style="font-size:15px;"> The principle of vitality was the other important aspect taken into account. It means that new sites should be protected in places where the building has a future and where it is needed. The protection only helps to retain the main characteristics of buildings during the possible renovation. Authenticity of a building was the third principle kept in mind during the mapping. This was important even in the case when a site did not represent the best architecture of its time but had retained most of the characteristic details.
Sindi hydroelectric power station established in 1930 is a good example of an authentic industrial facility that has been preserved since the first independence period. Within the framework of the project an expert report was drawn up on the building. Photo by Leele Välja
The Art Nouveau-Neo Classical officers’ casino built near the Rohuküla military port is an exciting find in terms of architectural history. Its original design is deposited in the Estonian Historical Archives. Photo by Tõnis Padu
Massiaru school in Pärnu County designed by architect Märt Merivälja has been preserved surprisingly well. This is one of the best Modern Movement rural schoolhouses in Estonia. However, the fate of the building that deserves the status of a national cultural monument is far from clear. Photo by Sandra Mälk
Some types of buildings are not represented at all in the national list of cultural monuments. For example, buildings that once belonged to the Russian czars’ forest districts (the earliest forest district of the Russian Empire was established on Saaremaa island in Estonia). This excellently restored forest district building at Lähkma village in Pärnu County is one of the most beautiful representatives of its kind. Photo by Leele Välja
Valga railway station is the most impressive example of Stalinist railway architecture certainly deserving to be listed as a national cultural monument. Photo by Mart Kalm
The centre of a collective farm at Tsooru village in Võru County designed by architect Toomas Rein is an expressive monument for the decline of rural life – a building that was once a masterpiece has become a sad spooky castle. Photo by Leele Välja
On the basis of the above-mentioned criteria proposals were made either to list buildings nationally as cultural heritage or to establish a milieu area around them. The buildings that were under obvious threat or clearly non-viable were listed to be documented. One of the most frequent choices was listing buildings as valuable structures (i.e. not as monuments). Such a “secondary” list of valuable buildings could increase the awareness of local governments and be used for planning tourist tracks and destinations. When travelling around Estonia today and reading roadside signposts, as well as looking at the registry of cultural monuments one is left with the impression that the local heritage consists only of churches, manors and boulders. Homepages of some smaller municipalities do not even include links to places of interest as no manors or churches are located there. However, there may still be a well preserved village centre or schoolhouse from the beginning of the 20th century or a centre of a collective farm that should be pointed out for tourists.
Laitse radio transmission station in Harjumaa, with its old school limestone masonry and modernist approach seconded by details in canonical Satlinist style sets an imposing example of the continuation of the use of limestone in the Stalinist era. Photos by Martin Siplane
’Brother’s House’ by Veljo Kaasik in Merivälja, Tallinn represents the pinnacle of the Estonian detached home design of the 1970s
During the period from 2010 to 2012 the second stage of the project was carried out. It was financed by the Smart Decisions Fund of the State Chancellery (European Social Fund) and carried out by the Department of Cultural Heritage and Conservation of the Estonian Academy of Arts. In addition to the experts of the Academy of Arts specialists from the National Heritage Board, the Tallinn Culture and Heritage Department, the Estonian Open Air Museum and the Union of Estonian Architects were invited to participate in the committee. The main task of the committee was to analyse the sites (all together more than 2,000) highlighted as a result of the fieldwork in counties and to separate the ones which were considered the most valuable or needed more research. In this stage sites were not studied at the county level as in the first stage, but from the typological point of view. By that an overview of each type of buildings was formed and using comparative analysis the best and most vital examples of their kind were picked out for expertise in order to consider whether they met the criteria set for cultural heritage. However, it turned out that different types of buildings were so unevenly represented that making choices on the basis of them could certainly not guarantee a representative overview of our cultural heritage. In these cases the necessity of thematic studies was pointed out. Four thematic studies were completed within the framework of the project (houses of prayer, community centres, rural schoolhouses from 1920 to 1940 and railway architecture). In this stage a lot of valuable sites were included in the list thanks to the experts who happened to know counties or subjects well. The fieldwork in counties resulted with approx. 1,000 possible monuments. By the end of the work in the expert committee approx. 500 sites were kept on the list. Some of them had been added by experts or taken from thematic studies.
The initial aims of the project also included the expertise and documentation of 400 sites. 130 expert reports to a total of 201 sites and 36 files concerning 157 sites were compiled and 4 thematic studies were carried out resulting with the documentation of 6461 sites.
Taking into account how long the project lasted it is not surprising that several sites that were considered valuable during the fieldwork in counties had been demolished or spoilt by rebuilding by the end of the project. However, a large number of expert reports were drawn up on sites that are still highly valuable and one day they will help to update the national list of cultural heritage.
The work of the expert committee resulted in a comprehensive overview of the 20th-century architectural heritage. Although it was not foreseen in the project a conceptual and substantial programme to introduce its results was prepared: in summer 2013 an exhibition supported by a relevant catalogue was held at the Museum of Estonian Architecture and in June 2013 a conference for heritage and conservation experts was held at the Department of Cultural Heritage and Conservation of the Estonian Academy of Arts.
Another important result of the project is that the general public was widely informed about the 20th-century architectural heritage. Although there is a lack of methods to preserve architectural monuments and to update their technical conditions in the manner that makes them meet the modern requirements, it is clear that the first and the most effective method to protect any heritage is to increase the awareness of its owners, as well as the public in general. First improvements are already noticeable in the way local municipalities are drawing up comprehensive plans or in connection with CO2 programme managed by the State Real Estate Company. The general public is now much better informed about the value of the 20th-century architectural heritage. Unfortunately, this alone is not enough if there is no construction technology that offers optimal compromises between heritage protection and modern construction requirements. This project did not resolve all the problems related to the preservation of the best part of the 20th century architectural heritage, but a huge step forward in appreciating and protecting this kind of heritage has been made. Besides, a huge number of problems were identified which need to be
This number is somewhat conditional as in the thematic study of railway stations one site means one railway station. However, the number of buildings in each station ensemble is different.
