The plans of the Swiss Peter Zumthor regarding the new building of the Perm Art Gallery, which he recently shared with Governor Oleg Chirkunov, are now actively discussed in blogs. Recall that Zumthor proposed to place the exposition in several pavilions on the slope of the hill facing the Kama, and hide the storage and auxiliary premises in a long building a little lower. Whether someone likes this project or not, Zumthor appears to be the only viable design candidate. Such a feeling, in any case, develops after reading the blog of the deputy chairman of the regional government Boris Milgram. He writes that the other day, a meeting of architects, art curators and museum staff took place under the leadership of Peter Zumthor to discuss the concept of the future museum. The concept was accepted and has already been presented to the public. This, in turn, means that the projects of the winners of the international competition - B. Bernasconi and V. Olgiati - now definitely have nothing to count on. In order to dot the i's, Milgram notes that “in the changed situation, when the plans to demolish the Telta Palace of Culture were canceled and the construction of a museum could not be launched on this site, the approach to the concept of museum collections changed at the same time, the architectural projects of the winners of the competition did not will be implemented."
The project, or rather, so far only Zumthor's plans have already been criticized. Perm architect Alexander Rogozhnikov writes: “Stop fooling the brains of respected people, you just need to take and design a normal building not on a slope, but in the Monastyrskaya-Popova-Osinskaya-Zetkin quarter …. Skyscrapers in this quarter are needed only by stupid businessmen and the cryptosect of skyscraper worshipers, but the city is not needed. The unnecessary is dumped down the slope. Do not need a gallery derailed. The gallery needs a park in front of the entrance, a calm neoclassical solution, traditional architecture …”. By the way, Rogozhnikov wrote about exactly the same several years ago, when the international competition ended: “Why build in a park area? Wouldn't it be better to carry out a comprehensive reconstruction of some quarter in the historic center, embedding a normal building there, solving the problem of the functionality of the historic center, providing entrances and approaches, listening to Bogner and making a park or square in front of the building?"
Meanwhile, in Denis Galitsky's blog, a serious dispute unfolded around the project, sometimes turning into an attack. The author himself considers the "star" Zumthor not very appropriate in Perm: “The very concept of dividing the gallery into a number of pavilions is a very competent and elegant solution … for the south of Europe. How will visitors walk through these pavilions in winter? Will everyone have a wardrobe? Or will people, covered with snow, wander through the halls with wooden sculptures and forget about special storage conditions? " Arxitect replies, "Your mockery about Zumthor's style is amusing." The author of the blog had to make excuses: “I like Zumthor, but he is clearly a“private”architect. builds buildings for customers who have nothing to demonstrate and prove to anyone. The goal of building an art gallery and other "city-defining objects" has always been explicitly declared: "To make the city unique and memorable." But arxitect is adamant and Galitsky's statement that “in our situation, objectively, rich in details and decorative architecture is required” was regarded as an appeal to “Luzhkovism”.
Meanwhile, in the magazine of the popular blogger drugoi, the fate of the Moscow stadium "Dynamo" was intensely discussed. Drugoi has published nice renders, in the comments to which the future of Dynamo looks unclouded and seems to be completely carefree. A massive superstructure will appear over the old perimeter, and the stadium will finally be able to play in decent conditions. With authorship, however, everything is still very unclear: it is said about the revision of the Egeraat project by David Manika. Bloggers immediately reminded drugoi about the problems with security legislation, and about a giant commercial unit that threatens to turn the stadium into a part of a shopping and entertainment complex.
AntonChupilko proved himself to be a passionate defender of the old stadium: “A beautiful architectural complex has been destroyed, the pool in which I swam as a child has been completely demolished. You kept silent about the retail space in this project !!! This is another flea market under the guise of reconstruction !!! Instead of turning garbage dumps and neglected industrial quarters into stadiums, monuments are being demolished and turned into supermarkets! " Arxitect agrees: “The other was just sponsored, so he neatly bypassed the commercial component. And what he has done for beautiful architectural visualizations is for fools. These beautiful colorful pictures are made by third-year students on 3D Max'e for 300 dollars."
However, not all football fans are in favor of monuments. Here is what parashoks writes: In Yekaterinburg they dreamed that the stadium-historical monument would be demolished. Fuck. They promise to open this summer. Council of Deputies 2.0 ". Apologists of history are reminded of the demolished Wembley Stadium in London, a monument built in 1923. “Right, why do we need a new stadium with a landscaped area? - kotjara_zone sneers at the defenders of the monuments, - let's leave the old wreck and be glad that we keep such cool history. Or not, we'd better pump 1.5 billion into the reconstruction (along the way, having listened to a lot of screams from the superintendent), and we will get an excellent museum. We have a country of museums … "Wyclyf urges the guardians of novelty not to be naive:" No one can guarantee that VTB will build exactly what it showed you. You would talk to the same Egeraat, for example. Is he very happy that his project was sent back for revision? " As for the destroyed legacy, “the problem is not only that, as Natalya Dushkina put it about Dynamo,“the monument was subjected to violence”. Recently, attempts have been made to make this approach the norm. They and Zaryadye will begin to build up in the same way - they will blindly agree, and then they will say that happiness has fallen on the residents' heads."
How far sometimes popular opinion is from a professional one is shown by a small discussion in the ru_architect community around objects of modern architecture in Kazan. The review, made by architectural photographer Ilya Ivanov (fotoivanov), includes three landmark buildings of recent years - the Palace of Farmers, the Cherry Orchard residential complex and the Kristall residential complex. Recall that critics have repeatedly thrown lightning around the first monstrous palace that grew up in the security zone of the Kazan Kremlin. This building became the apotheosis of the current urban planning policy of Kazan. More condescending criticism was directed at The Cherry Orchard, probably for its resemblance to the architecture of Alexei Bavykin. fotoivanov writes about him: "Surprisingly smooth and good building for Kazan." And, finally, the Kristall residential complex has probably earned the greatest recognition from professionals. I remember that the object was included in the Quality Architecture catalog and was awarded a number of awards. The situation is spoiled, according to fotoivanov, only by the grave condition of the territory - degraded residential buildings and landfills.
