This temple has a difficult fate. After the USSR, it somehow became privately owned and became a tavern. There was a bar counter in the altar.
Original taken from mu_pankratov to the Church of the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God on Khavskaya Street.

Few people know, but on Khavskaya Street there is an Old Believer Tikhvin Church.
Here's a little information:
Historically, the area near Khavskaya Street was a place of residence for Old Believers. In the 19th century, in Mikhailov’s house there was a prayer house, in which in 1898 Archbishop of Moscow and All Rus' John (Kartushin) was elevated to the see. In August 1909, a society of Old Believers accepting the priesthood of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy (now the Russian Orthodox Church) from the Mikhailov prayer parish addressed the Moscow Provincial Board with a request for permission to establish an Old Believer community in Moscow, giving it the name “Tikhvin Old Believer Community.” The temple was founded on August 21, 1911. The author of the project was construction technician N.G. Martyanov.
The temple was consecrated in honor Tikhvin icon Mother of God - November 18, 1912 by Archbishop John in the presence of the Moscow mayor N.I. Guchkov.

Magazine "Church" No. 47 1912

in 1917 the temple was transferred to the Tikhvin community “for eternal and free use”

in 1922, valuables were confiscated from the church (robes, crosses, liturgical vessels)

in 1923, 60 people were officially registered in the community. There is a religious school attached to the temple.

in 1924, the Moscow City Council considered requests from workers of the Danilov button factory to close the church and transfer its building to a canteen and the Armatrest drilling tools factory, asking to close the church and organize a red corner of the factory in it.

In 1930, the temple was closed “for transfer to the Armatrest plant as a red corner.”
In February of that year, the royal doors, more than 30 images of the 17th century,
folding three-tiered traveling iconostasis and 15 large icons.”
The central dome was broken, leaving four decorative domes with lathing from domes left at the corners of the temple.
The iron was stripped from the wooden tent of the bell tower; only the sheathing survived.

in 1967, a hardware warehouse was located in the temple building
photo 1975

in the 1980s, there was a canteen in the church building; in the early 1990s, the building was privatized in violation of the law and sold by the Moscow Property Committee to a commercial organization for a grill bar

In 2003, the temple was bought by the “Orthodox businessman” Konstantin Akhapkin.
The new owner categorically refused to transfer the building to its historical owners and began restoration with the aim of transferring the church to the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate. It was planned to open a museum of Nicholas II in the building. However, the Russian Orthodox Church refused to accept the temple after a meeting between Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' of the Russian Orthodox Church Andrian (+ 2004) with the head of the DECR MP, Metropolitan Kirill. The situation turned into a stalemate. The conflict around the church was covered by means mass media, But constructive solution was never found.

2006

2007

Today, the church is under lock and key. You can see recent photos - http://mittatiana.livejournal.com/15827.html

And now, it is no longer a tavern, it was restored, crosses were erected.
Let's see what he was like and what he became. I will voice my opinion about what I saw at the end of the post.
"Before" photos from here.

Writing critical reviews is never easy, and when it comes to work done by people you know, it's doubly difficult. But what to do if no one writes anything about new architectural ceramics? Therefore, please do not be offended, but listen.

