The trading rows on Red Square primarily occupied its eastern side, between the Kremlin, Nikolskaya Street, Ilyinka and Varvarka. Temporary trading took place in the open square, while permanent shops gradually became concentrated in the Upper, Middle and Lower Trading Rows, with the arrangement of goods determining the layout of each block.
The history of trade on Red Square encompasses a centuries-old system of trading rows, which GUM carried forward with a new architectural layout and modern technical facilities. For centuries, the eastern side of Red Square was shaped by the specialisation of goods, warehouses, passageways and the separation of retail from wholesale trade. In the late nineteenth century, the Upper Trading Rows became covered arcades with electricity and engineering services, while the Middle Trading Rows were given a separate layout for heavy goods and wholesale consignments.
Why trade became established by the Kremlin’s eastern wall
The commercial centre arose at the intersection of several urban routes. Roads led from the Kremlin gates towards Nikolskaya Street, Ilyinka and Varvarka, while visiting merchants could find accommodation and store their goods nearby. The permanent buildings formed part of Kitay-Gorod’s commercial system, linked to Gostiny Dvor and the surrounding merchant-quarter development.
The state historical and cultural assessment report on the Middle Trading Rows links the site’s early development to roads leading from the gates of the white-stone Kremlin built in 1368–1370. A chronicle entry from 1434 describes the Church of Saints Boris and Gleb as standing ‘beyond the market’. This wording helps to locate the market, but does not allow the detailed layout of its fifteenth-century shops to be reconstructed.
After the great fire of 1493, Ivan III ordered that no buildings be erected within 109 sazhens of the Kremlin wall. This firebreak altered the geometry of the market: wooden buildings retreated from the Kremlin, while shops became established on the eastern side of what would become the square. The open space and the commercial buildings took shape simultaneously.
To the east stood a compound for foreign merchants, later associated with Gostiny Dvor. A journal published by the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage quotes Sigismund von Herberstein’s account: visiting merchants lodged and stored their goods in a specially designated place. Long-distance trade required accommodation, storage, security and a route from the place of storage to the point of sale.
Joan Blaeu’s ‘Kremlenagrad’ — a mid-seventeenth-century plan of the Moscow Kremlin showing the Moskva and Neglinnaya rivers. Wikimedia Commons, Kremlenagrad.jpg, author: Joan Blaeu, licence: Public domain source
What the word ‘row’ meant in old Moscow
A row was simultaneously a type of building, a group of vendors and an address for a particular commodity. Merchants selling similar goods were located beside one another, so shoppers would seek out the Surovsky, Needle, Shoe, Fish or another specialised row. This system made it easier both to find goods and to regulate trade.
In the late sixteenth century, after the fire of 1594, Feodor I ordered the wooden shops to be replaced with stone ones. It was then that the division into three large blocks — the Upper, Middle and Lower Trading Rows — became established. On the sloping ground between Nikolskaya Street and Varvarka, the northern block occupied the upper part of the incline, the central block the middle, and the southern block descended towards the bottom.
The assessment report gives the dimensions of a typical shop at the turn of the seventeenth century: about two sazhens across the frontage and two and a half sazhens deep; the passage between rows of shops was likewise approximately two and a half sazhens wide. A small shop served as the market’s basic unit, while a large block was composed of numerous privately owned premises and narrow passageways.
Owners adapted their respective sections for business, added extra storeys and used the upper floors for storage. Extensions, awnings and differing patterns of use gradually disrupted the original order. From the square, the façade might appear uniform, although behind it remained a patchwork of properties, warehouses and trading spaces.
The order to build stone shops did not transform the entire market into a unified stone ensemble in a single building season. Later documents continued to mention wooden premises and extensions. Numerous owners rebuilt their sections at different times, so 1594 marks the beginning of a state programme; construction of all three blocks extended over a considerable period.
The Great Cloth Row in the Upper City Trading Rows. Moscow, 1886; the plate was published in an album in 1890. Wikimedia Commons, N.A.Naidenov (1890). Views of Trade Rows. 17.png, author: Nikolay Naidenov (1834-1905)., licence: Public domain source
Who was entitled to trade in the rows
The right to a permanent place in the trading rows depended on a merchant’s status. The Law Code of 1649 instructed merchants from other cities to trade at Gostiny Dvor and prohibited them from renting shops in Moscow’s trading rows: these were reserved for Moscow’s townspeople, or, in the wording of the document, ‘the sovereign’s tax-paying people’. The market’s legal structure distinguished between local shopkeepers and visiting wholesalers.
