Moscow’s Tenement Houses: How to Read Their Façades, Courtyards and Everyday Life

Moscow’s late 19th- and early 20th-century tenement buildings were constructed specifically to generate a steady rental income. The cost of the land, financing, the mix of flats, ground-floor retail, the work of the property manager and domestic staff, plumbing, heating and the layout of the courtyard all shaped the business model of such a property.

The façade is considered in relation to the site plan. Prospective tenants judged a property’s status by its street-facing building, while behind it the owner added more lettable space; separate staircases and entrances kept residents, staff and deliveries apart. The study spans the growth of Moscow’s rental housing market in the 1870s through to the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of 20 August 1918; it also examines Soviet-era alterations and the buildings’ protected status as at 2 September 2026.

Why Moscow became a city of tenants

The large-scale construction of tenement buildings responded to rapid population growth and occupational mobility. According to Moscow census data, the city’s population rose from 601,969 in 1871 to 1,174,673 in 1902. The 1902 census noted that this increase was driven almost entirely by an influx of newcomers: industry, commerce, public institutions and educational establishments required workers and specialists who needed somewhere to live without purchasing a home.

Preliminary results from the survey of 6 March 1912 recorded a population of approximately 1.618 million, 24,600 properties, 183,500 flats and 11.9 million square metres of living space. The average provision was 7.3 m² per person, but this figure concealed the contrast between a multi-room home with domestic staff and a single bed in an overcrowded room.

In the census statistics, a property holding was a unit of land and property, a flat was a separate dwelling, and a tenement building was defined by its purpose and mode of operation; therefore the 183,500 flats cannot be regarded as flats located exclusively in tenement buildings, nor can the number of property holdings be equated with the number of buildings: a single holding could include a street-facing building, wings, service buildings and several courtyard structures.

A comparison of municipal data published in 2024 records 46,843 flats in 1871, 83,100 in 1882 and 130,741 in 1902. This growth reflects the expansion of the rental market, although the statistics cover the entire housing stock and do not make it possible to count flats in tenement buildings alone.

The plot was the first line item in the financial model

The price and shape of the plot determined the limits of the financial model. Street frontage provided visibility, a convenient address and the opportunity to let shops or offices. The depth of the property allowed for the construction of side wings and courtyard buildings. Dense development increased the lettable floor area while making lighting, ventilation, access and maintenance more difficult.

The layout usually divided the building into a prestigious street-facing section and an inner section. Flats with windows overlooking the street formed part of the front accommodation, while rooms in the wings and more distant buildings could be cheaper. An archway connected the street to the courtyard, but also took up space on the ground floor. Its position, width and relationship to the staircases were therefore determined by calculations involving the movement of carriages, deliveries, residents and waste.

Filipp Afremov’s tenement building on Sadovaya-Spasskaya Street was built in 1904 to a design by Osip Shishkovsky. Official material from the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage describes flats in the street-facing and courtyard buildings, which formed a single complex with rental premises at the rear of the property.

At the property at 61 Sadovnicheskaya Street, the service facilities were housed in a separate building. The state historical and cultural assessment report lists tenement buildings dating from various periods and a building with a laundry, designed by Dmitry Topazov and constructed in 1910–1911. The separate service building isolated the equipment and the humidity it generated from the residential buildings.

How to calculate income without assuming a universal rate of return

Gross rental income was not the same as the landlord’s profit. The proceeds had to cover loan repayments, municipal charges, insurance, routine and major repairs, heating fuel, water and sewerage, lighting in communal areas, lift and boiler-room maintenance, cleaning, waste disposal, and the wages of the building manager, caretakers, doorman and maintenance staff. A vacant flat or a tenant’s failure to pay immediately reduced the return.

There was no single rate of return across Moscow. Returns depended on when the land was purchased, the cost of borrowing, the district, the quality of construction, the mix of premises, the proportion of vacant flats and expenditure on equipment. The 1902 records separately documented residential vacancies, which deprived owners of rental income.

The Moscow Landlord’s Handbook of 1913 was intended for landlords, property managers and tenants. The 142-page publication contained 109 sample forms for contracts, payments, applications and administrative procedures. A large tenement building required constant management and record-keeping; the manager acted as a liaison between the owner, residents, municipal services and maintenance staff.

