Quite rarely, our review begins with non-Moscow topics, but this time we decided to make an exception: even the decision to expand the borders of Moscow did not cause such excitement among network authors as the post of blogger finskirobot, who shared his observations about what is happening in Sochi, the city, which in 2014 will become the face of the whole country. According to the blogger (in the blog of the Private Correspondent, the essay by finskirobot was reposted with photographs), the “face” runs the risk of being, to put it mildly, unworthy. “Once upon a time Stalinist architecture reigned here - palaces, women with oars, fountains and ears of corn. It was quite the face of the city, but today there is no single style, no general plan, or even any general solution. Everywhere, like mold, a variety of buildings grow, and everything that was built is morally obsolete even in the process of construction. " Perhaps the most offensive thing is this apt comparison: “Most of all, Sochi resembles a railway station of any large city - where belyashi are adjacent to bright advertising of Euroset, there is a bank, a pharmacy, slot machines, currency exchange, sausages, a cafe“U Levy”, "Angela", guys with seeds, etc. " Finskirobot wonders who came up with the idea to host the Olympics in Sochi, since its architectural appearance can only be changed "only by a direct missile hitting the city and completely rebuilding it again!"
There were many sympathizers among the bloggers. Some people see the only possible scenario for the location of the Olympians somewhere near Sochi, which, however, is not far from the truth. This is what kostya_moskowit writes: "The Olympics will not be held in Sochi, but in the Adler region, almost 5 meters from the border with Abkhazia and somewhere in the mountains, where the average Sochi citizen has never climbed." Finskirobot agrees: The Games have come and gone, and Sochi will remain with its urban anarchy, as before. "Yes, the village and stadiums are planned to be collapsible, like a booth, a circus tent - they will come and leave before the summer season begins." An anonymous commentator, apparently from Sochi, writes: “The city of Sochi has been turned into a terrible place, not only for recreation, but also for living. Do you think that the locals are glad that instead of a brewery there are high-rise buildings, that instead of a dairy plant there are high-rise buildings, that instead of a fish factory there will be high-rise buildings or, according to the general plan, there is an Olympic high-rise, that instead of a beautiful oak grove and beautiful parks - again there are high-rise buildings, etc. Where to work ?! " Kalkenberg sees the root of evil in the lack of independence of local architects: “Is Sochi a city? where indifference and mediocrity merged into one. Sochi has never been independent, it was always ruled from Moscow, and the construction in Sochi was not “local”, but from Moscow”. However, there is also an opinion that Sochi is only a small Moscow, comments i_cherski: “Absolutely the same feelings from this beautiful city. But if you replace the word "Sochi" with the word "Moscow", the rest of the words will still remain true."
Chaotically arranged skyscrapers have become part of the architectural landscape, of course, not only in Sochi. For example, in Perm they are now choosing the "Best building of the XXI century" - local architects themselves vote at the forum. The authors of skyscrapers vote for each other and write different compliments to each other. The conversation, however, rarely comes to the appropriateness of a high-rise in an urban context - and this outrages the architect Alexander Rogozhnikov: https://ar-chitect.livejournal.com/231003.html Wednesday, it is difficult to talk about it as a creative success. However, today it is customary to talk about such buildings as “building dominants”. Rogozhnikov, who constantly writes about the merits of low-rise buildings and European planning principles, is sure: “These 'skyscrapers' of 20 floors, stuck in the most inappropriate places, are nothing more than a consequence of a deep crisis in urban planning and city management. And their architecture, i.e. it is the facades and the volumetric composition - in 20 years they will become 100% obsolete”.
Now the leader in the ranking is the Prikamye Gates complex - according to Rogozhnikov, they “are not organizing anything now, nor will they organize the space at the Kamsky Bridge in any way in the future”. “This is a provincial uninteresting architecture, or more precisely, it’s just building design. The hack and ugliness of such a scale in the center of Perm, perhaps, has not yet been, - said the architect. More calm in its assessments is Crixus, who voted for the Teatralny complex and the already mentioned Saturn-R Towers: “The first one for trying not to spoil the historical center, the second one for boldness, scale and novelty”.
Such a rating, of course, would be interesting to hold in Moscow, but the capital is now much more concerned about changing its urban planning strategy: bloggers have actively joined the discussion of the "hot" topic of expanding the capital. So, to the article by Grigory Revzin in Kommersant, which we announced in a recent press review, there were entertaining comments. Recall that Revzin predicts the development of Greater Moscow with a government center somewhere in the area of Pesye, Oznobishino and Kolotilovo - “these settlements with sonorous names could become new centers of executive, legislative and judicial power,” the critic sneers. mm888_2 is sure: “Business will not go further than plans - there is no money, no intelligence, no political will. It will be a classic foundation pit, money buried in the ground (more precisely, taken offshore). Reasonable rulers who will come after these, will transfer the capital to Siberia or the Far East, and the question will wither away by itself. " Viktorya Ln, on the other hand, suspects the seriousness of its intentions: “The massive development of these territories is in full swing, only in the Kommunarka area there are MICs, Krost, August, it seems that there was a leak, otherwise there was a massive development that is going on at an insane pace, it would not be. " According to Vlad Batou, “it would be better to organize a new federal center at one point around New Jerusalem (like around the Kremlin), in all variants, both political, economic and transport (from Rublevka in the opposite direction) and others, it would be advantageous! No need to spoil Zvenigorod or other towns near Moscow! " And by and large, you can build a satellite city anywhere, because, according to the author of the commentary, "all territories up to Betonka (Central Ring Road) and the central railway ring in all directions in the future will be annexed to the megalopolis as the territories are developed."
