Editorial Announcements and Notifications

Dear authors and readers of the Academic Bulletin of UralNIIproekt,

The articles in this issue have sparked reflections that I am eager to share with you. We are accustomed to viewing new construction and management of the existing building stock as two distinct professional domains. In practice, however, the boundary between them is increasingly defined not by the age of a building, but by a fundamental choice: what exactly do we deem a sufficient justification for intervention? What constitutes a sufficient ground for preserving an architectural object or an entire architectural and landscape ensemble rather than replacing it? Is it solely historical and cultural value? Is it possible to reintegrate a heritage site into the economic cycle on the condition that it not only retains its status but also complies with current safety and comfort regulations? In this scenario, restoration — or more precisely, adaptive reuse, rather than museification — becomes a form of construction, albeit one that is more complex and regulatorily strained.

When dealing with a new project, the choice of materials and layout solutions is relatively free — within the boundaries of current GOST, SP, and ISO standards. In modern construction, legacy GOST standards and Building Regulations (SNiPs) are gradually being superseded by new ones, yet this process is uneven and, more importantly, significantly lags behind practical advancement in both national and international systems. Many ISO provisions, while formally adopted, remain declarative: they establish objectives without being backed by practical guidelines for action. The regulatory framework is either non-existent or formally exists but fails to cover real-world application scenarios. Consequently, there is an acute need not merely for revised standards, but for standards as such for a wide range of modern materials and technologies — from biopolymer composites to digital monitoring systems.

Concurrently, when addressing a building constructed according to regulations from half a century ago or older, the freedom of choice regarding materials and solutions is drastically constrained. Existing structures may no longer comply with increasingly stringent requirements for thermal engineering, fire safety, and load-bearing capacity. The situation is further aggravated by the degradation of the historical material itself — the growing brittleness of structural elements. Furthermore, the spatial and layout configuration of such buildings is often incompatible with today’s operational scenarios. As a result, the object finds itself caught between preservation demands and operational requirements — in a transitional zone where old standards no longer function, and new ones have yet to be drafted. Currently, this tension is being partially mitigated: for instance, domestic legislation introduces a notification procedure for minor repair works, which strictly concerns the bureaucratic process rather than the status of the monument itself. At the international level, standards regarding the terminology of restoration materials and methodologies for climate risk assessment are being developed. Yet even so, an area remains that the reforms have not yet reached: the rules for applying modern materials and technologies within the context of historical structures.

The materials in this issue lie precisely within this transitional domain, encompassing research on modern materials and, simultaneously, the regulatory aspects of their application within holistic objects. We believe it is vital not to oppose the «new» and the «old,» but rather to refine the criteria of choice. Because every time we decide to preserve a building, we assume responsibility not only for its past but also for its future utilization — just as a decision to demolish demands justifications that extend far beyond mere economic expediency.

Vladimir Gennadievich Veniaminov
Editor-in-Chief Akademicheskie Vestnik UralNIIproekt RAASN