Why GES-2’s blue chimneys now draw in air

The blue chimneys of GES-2 on Bolotnaya Embankment no longer vent combustion gases. In normal operation, they draw in outside air from a height of approximately 70 metres, after which the air is filtered and supplied to the interior. The project engineers also note another function: partial smoke extraction when needed. These are no longer boiler chimneys: the original brick chimneys were lost during earlier alterations to the power station.

GES-2 has had three generations of these structures. The brick chimneys belonged to the Tramway Power Station of 1907; metal replacements came later. New steel structures were installed for the House of Culture. The four vertical forms still define its silhouette, but the present-day structures are not surviving historic chimneys.

Why did the Tram Power Station need four chimneys?

The original chimneys vented combustion gases from the boiler house: the station burned fuel to produce steam and generate electricity for Moscow’s trams. The House of Culture’s historical account describes four chimneys, each connected to six boilers. But this general arrangement cannot be applied without qualification to the day the station opened. In a 1907 report cited by the Mosenergo Museum eight installed boilers are listed, two in each of the four groups; space was left for another eight. The chimney stacks were part of an industrial system that was gradually filled out with equipment.

The report on the opening also describes the turbine hall: two turbine generators had been installed, one in operation and one held in reserve, with space provided for a third. A museum account notes that additional equipment was installed between 1907 and 1910, and that capacity had reached 21,000 kW by the end of 1912. Figures from the opening, the later full layout of the boiler house and the station’s condition five years on must therefore be read alongside their dates: they describe different points in time.

According to Mosenergo’s history, the Tramway Power Station had a capacity of 6 MW when it entered service in 1907. The company explains the new station’s place in the city’s power network: trams were placing an increasing load on the Raushskaya station, and the facility near Maly Kamenny Bridge was intended to ease that burden. These details clarify the purpose of the original chimneys. They belonged to a station generating electricity for a growing transport network, rather than serving an existing public building.

Construction was paid for from the city treasury. After Moscow’s power stations were united in the MOGES network in 1922, the former Tramway Power Station was assigned the number two; the name GES-2 became established later. According to the institution’s own historical account, the ‘G’ stood for gorodskaya, meaning ‘municipal’: the building on Bolotnaya Embankment was not a hydroelectric power station. Its proximity to the river makes that an easy mistake to make: electricity was generated by burning fuel.

High-pressure steam drove the turbine generators, while water from the Vodootvodny Canal cooled the equipment. The electricity travelled by cable to tram substations, where it was converted to power the trams. Gases from the boilers passed through chimneys into the air over central Moscow.

The power station initially used oil supplied from a storage facility near Simonov Monastery. At various times, its boilers burned firewood, peat, fuel oil, anthracite and coal. A historical overview by the Mosenergo Museum and a note from the House of Culture date the switch to gas to 1947; another publication by the same museum gives 1946. These sources do not allow the transition to be dated more precisely. The list of fuels helps explain how the plant worked: a chimney was needed for each of them, although the composition of the emissions changed. Switching to gas did not, in itself, turn an industrial chimney into a ventilation air intake.

Why was the power station built beside the Vodootvodny Canal?

The site was well suited to a power station: its equipment needed cooling. According to the House of Culture, two pumps in the basement of the machine hall drew cooling water from the Vodootvodny Canal; its account gives a flow rate of 500,000 buckets an hour. A report on the opening clarifies that each pump could move that volume in an hour. The canal was part of the industrial infrastructure, although GES-2 did not use the force of flowing water to turn its generators. The name of today’s underground Nasosnaya, or Pump Room, recalls that function of the former power station.

The island itself came into being after the Vodootvodny Canal was built in the late 18th century. In its account of Bolotny Island’s history, the House of Culture notes that the embankments retained their industrial character for many years: Gustav List’s factory, the Einem confectionery factory and the power station on Raushskaya Embankment all operated nearby. When the site for the Tramway Power Station was chosen, this was far from a quiet residential area in the modern sense. The location brought together a source of water, extensive industrial land and a central position in relation to the rapidly growing network of urban railways.

The route electricity took explains how it could be generated in one place and the power needed by trams distributed across the city. From the engine room, alternating current at 6,600 volts travelled through cables, some laid along the bed of the Moskva River. At tram substations, it was converted to direct current at 600 volts. The four visible chimneys were thus part of a vast system that extended far beyond the station’s walls.