Architectural ceramics are different from the rest because you can’t hide them in a closet if you don’t like them. No matter how it is made, it will live for a very long time, and this obliges the author to a lot. Especially when it comes to the restoration of an architectural monument. The restorer has no right to credit. Clearing, strengthening and preserving is the real meaning of restoration.
The highest mastery of restoration can be seen in Greece and Italy, where no one seeks to rebuild ancient ruins. Of course, ancient ruins are not the same situation as ours. Both the Hellenes and the ancient Romans have long since disappeared as civilizations, and there is no need to ensure the viability of the Parthenon as a temple, because the parishioners of that temple remained only black and red-figured silhouettes on amphorae and kylixes. Our churches must function not only as monuments, but also as churches, because it was not possible to destroy parishioners in 75 years and they need not just to pray somewhere, but to pray exactly where their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers prayed. Therefore, we don’t limit ourselves to conservation. The temple must function fully and it cannot snow on your head during the service. This means that the restorer must collect all the archives, study all the author’s drawings, find authentic materials and recreate the lost property in the form in which it was created and lived during its heyday. Ideally, this work should be carried out to such a depth that even the door hinges correspond to the era.
What happened on Serpukhov Val? Why did ceramics suddenly appear there at all, if it was never there even in the plans? I also understand if nothing remained of the temple except the foundation, and reconstruction rather than restoration would be carried out. Such work is often accompanied by architectural improvisations due to a lack of materials, but all of them can only be carried out on the basis of analogues. Those. one could look at how Martyanov built other structures and, based on this material, assume what he could do here. Or draw parallels with the peculiarities of the New Russian style of a particular period and region, and make some replicas based on this material. At least develop reliefs and ornaments based on analogues. But you can’t just take it and come up with everything your own way. This is an amateurish approach to business.
I don’t know what’s going on with this temple now - whether it’s still privately owned or has changed to a different status, but even if it’s privately owned and this whole idea belongs to the owner, then you can’t follow the lead of such a customer. The reputational losses from such work are disproportionately higher than the possible profits.
Now about the details.
The main question for the architect, if there is one: why did he cover up his flies?
The fly is not a niche for a tile. This is a caisson that became decorative means architecture. And covering it up with tiles means depriving the architecture of its expressiveness.
Compare.
Was:

For what? Why then not like this? So it’s even larger in area:

If we were to sculpt tiles there, then it could be at least something like this in scale and there would be many fewer questions:

Why such a deathly blue palette? Because blue is the color of the Theotokos vestments of priests or what? This argument of the customer is reflected simply by photographs of other churches in honor of the Mother of God feasts or icons. At least the Intercession Cathedral in Izmailovo:

If in the 17th century there was enough taste to replace the blue background, traditional for the peacock’s eye, with a brown one for use in red brick architecture, then in the 21st century it should be enough. The liturgical symbolism of color lives by its own laws, and it should not be woven into the architecture of the temple so literally.
The shape of the window pediments and pilasters is beyond comprehension. The geometry that looks organic in a brick version does not work at all in a tiled version. And there are also some vignettes on them. And harlequin diamonds on the pilasters, the capitals of which now for some reason crawled out from under the curb.

Bobrovka on a tent. Why is she so thin? I don’t remember anything analogous to the use of such a beaver on the tents of churches in the New Russian style. I remember the beaver in the chapel of the Church of All Who Sorrow, near the glass factory, but there the module is much smaller, and the thickness is greater and it is not laid in continuous scales, but in rows. A ploughshare would be much more appropriate in this context than a beaver.
I'm not an expert in carpentry, but new door looks dubious and petty. The scale of the carvings on the old door is much more convincing.

In general, instead of restoration, the result was some kind of senseless collective farm tuning, as a result of which the temple turned into a tent. I hope that not a single brick from the masonry was torn out or drilled for his sake.
There are a couple of comments about the masonry. The good thing about old brick is that it was made without extrusion. Those. it was not squeezed out like paste from a tube, but was stuffed into molds by hand. And that’s why each brick has its own texture. Very beautiful and different. And they fired it not in tunnel kilns with computerized 125-zone temperature control, but in coal or wood kilns, like this. Because of this, all old brick also has a different color and tone. And there is absolutely no need to cover it up “for beauty” with some kind of paint. “Different tone” only bothers modern perfectionist imbeciles who are ready to make their own sandwiches at breakfast with a spectrometer and calipers, while normal people enjoy the living textures of old brick. In order for the masonry to heal in a new way, you need to clean the brick from soot and dirt, replace the losses with authentic brick (fortunately there are no problems with this) and caulk the seams, while throwing away the figured joints, which turn any masonry into a soviet-barracks farce. Particularly painstaking restorers also paint over all the seams with lime mortar to hide the presence of cement in the current mortars, and then the result is a beautiful, living and natural wall, and not a set for a TV series. Soshin’s guys coped with this task best on Solovki. Anyone who has seen the restoration of the Kremlin wall in the northern courtyard understands what I am talking about.