The specially designated complex included premises for temporary accommodation, storage and the sale of incoming consignments. This arrangement kept permanent shops available for Moscow merchants and made it easier to control goods, although everyday practice could diverge from the rules laid down in law.
A decree issued by Feodor III on 4 September 1679 prohibited trading in ‘unauthorised places’, including the open expanse of Red Square, and directed regular commerce into the trading rows. A shop could, however, be divided among several owners: the assessment records half-shops and quarter-shops, as well as display platforms, awnings, storerooms and benches beside the permanent premises. A legal share, a physical unit and a vendor’s place did not always coincide.
In the new Upper Trading Rows building, this hierarchy found vertical expression. GUM’s official history notes that goods on the second and third floors of the arcades were less expensive, while the two-level basement was used for wholesale operations. The price and nature of a transaction depended on the floor, the visibility of the premises and their proximity to the flow of shoppers.
What goods were sold in the Upper, Middle and Lower Trading Rows
Documents reveal a stable division of functions: retail trade in fabrics, haberdashery, jewellery and icons was concentrated in the Upper Trading Rows, while wholesale trade and heavy goods occupied the Middle Trading Rows and the southern part of the complex. The boundaries between specialisations changed, but this zoning survived several reconstructions.
A mid-seventeenth-century plan lists dozens of types of merchandise. Near the Upper Trading Rows were the Surovsky and Old Surovsky Rows, which sold fabrics, as well as the Shoe, Book and Haberdashery Rows; the last of these specialised in small fancy goods and articles for women. Bread, vegetables and salted fish were sold in the same buildings.
In the Middle Trading Rows, sources mention the Needle, Honey, Vegetable and Drysaltery Rows, along with stalls selling window glass, smelt and kalach bread rolls. Drysaltery goods included paints, varnishes, glue and other household materials. Wine cellars stood in the southern section, where furs, yuft leather, candles, wax, soap and vinegar were also sold.
This range of goods explains the different forms of trade. Customers selected fabrics, footwear and haberdashery individually in shops, whereas leather, wax, candles, beverages and drysaltery goods arrived in consignments and required storage near the point of sale. The name of a row identified the type of merchandise and indirectly indicated the volume of storage and the way in which goods were dispensed.
Historical nomenclature describes the urban economy of a particular period. It shows how different sections were specialised, but does not prove that the range of goods in every shop remained unchanged. To reconstruct everyday commerce, the plan must be compared with inventories, regulations and records of reconstruction work.
By the late nineteenth century, contemporaries grouped the merchandise into broader categories. Retail trade in textiles, haberdashery, jewellery and icons predominated in the Upper Trading Rows. The Middle Trading Rows retained a largely wholesale function and specialised in drysaltery goods, candles and leather. The names of narrowly defined types of merchandise gave way to broader departments, but the earlier zoning continued to influence the layout.
The Knife Arcade in the Upper City Trading Rows, the second passage from Nikolskaya Street. Moscow, 1886; the plate was published in an album in 1890. Wikimedia Commons, N.A.Naidenov (1890). Views of Trade Rows. 20.png, author: Nikolay Naidenov (1834-1905)., licence: Public domain source
How goods reached the shops and where they were stored
Commercial logistics linked the street, passageway, warehouse and point of sale. In the early trading rows, stock was kept in the shop, an upper room or a cellar; large consignments belonging to visiting merchants could remain at Gostiny Dvor. The nineteenth century brought purpose-built basements, service passages and lifting equipment.
The terrain imposed different conditions on the three blocks. Ilyinka linked the commercial quarter to the centre of Kitay-Gorod, Varvarka ran below it, and the site of the Middle and Lower Trading Rows descended markedly towards the Moskva River. Entrances, the number of storeys and the movement of goods all had to be adapted to the changes in elevation.
When constructing the new Middle Trading Rows, Roman Klein placed a large building around the perimeter of the site, with four smaller blocks in the courtyard. The underground level was connected to Varvarka, three passageways led into the building, and the ground-level entrances were matched by ramps descending to the basements. This layout separated the movement of wholesale consignments from the flow of shoppers and shortened the distance between the unloading point for bulky goods and the warehouse.
The building’s engineering systems included central heating, ventilation, goods lifts and its own power station. The architecture of the Middle Trading Rows supported large-scale commercial operations: the courtyard, entrance, basement and mechanical lifting equipment formed a single system.
