Vasilyevsky Spusk took shape in stages. In the 1930s, parts of the former square beside the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat, Maslyany Lane and the western side of Moskvoretskaya Street were cleared for the new Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge. Yet an archival photograph from 1938 still shows houses standing beside the bridge, which was already in use. The neighbouring built-up areas were redeveloped later too, including during the construction of the Rossiya Hotel in the 1960s.
This history requires a distinction between three places: the old Moskvoretskaya Street, the built-up Vasilyevskaya Square and the blocks of Zaryadye to the east of the street. Treating them as a single place under one name can easily lead to an incorrect demolition date. Comparing heritage protection documents with archival photographs makes it possible to reconstruct the sequence of changes and understand the limits of each piece of evidence.
What stood between Red Square and the river before the open slope was created?
Before redevelopment, this was a built-up part of the city centre, with routes to the river running through lanes and narrow passages. Moskvoretskaya Street descended from Red Square to the old bridge, while Zaryadye adjoined Vasilyevskaya Square from the south beside the Kremlin wall. Published photographs from the late 19th and early 20th centuries show rooftops, street façades and a cramped approach to the bridge in place of today's broad, open view.
A historical and cultural heritage assessment of the Middle Trading Rows complex provides a more precise picture of the layout here. Completed in 1893 to a design by Roman Klein, the building curved around the south-eastern part of Red Square, followed the slope downhill and merged into the buildings along Moskvoretskaya Street. The uneven site dictated the block's complex shape; the southern section was lower and set at a slight angle to the rest of the façade. For passers-by, this meant that the trading complex did not end at the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat: the urban fabric continued towards the bridge.
Trams on the old Moskvoretsky Bridge and dense development beside the Kremlin; the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat is visible in the distance. Moscow, 1935. Wikimedia Commons, Eirik Sundvor. Fra Kreml — Den Røde Plass og Vasilijkatedralen (1935).jpg, author: Eirik Sundvor (1902-1992), then reporter for Avisa Nidaros, licence: CC BY 2.0 source, license
The same assessment lists four trading rows beside Moskvoretskaya Street: the Chalk and Grocery Rows, and, nearer the river, the Flour and Live Fish Rows. This list reflects the district's layout rather than the range of goods sold in a single building before its demolition. It helps explain why the name Zaryadye is linked to the trading rows, and why the former route to the bridge was part of a commercial street layout rather than an empty square in front of the Kremlin wall.
Why should the old district not be imagined as a single empty square?
Red Square, Vasilyevskaya Square and Zaryadye had different boundaries and functions. According to an account by the Moscow Main Archive Administration, this district occupied the low-lying southern part of Kitay-Gorod; Velikaya Street ran along the river, continuing the road from the Kremlin's Podol area. The name Zaryadye was explained by its position behind the trading rows. Old photographs of the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat and the bridge therefore show a ceremonial square beside a dense network of streets and residential buildings. This dense development later disappeared from the panorama, although the historic names survived.
In the 1530s, the Kitay-Gorod wall separated Zaryadye from the river. The Main Archive Administration's account names the Kosmodamiansky and Spassko-Vodyanye Gates, the latter also known as the Moskvoretsky Gates, which provided access to the water; a photographic exhibition shows the later Prolomnye Gates in the fortification and warehouses built against it on the embankment side. From here, Velikaya Street ran to the left along the riverbank from Zhivoy Bridge to Ustinsky Bridge; there was no road for wheeled traffic to the right along the water until the end of the 18th century. This layout cannot be applied to today's open vista: access to the river depended on the positions of the gates rather than the alignment of the new bridge. Otherwise, a later passage could be mistaken for the earlier route.
The covered gallery of a restored section of the Kitay-Gorod wall in Zaryadye, with a display of fortress artillery. Present-day view. Openverse, wikimedia, Moscow — Kitai-gorod wall in Zaryadye — 2025-01-08 — p5, author: Alexander Sigachyov, licence: by-sa 4.0 source, license
Zaryadye was rebuilt after the fire of 1812; among the 19th-century houses, the photographic catalogue identifies inexpensive rental buildings with galleries instead of conventional internal corridors. These features should not be attributed to every house beside Vasilyevskaya Square, but they help convey the scale of the residential area east of Moskvoretskaya Street. Ivan Guryanov's 1827 guidebook, quoted in Moscow Heritage, describes Zaryadye's narrow passages. His assessment of sanitary conditions is that of a 19th-century author and is no substitute for a plan of the blocks; the relevant fact here is that a dense street network existed behind the trading rows.