There is an opinion that I am specifically looking for different manufacturers their unsuccessful works and then talk about them in my magazine as part of the competition. But this opinion is wrong. Do an excellent job, tell me about it - and I will write about it, even if you are my competitor three hundred times. Only, in light of recent events, I will first come to see with my own eyes. I'll even be happy to do it. In the meantime, I myself come across here and there various ceramic facade opuses and what I see is what I sing about.
The authorship of the ceramics on the Tikhvin Church belongs to the Pallada company, most of whose employees have long listed me as enemies by default because of my past publications. And on this occasion I would like to make a small remark to clarify. Firstly, I am not a competitor of Pallas. I don’t do restoration at all and I don’t think I ever will. Secondly, we have completely different formats. I have a small creative workshop, where I do what I want and participate only in those projects that are interesting to me, and they have a large enterprise with a huge staff that requires constant workload. By the way, in this sense I admire Pallas. Organizing such an enterprise is a very difficult task and they cope with it remarkably well. I also warmly support the initiative to create a museum of architectural ceramics, which recently arose from the head of Pallas, Konstantin Licholat. But I consider the creation of works like this a serious mistake that it is better not to make. Thirdly, I will easily write about some brilliantly beautiful work of Pallas as soon as I see it. Well, fourthly, the absence of criticism relaxes and cools down, so I myself am always open to criticism and never delete any comments except spam ones. Write, don't be shy.

The Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God on Khavskaya Street recently celebrated its 100th anniversary. Unfortunately, the Old Believers, who once built it at their own expense, were forced to celebrate on the street.

Photos from the 1960s

It just so happened historically that Khavskaya Street has been around since the 18th century. was the place of residence of the Old Believers-priests, subordinate to the Moscow Archdiocese of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy of the Old Orthodox Church of Christ, transformed in 1988 into the Russian Orthodox Old Believers (ROC). In the XIX – early XX centuries. here, in Mikhailov’s house, there was a very revered catacomb prayer house, because it was here that the Old Believer Archbishop John (Kartushin) was elevated to the see in 1898.

Photos from the 1970s

But the Old Orthodox Christians needed a temple, so, having received permission from the authorities, the parishioners of the prayer house in 1909 created the Tikhvin Old Believer community, which began collecting money for the construction of the temple. 2 years later, on August 21, 1911, on Khavskaya Street it was founded in honor of the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God, highly revered in Rus'. Famous for his temples, the Old Believer architect N.G. Martyanov created the project for this church in the Old Russian style. The consecration took place on November 18, 1912.

Old Believers gathered at their temple for a prayer service

The Mikhailov brothers, in whose house the prayer house was located, presented the Tikhvin temple image of the Mother of God in a richly decorated precious frame to the church in 1913. Two gilded iconostases, many icons and expensive church utensils were donated to the temple by its parishioners.

Photos from the 1990s

The building of the Tikhvin Church has changed its owners more than once. There was a warehouse and a dining room here. The most interesting and sad thing began in the dashing 1990s. At the end of 1991 a certain joint stock company“Ladya” privatized the dining room, converting it into a grill bar, which in turn replaced the “Spanish” restaurant, whose clients literally danced “on the altar.”

Old Believers pray to the Mother of God for help in returning the temple

In 1996, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church Alimpiy blessed the re-establishment of the Tikhvin Old Believer community, which began the struggle to return its property. But, alas, after an offer to buy their own from a private person, the Old Believers were left with nothing.

Oddly enough, in 2004 some restoration work began to return the temple to its former appearance. And then it turned out that it had been bought by a certain businessman who was eager to transfer it to the New Believers (that is, the Russian Orthodox Church). However, during a meeting between Metropolitan Andrian of the Russian Orthodox Church (who reposed in 2004) and Metropolitan Kirill (then head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, and since 2009 the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church), it became clear that the Russian Orthodox Church does not lay claim to it. Since then, the struggle of the Old Believers for the return of their native church has continued. Old Believers hold prayers and religious processions on the street near “their” church, and the owner of the building strengthens security.