A 2025 academic article provides indicative figures for the early twentieth century: three- to four-room flats could rent for 50–100 roubles a month, large flats with 5–15 rooms for more than 120–140 roubles, small one- to two-room flats for around 10 roubles, and bed spaces in tiny cubicles for around 5 roubles. These figures help illustrate the disparity between market segments, but do not represent standard rates across Moscow: the publication brings together examples from different periods, while prices varied according to the address, floor, furnishings and amenities provided.

Income and expenses of Ilya Pigit’s apartment building

The financial model of a particular property can be reconstructed from the tax inventory of the house belonging to tobacco manufacturer Ilya Pigit at 10 Bolshaya Sadovaya Street. A special project by the Mikhail Bulgakov Museum published the inventory using 1914 records from the Moscow City Administration, held in Collection 179 of the Central State Archive of Moscow. The Administration assessed the property for taxation purposes, not to advertise its flats.

Gross annual income was estimated at 67,643 roubles and net income after expenses at 44,721 roubles; expenses amounted to 22,922 roubles, or 33.9 per cent of revenue, while the final figure was 300 roubles lower than in 1913. The total rental payments before expenses overstate the owner’s financial return.

The inventory’s general expenses included wages for the building manager and caretakers, courtyard lighting, chimney cleaning, routine maintenance and major repairs, snow and refuse removal, and rental income lost through vacant premises. A further sum of around 10,000 roubles covered a separate group of expenses: the wages of four employees—watchmen and doormen—insurance, water, heating, lighting for the main and service staircases, and the upkeep of pavements, lamps and the building’s telephone.

According to the same inventory, four-, five- and six-room apartments in the street-facing part of the building each generated an average annual income of around 1,600 roubles; Pigit’s own apartment on the third floor was assessed as having the potential to yield 4,200 roubles a year. These figures relate to a single property and allow comparisons to be made within it according to an apartment’s position at the front of the building, floor and size.

Credit, valuation and insurance connected the building to the financial market

The owner could finance the construction of a large building with funds borrowed against the property. The credit valuation took into account the plot, the buildings and the expected income. The architect and the owner were involved in the project, while its financial arrangements were determined by the lender, valuer and insurer.

The Moscow City Credit Society used a detailed Schedule of Land Prices. The 1914 schedule was approved by the Assembly of Representatives on 12 December 1913 and ran to 153 pages. The Society used the schedule when accepting urban property as collateral and valued land according to its location, irrespective of the architectural impression created by a new façade.

A historical documentary review of the Moscow City Credit Society lists the documents required from the borrower: a notarised mortgage certificate, a plan of the relevant part of the city, a description and survey of the land and buildings, and a receipt from the insurance company. The lender assessed the composition of the collateral and the extent of its insurance coverage. The plan confirmed the boundaries of the property, insurance reduced the fire risk, and the land valuation determined the financing limit.

Borrowing increased both potential profit and the risk of loss. An additional storey or a building in the courtyard provided new lettable space but required capital; when units stood vacant, rental income fell, while debt and maintenance costs remained. A densely built-up courtyard may have been a response to the price of the plot and the owner’s financial obligations. The motives of a particular owner can be established only from archival records.

The flat was the product, and its floor plan was the specification

The layouts of tenement buildings varied according to the price category and size of the accommodation. At the upper end of the market, spacious flats offered formal reception rooms, a study, a dining room, bedrooms, servants’ quarters and sanitary facilities. In the mid-price range, there were fewer rooms and less elaborate finishes, but a separate kitchen and basic amenities were retained. Furnished rooms, compact flats, and bed spaces or cubicles were chosen by those for whom price or a short rental period mattered more.

The layout of a large flat can be understood through its two entrances. The main door led to the entrance hall and reception rooms; the service door led to the kitchen, storerooms and service staircase. The dining room could link the formal and domestic areas. The bedrooms were set back from the entrance, while the servant’s room was usually close to the kitchen. This arrangement was not universal, but traces of it — two doors, a narrow service corridor, a kitchen vent and a landing overlooking the courtyard — make it possible to test the hypothesis on site.

The service staircase formed part of the domestic circulation route. Firewood, coal and food were brought in and rubbish was taken out via this staircase; the cook or maid could reach the service entrance without passing through the formal rooms. The term referred to its service function, not to the colour of its decoration or to a concealed passage.

