Tretyakovsky Proyezd: how the Tretyakovs opened a passage through the Kitay-Gorod wall

Tretyakovsky Proyezd connected Nikolskaya Street with Teatralny Proyezd through the Kitay-Gorod wall. Pavel and Sergei Tretyakov sought a public route into the trading quarter and convenient access for deliveries; architect Alexander Kaminsky designed it as an ensemble of two contrasting arches and commercial buildings. The result was a street built in the early 1870s that, thanks to its shifting sightlines and architectural motifs from different periods, appears to have evolved gradually.

Heritage protection records document the purchase of the site in 1868, the Tretyakovs’ petition in 1869, permission to dismantle part of the wall in 1870 and construction in 1871. Research by Tatyana Yudenkova dates the completion of construction to 1873; these dates describe different stages of the project. Later shop windows, additional storeys and restoration work also need to be dated separately.

Why did the Tretyakovs need a through route?

The brothers needed a public route for pedestrians and vehicles between Nikolskaya Street and Teatralny Proyezd to improve access to Kitay-Gorod and make deliveries easier. This is precisely the purpose described in the historical and cultural assessment report on the building. The document does not support the story that a chance traffic jam prompted its construction.

In 1868, Pavel Mikhailovich and Sergei Mikhailovich Tretyakov purchased the property from the Glazunov family of booksellers. As early as 1869, they petitioned the Moscow City Duma to redevelop the site: to dismantle part of the Kitay-Gorod wall and lay a road through the middle to Nikolskaya Street. Permission was granted in 1870.

The new route served two purposes. For the city, it linked Kitay-Gorod with one of the important thoroughfares around it. For the owners, it provided access to commercial premises fronting directly onto the passage. This combination explains why the brothers did more than simply insert a gateway into the old fortification: beyond the arches, an entire short street took shape, with buildings on both sides. The heritage protection record stresses that permission to dismantle a section of the wall came with a requirement to embellish both the wall itself and the surrounding area. Architectural design was part of the brief, rather than an addition after construction.

The phrase ‘laid out’ should not be taken to mean that no one passed through the site before the Tretyakovs’ time. According to the report’s analysis of old plans, a 1638 depiction of Moscow shows a lane along the western boundary of the property, leading from Nikolskaya Street to the road beside the wall. By the 19th century, this area had been built over. The historic plan shows that an earlier link existed within the quarter, but does not in itself prove that its course coincided exactly with Kaminsky’s passage. The Tretyakovs’ project reorganised through access and gave it the architectural form of a commercial ensemble.

The economic reasoning behind this decision is supported by a study of the family’s business activities published by the Kostroma Museum-Reserve. The brothers already owned a linen mill in Kostroma Governorate and a shop on Ilyinka Street; buying property in Moscow was a separate branch of their business. They intended to let the ground floor of the new property to various tenants as offices and retail shops. Easy access through the passage therefore served the interests of more than one trading firm: the easier it was to reach the premises from both sides of the quarter, the more convenient it was to trade there.

When was the passage built: in 1871 or 1873?

Heritage protection records date the main buildings and both passage arches to 1871, while researcher Tatyana Yudenkova, in a museum monograph on the Tretyakov dynasty dates the completion of construction and the naming of the passage to 1873. Without the construction file and the text of the naming resolution, these dates cannot be reduced to a single, certain ‘opening’ date. A reliable formulation is that the ensemble was created in the early 1870s, following permission in 1870, and that the sources record different stages of its history.

In the heritage protection documents, the date 1871 refers to the building’s overall form and the passage arches. Yudenkova dates the completion of construction and the naming of the passage to 1873. These accounts describe different events, but do not establish the order in which each building was brought into use. Individual features should therefore be dated from drawings and records, rather than assigning a single year to the entire passage as it stands today.

