Archi.ru: Sergey Alexandrovich, "House on Mosfilmovskaya" is one of the most famous, if not famous, new buildings in Moscow. The number of floors of this object and its height were constantly advertised by the developer, including during the advertising campaign of the new residential complex. How, in principle, could it happen that the city authorities for several years did not pay attention to these figures and suddenly noticed them? When did you first learn that there may be problems with the implementation of the project?
Sergei Skuratov: The first bells sounded last autumn. Then my colleagues told me that on the sidelines of the Public Council, Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov spoke negatively about the "House on Mosfilmovskaya". True, as far as I understand, the height of the object was completely out of the question at that time. The mayor, rather, was not satisfied with the architecture of the complex, which seemed to him too bright and modern. Some time later, already this year, the customer, the DON-Stroy company, contacted me with a request to develop several new options for completing the tower. I was not convinced of the need for this, but I complied with the request. In one of the options I tried to increase the amount of frosted glass, in the other I added glass with a complex surface, making the house sparkle, in the third I increased the slope of the roof plane. All these options really changed the appearance of the house somewhat, but required major structural changes, and, frankly, I did not really understand why go for such a complication and increase in the cost of the project, since I did not suspect then that with the approval of an already almost built object there could be some -that complexity. And, as far as I know, all the new options were shown to the mayor, but did not satisfy him. Some more time passed, about a month, and suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, the diagnosis was "squatter".
Archi.ru: Official statements of the authorities constantly mention the fact that the dimensions of this object and, in particular, its height were not agreed by the developer before the start of construction. How true is this?
S. Skuratov: As you, of course, know, it is impossible to start construction in Moscow without permits. The project "House on Mosfilmovskaya" was approved, and only after that the preparation of the construction site and work on the foundation began, but then the project was really changed. I will explain how and why this happened.
The fact is that at first DON-Stroy planned to implement two phases of the residential complex, namely to build two identical pairs of houses, consisting of a plate and a tower. A section of appropriate dimensions was allocated, the TEPs were calculated and approved. However, later the customer abandoned the idea of two stages in favor of one, but unique - both in terms of its architecture and quality of execution - a pair of buildings. The tower was originally designed twisted, but this inevitably entailed very high costs for building materials, in particular, each facade panel would have to be made according to a separate template. And when the opening of the Turning Torso skyscraper by Santiago Calatrava took place in Malmö, Sweden, DON-Stroy finally abandoned the idea of such a complex skyscraper solution - not only was it too expensive, but it could also be perceived as a borrowing. I developed a new design for the tower, in which the original smooth curve was replaced by its geometrized imitation.
This diagonal clearly demanded a different height, which I informed the customer about. I must say that the initial height - 165 meters - was dictated by the Center for Landscape-Visual Analysis, which feared that the new complex would distort the panorama of the Novodevichy Convent. Previously, this figure was criticized by the Architectural Council - experts quite rightly noted that in the panorama of Vorobyovy Gory, the 165-meter tower looks like a stump, "not scraped". The tower clearly lacked harmony, and even the geometry and plasticity of the facade did not save it. And only when I made it almost 50 meters higher did the composition sound in full force. The customer unconditionally liked this new option, and the chief architect of the city, Alexander Kuzmin, said that he would be able to agree on an object of such height only if UNESCO did not object to the construction of a 200-meter skyscraper (the monastery is one of the objects protected by this organization). As far as I know, DON-Stroy immediately sent all the materials on the project to Paris, and UNESCO's consent was obtained.
And, to be honest, since then I have not worried at all about the fate of the "House on Mosfilmovskaya", but simply did everything in my power to ensure that it was built as efficiently as possible. I must admit that in this the customer has always and completely met me halfway, sparing no expense to create a unique complex in every sense. Numerous confirmations of this fact were professional awards, both architectural and in the field of commercial real estate and development, received by Dom na Mosfilmovskaya. In addition, the project was successfully exhibited in Cannes and Venice, where it was seen and praised by all the top officials of the city - and all this personally left no doubt in my mind that the new height of the skyscraper (213 meters) raises no questions for anyone.
Archi.ru: Where did the number 22 on the floor come from? From 213 meters, officials take the agreed 165?
S. Skuratov: I honestly don't know. Even if we are talking about the difference between these figures, then this is no more than 12 floors. The paradox of the situation is that I have not seen any documents. In fact, the chief architect of the project was not allowed to resolve the conflict, everything is decided between the customer and the authorities. However, this is the peculiarity of working with DON-Stroy - this company always takes care of all relationships with officials.
Archi.ru: How much will the architecture and structural scheme of the building suffer if it is partially dismantled?
S. Skuratov: The problems, first of all, will affect the construction of the building. The fact is that each part of the residential complex (tower, “plate” and low-rise volume between them) stands on its foundation, and if some part is overloaded or underloaded, it will “pull” its neighbor along. If the tower is now shortened, the house after commissioning will not take its design position and the neighboring objects are threatened with deformations.
The proportions and colors of the tower will be significantly distorted. After all, the main theme of its facade is moire, a gradual transition from a dark tone to a snow-white one, and if the light top is cut off, the tower will simply be unevenly and ridiculously colored. In general, the architecture of this high-rise dominant is verified to the smallest detail - I tried to make an unconventional completion of the skyscraper, without a heavy final tectonic chord, and I think that after a long search I succeeded (I would like to hope). Largely due to the snow-white color of the upper floors and large windows with glass of complex configuration, which are turned towards the plate and echo its facade. In terms of urban planning, the dismantling of a part of the skyscraper will only worsen the situation. This part of the famous panorama did not have any iconic landmarks; it seemed unfinished.
Archi.ru: Are there any alternative options for resolving the conflict, besides the demolition of "extra" floors?
S. Skuratov: Of course! The practice of economic impact on an actively building customer is widespread in our country. Such a customer, to extinguish his guilt, can pay a fine to the city treasury, provide part of the apartments to those on the waiting list living in the area, or allocate part of the premises for public functions. By the way, Maxim Blazhko and I discussed the last option: the penthouse, located on the top floor and having a stunning view of Moscow, can be turned into a gallery, an observation deck, a conference room, finally. I would understand such a measure as a partial dismantling of a building if it was a question of construction in the historical center of the city, or if we radically ruined the insolation of all neighboring houses with our house. But the insolation was carefully calculated, and the complaints of local residents, if any, concerned only the long terms of the construction itself.
Archi.ru: Are you aware of other cases when a building already practically built and repeatedly awarded with professional prizes was partially dismantled?
S. Skuratov: No, I have never heard of such a practice. And this is what scares me the most. Indeed, if the "House on Mosfilmovskaya" is partially demolished, this will create an absurd and at the same time, in my opinion, a very dangerous precedent - in fact, it will mean that any newly built object can be destroyed, removed out of sight. which is somehow objectionable to the current government. How, then, is the profession of an architect protected in general and does it make sense?..
Archi.ru: Will you give up authorship in this case?
S. Skuratov: To be honest, now I am not ready to answer this question … But I know for sure that I will defend my house to the end.
