ruined estates, "background" buildings that form the historical environment and create the appearance of old cities, Viktor Ageev emphasized. In general, speeding up the exclusion procedure may be useful, but the current draft law does not create mechanisms that would ensure that it only applies to cases where it is objectively necessary. On the contrary, the very philosophy of protection is changing: "from the presumption of safety to the presumption of manageability," the expert concluded.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
