The Rachka River: How Its Valley Shaped Ivanovskaya Gorka

The Rachka River has vanished from the surface of Moscow, but its valley remains embedded in the fabric of the city. The changes in elevation across Ivanovskaya Gorka and the routes of Khokhlovsky, Podkopayevsky, Kolpachny and Maly Ivanovsky Lanes largely follow the terrain on either side of the former riverbed. This watercourse remains a hidden element of Moscow’s urban plan.

Documents give several dates for when the river was diverted underground: 1750, the 1750s and the late nineteenth century. These accounts are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Official historical and cultural assessments describe different sections and different operations—the design of a culvert, drainage of the area, enclosure of individual stretches in pipes and diversion of the section near the mouth towards the Yauza. The main conclusion is that the Rachka disappeared in stages, while the landform it created survived.

The Rachka’s course from Chistye Prudy to the Moskva River

The Rachka’s natural course began near what is now Chistye Prudy, crossed Pokrovka, descended through Ivanovskaya Gorka towards Solyanka and then continued to the Moskva River near the mouth of the Yauza. A historical and archaeological survey of a property in Potapovsky Lane gives the watercourse’s approximate dimensions: about 1.9 kilometres in length, with a drainage basin of roughly 1.5 square kilometres. The permanent flow may have occupied only part of the channel.

This description requires an important clarification. Both historical and modern texts variously call the Rachka a river, a stream or a culvert, while locating its source either in Chisty Pond or in the marshland nearby. These terms refer to different states of the same body of water. Before the upper reaches were landscaped, they formed a waterlogged hollow; after hydraulic engineering works, the surface stream became a system of underground sections and redirected drainage channels.

The Rachka was originally a left-bank tributary of the Moskva River. After its lower course was altered, its waters were diverted into the Yauza, which is why it is also described as a tributary of the Yauza. The sequence of alterations resolves this apparent contradiction: the outfall changed, while the historic valley on Ivanovskaya Gorka remained the same.

The history of the Rachka River: reconstructing its course in three sections

The Rachka’s course cannot be plotted as a single precise line for every period: its upper reaches were landscaped, its middle section was enclosed in a pipe and its lower course was diverted. The river’s route can be reconstructed more reliably by dividing it into three sections and specifying the period in each case. This approach reconciles the official documents, which describe individual properties and different stages of the work.

Upper reaches: from Chisty Pond to Pokrovka

The upper reaches are associated with the hollow near present-day Chistye Prudy. From there, the water flowed towards Pokrovka and the Church of the Trinity on the Mud. The State Public Historical Library notes that the stream emerged from the area around the pond, crossed the church grounds and then headed towards what is now Kolpachny Lane. This description establishes a corridor but does not allow the source to be plotted against the pond’s modern shoreline with metre-level precision.

The historical account in the survey of Potapovsky Lane cites Pyotr Sytin’s report of a wooden bridge by the Pokrovsky Gates and the flood of 1741, which damaged the old Church of the Trinity. This sequence of events explains the engineering challenge: the water crossed a major road, flowed near the fortifications and regularly caused disruption. In the mid-eighteenth century, the city authorities commissioned the remodelling of this section.

Middle course: between two rows of lanes

On Ivanovskaya Gorka, the documents locate the valley far more precisely: Khokhlovsky and Podkopayevsky Lanes followed one of its slopes, while Kolpachny and Maly Ivanovsky Lanes followed the other. The modern street network does not reproduce the riverbanks literally: property boundaries, passageways and later regulation altered their lines. Nevertheless, the two rows of lanes have retained their longitudinal alignment with the hollow.

This section helps distinguish the channel—a relatively narrow strip along which water flowed during a particular period—from the broader valley. The latter includes slopes, terraces and low-lying areas. The culvert may have shifted away from the former channel, while the gradients between Kolpachny, Khokhlovsky and Podkopayevsky Lanes remained in place. The modern topography reveals the breadth of the natural landform more reliably than the precise axis of the underground pipe.

Lower course: Solyanka and Vasilyevsky Meadow

Below Ivanovskaya Gorka, the Rachka crossed Solyanka and emerged onto Vasilyevsky Meadow. The survey of Potapovsky Lane places its original mouth on the Moskva River about 250 metres upstream from the mouth of the Yauza. The Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences describes this area as the Lower Garden of the grand princely residence, through which flowed the Rachka and another small watercourse identified in the source as the Sorochka. The overlap and changing use of hydronyms call for caution: the documents record a complex water network, not a single unchanging ditch.

