The exhibition of projects of the first stage of the open competition for the concept of Zaryadye development was extended until April 20. After the exhibition is over, the Expert Group will decide on the results of the competition, probably based on the results of the popular vote held at the exhibition and on the Internet.
However, at the end of March, the Council for Urban Development of Moscow AIA conducted another, public examination - discussion of the projects presented directly at the exhibition, with the participation of several architects, ECOS members and visitors to the exhibition. The head and organizer of this public examination was Mark Gurari, Deputy Chairman of the Council for Urban Development of the Agrarian Academy and a member of the ECOS Presidium. He presented the results of the discussion to the Expert Group; it is possible that the opinion of the public expert will also be taken into account when making a decision. In any case, it sounds quite definite: extensive construction in Zaryadye, including underground, should be ruled out.
We asked Mark Gurari a few questions and found out what the participants of the discussion think about the fate of Zaryadye and the prospects of the competition.
Archi.ru: So, do you think that the results of the competition for the concept of a park in Zaryadye are not hopeless? Many have already put a bold "cross" at this competition.
Mark Gurari:
Yes, now the opinion is spreading in the media that the projects of the park in Zaryadye submitted for the competition are not professionally sound, the program must be written anew and there is no sense in the competition. I was instructed to carry out a public examination of these projects by the Council for Urban Development of Moscow of the Union of Moscow Architects, and to hold a public discussion at the exhibition (it took place on March 29 - Archi.ru). It was attended by experts, historians, art historians and architects, as well as non-professionals - visitors to the exhibition. The results of the examination and discussion do not allow us to agree with skeptics and pessimists.
Of course, there are projects that in no case should be implemented: multi-stage towers up to 120 m high, giant "eggs on sackcloth" (the terminology of the authors themselves) with a hall and a multi-storey cafe inside, a 170-meter Tatlin tower of the III International, just as tough and mechanical, like the very idea of this international. If for evaluating other projects we were guided by the medical motto - "do no harm", then here we had to say the biblical "Thou shalt not kill", because next to the Kremlin, St. Basil's Cathedral and the main square of the country. Such projects are outdated, they are from the era of architectural vandalism, which must finally come to naught, otherwise we will lose Moscow. Alas, these "killer" works are by no means amateurish, they are very professionally drawn. But working in a historical environment requires not only architectural skill, but also a sense of the appropriateness of the proposed solution.
However, there are only 18-20 out of 118 projects of “murderous”, the rest approach the park's solution more delicately. So the competition gave the desired result: it outlined the paths along which to move on, and vice versa, those solutions that are in no way suitable. And the fascination with showing curious projects in the media, which, by the way, are inevitable in open competitions, with complete denial of any positive, is dangerous - no matter how it ends with a custom competition, but with the participation of noble foreigners, whose masterpieces are repeatedly imposed on Moscow - and near the new Tretyakov Gallery, and at the Museum. Pushkin, and in other prominent places in the capital. That's when the "curiosities" of the current competition will seem like flowers!
Archi.ru: And what is the positive decision? What projects were recognized by experts and the public as the most acceptable?
Mark Gurari:
The expertise considers the most rational projects of a simple recreation site in a saturated tourist and business zone, a landscape park corresponding to the scale of the place, with a homogeneous polycentric composition close to the historical one. Let's move consistently towards responding to a simple and reasonable proposal from the authorities - to build a park in the congested center of Moscow, among the kingdom of concrete and asphalt. Moscow does not need Manezh number two next to the Kremlin.
Archi.ru: Does it mean just a park, without buildings - even underground?
Mark Gurari:
Experts and the public came to the conclusion that the placement of a concert hall for 3.5 thousand seats, trade and restaurants in the park will complicate the transport situation in the area, where even now, with a completely empty, undeveloped site, there is an overload of highways and continuous traffic jams.
Among the volume designers who are not associated with urban planning, the misconception remains that a large object hidden under the ground does not in any way affect the nature of the site and the environment. You just need to imagine for a minute the situation when 3.5 thousand people will get to the surface at the end of the concert.
