The "attic" question has become an intense topic for debate in recent months. And declarations proposing "new housing in the historical center at an accessible price" have become much more frequent. And scandals connected with this topic have also increased.

The basis

The basis for the present "attic boom" was laid at the beginning of the "zeros", when the city authorities registered the right to state ownership for hundreds of non-residential premises (cellars and attics) at the most promising addresses. A complete list of these premises was never published. It is also problematic to receive information about which premises is above your head, and who it belongs to. In accordance with the preliminarily passed (in June 2009) decree "On the procedure and conditions for provision of information", you can receive this data if you know for sure what the premises is called. Including the number.

The district administrations swiftly signed contracts with investors. According to the method in effect at the time, the deductions to the city came to $10-15 per sq.m. The sale price of a ready attic in the "golden triangle" is from $10-20,000 per sq.m. The difference between expenses and revenue explains many things: the dubious assessments, and the strange court decisions.. The reasons for the last burst of interest in attics is understandable. The possibilities of "dense building" in the center are practically exhausted; large-scale projects for developing new territories have been frozen, and without cheap loan money, it is unlikely that they will be reanimated in the near future. Furthermore, one and a half years ago, in April 2008, the Supreme Court softened the ban on attic construction, which gave investors the chance to reanimate some of the suspended projects to re-design attics – to housing. The profitability of attic projects (especially if this is shared with residents) greatly exceeds the indicators of other indicators of housing construction.

And that’s when it all really started.

Building on top

At 12 Millionnaya street, representative of an investor removed iron gates, blocked residents in apartments and began the "active phase" of construction.

On 3 Nevsky Prospekt, residents of the building filed three lawsuits demanding to stop work that had begun.

On the corner of Blokhina and Kronversky Prospekt, an inspection made a negative finding, and the administration ordered to stop construction – the investor won the case and is continuing activity. Attics on 23 Millionnaya, 37 Moika and on the corner of Gorokhovaya and Sennaya Ploshchad have been publicly declared to be "town-planning errors". However, no one is intending to correct them so far.

News on the possible appearance of an attic in the Delvig House (Vladimirsky Prospekt) caused a storm of protests, which by their form and activity recalled the early times of perestroika. Governor Valentina Matvienko quickly dropped this idea…

Practice is the criterion of the truth

In the house on 12 Millionnaya, the investor, businessman Mikhail Mokhnachev, acquired an apartment on the top floor. Now he plans to build a hotel in the house (in one of the cellars) and rebuild the attic. As it turns out, the attic was sold to the investor in 2004. And in 2009, the organizers of the project showed a document of the assembly of the association of home-owners; the residents of the buildings claim that the document is a forgery. Mikhail Mokhnachev hired a security firm, and the residents brought in their own security; in early November, a conflict ended in a fight; representatives of the investor won because of their greater numbers. Part of the roof has been removed, and the work is continuing. Inevitable court cases lie ahead.

The house on the corner of Blokhin and Kronverksky Prospekt is a declared object of cultural heritage. The building in the style of northern modern was built by architect Karl Schimdt. Previously in the building was a small attic of the Artists’ Union; the city property committee annulled the rent agreement in court, and the attic was taken from the artists. Now these spaces and several non-residential premises in the attic are an object of reconstruction. Work is carried out by "Corporation Ruan", and the client is the Horizont firm. The owners of apartments at a general assembly objected to the project. The city property committee wrote to them stating that non-residential premises belong to the city, and that the residents had no say. Builders dismantled the attic coverings, and partially dismantled the roof. Several apartments were flooded. Taking into account the "social tension", a negative finding on the project by the Center of hygiene and epidemiology, and the non-observance of deadlines, the administration of Petersburg district prohibited work. However, builders won the case at the court of arbitration, and work was resumed.

On 3 Nevsky Prospekt, despite the protests and lawsuits, construction works are continuing. Builders began activity in 2009. They plan to build either four or three "comfortable apartments" in an area of 685.5 sq.m., raise the roof by two meters, decorate the facade with ribbon glass, and the roof with Velux windows. At the end of October, in one of the apartments the lintel in the main walls cracked. Two apartments (located one above the other) were flooded: the wind blew away the film that was covering the uncovered parts of the roof. Material damage was done, and reports were drawn up. Several lawsuits have been filed demanding for work to stop. The district administration held a meeting about the reconstruction; the majority of residents said they were against the project. It’s another story as to how agreement was received permitting reconstruction in one of the key buildings that forms the panorama of Nevsky. Residents have already lost several court cases, but are continuing the fight.

Informed citizens say that the owners of "interested" firms include close relatives of former and current officials of the city administration.

Family signs of corruption

It is not difficult to distinguish a "civilized" project from a "conflict" project. With a normal development of events, the investor gains the agreement of a general meeting or the association of residents. (Two thirds of votes must be obtained). The budget includes work on improvements, renovation to the roof and the facade, and replacing communications. According to the site mansarda-spb.ru, deductions to the association of residents may come to 6,000 to 20,000 per meter of improvements carried out. The figures will probably be different in the most prestigious blocks. Naturally, the project must be agreed at the committee for city planning and architecture and the committee for state control, and a contract is signed with the district administration.

Incidentally, the governor’s decree "On reconstruction of attics and mansards…" (signed in February 2001; revived by supreme court decree in April 2008) clearly states: "When an investment proposal is received for carrying out reconstruction of an attic or mansard in a multi-apartment house, and also owners of apartments in this building must be informed about the proposal received, and may take part in the investment process by submitting their proposals… With other equal conditions, they will be given the pre-eminent right to carry out reconstruction". It also states: "A contract with investors on the reconstruction of an attic is liable to agreement with owners of general premises, bearing structures of the house and inner-block equipment".

In "conflict" projects, residents are not informed about anything, their interests are not taken into account, which places a long-term legal mine in the very idea of reconstruction of the attic space (which in many cases is quite sensible). Lawyers surveyed by us said they did not understand how courts manage to get around the problem of "general share ownership": even if the premises belongs to the city, it is against the law to uncover the roof without the agreement of owners.

This mine may also go off after the completion of the project – then the unsuspecting buyer will have to put up with the consequences.

According to our information, several initiative groups are preparing an appeal to the prosecutor’s office – to examine at least the most odious projects. From the viewpoint of common sense, if there are not examples of corruption (it will be difficult to prove abuses), the existence of a potential scheme for bribery are visible to the naked eye.

As one of the planners said, who is well-acquainted with this issue, "any abuse has its price". We should not expect justice to prevail, but to make "architectural abuse" unprofitable is something that city residents are quite capable of.