The North Entrance Arch at VDNKh: how the Main Entrance became the North Entrance and what was restored

The Northern Entrance Arch at VDNKh was the main entrance to the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition when it opened on 1 August 1939. Following the reconstruction completed by 1954, it acquired its present name: the ceremonial entrance was moved to Prospekt Mira. This change is recorded in the exhibition’s 1954 master plan.

In 2016–2017, the 1939 structure was restored, and some lost details were recreated using archival materials. The words ‘preserved in its original form’ refer primarily to the arch’s historic composition. They do not mean that every relief, door and section of the finish has survived without replacement.

Why was the entrance on what is now the northern side the main entrance in 1939?

Leonid Polyakov’s arch marked the start of the route through the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition in 1939. Visitors arrived along Yaroslavskoye Shosse, passed through the entrance on the side of what is now Sergei Eisenstein Street, then reached Administration Square and followed the avenue towards the pavilions. Under the original master plan, this was where a visit to the exhibition began. On today’s map, the arch stands at the edge of the complex.

The approach from Rostokino

The historical and cultural assessment explains the layout in terms of the site’s constraints. The exhibition was built approximately three hundred metres from Yaroslavskoye Shosse. A direct route from the main road would have required the demolition of rural houses, vegetable gardens, warehouses and small businesses. The main approach was therefore routed through Rostokino, at a pronounced angle to the exhibition’s axis. The arch marked the transition from the approach road to the exhibition’s ceremonial squares.

Before the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition opened, the marshy part of the site was drained, roads, utility networks and lighting were installed, and the cascade of ponds was reconstructed. Bus and trolleybus routes were introduced to serve the exhibition, while a broad road led from Yaroslavskoye Shosse to the arch. The structure completed an extensive programme of access works, rather than standing as an isolated decorative feature in front of the pavilions.

The metro station near the exhibition was planned later, during the post-war reconstruction, according to the historical and cultural assessment. The position of the 1939 arch therefore cannot be explained by today’s approach from VDNKh metro station: the original road was part of a different transport layout.

The historical and cultural assessment published on the Moscow Government website, describes the sequence of spaces at the early All-Union Agricultural Exhibition: the Yaroslavsky approach, the main entrance, Administration Square, the main avenue, Collective Farms Square and Mechanisation Square. Polyakov’s structure stood at the beginning of this sequence. The direction of the avenue and the placement of the pavilions explain its former status better than the word ‘main’ alone in old captions.

Preparations for the exhibition began in the mid-1930s, and its opening was postponed until 1 August 1939. The master plan was based on a design by Vyacheslav Oltarzhevsky; many designers and artists worked on completing the ensemble. For the surviving arch itself, official documents name the architect Leonid Polyakov and the sculptor Georgy Motovilov. The creators of the entire ensemble should not be confused with the designers of this particular structure.

Beyond the gates, the 1939 route passed through several spaces serving different purposes. The historical and cultural assessment names Collective Farms Square, with the pavilions of the Soviet republics, Mechanisation Square, with pavilions devoted to different industries, and Pond Square. The Northern and Southern Roads were laid out parallel to the main avenue for traffic within the exhibition. Polyakov’s entrance opened onto a complex exhibition city organised by region and industry.

The Main Pavilion of the original ensemble faced Collective Farms Square but, according to the same report, did not close off the main avenue. The vista continued through the open structure of the Mechanisation Pavilion. This sequence helps explain why the old entrance need not align with the axis of today’s Central Pavilion. The 1939 plan used alternating squares and open views, rather than a single frontal composition stretching from the gates to the spire.

Vera Mukhina’s sculpture ‘Worker and Kolkhoz Woman’ was also an important landmark on the approach. The historical and cultural heritage assessment clarifies that, after the 1937 Paris Exhibition, the sculpture was placed on a low pedestal two hundred metres from the turn-off from Yaroslavskoye Shosse. A pre-war photograph showing this work beside the ceremonial gates therefore does not indicate that it was installed on top of Polyakov’s structure. A different sculptural group stands on the 1954 arch: ‘Tractor Driver and Kolkhoz Woman’.