The Church of St Andrew of Crete stood on the right bank of the Rachka and is mentioned in written sources from 1460. It was later joined by the stone Church of St Nicholas the Wonderworker in Mylniki, built in 1672. The church was dismantled in 1779 during the development of the Foundling Home grounds. These dates provide rare reference points linking the lower channel to landmarks that existed before the large-scale redevelopment of the embankment.

The three sections offer differing degrees of precision. For the upper reaches, the sources indicate a direction leading from the waterlogged hollow; in the middle section, the topography and lanes make it possible to reconstruct the valley; farther downstream, archaeology and the history of local churches anchor the river within the vanished landscape of Vasilyevsky Meadow. Connecting these points with a straight line would be misleading: the channel had already changed before its various sections were finally hidden underground.

The Rachka and Ivanovskaya Gorka: the terrain before urban development

Ivanovskaya Gorka occupies a high terrace on the left bank of the Moskva River. The Rachka carved a narrow valley through the slope, resembling a ravine in places. The city streets and property boundaries appeared later and adapted to the existing terrain: it was easier to travel along the bank or down a gentler incline than to lay a straight route across a steep hollow.

In the early fifteenth century, the upper part of the area was associated with a grand princely country estate and gardens. Their memory survives in the name of Starosadsky Lane. The State Public Historical Library links the name Ivanovskaya Gorka to the Convent of St John the Baptist, which was moved to Kulishki in the 1530s. The familiar name of the district is therefore younger than the natural landform it denotes.

The Rachka divided the territory of the Old Gardens while also supplying them with water. In this densely built-up area, the small river was unlike the smooth blue line shown on schematic maps: its seasonal flow varied, its banks eroded and water collected in low-lying places. The channel influenced the direction of roads and the arrangement of gardens, courtyards, outbuildings and the passageways between them.

The lanes of Ivanovskaya Gorka along the former valley

A historical and cultural assessment of the complex in Khokhlovsky Lane describes Khokhlovsky and Podkopayevsky Lanes as routes along one side of the Rachka valley, and Kolpachny and Maly Ivanovsky Lanes as routes along the other. This explains the pattern visible on a modern map: neighbouring streets converge, diverge and change direction as they follow the shape of the slope. No regular geometric grid ever developed here.

It would be a mistake to attribute every bend to the river. The layout of Ivanovskaya Gorka developed from several systems. Maroseyka and Pokrovka continued the ancient eastward route from the centre, Solyanka formed part of the road to Kolomna and Ryazan, monastic and estate lands defined property boundaries, and fortress walls constrained the growth of the neighbourhoods. The Rachka shaped the underlying terrain, while fortifications and land ownership also influenced the street plan.

The clearest example can be found around Khokhlovsky and Kolpachny Lanes. A descent gives way to an ascent, and this saddle marks the cross-section of the former valley. Podkopayevsky Lane continues along the low ground, while Maly Ivanovsky Lane runs along the opposite side. A walking route through this area crosses the former valley and then follows its slope.

Fortress walls and the watercourse

By the sixteenth century, the Rachka was surrounded by rapidly expanding development. In 1534, the Veliky Posad was enclosed by an earthen rampart, and in 1535–1538 the stone wall of Kitay-Gorod was built; over the following century, the territories beyond it became part of the White City. In the second half of the 1580s, a new defensive line enclosed them.

For a small river, the fortress boundary presented a physical obstacle. Near the Pokrovsky Gates, the stream crossed the White City’s defences and interacted with the moat and water-control structures. Water that could spread across a hollow in open country was channelled through increasingly narrow passages in the fortified, built-up district. Any blockage or damage to such a passage increased the risk of flooding.

The fortifications eventually disappeared, but their lines survived in the street layout. The Boulevard Ring around Pokrovsky and Yauzsky Boulevards follows the course of the former White City walls. The Rachka crossed this boundary and then flowed through the neighbourhoods of Ivanovskaya Gorka towards the low-lying land beside the Moskva River. Comparing their routes reveals the relationship between two systems usually considered separately: the natural valley and the belt of defensive structures.

