The Ryabushinsky Bank on Birzhevaya Square: Shekhtel and Later Alterations

The Ryabushinsky Bank on Birzhevaya Square is an early example of rationalist Art Nouveau. In 1903–1904, Fyodor Schechtel remodelled an existing brick building; its present upper section was added after his work. The façade should therefore be seen as the result of several phases of construction, rather than as a single design by Schechtel.

Large windows and restrained wall detailing reflected the bank’s function as an office building. Later additions of extra storeys altered the roofline and proportions of the original five-storey composition. The publications consulted help distinguish these phases, but the façade alone cannot reveal how much of the early structure survives.

Why was the bank located on Birzhevaya Square?

The banking house occupied a building on Birzhevaya Square that already belonged to the family. According to research by B. V. Ananyich, Pavel Mikhailovich Ryabushinsky reorganised the family trading house as a manufacturing partnership in 1887; in the 1890s, it sold textiles, yarn and cotton wool in this building. After a separate banking house was established in 1902, Schechtel remodelled the building on the corner of Staropansky Lane. The bank acquired a new façade at the family business’s existing address. Gostiny Dvor stood nearby, while Ilyinka linked the square to the commercial district of Kitay-Gorod.

The My Moscow reference guide attributes the original Exchange building of 1836–1839 to Mikhail Bykovsky and the remodelling of 1873–1875 to Alexander Kaminsky. By the time Schechtel received the commission on the opposite side of Birzhevaya Square, the Exchange building had been setting the scale of its public architecture for several decades. The Bank of Russia Museum includes both buildings in its route through Moscow’s financial history. This confirms their proximity within the district’s business history, but does not explain the brothers’ reasons for choosing the site: the family partnership already owned the building on the square in the 1890s, and the sources consulted contain no document explaining the choice of location for the banking house.

The bank should not be confused with Stepan Ryabushinsky’s mansion on Malaya Nikitskaya Street. The family home and the business premises share the names of their clients and architect, but were designed for different purposes. For the mansion, Schechtel created a domestic setting with richly artistic interiors; the building on the square required a businesslike façade facing the city’s commercial centre.

Who commissioned the business premises, and what did the banking house do?

Alexander Alexandrov’s reference guide to Moscow buildings describes the building as both a banking house and the head office of the Ryabushinsky manufacturing partnership. The remodelling of 1903–1904 was connected with these two branches of the family business. The historian B. V. Ananyich, who studied the family’s agreements and financial documents, links the establishment of a separate banking house to the brothers’ decision in May 1902. This was a building for the family businesses, rather than Stepan Ryabushinsky’s private home on Malaya Nikitskaya Street.

Before the new agreement, the family was already conducting banking operations as part of its textile business. According to Ananyich’s research, the brothers sought permission to expand this activity within the Manufacturing Partnership of P. M. Ryabushinsky and Sons. The Ministry of Finance did not support this arrangement and proposed opening a separate banking house. The decision of 20 May and the agreement of 30 May 1902 formalised the new organisation. The connection between architecture and business here is concrete: the remodelling of the city premises followed almost immediately after the bank’s legal establishment.

The agreement, described by Ananyich from an archival copy, designated the enterprise as a trading house constituted as a general partnership and conducting banking operations. It listed bill discounting, loans against various forms of security, deposit-taking, transfers and the safekeeping of valuables. These activities required accounts, paperwork and regular communication with business partners. The source provides no floor plans of the building on Birzhevaya Square, so specific operations cannot be assigned to particular rooms. It does, however, explain why the office accommodation and the site’s earlier commercial function are equally important to the building’s story.

The banking house began operating on 1 July 1902 with a capital of 1,050,000 roubles. According to Ananyich, after six months deposits and current accounts totalled 6,909 roubles and 85 kopecks, rising to 18,946,431 roubles by 1912. By then, its capital had increased to 5 million roubles. This decade of growth does not automatically explain every detail of the façade that Schechtel designed in 1903–1904. The dates and figures are given in a chapter of B. V. Ananyich’s study.