The relationship between trade and topography is documented in particular detail at the Middle Trading Rows. The heritage protection document describes a three-storey building around the perimeter of an irregular block and four two-storey buildings within the site. There were cellars beneath the passageways, while an archway on the Moskvoretskaya Street side provided vehicle access to the inner courtyard. The document mentions an underground corridor beneath the pavements of that street and Varvarka. The street frontage thus adjoined a complex system for unloading and access, adapted to the slope down to the river.
A useful comparison is a photograph of the old bridge from 1898–1899 from Ivan Egorov's archival collection. Its caption describes warehouses built against the Kitay-Gorod wall on the Moskvoretskaya Embankment side. The photograph provides no street measurements and does not allow every house in the foreground to be identified. What it does reliably show is that, before the approach to the river was widened, the wall formed part of a dense commercial area, with the old bridge standing alongside it.
The corner of Varvarka and Moskvoretskaya Street in Moscow: commercial façades along a cobbled road. 1913. Wikimedia Commons, 3096073 A.A. Gubarev — Corner of Varvarka and Moskvoretskaya Street, 1913.jpg, author: Alexandr Alexandrovich Gubarev, licence: Public domain source
When did this place become known as Vasilyevsky Spusk?
The name of today's square cannot be applied without qualification to a pre-revolutionary plan. In an article entitled ‘Vasilyevsky Spusk’, published in the scholarly journal Russkaya Rech in 1994, the philologist M. V. Gorbanevsky wrote that the name for the slope had entered widespread use only in the early 1990s. At the time of publication, he considered it still not officially registered. The researcher traced the place name to two landmarks: the popular name of the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat — St Basil's Cathedral — and the road descending to the river along the Kremlin wall.
This linguistic detail has a practical bearing on the history of the demolitions. A caption in an archival exhibition may use today's name for a place photographed in the 1930s because that is how a 21st-century reader will recognise it. The old buildings, however, belonged to Vasilyevskaya Square, Moskvoretskaya Street and the neighbouring lanes. A modern geographical label does not establish the boundaries of the old block or, by itself, date its disappearance.
Where did the old Moskvoretsky Bridge run, and why did the new alignment change the square?
The old bridge continued the line of Moskvoretskaya Street towards Balchug; the new one was built closer to the Kremlin, on an alignment towards Bolshaya Ordynka. Construction therefore affected more than the crossing over the Moskva River itself. On the left bank, the approach from Red Square and the Kremlin wall had to be cleared. The archival photographic exhibition ‘Zaryadye, Which Nobody Knew What to Do With…’ compares the old street alignment towards Balchug with the new construction works of 1936.
The assessment report for Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge links the project to the 1935 General Plan for the Reconstruction of Moscow. It names the engineer V. S. Kirillov and the architects A. V. Shchusev and P. M. Sardaryan. The change in alignment explains why the works did more than simply widen Moskvoretskaya Street: its former approach to the bridge lost its role as the main traffic route. A direct, open approach from Red Square was created for the new traffic flow; the old street alignment now lay to the side of the crossing.
Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge over the Moskva River at night, with the Kremlin towers visible behind it. Wikimedia Commons, 2015 night in Moscow — Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge 01.jpg, author: Andrey Korzun, licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 source, license
How did the old bridge connect the streets before redevelopment?
The shift in the direction of travel towards the river is central to this account. Heritage protection documents mention a crossing as early as the late 15th century, but differ over its original construction: one describes a floating bridge, while another leaves the question open. A wooden crossing on piles appeared in 1789, followed in 1829 by a structure with stone supports and spans of the same material. After the wooden bridge burned in 1870, metal arches were installed on the existing supports in 1872. Materials and structural systems changed, but Moskvoretskaya Street continued to lead to the old crossing point.
The 1935 General Plan treated bridges as part of a larger road network in Zamoskvorechye. The bridge assessment lists new crossings in the bend of the Moskva River and notes the routes leading towards Serpukhovskaya Square, now Dobryninskaya Square. Maly Moskvoretsky Bridge, built in 1937 across the Vodootvodny Canal, continued the route from Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge. This connection explains why the new crossing cannot be considered solely from bank to bank: its alignment continued beyond the canal and required a clear approach from Red Square.
A book by E. Simonov, published shortly after the works, quotes a provision of the 1935 decree: the Moskva River embankments were to form a continuous urban thoroughfare with wide carriageways and granite facing. The same author reports that in 1936 the old sandstone facing of the embankments beside the Kremlin and Kitay-Gorod was replaced with light grey granite. This contemporary account helps distinguish the project's aims: the bridge created a new river crossing, while reconstruction of the banks changed traffic routes along the river. The open slope emerged where these two directions met; the cityscape in a 1930s photograph cannot be treated as an unchanging backdrop when comparing the crossings.