The archaeology of the Rachka valley

Excavations confirm the presence of the river channel in the central part of Ivanovskaya Gorka and reveal how Muscovites developed the flood-prone lower floodplain. These two sites provide different kinds of information. Work in Kolpachny and Podkopayevsky Lanes clarifies the position of the filled-in valley, while research at Vasilyevsky Meadow reveals the composition of the cultural layer along the riverbank.

The filled-in channel on Ivanovskaya Gorka

The state historical and cultural assessment for Kolpachny Lane summarises archaeological work conducted in 1989–1990: in 1989, researchers excavated twelve trial pits between Khokhlovsky and Podkolokolny Lanes and subsequently monitored construction trenches. One of the excavation pits occupied the site of the Rachka’s filled-in channel; the experts explicitly link the nature and composition of the deposits to this circumstance.

Archaeologists identified areas of cultural deposits from different periods, beginning in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Deposits dating from the grand princely period reached a thickness of 0.6 metres. Among the finds and structures, the assessment notes the remains of a fifteenth-century stone building, possibly associated with the princely village of Podkopayevo. The earliest material was concentrated where Khokhlovsky, Bolshoy Tryokhsvyatitelsky and Podkopayevsky Lanes converge.

These findings provide independent support for the cartographic reconstruction. Archaeologists examined the fill of the former channel within the city block, supplementing evidence derived from the shape of modern streets and written sources. The excavation nevertheless records only one section of the river. A single point cannot establish the watercourse’s width in every century or trace the modern culvert all the way to its outfall.

The layers near the Rachka reflect alternating natural and urban processes. The water deposited sediment and altered soil moisture levels, while residents raised the ground, built and repaired passageways. The thickness of the cultural layer should therefore not be interpreted as the depth of the river itself. It represents the cumulative result of sedimentation, infilling, fires and development.

The developed floodplain at Vasilyevsky Meadow

The Moscow Archaeological Expedition of the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences has been investigating the grounds of the Foundling Home since 2020. Borehole surveys have shown that anthropogenic deposits reach a thickness of 4–4.5 metres at the sites of ancient ditches and streams. In some areas, the upper two metres date predominantly from the Soviet and pre-revolutionary periods, while at greater depths archaeologists find evidence of earlier development of the floodplain.

The lower strata preserved the remains of wooden structures, palisades, drains, wells and corduroy roads. River deposits separate periods of human activity. People repeatedly returned to the low-lying area, laying timber decking and constructing drainage channels, after which floods or shifts in the river channels buried some of the structures beneath new deposits.

The measurements of 0.6 and 4–4.5 metres refer to different things. The first figure refers to the thickness of the layer dating from the era of the Grand Princes at the Ivanovskaya Gorka site. The second encompasses the entire depth of human-made deposits at the sites of ancient ditches and streams near the Foundling Home. They cannot be compared as measurements of the Rachka's depth or of building density. Both figures are important for a different reason: they link human activity to the specific stratigraphy of the valley.

The ceramic assemblages date from the first third of the sixteenth century. An iron arrowhead and a merchant's seal from a roll of Bruges cloth complement the everyday finds, allowing archaeologists to identify an urban, albeit less densely accumulated, cultural layer. Courtyards appeared on Vasilyevsky Meadow no later than the early sixteenth century; its designation as a ‘meadow’ on later maps does not mean that the entire area remained undeveloped.

After the Kitay-Gorod wall was built in 1535–1538, the meadow lay outside the fortifications. Archaeologists describe a ditch about 17 metres wide and between 6 and 8 metres deep, as well as the Kosmodemyanskie Gate, through which the road led into the lowlands. The Rachka ran beside an artificial system of ditches and passageways, so the fortifications influenced the distribution of surface run-off even before the underground culvert was planned.

Comparing the two excavated areas broadens the scope of the conclusions. On Ivanovskaya Gorka, archaeology confirms the presence of a buried river channel within the network of lanes. Beside the Moscow River, it reveals the repeated settlement of the floodplain, where people built on damp ground and adapted sites to the water. Together, these findings explain why the Rachka cannot be represented as a single line: the urban watercourse comprised its channel, a broad valley and drainage structures created by local residents.