Documents record cellars, warehouses and service passages, but provide neither an hourly timetable for delivery carts nor the volume of daily deliveries. The commercial life of the complex can therefore be reconstructed at the level of its infrastructure, while the details of its trading rhythms remain unknown without account books.
The documents reveal at least three distinct operations: a visiting merchant left a large consignment in a designated courtyard or warehouse, a trader kept working stock in a shop or cellar, and goods were handed to the customer in the trading row. The way goods were moved depended on the period and the owner, but the complex’s design confirms that storage, transportation and sale were treated as separate functions.
The Middle City Trading Rows and Khrustalny Lane, viewed from Varvarka. Moscow, 1886; the photograph was published in an album in 1890. Wikimedia Commons, N.A.Naidenov (1890). Views of Trade Rows. 29.png, author: Nikolay Naidenov (1834-1905)., licence: Public domain source
How the square was redesigned before Osip Bove
Efforts to impose a regular layout on the market area began as early as the eighteenth century. Moscow’s General Plan of 1775 called for Red Square to be cleared, and in the 1780s the authorities began remodelling the old stone buildings and constructing new ones.
In 1784, a second storey was added to the eastern façade of the Upper Trading Rows, the galleries became two-tiered, and porticoes were used to emphasise the centre and corners. Between 1786 and 1810, designs by Giacomo Quarenghi were used to build trading rows along the Kremlin moat and reconstruct the northern block and Gostiny Dvor. The elongated building, with passageways running lengthwise through it, divided the open space, while Moskvoretskaya Street linked the embankment with the southern part of the trading quarter.
The use of the new shops revealed how dependent trade was on the condition of the surrounding streets. The square remained unpaved until 1796, making the buildings beside the moat difficult to reach in bad weather. Wooden paving was initially laid only in the centre, and the entire area was finally cobbled in 1804. An access road allowed goods to be delivered in bad weather.
In October 1812, some of the trading rows were destroyed by explosions set by the retreating French army, while others were lost to fire. The Commission for the Construction of Moscow took charge of rebuilding the city centre. Osip Bove prepared his designs for the trading rows in 1813–1814, and the work was completed in 1816.
The architect dispensed with the buildings along the Kremlin moat; the moat was filled in and the open space enlarged. A long Neoclassical façade with arcades appeared on the Red Square side, with wooden canopies and lighting installed over the passageways. The quarter acquired a uniform frontage, but behind it the individual shops and assorted service buildings remained.
Filling in the moat changed the position of the trading area in relation to the Kremlin. The shops no longer shared the central section with a separate building beside the wall, but instead formed a continuous frontage along the eastern side of the square. This redesign created the visual contrast familiar today between the open area beside the Kremlin and the unbroken line of commercial buildings opposite.
The Monument to Minin and Pozharsky in front of the Upper Trading Rows on Red Square. Lithograph after an original by Philippe Benoist, published by Daziaro in the 1850s. Wikimedia Commons, Red Square Minin Pozharsky 3.jpg, author: Engraved by Lemercier for Daziaro printhouse, after an original by P. Benoist, licence: CC0 source, license
Why Bove’s façade was not enough
By the final third of the nineteenth century, the old Upper and Middle Trading Rows were impeding the growth of commerce. Ownership remained fragmented, the passageways were cramped, the warehouses and utilities were outdated, and some of the structures had become unsafe.
An inspection of the Middle Trading Rows in 1886 identified specific hazards. The Fryazh cellars were closed as unsafe, while the wooden skylights dating from 1816 had either fallen into disrepair or been replaced with iron ones. The Society of the Middle Trading Rows commissioned Roman Klein to design a new complex; Alexander III approved the project in 1890.
The reconstruction of the Upper Trading Rows had been under discussion since the 1860s, but for many years their numerous owners were unable to reach an agreement. A competition was officially announced on 15 November 1888, and in February 1889 the jury reviewed 23 designs. Alexander Pomerantsev won first prize, with Roman Klein taking second.
The organisational problem was also an architectural one. The old premises belonged to different owners, so shared passageways, floors, heating and electricity supplies could not be modernised shop by shop. The Society of Owners of the Upper Trading Rows brought their interests together and created a commissioning body capable of holding a competition and comprehensively upgrading the utilities.
The competition brief called for a historically appropriate appearance to be combined with a complex income-generating building. The Russian-style façade was combined with the passages’ metal and glass structures; behind the imposing frontage were shopping arcades, basements and utility services.