A further check of the chronology clarifies the extent of the discrepancy. The assessment report on the surviving section of the wall dates the laying out and development of the passage to 1870–1873, citing a historical and architectural study. This is consistent with permission being granted in 1870 and does not require the 1871 dating of the arches to be rejected. Without a complete set of construction records, it is more accurate to distinguish between the start of work, the main architectural phase and the completion of the property than to argue over a single year.

What stood on the site before Kaminsky’s project?

The passage was not built on an empty site: one of its buildings incorporated earlier urban fabric. After the fire of 1812, bookseller Ivan Glazunov commissioned Osip Bove to design a three-storey building on Nikolskaya Street. The ground floor housed shops, while the upper floors were let as flats. A bookshop opened here in 1818. By the time the Tretyakovs bought the property, a distinctive façade with a six-column portico already stood along the street.

This earlier history matters when assessing Kaminsky’s work. The large arch on Nikolskaya Street was created during the remodelling of Bove’s building, rather than as part of an entirely new building erected in 1871. The 2023 expert assessment notes that the architect retained the overall form of the old building and the proportions of its projecting central section. The arched opening occupied the two central bays of the former portico and became wider and taller, while the classical rhythm of the façade was reworked.

The later building preserves several historical layers. The façade on Nikolskaya Street retains its underlying design from the first third of the 19th century; the large arch and new decoration belong to Kaminsky’s work, while the shop windows and individual details changed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The date 1871 should therefore be associated with the creation of the ensemble and passage, rather than with the age of every part of the building. The heritage protection records, however, date the opening of the bookshop to 1818 and the surviving structure on Nikolskaya Street to the 1830s; they do not explain the intervening stages.

The history of this site reaches back to the 17th century. The heritage protection documentation mentions the residence of the Dolgoruky princes in 1626, Prince Khovansky’s property in the early 18th century and the Small Stable Yard, established by Boris Sheremetev after he bought the site in 1718. Bookseller Ivan Glazunov acquired it in 1808. These owners did not create the present passage, but their succession explains why Kaminsky was designing for an established quarter with a building along Nikolskaya Street’s frontage line, rather than for an empty site.

Why was Alexander Kaminsky chosen for the project?

Alexander Stepanovich Kaminsky had both family and professional ties to the Tretyakovs: he married their sister Sofya Mikhailovna, undertook commissions for the brothers and served as architect to the Moscow Merchants’ Society from 1867. Tatyana Yudenkova, in her study of the Tretyakovs’ business activities lists the remodelling of the stock exchange on Ilyinka Street and the expansion of the rooms of the future gallery among his projects. Family ties and earlier commissions explain the choice of architect, although the sources consulted do not reproduce a document stating the reasons for his appointment.

One of the heritage protection records mistakenly names Kaminsky as Alexander Sergeyevich. Yudenkova’s study gives his correct patronymic, Stepanovich. The error concerns the expansion of the initials ‘A. S.’, rather than the authorship of the passage: both sources refer to the architect married to Sofya Tretyakova.

Comparison with his other work shows the limits of architectural analogy. In 1873–1875, Kaminsky took part in remodelling the Moscow Stock Exchange on Ilyinka Street, and he expanded the buildings of the future gallery for the Tretyakov family. These projects share a circle of clients and a period, but the design of Tretyakovsky Proyezd should be explained primarily through its proximity to Nikolskaya Street and the Kitay-Gorod wall, rather than attributed to a single ‘signature’ style of the architect.

Why do the two entrances to the passage look different?

Kaminsky matched the design of each entrance to the neighbouring buildings. On the Nikolskaya Street side, he developed the classical foundations of Bove’s former building; on the Teatralny Proyezd side, he used motifs from 17th-century Russian architecture to make the new gateway sit comfortably beside the Kitay-Gorod wall. Both designs belong to 19th-century eclecticism, but draw on different historical architectural languages.

