Some Topical Aspects of Improvement of Architectural Environment in Russia: Problems of Providing Legal Support

The scientific novelty of the problem of protection of architectural heritage in the Russian Federation is that many of its aspects are of not only theoretical, but also practical significance. The preservation of historical memory is becoming increasingly popular in our country, where, till recently, utilitarianism and pursuit for endless renewal have prevailed. It has been realized that every object of national cultural and historical heritage, regardless of the aesthetic effect and form of ownership, belongs to all the people of present and future generations. Every individual has the right to cultural property. A comparative method in cultural and protection activity is extremely relevant, since different countries have different stereotypes of assessment of tengible heritage. The authors have determined the regularities of different evaluations of similar phenomena, in connection with which carriers are assigned to two types of cultures. A methodological basis of the study includes the following theoretical provisions: «self-sufficient» communities are communities that thoroughly examine and fit each artifact into the mosaic of the existence of the community; «less self-sufficient» communities recognize their legacy as flawed, i.e. «ugly» physically and spiritually disabled, which «helps» part with them easily. On the example of the city of Krasnoyarsk the authors provide for the analysis of facts allowing to consider the second opinion «inspired» and subject to correction. This case as a phenomenon of the legal field manifests itself as a conflict of private and public interests, which requires its resolution. In order to find the most effective model of organization of the state apparatus and formation of legislation in the field of culture, it is necessary to use the method of state legal modeling. The conclusions of the authors are accompanied by recommendations, assessments, and proposals of practical importance.

1. Barkova O. I. Evropeyskiy urbanizm epokhi moderna, russkiy urbanizm epokhi ampir. Kulturologicheskie osobennosti [European urbanism of the modern era, Russian urbanism of the empire era. Cultural peculiarities]. Mezhdunarodnyy nauchno-issledovatelskiy zhurnal [International Scientific Research Journal]. 2017, No. 3 (57), pp. 91—92. (In Russ.)

2. Vlasov V. A., Troyanov N. I. Nekotorye problemy i probely federalnogo zakona ot 22.07.2008 № 159-fz «ob osobennostyakh otchuzhdeniya nedvizhimogo imushchestva, nakhodyashchegosya v gosudarstvennoy sobstvennosti subektov Rossiyskoy Federatsii ili v munitsipalnoy sobstvennosti i arenduemogo subektami malogo i srednego predprinimatelstva, i o vnesenii izmeneniy v otdelnye zakonodatelnye akty Rossiyskoy Federatsii» [Some problems and gaps of the Federal Law of 22.07.2008 No. 159-FZ «On peculiarities of alienation of immovable property that is in state ownership of constituent entities of the Russian Federation or in municipal property and leased by entities of small and medium business, and on amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation»]. Agrarnoe i zemelnoe pravo [Agrarian and Land Law]. 2011. No. 9 (81). pp. 20—30. (In Russ.)

3. Fradkin K. B. Problemy osparivaniya prav na obekty kulturnogo naslediya [Problems of contesting rights to objects of cultural heritage]. Zakon [The Law]. 2014. No. 2. pp. 136—144. (In Russ.)