At a recent press conference in the House of Journalists, the chief architect of Moscow, Alexander Kuzmin, expressed bewilderment about the upcoming hearings in the Public Chamber. He has never seen the Orange project, as well as any other project in this area, so he is sincerely surprised at what can be discussed. In turn, Moscow City Duma deputy Yevgeny Bunimovich, speaking at the hearings, correctly noted the paradoxes of thinking of our "city leaders": if we do not discuss it now, while the project is not there, then when it appears officially, there will be no need to go back.
At the same press conference, Alexander Kuzmin said that the Moskomarkhitektura commissioned the development of a project for the planning of the territory around the Central House of Artists of the Research and Development Institute of the General Plan, whose director Sergei Tkachenko was present at the meeting of the Public Chamber. According to him, this work only implies the definition of the "urban development potential" of the territory and does not imply the development of the volumes of future buildings. The final project, therefore, according to the director of the Research and Development Institute, is still unclear and will appear very soon, because first there will be a competition for an investor, then public hearings with residents of the area, and then a competition for an architectural idea.
However, the director of the Central House of Artists Vasily Bychkov looms a different scenario. In his opinion, if you do not stop the project, which is now urgently being developed at the request of the Moscow Committee for Architecture and Construction, in two months everyone will be given a ready-made planning decision, successfully passed it through public hearings, introduced into the general plan, and thus the project will receive the status of a law, after which it will a competition has been held, and “we will get a symbol of our helplessness in this place,” concluded Bychkov.
It should be noted that one can agree with the statement of Vasily Bychkov. As is well known to practicing architects, the work of the Research and Development Institute of the General Plan has a very preliminary weight in the name, but in fact it is almost final. The concept of "defining urban development potential" includes many parameters: the number of permitted buildings for each piece, detailed functions associated with specific areas. In a word, the prescriptions developed by the institute are abstract in words and look like rentals, but in fact they very strictly regulate everything that happens later on the site. Why is it tough - to the smallest detail. In a word, the architects then only have to draw the facades (which, of course, is also important) and follow the executors. Once we have already written about what, in fact, the enormous importance of the framework developed by the General Plan Institute - the background of these "preliminary" developments is a rather detailed project, which is given to architects in the form of a set of prescriptions that already have the force of law. So the preliminary developments of the institute in reality can really turn out to be much more final than it might seem.
As it turned out from the speech of the Deputy Director of the Tretyakov Gallery, Irina Lebedeva, the museum looks at the possibility of restructuring the territory on Krymsky Val more optimistically. According to Irina Lebedeva, the museum workers also learned about Inteko's intentions from the newspapers and were extremely surprised by this - therefore, they made an open letter to the Kultura newspaper. The museum, however, would like to dispose of its own building, and not share it with the Central House of Artists. Over the past 23 years, the Tretyakov Gallery has grown tired of being “in the backyard” of the Central House of Artists - besides, going further from the metro to the gallery, and the entrances are always confusing … Plus, the lack of space, according to Irina Lebedeva, hinders the development of funds.
In fact, the creation of a full-fledged and high-profile museum building is the most cultural and correct justification for the reconstruction of this part of Moscow. It would not be a sin to provide a museum that stores “our everything” in the person of the Russian avant-garde. Maybe the new building will revive it as a cultural center - a lot has been said on this topic. However, according to Vasily Bychkov, hopes for the revival of the museum in a large and own building are premature. The director of the Central House of Artists and the Expo-Park company shared his impressions of the preliminary project for this territory, which he happened to see. True, it is unclear whether this is a project of the Research and Development Institute of the General Plan, or Foster, or some other project. However, although not at a meeting of the Public Chamber, Alexander Kuzmin said that the project for the construction of the site would be considered by the Public Council in January. Everyone continues to wonder what will be considered there.
So, in the plan, according to Vasily Bychkov, this is the letter G, deployed with its long side along the Garden Ring, and in it cultural institutions are assigned the role of an "expensive fence" that takes on all the horror of the noise and exhaust of the highway. But most importantly, behind them, in place of the demolished Central House of Artists, it is not known what appears, Bychkov believes that these are the very "booths of paradise" for the investor, to whom the entire territory of the park also departs. As Yevgeny Bunimovich noted, "offices and apartments cannot be located on the roof of the national gallery, this is indecent."
I must say that not all defenders of the CHA consider this building a masterpiece. As it turned out at the hearings, everyone treats the architecture of Sukoyan / Sheverdyaev differently, and speaking about the value of the Central House of Artists, they rather mean a cultural phenomenon, as well as a green area in the city center, an exhibition space, an art lyceum in the general complex, etc. the building is not a masterpiece, but rather a sign of the era, but, as Yevgeny Bunimovich noted, "who even said that the national gallery should be in architectural masterpieces?" Alexander Kuzmin once said that the CHA is surprisingly ineffective in using the area, giving up staircases and other technical areas too much space. Bunimovich, on the contrary, considers such a "hangar structure" very convenient for exhibition activities. In the end, the issue of increasing the areas of storage facilities and parking lots is solved by reconstruction, why is this way not considered?