The first electric tram route, from Butyrskaya Zastava to Petrovsky Park, opened on 25 March 1899. The city authorities bought the lines from private companies and, in 1907, acquired their own power station for the municipal tram network. According to the historical overview of GES-2, by 1918 the tram network had reached 323 kilometres of track, with 39 routes in operation, including the A and B circular routes. These figures show the scale of demand for electricity: the boiler room and chimneys served an evolving transport network, rather than a single building on the island.

After Moscow’s power stations were brought together in 1922, the former municipal tram power station also supplied electricity to neighbouring districts. Its equipment continued to change, so accounts of its power output and the boiler room’s equipment in different decades need to be checked against dated sources.

What were the original chimneys like, and when did they disappear?

By the start of the renovation, GES-2 had metal chimneys in place of its original brick chimneys from 1907. Dom Kultury’s history section reports that the brick chimneys were dismantled during the Second World War. The Mosenergo Museum guide is more precise: in 1941, they were dismantled to half their height. The later metal chimneys were shorter, and their number varied from four to six over the years.

In 1907, GES-2’s architecture was more than a utilitarian shell for its boilers. Vasily Bashkirov designed the façades with Neo-Russian motifs; electrical engineer Mikhail Polivanov was responsible for the equipment, and Nikolai Sushkin for the technical solutions. The metal framework was made by the Bari firm, where Vladimir Shukhov worked. The large windows and light entering through the roof were essential to illuminating the industrial halls. The history of the chimneys is best understood against this original effort to combine an industrial purpose with a dignified urban façade.

In historical account of the construction the boiler house plan is compared to a three-aisled basilica, while the end facing the future House on the Embankment is shown with a small clock tower. The comparison concerns the shape of the space: these halls housed the boilers, and four chimneys served them. It helps explain why early photographs of the power station should be read as both architectural and technical records. The imposing Neo-Russian façade and the working interior formed a single building.

Other losses reveal the extent of later changes. The small clock tower at one end was demolished in the 1970s, and the window openings were bricked up. By the time the power station closed for good in 2016, the architect’s task was no longer to preserve an unchanged building. It was to determine which elements had historical value, which were the result of alterations, and how to adapt the large halls for a new public use.

The decision to decommission GES-2 was made in 2006. The Mosenergo History Museum cites worn equipment and the high cost of energy as the reasons. The House of Culture dates the final closure to 2016; another publication by the energy company gives 2015 as the year operations ceased. Neither account establishes the date on which each boiler was shut down. According to the museum, the electrical load was transferred to the nearby newly built Bersenevskaya substation, and the heating load to CHP-20. The constraints that the building placed on modernisation are also clear: there was too little room for large units, while delivering and installing equipment at the cramped city-centre site was difficult.

What happened to the brick chimneys in 1941?

In 1941, GES-2’s brick chimneys were shortened to camouflage the power station during the war. The GES-2 history section reports that the tall chimneys could have served as landmarks for German artillery spotters, and describes their dismantling. The Mosenergo Museum guide is more precise: the brick chimneys were dismantled to half their height. Publicly available sources do not give a date for the final removal of the remaining brickwork. The later metal chimneys preserved the power station’s recognisable silhouette, but they were not surviving parts of the brick structures.

The war also changed how the boiler house operated. According to a Mosenergo Museum account, eight boilers were dismantled and sent east in 1941–1942; others continued to operate intermittently. Fuel shortages brought a return to coal from the Moscow region and firewood. Special tram tracks were laid to deliver them to the station. It was a curious reversal: the power station, originally built for the trams, now relied on rails to supply its own boilers in an emergency.

Staff remained at the equipment even during blackouts and under threat of air raids. Materials from the House of Culture describe sentry shelters made from sections of pipe, with staff checking the instruments through slots cut into them. The source does not say which structures the pipe sections came from, so the shelters cannot be linked to the dismantled brickwork. To establish the chronology of the chimneys, it is more reliable to rely on accounts of their dismantling during the war and records of the later metal replacements.

After the war, chimneys reappeared at the power station, but its façade also changed. Some of the panoramic windows closed off during the air raids were then considered unsafe and remained sealed; later, the boiler house was converted to gas. Two features of the building today—the reopened large windows and the new group of tall chimneys—therefore have different histories. The glazing was restored to its 1907 appearance, while the air intakes acquired a modern function and material.

What changed during the reconstruction of GES-2?

The reconstruction team reorganised the interior while preserving significant historic features. GES-2 was designated a cultural heritage site of regional significance in 2009; in 2015, the V–A–C Foundation took an interest in the site. According to an account of the station’s transformation, before work began, V–A–C specialists studied archival documents, carried out archaeological and anthropological research, and spoke with former employees. The discussion of preservation here therefore extends beyond the building’s outward appearance.