The Nikolskaya façade retains its regular arrangement of windows and projecting central section. Its features include Ionic pilasters, a rusticated base, moulded surrounds and circular relief medallions above the entrance. The broad opening might recall a triumphal arch, but the surrounding windows and shops on the ground floor bring the structure back to the scale of an urban street. The historical and cultural assessment specifically describes the combination of a retained classical foundation with decoration reflecting the tastes of the 1870s. The documents variously describe the style in terms of neoclassical motifs and Renaissance Revival; it is more reliable to identify the visible architectural features than to present a single stylistic term as an exhaustive description.

The façade facing Teatralny Proyezd takes a different approach. A turret with a tented roof rises above the arch, the parapet resembles battlements, and the ornamental brickwork evokes early Russian architecture. Another heritage protection record links this design to a condition attached to permission to dismantle the wall: the new building had to fit its surroundings. Seen from Teatralny Proyezd, the tower extended the defensive imagery, despite being a 19th-century structure. Its historical styling does not make it an ancient part of the Kitay-Gorod fortifications.

On Nikolskaya Street, Bove’s former portico provided an important starting point for the proportions. According to the assessment, the new arch took the place of the two central columns, while the architect carried the remaining axes through into the pilasters of the central and side projections. This prevented the large opening from dividing the façade into arbitrary halves. Circular medallions beside the arch and smaller ones beneath the second-floor windows maintained the regular rhythm of the upper storeys. These details explain the façade’s composition more precisely than the general term ‘classical’: the old proportions survived, but the centre of the building became a gateway through the quarter.

On the Nikolskaya façade, the eye travels upwards from the rustication of the ground floor to the decorated first-floor windows, the more restrained second-floor windows and the attic parapet. During a survey in 2020, experts described Ionic pilasters, keystones, moulded rosettes and a crowning cornice with sculpted brackets. This is a list of surviving or still discernible elements, rather than proof that each has remained entirely unaltered since 1871: the shopfront openings and finishes were subsequently changed.

At the northern exit, the façade plays a different role. A turret with a tented roof makes the passage arch stand out against Teatralny Proyezd; a crenellated parapet, arcading and openings with ogee-headed surrounds draw the eye towards motifs of fortress architecture. The list of protected features also includes loophole windows and a decorative keystone. The building was constructed for trade; its Old Russian forms linked it to the neighbouring fortifications.

The permission granted in 1870 to dismantle part of the Kitay-Gorod wall came with a condition: to embellish the wall and the adjoining area. Kaminsky's design harmonised the commercial buildings with these surroundings. The tower's historicising design therefore does not prove that gates of precisely this form stood here in the Middle Ages. It demonstrates a way of reconciling a contemporary building commission with its historic setting. In this sense, the façade both speaks of the 19th century — the age of eclecticism — and recalls the earlier wall, part of which was dismantled for the project.

What remains of the Kitay-Gorod wall near the Tretyakov Gates?

A round corner tower and an adjoining section of the Kitay-Gorod wall survive beside the passage, behind the Metropol Hotel. This historic fortification should be distinguished from the tent-roofed façade of Kaminsky's commercial building: the latter dates from the 19th century and uses fortress motifs as an architectural language. The monument's expert assessment explicitly locates the surviving section near Tretyakovsky Proyezd.

The Museum of Moscow dates the construction of the stone wall of Kitay-Gorod to 1535–1538 and associates the work with the architect Petrok Maly. The fortification was lower than the Kremlin's but thicker: it was designed for artillery defence. By the time the Tretyakovs obtained permission to dismantle part of the line of fortifications, this military function had long ceased to determine the layout of the commercial centre. The decorative battlements on Kaminsky's building and the mass of old masonry therefore reflect different building purposes, although their proximity encourages us to view them together.

Even the surviving fragment of wall cannot be regarded as a surface wholly untouched since the 16th century. The 2020 report includes an account of Nikolai Vinogradov's restoration of 1925–1926: the facing masonry was replaced and the mouldings reinstated, but the small parapet of the wall-walk was not restored. It also mentions swallowtail battlements dating from work carried out in 1821. The authenticity of the site, the ancient structure and the age of the visible detailing are therefore separate questions. An answer to one does not automatically answer the others.