Which architectural decisions can be seen from the slope?
The engineer V. S. Kirillov and the architects A. V. Shchusev and P. M. Sardaryan designed a reinforced concrete structure with stone facing. The heritage protection document draws particular attention to the red granite of Bolshoy and Maly Moskvoretsky Bridges. The bank abutments incorporate stairways and four viewing platforms; the two on the Vasilyevsky Spusk side have balconies supported by stepped brackets. The solid parapet frames the view of the river from the bridge itself. The open space beside the Kremlin thus became part of the new visual composition of the approach to the crossing.
Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge in a photograph from the 1930s: arched spans and abutments against the backdrop of the Kremlin and St Basil's Cathedral. Wikimedia Commons, View to Kremlin in 1938.jpg, author: Moscow Main Archive Administration, licence: CC BY 4.0 source, license
The same report records an unrealised proposal to decorate the bridge with sculptures by Vera Mukhina. The document stresses that the figures were never installed and presents a lack of funding as only one possible explanation. This distinction between the design and the completed structure matters when interpreting old drawings: a sculpture shown in a design does not prove that it ever stood above today's slope. Photographs of the completed crossing should be examined for the arches, abutments, stairways and parapets that were actually built.
What does the phrase ‘a bridge in its historic location’ mean?
One heritage protection document describes the present crossing as retaining its ‘historic location’ beside the Kremlin. If this phrase is read literally as meaning that the supports occupy the same positions, it contradicts another report: that document places the old bridge further downstream, in line with Moskvoretskaya Street and Balchug, and links the new one to Vasilyevsky Spusk and Bolshaya Ordynka. The photographic catalogue confirms the difference in alignment between the two crossings. In a general historical account, it therefore makes sense to understand ‘location’ as the stretch of river beside the Kremlin, while relying on more precise landmarks and images to reconstruct the street layout.
What exactly was demolished in the 1930s?
According to the 2019 heritage protection document, the buildings on Vasilyevskaya Square, Maslyany Lane and the western part of Moskvoretskaya Street were demolished in the 1930s. This wording identifies a side of the street and a group of blocks, but gives no demolition date for each individual address. It therefore cannot be taken to mean that all the buildings around the slope disappeared when the bridge opened.
A photograph from Ivan Egorov's archive, dated 1936 in the photographic catalogue, shows a block being cleared for the new Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge. The city magazine Moscow Heritage also publishes an image of buildings being demolished on Vasilyevsky Spusk, dated 1932–1934. These pieces of evidence relate to different parts of the works and different stages of preparing the site. A photograph assigned a date range does not, by itself, establish the day a particular house was demolished without an additional plan identifying individual addresses.
Which block remained after the initial widening?
An archival photograph dated 1930–1935, makes the stages particularly clear. The caption notes that Vasilyevskaya Square has already been considerably enlarged, but the block between it and Moskvoretskaya Street is still standing; the approach to the new bridge would later run through this site. The date range is broad, so this photograph alone cannot establish the year of the first enlargement. It does, however, establish the sequence: part of the square was opened up before the land between the square and the street was cleared for the new alignment.
Moskvoretskaya Street and the block beside Vasilyevsky Spusk, viewed from the old Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge. Colourised archival photograph from the first half of the 1930s; the exact year it was taken has not been established. Wikimedia Commons, View of Moskvoretskaya Street and Vasilyevsky Spusk from Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge.jpg, author: Branson DeCou, licence: Public domain source
Another photograph, published in Moscow Heritage magazine, is described as showing the demolition of buildings on Vasilyevsky Spusk in 1932–1934. The photographic catalogue dates the clearance of the block for the bridge to 1936. These records do not necessarily contradict one another: the earlier photograph relates to changes already under way on the slope, while the later one shows the construction site for the new crossing. The error lies in describing both photographs as showing the same building or the same event without identifying the addresses.
The redevelopment of the central blocks also affected the Kitay-Gorod wall. An archival photography exhibition dates the start of its partial dismantling to 1934. An article by the Moscow Main Archive Directorate in Moscow Heritage magazine cites an order of 20 February 1952 to demolish the wall along Moskvoretskaya Embankment for the construction of a high-rise building in Zaryadye. The clearance of the bridge approach and the subsequent work on the Kitay-Gorod fortifications therefore cannot be dated to a single year.
The word ‘western’ in the 2019 report specifies which side of Moskvoretskaya Street was affected. Blocks of Zaryadye remained to the east of the former street alignment. The caption to a 1938 photograph names ‘Maslov Lane’, whereas the report uses the name ‘Maslyany Lane’. Without a property plan, the similarity of these two place names is not enough to identify all the buildings shown in the photograph as those on the site specified in the report.