The family’s business structure was also more complex than the familiar shorthand ‘family bank’ suggests. Ananyich identifies six co-owners in the archival agreement of 1902, with the youngest brother, Fyodor, joining in 1903. The AD overview lists only four brothers; the agreement described by Ananyich is the more reliable basis for identifying the partners. Vladimir and Mikhail Pavlovich were primarily responsible for banking, while the other family members managed the factories. In 1912, the banking house became the basis for the Moscow Bank. In an article about the façade, these details serve to establish one point: the building’s name preserves the memory of several stages in the firm’s legal and business development, while the architectural remodelling belongs to the first of these.

What did Schechtel inherit from the earlier building?

Schechtel worked with an existing building, so the word ‘built’ does not describe his contribution precisely enough. Material from the Central Scientific and Technical Library for Construction and Architecture dates the work to 1903–1904 and explicitly describes it as the remodelling of an old building with a traditional brick structure. The architect created a new appearance based on the earlier building; this does not mean that he redesigned all its load-bearing elements.

The building’s history began before the Ryabushinsky commission. In a professional publication about a reconstruction project, Nikolai Malinin writes that Schechtel remodelled a five-storey building by Pyotr Skomoroshenko; he dates the earlier design to 1875. After Schechtel’s intervention, Kuznetsov altered the upper section, and further storeys were added during the Soviet period. Alexander Alexandrov’s reference guide to Moscow buildings records work at the same address in the 1880s and the addition of extra storeys in the 1930s. These publications establish the main phases, but cannot replace the construction records and an examination of the masonry.

This qualification changes how the building is read. Extensive glazing may seem to provide direct evidence of new frame construction technology, yet the architectural exhibition of the Central Scientific and Technical Library for Construction and Architecture explicitly distinguishes the impression created by the façade from the remodelled building’s actual brick structure. Its appearance suggests the logic of an office building from the turn of the century, but the visible grid of windows does not in itself prove the presence of an exposed reinforced-concrete frame.

How can the earlier building be distinguished from Schechtel’s remodelling?

The old building and Schechtel’s remodelling cannot be distinguished by wall colour alone. The Central Scientific and Technical Library for Construction and Architecture explicitly describes the bank as a remodelling of an earlier brick building, while Nikolai Malinin associates the ground-floor display windows and the retained arrangement of the façades facing the lane and courtyard with the earlier structure. These accounts document different construction decisions; establishing the precise extent of the surviving masonry would require an on-site survey. It would be wrong to attribute everything visible to Schechtel simply because his name appears in descriptions of the bank.

The dating of the earlier building requires qualification. Malinin refers to a design by Pyotr Skomoroshenko from 1875, while Alexander Alexandrov’s reference guide dates work at this address to the 1880s. Design and construction may have taken place in different years, but without construction documents this cannot be confirmed as the reason for the discrepancy. All that is firmly established is that a five-storey brick building stood on Birzhevaya Square when Schechtel received the commission to remodel it.

Malinin attributes the earlier building to Pyotr Skomoroshenko. Schechtel’s work dates to 1903–1904, as stated in the architectural exhibition of the Central Scientific and Technical Library for Construction and Architecture. Specialist publications discuss the sixth storey separately and name Alexander Kuznetsov. This gives us a sequence of interventions by different architects, rather than a collaborative design for a single building. The list of architects alone, however, does not reveal how much of the earlier wall survived the remodelling or the addition of extra storeys.

A publication by Kozyr’s architectural practice associates the ground-floor display windows with the earlier building and explains that Schechtel used them as the module for a new façade grid. This architectural critic’s interpretation is valuable because it explains the continuity between the two phases. It cannot be taken as a claim that every original lintel or the entire façade facing the lane has survived. Answering that question requires measured surveys, a stratigraphic study of the masonry and design documentation.

Why is this façade classified as rationalist Art Nouveau?

The Ryabushinsky Bank’s façade is classified as rationalist Art Nouveau because of the way Schechtel organised its surface: broad windows, repeated piers and the horizontal lines of the storeys became the principal elements of the composition. The architectural exhibition regards this remodelling as a milestone that marked the beginning of a more austere direction in the architect’s work. Here, ‘rationalist’ describes the artistic treatment of a commercial building and does not imply a complete absence of decoration.