There is also a more specific uncertainty. The expert assessment of the building at 19–21 Nikolskaya allows for the possibility that the wing facing Teatralny Proyezd may incorporate fragments of the wall dismantled during construction. This wording does not assert that every brick in the northern arch is medieval, nor does it identify a boundary of any possible old masonry that can be seen from the street. Without locating these structures within the building, an external inspection can distinguish the neighbouring fragment of fortification from Kaminsky's historicising design, while any claim that concealed wall structures are incorporated into the building should be qualified.

The proximity of the tower and gates changes how we understand the historic view. In the late 19th century, the line of fortifications still formed a clear continuation of the northern façade. Following the demolitions of the 1930s, most of the structure disappeared, although the tower and its adjoining section survived. The Tretyakov Gates remained in place, but the fortress wall's role as a continuous boundary can no longer be reconstructed from a single present-day viewpoint. This is precisely why photographs from different years and the heritage protection plan complement what can be observed on the street.

How did a new street acquire the look of old Moscow?

The impression comes from the layout and façades. The passage does not feel like a long, straight corridor with two arches aligned on precisely the same axis: a slight bend changes the view towards the distant gates. The heritage protection report specifically notes this effect and links it to the impression of a street seemingly built up at different times. This describes a visual impression, rather than asserting that the entire present-day passage really developed over centuries.

Commercial buildings lined both sides of the street. Between the grand exits onto Nikolskaya and Teatralny Proyezd, a more intimate stretch took shape. Projecting sections, battlements and small turrets broke up the long façades, while the ground-floor premises faced passers-by. At the bend, the whole ensemble could not be taken in at once: the entrance arch, rows of buildings and opposite gates came into view in sequence. This spatial arrangement helped connect the new buildings with the surrounding architecture of earlier periods.

Yet 'old Moscow' here is above all an architectural vision of the 1870s. At Teatralny Proyezd, Kaminsky used the language of fortress architecture; on Nikolskaya, he reworked Bove's building; and within the new shopping passage, he combined decorative brickwork with shop windows. This mixture does not suggest that the street came about by chance: a single architect designed the contrasting façades to fit the specific boundaries of the site.

The heritage protection report describes the complex as four buildings forming an irregular quadrilateral. The two end sections provide exits onto the neighbouring streets, while the two longitudinal sections form the shopping frontage within the property. This layout explains the visual effect of the bend without recourse to 'picturesque chance': the angle between the façades and the slightly crooked perspective create a succession of views. The 2023 expert assessment explicitly notes that the buildings' differing orientations change how they are perceived as one moves along the passage.

The description of a shopping street in the list of protected features refers to the spatial layout within the property. It does not mean that the passage was a covered gallery like the shopping arcades of the late 19th century: the sources describe an open-air route between two arches, with buildings lining it. It is useful to distinguish the type of layout from the physical provision of a roof. Tretyakovsky Proyezd allowed people to walk through the block, browse the shop windows and emerge onto another street; its two large arches marked the beginning and end of this experience.

How did trade change the original design?

Trade was the passage's purpose from the outset, and its needs gradually altered the façades. According to the heritage protection reports, the premises housed Vasily Kulikov's tea shop, the Alekseyev brothers' ready-made clothing shops, the perfumery businesses Brocard and Rallet, and watch and jewellery shops belonging to Victor Gabu's firm. The range of tenants shows that the street catered to varied urban shopping needs, rather than a single Tretyakov family enterprise.

The layout explains how the site functioned economically without speculation about the profitability of each shop. The buildings on either side created a continuous row of premises, while the two entrances connected it to the flow of people along the neighbouring streets. For shoppers, the address lay within the block, but the route remained a public thoroughfare. For the property owner, commercial use went hand in hand with a private street within the city. The reports consulted provide no visitor numbers, turnover figures or tenancy agreements; it would be wrong to judge commercial success from a surviving façade alone.

