later referred to as Ayrarat; now converted into a shopping center

location: 40.17223079995027, 44.51284621363559

architects: Arthur Tarkhanyan, Spartak Khachikyan, Hrachya Poghosyan 

date: 1974

Rossiya Cinema stands on the edge of Yerevan’s Ring Boulevard near Zoravar Andranik metro station, surrounded today by heavy traffic and a dense layer of commercial structures. Despite these later changes, its two monumental volumes still rise above the city like lifted wings or uneven mountain slopes — an image that encouraged comparisons with Mount Ararat and later contributed to the building being known as Ayrarat after Armenia’s independence in 1991.

This dramatic silhouette was not conceived merely for visual effect. Rossiya is one of the clearest examples of the modernist belief that architectural form should emerge directly from function and technology. In a cinema, the rear rows must be elevated above the front rows to provide every spectator with an unobstructed view of the screen. At Rossiya, this practical requirement is expressed on the exterior: the rising profile of each hall mirrors the stepped arrangement of the seating inside. What appears from the street as a bold sculptural composition of two projecting cantilevered volumes is therefore not an arbitrary gesture but a precise architectural response to the building’s purpose, making the logic of the cinema visible.

Rossiya became one of the first major works fully associated with the architectural group of Arthur Tarkhanyan, Spartak Khachikyan, and Hrachya Poghosyan — the trio that would later design some of the most ambitious buildings of Armenian modernism, including the Youth Palace, Zvartnots Airport, and the Karen Demirchyan Sports and Concert Complex. Their work transformed the scale and language of public architecture in Soviet Armenia. At a time when Armenian architecture was still largely shaped by monumental forms and historical references, Tarkhanyan, Khachikyan, and Poghosyan belonged to a younger generation that embraced the possibilities of modernism. They developed an architectural language grounded in structure, spatial organization, and construction itself. For them, a building’s identity emerged primarily from the logic of its program and engineering rather than from decorative historical motifs, and Rossiya became one of the first projects in which this approach was expressed with particular clarity.

The fact that this first large-scale manifesto of the Tarkhanyan–Khachikyan–Poghosyan trio took the form of a cinema was not accidental. It resulted from several overlapping factors: the rapid growth of Yerevan, the Soviet state’s investment in cultural infrastructure, the prestige of cinema as a modern mass medium, and the urgent need for new public venues capable of accommodating large audiences. At the beginning of the 1960s, Yerevan had only three major cinemas, which were no longer sufficient for a rapidly expanding capital. Film was one of the principal forms of mass culture, and cinemas functioned not only as places for watching movies but also as important venues for everyday social life.

The first proposal envisioned a panoramic cinema, a technologically advanced format in which spectators were surrounded by a wide curved screen. However, panoramic projection soon proved too expensive and technically demanding. The architects nevertheless continued to explore experimental solutions, including a transformable scheme in which one central screen could serve two halls of different sizes, or a single space could be divided into separate auditoriums. Although this idea was ultimately abandoned as too complex, it shaped the logic of the final design. The completed building was organized around two large halls placed back-to-back at the center and opening outward in opposite directions. Between them, the architects inserted a tall foyer — a vertical fissure of light and movement that connected the auditoriums, stairs, services, and public terraces.

The building’s organization is therefore remarkably simple: two auditoria with capacities of 1,600 and 1,000 spectators, and the space between them. Beneath the main halls was a lower public level containing a smaller auditorium of around 240 seats for newsreels and documentary films, as well as a range of public amenities, including an exhibition hall, café, bar, restaurant, dance hall, and even a children’s room. Open terraces extended around the complex, further expanding its public realm. In this sense, Rossiya was not merely a movie theater but a vibrant center of public life.

This ambition to create a multifunctional public building while preserving the clarity of its architectural concept required an equally ambitious structural solution. The engineering was developed by Gerasim Gevorkyan, whose contribution was central to the project. Rossiya was constructed of monolithic reinforced concrete, an exceptional choice in Armenia at the time, particularly on a seismically active site. Each of the two halls rests on four massive concrete pylons anchored by deep foundation piles. From these supports, the halls project outward in 40-meter cantilevers stabilized by steel tension cables attached to the upper portions of the inclined structural walls. The building’s distinctive lifted profile emerges directly from this system: the cantilevers pull downward while the cables counteract the load by pulling upward.

For the first time in the USSR, rigid cable structures were used in the ceilings of cinema halls. The underside of each projecting volume reveals the logic of the construction as a deep coffered grid, visible from below as a pattern of square recesses. At the same time, many technical elements were concealed within the side walls and double-floor structures, including cable anchors, projection rooms, drainage channels, and sound-insulation layers. This was particularly important because the cinema stood on an urban “island” surrounded by noisy streets. The massive walls protected the auditoriums, while the voids and layered surfaces helped isolate sound.