This group, featuring a sheaf of grain, previously stood on the tower of the 1939 Main Pavilion. The assessment reports give differing accounts of its subsequent fate. The 2018 report states that it is installed on the propylaea by Prospekt Mira. The 2023 report describes the 1954 figures as a reworking of the pre-war sculpture and lists five sculptors of the new group: S. Orlov, A. Antropov, N. Shtamm, S. Rabinovich and I. Slonim. These documents confirm continuity in the imagery, but do not allow the present group to be regarded unequivocally as the same physical work. The Northern Arch did not serve as its pedestal.

How is Polyakov’s arch designed, and which details deserve a closer look?

The Northern Entrance has three openings. The central passage is formed by two tall arches placed one behind the other; this spatial depth distinguishes the structure from a flat portal. The side passages maintain the three-part rhythm, while the massive piers provide space for sculptural decoration. This composition of Polyakov’s 1939 structure is documented in the expert report.

The catalogue of the Association of Moscow Sculptors gives the arch’s height as 21.5 metres and its material as ‘concrete’. The 2023 expert assessment report rounds the height to 22 metres. These are two ways of expressing a similar measurement, rather than evidence of rebuilding: both sources describe Polyakov’s 1939 structure. To understand its form, the arrangement of the central passage is more important: two arches placed one behind the other.

Dimensions and arrangement of the openings

The assessment report for the new Main Entrance describes the predecessor of today’s Northern Arch: the original piers designed by Vyacheslav Oltarzhevsky reached 12 metres, whereas Leonid Polyakov’s structure, built by 1939, rose to approximately 22 metres and had three openings. The early design was therefore revised before the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition opened; the earlier structure differed from the one that survives. This chronology matters when comparing construction photographs with images of the completed 1939 ensemble.

In May 1938, according to the expert assessment, Ginzburg, chairman of the commission responsible for the exhibition’s architectural and artistic design, reported that the earlier entrance needed to be changed: it did not fulfil the role of ceremonial gates for the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition. Polyakov proposed a taller, three-part arch; he formed the central opening from two arches placed one behind the other, with large-scale foliage ornamentation. This provides a documented reason for the change in scale, while the depth of the present passage is explained by the design itself.

The impression of lightness comes from the combination of tall openings and the space between the supports. The portal does not block the vista with a solid wall: it draws the eye into the exhibition even before visitors enter. The assessment report links this impression to the two vaults placed one behind the other and the open silhouette.

The decoration recalls the original theme of the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition without the need for an explanatory sign. The assessment report describes large-scale moulded foliage ornamentation on the central arches. VDNH specifies the design inside the domes: garlands of fruit, ears of grain, bunches of grapes with leaves, and ribbons. At the agricultural exhibition, this motif echoed the contents of the pavilions; visitors saw it before reaching the displays. This description cannot establish how much of the present moulded decoration survives from 1939: later restoration documents detail the work carried out.

The reliefs on the piers require a more cautious assessment. Georgy Motovilov contributed to the entrance’s decoration. However, the department’s material on the restoration explicitly states that the bas-reliefs on the front façade were recreated; the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage’s public report for 2017 clarifies that those on the central piers were recreated using archival materials. It would be inaccurate to describe all the reliefs visible today as untouched moulded decoration from 1939.

Lost interior reliefs

The catalogue of Georgy Motovilov’s works states that the bas-reliefs on the arch’s inner wall were dismantled in the 1980s. This is a separate episode of loss within the structure. The Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage’s public report for 2017 mentions the recreation of bas-reliefs on the central pylons, while the June edition of the newspaper Zvezdny Bulvar quotes the VDNKh press office on the partial reinstatement of high reliefs. These accounts contain no itemised list of the interior panels; it is therefore impossible to claim that they were all returned to their original positions.