Why does 1938 not mark the end of all demolition?
In 1938, the new bridge was already in use, while some of the buildings by Vasilyevskaya Square were still standing. This is explicitly noted in the caption to an archival photograph from Ivan Yegorov’s collection. Another photograph from the same year shows the dismantling of the old Moskvoretsky Bridge. The working crossing, the remains of the old bridge and some of the earlier buildings therefore coexisted for a time.
The opening to traffic and the completion of the riverbank clearance were separate events. One heritage protection document gives 12 November 1937 as the opening date of Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge. In his 1938 book, E. Simonov links the opening of the crossing to the twentieth anniversary of the October Revolution. On this evidence, the exact opening date cannot be stated without qualification; photographs from 1938 confirm traffic on the new bridge, the dismantling of the old one and buildings still standing nearby.
What do independent photographs from 1938 confirm?
The selection from Ivan Yegorov’s archive shows the replacement of the bridges, but does not establish the date the new one entered service. The Museum of Moscow catalogue includes a photograph from the newspaper Vechernyaya Moskva entitled ‘Traffic on the New Moskvoretsky Bridge’, dated 1938. Its provenance and subject strengthen the conclusion that the new crossing was in use. The photograph alone does not establish the exact opening date, but it does record the bridge being used before the riverbank clearance was complete.
Yegorov’s archive also dates a photograph showing the old bridge being dismantled to 1938. One image records the new structure in use; another, the removal of its predecessor. According to the exhibition organisers’ caption, a photograph in the same exhibition still shows buildings on Vasilyevskaya Square and Maslov Lane. These three different scenes establish a much more precise sequence than the phrase ‘the old bridge was demolished, a new one was built and the slope was opened up’. Traffic was already flowing while the surrounding buildings were still being replaced.
The old Moskvoretsky Bridge in 1912. Boats and floating structures on the Moskva River are visible in the foreground. Wikimedia Commons, 3091685 A.A. Gubarev — Moskvoretsky Bridge, 1912.jpg, author: Alexandr Alexandrovich Gubarev, licence: Public domain source
A separate question is how to interpret the open space itself in the 1938 photograph. The clear area in front of the bridge confirms that the necessary corridor for the main road had already been cut through. The buildings remaining on the neighbouring site do not alter that fact, but they limit the conclusion that can be drawn: space for traffic appeared before the familiar broad panorama had fully taken shape. This is the distinction between a road being ready for use and the square acquiring its final appearance.
What happened to Moskvoretskaya Street after the bridge was relocated?
Moskvoretskaya Street retained its alignment and name, but lost its role as the direct approach to the old bridge. The catalogue dates a photograph taken near the former alignment of this road and Balchug to 1938–1940. The exhibition caption describes the former route as a passage between the new bridge and what remained of Zaryadye. Such a photograph is more useful than a general statement that the street disappeared: the traffic connection had changed, while the space and some of the buildings to the east still existed.
View from Vasilyevsky Spusk towards Moskvoretskaya Street and Zaryadye: the present-day carriageway and pedestrian crossings. Wikimedia Commons, Moscow — Evening view of Zaryadye and Moskvoretskaya Street from Vasilyevsky descent.jpg, author: Yuri D.K., licence: CC BY 4.0 source, license
The question of the Lower Trading Rows shows how cautiously general historical accounts should be read. One expert assessment report dates their demolition to the 1960s, whereas a publication by the Moscow Main Archive Directorate gives the 1930s. This discrepancy requires checking which buildings belonged to the complex and which individual structures are meant; for the history of Vasilyevsky Spusk, it is enough to avoid confusing the Lower Trading Rows with the buildings on the western side of Moskvoretskaya Street. One disputed term should not obscure the well-documented sequence: clearance of the bridge approach, buildings remaining after its opening, and the later redevelopment of Zaryadye.
Which projects reshaped Zaryadye after the bridge was built?
After the approach to the crossing had been cleared, the future of neighbouring Zaryadye remained undecided. An account by the Moscow Main Archive Directorate states that plans in the 1930s proposed a building for the People’s Commissariat of Heavy Industry on the high riverbank, designed by the brothers Alexander and Viktor Vesnin. The same architects won the 1940 competition for a second building for the Council of People’s Commissars. Preparatory work began in spring 1941, but was interrupted by the war. This explains why the blocks east of Moskvoretskaya Street had yet to acquire a settled new appearance after the bridge opened.