Official sources differ on the dates of the Middle Trading Rows complex. The Moscow Kremlin Museums give 1891–1894, while the state historical and cultural assessment report gives 1889–1893. The documents probably draw the boundaries between organisation, design, principal construction and finishing work differently; the sources do not allow them to be reduced to a single date. Roman Klein’s authorship and the fact that the complex was built at almost the same time as the new Upper Trading Rows are not in doubt.
The Middle Trading Rows building as seen from Red Square. Present-day view, June 2015. Wikimedia Commons, Middle Trade Rows Moscow 06-2015.jpg, author: A.Savin, licence: CC BY-SA 3.0 source, license
How the Upper Trading Rows’ passages transformed the shopping experience
The new Upper Trading Rows opened on 2 December 1893 according to the Old Style calendar, or 14 December by the New Style. Alexander Pomerantsev organised the complex as a system of buildings and covered shopping streets, or passages, linking Red Square with Nikolskaya Street and Ilyinka Street. Shoppers could move between stores in a public space sheltered from the weather.
The glass roofs supported by metal frames, engineered with the involvement of Vladimir Shukhov, admitted daylight and spanned the long passageways without the need for heavy stone vaults. The complex had its own power station and artesian well; it also housed a telegraph office, a bank, restaurants, hairdressers and other services. The building combined the sale of goods with everyday urban amenities.
The retail spaces remained grouped in rows, and the location of each unit affected its commercial value. Retail outlets occupied the most accessible levels, while wholesale operations and stock were housed in the basements. According to GUM’s official history, the complex comprised sixteen independent buildings connected by glazed streets: different proprietors operated within a shared infrastructure.
Prominent tenants included the Sapozhnikov silk and brocade merchants, Kalashnikov’s watch house, the Abrikosov confectionery business and Brocard perfumery. These examples reveal the new scale: the Upper Trading Rows combined specialist retail with manufacturers’ reputations, advertising and urban services.
Shop windows, lighting and the sequence of trading rows changed how customers discovered the goods on offer. In the old rows, shoppers found their way according to each section’s specialisation and the merchant’s reputation; in the new complex, they could compare shops, use its services and arrange meetings without stepping outside.
The transparent barrel vault above one of GUM’s passages: its metal framework spans the space between multi-level shopping galleries. Wikimedia Commons, Structure of the Roof of Upper Trading Rows by Vladimir Shukhov 6.JPG, author: Donskoy, licence: CC BY-SA 3.0 source, license
How the new Middle Trading Rows differed from the future GUM
The Upper and Middle Trading Rows formed part of the same urban ensemble but served different purposes: the former primarily accommodated retail and public shopping passages, while the latter were designed for wholesale trade, storage and the handling of heavy goods. These different functions determined the layout of the two buildings.
| Complex | Role in the late nineteenth century | Layout principle | What survives today |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upper Trading Rows | Retail and services | Covered passages and trading rows | The GUM building |
| Middle Trading Rows | Wholesale trade and storage | Perimeter building, courtyards and basement access routes | Historic complex |
| Lower Trading Rows | Southern part of the trading quarter | Buildings on the slope towards Varvarka Street and the Moskva River | The historic buildings were demolished in the 1960s |
The main building of the Middle Trading Rows formed the perimeter of the quarter, while four inner buildings increased the usable floor area and created service courtyards. The basements and entrances from Varvarka Street took advantage of the difference in ground level. The site was regraded before construction, allowing vehicles to reach every building without encountering steps or steep gradients. The façade facing Red Square maintained the ensemble’s shared historic appearance, while behind it lay the infrastructure for storage and transport.
The public arcades of the Upper Trading Rows served retail customers, while the courtyards, cellars and passageways of the Middle Trading Rows expedited the movement of consignments between transport, storage facilities and sellers. The two complexes formed a system of buildings with different modes of trade.
The Lower Trading Rows occupied the southern section of the shopping frontage, but their historic buildings were demolished in the 1960s. Their disappearance left the three-part system incomplete. Today's visitors see the Upper and Middle Trading Rows and cannot reconstruct the former layout from the surviving buildings alone.
What the detailed plan of the Middle Trading Rows reveals
The plan of the Middle Trading Rows reveals the complex's multi-tiered addressing system. The quarter was divided into lines, the lines into rows specialising in particular goods, and these in turn into individual shops and storerooms. This structure linked an address that traders could understand with the physical route taken by the goods.
