The past belongs not only to us but also to future generations. To allow examples of history to be destroyed means abrogating forever the opportunity of all those who seek truth to see it as it existed [1].
After the Soviet-time reconstructions, Moscow remained a “drama in time” [2]: one could tell a lot about history walking through the streets. Today this quality is being lost.
As a result of recent demolitions in the old city of Moscow, large empty spaces arose immediately near the Kremlin. The mechanisms are well known in the theory of town planning. The turnover of buildings is motivated by momentary economical interests [1]. Failures are charged to corruption and incompetence, inherent in a society that does not make use of its experts [3]. As it was described in the past, the pressure to demolish and reconstruct has allies among economic and political forces [4].
To counteract this pressure, public authority should delimit territory, assigning appropriate functions to every compartment, and to ensure to any compartment the certainty of rights and therefore market value [3]. In other words, it is the task of public authorities to provide both architectural and functional zoning in a city. The former should delimit the borders of architectural ensembles; most importantly, the borders of historic districts, where reconstructions should be avoided.
However, purely architectural zoning is not sufficient for preservation of historic heritage. When old buildings pass to new users, they often become visually unattractive because of disfigurement of original structure [1]. So, for preservation of a residential house with a shop in the ground floor, it must remain a residential house, and not transform to an office building or a bank, as it often happens today in the center of Moscow. Therefore, administratively prescribed architectural zoning must be accompanied by functional zoning at least in the most valuable districts. Furthermore, it can be rational to introduce a green space between an historic district and a new development [1].

Unfortunately, as it already happened in the past [5], efforts to give power to the regulating forces and plans have not been supported; speculation was allowed a free rein by Moscow authorities, who obviously participated in it. The plans comply with the short-term economic interests more than with the needs of a proper urban policy [4], as it obviously happened to the General Layout of Moscow (see related articles). A concluding point is that, considering impediments to the traffic and air pollution, the best what can be done with the newly created vacant land in the city center are public gardens, which would also emphasize the historic area around Kremlin, instead of overshadowing it like the Soviet-time hotels Rossia and Moskva have done. The ruin of the former (fig. 3-4) can be left as a monument and used for recreation purposes. The latter was recently demolished and rebuilt anew: the esthetically questionable but historically significant building was replaced by a modern imitation.

Abundant greenery in the city center is a luxury that Moscow can afford today in view of the upturn in the economy. It would also be a step to the embodiment, on the scale of a megalopolis, of the garden city concept that prevailed in the early Soviet-time urbanist thought.

All images May 2010
Fig. 1-4. Empty space near the Red Square after the demolition of the hotel Rossia and surrounding buildings. Fig. 3-4: the vestige of the hotel.
Fig. 5-10. Empty spaces after the demolitions in the historic district Zamoskvorechie across the river just opposite the Kremlin.

References
1. Tunnard Ch., Pushkarev B. Man-made America: chaos or control. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964
2. Hebbert M., Sonne W. On the uses of history in twentieth century city planning. In: Monclús J, Guàrdia M., editors. Culture, urbanism and planning. Burlington: Ashgate, 2006; pp. 3-2o
3. Piccinato G. 20th century planning heritage: pretty theories and ugly practices. A paper presented at an international conference in Bled (Slovenia) in December 2000
4. Piccinato G. Words and history: controversies on urban heritage in Italy. In: Monclús J, Guàrdia M., editors. Culture, urbanism and planning. Burlington: Ashgate, 2006; pp. 113-128
5. Tafuri M. Ludovico Quaroni e lo sviluppo dell’architettura moderna in Italia. Milano: Edizioni di Communità, 1964