Research by the Kostroma Museum provides further details about the tenants. The ground floor was let to various tenants; the Alekseyev brothers' ready-made clothing shop stood near Teatralny Proyezd, and Konstantin Sergeyevich Alekseyev, later known as Konstantin Stanislavsky, worked in their office for a time. This links the commercial address to the future theatre director's life, but does not make it the place where a theatre was founded. The same study mentions the Ferapontov family's bookshop, drawing on Vera Ziloti's memoirs, and lists the pharmacy entrepreneur Vladimir Ferrein among the Tretyakovs' tenants.

The sources also differ in the strength of their evidence. The heritage protection reports list known shops, while the museum monograph clarifies how the premises were used and specifically notes that information about the bookshop comes from family recollections. The list should therefore not be turned into a precise tenancy plan for any particular year: tenants arrived at different times, and shopfronts changed with them. The range of businesses is more reliable as evidence of the variety of uses — clothing, books, perfume, tea, watches and jewellery — than as a snapshot of the street at a single moment.

The alterations can be traced almost like a business diary of the building. In 1876, a mezzanine was added to part of the building on the north-eastern side; another heritage protection report records a second floor added to the eastern building in 1886, with further upward extensions in 1889. In 1893, Nikolai Sergeyevich Tretyakov became the site's new owner. By 1899, the property had been connected to the sewerage system and detailed floor plans had been drawn up. Each of these dates refers to a specific operation, so they cannot be combined into a single 'year of reconstruction'.

The history of the ground floor is particularly revealing. In 1901, narrow window and door openings facing the internal passage were converted into broad rectangular shop windows. In 1909, a request to extend this replacement scheme to the arched windows was refused. In 1913, according to the heritage protection documents, the arched entrance to the courtyard behind the northern building was moved further into the passage, and the ground-floor window openings on Nikolskaya were widened. Trade demanded more glazing and convenient entrances, but certain decorative elements were retained as part of the approved façade. This is why today's row of shop windows tells us as much about the history of the buildings' use as about their original design.

Which parts of the passage changed in the 20th century?

The concept of a through passage and important sections of the historic façades survive from Kaminsky's ensemble, but its present appearance cannot be dated entirely to 1871. In the early 1920s, additional passageways were created in the end buildings, presumably for pedestrian traffic; they already appear on the 1926 plan. Soviet institutions occupied premises that had previously housed shops and warehouses.

In 1934, the Church of the Trinity in the Fields on the neighbouring plot was dismantled; a substantial part of the Kitay-Gorod wall was demolished at the same time. This changed the setting for which the façade facing Teatralny Proyezd had been conceived. The historic ensemble remained, but it can no longer be seen against the continuous line of fortifications that Kaminsky took into account when designing the tent-roofed tower and battlements. An isolated surviving detail of the wall or a decorative motif cannot replace the lost urban context.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the buildings were reconstructed: two storeys were added along the passage, the uppermost within a mansard roof, and a new three- to four-storey building was added to the east. The historic façades were restored, commercial use returned and the street became pedestrianised. The 2023 report dates the completion of the work to 2003. It also states that some of the vaults from the 1870s were lost and certain elements of the old decoration were not reinstated. The brief summary in the 2025 report describes the complex as having survived almost unchanged, although the same document describes later upward extensions and a new building; the detailed 2023 assessment gives a more precise account of the extent of the alterations. Today's upper floors cannot be attributed entirely to Kaminsky's original composition.

Additional pedestrian passageways were created in the end buildings. On the Nikolskaya side, they were cut through where staircases had previously stood, so a new staircase enclosed by masonry walls was built in the western part of the building. The heritage protection report tentatively dates the creation of the passageways to the early 1920s; the 1926 plan confirms that they already existed. The exact date of the work has not been established.

Soviet-era photographs record a red-and-white colour scheme on the façade facing Teatralny Proyezd. Experts linked it to the appearance of the section of the Kitay-Gorod wall that adjoined it at the time. The report does not establish when this colour scheme was applied. The 2023 report notes that it was not reinstated during the restoration of the late 1990s and early 2000s. A Soviet-era photograph cannot establish the original colour scheme of Kaminsky's gates.

