State Buildings in New Armenia and their Symbolic Roles
Sarhat Petrosyan, architect, urban-planner, urbanlab founder
Source: http://hetq.am/arm/news/91267/nor-hayastani-petakan-shenqern-u-dranc-nshanayin-dery.html
Today
as we seem to be approaching the final stage of the formation of the new
executive branch of government and the new parliamentary elections are not far
behind, I think it is time to start a discussion of the arrangement of public
administration buildings and their symbolic role in urban landscape, a topic
which might be unimportant at first sight, but, in fact, from the point of
formation of new political traditions and given long term perspectives, it
becomes a cornerstone issue, in terms of viewing it as firm political
positioning tool, as well as state
property management tool on national level, and at the same time as the manager
and carrier of content for civic value system.
///// Creative Common / 2009-2017 // urbanlab.am
Source: http://hetq.am/arm/news/91267/nor-hayastani-petakan-shenqern-u-dranc-nshanayin-dery.html
Հայերեն տեքստն հասանելի է այստեղ

Back
in 2000s, when Armenia was striving for the reputation of "the most
organized" state in the region, given the “tiger” development of the, for
the purpose of boosting private investments, buildings of several ministries in
the centre of Yerevan were alienated, by merging several ministries.
Those
buildings included the Ministries of Culture, Education and Science, Health,
Labour and Social Affairs, and the Ministry of Environmental Protection, which
moved to the third government building, and today, with the exception of the
first two ministries, the rest of them are still seated in same building. For
the years to come, similar solutions were applied towards the buildings and
structures of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Transport and Communications,
Emergency Situations and the Ministry of Defence.
These
parade of rearrangements might have a positive impact at first sight,
considering it from the point of increasing efficiency (current term
optimization) or from the point of using public property as an economic
incentive, but here we have subordination of visual and symbolic role of state
buildings during this crucial undertaking to set and preserve traditions of
independent Armenia.
However,
today we have what we have, and we need to examine the mistakes of the past, we
need to make a professional and political assessment of them and formulate our
own vision for the future as a society and a state.
Therefore,
through this article, I will try to circulate some ideas that reflect my
professional thoughts over the years, as well as the recent political reality,
which I think are worth to be raised and discussed.
I
think it is well known to us that the building of Republic of Armenia
President’s former Administration – that is 26 Baghramyan, is well recognized
and has a highlighted role serving as number one building for both presidential
and semi-presidential Armenia, in other words it is Armenian White House.
At
the moment, there seems to be a political decision that the building shall for
some period serve as seat to the Prime Minister, as the head of the country,
and in the future it can become the seat of current President’s Administration,
the seat of which, given the recent government changes has been changed to the
former Reception House, located on Mashtots Avenue, near Matenadaran.
Well,
the Reception House is not accustomed to serve for mainly ceremonial duties of
the President, but I think it can be fully accustomed to current requirements
of President’s Administration, which, by the way, shall make 1/3 of the
previous Administration.
Taking
into consideration also the change of President’s role, given the political and
again symbolic roles foreseen in the new Constitution, it would be desirable
not to have any associations with tradition and symbols of the former
Presidents.
Thus,
we can conclude that in today’s Parliamentary government system, it is not
desirable to deploy current President’s Administration in the residence used
during former Presidential system.
It
was highly welcome and also logical to have Government building (located at
Republic Square) as the working residence for the Prime Minister, which again,
in both symbolic and political term, highlights the fact of Prime Minister
being the head of the state, and perfectly expresses the logic of parliamentary
state.
In
particular, taking into consideration that the author of the building,
Alexander Tamanyan’s primary wish and the democratic concept of the
building, and the fact that the building
is located in number one administrative square of the country, it is totally
fit for the status of number one administrative building of Armenia.
It
should be well noted also, that the legislative branch of the government, seems
to have best associations with the current building of National Assembly, which
previously served as headquarter of Central Committee of the Communist Party,
which during the post-independent period is well perceived as iconic structure
of democracy.
