{"title":"1910 - 1911年利瓦迪亚地产重建期间的附属建筑建设管理问题","authors":"Andrey A. Yefimov","doi":"10.28995/2073-0101-2023-3-823-834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article studies the history of creation and development of one of the Crimean residences of the Romanov dynasty, the Livadia estate. Drawing on materials of the Russian State Historical Archive, the author reveals aspects of interaction and relationships between the employees of the Livadia-Massandra appanage administration and officials of the Main Administration of Appanages of the Ministry of the Imperial Court and Appanages during construction and reconstruction of outbuildings in Livadia in 1910–11. This work was purposefully entrusted to the staff architect of appanage administration G. P. Gushchin, who was granted indulgence in his official duties in order to complete the construction in time and give his account. The author points out that, despite these measures, the first difficulties arose at the stage of preparing design specifications and estimates. The article focuses on the visits of the Main Administration of Appanages officials sent from St. Petersburg in order to get acquainted with the actual state of affairs. The article notes that the head of the architectural department A. A. Stepanov always took part in these inspection trips. Each visit revealed some shortcomings in the organization of construction by G. P. Gushchin. The first two visits showed up insufficient number of assistants in the architect’s staff and delay in construction or reconstruction of individual buildings. The third inspection, which took place two months before the deadline submission of works, identified miscalculations in design specifications, requiring allocation of additional funds. The author notes that the deadlines were indeed violated, and there was a lag in preparation and submission of reporting documentation. The article points out that the Main Administration of Appanages not only had to give instructions on the procedure, but to issue repeated orders to send the necessary documents. The last of the identified letters denied G. P. Gushchin his final payment for the works due to his failure to submit a complete account. The study of the features of the outbuildings construction administration in Livadia in 1910–11 shows that preparation of design specifications, supervision of and accounting for the works proved almost a greater problem than the actual construction.","PeriodicalId":41551,"journal":{"name":"Herald of an Archivist","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Issues of the Outbuildings Construction Administration during the Livadia Estate Reconstruction in 1910–11\",\"authors\":\"Andrey A. Yefimov\",\"doi\":\"10.28995/2073-0101-2023-3-823-834\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article studies the history of creation and development of one of the Crimean residences of the Romanov dynasty, the Livadia estate. Drawing on materials of the Russian State Historical Archive, the author reveals aspects of interaction and relationships between the employees of the Livadia-Massandra appanage administration and officials of the Main Administration of Appanages of the Ministry of the Imperial Court and Appanages during construction and reconstruction of outbuildings in Livadia in 1910–11. This work was purposefully entrusted to the staff architect of appanage administration G. P. Gushchin, who was granted indulgence in his official duties in order to complete the construction in time and give his account. The author points out that, despite these measures, the first difficulties arose at the stage of preparing design specifications and estimates. The article focuses on the visits of the Main Administration of Appanages officials sent from St. Petersburg in order to get acquainted with the actual state of affairs. The article notes that the head of the architectural department A. A. Stepanov always took part in these inspection trips. Each visit revealed some shortcomings in the organization of construction by G. P. Gushchin. The first two visits showed up insufficient number of assistants in the architect’s staff and delay in construction or reconstruction of individual buildings. The third inspection, which took place two months before the deadline submission of works, identified miscalculations in design specifications, requiring allocation of additional funds. The author notes that the deadlines were indeed violated, and there was a lag in preparation and submission of reporting documentation. The article points out that the Main Administration of Appanages not only had to give instructions on the procedure, but to issue repeated orders to send the necessary documents. The last of the identified letters denied G. P. Gushchin his final payment for the works due to his failure to submit a complete account. The study of the features of the outbuildings construction administration in Livadia in 1910–11 shows that preparation of design specifications, supervision of and accounting for the works proved almost a greater problem than the actual construction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41551,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Herald of an Archivist\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Herald of an Archivist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-0101-2023-3-823-834\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Herald of an Archivist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-0101-2023-3-823-834","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文研究的历史创造和发展的一个克里米亚住宅的罗曼诺夫王朝,利瓦迪亚庄园。根据俄罗斯国家历史档案馆的资料,作者揭示了1910年至1911年在利瓦迪亚建造和重建附属建筑期间,利瓦迪亚-马桑德拉属地管理部门的雇员与帝国法院属地主要管理部门的官员之间的互动和关系。这项工作有目的地委托给了属地管理的建筑师g.p. Gushchin,他被允许在他的公务中放纵,以便及时完成建设并给出他的说明。作者指出,尽管采取了这些措施,但最初的困难出现在编制设计规范和概算的阶段。本文重点介绍了从圣彼得堡派来的属地管理局官员的访问,以了解实际情况。文章指出,建筑部门负责人a·a·斯捷潘诺夫(A. A. Stepanov)总是参加这些考察之旅。每次访问都暴露出g.p.古什钦在组织施工方面的一些缺点。前两次访问显示,建筑师的助手人数不足,个别建筑物的建造或重建延迟。第三次检查是在工程提交截止日期前两个月进行的,发现设计规范存在错误,需要拨出额外的资金。发件人指出,确实违反了最后期限,在编写和提交报告文件方面存在滞后。文章指出,属地主管理部门不仅要对程序作出指示,而且要反复发出命令,以发送必要的文件。最后一封被确认的信拒绝了g.p. Gushchin的最后一笔付款,因为他没有提交一份完整的账目。对1910 - 1911年利瓦迪亚附属建筑施工管理特点的研究表明,设计规范的编制、工程的监督和核算几乎比实际施工更大。
Issues of the Outbuildings Construction Administration during the Livadia Estate Reconstruction in 1910–11
The article studies the history of creation and development of one of the Crimean residences of the Romanov dynasty, the Livadia estate. Drawing on materials of the Russian State Historical Archive, the author reveals aspects of interaction and relationships between the employees of the Livadia-Massandra appanage administration and officials of the Main Administration of Appanages of the Ministry of the Imperial Court and Appanages during construction and reconstruction of outbuildings in Livadia in 1910–11. This work was purposefully entrusted to the staff architect of appanage administration G. P. Gushchin, who was granted indulgence in his official duties in order to complete the construction in time and give his account. The author points out that, despite these measures, the first difficulties arose at the stage of preparing design specifications and estimates. The article focuses on the visits of the Main Administration of Appanages officials sent from St. Petersburg in order to get acquainted with the actual state of affairs. The article notes that the head of the architectural department A. A. Stepanov always took part in these inspection trips. Each visit revealed some shortcomings in the organization of construction by G. P. Gushchin. The first two visits showed up insufficient number of assistants in the architect’s staff and delay in construction or reconstruction of individual buildings. The third inspection, which took place two months before the deadline submission of works, identified miscalculations in design specifications, requiring allocation of additional funds. The author notes that the deadlines were indeed violated, and there was a lag in preparation and submission of reporting documentation. The article points out that the Main Administration of Appanages not only had to give instructions on the procedure, but to issue repeated orders to send the necessary documents. The last of the identified letters denied G. P. Gushchin his final payment for the works due to his failure to submit a complete account. The study of the features of the outbuildings construction administration in Livadia in 1910–11 shows that preparation of design specifications, supervision of and accounting for the works proved almost a greater problem than the actual construction.