Bloggers who commented on this post reasoned exactly the opposite: the Palace was praised, and the most ugly recognized as "Crystal", which the locals say is "a drunken architect playing Tetris." For example, what holicin writes: “Another respect to Antika! Few nowadays dare to make a real architecture that meets the highest artistic requirements, and not a miserable sludge with a claim to "modernity" and "novelty". A wretched parody of constructivism ("The Cherry Orchard") is simply ridiculous, and "Crystal" is generally a wild chaotic jumble of abstract volumes; in short, the author - to the doctor. " More peaceful umaxik: “I didn't really understand the critical reviews. In my opinion, all projects are great. Different, but good in their own way. " According to chp_krt, “the photo of the first object, if you do not go into details, give associations to something Parisian or Madrid. Against the background of the 2nd and 3rd objects, the first clearly wins, somehow sincerely or something. 2nd - a parody of Bavykin, 3rd - I'm even afraid to comment, somehow far from life, very far and cold, karoch is not housing”.
Strange as it may seem, there were no adherents of modern architecture in the more "architectural" blog of "Arkhnadzor". It published projects of students of the Moscow Architectural Institute for the renovation of the territory vacated after the "clearing" of the historical buildings in the protected zone of the church in Kadashi. What the young architects suggested, the city rights activists and sympathizers did not like: instead of "western boxes" they wanted to see the reconstruction of Grigoriev's destroyed factory. Titus Drake writes: “Horror. Sheer self-expression and nothing to understand. Houses without windows, without doors. This is not New York after all. Bare brick walls are all the rage. It is fashionable to break harmony, etc. Reminds Winzavod a little. In general, the projects are very dark. " The authors tried to prove that the proposed building is the result of research, and there are no windows, because the main function of these projects is the repository of the Tretyakov Gallery funds. But this did not suit the critics, comments Irina Trubetskaya: “Arranging exhibition areas in cubes and so on without windows, I think, is yesterday. And in the spirit of today's eco-friendly urban philosophy, large windows and natural light are more appropriate and more pleasing to the eye. The most important thing, however, I see is to preserve the brick texture and low altitude. The idea of the chambers is interesting, the main thing is not as with the palace of the quietest Alexei Mikhalych in a famous place."
There was also a point of view, popular with some defenders of antiquity, not to build anything at all, and where they demolished - to break up a public garden, to which the authors of the projects stated that an empty space requires not trees, but rethinking. “Isn't it possible to restore Grigoriev's factory as closely as possible to the text and use it as a branch of the Tretyakov Gallery? I would like to preserve the appearance of the Zamoskvoretsky, without glass and concrete,”Elena asks. Nixon thinks the idea is meaningless: “It's foolish to rebuild a factory so that you can use it as a museum. It's like restoring a temple and using it as a vegetable store. If you need a museum, you need to build a museum. Moreover, there are no drawings, measurements. Most importantly, there is no need for a factory. The projects are not bad, the morphotype of the building, the height is observed. The only thing with which the critics were in solidarity was the function chosen for this place: “The gallery wants to expand (and for this it breaks down the surviving old houses). Why doesn't she grow towards the wasteland? These could be additional buildings for lectures and art classes, restoration workshops and the same storage facilities nearby,”the old city lovers are sure.
In the meantime, even the most inveterate local historians are wary of the complete reconstruction of the lost. In the magazine of the popular local historian alex_i1, an interesting 3D reconstruction of the Zaryadye area has appeared: Moskvoretskaya embankment, Mokrinsky lane and adjacent quarters. Enoden proposed the project "to decorate like a typical pedestrian zone of a European city - and you can already submit it as a draft design!" But alex_i1 is sure - “it is pointless to restore as we do it. It will turn out to be a plastic city. For in Zaryadye all the flavor is precisely the spirit of the old city, textures, picturesque shabby. " According to the local historian, “the ideal project is to restore the road network, part of a particularly valuable building (Kitaygorodskaya wall, the Church of St. Nicholas Mokroi, Mytny Dvor), and build up the rest with something new (and not“antique”), but here is architecture must be of very high quality …"
We will end our review with a story about a heated discussion of St. Petersburg city rights activists and experts about the age of the northern capital. The day before, an appeal by Daniil Kotsyubinsky, "St. Petersburg is 400 years old," circulated in blogs, in which the author argued that the city had existed not since 1703, but since 1611, "when, at the suggestion of Lieutenant General Jacob Delagardie and by order of the Swedish king Charles IX at the mouth of the Okhta river was laid in the spring and by the end of the same year the fortress Nyenskans was built. This post made the respected archaeologist Peter Sorokin, who excavated this very Nyenschantz, come forward with a response letter. The archaeologist is sure that "Petersburg was built on a new territory that was not part of the city of Nyen." Following the logic of Kotsyubinsky, the history of the city could be counted in general from the settlements of the Neolithic era, “but this will be an even greater primitivization of historical events,” Sorokin believes. "Petersburg and its prehistory are closely related, but self-sufficient historical phenomena." The discussion unfolded in the blogs of Sergey Beletsky, Andrey Chernov and Eduard Yakushin. Adherents of traditional history in them, one might say, won, and Kotsyubinsky's theory was attributed to the desire to adjust the dates for the next "anniversary".