The reconstruction scheme approved in 1999 provided for upward extensions and the restoration of the historic façades; the work was completed by 2003. During their surveys, experts distinguished old brickwork, vaulted basements, later partitions and window units imitating the earlier glazing pattern. The loss of the original staircases and some interiors is not visible from the street, but it changes the meaning of 'survived': the protected ensemble includes valuable historic fabric and artistic elements, while its interior spaces have repeatedly been adapted to new uses.

What features of the passage help verify its history on site?

Start at the two ends of the street: the contrast between the arches immediately shows how Kaminsky addressed two different requirements within a single project. From Nikolskaya, you can see the classical motifs of the older street façade and its broad central opening. Within the arch is a plaque bearing the names of honorary citizens Pavel and Sergei Tretyakov, described in the heritage protection reports. On the Teatralny Proyezd side, attention shifts to the tower, its tented roof and fortress battlements.

Then walk between the buildings and look back. The slight bend in the passage changes the relationship between the gates and the commercial façades. Over this short distance, it becomes easier to understand why historical descriptions refer to the illusion of an old street that developed gradually. The impression is created by the line of movement, the contrasting façades and the scale of the buildings on either side; it needs no legend about the passage being opened by chance or both gateways dating from the Middle Ages.

Finally, compare the surviving parts of the older buildings with the enlarged shop windows and later upward extensions. This helps avoid seeing the ensemble as a single construction frozen in time immediately after its opening. The documents show that commercial needs continued to reshape the passage over the following decades, while reconstruction at the turn of the 21st century added another major layer.

When exploring, it is especially useful to distinguish what is visible from what is concealed. From the street, you can compare the two architectural languages of the façades, examine the positions of the arches and see the old plaque. The basement vaults, historic walls behind modern finishes and the extent of Bove's building incorporated into Kaminsky's design are harder to establish from the outside: this information comes from building surveys. Even a photograph of the façade cannot replace a floor plan when dating a particular opening.

Another limit concerns the name. The plaque in the Nikolskaya arch commemorates the two brothers and confirms whom the passage is named after. On its own, it reveals neither the terms of the petition to the City Duma, nor how the costs were divided, nor when each shop opened. These questions are answered by different types of sources — heritage protection reports, the history of the property and studies of business activity. When these are compared, the short street becomes more than a picturesque backdrop: it becomes an urban project whose workings can be understood.

Tretyakovsky Proyezd illustrates the Tretyakov brothers' business initiative on the scale of a single city block: they secured a new route through the wall and established shops along it. Kaminsky transformed an engineering and commercial challenge into an architectural ensemble in which each exit responds to its surroundings, while the bend in the view unites them into a coherent street. This combination, documented in heritage protection records, explains the impression of buildings from different periods along such a short stretch.

On 'Business People' tour about Moscow's merchants the Tretyakovsky Proyezd ensemble is included in the itinerary alongside Ferrein's Tsar Pharmacy and the buildings of the Moscow Merchants' Society. This allows the history of this short shopping street to be compared with other initiatives by entrepreneurs in the pre-revolutionary capital.

Sources

1. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on the Tretyakovsky Proyezd Building (2021)
2. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on the Building at 19–21 Nikolskaya Street (2023)
3. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on Tretyakovsky Proyezd
4. The Tretyakov Dynasty in the History of Russia’s Industrial Development and Philanthropy, Kostroma Museum-Reserve, 2015
5. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on the Tretyakovsky Proyezd Building, 2020 Survey
6. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on the Kitay-Gorod Wall and Tower in Teatralny Proyezd, 2020
7. Museum of Moscow: ‘Lost Boundaries. Moscow 404’, section on the Kitay-Gorod Wall
8. ‘People of Business’ tour, a route by Radius Tour Bureau
9. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on the Moscow Exchange Building at 6 Ilyinka Street (2022)