According to the architectural magazine AD, large horizontal windows occupied a substantial part of the bank’s main façade. This shape provided more light for office work and made the rows of openings the defining feature of an imposing building. The visual effect comes from the repetition of windows and the proportions of the tiers. The addition of a sixth storey, which the magazine dates to 1913, changed the original upper outline of the five-storey composition; this must be taken into account when assessing the present silhouette.

This restraint becomes particularly clear when compared with Stepan Ryabushinsky’s mansion. In an article for the Tretyakov Gallery, architectural historian Ilya Pechenkin describes its wave-shaped staircase and the aquatic imagery of its interiors. For the bank on Birzhevaya Square, Schechtel chose large, repeated windows and much quieter detailing. Both designs belong to the Art Nouveau era; the difference reflects the respective functions of a home and business premises. The comparison concerns their composition, rather than any supposed similarity in the two buildings’ state of preservation.

Comparing the family’s two commissions makes the difference particularly clear. A research article by the State Tretyakov Gallery on Stepan Ryabushinsky’s mansion notes that its large windows are not identical: each has individually designed glazing bars, while narrow diagonal openings reveal the position of the service staircase. In the house, this element contributes to the spatial and symbolic composition. At the bank on Birzhevaya Square, broad openings form a repeating sequence associated with office work. This observation does not mean that one façade is ‘free’ and the other ‘characterless’; Schechtel varied the degree of repetition according to the task.

The Tretyakov Gallery also emphasises that Stepan Ryabushinsky was a co-owner of the family banking house. Comparing the mansion and the bank therefore does not mean comparing the lives of unrelated clients. It reveals two aspects of the same business circle: the owner’s personal standing expressed on Malaya Nikitskaya Street and the public face of the family enterprise beside the Exchange. Both buildings have large windows, but the purpose of this device differs.

Austerity does not mean emptiness either. The bank’s expressive character rests on the scale of its windows, the quiet rhythm of its piers and the precise treatment of the wall surface. When describing rationalist Art Nouveau, it is therefore more useful to discuss composition than to count individual ornaments. This analysis explains why the building feels more modern than many neighbouring buildings of the late nineteenth century, even though its underlying structure predates Schechtel’s design.

What can be seen on the main and side façades?

The Ryabushinsky Bank’s two street façades—facing Birzhevaya Square and Staropansky Lane—are treated differently. Large horizontal windows, described in the AD article, dominate the composition of the main façade. In his account of the earlier building, Nikolai Malinin notes that the side and courtyard façades retained their original arrangement after Schechtel’s work. This does not mean that every detail facing the lane remained unchanged: later additions of extra storeys and repairs require separate investigation.

AD’s description of the main façade focuses on large horizontal windows, pale glazed brick and small decorative inserts. Malinin also notes that Schechtel used the earlier building’s ground-floor display windows as the module for the new grid. The façade should therefore be read as the result of remodelling: the architect repeated the large scale of the lower openings on other storeys and changed the overall rhythm. This is more precise than speaking of a ‘glass wall’, a phrase that obscures the building’s older brick structure.

Malinin draws attention to the decreasing height of the windows from the lower floors to the upper ones. He explains that this device reinforced the façade’s monumental character. When reading the building, it is important to distinguish this handling of proportion from the sixth storey added later. A postcard showing Birzhevaya Square, published in July 1912, helps establish the historical context, but its publication date does not establish when the photograph was taken, nor does it provide precise window measurements.

The open square and narrow Staropansky Lane offered different settings from which to view the building. According to AD, the main façade was composed around large, repeated areas of glazing; Malinin states that the side and courtyard façades retained more of the previous building’s arrangement. This difference is consistent with the nature of the remodelling, but does not reveal the function of each room or the origin of every window. A floor-by-floor history requires drawings and measured surveys, rather than assumptions based on the shape of the openings.

Pale glazed brick is particularly important among the finishing materials. AD discusses its contrast with the window glass, while Malinin also mentions the ceramics of the main façade, including their crackle glaze. This material allowed the flat surfaces between the large openings to stand out without extensive stucco decoration. The publications describe an artistic device of the early twentieth century, but do not establish exactly how much original cladding remains after later repairs. Identifying the surviving areas would require an examination of the material.