The open Rachka amid dense development

In the eighteenth century, the unpredictable flow of the Rachka through the densely built-up area was the main source of difficulty. Near the Pokrovskie Gate, it was associated with persistent damp, while spring floods and stormwater eroded the banks and undermined buildings. A description by Pyotr Sytin, quoted in a historical and cultural assessment, states that the flood of 1741 damaged the old Church of the Trinity in Gryazi.

The church's name reflects how local people perceived the area in everyday life. From an engineering perspective, the difficulties arose from the structure of the catchment: the stream collected water from the upper part of the basin, crossed roads and passed through a confined section near the fortifications. Footbridges and ditches addressed local problems but could not manage the system as a whole. As the city grew denser, the natural hollow became a channel for surface run-off from streets and courtyards.

The open watercourse both carried water away and created problems for sanitation, transport and construction. Enclosing it in a conduit freed up the surface and made its flow easier to manage. The river then disappeared from everyday view, although the terrain it had shaped remained.

Dmitry Ukhtomsky's project

Official assessments attribute the first major project to alter the Rachka to the architect Dmitry Vasilyevich Ukhtomsky. In 1750, he devised an engineering solution for the problematic section near the Pokrovskie Gate; several documents summarise the subsequent work by stating that the river was enclosed in a culvert in the 1750s.

Ukhtomsky is known primarily as an architect of Moscow Baroque and the head of an architectural school. In eighteenth-century urban practice, a single specialist combined architecture, planning and civil engineering. The project near the Pokrovskie Gate had to take account of ground levels, the wall, ditch, road and neighbouring buildings in order to integrate water drainage with the fabric of the city.

To say that the Rachka was enclosed in a culvert is too brief a description of a lengthy process. Official records provide no single timetable for work along the entire 1.9-kilometre watercourse. The date of the project, the completion of the first section and the final disappearance of the open channel may have belonged to different phases.

Why the documents give different dates

The discrepancy can be explained by the reconstruction having taken place in stages. The assessment of Khokhlovsky Lane dates the enclosure of the Rachka in a conduit to the 1750s and places the modern culvert beneath Kolpachny and Podkopaevsky Lanes. Materials concerning Solyanka describe the diversion of water during the drainage of the area near the Foundling Home in the eighteenth century, while dating the final alteration of individual sections and the area near the mouth to the nineteenth century. The State Public Historical Library likewise distinguishes between Ukhtomsky's culvert and the later redirection of the river's mouth into the Yauza.

Comparing the documents makes it possible to establish a sequence. First, the city attempted to eliminate the dangerous open section near the Pokrovskie Gate. Hydraulic engineering works then extended to the lower reaches and the lowlands around the Foundling Home. In the nineteenth century, the remaining open stretches and the water outlet were reconstructed. The editors have pieced together this sequence from several documents; it does not appear in its entirety in any single one of them.

Historical and cultural assessment reports were prepared to evaluate specific buildings and restoration projects; a systematic study of Moscow's hydrography was not their purpose. Their historical background sections draw on archival maps and specialist literature but may condense a lengthy process into a brief statement. Differences in wording make it necessary to determine the section and type of work to which each date refers.

The limits of documentary reconstruction

Published official materials do not provide a complete as-built plan of the modern culvert. They make it possible to reconstruct the historic valley, the routes of several sections and the stages of alteration. Determining the precise course of every pipe beneath a particular courtyard, its technical condition and the composition of the water requires up-to-date engineering documentation, which is not included in the historical and cultural assessments used here.

This distinction is particularly important on Ivanovskaya Gorka. The reference to the culvert beneath Kolpachny and Podkopaevsky Lanes confirms the general corridor of the underground flow. Without up-to-date engineering documentation, the course of the pipe cannot be assumed to follow the street's centreline or the natural eighteenth-century riverbed throughout its entire length. Individual sections may have been shifted and connected to the municipal drainage system during improvements, building construction and utility repairs.

The popular image of an entire river continuing to flow beneath the district in its unchanged natural state is likewise unsupported by the documents. Enclosing it in a pipe and relocating its outlet altered its water supply, direction and flow regime. The historic hydronym indicates the system's origin but does not guarantee that the original watercourse survives in every section.

The evidence varies in reliability. The valley's topography and the longitudinal alignment of the lanes are visible on the surface and confirmed by assessments. Several sources associate the work of the mid-eighteenth century with Dmitry Ukhtomsky. The detailed route of the functioning network lies beyond the scope of these publications. A manhole, the sound of water or a damp cellar therefore cannot be declared a direct trace of the Rachka without an engineering survey.

