The reconstruction of the Bolshoy Theatre is not so much a single completed design as a continual process in which completed designs continually replace one another. Mikhail Khazanov and Mikhail Belov had won the tender for reconstruction of the theatre in 1999. Since then much has changed - including the theatre management, the Russian government and the President, and the urban-development concept for the centre of Moscow. These changes have been reflected in alterations of the plans for the theatre's reconstruction.

The Bolshoy is a national symbol, which means both that it is affected by all chops and changes of the country governance and that the public is extremely sensitive to any alterations therein. For the last three years society has been unable to decide what exactly ought to be considered a national treasure - the theatre building, which is in a Russian federal list of cultural monuments, or the theatre organism itself - the opera and ballet troupes and the 300 performances a year that are staged here. Both points of view have artistic, public, and legal backing and at present neither is able to establish its superiority over the other. In accordance with the first of these two concepts, the theatre must be completely restored, all plumbing and wiring replaced, all lost reception rooms recreated, and all Soviet additions to the building dismantled. This will result in the theatre becoming what would almost be a museum of 19th-century theatre art. From the second point of view, if the theatre troupe is to function normally and if the Bolshoy is to stage perfomances that meet modern standards the stage will have to be completely reconstructed, scenery storage space developed, underground parking built, etc. The theatre's development as a creative organism depends on these changes, but as an architectural monument the theatre building will suffer. Thanks to this ongoing debate, the architects are still unable to get their hands on a clear design task. The tender was originally won on the basis of a brief envisaging a reconstruction of the theatre. Subsequently, the Ministry of Culture and the theatre's management switched to support of a restoration. Currently, the entire project concept is examined.

It may sound paradoxical, but whatever decision is finally taken regarding the strategy to be adopted for restoration, it will have little impact on the architectural concept already developed. The architects' main idea is to change the theatre's position in the city - by turning the square in front of the building into a centre for intense urban life (the theatre will turn its face towards the city, becoming a kind of scenic backdrop for large-scale public events). This is the part of the concept that the two authors are agreed on (the architects' clients, however, are not so sure). With regard to every other aspect of the upcoming restoration, though, they have sharply differing opinions. Mikhail Belov is in favour of building 'eternal' architecture that will constitute a worthy addition to this national monument. Mikhail Khazanov prefers a light high-tech structure made of glass, so as to avoid all conflict with the magnificence of the existing old building. In spite of such difficulties with the architectural design task and differences in the two architects' concepts, a resolution of the Russian Government stipulates that the reconstruction of the Bolshoy must be completed within the next two years.

Grigory Revzin