The historical and cultural assessment report mentions ten lines and then lists the Needle, Kushachnaya, Vegetable, two Surovskaya, Drysaltery, Hardware, Mirror and Crystal Lines, the last of which was also called the Front Line Facing Gostiny Dvor. The published list is internally ambiguous: even counting the two identically named entries separately, it yields only nine names. The wording may have been affected by punctuation or document-recognition errors, so the stated number should be cited separately from the list of names, without modern renumbering. These sections contained their own rows: for example, the Front Line included the Fryazhsky and Wax Rows, while the Crystal Line included the Paper and Crystal Rows.
The terms ‘line’ and ‘row’ denoted different levels of the internal plan: the former defined a direction of movement and a group of premises, while the latter specified the type of goods sold. Consequently, names that sound identical on a plan and in a written list cannot automatically be assumed to refer to the same trading unit: the place of each name within the addressing system must first be established.
Three carriage arches led into the courtyard, and the complex also had pedestrian passageways. One entrance began on Moskvoretskaya Street and two opened from Khrustalny Lane; beneath the pavements of Varvarka and Moskvoretskaya streets ran a corridor six arshins wide, while ramps leading to the cellar passageways began directly from the streets and lanes. The plan confirms a separate level for the movement of goods, connected to several routes through the city.
During construction in the 1880s, silver and copper coins dating from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were found, while deep, two-tier cellars belonging to rows from the late sixteenth century were discovered beneath the new complexes. The finds confirm the site's long history as a place of trade and the continuity of its successive building layers. A single coin cannot reveal the type of goods sold by a particular shop: plans and written inventories are needed for that.
Lobnoye Mesto and the trading rows between Ilyinka and Varvarka—the historic site of the Middle Trading Rows. Moscow, 1884. Wikimedia Commons, N.A.Naidenov (1884). Views of Moscow. 49. Trade rows.png, author: Nikolay Naidenov (1834-1905)., licence: Public domain source
How the Revolution and the Soviet period broke the continuity of trade
After 1917, the Upper and Middle Trading Rows changed function several times. Institutions, warehouses and other organisations occupied the former commercial premises, while periods of retail trading alternated with closures.
On 1 December 1921, the regulations establishing the State Department Store were signed—hence the abbreviation GUM. The return of trade was associated with the New Economic Policy. The store closed in 1930, the Upper Trading Rows became an administrative building, and the arcades were converted into offices and service areas.
Following reconstruction, GUM reopened to shoppers on 24 December 1953. The Soviet department store occupied the architecture of the pre-revolutionary Upper Trading Rows, but operated within a different economic system. The phrase ‘from shops to GUM’ spans several breaks in continuity: changes in ownership, supply models, the building's functions and the meaning of the retail format itself.
During the Soviet period, the Middle Trading Rows also lost their original role as a wholesale complex and were used by state and military bodies. Information about present-day access to individual premises is unrelated to the building's historic function and requires separate, up-to-date verification. The information presented here does not support any conclusions about access to the interiors.
The Upper Trading Rows on Red Square in the early twentieth century; the Monument to Minin and Pozharsky still stands in front of the main façade. Wikimedia Commons, Upper Trading Rows (early 1900th).jpg, author: Karl Fischer, licence: Public domain source
How to compare plans, photographs and written sources
A plan, a photograph and a written source answer different questions: the first shows the boundaries of blocks, the zoning of goods, passageways and connections to the streets; a photograph records the façade, scale, condition of the building and visible activity; a document provides dates, functions and the decisions made by those involved. The full economic life of the trading quarter cannot be reconstructed from a single type of evidence.
Seventeenth-century plans show the Surovsky, Needle, Honey, Drysaltery and other sections side by side. An inscription alone reveals neither the quantity of goods nor turnover or the social composition of the customers. Such conclusions require account books, inventories and owners' records.
The perspective ‘geometrical view’ of the Kremlin and Red Square, created by Arkhip Belyankin in 1845 and held by the National Library of Russia, depicts the relative positions of the square, the Kremlin and the trading rows after Bove's reconstruction. It is a ceremonial print showing a religious procession, and does not possess the accuracy of a measured drawing. It is useful for spatial comparison, but does not provide a literal plan of everyday trading activity.
Photographs of the old Upper Trading Rows from the late nineteenth century record their dilapidation, the density of the buildings and the condition of the passageways before demolition. Images of the construction work and the new complex's early years show the glass roofs, the arrangement of the galleries and the scale of the arcades. Crates or carriages appearing in a photograph do not in themselves prove the existence of a regular delivery route; such a conclusion requires cellar plans, descriptions of the entrances and engineering documentation.
