The first meeting of the new composition of the Arch Council took place on March 20 and caused a lot of responses, including the skeptical and ironic “near the Donskoy Monastery, two skyscrapers will be built, twice the height of the monastery cathedral. With this decision, the new Architectural Council of the city began its work. Happy heritage day and you, our dear architects! - from Arkhnadzor (Arkhnadzor soon after the meeting opened the collection of signatures against the project here). On April 3, one of the 15 councilors, Yevgeny Ass, wrote on his Facebook page: “The council agreed on two nightmarish huge houses at the turn of Ordzhonikidze and Shabolovka” and published his dissenting opinion there. As you can see, the agenda of the council was acute, so we believe that the report on how it went, even belated, will be interesting. So:
Planning project for the territory of the Hammer and Sickle plant
The first point was that the council considered (and rejected) the planning project for a huge area - more than 70 hectares, of the former Hammer and Sickle plant. The territory is located in the southeast of Moscow along the Entuziastov highway and is now divided into two parts by the Third Transport Ring. Therefore, two planning projects were submitted to the council: 19 hectares (see the author's description of the first part on the Moskomarkhitektura website) and 53 hectares (see description). In the first part, the authors of the planning project, State Unitary Enterprise NIiPI Masterplan and the PROEKTUS company, proposed to place a “multifunctional complex development”: residential quarters, offices and shops, a kindergarten, a school and a sports complex. Parking lots are arranged in two underground levels and in stylobates, on the roof of which the courtyards of residential buildings are planned, as is now customary, thus raised above other public spaces. On the second part of the Hammer and Sickle, it is proposed to build a media park (~ 13 hectares) with a hotel complex, a Jewish theater "Shalom" for 700 seats, an exhibition complex (~ 5 hectares) and a trade and office building. In accordance with the assignment, the production of the Hammer and Sickle plant is partially preserved. The project of the second part was developed by the company "Financial and Organizational Consulting", GAP - Dipesh Lohani.
Project of the company "Financial and Organizational Consulting":
Project of the PROEKTUS company:
Absolutely all members of the architectural council recommended rejecting this project and sending it back for revision. Sergei Tchoban noted the absence of any connection between the two sections of the once united territory: half of the Third Ring here goes into a tunnel, and the architects could use this chance to create a single urban ensemble. He compared the buildings proposed by the authors with "scattered peas" because of its fragmentation, clumpiness and lack of "conscious spaces". The only exception, according to Sergei Tchoban, could be called the stylobate, but it is inaccessible to the city. Sergei Tchoban recommended that the authors rework the project with a balance of pedestrian and traffic, green areas that are so necessary in an ecologically unfavorable area, and a developed street network in order to create a "socially controlled, not socially isolated space."
Supporting the theme, Grigory Revzin described the proposed solution as "feudalization of space" - "not behind the fence, but on the stylobate."
The idea of the need to link both parts into a single ensemble was supported by almost all members of the council. Andrey Bokov also noted the uniqueness of this territory, located close to the center and with a fairly developed transport infrastructure. At the same time, according to Bokov, an intelligible transport solution in the project itself is completely absent. Alexey Vorontsov, commenting on the project, suggested that the authors make not one, but several exits on the Enthusiasts highway, and create a competent street and road network. Hans Stimmann also recommended concentrating on street spaces: “the project should be finalized, focusing on a strategic decision, leaving production areas, planning not houses, but streets, and at the same time paying attention to the typology of buildings”.
The simultaneous use of line and quarter buildings and the complete exclusion of the school and kindergarten area from the fabric of the projected area was also criticized. Vladimir Plotkin noticed that in the left part of the block-street approach and a hint of the creation of a street network is visible, but the orientation of the houses perpendicular to the highway raises serious doubts.
Hans Stimmann drew attention to the fact that the area of the site corresponds to the size of the old part of cities such as Florence and Venice, and yet the proposed concept is solved very chaotically, in the spirit of Los Angeles in the 1970s. Surprise about the "ancient" methodology of urban planning was expressed by Evgeny Ass, in his words, "today no one designs like that." In addition, a significant disadvantage of the project is the lack of in-depth analysis, understanding of the surrounding area and the supporting situation.
Nikolai Shumakov spoke out against the demolition of existing industrial facilities. Instead of "bulldozer design", he suggested thinking about the reuse of buildings and factory workshops with a change in their functional purpose.
