The traditional for Arch Moscow discussion of the main topics of the current exhibition in the circle of architects, developers, realtors and journalists, this time was devoted to the problem of the consolidation of the city. The presenters of the breakfast Elena Gonzalez and Andrei Voskresensky invited the audience to decide whether this phenomenon should be considered an evil, a blessing or a necessity. In order to concretize the topic of the conversation, the participants in the discussion were asked to answer four clarifying questions, namely:
- Do I need to build new buildings in the city center?
- How to build on the outskirts: economy and living environment.
- City boundaries: where is the reasonable limit for expansion?
- Theory and practice of construction in the historical center.
Indeed, the concept of density is an amazing thing, now it is completely ambivalent. On the one hand, few things in a board discussion sound more dangerous to a project than “over-density”. On the other hand, progressive Western expositions in the Central House of Artists assert about the compaction of buildings as one of the most important measures to improve the urban environment. It is clear that in the first case we are talking about exceeding the limit of square meters in a particular building, and in the second - about the careful transformation of empty urban areas and a more even distribution of housing and everything else. But both the first and the second indicate to us the relevance of the topic.
The participants in the discussion agreed that the consolidation is inevitable and the city has no other way of development. However, the speakers interpreted the term "seal" in different ways. "Point" development in the form of separate commercial objects, which Muscovites do not like so much, was resolutely rejected. It was mainly about the reconstruction of the morphology of the city with the historical line of street facades, embankments and boulevards.
Head of the Center for Historical and Urban Planning Research Boris Pasternak and St. Petersburg architect Nikita Yavein spoke about the difficult situation in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Grohe spokesman Michael Rauterkus noted that things are somewhat better in Dusseldorf. He shared his experience of reconstruction and new construction in Germany.
All participants agreed that the urban fabric, blurred by time and human activity, should be "darn" - repaired, reconstructed and completed where necessary - on this issue, there was a touching unity among architects and developers. But the question of who in this matter should determine exactly how and what to build has traditionally provoked discussions. Vice-President of the Russian Guild of Realtors Alexander Gusev advocated the priority of owners, urging to take into account the "neighbor's law"; the architects replied that the city should take into account the interests of all citizens, and not just the nearest neighbors.
According to the architect Sergei Skuratov, in order to improve the urban environment, it is necessary to improve construction legislation, in particular to revise fire regulations, abolish "insolation" and acquire special equipment required for construction in the historic center. However, the CEO of Capital Group Alexey Belousov replied that Moscow developers already have all the modern technologies for construction in the center; and the issues of "neighborhood" in the process of consolidation of the city, Capital Group prefers to resolve through negotiations with all owners.
The question immediately arose - will this be enough for happiness? The architects said no. For a city to become a City, efforts of generations are needed, Nikolai Lyzlov is sure. In his opinion, architecture and a comfortable urban environment are not identical concepts. Vladimir Plotkin and Alexandra Pavlova said that the reproduction of buildings is a natural process. In this case, some buildings will inevitably be demolished and new ones erected. And if earlier houses were built "for centuries", then the current architecture does not imply eternity - basically it is a "temporary" building and the terms of its existence are rapidly decreasing. It is important that at the same time the best, vivid examples of the era remain, creating the memory and depth of the cultural perception of the city.
The conversation was attended by:
Architects:
Olga Aleksakova, Bureau Moscow
Julia Burdova, Bureau Moscow
Timur Bashkaev, Timur Bashkaev Architectural Bureau
Yuri Grigoryan, Meganom Project
Alexandra Pavlova, Project Meganom
Fedor Dubinnikov, Mel Studio
Sergey Kuznetsov, SPeeCH
Nikolay Lyzlov, Lyzlov Architectural Workshop
Nikolay Lyashenko, Tsimailo, Lyasheno and partners
Anton Nadtochy, Atrium
Alexandra Pavlova, Meganom Bureau
Vladimir Plotkin, chief architect of TPO "Reserve"
Boris Pasternak, Center for Historical and Urban Research
Sergey Skuratov, Sergey Skuratov Architects
Mikhail Filippov, architect
Alexander Tsimailo, Tsimailo, Lyashenko and partners
Vladimir Yuzbashev, architect
Nikita Yavein, Studio 44 and others
Developers:
Alexey Belousov, General Director of Capital Group Marketing
Andrey Gusev, Vice-President of the Russian Guild of Realtors
Vladimir Zubrilin, General Director of the Forum Group of Companies
Organizers, curators:
Vasily Bychkov, director of the Central House of Artists
Bart Goldhorn, curator of the Biennale
Elena Gonzalez, Project Russia
Andrey Voskresensky, Kommersant Real Estate
Michael Rauterkus, President Europe Grohe
Journalists:
Dmitry Fisenko, Architectural Bulletin
Alexey Shchukin. Expert
Alexander Ostrogorsky, Interni
Anna Martovitskaya, Archi.ru
Alexander Lozhkin, Project Siberia
Maria Fadeeva, Vedomosti_Friday
Nikolay Malinin, Made in Future
Elena Petukhova, SPEECH:
Irina Shipova, SPEECH:
Based on materials provided by the organizers of the Second Moscow Biennale of Architecture