Now Soviet architecture, according to Natalya Dushkina, is “cut down with an ax”, “there is no status, no protection, no historical distance …”, so soon this disappeared state will be searched for like Atlantis. The building of the Central House of Artists, which today is in federal ownership, does not have the status of a monument, so far they only want to receive it.
True, they decided to demolish it for sure, which was confirmed at one of the press conferences by Alexander Kuzmin. What is offered instead of the CHA? So far, everyone has seen “instead of” only “Orange”. Vasily Bychkov and Natalya Dushkina believe that it is unlikely to be built better at all, there were no precedents in modern architecture.
Andrei Bokov, President of the Union of Architects, took an ambivalent position in this dispute. On the one hand, he recalled that the renowned director of the Tretyakov Gallery, Yuri Korolyov, would not have insisted on the construction of the Engineering Corps, if he did not treat the building on the Crimean Embankment with prejudice. On the other hand, it is a natural complex and any intrusion is excluded. In general, the territory of the Central House of Artists belongs to places "with a difficult fate," concluded Bokov, retiring downright into Gogol's mysticism.
However, in the whole story with the Central House of Artists, what is most confusing is how the "bad place" is being cleared. Namely, that all this is being promoted according to the laws of the policy of the Madrid court, in the sense - behind the scenes. Some loudly present the star's project, which seems to be not a project at all, but an application, although it is terribly drawn as beautifully. Others disown him and make their own. Everything, you know, happens with such a hint and constantly requires interpretation, it's time to write books - which, by the way, has already been done by Boris Bernasconi for the Biennale.
So there is a mystery and an interpretation. Everyone is wondering what will happen here, the future is vaguely seen (either an orange, or the letter "G"), and therefore they stubbornly fight with the mill, not seeing the "real enemy" (well, or so it seems that they do not see). Because - (just kidding) - in Moscow, projects, apparently, should be killed while they are small … And to be honest, it is annoying that the actual closedness and vagueness of the process of designing a quarter on the site of the Central House of Artists, from which the chief architect of Moscow is already tired (apparently) to renounce on every performance. They talk a lot about him, but everyone is constantly forced to conjecture something. So the Public Chamber was discussing - with ardor - virtually no one knows what. Actually, this is what most of all makes us agree with Vasily Bychkov that, after all, they will approve something now, and it will already be useless to fight.
And the participation of Lord Foster is spoken of less and less, the chief architect of the city "knows nothing" about him. It turns out that the noise at MIPIM served as an impetus for the development of the territory, and perhaps for a decision to demolish the existing building of the Central House of Artists. And who will build there is unknown. But something is being developed at the Research and Development Institute. What prompts us to agree to the assumption of Grigory Revzin, expressed in the fall in an interview with our agency: Foster's project, which had been loudly discussed all summer, has ceased to be relevant. It is very likely that the orange itself was removed from the story about "Orange", and only the demolition of the Central House of Artists remained.
As the presenter of the hearing, Chairman of the Commission of the Public Chamber for Economic Development and Support of Entrepreneurship Valery Fadeev, noted that the current conversation about the Central House of Artists is much broader than the problem of architecture itself, it ultimately rests on the problem of the development of civil society in Russia, or, simply put, public control that we have for some reason excluded from the sphere of urban planning. As a result, deeply wrong decisions are made, and as a result of such thoughtlessness and the narrowly commercial interest of a narrow group of officials, the national legacy disappears into oblivion. Do those who made the decision ponder that the demolition and replacement of a building in the 1960s is not only the loss of a monument, but also a whole series of difficulties, from which, mainly, culture will suffer. The first, according to Yevgeny Bunimovich, is the impossibility of transferring the national gallery, which means that it will simply be closed for a long time. On the other hand, it is not clear where such large exhibitions as ART and ARCH Moscow will move, when there is simply no exhibition complex of a comparable size in Moscow. Third, it is necessary to relocate the art lyceum, and this is also a loss, since now it is logically integrated into the general cultural complex.
The Public Chamber is an advisory body, and this time it was even going, strictly speaking, without an official reason - there is no draft, and it turns out that newspaper articles were gathered to discuss. Nevertheless, Vasily Bychkov, Natalya Dushkina, Viktor Erofeev, Valery Fadeev and others spoke in favor of active action. According to Natalia Dushkina, in the future project it is necessary to proceed from the concept, which should take into account the parameters of the protected zones, horizontal marks, and finally, "the virtue of open spaces", i.e. park area.
Vasily Bychkov called on as soon as possible to stop the development of the project of the Research and Development Institute of the General Plan, which, in his opinion, is a "cleanup of the territory for an investor." He also insists on the development of other public control mechanisms for decision-making - polls, studies, seminars, in order to develop several options for decisions, hold public hearings on them, consider them at the Public Chamber and the State Duma, and, as a result, hold an open international competition. Yevgeny Bunimovich referred to the crisis, which in this case can act as an ally, as well as to the inadmissibility of transferring the art lyceum, which could slow down the progress of the project. Summing up the results of the hearings, Valery Fadeev proposed to bring the issue to the plenary session early next year and, as necessary, interact with the Government of the Russian Federation and the State Duma.