Ernst Nirnsee’s building at 10 Bolshoi Gnezdnikovsky Lane offered compact accommodation with shared services. In 1912, the architect and owner received permission to construct a nine-storey stone building with small flats, a residential semi-basement and a dining room above part of the ninth floor; by the summer of 1913, the structure had been roofed. The official historical and cultural assessment records a height of over 40 metres, electric lifts and the building’s own telephone exchange. Its central location, services and engineering innovations compensated for the limited floor space.

What determined a flat’s status

A flat’s price and status depended on its floor, wing, staircase, natural light, view and quality of finish. Before the advent of the lift, the climb made the upper floors less desirable; with a lift, they became more accessible and could command higher prices.

The status of the premises varied according to the wing, staircase and depth of the residential block. A single property might contain a shop, an office, a large family flat, furnished rooms, a workshop and staff accommodation. To establish who lived in tenement buildings, the address directory All Moscow for 1913 should be compared with the floor plan and rent roll. The directory comprises 916 pages and 2,653 columns with separate pagination; it can be used to verify property owners, institutions and residents by address, while other documents reveal the location and cost of the premises.

The day-to-day running of flats and properties relied on numerous hired workers. According to the 1912 census, Moscow had around 99,100 economically active domestic servants; including economically inactive members of this group, the total was 105,100. The statistics cover the entire city, so they cannot be used as a count of workers employed in tenement buildings.

A cook, maid, nanny and footman belonged to their employer’s household, while an estate manager, caretaker, doorman, stoker or machinery operator might serve the property as a whole. These groups had different employers, patterns of movement and living arrangements. A room beside the kitchen was usually intended for domestic servants, while the caretaker’s lodge by the gate formed part of the management of the entire property.

Modern conveniences were distributed unevenly

The 1912 census reveals the uneven availability of urban amenities. According to a study of energy consumption in Moscow, 34.4 per cent of residents lived in buildings without electric lighting, 47.7 per cent without running water and 39.4 per cent without sewerage. These figures cover all types of housing and show that, even in the pre-revolutionary city centre, utilities varied from building to building.

The word ‘water supply’ alone tells us little about everyday life in a flat. Water might have been piped into the property, to a particular floor, into the kitchen or to a private bathroom; plumbing fixtures and water pressure varied. The same caution is needed when assessing sewerage and heating. Stoves, fireplaces, central hot-water heating and steam heating each entailed different costs, staffing requirements and layouts. A pipe on the façade therefore does not prove that it formed part of the original system: utilities were altered repeatedly.

The design of the Nirnsee House included central hot-water heating. Electric lifts served its nine storeys, while a private telephone exchange provided communications. Historical and cultural records for Mikhail Babanin’s apartment building at 6 Klimentovsky Lane, built in 1912–1913 and also designed by Nirnsee, document central hot-water heating and lifts.

Building services increased both the cost and the appeal of flats. Shafts, boiler rooms and pipes took up usable space, while the equipment required fuel, maintenance and trained personnel. At the same time, a lift made the upper floors more accessible, while heating, water and telephone services influenced rental rates. The original configuration should be assessed from a combination of evidence: the lift shaft, ventilation ducts, basement, radiator recesses, risers and the architectural schedule.

Sanitary conditions depended on the courtyard, natural light and occupancy density

Sanitary conditions depended on air volume, natural light, ventilation, sewage disposal, water quality, refuse collection and occupancy density. A well courtyard increased the built-up area, but its lower windows received less light. A narrow wing with a through-plan layout was better ventilated, while a windowless room deep within the building remained dark.

The bed-space and cubicle model cannot be regarded as conventional small-sized housing. Records on Moscow’s housing stock from the 1912 census mention 24,500 dwellings of this type and 326,600 people living in rented bed spaces and cubicles. The category encompassed various arrangements for renting part of a room, but the figure shows why the average floor area per resident reveals little about the actual degree of overcrowding.

The separation of formal and service circulation also served a sanitary purpose. Firewood, coal, provisions and waste were carried through the courtyard and up or down the service staircase; efforts were made to keep the laundry, sheds, icehouse or storeroom apart from the living quarters, although dense development often reduced the distance between them. Traces of a filled-in window well, a blocked doorway or new ventilation grilles do not in themselves establish the date of the system: a conclusion can be drawn only by comparing them with the historical plan.