Dates should be assessed in relation to the type of document. The opening of the Upper Trading Rows on 2 December 1893 is given according to the Old Style calendar; in the modern calendar, this is 14 December. A construction period may begin with the formation of the company, the approval of the design or the laying of the foundation stone, and end with the completion of the main works or the finishing work. Divergent date ranges should therefore first be checked against the subject of the source and only then treated as a contradiction.
The Moscow Kremlin Museums page combines a modern explanation with excerpts from Alexander Razmadze's 1893 essay. Razmadze served as a clerk for the Upper Trading Rows Company: he witnessed the reconstruction as a contemporary and was familiar with the professional terminology, while also representing an organisation with a vested interest. His account is valuable for distinguishing Pomerantsev's retail building from the wholesale Middle Trading Rows; his assessments of the new building require independent verification.
State historical and cultural assessment reports provide measurements, the layout of the site, the names of passageways and the stages of construction. GUM's corporate history records the complex's programme, its opening date, its sixteen buildings, engineering services and events in its institutional history. The description of GUM also contains superlative claims, which would require independent comparison before they could be used.
First, the date and purpose of the image must be established. Next, fixed landmarks—the Kremlin Wall, Ilyinka, Varvarka and the corners of the trading buildings—should be identified and compared with a plan from the same period. A reliable conclusion is usually supported by two different types of evidence, such as a cellar plan and a written description of its use.
The Trading Rows and Lobnoye Mesto on Red Square, 1897–1900. Wikimedia Commons, Moscow. Red Square. Trading Rows and Lobnoye Mesto. 1897~1900 P.Pavlov 1 19-3.jpg, author: P. Pavlov, licence: Public domain source
What remains of the trading quarter in today's square
The two principal buildings retain their historic function. The Upper Trading Rows, known as GUM, represent the public shopping-arcade model, while the Middle Trading Rows recall a separate wholesale complex. Between them and the Kremlin lies an open square that government prohibitions and successive reconstructions gradually cleared of unauthorised trading.
Nikolskaya Street, Ilyinka and Varvarka still lead to the eastern line of façades, although transport patterns and the functions of the buildings have changed. The change in elevation in the southern section explains why the Middle Trading Rows' underground logistics were arranged differently from those of the northern complex.
The Lower Trading Rows have disappeared, so the complete three-part composition has not survived. The former quarter must be reconstructed from its street network, façades, plans, documented rows specialising in particular goods and engineering solutions. A present-day exterior inspection reveals only part of this system.
At the site, it is useful to compare two viewpoints. From Red Square, the shared frontage of the Upper and Middle Trading Rows is visible; from Ilyinka and Varvarka, one can see how the buildings relate to the cross streets and the change in elevation. This comparison explains the logic of the layout, but without a historical plan it cannot reconstruct the lost Lower Trading Rows or the internal system of addresses based on types of goods.
GUM on the right and the Middle Trading Rows on the left of the approach to Red Square. Present-day view, 2025. Wikimedia Commons, Moscow — 2025 — GUM and the Middle Shopping Rows.jpg, author: Yuri D.K., licence: CC BY 4.0 source, license
Why the history of trade changes the way we see Red Square
Successive reconstructions of the trading rows addressed practical commercial needs. Stone shops reduced the risk of fire, Bove's façade brought order to the disparate buildings, and the designs by Alexander Pomerantsev and Roman Klein provided warehouses, access routes and engineering services, while separating wholesale from retail trade.
Specialisation by type of goods brought order to the market, while the name of the goods also served as an address. The history of GUM began long before it opened in 1893: the arcade inherited the trading quarter's centuries-old structure and adapted it to the requirements of a large urban department store.
The connection between the former layout and the present-day ensemble can be traced on the route of the ‘Heart of the Capital’ tour of Red Square: it follows Varvarka, Vasilievsky Spusk and Red Square, and includes GUM. The tour explores publicly accessible urban spaces; it does not include visits to the closed interiors of the Middle Trading Rows or the new museum building.
Sources
- Moscow Kremlin Museums: The History of the Middle Trading Rows
- State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on the Middle Trading Rows
- GUM: The History of the Upper Trading Rows
- Moscow Heritage Magazine: The Shopping Arcades of Red Square
- State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on the Architectural Ensemble of Red Square, Ilyinka and Varvarka
- National Electronic Library: Geometrical Perspective View of the Kremlin and Red Square, 1845
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!