The foundation’s team found plans of Bolotny Island, old drawings and photographs of the power station, payroll records and documents from different periods. A drawing helps verify the layout, a photograph shows what the building looked like when it was taken, and a payroll record reveals who worked there. Anthropologists recorded former employees’ memories of the station’s operation in its later years. Their accounts are valuable to the history of work at GES-2, but cannot on their own date the brickwork of the dismantled chimneys. The reconstruction thus made it necessary to distinguish documents about the original building from accounts of its later life.

During the clearance, industrial scrap was removed and some equipment was sent for restoration. Builders then prepared a new foundation and underground exhibition spaces, while special structures supported the historic walls throughout the work. Inside, they removed unnecessary partitions and reopened windows that had previously been bricked up. These changes altered how the building could be used while preserving the scale of its great halls.

After the site was cleared, it opened to the public for the first time in February 2017, when the foundation held the Geometry of the Present festival in the former power station. That date marks the temporary use of the space, rather than the completion of the reconstruction. RPBW dates its project to 2015–2021. Between that first public access and the House of Culture’s permanent opening came the construction of a new foundation and underground halls, and the installation of systems to support the building’s new purpose.

Renzo Piano and his firm RPBW brought natural light back into the main halls by reopening the window openings and proposing a glazed roof. On the page about Piano’s project the metal trusses associated with Vladimir Shukhov, the restored small tower and the historic pedestrian gate bearing the Mosenergo emblem are mentioned separately. These decisions do not mean that every part of the complex is old. Comparing the details reveals which structures were retained and which were designed anew.

On RPBW page the contributors to different parts of the project are named: Piano’s firm was responsible for the architecture, Arup and Metropolis worked on the building services and façades, and Faros on the restoration. The architects determined the appearance of the air intakes, while ventilation specialists determined how they would work. The published page does not attribute the choice of specific filters or air exchange settings to Renzo Piano.

Strengthening the surviving metal trusses was a separate engineering challenge. Metropolis describeshow the original riveted joints were left in place, while new elements were also riveted to the existing structures. The work was carried out without dismantling the trusses themselves. Preserving the original framework thus required additional components and calculations.

The steel air intakes are part of the contemporary project. The cluster of vertical elements remains recognisable, but the blue metal marks a new structure. RPBW describes the pipes as reimagined and links them to the ventilation system. In this context, “restoration” refers to the role of the vertical elements in the silhouette: the Mosenergo Museum guide explains that the brick chimneys were shortened by half during the war and later replaced by metal structures.

Which pieces of industrial equipment were preserved inside?

After the power station was decommissioned, the House of Culture team kept selected pieces of equipment as evidence of different periods in its working life. In the catalogue of historic objects , you will find a control console and part of a control panel, pipeline gate valves, an overhead crane, part of a network pump and other items. Together, they do not constitute a complete, operational power station. These selected objects offer insight into the workers’ tasks and the internal systems, even though the external chimneys were replaced long ago.

The main control panel was in a separate room on the second floor. According to the description of the surviving console, it was made in the 1950s; the duty engineer used it to monitor the station’s main systems. After the reconstruction, sections of the control panel were restored and installed along the underground route to the car park. The date matters: this piece belongs to the Soviet period of modernisation, rather than to the commissioning of the Tramway Power Station in 1907.

An overhead crane was retained beneath the roof of the machine hall. It moved heavy components during repairs to the machinery: the crane operator controlled its movement along the overhead rails, while a slinger secured the load. The museum’s information sheet notes that a system of this type had been in use since the building was constructed, but the surviving cabin dates from the late Soviet period. The crane has been restored and no longer moves. The distinction between its historical function and the operation of the example on display is clear here.

The cast-iron gate valve in ‘The Square’ has an even older provenance. Valves like this regulated the amount of steam flowing through the pipes; they were made between 1897 and 1917 at Gustav List’s factory on nearby Sofiyskaya Embankment. The description of the gate valves connects them to the station’s actual industrial processes. It also shows why the old equipment should not be mistaken for industrial-style decoration: every piece had a specific working purpose.

A section of a network pump represents another system that can easily be confused with the cooling system for the turbine generators. The House of Culture’s information sheet identifies the network pumps in the basement of the machine hall as supplying hot water to the city’s district heating system. Drawing water from the canal, passing steam through the boilers and supplying district heating are distinct processes. Keeping these systems separate also matters when interpreting the new pipes: the cultural centre’s ventilation is not simply the old steam system under a new name.