The dismantling date given in the catalogue applies only to the elements it names. It does not prove that all the façade decoration disappeared at the same time. The Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage’s report for 2017 separately mentions the recreation of the bas-reliefs on the central pylons using archival material. These brief accounts describe different parts of the same structure; without an itemised restoration schedule, they cannot be combined into a single inventory of losses.

Sources identify Georgy Motovilov as the sculptor responsible for Polyakov’s entrance. When viewing the reliefs on the central pylons, it is worth distinguishing their role in the 1939 design from the material produced by restorers in 2016–2017. The public report confirms the later work, but does not explain how the sculptor himself interpreted each subject. No specific interpretation of these reliefs can be attributed to him without an archival document.

It is useful here to distinguish the original design, surviving material and later additions. The first establishes the position and meaning of the reliefs; the surviving sections reveal the craftsmanship of their time, while new work replaces what was lost. The overall appearance allows us to appreciate Polyakov and Motovilov’s design, but the degree of authenticity of any individual element cannot be established without restoration records or an examination by a specialist.

Why did the old Main Entrance become the North Entrance?

After the war, the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition was rebuilt and reopened in 1954. The complex expanded, its layout changed the main approach to the pavilions, and new ceremonial gates appeared on the southern side. The 1939 gateway remained in place and acquired a geographical name: the VDNKh North Entrance. The renaming reflected a change in the structure’s role within the exhibition, rather than the relocation of the arch itself.

Zhukov and Kliks’s plan

By the historical and cultural assessment of the VDNKh ensemble, Anatoly Zhukov and Rudolf Kliks drew up the master plan for the post-war exhibition. They linked the expanded grounds to a new Main Entrance on the Yaroslavskoye Highway side. The structure was designed by Innokenty Melchakov. The designers of the master plan and the arch addressed different tasks.

The expert assessment report on the new Main Entrance dates the decision to move the ceremonial entrance to the central axis to a meeting of the Main Committee of the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition on 12 July 1949. Work on the post-war master plan followed the 1948 resolution to reconstruct the exhibition. This date places the change in the role of Polyakov’s arch among the design decisions of 1949, rather than the restoration work of the 21st century. The earlier structure was retained, while the ceremonial gates were placed on the axis of the rebuilt ensemble.

The ‘VDNKh Park’ city walking route links the relocation of the main entrance specifically to the changes in layout made by 1954. Its description states that the exhibition grounds had reached 207 hectares by the reopening; many buildings were rebuilt and fountains were added. Visitors now passed through the ceremonial arch, saw the Central Pavilion and continued along the ensemble’s axis.

Innokenty Melchakov designed the new Main Entrance. He created an arch with five openings and connected it to side wings and curved buildings. The sculpture ‘Tractor Driver and Collective Farm Woman’, with a sheaf of grain, was placed on top of the new entrance. Polyakov’s old arch has three openings and a different composition. The history of VDNKh’s main entrance encompasses two separate structures, although both used the architectural language of a ceremonial entrance and reliefs depicting themes of labour.

A new ceremonial axis

Innokenty Melchakov’s arch design won an invited competition for the new Main Entrance, according to the 2023 assessment report. The architect calculated the height of the gates so that the entire Central Pavilion would be visible through the central opening when approaching the exhibition. Curved boundary walls with ticket windows adjoined the propylaea on the left and right; the report records seven semicircular niches on each side. The ceremonial gateway marked the beginning of a longitudinal composition that visitors could see even before passing beneath the vaults.

The earlier arch led first to Administrative Square, then to Collective Farms Square and further into the exhibition grounds. In 1954, visitors were offered a different sequence: a new broad entrance, the Central Pavilion in the distance, fountains and an expanded ensemble. This change of direction explains the renaming of the old gateway. The name ‘North’ indicated the structure’s position within the 1954 ensemble, rather than its construction date or state of preservation.