The property owner was accountable to the city and the police

Municipal and police regulations governed the operation of private houses. The fourth edition of the Collection of Resolutions of the Moscow City Duma Binding on Moscow Residents was published in 1900 and ran to 199 pages. The regulations covered sanitary upkeep, fire safety, the street and the courtyard, making the owner accountable to the municipal authorities for the condition of the property.

Documents relating to Pigit’s house show how the rules worked in practice. The property owner paid for the street and pavement to be cleaned; the caretakers had to sweep the pavement by six in the morning in summer and by eight in spring and autumn, while in winter they had to clear away snow and ice and spread sand. The use of salt was prohibited, as was dumping rubbish into rivers or ditches, onto a boulevard or over a neighbour’s fence. These obligations became a regular item of expenditure.

The caretaker maintained the property and assisted with police surveillance. According to a 1913 reference book, he was required to know the residents and report any unauthorised overnight guests to the local police officer; a black noticeboard displaying the flat numbers and tenants’ surnames had to be placed by the gates. The property manager was responsible for the accounts, the caretaker for cleanliness, night duty and surveillance, and domestic servants for working in their employer’s household. The different duties required separate service rooms.

The caretaker’s room was often located beside the archway, with a view of the gates; a black noticeboard provided the administration with details of the residents, while the doorman monitored the main entrance. The surviving booth nearby does not in itself confirm its original function: the room would need to be labelled on a plan or in an inventory.

The ground floor connected the building to the urban economy

Flats accounted for only one part of the rental income. A shop, retail unit, office, workshop, warehouse or tavern would have its own entrance and display window facing the street. The ground floor generated rent from the most valuable street frontage and accommodated visitors, so the residential quarters began on the floors above or were set farther back in the courtyard.

A large opening, a slender pier and an entrance directly from the pavement may indicate a commercial function, but the present-day shopfront is not necessarily historic. Shops enlarged their windows, relocated doors, and installed signs and ventilation. A reliable interpretation requires an old photograph or the original architectural drawings: styling reminiscent of the early 20th century may be the result of modern restoration.

Official documents concerning the urban estate ensemble at 24/2 Sofiyskaya Embankment explicitly describe one of the buildings as a ‘tenement house with shops’. At the Sadovnicheskaya property, a separate laundry was located at the rear of the site. The street-facing premises generated rental income, while the courtyard services ensured the upkeep of the property.

How to read a façade without inventing symbolism

The architecture of tenement houses linked their street-facing appearance with their internal layout: the façade can be read as a projection of the floor plan. Large shop windows indicate a public or commercial use of the ground floor; repeated window bays correspond to the spacing of rooms or sections; a bay window enlarges the room and improves the view; a balcony may mark a prestigious flat or a compositional axis; and an archway provides access to the rear of the site.

It is best to read a building from the bottom upwards and from the edges towards the centre. First, distinguish the historic masonry and openings from later signage and double-glazed windows; then identify the entrances and staircase windows, compare the floors, and examine the corner and courtyard wings. Differences in the treatment of the principal and service façades reveal where the owner directed their expenditure, but do not automatically indicate the income generated.

A mascaron, floral ornament or animal figure may have formed part of the architect’s design scheme, come from a catalogue of standard mouldings, or simply followed contemporary fashion. It can be identified as a portrait of the owner, a Masonic symbol or a protective charm only on the basis of a drawing, an explanation by the architect, or a well-established iconographic parallel. Record the presence of a detail separately from any interpretation of its meaning.

During the restoration of Afremov House, specialists reconstructed the cornice with wrought-iron brackets and the main entrance portals finished with coarse crushed stone. Documents confirm the material and location of these elements. Any hidden biographical programme would require separate evidence from the architect or archival sources.

Three rental apartment buildings: different rental models

The Nirnsee House: compact flats and shared services

The Nirnsee House at 10 Bolshoi Gnezdnikovsky Lane combined compact flats with engineering innovations. At over 40 metres tall, it required a lift; the building had its own telephone exchange, while a dining room was located above the ninth floor. Its central location and modern amenities compensated for the limited living space.

The Afremov House: street-facing and courtyard wings

In the Afremov House at 19 Sadovaya-Spasskaya Street, Building 1, flats occupied both the street-facing and courtyard wings. A single street façade represented the entire complex. Following restoration, the exterior should be considered separately from the original floor plan, Soviet-era alterations and new utility systems.

