Industrial heritage as a felicitous factor of the well-being of the population of the Urals in the 1970s and 1980s.

Lakhtionova Elizaveta Sergeevna ORCID: 0000-0002-8414-4540 PhD in History Associate Professor; Doctoral student; Department of Russian History; Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin 620034, Russia, Sverdlovsk region, Yekaterinburg, Opalikhinskaya str., 16, sq. 109 elza1982@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

It's no secret that a resident of a particular territory sometimes thinks about its well-being and attractiveness: for himself, for tourists, for migrants, for business. And if something does not suit him, then he has the opportunity to change his place of residence. But there is another side to this process: you can try to change the conditions in which we live from the inside, without moving, or change your attitude to the circumstances. Or at least think about how it can be done. This is exactly what a number of residents of the Urals did in the 1970s and 1980s, when they analyzed the reasons for how the region's rich industrial heritage could be used to shape and maintain the well-being of its residents. It turns out that industrial heritage can be used as a felicitous factor, meaning that "the happier a person is, the more satisfied they are with life, and happiness has the following content: "it is well–being in the family," "it is feelings, emotions that are difficult to describe" ^{[1, p. 69]}.

The relevance of the article is due to the fact that currently the attractive image of the Urals should be based on the use of such a resource as the richest industrial heritage, which, unfortunately, does not last forever. Many monuments have already been irretrievably lost. We only know about them from the documents. Other monuments are museumized. However, they are also little known to both residents of the Urals and tourists. A sociological study conducted in 2017 showed that the Urals themselves are generally aware of the industrial specifics of their region ^{[2, p. 35]}. Against this background, it would be nice to introduce them to the popularization of knowledge about the preserved objects of industrial culture, for example, through the development of industrial tourism ^[3] or the use of monuments of industrial heritage in the event life of the region.

The purpose of the article is to reveal exactly how individual residents of the Urals perceived the prospect of preserving the monuments of industrial heritage of a particular part of the region in order to increase the well–being of its inhabitants and the attractiveness of the territory itself. The chronological period is the 1970s and 1980s, when the elements of activities for the identification, study, preservation and use of industrial heritage monuments were born, as evidenced by a number of studies ^[4].

In this regard, it should be noted the article by L. E. Dobreitsina, devoted to the history of the museification of factories in the Urals, since the 1970s.^[5] The author correctly notes that it was not enough to simply stop production and declare the territory a museum. There is "much more to overcome in human psychology" in order for the created museum-factory to be perceived as a symbol of the revival of single-industry towns with an interesting and eventful life ^{[5, p. 36]}. Another researcher, Y. A. Kuzovenkova, believes that within the framework of the Soviet period, a paradigm emerged aimed at preserving (fixing) the memory of a particular industrial production and implemented in the creation of museums. After the collapse of the USSR, a new paradigm is being formed related to the idea of using industrial heritage monuments in the framework of territorial marketing ^[6]. By the way, this topic was further considered by a number of scientists in relation to the modern period, considering that industrial heritage is the most important component of the image of any industrial region ^{[2; 7; 8]}.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the concept of "industrial heritage" had not yet been formulated. The objects that currently belong to the monuments of industrial heritage were called monuments of industrial architecture, monuments of the history of science and technology, monuments of the labor glory of the Soviet people ^[9]. The need to preserve them was primarily considered by people who know the specifics of the Ural region, seeing its obvious advantages, which allowed this large industrial region to take place: dams, factories, power plants, transport hubs, etc. These are representatives of the scientific community, architects, historians, engineers, and local historians.

The preservation of historical and cultural monuments during the Soviet period was given great educational importance.: "To cultivate respect for the monuments of material and spiritual culture means to educate patriots who are ready to defend their native land in difficult times, and this process must begin from an early age" ^{[10, p. 69]}. This was written in 1987 by S. I. Zagrebin, a Russian historian and cultural critic, deputy chairman of the Chelyabinsk Regional branch of the All–Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (hereinafter – VOOPIK). Isn't it true that it is a very simple and at the same time popular idea, the implementation of which can contribute to improving the well-being of our country and its inhabitants?

According to Yu.A. Vladimirsky, one of the Sverdlovsk architects, monuments of industrial architecture sometimes had even more educational significance than well–known cultural buildings and palaces: "Factories built according to classical principles combine elements of art, architecture and technology, and are also a place of employment" ^{[11, p. 12]}. That is why the Ural factories for the most part had museums of labor glory, in which young people, future factory workers, were given a kind of dedication, thus developing a love for their factory, for their profession, respect for the work and achievements of previous generations. It is these young people who may advocate for the preservation of industrial heritage monuments, as was the case with the rescue of the Seversk Blast furnace ^[12]. This includes a mechanism such as a person's satisfaction with their work, which is important for their own well-being and the well-being of their family.