One name links the two arches. The expert assessment report states that Georgy Motovilov created the decoration of the central arch for both the new Main Entrance and Polyakov’s entrance. Sharing a sculptor, however, does not make the structures parts of a single project: they were built in different years to designs by different architects. Comparing the decoration reveals how agricultural themes became part of the architecture of both complexes.

It is particularly important not to confuse the restoration of the two structures. A report by the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage describes the 1939 North Entrance and the 1954 Main Entrance separately: the bas-reliefs on the central pylons of the old entrance were recreated, while the covering and the sculptural group on top of the new entrance were restored. The fact that the documents give the same year for the restoration work does not make them a single heritage site.

The exhibition’s current name came later than the arch itself: in 1939, it led into the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition, while the unified Exhibition of Achievements of the National Economy of the USSR was established in 1959. The phrase ‘1939 VDNKh main entrance’ is therefore useful for searches, but it is more historically accurate to refer to the 1939 Main Entrance of the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition, which is now the VDNKh North Entrance.

What exactly survives of the 1939 entrance?

The arch survives as an architectural composition and a reminder of the original main approach to the exhibition. It is a rare surviving element of the 1939 ensemble, which underwent changes during the reconstruction of the 1950s and later. The entrance complex, however, has not survived in its entirety: the assessment report states that the ticket office buildings beside the arch were dismantled in the 1970s. This loss must be taken into account when comparing old photographs with the present-day view.

Heritage status and the limits of preservation

In the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage’s public report identifies the North Entrance as a cultural heritage site at 119 Prospekt Mira, Building 285. It also separately records the completion of work on the 1954 complex: the two structures have different construction dates, designers and addresses. These details help avoid attributing reports about the sculpture on the new arch to Polyakov’s gateway.

The North Entrance’s protected status applies to the historic structure, while the restoration records document the interventions carried out. The public report states that bas-reliefs on the central pylons were recreated using archival material. The Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage’s magazine also mentions work on the façades, staircases and door assemblies. Statements about the arch’s preservation therefore cannot be read as claims that all its details have remained unchanged.

To answer a question about a particular relief, it is necessary to compare an image taken before the work, the element’s condition when surveyed and the restoration records. The brief official report describes the outcome, but does not map every original and new fragment. This limitation matters: the source confirms that some decoration was recreated, but does not allow the proportion of 1939 material to be expressed as a percentage or an individual relief to be described as entirely authentic.

A 2017 issue of Moscow Heritage, the magazine of the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage, describes the arch as a structure that has survived ‘in its original form’ since the exhibition opened. The same article on page 56 lists the restored and recreated parts. Comparing these two statements clarifies the wording: it refers to the preservation of the principal historic appearance, even though the condition and composition of individual details have changed.

This difference is also apparent when comparing photographs from different years. A 1939 photograph reveals the entrance’s former surroundings and the position of Mukhina’s sculpture. A photograph taken after 2017 shows the restored structure within a different ensemble. Even if the silhouette is the same, the neighbouring ticket office buildings from 1939 are gone, and some of the façade decoration has been recreated.

There is also a cinematic record of the exhibition’s first year. ‘Mosfilm’ dates Tatyana Lukashevich’s film ‘The Foundling’ to 1939; the published film still shows both the former Main Entrance and Mukhina’s sculpture. It helps confirm that they stood together before the redevelopment of the 1950s, but it cannot replace a measured drawing: the director chooses the angle and constructs the space through editing. A precise history of individual reliefs also requires archival photographs and restoration records.

Sorting visual sources by date is particularly useful at the North Entrance. Pre-war photographs show the arch alongside the ticket-office buildings that were later dismantled. The film still from 1939 allows the structure to be compared with the sculpture on the approach. Photographs taken after restoration show the historic composition in its later surroundings, with newly made details. No single type of image can answer every question about the authenticity of the physical fabric.