Further research would require a comparison of the archival drawings for Ukhtomsky's project, plans for draining the Foundling Home estate, later drainage plans and data from on-site surveys. Until such a consolidated study exists, the reconstruction must stop where the corroborating evidence ends. This preserves the distinction between established history and urban legend.

Rerouting the lower reaches

Before the reconstruction work, the Rachka crossed Solyanka Street and flowed into the Moscow River upstream from the mouth of the Yauza. The area around its mouth ran through Vasilyevsky Meadow, a low-lying area south of Ivanovskaya Gorka. The Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences confirms the presence of the Rachka in the landscape of the Lower Garden and associates the Church of St Andrew of Crete, known from written sources since the fifteenth century, with its right bank.

The creation of the Foundling Home ensemble in the second half of the eighteenth century radically transformed the riverside area. The large complex required well-drained, predictable terrain, so the streams and lowlands were reshaped together with the layout of the site. The Rachka's original outlet into the Moscow River lost its former significance, and its flow was gradually redirected towards the Yauza.

The lower reaches illustrate particularly clearly the difference between a natural watercourse and urban infrastructure. The natural channel followed a depression in the terrain; an engineered system could override the former logic of the watershed and discharge the water elsewhere. After such alterations, the valley remained in the ground and in the street plan, while the flow's hydrographic affiliation changed.

The fire of 1812 and the new street pattern

Ivanovskaya Gorka is often perceived as a fragment of old Moscow that has survived almost untouched, yet its layout underwent major disruptions. A historical report on a property in Podkopaevsky Lane states that the fire of 1812 destroyed the wooden buildings there. The post-fire regulation of building lines led to the disappearance of some minor passageways and the rationalisation of those that remained.

The modern street network emerged from the routes of ancient roads, the topography of the Rachka valley, estate boundaries, monastic lands, the consequences of fires and new building regulations. Nineteenth-century stone houses fixed many earlier lines in place and gave them a different scale and architectural frontage.

The value of Ivanovskaya Gorka's surviving layout lies in the legibility of several historical layers. The river-shaped terrain preserved the overall pattern of descents, while the development of the blocks retained the distinction between the upper estate plots and the lower thoroughfares. Even a rebuilt house may perpetuate an old property boundary or the former bank of a hollow.

Topography and social geography

In the seventeenth and first half of the eighteenth centuries, large estates occupied the higher part of Ivanovskaya Gorka. Official records list properties belonging to the Volkonsky, Kurakin, Vyazemsky, Meshchersky and Shcherbatov families. Lower down, closer to Solyanka Street and the old roads, commercial and practical activities were more prominent. This distribution suggests a connection between the terrain and land use, but the documents do not establish a direct relationship between land values and the elevation of a site.

Solyanka took its name from the Salt and Fish Yard, where salt, potash and fish were stored and sold. The street itself continued an ancient route towards Kolomna and Ryazan. Gardens, monastic estates and noblemen's residences developed in the upper lanes; the roads and lowlands saw more trade, storage and traffic. The Rachka's channel ran along the boundary between these areas of development.

The picture later became more complex. Estates were subdivided, while tenement buildings, educational and religious institutions, workshops and administrative buildings appeared. Owners and uses changed, but the lanes retained their general alignment along the slopes. This enduring structure allows buildings from different periods to be perceived as a unified district.

Place names around the Rachka valley

Place names preserve the history of occupations and land use, helping us understand who lived near the valley and how Muscovites distinguished between different parts of the district. Names alone are not sufficient to trace the watercourse: they changed, while passageways were extended and realigned after fires.

Kolpachny Lane took its name from a settlement of craftsmen who made caps. The State Public Historical Library notes that part of its route followed the course of the Rachka. This convergence brings two layers together: the natural depression provided a convenient thoroughfare, while the community of craftsmen gave it its name. Later, stone chambers and estates appeared along the same line, followed in the early twentieth century by buildings associated with the Knop and Jurgenson families and the Snegiryov family.

The origin of the name Podkopaevsky Lane is interpreted more cautiously. The Historical Library offers several theories, ranging from a tunnel dug by robbers to clay extraction near the Rachka. None of these etymologies proves the location of the riverbed in itself. The clay theory is consistent with a damp hollow, but remains merely a theory unless supported by records of clay working or archaeological finds.