If you walk along the Serpukhovsky Val boulevard to the southwest, leaving the Serpukhovskaya Zastava Square and the famous Danilovsky Market behind you, then a block from Shabolovka, at the intersection of the shaft with the narrow Khavskaya Street, on the right you will see a low, neat red brick church, built in the Russian architectural style . A temple with two churches - the Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir and the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God.

Historically, the area near Khavskaya Street was a place of residence for Old Believers. In the 19th century in Mikhailov's house there was a prayer room, in which in 1898 Archbishop of Moscow and All Rus' John (Kartushin) was elevated to the see. In August 1909, a society of Old Believers accepting the priesthood of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy (now the Russian Orthodox Church) from the Mikhailov prayer parish addressed the Moscow Provincial Board with a request for permission to establish an Old Believer community in Moscow, giving it the name “Tikhvin Old Believer Community.” This temple was founded on August 21, 1911. The author of the project was construction technician N.G. Martyanov. The Church of Our Lady of Tikhvin - this is how the new temple of the Tikhvin community of Old Believers was named almost a century ago - was consecrated on November 18, 1912 by the Old Believer Archbishop John in the presence of the Moscow mayor N.I. Guchkova.

At the beginning of 1930, the temple was closed “for transfer to the red corner of the Armatrest plant.” In February of that year, the royal doors, more than 30 images of the 17th century, a folding three-tiered traveling iconostasis and 15 large icons were taken to the museum collection.” The central dome was broken, leaving four decorative domes with lathing from domes left at the corners of the temple. The iron was stripped from the wooden tent of the bell tower; only the sheathing survived. They broke down the old Russian tent over the church porch. Only the small dome above the altar was preserved. In 1967, a warehouse for hardware goods was set up in the church. In 1978-1980, the building was empty, no one was guarding it, and there was complete destruction inside. But even in its wounded form, the church decorated the street.

In the 1990s. was privatized contrary to the law and turned into a grill bar by the executive committee of the Moscow City Council. In 2003 it was to be returned to the Church. Unfortunately, this did not happen; the temple is still in private ownership.

A temple with two chapels - the holy Prince Vladimir Equal to the Apostles and the icon of the Tikhvin Mother of God. Historically, the area near Khavskaya Street was a place of residence for Old Believers. In August 1909, a society of Old Believers accepting the priesthood of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy (now the Russian Orthodox Church) from the Mikhailov prayer parish addressed the Moscow Provincial Board with a request for permission to establish an Old Believer community in Moscow, giving it the name “Tikhvin Old Believer Community.” The temple was founded on August 21, 1911, consecrated on November 18, 1912 by the Old Believer Archbishop John in the presence of the Moscow mayor N.I. Guchkova.

At the beginning of 1930, the temple was closed “for transfer to the red corner of the Armatrest plant.” In February of that year, the royal doors, more than 30 images of the 17th century, a folding three-tiered traveling iconostasis and 15 large icons were taken to the museum collection.” The central dome was broken, leaving four decorative domes with lathing from domes left at the corners of the temple. The iron was stripped from the wooden tent of the bell tower; only the sheathing survived.

In 1967, a hardware warehouse was set up here. From 1978 to 1991 the building was empty and collapsing, there was no security of the territory. The abandoned church was surrounded by a construction fence.

After 1991, the church building was privatized, and internal reconstruction was carried out to suit the needs of the restaurant. Instead of a construction fence, a brick fence was rebuilt. The restaurant operated here until the early 2000s. In 2003, a decision was made to close the restaurant and return the temple to believers. New frames of domes and domes were brought in. But restoration work never began. The church again stood surrounded by a construction fence and without security. 10 years have passed...

In January 2013, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church appeared at the site with the final intention of restoring the temple for believers. Started preparatory work for the complete restoration of the temple.

This temple has a difficult fate. After the USSR, it somehow became privately owned and became a tavern. There was a bar counter in the altar.
mu_pankratov Church of the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God on Khavskaya Street.

