Keyword: «apartment building»

On the one hand, Federal Law No. 73 "On Objects of Cultural Heritage" requires strict observance of restoration standards, lengthy historical and cultural examinations and coordination with the body for the protection of objects of cultural heritage. On the other hand, the Housing Code and regional overhaul programs are focused on standard, unified solutions and tight deadlines. The article analyzes the practice of: • delay in the implementation of overhaul programs; • increase in the cost of work (due to the need to involve licensed restorers in-stead of ordinary contractors); • risk of loss of the «subject of protection» during the «standard» repair.

One of the key systemic problems of the overhaul of apartment buildings that are objects of cultural heritage (MKD-OKN) is the lack of clear methods for identifying, documenting and implementing the subject of protection in the process of repair and restoration work among regional operators, design and contracting organizations. Design documentation for major repairs often does not take into account the subject of protection (stucco molding, historical door and window fills, roof structures, architectural decor), which leads to the risk of their loss or to unreasonable failures of the coordinating body. Based on the analysis of the regulatory legal framework, regional practice and scientific literature, the author identifies three groups of problems: • the gap between the descriptive nature of the subject of protection in the security obligation and the requirements for working documentation; • lack of an algorithm for classifying the elements of the subject of protection according to the degree of vulnerability during repair impacts; • uncertainty of author and technical supervision procedures in relation to overhaul (as opposed to restoration). The article proposes a three-level methodology for the formation and implementation of the subject of protection (identification – classification – instrumentalization), which allows minimizing the risks of damage to historical elements during work, ensuring their documentary recording at all stages and creating a legal basis for quality control. It is necessary to include in the working documentation a special section «Methods of work with elements of the subject of protection» and the introduction of a mandatory stage of control (trial) disassembly.

The article examines the historical and theoretical prerequisites for comparing housing and utilities management models in Russia and China. It argues that Russian housing and utilities management and Chinese property management (物业管理) are not complete institutional equivalents. The Russian model developed around an apartment building, common property, management contract and public supervision, while the Chinese model developed around a property management area, local community and administrative coordination. The article concludes that the two systems should be compared functionally.

The article presents a comparative analysis of modern housing and utilities management models in Russia and China. It shows that the Russian model is built around an apartment building, management contract, owners’ rights and state housing supervision, while the Chinese model is focused on a property management area, local community and administrative coordination. The article substantiates the need for functional comparison of the two systems.