In 2022, it will be 20 years since the principles of preserving cultural heritage objects through the mandatory identification and preservation of elements and features that constitute the subject of protection were introduced into the legislation of the Russian Federation. These principles were introduced into practice by Federal Law No. 73-FZ of June 25, 2002, "On Cultural Heritage Objects (Monuments of History and Culture) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter referred to as Federal Law No. 73-FZ). The normative document reflected existing domestic and partially international developments in the field of cultural heritage preservation, introduced a number of new concepts, and clarified the mechanisms for preserving the historical environment. The practice of recent years in preserving cultural heritage objects and their historical environment (including the system of protection zones, historical settlements, and places of interest) has shown that the established mechanisms do not prevent the full range of cases leading to violations of the historical urban planning and compositional characteristics of objects, their visual perception, and sometimes even their physical preservation. Thus, there is a systemic gap that, for some reason, is not being addressed by the existing normative and methodological system for preserving the environment. Typically, there is a lack of connection (sometimes referred to as "stitching") between the individual characteristics of a cultural heritage object and the historical environment surrounding it. As a result, new dissonant modern buildings appear around historical objects, and such examples, unfortunately, exist in Saint Petersburg.
The second, less noticeable but extremely important aspect in the long term is the gradual loss of historical purpose and intangible content by objects. This leads to a distortion of the object's history, the perception of its meaning, and, as a consequence, the loss of its material features (replanning of internal volumes, especially halls and double-height spaces, significant repurposing, and changes in function). From generation to generation, such an object increasingly loses its original historical appearance, and ultimately, the question arises about the need to preserve it at all.
Despite initial criticism, the method of preserving the features of cultural heritage objects through the subject of protection has become entrenched in modern practice and, due to the strengthening of administrative and imperative approaches in state regulation, is unlikely to change in the coming years. Therefore, it is necessary to study the original sources and global analogues of the method, determine its strengths and weaknesses, propose additions that enhance the preservation of cultural heritage objects and the historical environment, and prove their practical and scientific applicability. These tasks, despite the existence of a number of studies, remain open. Large historical cities with rich cultural heritage and high economic potential are particularly at risk. Preservation through development and development through preservation is a principle declared by UNESCO in relation to historical cities. This is why special attention is required for the urban planning aspects of both the historical urban environment as a whole and individual historical objects within it. The scientific heritage of the Soviet era left us works on the study of the historical urban environment and the role of individual objects within it, but it is not oriented towards the existing protection mechanisms through the subject of protection and, therefore, needs adaptation.
Thus, it is extremely relevant to develop scientific methodological principles for determining the unexplored aspects of the subject of protection of cultural heritage objects. This will preserve the full range of features of cultural heritage objects and ensure the preservation of the historical environment.
The pioneering work introducing the concept of the subject of protection into the domestic sphere of cultural heritage preservation and operating with it is the scientific work of the team of the Association of Researchers of Saint Petersburg, carried out with the participation of T.A. Slavina, S.V. Sementsov, and V.V. Antonov, which formed the basis of the methodological guidelines for conducting urban planning, historical-cultural, and technical-economic examinations of immovable objects under state protection, in preparation for their privatization, approved by the order of the Chairman of KGIOP No. 36 of April 10, 1998.
Analyzing the works of these authors, who have attempted to work through a wide range of scientific information leading us to an understanding of the subject of protection, several main directions of their work can be identified. First and foremost, there is the extremely important methodological work on the architectural, decorative, and partly constructive features of cultural heritage objects. Next are the compositional, volumetric-spatial, and volumetric-planning features. Very little attention is paid to urban planning and intangible characteristics of objects.
In the 2005 methodology for the economic evaluation of cultural heritage objects, an attempt was made to study the economic component of intangible factors, but the proposed system, which had no relation to the subject of protection, turned out to be complex and, as a result, did not gain widespread use.
It is also necessary to separately note the works of S.K. Regame, A.V. Makhrovskaya, B.M. Rozadeev, E.A. Shevchenko, N.T. Vinokurova, and others on the study of the historical urban environment and the assessment of the role of historical buildings within it, which are fundamental to the research on the urban planning aspects of the subject of protection conducted in the research.
It should be noted that the urban planning and intangible features of cultural heritage objects as a subject of protection have not been studied as an independent subject until the present research. This confirms the relevance of the chosen topic.
