Let us remind you that the united Russian-European architectural teams were a prerequisite for the competition held last summer. Eric van Egeraat, a very famous architect and acting as a kind of guarantor of the non-triviality and brightness of the final project, was invited by the organizer of the competition, VTB Bank, one of the first. Then Mosproekt-2 was assigned to the Dutchman, and its head Mikhail Posokhin entrusted Alexander Asadov's workshop No. 19 with the reconstruction of the stadium. Together, these architects, as a rule, represent the project that won the competition - the round table at the Ritz was no exception.
The meeting was attended mainly by representatives of public urban protection movements, so the main subject of discussion was the fate of the old stadium, which is a monument of regional significance. Egeraat and Asadov believe that they have done everything possible for the historic Dynamo, namely, they have completely preserved the perimeter of the existing building. A modern structure rises above it: two arenas covered with a single transparent dome with a sliding part above the football field. The idea of combining arenas in a single volume seems to Eric van Egeraat extremely successful: the contour of the former athletics stadium is too large to accommodate a single football field - the audience will be too far from the game. And secondly, Alexander Asadov added, there was simply no other place for the small arena: it could not be placed either in the park of the Dynamo stadium or on the site of the training arena due to the proximity of the existing and new residential quarters.
In addition to the sports arenas themselves, the complex includes about 20 thousand commercial spaces. Modern sports arenas are by definition multifunctional and surrounded by an impressive commercial area, says Erik van Egeraat. In his opinion, it makes no sense to make a “naked” football stadium in the immediate vicinity of the historic center, since the club is unlikely to be able to maintain it and constantly fill it with spectators. But the complex designed by him will be commercially viable after the World Cup, as it is focused on different social groups.
Opponents of the project did not deny its ingenuity in terms of adapting the monument to new economic realities and high quality of execution, but admitted that its implementation raises many questions. First of all, the underground construction and the imposing superstructure of the Egeraat object violates the current legislation on heritage, said Marina Khrustaleva, chairman of the board of the Moscow Society for the Protection of Architectural Heritage. However, the authors themselves believe that they designed it within the bounds of what was permitted, since only the facades, the functional purpose and the town-planning role of the object in the quarter have been preserved in the subject of protection of the monument, which was cut down in 2007. Nevertheless, according to Khrustaleva, the massive volume that grows above the old building a priori does not allow preserving its facades, and its appearance a stone's throw from the Petrovsky Palace and the pavilions of the Dynamo metro station significantly changes the town-planning situation. “The function for this object is overdeveloped, we push it here and thereby create a problematic core on one of the most tense highways,” Natalia Dushkina, professor at the Moscow Architectural Institute, is convinced.“The giant dominant will also dominate the park and, as a result, visually merge with the residential complex that VTB is designing next to the stadium.” Arkhnadzor coordinator Natalya Samover considers the reconstruction of the stadium to be just a cover for the investor's development of a large green zone near the center. She recalled that the idea of reconstruction of Dynamo appeared in 2003, at the height of the construction boom, and today the overblown commercial part could well be cut.
Responding to criticism, Alexander Asadov called for a constructive dialogue, since it is clear that the state will not take care of the monument, and if reconstruction is abandoned, it will simply collapse. It remains to implement the project as carefully as possible in relation to the monument, and only publicity can become a guarantee that it will not be demolished, said Erik van Egeraat, who has already been taught the specific rules of Russian development. As for the traffic collapse, the architect added, he will be in the city until parking on sidewalks and streets is prohibited, and his project has nothing to do with it.
Arkhnadzor did not fail to consider the most negative scenario, reminding the foreign architect that in Russia even projects that won international competitions are often replaced with others in the process of implementation. “We risk losing another monument, like we lost the Nikolsky stadium in St. Petersburg, and the architect Kurokava, who did not survive this scandal,” recalled Marina Khrustaleva.
It is possible that there is some truth in these words. Literally on the eve of the presentation, representatives of VTB Bank in an interview with RIA Novosti said that the concept of reconstruction of the stadium would be finalized only by March 2011, and on the basis of several projects that participated in the competition. VTB stressed that the bank has exclusive copyright for the use of all works performed during the competition. However, according to Egeraat, this idea can hardly be realized, since the rest of the competition projects are well inferior to his idea both in the number of functions and in the final output of the space. “I see no realistic alternative to my project,” concluded Erik van Egeraat at the end of the discussion.