The post-war project was on a different scale. In 1947, an administrative building in Zaryadye was planned as one of Moscow’s high-rises; according to the Main Archive Directorate, its proposed height was 275 metres. The project was abandoned after 1953. The conclusion relevant here is clear: demolition and earthworks in the neighbouring district continued because of new state projects, which were no longer necessary for the operation of Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge.
In 1956, the USSR Council of Ministers approved the construction of a hotel in Zaryadye. An extract from the resolution published by the Main Archive Directorate specified 2700 rooms and capacity for 4500 guests; these figures describe the plan at that time, rather than the operating complex at any later date. The building, designed by Dmitry Chechulin, was constructed in 1964–1967, using the foundations of the unrealised high-rise. A photograph from 1964 in the exhibition shows both the start of construction and buildings still standing. Even at this stage, old Zaryadye did not disappear all at once.
The Rossiya Hotel in Zaryadye on 27 February 1967. A construction crane is visible above the building. Wikimedia Commons, Moscow, numbers 6 and 7 new Rossiya Hotel, number 8 Kremlin on the left and Basi on the right, File no. 920-1216.jpg, author: Anefo, licence: CC0 source, license
The city also formalised the change in its records. According to the Main Archive Directorate’s account, a resolution of the Moscow City Council’s Executive Committee dated 20 February 1968 abolished Yeletsky, Maksimovsky, Zaryadyevsky, Krivoy, Pskovsky and Mokrinsky lanes; a number of surviving buildings were renumbered. The removal of these place names from the map in 1968 does not prove that all the buildings along those routes were demolished in the same year. It records the end of the former address system following redevelopment and changes to the street layout.
What was preserved beside the new blocks?
The later clearance did not mean the wholesale destruction of historic monuments. In 1964, the Moscow City Council’s Executive Committee ordered the removal of commercial and operational tenants from Zaryadye’s listed buildings and preparations for repair and restoration. A resolution of 22 December 1967 required the historically informed restoration of monuments within the hotel construction area. The Main Archive Directorate’s article gives a separate account of the Old English Court: by the time work on the Rossiya Hotel began, alterations had concealed its original appearance; on 22 December 1967, the building was handed over to the Moscow Archaeological Expedition, and restoration took place from 1968 to 1973. This was a different kind of transformation from the clearance for the bridge: alongside the losses, work was under way to identify and preserve individual buildings.
Present-day view of the Old English Court on Varvarka Street: the main façade with its entrance porch and external staircase. Wikimedia Commons, The Old English Court in Moscow.jpg, author: Reda Kerbush, licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 source, license
The hotel closed on 1 January 2006, and dismantling began in March. Zaryadye Park opened in 2017 on the site of the demolished hotel. It once again changed the appearance of the eastern side of the slope, but did not restore the old network of lanes or the road to the former bridge. A twenty-first-century photograph therefore cannot serve as a direct ‘after’ image for a single demolition in 1936: between the historical photographs and today’s space lie the projects of the 1940s, the high-rise, the hotel and its demolition.
What remains of the vanished streets underground?
Zaryadye’s surface has changed, but archaeologists have discovered traces of former streets near Moskvoretskaya Street. During the creation of the park in 2015, the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences investigated an excavation covering 98 square metres along the route of former Mokrinsky Lane near the Mytny Dvor. The report records up to six metres of archaeological deposits and foundations of eighteenth- to twentieth-century buildings lying two to four metres below ground. This provides physical evidence of the dense development east of the street that the archival photographs show above ground.
The Zaryadye Park construction site beyond Moskvoretskaya Embankment, October 2015. Wikimedia Commons, Moscow, Moskvoretskaya Embankment, Zaryadye construction (22146844546).jpg, author: Gennady Grachev from Moscow, Russia, licence: CC BY 2.0 source, license
In the same excavation, beneath eighteenth-century cobblestone paving, archaeologists found a seventeenth-century log roadway, with three layers preserved. Water pipes made from different materials—ceramic, cast iron and wood—were discovered along the edges of the lane; earlier, wattle fences had marked the course of the road. The layers allowed researchers to trace changes in the street’s construction. This evidence demonstrates the long history of this particular route, but does not establish the date on which each building above it was demolished in the twentieth century.
The history of archaeological work also follows the succession of construction projects: the Institute of Archaeology records rescue excavations in Zaryadye in the 1940s–1960s covering more than two thousand square metres in total, followed by work in 2006–2007 and the expedition’s return during the creation of the park. This does not prove that the entire medieval layout survived intact. The institute notes that later buildings severely disturbed the upper deposits. Archaeology complements photographs where street façades have disappeared, while also reminding us of the risks of generalisation: a find from Mokrinsky Lane relates to that route, and not automatically to Vasilyevskaya Square.