The result of the discussion was the proposal of Grigory Revzin to hold a competition for the development of this territory. This proposal was actively supported by Mikhail Posokhin, outraged by the absence of any urban planning idea in the presented draft plan. The chief architect of Moscow, Sergei Kuznetsov, also spoke in favor of holding the competition.
The project of two towers on the street. Ordzhonikidze
The northern tower (18 floors) and the southern (19 floors) are placed on a high stylobate (see the author's description of the project on the Moskomarkhitektura website). They are planned to be built at the intersection of Ordzhonikidze and Donskoy Streets, on the site of the existing building of the Donskoy Baths, next to the necropolis of the Donskoy Monastery. The project has already been approved and received by the GPZU. However, as the head of the Moscow City Heritage Site Alexander Kibovsky said at a meeting of the Arch Council, the decision to demolish the Don Baths has not yet been made.
The project of the residential complex was presented to the council members by one of its authors, Kevin Smith, architect of the workshop of Robert Stern 'Robert A. M. Stern Architects'. According to him, the residential complex combines the traditions and stylistic features of New York and, at the same time, Moscow architecture of the 1930s. White stone was used for the facades. The location at the intersection of major streets, according to Smith, required the creation of a new urban dominant. At the same time, the facade facing the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery, from where it will be best viewed according to the landscape-visual analysis, is deliberately made narrower. The stylobate, which includes all public spaces, is visually divided into two parts - southwestern and northeastern. Inside there is a courtyard with terraced landscaping, and a landscaped area with flower beds and a playground is planned around the complex.
I must say that given the existing approvals, the majority of the council members were in favor of approving this project. Mikhail Posokhin stressed that it is necessary to comply with the laws according to which the project has already been adopted. The Council, according to Posokhin, can only consider issues of architecture, which is made "with high quality, solid and confident."
Yuri Grigoryan strongly opposed the project, calling the project "a classic example of a point commercial development with a density that is exactly doubled". According to Grigoryan, the residential complex cannot claim the title of a new town-planning dominant next to the historical dominant of the region - the Donskoy Monastery. In his opinion, the number of storeys of the complex should be lowered: "It is never too late to correct a mistake, and an investor can achieve a good yield of areas even at 45 meters." The idea of lowering the altitude was also supported by Yevgeny Ass, who was concerned about the change in the quality of life of the entire area due to overcompaction. In addition, Ass called for the preservation of the baths as an architecturally and socially significant object. He recognized the architecture of the complex as quite correct and appropriate for this area of Moscow.
The project was approved by Nikolai Shumakov and Alexey Vorontsov, who were convinced by the data of the landscape-visual analysis, which showed that the complex does not disturb the panorama of the city and does not affect the perception of neighboring historical monuments. Vladimir Plotkin noted that this residential complex will not be so lonely, because 16-storey buildings are already located along the same Ordzhonikidze street, and a 20-storey tower has been built just three hundred meters from the monastery.
Grigory Revzin does not consider the appearance of the complex here as a disaster. In all senses, Revzin does not like the Luzhkov project, overcrowded and fenced off from the city, he considers the fact of issuing a GPZU to be a mistake, but even worse in this situation would be dishonest treatment of the developer, who has already received permission in compliance with all laws.
Sergei Tchoban approved the chosen architectural solution, but criticized the town-planning one. Why are the towers placed along the edges of the site, coming into conflict with the neighboring Stalinist houses? Why is the corner at the intersection of streets not reinforced, which would be in the tradition of Moscow? Why was this corner, left empty, fenced off? The city is already full of social conflicts and the public space in the basement, which is allocated for the townspeople, in Tchoban's opinion, is not an adequate substitute for the demolition of the baths. Today it is already very problematic to revise these decisions, however, Sergei Tchoban considers it possible to give the city the corner square, which is now located on the stylobate, and also to make public those spaces that have arisen along the perimeter of the site. This small change would allow the building to be included in the fabric of the city, and a person, having climbed the pedestal, to the foot of the towers, would feel their architecture. Choban's proposal was fully supported by Hans Stimmann, who urged the authors of the project to unite the street and the square.
Summarizing the discussion, Sergei Kuznetsov asked the council members to indicate their position not only on the architectural part of the project, as it was originally intended, but also on the issue of the height-volumetric solution of the complex. All recommendations of council members will be brought to the attention of the city administration, and only then the fate of both presented projects will become clear.
See also: about the meeting of the Arch Council on March 20, 2013 on the website of the Moskomarkhitektura
On the new composition of the Moscow Architectural Council