The dates of manufacture help distinguish objects from different eras. The gate valves were made between 1897 and 1917, the control panel dates from the 1950s, and the surviving crane is from the late Soviet period. The blue pipes seen today were installed during the 2015–2021 renovation. The equipment gathered at the House of Culture reflects successive stages in the power station’s history, rather than a single interior from 1907.

What are the blue pipes at GES-2 for?

The modern blue pipes draw outdoor air into the House of Culture. The official description of the building’s engineering systems states that air is drawn in at a height of 70 metres, then filtered and distributed through the spaces via ducts. The airflow runs from outside into the building, whereas combustion products flowed out when the power station was operating.

Can the new pipes release smoke?

Yes. Metropolis, a company involved in designing the building’s engineering systems, says the hollow sections of the blue pipes serve as air intakes and can, when needed, be used for partial smoke extraction. The description does not say how much smoke each duct removes or how the operating mode is switched. Once the boilers stopped operating, there was no longer a need for continuous removal of combustion gases.

Structurally, the new pipes also differ from the brick chimneys of 1907. According to Metropolis engineers, they are supported solely by the roof structure. The structural calculations had to account for wind loads, their fluctuations and vortex-induced movement of the tall elements. The blue pipes therefore cannot be described as a lightweight decorative addition: they form part of the overall structure of the historic building and its renewed roof.

The engineering description also makes clear the limits of what we know about the ventilation. A project participant confirms that partial smoke extraction is possible, but this page does not publish a detailed diagram of the halls’ normal air extraction system. This special mode should not be equated with everyday ventilation, nor should a single statement be taken to mean that the same four ducts operate continuously in both directions at once.

What do the ventilation descriptions leave out?

The published information is insufficient to assess GES-2’s ventilation: it gives an intake height of 70 metres and mentions filtration, but specifies neither the filter types nor the airflow rate or the results of measurements in the halls. The ASHRAE Handbook distinguishes between an air intake, through which air enters a building, and an exhaust, which carries it outside. The intake’s location alone does not guarantee that the air is free of contaminants; assessing its effectiveness requires measurements that the project pages do not provide.

RPBW describes the reimagined pipes as part of a natural ventilation system and links the project to energy savings. The House of Culture describes filtration and air ducts. Together, these public accounts establish where the air is drawn in and that it is subsequently treated, but they do not provide a complete account of its movement through the building. They do not show which parts rely on natural draught, whether mechanical ventilation is used elsewhere, or how normal air extraction is arranged. Answering those questions requires engineering documentation; the public descriptions do not justify speculation in its place.

GES-2’s environmental page also mentions rooftop solar panels and rainwater collection for sanitary use and watering the Grove. These operate within other building systems. This information does not establish that the air-intake pipes alone made the complex energy-efficient: the project pages provide no separate calculation to that effect.

The site’s former environmental impact went beyond smoke. An account of GES-2 and the environment also describes wastewater marked with fuel oil flowing into the river. The switch to gas in 1947 changed the fuel, but the site remained an operating power station. Closing the plant removed the need to vent flue gases from its boilers. Modern ventilation serves a very different purpose: supplying air to a busy public building.

Why did the House of Culture project recreate the silhouette of four pipes?

The four blue verticals make the former power station recognisable in the cityscape. RPBW retained their position in its silhouette, while engineers made the new pipes part of the air supply system. In this way, an architectural feature gained a practical function in the House of Culture.

In 1907, large windows, a light-coloured roof and distinctive façades already made the power station a prominent feature of the city. Later additions and bricked-up openings obscured its scale. Clearing the site, reopening the windows and reinstating the small tower made its original proportions visible again. The blue pipes are a distinctly contemporary element in this composition, making it impossible to mistake the whole ensemble for an untouched monument from the early twentieth century.

The metal roof trusses were retained and reinforced; the lost small tower was reconstructed; and the air intakes were designed anew to bring in outdoor air. These are three distinct kinds of work — restoration, reconstruction and new construction. It would be inaccurate to call them all ‘restoration’.

Why were the pipes painted blue?

Renzo Piano deliberately chose blue for the new pipes. In a 2021 interview he explained that he had kept the group of verticals to preserve the former silhouette and allow air to be drawn in at height. The architect called the shade ‘Matisse blue’.