How can photographs help verify the history of Vasilyevsky Spusk without creating a false sense of precision?
First, establish where the photograph was taken from and identify fixed landmarks: the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat, the Kremlin wall, the course of the Moskva River and the old or new bridge. Then check the date assigned to that particular photograph, rather than just the one displayed beside it in the exhibition. The archive catalogue gives both specific years and broad ranges such as 1938–1940; a broad range must not be reduced to a single year without further verification.
The catalogue entries for the photographs from 1936 and 1938 cite the ‘Ivan Vladimirovich Yegorov Archive’, but list the photographer as unknown. This is an important distinction between the owner of a collection and the photographer. The catalogue gives the year and location of the photograph; it does not provide the reader with the photographer’s signature on the negative or a building acceptance certificate. For our conclusion, it is enough that the bridges, buildings and alignment of the street can be distinguished in the photographs. If the exact date when an individual building was dismantled is needed, a property plan or construction file should be consulted, rather than guessing from the collector’s name.
Moskvoretskaya Street in 1913: buildings, passers-by and wet, uneven paving. Wikimedia Commons, 3096029 A.A. Gubarev — Moskvoretskaya Street, 1913.jpg, author: Alexandr Alexandrovich Gubarev, licence: Public domain source
The nature of the document also matters. A heritage protection document is reliable for describing the protected features, the designers and the urban planning context, but its historical background may give an inaccurate date for a related event. An archival photograph provides strong evidence of what a place visibly looked like when it was taken, but its caption does not identify the address of every façade. When two sources disagree, it is more useful to acknowledge the limits of what can be concluded than to smooth over the discrepancy with a neat chronology.
Why might a caption and a heritage protection document disagree?
The expert assessment of Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge lists its spans, stairways, platforms, cladding and designers in detail; the structure’s title includes the dates 1937–1938. The historical background in the same document dates its construction to 1938–1939. Another heritage protection document gives the opening date as 12 November 1937, while E. Simonov’s 1938 book describes the opening as taking place during the celebrations marking the twentieth anniversary of the October Revolution. Both accounts point to the same month in 1937, but there is no independent confirmation here of the exact day. The period 1938–1939 cannot be taken as the date when traffic began using the bridge; without a construction schedule, it is impossible to determine whether it referred to the completion of works or was an inaccurate entry.
The document on the Middle Trading Rows describes the bridge as ‘built in 1936’, whereas the archival exhibition’s chronology dates the demolition for its construction to 1936 and shows the bridge in use in 1938. Since the first document concerns a complex of buildings on Red Square, this line forms part of a brief account of the city’s history rather than a report on the bridge’s acceptance into service. A date from a museum photograph can only be set against it if the nature of both sources is made clear. E. Simonov’s book and a later heritage protection document date the opening to November 1937, while the museum photograph confirms that traffic was using the bridge in 1938.
The description of the structure gives its length, including approaches, as 554 metres, while the reproduced list of protected features gives 524 metres; both passages give a width of 40 metres. The second passage names Borovitskaya Square and Serafimovicha Street, whereas the same document links the crossing to Vasilyevsky Spusk and Bolshaya Ordynka. This casts further doubt on the accuracy of the line giving 524 metres. Without the original drawing, the reason for the discrepancy cannot be established, so we do not use the length to explain the layout.
What trace of the old layout can be seen in the space today?
The clearest visible trace is the difference in alignment between the two crossings. Archival photographs show that the old bridge continued Moskvoretskaya Street towards Balchug; the present Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge stands closer to the Kremlin and connects to an open approach from Red Square. Vasilyevsky Spusk shows the result of the first stage of clearance, while the adjoining edge of the former Zaryadye district bears traces of later twentieth-century redevelopment.
View from Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge towards the open expanse of Vasilyevsky Spusk and the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat. The Kremlin towers are visible on the left. Wikimedia Commons, Moscow — 2025 — St. Basil's Cathedral and Vasilyevsky Spusk (1).jpg, author: Yuri D.K., licence: CC BY 4.0 source, license
The bridge therefore created a new axis and required its approach to be cleared in the 1930s. It did not transform the entire area at once: buildings still appeared in photographs in 1938, and the buildings in eastern Zaryadye remained even as construction of the Rossiya Hotel began. Today’s open vista took shape in stages.
You can compare the former alignment of Moskvoretskaya Street with the new bridge axis on ‘Heart of the Capital’ tour of Red Square: the advertised route follows Varvarka Street and Vasilyevsky Spusk.