This is why old images should be compared using several features: the number and shape of the openings, the ornamental pattern, the positions of the reliefs and the neighbouring buildings. Similarity in the overall composition indicates continuity of appearance; a match in an individual fragment does not prove that its physical fabric is original. Such a conclusion requires information about its condition and the work carried out, rather than just two photographs.

What work was carried out in 2016–2017?

Restoration of the North Entrance began in September 2016, and the arch reopened after the work in June 2017. The start date and the list of works are given in the journal ‘Moscow Heritage’; the reopening is reported in the June issue of the newspaper ‘Zvyozdny Bulvar’ citing the VDNKh press office. Specialists worked on the façade decoration, waterproofing of the walls and plinth, doors, staircases and passageway surfaces. The list shows that the task went beyond cleaning the façade.

The documents distinguish three events: the start of restoration in September 2016, the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage’s report on the work carried out in 2017, and the opening of the arch to visitors in June of that year. The department’s journal lists specific interventions, while the contemporary district newspaper records the moment the entrance returned to use as part of a route through the city. These are different accounts of the same process; a brief reopening announcement does not establish when each individual operation was completed.

The Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage in ‘Moscow Heritage’ also reports waterproofing of the walls and granite plinth. This protection against water is invisible in photographs, but it extends the life of the masonry. A photograph cannot reveal the condition of concealed layers; it is the department’s list of works that describes their installation.

The moulded decoration on the façades was restored, and the bas-reliefs on the front were recreated: the first involved existing elements and their condition, while the second concerned details that no longer survived in the required form when work began. The Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage’s public report states that archival materials were used for the reliefs on the central pylons. However, the brief published accounts do not provide a detailed map identifying every surviving and newly made fragment.

The Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage’s public report specifies that the bas-reliefs on the central pylons were recreated using archival materials. The brief account does not identify the particular photographs or drawings used to restore each design, nor does it give the percentage replaced. The published report therefore confirms the archival basis of the work, but cannot establish how much of the moulded decoration survives or identify the newly made fragments within an individual relief.

The restorers recreated the timber doors and frames and repaired the metal staircases and railings, roof covering, parapets, cornices and downpipes. The list in the department’s journal shows that the arch comprises more than grand openings and ornament. The structure has service rooms and functional elements, although visitors usually notice only the façade.

The work included floor coverings, paving slabs and paving, as well as stairwells and service rooms. Restoring the ground surfaces matters to the experience of the entrance: the arch was designed for people to move through it, and the condition of its passageways is part of its architectural function. However, a report on the surfacing does not justify concluding that the present arrangement of every stone exactly reproduces that of 1939.

The June 2017 newspaper records the reopening of the North Entrance, while the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage’s journal lists the restoration operations and dates. The department’s public report identifies the archival basis for recreating the reliefs on the central pylons. Reading these sources together makes it possible to distinguish between preserving the structure, protecting the walls against water and reinstating some of the artistic decoration.

Can the present arch be called an exact copy of the pre-war one?

No: the North Entrance is the historic arch of 1939, which survived the redevelopment of the architectural ensemble and has undergone restoration. Calling it a complete copy is therefore incorrect. At the same time, its appearance today includes restored and recreated details, and the original entrance complex extended beyond the surviving structure. The word ‘original’ is appropriate for the monument as a historic object, but too broad to describe every part of it.

The phrase ‘restored its 1939 appearance’ refers to the outcome of the work, rather than the literal reinstatement of all the physical fabric. The published documents list waterproofing, roof covering, timber doors and frames, and bas-reliefs. Some interventions protect the structure, others restore its function, and others reinstate the artistic design. Distinguishing these tasks makes the monument’s value easier to appreciate: the old architectural framework lives on alongside the documented work of the 21st century.

The question ‘what exactly here dates from 1939?’ should be asked about a specific detail. For the overall silhouette, historical descriptions and the surviving composition provide the answer. For a façade relief, a condition survey or restoration records are needed to distinguish the original material, subsequent losses and replacements. A brief news report announcing the completion of work cannot serve as such evidence. Without an itemised inventory, the extent to which a particular relief survives cannot be established.