By
the way, it is noteworthy that there are some public requirements towards the
accessibility of the building, in particular, many think the gates and the
front park should be open and turned into public space.
Well,
I am hopeful that by realizing this requirement, the current fences shall
remain intact, since the building and the front park is subject to protection
as a single value.
Thus,
we are facing a question what should be done with the former President’s
Administration building located on 26 Baghramyan Avenue, which was previously
used as the seat of the most powerful wing of the country.
Given
the change in political reality, which implies reevaluation of the third branch
– the judicial one, I would suggest presenting the building on 26 Baghramyan
Avenue to Judicial Council.
Mainly,
the newly established Supreme Judicial Council of Armenia and the restructuring
judicial department can be deployed at the former President’s Residence, thus
strengthening the role of judicial power in the public life and in the country
in general, along with a number of other reforms.
The
problem here has a more symbolic nature, since if a decision is made to have
Court of Cassation seat here, or any other major judicial department, then
again we can consider our problem solved, and proposal accepted.
Let’s
note that today the Court of Cassation is located at the backyard of
Prosecutor’s Office, which is unacceptable, while the Court of Appeal is
located outside the administrative centre of the city, does not look like an
administrative building at all.
Today,
with the purpose of allocating a new building to the Supreme Judicial Council, with
a series of violations of cultural heritage norms, constructions works are
underway on 15 Koryun Street, within the territory of former dormitory included
in the list of Protection of Immovable Historic and Cultural Monuments of
Yerevan.
I
think, given the current requirements to the judicial system, as a result of
action including elements of vandalism, the provision of the building to such
an important body, is not so rational.
This
proposal does not strive to become a final solution, although I think that the
transitional government should attempt to make decisions on the basis of
comprehensive image of the issue, which will exclude the revision of those
decisions in the future.
In
my continuous thoughts on relocations and reusage of buildings, during the
opening of “Golden Apricot” International Film Festival the other day, I
happened to have a glimpse of the old logo of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
which reflected the former third Government Building located on Republic
Square. In fact, the building of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has
served as symbol of independent Armenia’s foreign affairs for so many years,
currently has a vague future and is under the threat of being replaced by a
hotel or offices of private organizations.
It
is worth to be noted that the current building of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs is also reflected in the Ministry’s new logo, although the main element
that stands out is the gigantic (and totalitarian) arch – an entrance to a
number of ministries, which does not meet the requirement of its iconic role
which has been pointed out so vividly,
and is in no way associated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of an
independent country.
I
think that it was a mistaken approach form the very beginning to build such a
combined type of administrative building, which makes it impossible to have
proper spatial rearrangement opportunities, nonetheless, they have made a
progress in the second government building.
I
would not like to refer to the many incomprehensive solutions available in the
newly built administrative building, e.g. several departments of the Ministry of Education are
located on the first three floors of the Ministry of Culture, and during hot
summers and cold winter the staff of the ministries have to visit each other’s
offices by leaving the building and crossing to the next one, or e.g. the staff
of right wing of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has to walk up several stairs
to meet their colleagues form the left wing, and many other similar problems.
I
do not even intend to touch upon major issues that are available in the
masterplan, e.g. the building of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that is left
behind the scenes, which has a more secondary role, than the substation located
nearby, let alone the few spots in the parking lot. Of course, some may say
that an underground parking lot is foreseen to be built beneath Shahumyan
square, at the expense of underground archaeological site, yet it still remains
unacceptable and a question rises when and at what expenses it should be built.
I
think, summing up all the above stated, it is necessary to take measures to
return the old building (second government building) of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, and later, supposedly, view several other relocations for the everyday
functions of the government, which shall have reorganized and reduced
ministries in the future, by keeping in minds the role and historical
significance of the buildings.
I
think, especially, in case of returning the old building to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, the state can draft an interesting proposal to the owner of
the building Mr. Eurnekian, find solutions by returning the latter to new
Armenia, for the sake of its somewhat revived exterior image.