By the way, we note that there are not enough spacious, modernly equipped concert halls in the peripheral districts of Moscow - and these are actually huge cities with a population of one million. For a long time it was necessary to find them a place in the middle zone of the city, next to metro stations. When will we wean ourselves from the destructive habit: to try to move literally everything in the country closer to the already overloaded Moscow region, in the region - to Moscow, and in Moscow itself - necessarily to the walls of the Kremlin!
It is curious that earlier everyone blamed investors for inflating the volume of new objects, who firmly remembered that land in the center was more expensive than gold. But it turned out that with complete freedom given to the architects (after all, the arrangement of the hall, parking lots, etc. according to the program was not obligatory), the habit of "stuffing" into the object as much as possible holds tight. In the center of such world capitals as Vienna, London, Washington, there are vast parks, and it never occurs to anyone to build them up with saturated, bloated objects. It can be seen that the childhood illness of the era of reforms has not bypassed our architectural class. A simplified, head-on understanding of economic laws at the level of, so to speak, a junior accountant - and professional punctures as a result. We all get sick, from top to bottom.
Archi.ru: But experts still consider some, possibly very small, construction possible in Zaryadye, or not?
Mark Gurari:
Of the remakes, the examination approved only proposals for the reconstruction of temples and, as an option, the Kitaygorodskaya wall along the embankment. It will protect visitors to the park from the noise and exhaust of car streams. In addition, the compositional interaction with the extended wall of the Kremlin contributes to the reconstruction of the integrity, large scale of the river facade. In projects with the restoration of the wall (171076, 151425, 224668; the projects can be found on the website of the Moskomarkhitektura) or devices for its replacement (project 491828), it is proposed to organize walks and an overview of the area on it. At the next stages, you need to present a scan of the river facade of the historical center from the Cathedral of Christ the Savior to a high-rise building on Kotelnicheskaya embankment. It is also legitimate to organize views of the Kremlin and the river, the device under the highway passing along the embankment, an exit closer to the water level for the pier.
Many competitive projects contain real proposals for the use of historical themes. This is the reconstruction of old streets in the form of a planning scheme of park roads, outlines or volumes of houses by means of landscaping or improvement (projects 151425, 224668, 260351, 290684, 125731, etc.); models of ancient Moscow (project 224668), old Zaryadye, all of Russia (project 300940); sculptures on historical themes (projects 040134, 040318); creation of landscape areas typical for Russia (project 041978); virtual pictures of Moscow using a laser show (project 041978 and N. Grigorieva's proposal), reconstruction of individual temples, organization of display of archaeological finds and views of the Kremlin and the Moskva River. Such decisions contribute to the development of the educational and patriotic function of the new park. But the proposals for the installation of sculptures should not contribute to the prevalence of the park over the main historical dominants of the center. Personally, I do not consider the proposal to set up a discussion corner of Hyde Park on such a small green area as successful, it will attract an unnecessary mass of visitors.
A peculiar solution to the green quarter-park is presented in project 072254, which is distinguished by a highly professional drawing of the plan, although the architecture of the pavilions itself is still too sterile. Of course, the underground part must be removed from all these projects.
Archi.ru: What else, apart from the extensive construction in Zaryadye, did the experts consider unacceptable?
Mark Gurari:
The expert examination considers that projects with a sharply drawn mechanical square grid of roads, or with a powerful diagonal esplanade from the Orphanage to the Cathedral of St. Basil the Blessed (projects 100001, 060757), are not consistent with the nature and scale of the area, the planning is too centered, allowing rivalry with the architecture of monuments and the space of Red Square. Unfortunately, there are many professionally designed compositions where the center or main axis is overly highlighted, which is discordant with the compositional structure and scale of the surrounding buildings, with the historically formed landscape of the area (projects 150155, 164102, 194653, 180602, etc.). Proposals for a radical transformation of the relief, the construction of huge hills and rocks, which dramatically change the usual Moscow landscape, and the construction of unnecessarily massive volumes of buildings, do not correspond to the conditions of the place. The proximity of even one masterpiece of world architecture - the Cathedral of St. Basil the Blessed - constantly reminds: "Do no harm!" Further development of projects in this direction will cause a negative reaction in society, new confrontations between the defenders of historical Moscow and designers, ultimately discrediting the original proposal of the authorities.