How can you interpret the two entrances when visiting VDNKh?

Begin by comparing their function and form. The North Entrance arch faces Sergei Eisenstein Street and marks the former route into the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition. Its three-opening composition retains the scale of 1939. The Main Entrance arch on the Prospekt Mira side is a five-opening complex from 1954, with side buildings and a sculpture on top. The difference in the number of openings is immediately apparent; the difference in the direction of movement explains why the name changed.

This arch is a convenient starting point for exploring. In the bureau’s report of 7 January 2025 a family entered VDNKh from the north and then walked to the central avenue; the guide explained how the exhibition grounds were divided into zones. This confirms the sequence of that particular walk, but not historical details about the reliefs or access rules on another date. Expert assessment reports and records from the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage remain important for verifying the structure and decoration.

At the North Entrance, look at the tall central arches standing one behind the other, then at the plant ornament and the reliefs on the pylons. It is best not to guess a detail’s ‘age’ from its colour or the smoothness of its surface: later cleaning, restoration and the weather all affect its appearance. It is more reliable to remember the established overall fact: the composition of the 1939 arch survives, while some of its façade decoration and reliefs have been restored or recreated.

Comparing the two entrances reveals the change in the exhibition’s layout by 1954. The old gateway stood on the approach to Administrative Square and the former avenue. The new entrance led visitors into a longer composition with a pronounced central axis and the Central Pavilion. This is an editorial conclusion drawn from plans and descriptions of the two phases; it does not mean that passage through the 1939 structure ceased.

The sculptures help avoid another source of confusion. Vera Mukhina’s ‘Worker and Kolkhoz Woman’ stood beside the old Main Entrance, rather than on top of it, and was later relocated; the 1954 arch is topped by ‘Tractor Driver and Kolkhoz Woman’ with a sheaf of grain. The titles are similar, but the creators, sculptural forms and positions within the ensemble differ. Confusing these two works distorts the history of both arches.

What does the history of the North Entrance tell us about the exhibition as a whole?

The arch shows that VDNKh was not built in its present form in a single phase. The exhibition of 1939 had its own main route, its own system of squares and a different arrangement of landmarks. The redevelopment completed by 1954 shifted the ceremonial axis but retained the former entrance as a monument to the first phase. The restoration of 2016–2017 preserved the opportunity to see a structure from that period, while adding documented recreations to its visible appearance.

For the reader, the practical lesson is simple: at the North Entrance, distinguish between the location of the historic entrance, the surviving architectural composition And the details reinstated by the restorers. The former name then ceases to be a curiosity on the map. The arch becomes a concise record of two master plans, two eras of the exhibition and the fate of a single structure.

On VDNKh and Space tour the bureau’s route passes through the present Main Entrance and later takes in the North Entrance arch and the Montreal Pavilion. Comparing them on site reveals the scale of the 1954 structure, the former axis of 1939 and the restored decoration of Polyakov’s arch.

Sources

1. Moscow Heritage, No. 3 (51), 2017: restoration of the North Entrance
2. Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage: public report for 2017
3. Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on the VSKhV—VDNKh—VVTs Architectural Ensemble
4. Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on the Main Entrance to VDNKh, 2023
5. VDNKh Park: the Main Pavilion and the layout of the exhibition grounds
6. Association of Moscow Sculptors: the North Entrance Arch
7. Moscow Heritage, No. 6 (60), 2018: the history of VDNKh
8. Zvezdny Bulvar, No. 22, June 2017: the opening of the North Entrance
9. Mosfilm: the film «The Foundling»
10. Still from the film «The Foundling» showing the arch and sculpture
11. At work!: How an eight-year-old boy conquered the Kremlin and VDNKh at Christmas
12. Excursion "VDNKh and Space"
13. VDNKh: a legendary pavilion and arches celebrating their anniversaries