The Babanin House: a protected building in active use

The Babanin rental apartment building at 6 Klimentovsky Lane was built in 1912–1913 to a design by Nirnsee. Official documents published by the Moscow authorities address the adaptation of individual residential and non-residential premises. Experts assess every alteration to a flat or retail unit against the building’s shared structures and its officially designated protected features.

The 1918 decree and the subsequent transformation of housing

Before the Revolution, Moscow’s rental apartment buildings remained privately owned property. On 20 August 1918, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted the decree ‘On the Abolition of Private Ownership of Urban Real Estate’; it was published on 24 August. The act abolished the previous system of property rights governing urban land. For buildings, Article 2 linked expropriation to a value threshold set by the local authorities, as well as to their permanent letting. The new rules therefore explicitly applied to rental apartment buildings.

The legal regime and the floor plans changed at different times. The authorities transferred buildings, established administration of the municipalised housing stock, subdivided flats, moved residents into individual rooms and added kitchens or sanitary facilities in stages. The date of the decree explains the change in ownership model, but it does not date a particular partition to 1918.

The Soviet layer can be recognised by the subdivision of large rooms, additional doors, multiple doorbells, relocated sinks, a shared kitchen and new meters. Yet each sign is ambiguous: an opening may have been bricked up during a later renovation, while a partition may date from the post-Soviet period. An archival floor plan, technical survey records and the sequence of physical traces are more reliable than family lore.

After subdivision, residents used the shared spaces differently. A grand flat became several separate households; the service corridor might become the main passage, a former servant’s room a separate dwelling, and the back staircase a sealed emergency exit. The load-bearing structure, courtyard wings and some utility routes nevertheless survived.

What is protected and how the building is used in 2026

As at 2 September 2026, the federal framework is governed by Federal Law No. 73-FZ of 25 June 2002, as amended to reflect changes dated 10 June 2026. For a specific address, one must check its entry in the Unified State Register of Cultural Heritage Sites, its category of significance, the boundaries of its territory, its designated protected features and the conservation obligation. The informal description ‘historic rental apartment building’ does not confer legal status.

The designated protected features list the characteristics for which the heritage site is preserved: its volume and silhouette, façade composition, materials, decoration, structures, spatial layout or individual interiors. They may not cover every part of the building equally. Consequently, replacing a door, altering a flat’s layout and intervening in the façade are assessed under different documents, while the absence of valuable decoration in one room does not mean that the load-bearing structure may be freely altered.

The law regulates the repair, restoration and adaptation of heritage sites separately. Preserving a heritage property involves research, design and work aimed at safeguarding both its physical fabric and its historical and cultural significance. A building may be adapted to a new use provided that its protected features remain unchanged. The nature of any intervention should therefore be assessed against the published project documentation and expert assessment report, rather than the promotional label ‘restoration’.

Specialists restored details on the façade of Afremov House, while documents relating to Babanin House record the approval of work in individual premises. Former rental apartment buildings continue to contain flats, as well as offices, shops and institutions. Whether a new use is permissible depends on the condition of the structure and its protected features; a series of unauthorised interventions can damage them even without major reconstruction.

A practical method for reading a rental apartment building

Begin by establishing the property’s address and official legal name. Check the year shown on any local-history plaque against the heritage register and the historical and cultural assessment report: a single building may have been constructed in stages, had extra storeys added or incorporated an earlier structure.

Next, examine the site from publicly accessible vantage points. Identify the street-facing building, archway, side wings, courtyard structures and firewalls. Work out which rooms faced the street and which overlooked the courtyard, as well as the routes used by residents, for deliveries and for removing waste. A closed gate does not give you the right to enter private property; plans and observations from outside allow the analysis to continue without venturing beyond the boundary.

The third step is the ground floor. Separate doors, large openings, ventilation and traces of signage help reconstruct the building’s commercial layer. The fourth is the staircases: the main and service entrances, the size of the landings, the windows, lift shaft and kitchen location connect the façade to the layout of the flats.

The fifth step is the building services. Record only what is visible: a radiator recess, riser, ventilation duct, access hatch, shaft or boiler room. Check the project documentation to establish its date and whether it is original. The sixth is social-history sources: All Moscow, census tables, property owners’ directories and classified advertisements reveal who owned, managed, rented and maintained the building.