Archi.ru: So, how do you assess the first stage of the competition as a whole?
Mark Gurari:
For the first stage of the competition, and with such a deadline, the level of their design and landscape study is quite sufficient, I will allow myself to disagree with the skeptical statements, since I devoted more than ten years to landscape design of park zones in various Russian cities and more than twenty years to the examination of design solutions for objects in the historical development of Moscow.
I would like to note the courage of all authors, without exception, who completed the full volume of works required by the competition without sufficient initial information and, most importantly, without any hope of a prize. This is hard and slow work, a real civic activity, confirmed by a real deed. I was also pleased with the lively participation of the visitors of the exhibition in the discussion of projects.
Based on the results of the competition, it is already possible to take a number of actions for the priority design and arrangement of the park, and at the same time continue the competitive search for especially interesting ideas, original small forms, benches, lanterns, and landscaping.
Below are a few quotes from the minutes of public discussion of Zaryadye's projects (recall that it took place on March 29 at an exhibition in a house on Brestskaya).
“Zoya Kharitonova, a member of the Council (for the urban development of Moscow AIA), a member of the ECOS presidium, supported the expert opinion, but recommended to strengthen the element of solemnity in the composition of the park, citing an analogy with Peterhof. Neither a concert hall, nor shops and restaurants are needed here, a vast green space with access to the water, possibly historical sculptures, for example, a monument to Stolypin and the general theme of the park - Stolypin Square. And instead of a wall - to build up the Moskvoretsky Bridge with benches, like the Rialto Bridge in Florence."
"IN. Kochakov, a visitor to the exhibition, supported the refusal to build a large concert hall. He suggested taking into account the needs of groups of different ages and ensuring all-weather visits. The park should have a landscape character, with access to the water, to the pier."
“Architect Vyacheslav Avdeenko noted that the place of the park rejects large buildings, they do not look here. The restoration of the old dense buildings is also not necessary. But the reconstruction of the Kitaygorodskaya wall in a historical or modern conditional form (project 491828) is necessary for the integrity of the coastal composition, without it it will be a failure."
“Architect Aida Melikhova, a representative of the“Old Moscow”society, supported the idea of rebuilding the wall along the embankment, this will unite the Zaryadye façade with the Kremlin façade, and enhance the scale of the historic center when viewed from the river. In the composition of the park, which preserves the old layout, it is necessary to show the contours of the foundations of the buildings that have not survived."
“G. Arkhipova, a visitor to the exhibition, said that initially she was against the reconstruction of the wall along the embankment, but having seen the beautiful sweeps of the river facade with the Kitaygorodskaya wall along the embankment (project 151425) and after listening to the expert report, she changed her mind. She made sure that the wall creates unity with the Kremlin from the side of the river, helps to isolate from the noise and exhaust of the highway. Walking along the wall will provide an opportunity to admire all the monuments and the river. G. Arkhipova expressed an interesting consideration in favor of the reconstruction of churches, in such a number, it would seem, are not needed here: “It is known about Moscow that there are forty forties in it. And if you recreate all the temples in this park, you will get a convincing image of the many-domed historical Moscow."
“Alexei Klimenko, member of the Council (for the Urban Development of Moscow AIA), member of the ECOS Presidium, is resolutely opposed not only to the construction of the hall, but also to the reconstruction of any remakes, including the wall and churches. He pointed to the poor quality of the reconstruction of the same Kitaygorodskaya wall from the side of Teatralnaya Square. He further spoke out against any heroic theme of the park. “It is better to arrange a dance meadow for middle and older age, and in the underground part there are youth clubs, so that in the morning, having danced, the youth went out to admire the dawn over the river”.