Sources
- State historical and cultural expert assessment report on the complex on Red Square, 2019
- State historical and cultural expert assessment report on Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge
- Archival photography exhibition ‘Zaryadye: a place no one knew what to do with...’
- Soviet-era Zaryadye. Demolition of a city block for the construction of the new Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge
- Soviet-era Zaryadye. The new Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge
- Soviet-era Zaryadye. Dismantling the old Moskvoretsky Bridge
- Soviet-era Zaryadye. Moskvoretskaya Street
- Moscow Heritage, No. 6, 2017
- Vasilyevskaya Square and the block in front of the new bridge, 1930–1935
- The old Moskvoretsky Bridge and the Kitay-Gorod wall, 1898–1899
- Traffic crossing the new Moskvoretsky Bridge, 1938
- Archaeological discoveries of 2015: the excavation near Mokrinsky Lane
- Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences: the history of expeditions in Zaryadye
- E. Simonov. Bridges and Embankments of the Capital. Moscow, 1938
- Historical and cultural expert assessment report, 5/3 Red Square
- M. V. Gorbanevsky. ‘Vasilyevsky Spusk’. Russian Speech, No. 2, 1994
- ‘Heart of the Capital’ tour: a route along Varvarka Street and Vasilyevsky Spusk
- Russian Museum: Vera Mukhina’s sketch ‘Earth’ for the Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge
We took a tour of Taganka designed for 12-year-old children. It was an excellent programme. We covered a great deal of ground and learnt so much. We discovered the story of Dryanaya Street and discussed the Vladimir Highway, the surrounding monasteries and churches, and the Old Believers. We now know where Korovin was born, where Stanislavsky was born and raised, where the Morozov merchant children lived, and why Arseny Morozov was considered such an outrageous figure in his day. We also discussed Solzhenitsyn, discovered where Stalin Avenue was supposed to be built, saw the bunker, walked to the Russian metochion of the Mount Athos Monastery, and learnt why the Illuzion cinema made Taganka famous. Of course, no tour would have been complete without Vysotsky and Lyubimov. We also touched briefly on Taganka Prison, although naturally we did not go there. All in all, it was an exceptionally rich and informative tour! Our guide Alexander was superb!
Our thanks to our guide Alexander for a magnificent sightseeing tour. Alexander’s love for Moscow and its history, his wide-ranging knowledge, elegant and engaging delivery, and personal charm make the tour not merely interesting and informative, but truly delightful! Thank you, Alexander! Tatiana and Tatiana, St Petersburg
On July 18th, we participated in the "Soul of Moscow" group tour led by Alexander. Kitay-gorod and its surroundings revealed a new side to us, and everyone thoroughly enjoyed it. Some of us began intensively studying related materials to broaden our horizons. We'll be back, and we highly recommend it! You won't regret it.
Good afternoon, on June 23rd we had a tour called " The Soul of Moscow ," led by Alexander. He's a very pleasant young man. We visited such lovely courtyards and alleys with him that we never even knew existed, and we learned so much. We really enjoyed everything, and we hope to continue our acquaintance. Alexander! Thank you! We had a great time with you, and we thoroughly enjoyed it. See you there!
This isn't my first time with Radius. This time, I took the Moscow metro . The goal was not only to admire the underground palaces but also to learn how to navigate the metro. As a resident of a region without a metro, I was a bit apprehensive and didn't understand how to navigate the metro. Of course, the internet helps, but live communication is much better. Tour guide Yulia handled this task perfectly. The information was accessible and interesting, the presentation was calm, and the communication style was very friendly. Thank you very much for the tour and the practical experience.
Good afternoon! I gave the "Soul of Moscow" tour to some of the capital's guests. We were thrilled to hear our guide, Anton. It was so informative and engaging, and very warm. To say we were absolutely delighted is an understatement. It turned out to be a truly family-friendly excursion. We learned so many interesting facts. The material was presented professionally, all our questions were answered, and we saw so much. It was simply WOW! Thank you so much, Anton, he's the best!!!!! From now on, I'll only come to you, the Radius team. I highly recommend it. I promise we'll see each other again soon on other tours.
Overall, the tour left a positive impression! Thanks to Alexander for the walk through the courtyards and atmospheric spots of Kitay-Gorod; we certainly wouldn't have done it on our own. The tour was comfortable, and the guide spoke confidently and calmly. One thing we personally missed: we would have liked more of the historical part, relating to ancient Moscow and the history of Kitay-Gorod. There were quite a few stories about the Soviet period and the bar scene, but for our group, this wasn't particularly relevant. We think the program could be a little more tailored to the age and interests of the group. It would also have been interesting to add more historical facts, monuments, and details about old Moscow and the area itself. That said, the tour was still interesting, and some places and churches were truly memorable. These aren't really "cons," but rather suggestions for an even more comprehensive program.