The preservation of industrial heritage monuments has had and still has far-reaching consequences for the competent transformation of the urban environment in which a happy person lives and works. And although there is a saying that "it's not a place that makes a person beautiful, but a person makes a place," these processes are interrelated. Industrial heritage sites had significant urban-forming and town-shaping significance, and still represent creative potential for modern architects: "Many of the monuments of industrial architecture can be instructive in terms of the ability to choose a place for the construction of an industrial enterprise, the correct solution of its master plan in relation to the energy source, the nature and technology of production, the ability to understand and solve the problem of the interdependence of economics, technology and architecture" ^{[11, l. 13]}.

Unfortunately, during the reconstruction of factories, the management did not always take into account the historical and cultural value of outdated mechanisms or workshops, especially if they did not have the status of a monument. Even if the objects were placed under state protection, cases of unauthorized destruction or even demolition of a monument of industrial significance were not uncommon, as was the case with the Seversk blast furnace, the industrial warehouse in Miass ^{[13, l. 191-193]}, the factory dam in Nizhny Ufaley ^{[10, p. 58]} and many other objects. At that time, this caused bitter disappointment among specialists who understood the value of preserving monuments. This causes bitterness at the present time, as what has been lost can sometimes no longer be returned.

K. A. Shishov, Candidate of Technical Sciences, associate professor at the Chelyabinsk Polytechnic Institute, member of the Presidium of the Chelyabinsk Regional branch of the VOOPIK, member of the Writers' Union of the RSFSR, wrote that the monuments of the industrial heritage of the Chelyabinsk region identified as a result of numerous expeditions have historical and memorial value ("unique as a monument of several eras", "unique complex monuments of the national history of metallurgy and construction art"), scientific ("an example of the high engineering skill of Russian builders", "a typical example of industrial development"), aesthetic ("an example of high construction art") and educational value ("deserves to be preserved for posterity", "evidence of the skill of our ancestors") ^{[14, l. 13, 15, 18, 19.]}. The general conclusion reached by K. A. Shishov is as follows: "Individual objects on the territory of the region are an example of world achievements of Russian science and technology and should be preserved for posterity" ^{[14, l. 27]}.

N. S. Alferov, Doctor of Architecture, Professor, Chairman of the Presidium of the Council of the Sverdlovsk regional branch of the VOOPIK, noted in 1969 that "the registration and protection of the remaining monuments of industrial architecture is now a matter of great importance" ^{[15, l. 6]}. And already in 1978, A. G. Navrotsky, Candidate of Technical Sciences, associate professor, member of the historical monuments section of the Central Council of the VOOPIK, set an example that a lot had been done in the Urals to preserve the monuments of the history of science and technology and monuments of industrial architecture ^{[16, l. 5]}. In the 1970s and 1980s, contemporaries placed the Sverdlovsk Region in the first place in terms of effectiveness in identifying, studying and preserving industrial heritage monuments. This is evidenced by archival documents and current research.

One of the main motives that accelerated this activity was caring for young people, the desire of the older generation to enable young people to live, work and feel happy in their small homeland without leaving it. This is what V. V. Khokhanov, the director of the Nevyansk Mechanical Plant, who actively promoted the museification of monuments on its territory, said in 1987.: "We don't ask questions, who will do all this? It's clear to us that we are. We don't ask questions, who will give us money, materials, projects? It's clear to us that we have to get it. We need. History has given us a unique opportunity to make our small town unique, and we must do it!" ^{[17, l. 40]}

Thus, in the 1970s and 1980s, representatives of the scientific community, teachers, local historians, and members of the VOOPIK in the Urals attached great importance to the identification, study, and preservation of industrial heritage sites. From their point of view, this could contribute to solving a number of problems related to the formation and maintenance of the well-being of both an individual resident and the region as a whole. For example, educating young people in a spirit of respect for their profession, work and achievements of other people, awareness of involvement in the history and culture of the Urals and the formation of attachment to the territory in which they live. Confidence in the choice of profession and place of residence will contribute to stability in personal and family life, and therefore a sense of happiness and well-being. This message, it seems to us, can work perfectly now, it remains only to step up efforts to preserve, use and popularize the industrial heritage of the Urals.