Particular care is needed when considering the top of the original composition. Malinin describes Kuznetsov’s sixth storey as an addition that altered the proportions of the five-storey façade. The article on Kozyr’s project also mentions a cornice shown in an old design drawing but never built; the architects therefore had no intention of recreating it. This account alone cannot establish the full appearance of the original roofline. The verifiable conclusion is limited to the fact that the building’s upper outline changed after Shekhtel’s work, and its present silhouette does not match the 1903–1904 design.

There was, nevertheless, some ornamentation. Both Malinin and the author of the AD article mention small reliefs depicting seahorses. AD also notes a delicate garland above the top-storey windows. These details matter when identifying the style: Shekhtel did not abandon ornament, but made it far less prominent than the row of large openings. Their presence means that the façade cannot literally be described as devoid of decoration; the word ‘austere’ conveys its restraint more accurately.

To assess the building’s early appearance, it is useful to distinguish between a design, a later description and a dated image of the square. A postcard published on Wikimedia Commons, with a publication date of July 1912, shows the bank among its neighbouring buildings, but its catalogue entry does not give the exact date of the photograph. It therefore helps us assess the historic setting and the silhouette before later alterations, rather than measure the cornice height or establish the extent of the brickwork. Malinin’s and AD’s accounts should be compared with such an image only insofar as the relevant details are actually visible.

The Wikimedia Commons catalogue description of the postcard ‘Birzhevaya Square’ refers to a digitised copy held by the Russian State Library and gives July 1912 as the publication date. The bank is visible among the neighbouring buildings, providing an independent image of its urban setting in the early 20th century. However, the postcard neither confirms the date of the original photograph nor identifies the construction phases. Comparing it with a later view may reveal changes to the roofline, but the postcard alone cannot establish who designed each storey.

What role did the large windows play in the bank’s architecture?

The Ryabushinsky Bank’s wide windows defined its appearance from Birzhevaya Square. AD’s description emphasises that they occupied most of the main façade. In an office building, it is natural to associate such extensive glazing with bringing light into workspaces, but the sources consulted provide no floor plans. It is therefore impossible to identify precisely which windows served offices, storerooms or halls. What is established is that Shekhtel made the scale of the openings the basis of an imposing façade.

This is particularly important for an old brick building. Seeing the regular arrangement of large openings, a reader might assume that the entire building was originally conceived with an independent structural frame. The TsNTB SIA source cautions against this conclusion: the new appearance did not reflect the actual traditional construction. Architectural language can express a modern function even when an older building is being remodelled.

The bank’s position among commercial and office buildings offers another basis for comparison. The Exchange’s columned façade conveys civic grandeur, while Shekhtel’s building uses large windows and a steady, businesslike rhythm. This comparison does not establish a disagreement between the architects: the buildings were created at different times and for different institutions. It simply helps us see how ideas of a dignified commercial façade changed within a single square.

How does the bank relate to Shekhtel’s other commercial buildings?

The bank occupies an intermediate position between Shekhtel’s early explorations of commercial and office architecture and the more consistent rationalist Art Nouveau of the decade’s closing years. This becomes clear when comparing descriptions of the three buildings’ structures, rather than their styles alone. The complex by the Kitay-gorod wall was designed in 1901 and built in stages until 1903; the bank was remodelled in 1903–1904; and the building for the Moscow Merchants’ Society dates to 1909.

According to material from TsNTB SIA, Boyarsky Dvor on Staraya Square was a large six-storey commercial and hotel building with a metal-and-brick frame. Its design still featured a striking tower-like section related to the position of the former Kitay-gorod wall. The large windows in this building reflected the possibilities of its structural system. The Ryabushinsky Bank looks more restrained, but here, according to the same exhibition, Shekhtel was remodelling an old brick building. A similar external motif does not imply the same load-bearing structure.

Later, in the Moscow Merchants’ Society’s commercial building on Novaya Square, Shekhtel made the structural frame an even more consistent part of the architectural expression. The exhibition dates this building to 1909 and notes that its load-bearing system is legible on the façades facing the square and the Cherkassky lanes. This comparison makes the bank of 1903–1904 easier to understand: it shows how the architect used the visual language of new commercial buildings while still working within the constraints of remodelling an existing one.