Starosadsky Lane recalls the grand princes’ gardens, while Ivanovskaya Gorka takes its name from the Convent of St John the Baptist. The earliest known chronicle reference to the convent dates from 1415; the State Public Historical Library associates its relocation to Kulishki with the 1530s. These names reflect the changing role of the high bank: a princely estate outside the city became an urban district of convents and manor houses.

These sources serve different purposes. The terrain, maps and archaeology help reconstruct the valley, while place names tell us about occupations and landowners. Treating a lane’s name as a coordinate for the riverbed would produce an unsubstantiated reconstruction. Reading the sources separately reveals a more accurate picture: the valley determined the form of the area, while the residents of each era associated it with their own activities and names.

Traces of the Rachka in the modern city

The Rachka is most clearly discernible in the contours of the streets. In Khokhlovsky Lane, a descent gives way to an ascent; neighbouring lanes follow the hollow or curve around it. Comparing the map with the walking route reveals the valley more accurately than trying to trace a single imaginary line across the modern asphalt.

Another clue is the position of old estates and gardens on the slopes. Morozov Garden, the courtyards in Kolpachny and Podkopaevsky lanes, and the steps and changes in level between plots all occupy different elevations. Fences and passageways have changed, but the buildings still connect these levels.

Documents record two directions: the natural Rachka flowed towards the Moskva River, while its engineered drainage was diverted to the Yauza. There is almost no indication of this change on the surface. The modern street network therefore reflects the former valley, while the drainage system follows the later engineering scheme.

The four layers of Ivanovskaya Gorka

The history of Ivanovskaya Gorka consists of several interwoven systems. The natural valley explains the course of several lanes. Old roads connect the district with the city centre, the Yauza, Kolomna and Ryazan. The walls of Kitay-Gorod and Bely Gorod show how outlying territories were gradually incorporated into the city. The convent, gardens and manor houses reveal who occupied the high bank and how the land was used.

For a careful reading, it is useful to distinguish four layers. The first is natural: the terrace, slope, ravine and direction of drainage. The second is medieval: roads, the trading settlement, the convent and fortifications. The third is engineered: Ukhtomsky’s project, culverts, drainage and the relocation of the river mouth. The fourth is post-fire and modern: regulated building lines, masonry buildings, restoration work and new uses for old estates.

A route for reading the terrain

A continuous route from the upper part of Ivanovskaya Gorka to Khokhlovka allows the history of the Rachka to be examined in the urban landscape. Along the way, changes in gradient, the orientation of the lanes, the position of the Convent of St John the Baptist, old stone residences and courtyards, and the line of the former Bely Gorod all become apparent. Each site helps verify part of the reconstruction, while their sequence connects the area’s natural history with its development.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the city authorities and engineers gradually adapted the Rachka’s drainage to the needs of fortifications, roads, construction and sanitation. Before the river was enclosed in pipes, its valley had already influenced the course of the lanes and the boundaries of plots. The culvert concealed the water, but changes in elevation and the lines of the thoroughfares remain evidence of the former riverbed.

To explore the article’s conclusions for yourself, follow the route from Slavyanskaya Square to Khokhlovka. This section forms part of the ‘Soul of Moscow’ tour, while its details can be explored more fully on a private walk with Moscow guide.

Sources

1. State Historical and Cultural Expert Review Report on the Complex of Buildings at 7–9 Khokhlovsky Lane
2. State Historical and Cultural Expert Review Report on the Property at 5/2 Solyanka Street
3. State Historical and Cultural Expert Review Report on the Property at 2/6 Podkopaevsky Lane
4. State Historical and Cultural Expert Review Report on the Property at 5 Potapovsky Lane, Building 4
5. Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences: ‘Vasilyev Meadow Then and Now’
6. State Public Historical Library of Russia: ‘Kolpachny Lane’
7. State Public Historical Library of Russia: ‘The “Pod” Lanes: Podkolokolny, Podkopaevsky and Podsosensky’
8. State Public Historical Library of Russia: the history of Starosadsky Lane and its surroundings
9. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report for the Property at 3 Solyanka Street
10. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report for the Property in Kolpachny Lane