Few people know, but on Khavskaya Street there is an Old Believer Tikhvin Church.
Here's a little information:
Historically, the area near Khavskaya Street was a place of residence for Old Believers. In the 19th century, in Mikhailov’s house there was a prayer house, in which in 1898 Archbishop of Moscow and All Rus' John (Kartushin) was elevated to the see. In August 1909, a society of Old Believers accepting the priesthood of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy (now the Russian Orthodox Church) from the Mikhailov prayer parish addressed the Moscow Provincial Board with a request for permission to establish an Old Believer community in Moscow, giving it the name “Tikhvin Old Believer Community.” The temple was founded on August 21, 1911.
The author of the project was construction technician N.G. Martyanov.

The temple was consecrated in honor of the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God on November 18, 1912 by Archbishop John in the presence of the Moscow mayor N.I. Guchkov.

Magazine "Church" No. 47 1912

in 1917 the temple was transferred to the Tikhvin community “for eternal and free use”

in 1922, valuables were confiscated from the church (robes, crosses, liturgical vessels)

in 1923, 60 people were officially registered in the community. There is a religious school attached to the temple.

in 1924, the Moscow City Council considered requests from workers of the Danilov button factory to close the church and transfer its building to a canteen and the Armatrest drilling tools factory, asking to close the church and organize a red corner of the factory in it.

In 1930, the temple was closed “for transfer to the Armatrest plant as a red corner.”
In February of that year, the royal doors, more than 30 images of the 17th century,
folding three-tiered traveling iconostasis and 15 large icons.”
The central dome was broken, leaving four decorative domes with lathing from domes left at the corners of the temple.
The iron was stripped from the wooden tent of the bell tower; only the sheathing survived.

in 1967, a hardware warehouse was located in the temple building
photo 1975

in the 1980s, there was a canteen in the church building; in the early 1990s, the building was privatized in violation of the law and sold by the Moscow Property Committee to a commercial organization for a grill bar

In 2003, the temple was bought by the “Orthodox businessman” Konstantin Akhapkin.
The new owner categorically refused to transfer the building to the historical owners and began restoration with the aim of transferring the church to the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. It was planned to open a museum of Nicholas II in the building. However, the Russian Orthodox Church refused to accept the temple after a meeting between Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' of the Russian Orthodox Church Andrian (+ 2004) with the head of the DECR MP, Metropolitan Kirill. The situation turned into a stalemate. The conflict around the church was covered by the media, but a constructive solution was never found.

2006

2007

Today, the church is under lock and key. You can see recent photos - http://mittatiana.livejournal.com/15827.html

And now, it is no longer a tavern, it was restored, crosses were erected.
Let's see what he was like and what he became. I will voice my opinion about what I saw at the end of the post.
"Before" photos from here.

Writing critical reviews is never easy, and when it comes to work done by people you know, it's doubly difficult. But what to do if no one writes anything about new architectural ceramics? Therefore, please do not be offended, but listen.

Architectural ceramics are different from the rest because you can’t hide them in a closet if you don’t like them. No matter how it is made, it will live for a very long time, and this obliges the author to a lot. Especially when it comes to the restoration of an architectural monument. The restorer has no right to credit. Clearing, strengthening and preserving is the real meaning of restoration.

The highest mastery of restoration can be seen in Greece and Italy, where no one seeks to rebuild ancient ruins. Of course, ancient ruins are not the same situation as ours. Both the Hellenes and the ancient Romans have long since disappeared as civilizations, and there is no need to ensure the viability of the Parthenon as a temple, because the parishioners of that temple remained only black and red-figured silhouettes on amphorae and kylixes. Our churches must function not only as monuments, but also as churches, because it was not possible to destroy parishioners in 75 years and they need not just to pray somewhere, but to pray exactly where their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers prayed. Therefore, we don’t limit ourselves to conservation. The temple must function fully and it cannot snow on your head during the service. This means that the restorer must collect all the archives, study all the author’s drawings, find authentic materials and recreate the lost property in the form in which it was created and lived during its heyday. Ideally, this work should be carried out to such a depth that even the door hinges correspond to the era.

What happened on Serpukhov Val? Why did ceramics suddenly appear there at all, if it was never there even in the plans? I also understand if nothing remained of the temple except the foundation, and reconstruction rather than restoration would be carried out. Such work is often accompanied by architectural improvisations due to a lack of materials, but all of them can only be carried out on the basis of analogues. Those. one could look at how Martyanov built other structures and, based on this material, assume what he could do here. Or draw parallels with the peculiarities of the New Russian style of a particular period and region, and make some replicas based on this material. At least develop reliefs and ornaments based on analogues. But you can’t just take it and come up with everything your own way. This is an amateurish approach to business.