The comparison has clear limits. All three buildings differed in their sites, purposes and construction conditions. It would therefore be wrong to claim that Shekhtel first ‘invented’ the form at the bank and then mechanically repeated it in subsequent commissions. A different conclusion can be substantiated: from the beginning of the century to 1909, the architect increasingly made extensive glazing, a regular rhythm and a legible structure the basis of an imposing commercial façade. Information on the two flanking stages is provided in the description of Boyarsky Dvor And the Merchants’ Society’s commercial building.

For the bank, the distinction between the structure and its architectural expression is particularly important. On Staraya Square, the frame made large openings possible; on Birzhevaya Square, the architect gave an old brick building the appearance of a structure of its time. This is no accusation of ‘deception’ in the façade. Remodelling often combines an old physical fabric with a new architectural language, and the quality of the design depends on how clearly the architect organises the visible whole.

The architectural historian Evgenia Kirichenko associated the Ryabushinsky Bank with a group of Shekhtel’s commercial buildings in Kitay-Gorod: Boyarsky Dvor, the Moscow Merchants’ Society building and other commissions. In her analysis, recurring large windows and a clear rhythm unite these buildings, although their purposes and structures differed. TsNTB SIA specifically notes that the bank was created from an old brick building, whereas Boyarsky Dvor had a metal-and-brick frame. The comparison thus reveals the development of the architect’s façade language without turning different buildings into copies of a single design.

What did the additional storeys change after Shekhtel?

Later interventions changed the Ryabushinsky Bank’s roofline and proportions. Kuznetsov added a sixth storey, and another appeared during the Soviet period. AD dates the first of these alterations to 1913; Alexander Alexandrov’s reference book places the later phase in the 1930s. Lyudmila Sokolova describes the original façade as four storeys high, whereas Malinin describes the earlier building as having five storeys. The count used here follows the professional publication, which agrees with AD’s account of an added sixth storey; without construction drawings, the reason for the discrepancy remains unclear. The upper part of the present building cannot be attributed entirely to Shekhtel.

Publications differ on the date of the first additional storey. AD gives 1913, while Nikolai Malinin writes of 1914. Alexander Alexandrov’s reference book dates Kuznetsov’s work to 1911–1913. These sources may account differently for the design phase and the completion of construction, but without the construction file the discrepancy cannot be explained with certainty. All three distinguish the sixth storey from Shekhtel’s remodelling of 1903–1904.

The added storey changed the façade’s upper outline. Malinin writes of the subsequent Soviet addition; Lyudmila Sokolova and Alexander Alexandrov’s reference book date it to the 1930s. These publications confirm the existence of a later phase, but do not provide a complete measured survey of each wall in this part of the building. A photograph can therefore support discussion of changes to the silhouette, but without specialist material it is impossible to establish the boundaries between early brickwork, subsequent alterations and possible repairs.

In Malinin’s assessment, the sixth storey disrupted the proportions of Shekhtel’s façade, even though Kuznetsov set it back from the façade plane. The later Soviet addition intensified this effect. Such criticism concerns the sequence of building alterations; it does not prove that Shekhtel’s original design was unsuccessful. When assessing the present top-heavy appearance, it is necessary to distinguish the decisions of three periods and remember the old building with which the architect was working in 1903–1904.

Why should the later reconstruction proposal not be mistaken for a completed restoration?

The publication by Alexey Kozyr’s architectural practice describes a proposal to transform the former bank; it does not certify that all the designs illustrated were carried out. This distinction is fundamental to the building’s history: a drawing or model shows the designer’s intention, while a photograph and a certificate of completed works document the result. Without the latter type of evidence, it would be wrong to write that the later additions have already been concealed behind glass or that the façade’s historic windows have been reinstated.

Kozyr and his collaborators proposed visually separating the upper storeys from Shekhtel’s part of the building. They intended to place a new screen-printed glass envelope in front of the added volumes; its pattern alluded to the fine cracks in the façade’s ceramic cladding. They also planned to restore inscriptions and details using archival material, and to replace modern double-glazed units with windows of the historic design. These proposals show which elements the designers considered important to the perception of the façade, but do not constitute an inventory of completed restoration work.