Attempting to trace possible sources of inspiration for such a design, it can be viewed against the broader architectural discussions taking place across the Soviet Union in the 1960s, particularly around new types of cinema buildings and projection technologies. The competition produced a number of experimental proposals exploring new auditorium configurations and large-span structures, including the well-known design by Leonid Pavlov and Viktor Gonchar with its boldly cantilevered volume. Although there is no direct evidence of influence, Tarkhanyan, Khachikyan, and Poghosyan were likely familiar with these widely discussed projects. Rossiya can also be compared to other large-span public buildings of the period, such as the Rossiya Cinema in Moscow (1961) and the Palace of Concerts and Sports in Vilnius (1969–1971), both of which used advanced structural systems to create dramatic, unobstructed interior spaces. Like these projects, Rossiya emerged from a broader architectural culture in which engineering innovation became a primary source of architectural expression.

The interiors continued the same combination of modernity and local reference. The two main auditoriums were conceived as distinct color environments, known as the Red Hall and the Yellow Hall. Their materials and furnishings were coordinated around these identities: wall cladding, carpets, and even the leather upholstery of the seats followed carefully composed red and yellow palettes. Between the halls, the foyer was illuminated by wrought chandeliers. Its end walls were filled with stained-glass compositions by Rudolf Gharaghaloyan, set within thick concrete frames. Decorative metalwork, sculptural masks, and large tuff sculptures were integrated among the stairs and supporting structures.

The material treatment balanced exposed concrete and stone. Stairs, supports, and many interior surfaces were left in monolithic concrete, with visible traces of formwork. This was unusual in Soviet Armenian public architecture, where exposed concrete could still appear too raw or unfinished. The exterior walls of the halls, however, were faced with tuff, creating a dialogue between modern construction techniques and Armenia’s traditional building material.

This choice was significant because the question of national character became one of the main points of criticism directed at the project. Some contemporaries disliked the building and gave it ironic nicknames such as “a boat” or “an overturned tank.” The architects responded by arguing that Armenian tradition should not be understood as a collection of decorative motifs. Instead, they saw the rationality of structure, the directness of function, the use of local materials, and the clarity of spatial organization as qualities deeply rooted in Armenian architectural culture. The silhouette of the cinema, often compared to Mount Ararat, further reinforced this interpretation. The architects even considered names such as Ayrarat or Noah’s Ark, but the building was ultimately named Rossiya for political reasons. After independence it briefly received the name Ayrarat, although the Soviet-era name remained more widely known.

The project also reflected a key modernist urban principle: occupying as little ground as possible and returning more space to the city. The cinema’s volumes were raised above the site so that the public space of Yerevan’s Ring Boulevard could continue beneath and around the building rather than being blocked by it. Its terraces and open areas were intended for walking, waiting, sitting, and passing through without necessarily entering the cinema. In practice, however, the site proved difficult. Heavy traffic, nearby market activity, and a wide road separating the boulevard from the building prevented this vision of continuous urban space from being fully realized.

Rossiya opened in December 1974. Its first major event was not a film premiere but a political gathering attended by the leadership of Soviet Armenia under Karen Demirchyan. In 1979, the architects received the USSR Council of Ministers Prize for the project. By then, Rossiya had become one of the most recognizable buildings in Yerevan and one of the strongest statements of Armenian modernism.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the cinema lost the institutional system that had sustained it. Large Soviet cinemas proved difficult to adapt: their halls were too large for the new economics of film distribution, while their experimental structures required costly maintenance. Rossiya was privatized and gradually transformed into a commercial complex. Its lower level and terraces were filled with lightweight additions, shops, and market-like structures. Many interiors and artistic elements were altered, obscured, or lost.

Today Rossiya still stands, but its architectural idea is increasingly difficult to read. The two halls remain visible above the street, and the main structural gesture survives. Yet the open ground level, the public terraces, the ceremonial foyer, and the cultural program that once gave meaning to the building are largely hidden. Rossiya is therefore neither a ruin nor a preserved monument. It is a transformed building whose original logic can still be recognized, but only through careful observation.

At the same time, its future poses difficult questions. The building was designed for a type of cinema culture that no longer exists, with very large auditoriums and a highly specialized spatial organization. Returning it to its original use would require substantial investment, while adapting such a large and technically specific structure to new functions presents its own challenges. Any meaningful revitalization must therefore address not only questions of heritage and architecture but also the economic realities of sustaining a building conceived for a very different era of public entertainment.

Sources and Further Reading

Armen, E. “Архитектура общественных зданий Армении 1960–1970” [Architecture of Public Buildings in Armenia, 1960–1970], in: Arkhitektura SSSR, 1972, no 4, p. 22–27.

Balyan, Karen. Артур Тарханян, Спартак Хачикян, Грачья Погосян [Artur Tarkhanyan, Spartak Khachikyan, Hrachya Poghosyan]. Yekaterinburg, 2012.

Bronovitskaya, Anna; Markus, Elena; Palmin, Yuri; Balyan, Karen. Ереван: архитектура советского модернизма, 1955–1991 [Yerevan: Architecture of Soviet Modernism, 1955–1991]. Moscow, 2026.

---

text by Elena Lisitsyna