At the MIPIM-2008 exhibition held in Cannes, Elena Baturina demonstrated a concept project of the Orange multifunctional complex, signed by Norman Foster. At the same time, it was announced that this project will participate in a tender-tender for the reconstruction of the existing building of the Central House of Artists / State Tretyakov Gallery, which has not yet been announced and it is not even known whether it will be announced at all. However, the project is actively being promoted, and its discussion in the press is increasingly inclined to believe that the old building is de Brezhnev and is it time to replace it with something beautiful, and even from a world famous celebrity. They broke the hotels "Russia" and "Intourist", even the hotel "Moscow" was broken, so why not update something else with a brand new international masterpiece? Moreover, as is already known, not only Lord Foster, but also the customer, Elena Baturina, took part in its creation.
There are many questions to "Orange". It combines the Tretyakov Gallery with elite housing, and represents a typical example of "investment construction", when the customer builds something for the city and a lot - for profit. Should we give the Tretyakov Gallery and the Central House of Artists, which have long become recognized and visited centers of Moscow's cultural life, at the mercy of investment construction? Does Orange look good at this place? And whose work is this, after all, a world "star" or more than a customer?
Behind all this, I would not like to miss one important topic. Is it necessary to demolish the building of the Central House of Artists / State Tretyakov Gallery on the sole reason that it is a Brezhnev building? Italian architect and curator of the Venice Biennale Massimiliano Fuksas, speaking in Moscow, asked - when will you start appreciating your own 70s? Indeed, when? Soon there will be nothing left. But this is a whole era. Yes - it is littered with panel rubbish, but there were also masterpieces and key buildings of the era - such, without a glance at which it would be difficult to form a correct idea about it. It is known about the building of Nikolai Sukoyan and Yuri Sheverdyaev that for its time it was a kind of manifesto of modernist architecture. For the then USSR, it was "our answer to Pompidou", a high-tech building - after the completion of the design, the authors filed about 100 patents for inventions. Now the building needs rather high-quality renovation and maintenance.
So, the project is already being actively discussed in the press. In the ongoing discussion, in our opinion, there is a lack of professional opinion. The editors of Archi.ru asked architects and people interested in the preservation of monuments two questions: do they like Foster's project and should the existing building of the Central House of Artists / Tretyakov Gallery be preserved?
The answers seemed to us very interesting and informative. In any case, they represent the opinion of professionals who know and love Moscow well.
Yuri Avvakumov, architect:
First, Moscow depicted Las Vegas with pseudo-towers, illumination and casinos, then a Central European office with checkered glass, and now a new trend has appeared - Dubai with still-life houses. Its own - modernism of the 20s and 60s, historical
building of the XIX century, Moscow methodically obsolete. It is curious that Stalinist architecture is still holding on. Probably on the fear of the leader.
Evgeny Ass, architect:
I would not like to discuss the architecture of "Orange", although I do not like it. In this case, this is a secondary matter. More important is the cynicism of the customer and the cynicism of the architect, who, generally speaking, doesn't care where and how to design. References to the fact that he might not know something are completely unfounded. If he were offered to design on the site of the Kremlin, he would have demolished the Kremlin and put his project on the site of the Kremlin because it was paid. Before us is a precedent that raises great concern about the professional ethics of stars and the ethics of customers who are ready to go to any lengths in order to make money. They are ready to donate a national treasure, which includes the collection of the Tretyakov Gallery.
As for the building of the Central House of Artists / State Tretyakov Gallery - I had the pleasure to work with it, in particular, at the competition for its reconstruction. And it seems to me that the building is actually much better than much of what is being built now. I totally disagree that this is a concrete monster, as some believe - this building just needs to be worked, equipped and looked after. I believe that the building is absolutely adequate for its time and its position in the city does not bother me at all.
Yuri Grigoryan, architect:
I think that "Orange" is an unsuccessful project for this place, I would even say that it is a brazen project. I would not like to see it implemented. If they decide to destroy the existing building - and I understand that it will be difficult for him to survive against the background of the high cost of land and the bad taste that surrounds us from all sides - so if they nevertheless decide to break it, then I would like it to be a competition in several rounds and with open public discussion of projects, with selection according to certain criteria.
The "hitting" on this place, which is now happening, is offensive to Muscovites. I hate to discuss this, but recent events rather indicate that the worst has a chance to happen. But let's still hope for the best.
Bart Goldhoorn, Head of Project Media Holding:
It is not clear why you need to demolish the CHA, if there is a huge free space around it. The so-called art park is a very expensive land that is very inefficiently used. It is a pity that this provocation is directed against the Central House of Artists, while the problem lies in the lack of urban planning will on the part of the Moscow authorities, which is why there is still a senseless desert around the Central House of Artists. Let them build museums, housing, shops and offices.