The practice notes another significant limitation: the original interiors had not survived, and the designers lacked the information needed to recreate them faithfully. Consequently, even a highly convincing exterior reconstruction would not automatically justify speaking of the complete ‘return of Shekhtel’s bank’. Knowledge of the façade and knowledge of the interior spaces rest on different documentary evidence.

The same publication states that the proposal was rejected by the Moscow Committee for Architecture and Urban Planning. This is a clear reason not to present the glass envelope as the bank’s current appearance. The idea is interesting as an approach to a historic building shaped by several construction phases: its designers sought to retain the added storeys physically while reducing their visual impact. But a researcher must distinguish between two verbs: ‘proposed’ and ‘built’. For the envelope described, only the former is confirmed.

How can we read the Ryabushinsky Bank today without misattributing its design?

In the history of the Ryabushinsky Bank on Birzhevaya Square, it is necessary to distinguish between the early brick structure, Shekhtel’s remodelling and the later additional storeys. The publications consulted establish the sequence of works; the façade helps us understand his design — large openings, a regular rhythm and a restrained roofline. But without drawings and a survey, it is impossible to identify which sections of brickwork survived each alteration.

The sources carry different evidential weight for different questions. TsNTB SIA establishes that an old brick building was remodelled, the publications by Malinin and AD help describe the façade and additional storeys, and the 1912 postcard shows the square’s historic appearance. The account of Kozyr’s unrealised proposal primarily documents the intentions of designers from a later period. None of these sources is, in itself, a report of an on-site survey. To determine exactly where Skomoroshenko’s work ends and fabric from Shekhtel’s time begins requires construction files, measured surveys and on-site analysis. Until then, it is more accurate to attribute phases of work rather than every visible fragment.

This way of reading the building has a simple practical implication. First, look at the windows and the wall sections between them, then at the outline of the upper storeys, and only then assess the overall silhouette. This sequence distinguishes Shekhtel’s concept from the added volumes. Such a comparison shows why this building formed part of the square’s commercial history, rather than merely an isolated episode in the famous architect’s career.

The Bank of Russia Museum included the Ryabushinsky brothers’ banking house alongside the Exchange building in a walking route exploring Moscow’s financial history. This comparison is appropriate to the history of the business district, although it does not establish the dates of individual details. Shekhtel’s work shows a transition towards rationalist Art Nouveau in the design of an office façade; its present appearance must be assessed with the later additional storeys in mind.

If you would like to compare the bank with other landmarks of Moscow’s entrepreneurial past in person, it is included in the itinerary of the ‘Business People’ tour; the format the bureau’s private tours allows you to give this architectural history particular attention.

Sources

1. TsNTB SIA — Bank of the P. M. Ryabushinsky Partnership
2. Bank of Russia Museum — Financial Moscow
3. Reconstruction Project for the Former Ryabushinsky Banking House — Historical Background
4. Radius Tour Bureau — ‘Business People’ Tour
5. B. V. Ananyich — Banking Houses in Russia, 1860–1914, chapter on the Ryabushinsky brothers
6. Central Scientific and Technical Library for Construction and Architecture — the Moscow Insurance Company’s ‘Boyarsky Dvor’ Trading House
7. Central Scientific and Technical Library for Construction and Architecture — the Moscow Merchants’ Society’s Trading House
8. State Tretyakov Gallery — Ryabushinsky Mansion as a Meeting Place of Symbolism and Art Nouveau
9. Russian State Library / Wikimedia Commons — ‘Birzhevaya Square’ postcard, July 1912
10. Alexander Timofeich Alexandrov — directory of Moscow buildings, entry for 1 Birzhevaya Square
11. Lyudmila Sokolova — ‘Moscow Art Nouveau: People and Destinies’, chapter on the Ryabushinsky Bank
12. AD Magazine — Liza Kofanova, ‘Five Public Spaces by Fyodor Shekhtel’
13. Evgenia Kirichenko — ‘4 Bolshaya Sadovaya Street’, section on Shekhtel’s commercial buildings
14. My Moscow — directory of buildings by Alexander Kaminsky, the Stock Exchange building
15. Moscow Government — ‘Fyodor Shekhtel’s Architectural Heritage in Moscow’