I don’t know what’s going on with this temple now - whether it’s still privately owned or has changed to a different status, but even if it’s privately owned and this whole idea belongs to the owner, then you can’t follow the lead of such a customer. The reputational losses from such work are disproportionately higher than the possible profits.

Now about the details.
The main question for the architect, if there is one: why did he cover up his flies?
The fly is not a niche for a tile. This is a caisson that has become a decorative means of architecture. And covering it up with tiles means depriving the architecture of its expressiveness.
Compare.
Was:

For what? Why then not like this? So it’s even larger in area:

If we were to sculpt tiles there, then it could be at least something like this in scale and there would be many fewer questions:

Why such a deathly blue palette? Because blue is the color of the Theotokos vestments of priests or what? This argument of the customer is reflected simply by photographs of other churches in honor of the Mother of God feasts or icons. At least the Intercession Cathedral in Izmailovo:

If in the 17th century there was enough taste to replace the blue background, traditional for the peacock’s eye, with a brown one for use in red brick architecture, then in the 21st century it should be enough. The liturgical symbolism of color lives by its own laws, and it should not be woven into the architecture of the temple so literally.

The shape of the window pediments and pilasters is beyond comprehension. The geometry that looks organic in a brick version does not work at all in a tiled version. And there are also some vignettes on them. And harlequin diamonds on the pilasters, the capitals of which now for some reason crawled out from under the curb.

Bobrovka on a tent. Why is she so thin? I don’t remember anything analogous to the use of such a beaver on the tents of churches in the New Russian style. I remember the beaver in the chapel of the Church of All Who Sorrow, near the glass factory, but there the module is much smaller, and the thickness is greater and it is not laid in continuous scales, but in rows. A ploughshare would be much more appropriate in this context than a beaver.
I'm not an expert in carpentry, but the new door looks dubious and small. The scale of the carvings on the old door is much more convincing.

In general, instead of restoration, the result was some kind of senseless collective farm tuning, as a result of which the temple turned into a tent. I hope that not a single brick from the masonry was torn out or drilled for his sake.

There are a couple of comments about the masonry. Old brick is good because it was made without extrusion. Those. it was not squeezed out like paste from a tube, but filled into molds by hand. And that’s why each brick has its own texture. Very beautiful and different. And they fired it not in tunnel kilns with computerized 125-zone temperature control, but in coal or wood kilns, like this.

Because of this, all old brick also has a different color and tone. And there is absolutely no need to cover it up “for beauty” with some kind of paint. “Different tone” only bothers modern perfectionist imbeciles who are ready to make their own sandwiches at breakfast with a spectrometer and calipers, while normal people enjoy the living textures of old brick. In order for the masonry to heal in a new way, you need to clean the brick from soot and dirt, replace the losses with authentic brick (fortunately there are no problems with this) and caulk the seams, while throwing away the figured joints, which turn any masonry into a soviet-barracks farce. Particularly painstaking restorers also paint over all the seams with lime mortar to hide the presence of cement in the current mortars, and then the result is a beautiful, living and natural wall, and not a set for a TV series. Soshin’s guys coped with this task best on Solovki. Anyone who has seen the restoration of the Kremlin wall in the northern courtyard understands what I am talking about.

There is an opinion that I specifically look for unsuccessful works from different manufacturers and then talk about them in my magazine as part of the competition. But this opinion is wrong. Do an excellent job, tell me about it - and I will write about it, even if you are my competitor three hundred times. Only, in light of recent events, I will first come to see with my own eyes. I'll even be happy to do it. In the meantime, I myself come across here and there various ceramic facade opuses and what I see is what I sing about.