The next two posts, which we have selected for this review, are devoted to the heritage, more precisely the museification of the two most important historical territories. The St. Petersburg Academy of Arts is currently hosting an exhibition of diploma works on the theme "Archaeological Museum" Nyenskans "in St. Petersburg". Alert_dog posted photos of some projects on the Living City blog - community members were wary of diplomas. The author himself is also not enthusiastic: “One resembled a Mausoleum, the other resembled high-tech glasses that set the teeth on edge, the third was close to the monumental Soviet memorials…. Unfortunately, landscape architecture is not in use here, and this is how old fortresses in Europe are preserved”. Dmtrs agrees: “Y-yes. Probably good as a thesis. But it is necessary to somehow convey to the authors that the "archaeological museum" of wood-earth structures is not appropriate to build from stone and concrete? " In student projects, indeed, only the five-pointed form of Nyenschantz reminds of archeology, the rest sometimes looks like a crematorium. Andrey Muratov was upset by this: “Fight for Nyenschanz in order to build something of this there? Was it worth it?"
Looking at the diplomas, Roman Zhirnov generally doubted the very idea of museumification: “The presented options suggest playing with the star form of Nyenskans, ditching excavations in the same way. To create there a theme park-remake based on the pre-Petrine princess - it’s better to build something socially useful”. But south_thungus is sure: "At least part of the found fragments of the fortress is of significant value and needs to be museumified." It's just that the museum needs something more traditional here, as the anonymous commentator noted: “Maybe send some of the young architects to Holland on a business trip? How they can do everything beautifully!"
Meanwhile, the Arkhnadzor blog started a discussion of the article by Pyotr Miroshnik, already mentioned in one of our previous reviews, on the museumification of a part of Zaryadye on the site of the Rossiya hotel. Recall that the author suggested leaving the place untouched and only planting greenery. Not everyone was satisfied with this position. Here is what Erk61 writes: “The city and city buildings should serve the people. “Beautiful views” are needed in 99% of cases by those who do not live or work in the city, but are cooling off…. The demolition of "Russia" is a natural sabotage, since in Moscow there is no absolutely necessary number of at least relatively cheap hotels. " Irina Trubetskaya believes that “to pose the question - history or function - is radicalism…. We are ready to fit the function into the building with respect for these old walls. The same applies to urban spaces. " According to the author, it is most appropriate here to create an accessible and green urban space with a partial museumification of the place. However, many consider the park in Zaryadye just as a temporary measure before the restoration of historical buildings. For example, a certain Valery insists on a complete reconstruction of historical buildings from old photos, including parts of the destroyed Kitaygorod wall. Alexander supports him: “It would be happy to see firsthand, for example, the reconstructed Sukharev tower, or the palace in Lefortovo, etc. These treasures would even more embellish and make Moscow distinctive, including in the eyes of tourists."
Among local historians, of course, you rarely hear praise for modern buildings. It is all the more interesting that in the blog of the St. Petersburg ethnographer babs71, who recently visited Moscow, in a number of metropolitan attractions, along with the objects of Konstantin Melnikov and the Palace of Culture im. Zueva, unexpectedly hit the "Tupolev-Plaza", built in the 2000s. D. B. Barkhin. The discussion of this building turned out to be interesting. In compliments to the postmodernist creation of the famous neoclassicist, babs71 was not stingy: here and "decor details are sculpted with great grace", and "mirrored walls in which the" villa "is reflected, adding charm to the ensemble", and "a triple arch with crowning columns with figures of any St. remember the house of Mertens. " In general, everything is "witty, elegant and fun." Defenders of “pure neoclassicism” immediately intervened in the discussion, writes Boris Vorobyev: “Still, the Moscow swaggering merchant style is difficult to compare with the stately austerity of the Mertens house…. Once again, this comparison allowed us to make sure that our St. Petersburg architecture is something refined and elegant. And here, like kitsch instead of art, a set of architectural and sculptural quotes from the palazzo combined with glass walls. " “Thanks to the efforts of Comrade Gerasimov, we will soon be too full of this swagger,” notes moskalevski. However, babs71 disagrees: “Gerasimov is much more boring. Barkhin is "warm" and with humor, it is clearly felt that he likes to do all this, and Gerasimov is "cold" and serious. " But il_ducess has a completely different opinion about the Barkhin house: “Yes, this is the style of the modern generation of the Barkhin family. They do all their work in this style. Very beautiful, recognizable. They would have been given more to build and decorate. On Butyrsky Val, they made a Baker Plaza candy from a soviet bread mill, it’s just awful.”More cautious in praise hebemoth: “Well, yes, not an absolute masterpiece. But I think, perhaps, the best fate for the object in our barbaric time. " Finally, a representative of the family, Andrei Barkhin, intervened in the discussion: “This is a work of its time, but there is an obvious desire to break out of the culture of the past, to the architectural language of antiquity and neoclassicism of the early 20th century, and in this it is unique and even revolutionary, because now Moscow neoclassicism has an example, a bar of Roman wealth and complexity."
We will conclude our review with another equally well-known work of its time. The blog evge-chesnokov on the yamoskva.com portal begins to publish a series of detailed stories about the architecture of the All-Russian Exhibition Center, which is being prepared for reconstruction. The historian and activist of "Arkhnadzor" Boris Bocharnikov helps with the details, in whose blog, by the way, a lot has been written about this ensemble. Detailed descriptions of the pavilions and good photographs may well replace a walking tour. In the first post of this series, much attention is paid to the Main Pavilion and its barbaric ruin: “It seems that all non-ferrous metals were taken out of the building in the 1990s-2000s - only a few original brass bars on the basement windows survived, the rest were shyly replaced by painted plywood copies, without a trace the luxurious chandeliers and floor lamps have disappeared. " It is hoped that during the reconstruction all this wealth will be recreated.
