NYTimes thinks it's opposition to progress.  St. Petersburg thinks they're protecting their heritage.  Not that St. Petersburg has a beautiful history to begin with (supposedly more people died building the city than in the Great Northern Wars it was built for). Judging by the babelfish translation of the program description, the project is mixed office and residential.  The skyline of St. Petersburg has been unchanged for 300 years, and now they're going to make the new focal point... private business?  Sure, it makes sense to us, here, since commerce built all of our landmarks.  But the landmarks of St. Petersburg have been reclaimed from the wealthy for the public.  Shouldn't progress be 'not building more monuments to the wealthy'?