The authorship of the ceramics on the Tikhvin Church belongs to the Pallada company, most of whose employees have long listed me as enemies by default because of my past publications. And on this occasion I would like to make a small remark to clarify. Firstly, I am not a competitor of Pallas. I don’t do restoration at all and I don’t think I ever will. Secondly, we have completely different formats. I have a small creative workshop, where I do what I want and participate only in those projects that are interesting to me, and they have a large enterprise with a huge staff that requires constant workload. By the way, in this sense I admire Pallas. Organizing such an enterprise is a very difficult task and they cope with it remarkably well. I also warmly support the initiative to create a museum of architectural ceramics, which recently arose from the head of Pallas, Konstantin Licholat. But I consider the creation of works like this a serious mistake that it is better not to make. Thirdly, I will easily write about some brilliantly beautiful work of Pallas as soon as I see it. Well, fourthly, the absence of criticism relaxes and cools down, so I myself am always open to criticism and never delete any comments except spam ones. Write, don't be shy.

___________________________

It’s a pity, People’s Artist of Russia Georgy Aleksandrovich Leman is an elderly man and cannot stand up for his grandfather’s honor, and there is absolutely no need for him to be nervous. But it would be very nice to create a precedent and slap a lawsuit against Nikolai Egorovich Martyanov for violating the author’s plan with huge compensation - one, and restoration of the temple at the expense of the violator (at the expense, but not by force, of course) - two. And the compensation will be used for the restoration of other buildings of the architect that need it. Maybe this could be a lesson for someone? Memorial doesn't want to join? - would do a truly good deed.

If you walk along the Serpukhovsky Val boulevard to the southwest, leaving the Serpukhovskaya Zastava Square and the famous Danilovsky Market behind you, then a block from Shabolovka, at the intersection of the shaft with the narrow Khavskaya Street, on the right you will see a low, neat red brick church, built in the Russian architectural style . A temple with two churches - St. Prince Vladimir Equal to the Apostles and the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God.

Historically, the area near Khavskaya Street was a place of residence for Old Believers. In the 19th century, in Mikhailov’s house there was a prayer house, in which in 1898 Archbishop of Moscow and All Rus' John (Kartushin) was elevated to the see. In August 1909, a society of Old Believers accepting the priesthood of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy (now the Russian Orthodox Church) from the Mikhailov prayer parish addressed the Moscow Provincial Board with a request for permission to establish an Old Believer community in Moscow, giving it the name “Tikhvin Old Believer Community.” This temple was founded on August 21, 1911. The author of the project was construction technician N.G. Martyanov. The Church of the Tikhvin Mother of God - this is how the new temple of the Tikhvin community of Old Believers was named almost a century ago - was consecrated on November 18, 1912 by the Old Believer Archbishop John in the presence of the Moscow mayor N.I. Guchkov.
But the Church of Our Lady of Tikhvin did not gather believers under its arches for long. Just five years later, great changes took place in the country. The communists arrived and, by the end of the first decade of their rule, had pretty much destroyed Moscow’s “forty forties,” as the golden-domed splendor of the cathedrals and monasteries of the ancient Russian capital had long been proudly called.
At the beginning of 1930, the temple was closed “for transfer to the red corner of the Armatrest plant.” In February of that year, the royal doors, more than 30 images of the 17th century, a folding three-tiered traveling iconostasis and 15 large icons were taken to the museum collection.”
The temple was violated. The central dome was broken, leaving four decorative domes with lathing from domes left at the corners of the temple. The iron was stripped from the wooden tent of the bell tower; only the sheathing survived. They broke down the old Russian tent over the church porch. Only the small dome above the altar was preserved.
In 1967, a warehouse for hardware goods was set up in the church. In 1978 - 1980, the building was empty, no one was guarding it, and there was complete destruction inside. But even in its wounded form, the church decorated the street.
In the 1990s, it was privatized against the law and turned into a grill bar by the executive committee of the Moscow City Council. In 2003 it was to be returned to the Church. Unfortunately, this did not happen, and the temple is still in private ownership.

There are no restaurant regulars here now. Today the temple stands empty and quiet, its oak doors are tightly closed. The domes do not aim at the Moscow sky like crosses - there are no crosses here. The restoration took a long time... On September 11, 2007, copper domes were waiting in the courtyard for their turn author of the photo Krasov Dmitry

Website materials used