When
we speak about the symbolic importance of state buildings, many imagine only
the external solutions of those buildings, yet the inner spatial organization
and formation is of no less importance, since they are the ones that make a
clear symbolic role and influence. For instance, several years ago, the
National Assembly hall entirely changed, and the new wall decorations with
alleged historic wooden and golden elements were added to the square shaped
meeting hall furnished in the spirit of the 80s. I am sure that many people
think this is the way that brings us closer to other parliaments that have a
rich parliamentary past, yet it completely slips their minds, that those
parliaments reflect the stylistic solutions and aesthetics of the times when
they were built ang generally, given that we are I the 21st century, there is
no need to recreate a false imitation of parliaments from the 19th or early
20th centuries.
For
instance the ultra-modern and transparent halls of the German Reichstag, or
even Turkey’s parliament halls that are somehow tasteless, yet are equipped
with modern solutions, better reflect the contemporary aesthetics and worldview
of those countries, rather than our, sorry for the wording, “rabis” (pompous
working class taste) halls, which have recently made their way to government as
well.
If
I am not mistaken, quite recently, the ballroom and two small halls located on
the second floor of the government building were “restored” during Hovik
Abrahamyan’s administration. Luckily, they have preserved the government
meetings’ hall, the furnishing of which (supposedly that from the 80s) has been
kept intact, and you cannot see any excess lavished and unpleasant elements,
although there are still some issues in regards to the order of seats of the
main cabinet members and adjunct bodies.
I
think we shall still need to get back to this issue following the next
elections.
To
be fair, I must mention that I have noticed two positive exceptions from the
series of alterations in interior design of the buildings.
One
of them is the solutions in the new building of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, they have used cheaper material probably because of tight budget, yet
they refrain from any “tangled or rococo” solutions, which can be seen in many
ministries. The second exception is restoration during Prime Minister Karen
Karapetyan’s Administration, where everything seems to have been painted white.
It
is a pity, that during this period, the 3 dimensional topographic map of
Armenia that was covered with a semi-transparent curtain, located right behind
the Prime Minister’s desk, which existed during Prime Minister Tigran
Sargsyan’s administration, was destroyed or covered.
By
all means, this fake obsession with history has deep roots. It started in the
80s, through the simplest reevaluation of new national architecture, which was
gradually transferred from suburban houses of former “working class” (Tsekhaviks)
to downtown Yerevan, and to state bodies. The same can be said about Northern
Avenue, the new gigantic pink building (former territory of the Ministry of
Ecology) built on Moskovyan Street, the new building of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and the new building on 26 Baghramyan Avenue. Not having the intention
to decipher the basis of them, my only wish is to make all the efforts to
preserve the wholeness of both the interior and exterior solutions of all
existing buildings, while making all additions by using material and solutions
applied in the 21st century.
And
finally, along with the so many wishes, I think that given the new political
roles, it is necessary to rethink the solutions of government building located
on Republic Square, by adapting the latter to new working regime filled with
ceremonial challenges.
By
all means, it becomes necessary to conduct a feasibility study in the near
future to understand these ceremonial requirements and attempt to rearrange the
everyday work of the government within the capacities of the existing building.
It
is important that the new managers with new mindsets, in times of transitional
reality, should bring in new culture into the government not only through new
approaches in their work, but also into the working environment, which can
later have a huge impact on architectural perceptions in in general, thus help
Armenia get rid of “military-patriotic” or let’s say “national-liberational”
architecture.
All
these suggestions require serious studies, but there is one thing that remains
certain; judicial power should have its main symbolic place and role in our
urban image. Several other options can be discussed, e.g. Presidency building
of National Academy of Sciences (for special emphasis, not to be stoned, I want
to highlight the Presidency building only) or any other option. Yet by simply
deploying it in a random building is unacceptable and wrong. Or if we take into
consideration that by moving the present President’s Administration to the
former President’s Administration, the latter might conceive new wishes, then
turning the building on 26 Baghramyan Avenue into the residency of judicial
power, shall become one of the most important and symbolic steps in the new
Armenia.
///// Creative Common / 2009-2017 // urbanlab.am
Comments