Hello! We had a corporate group of 10 people. Our guide was Anton, and we had a tour of Bulgakov. I would like to point out the excellent organization; everything went smoothly. The managers were very accommodating to our changes in the number of participants. The bus was very comfortable. Anton is a super-engaged and motivated guide. He lives this history and is delighted to share his knowledge and create an unforgettable experience. Everything went well. I highly recommend it!
Thank you for a fascinating tour! It gave me so much food for thought to explore! Note: Review of the "Zamoskvorechye" tour with guide Maria.
I'd like to express my gratitude on behalf of our team! Thank you for keeping to our scheduled schedule despite our lack of organization. Our colleagues appreciated your preparation for the tour! It was informative. Note: Review of the "Modern Residential Complexes, Factory Past, and Avant-Garde" tour of the ZILART residential complex with guide Maria. Maria prepared and conducted a customized tour for employees of the Samolet Group of Companies development company.
Thank you! You have great talent. Good luck! ☺️ You're a wonderful guide! Thank you again! Note: This is a review of the corporate tour "The Heart of the Capital" with guide Maria.
Thank you for a wonderful day today!!)) Note: review of the excursion "The Soul of Moscow" with guide Maria
On behalf of the whole family, I want to thank you for a very informative and interesting tour! Note: This is a review of the "Palace Dungeons" tour with guide Maria.
Good afternoon! I'd like to express my gratitude and that of my guide for organizing the tour! We were very pleased. We'd like to do it again in October, but on a different route — ZIL. Note: This refers to the tour for Samolet Group developers, led by guide Maria.
Thanks to Alexander for the bar tour of Baumanka ! It was fun, exciting, and we discovered so many new places! Awesome! May we reach new heights!
Good afternoon! I was on a tour of Sukharevskaya Square — we went all the way to Tsvetnoy Boulevard. I didn't expect it to be so interesting! For those wondering whether to go — go for it! It truly became one of my most memorable summer memories!
Anastasia, good morning! Thank you and Masha for yesterday! The speakers are happy. The connection through the headphones was often lost, especially at the checkpoint, but that's just our current situation. You could hear if you were standing close, no more than 1.5 meters away. Colleagues have already asked for your contact information. I'd be happy to share it and look forward to another opportunity to work with you. Special thanks to the Director for the Bureau . Note: " Heart of the Capital " tour for participants of the 2025 Moscow Oncology Forum. Guides: Anastasia and Maria.
We'd like to thank Anton and Alexander for leading the tour! It was fascinating to hear how the Krasnaya Presnya district developed and how Prokhorov's influence on our city's development. It was a pleasant immersion into a quiet, previously unexplored area!
Good afternoon, thank you so much, Anastasia. The " Uncle Gilyai " tour was fantastic. Even though we're Muscovites and know a lot about Moscow, the experience was amazing, so much new and interesting happened. We'll definitely be back.
Thank you for the " Heart of Moscow " and " Khamovniki " tours. Anton, a knowledgeable and passionate Moscow guide, gave me the tour. He's a great storyteller, intelligent, well-read, and captivating. You've truly opened up my Moscow to me! I'll definitely be back next summer to explore Moscow with you. I'll recommend your wonderful tour program to all my friends!
Excursions with the Radius travel agency are always a positive experience if you choose them. We planned a tour of Zamoskvorechye on our next visit. We've worked with our guide, Anton, before. We'll definitely recommend him to everyone we know. The tour is informative, not overloaded with dates, and the information is comprehensive yet easy to understand, as it's presented in a light, narrative manner, not like a history textbook, dry and academic. Thank you for this approach. We'll definitely use the Radius agency again on our next visit to Moscow.
Thank you so much for the tour of Zamoskvorechye . Despite the weather, it was very interesting and informative! Note: this refers to the tour with guide Anton.
A huge thank you to Anastasia. We had a fantastic tour of the Patriki district. We learned so much. Anastasia is a true master of her craft. The tour was captivating, not at all boring, lively and interesting. Everyone was delighted. We were full of new impressions. I definitely recommend it. You won't be disappointed!
We explored the Soul of Moscow with my family and Radius on my birthday. Everyone thoroughly enjoyed the walk! Anton shared so many interesting facts about the capital and its history, taking us into spiritual depths no one else had even suspected. Most of us were either born or longtime Moscow residents who spent a lot of time walking around. It was educational, heartwarming, and unforgettable. 🙂 Overall, this wasn't my first time walking around Moscow with Anton, and each time was a real adventure!