Metropolis adds detail about the choice of colour: according to its engineers, the designers considered the district’s palette and wanted to distinguish the new air intakes from the image of soot-blackened chimneys. The reference to Matisse provided an artistic cue, while the study of the palette connected the colour to its immediate surroundings.

In the same interview, Piano accepted a journalist’s comparison of the pipes to a campanile. The image refers to the House of Culture’s striking silhouette; the architect explained the pipes’ technical purpose as drawing in air at height.

At the Centre Pompidou in Paris, another Piano project, blue identifies elements of the air systems. The RPBW studio describes the building’s colour coding. The interview about GES-2 explains the colour differently, through Matisse and the former power station’s silhouette. The similarity invites comparison between the projects, but does not prove that the Moscow pipes were intended as a reference to the Centre Pompidou.

What can you tell just by looking at GES-2?

From outside, you can distinguish the blue metal of the modern pipes, the reconstructed small tower and the reopened large windows. A photograph alone, however, cannot establish their functions or origins without historical information. The pipes are particularly easy to misread: they look like chimneys, but the official description says they normally draw in outdoor air. A photograph captures the silhouette; materials published by the institution and the design studio explain how the system works.

How do the pipes relate to the rest of the building?

The air intakes supply air to the interior. According to the RPBW plan the House of Culture contains public, exhibition and educational spaces; the interior Square connects to the library and halls by stairs and platforms. The varied uses of these spaces explain the scale of the engineering challenge.

The glazed roof and reopened windows bring light into the former production halls, while the new pipes supply them with outdoor air. The glazing is visible from inside; the air intakes are visible from outside. The building’s public use required both systems.

Behind the building, Piano created the Grove. The official page describes the birches planted on the slope and explains that the terrain was reshaped along with the building. Rainwater and meltwater are used for some of the irrigation; among the trees stand painted pumps that once served different parts of the power station. The contrast between their roles is revealing: the displayed machinery now bears witness to the site’s history, while the new blue pipes remain part of its working infrastructure.

From Patriarch’s Bridge, you can see how the four vertical structures and the scale of the House of Culture relate to the surrounding buildings. The Grove’s page describes a route to the viewing platform, though this does not guarantee that access arrangements will remain the same. The view from outside reveals the building’s form, but not how air moves through it. It is therefore worth considering what you see alongside dated records of the original power station, an account of the pipes being dismantled during the war, and a modern explanation of the ventilation system.

A 1925 photograph in GES-2’s history section and images of the turbine hall in a 1912 publication by the Moscow City Administration document different aspects of the former power station. Contemporary photographs by RPBW show the building after its reconstruction. The dates matter when comparing them: without them, today’s steel air intakes could be mistaken for the surviving structure of the brick chimneys built in 1907.

The old GES-2 boilers have ceased operating, and there is no longer a need to vent their combustion gases. The decision to decommission the station was made in 2006; the GES-2 website dates its final closure to 2016. The sources consulted do not give the exact date of its last smoke emission. New steel pipes were installed during the reconstruction. In normal operation, they draw air into the House of Culture; an engineer involved in the project also notes that they can provide partial smoke extraction if needed. The four blue vertical structures recall the station’s former silhouette, but their material, roof supports and primary function belong to the building’s present life.

On Radius Tour Bureau’s sightseeing tour by car GES-2 is included in the standard route; one published itinerary includes a stop at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour and a walk onto Patriarch’s Bridge. From there, it is easy to consider the building’s silhouette in the light of its history.

Sources

1. Construction of GES-2
2. How the power station operated
3. The transformation of GES-2
4. Renzo Piano and the House of Culture
5. GES-2 and the environment
6. Renzo Piano Building Workshop: GES 2
7. Moscow tram
8. Bolotny Island
9. GES-2 during the war years
10. Historic equipment at GES-2
11. Control panel
12. Overhead crane
13. Pipeline gate valve
14. Part of a district heating pump
15. Birch grove
16. Renzo Piano on the GES-2 House of Culture: An Interview
17. Renzo Piano Building Workshop: Centre Georges Pompidou
18. ASHRAE Handbook: Designing Air Intakes and Exhaust Outlets
19. Metropolis: Engineering Solutions for the Reconstruction of GES-2
20. Mosenergo: The History of Moscow’s Power System
21. Mosenergo: How Moscow’s Energy Sector Developed
22. Mosenergo History Museum: The Tramway Power Station
23. Mosenergo History Museum: A New Life for GES-2
24. Mosenergo Museum: GES-2 During the War
25. Energy in Moscow. Episode 4: Mosenergo During the Great Patriotic War