The final step is to distinguish between three levels of analysis. The statement ‘there is a bay window on the façade’ records its presence; the assumption that it illuminated a living room must be checked against the floor plan. Interpreting the feature as a symbol of the owner’s aspirations requires a source relating to the architect’s intent or the building’s iconography. Drawings and inventories distinguish established fact from conjecture and interpretation.

How to cross-reference sources on a rental apartment building

The history of Moscow’s rental apartment buildings is reconstructed from sources of varying scope. A city census describes the capital’s population and housing stock, an inventory covers a specific property in a particular year, and an expert assessment report records the state of preservation and the work under consideration. Errors arise when a citywide figure is applied to an individual building or a current report is used to reconstruct pre-revolutionary daily life.

Limitations of the principal sources on rental apartment buildings

Source	What it confirms	What it does not confirm on its own
City census	The number of residents, properties, flats, amenities and housing categories on the census date	The architect, floor plan and profitability of an individual building
Address directory	The association of a surname or institution with an address in the year of publication	The full composition of a household and the length of residence
Property tax inventory	Premises, tenants, gross income and recognised expenses	Unrecorded payments and the condition of the building in another year
Architectural plan	The originally approved layout and intended use of the premises	What was built without deviations from the plan and how the space was used later
Historical and cultural expert assessment report	The history of the property, its state of preservation and the work under consideration	Automatic protected status for every detail of the building

Cross-reference at least two independent sources of evidence. If the plan shows a kitchen and service staircase, the inventory identifies the flat and its tenant, and the survey records a surviving doorway, the functional connection is established far more convincingly than by a single modern inspection.

The façade, courtyard, floor plan and building services reveal different aspects of the same rental model. Prospective tenants judged the building by its street-facing wing, while the courtyard wings increased the lettable area, the internal layout separated domestic and service circulation, and the building services determined comfort levels and costs. Soviet-era partitions and current heritage-protection documents help reconstruct how the building was adapted after private property ownership was abolished.

The Isakov Apartment Building provides tangible material for this comparison and is included in the ‘His Majesty Art Nouveau’ tour. Its façade shows how a building designed for rental use was given an imposing architectural treatment.

Sources

1. Key Preliminary Data from the Moscow Census of 31 January 1902. Issue 2. General Results of the Census of Properties and Apartments. Vacant Apartments
2. Key Preliminary Data from the Moscow Census of 6 March 1912. Part 1. General Data on the Population, Apartments and Properties
3. Statistical Data on the Residents of Moscow from the Census of 12 December 1871
4. All Moscow: Address and Reference Book for 1913
5. Moscow Property Owner’s Handbook: A Reference Book for Property Owners, Property Managers and Tenants. 1913
6. Orchakova L. G., Ilmiev R. I. The Role of Tenement Houses in Moscow’s Urban Housing Stock at the Turn of the Twentieth Century
7. Orchakova L. G., Ilmiev R. I. Moscow’s Income-Generating Property at the Turn of the Twentieth Century as an Economic Phenomenon
8. Changes in Moscow’s Energy Consumption Amid Economic Transformation: From the Last Century to the Present Day
9. The Socio-Occupational Composition of Moscow’s Population According to the 1912 Census
10. Moscow 1931: Results. Housing: Publication of Statistics from the 1912 Census
11. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report: Nirnsee House, 10 Bolshoy Gnezdnikovsky Lane
12. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report: M. I. Babanin’s Tenement Building, 6 Klimentovsky Lane
13. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report: Flat 60 in M. I. Babanin’s Tenement Building
14. Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage: One of the Capital’s First High-Rises, Merchant Afremov’s Tenement Building, Has Been Restored
15. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report: A. M. Babushkin’s Tenement Estate, 61 Sadovnicheskaya Street
16. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report: Urban Estate at 24/2 Sofiyskaya Embankment
17. Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on the Abolition of Private Ownership of Urban Real Estate. 20 August 1918
18. Federal Law No. 73-FZ of 25 June 2002 on Cultural Heritage Sites, current version
19. Mikhail Bulgakov Museum. No. 10 Bolshaya Sadovaya Street in 1904–1917: an inventory of Ilya Pigit’s property
20. Moscow Municipal Credit Society. Schedule of land values for the acceptance of real estate as collateral for 1914
21. Russian History in Documents. Moscow Municipal Credit Society
22. Collection of Moscow City Duma Regulations Binding on Moscow Residents. 4th edition, 1900