Nikolay Lyzlov, architect:
It seems to me that this project ("Orange") repeats the mistakes of the previous one. The replacement is quite stupid, the box is for a ball. Everything that is bad in the box remains in the ball. It seems to me that there is a more rational way out - the entire territory of today's CHA / State Tretyakov Gallery is a potential territory for development. There is absolutely no need for an existing sculpture park. It is necessary to compact the building. It seems to me that you can get a lot more meters without touching the existing building. It needs to be modernized and reconstructed, and the “sculpture graveyard” should be turned into a very good residential development. This definitely needs to be done, it is necessary to support the embankment, reorient the entrance to the embankment. All this can be turned into Uffizi. And the ball is the same as it was. It doesn't even matter whether I like it or not, but a few more years will pass and we will get what we have today. Pointless expenses.
The building of the Central House of Artists / State Tretyakov Gallery - I certainly feel sorry for him. I love this architecture and I think that a little more and it will turn into a monument. I am terribly sorry for the buildings that are being demolished in Moscow today from the heritage of the 70s. This layer disappears and it seems to me that a little more time will pass and everyone will begin to bite their elbows because of what they have lost. The competition for the reconstruction of the Central House of Artists, which took place several years ago, horrified me personally at the unceremonious attitude towards the existing building. As if someone's portrait is hanging on the wall and everyone comes up and draws something - some mustache, some horns. Some kind of hooliganism. The competition could have been, but not like that, not barbaric.
David Sargsyan, Director of the Museum of Architecture:
Repeatedly voiced negative assessments of the existing building of the Central House of Artists are associated with the fact that people have not yet matured, this period is underestimated. A huge number of people with good taste told me - what a wonderful house, are you really going to break it ?! There are grand foyers - this is a very stately home. The Central House of Artists rather decorates Moscow, it is a part of our history and a monument of a certain era. I repeat - the Central House of Artists must be preserved, this is unconditional.
The Orange project is a joint work of the developer and Lord Foster, it happens. The project itself is good, I generally like what Foster is doing and what he has already proposed for Moscow. But to put "Orange" in this place is too sharp an urban planning decision. It is too big - the desire to earn more "inflated" it to incredible proportions. Even if there was no CHA building, it would be worth considering whether it would be right to put such a large orange here. In my opinion this is wrong. "Orange" would have found another place in Moscow. If someone really wants to, there is municipal land on the territory of "Muzeon", where you can build houses. The price of land there is high, the desire to build and make money is quite understandable. But let's not touch the architectural monuments! I believe that the building of the Central House of Artists should be a monument.
In addition, there is still a mistake - a gallery of this level should not be built together with housing. The Tretyakov Gallery houses the most valuable collection of the Russian avant-garde. A person cannot live in an apartment and know that under him are the masterpieces of the avant-garde. This is the wrong attitude towards our heritage.
Mikhail Khazanov, architect:
Sir Norman Foster has always been and am treated with due respect for his recognized contribution to the profession, for innovations in architecture, for well-deserved regalia.
In principle, it is wonderful that architects of this level have appeared in Moscow, there is hope that bright, super-technological, ultra-modern objects will appear in the capital.
In the history of the Central House of Artists / "Tretyakovka", perhaps, there was simply no information, and the master himself and his partners-architects did not imagine in what specific historical, cultural, legal contexts everything is happening here.
Surely, not wishing at all, everyone - everyone was “framed” with this object, not having comprehensive information about its long, very complicated history.
The Central House of Artists is a topic painfully familiar to all Moscow architects, painters, sculptors, art critics.
Relatively recently, a competition was held for the reconstruction of the building and the development of adjacent territories, there are winners.
According to all the written and unwritten rules of the international architectural community, it is impossible to cross out a competition project chosen by an authoritative professional jury like this, even if it is no longer relevant, rational or not profitable.
I do not know what the procedure should be in this case - this is a matter of professional discussion, but if the results of an architectural competition held in accordance with all the established rules are suddenly canceled without any violations without explanation, then this will be perceived as a challenge not only to architectural corporate ethics, but also urban cultural life.
It seems that to some extent this is a random story, there is haste, emotionality, spontaneity in it. Probably, it would not be worth “demonizing” the event at all, because it is unlikely that any active object of aggressively nonlinear architecture will actually be able to appear next to the Kremlin in the near future.
However, the story with the Gazprom skyscraper in St. Petersburg was also at first perceived as something not very serious …
And in our conditions, there is a danger of discrediting by one, rather random urban planning replica of the entire "new wave", the entire architectural mainstream, especially in the sovereign-conservative Moscow, where everyone, on the one hand, has long been tired of endless historical reminiscences, and on the other, nothing other than, in one way or another, decorated boxes and chests, they can only imagine with difficulty.
I am sure that Moscow is worthy of new large and bold architectural events of an international scale, everything depends only on how well these new city sights will be verified, intelligent, correct, and not destructive for the historically established urban environment.
The situation is undeniably difficult. Still, it is not often in architecture that the radical avant-garde and the radical rear-guard change places.
I am still convinced that it is necessary to hold professional architectural competitions for all the main city-forming objects of the capital, moreover open, not closed, inviting the best of the world's recognized architects, theoreticians, and architectural critics to participate in the jury.
