The project of a multifunctional shopping and entertainment complex on Slavyansky Boulevard
the council was represented by the chief architect of the ASP company, Enis Oncuoglu. The site with a total area of 2.55 hectares and a relief difference of about 8 meters is located next to the Slavyansky Boulevard metro station, in the place where the boulevard and Kutuzovsky Prospekt, diverging at an acute angle, form a triangle. The shopping center (4 overground floors, 3 floors of underground parking) occupies this entire area, fitting into its borders strictly along the perimeter.
According to the authors, the main architectural image of the building is the theme of water: its facade alternates with "waves" of blue-gray shades of glass and metal, and three atriums inside are dedicated to one to the sea, another to the river, and the third to the lake. According to the architects, the project should revive the area and put an end to the development of Slavyansky Boulevard. It is planned to organize a small square in front of the main entrance to the shopping center, which will become part of a transport interchange hub: exits from the Slavyansky Boulevard metro station are facing here. On the opposite side, along Davydkovskaya Street, a square is conceived. In addition, according to the authors, the complex should become a noise barrier protecting residential buildings from Kutuzovsky Prospekt. From the fourth floor, conceived as an exclusively public area, there are exits to an open roof terrace overlooking the park along Davydkovskaya Street. The transport scheme of the project, as said by Enis Onjuoglu, was developed jointly with the Research and Development Institute of the General Plan and the London team of Tony Brown.
However, immediately after the architects' story, from the words of Mikhail Krestmein, the chief engineer of the Research and Development Institute of the General Planning, it turned out that the consideration of this project at the transport commission of the Moscow Committee for Architecture and Construction was scheduled only the next day after the meeting of the Arch Council, and therefore it is too early to talk about any transport calculations, flows and loads. and not entirely correct. The only thing that can now be asserted, Mikhail Kreistman noted, is that the building does not interfere with the construction of an interchange on Starorublevskoe highway. But since this territory has the status of a transport and interchange hub, then, according to Mikhail Kreistman, it is not enough to arrange public stops here (as planned in the project), it is necessary to make a through passage, or even better - to give the entire first floor to pedestrians.
At the same time, at the very beginning of the discussion, thanks to a speech from the audience, it became clear that the design had been started a long time ago, and therefore there were no public hearings on the site.
The discussion of the project began with a speech by Hans Stimmann - and immediately critically. According to Stimmann, the building completely ignores Slavyansky Boulevard, facing it with a monotonous blank wall; the architectural solution, especially the organization of space, is more than controversial, and the proposed design "suits a hair dryer more than a building" and is far from the typology of a classic trading house.
Sergei Choban noted that the building occupies the entire site, does not imply any public space and reacts in the same way to completely different urban planning situations: on the one hand, it has Kutuzovsky Prospekt, which requires a large scale, on the other, Slavyansky Boulevard, which is mostly pedestrianized - here, according to Choban, we need more detail.
Another significant drawback of the project, Sergei Tchoban called the absence of the concept of advertising, "without which a modern shopping center cannot be considered at all."The blue-blue colors chosen for the facades of the building, according to Choban, will look terrible in combination with the boards of trade brands, and the rectangular shape of the boards can never be reconciled with the oblique lines of "waves" on the facades: the boards will inevitably line up with stairs. Sergei Tchoban suggested that the Moskomarkhitektura use the experience of Germany, when at the stage of approving the architectural part of the project the advertising project is also approved.
According to Grigory Revzin, looking at the project, one might think that this shopping center is not located in Moscow "at the intersection with Rublevka, but 80 kilometers from the Moscow Ring Road" - it could be located anywhere, preferably next to a large highway.
Revzin also focused on the "elements of guile" visible in the project and its presentation. So, the declared recreational area for the residents of the district turns out to be a small square, which is simultaneously intended for the main pedestrian flows and for loading the store: in such an environment, trees cannot survive. The area of the shopping center is 130 thousand square meters. m, at least a hundred trucks will drive up here a day, so the project is very inhumane in relation to residents of neighboring houses, Revzin is sure. The square in front of the main entrance will also never be a quiet recreational place, if only because we are talking about a transport hub.
Vladimir Plotkin also drew attention to the similarity of the project with a roadside suburban shopping center with a huge parking lot. Placing it in a part of the city overloaded with transport was called erroneous by Plotkin. He advised the authors to expand, as far as possible, the pedestrian zone in front of the main entrance, and to remove the square from the side of Davydkovskaya Street and Staromozhaiskoye Highway, making a semi-underground loading of shops on this side. As for the architecture, given the importance of the highway, Plotkin considered the appearance of such a provincial building on it unacceptable.
Mikhail Posokhin was especially strict in his criticism of the project: he called it offensive for Moscow, “coming from the past”, and the entire construction as a whole - rationally unjustified.
Evgeniy Ass emphasized that architecture should always react to the situation. In this case, in his opinion, the project must be rejected and the GPZU must be revised again from the point of view of the appropriateness of placement on a site of a shopping center of such a scale. Ass expressed doubt that it would be appropriate to develop the "theme of water" on Kutuzovsky Prospekt, and recognized the architecture of the building as "ugly".
Yuri Grigoryan noted that if the investor was more sensitive to the city, he would acquire some intangible asset, which would benefit his business in the future, as “the philosophy of extracting the maximum number of square areas from the site is becoming less and less popular”.
At the end of the discussion, Sergei Kuznetsov, noting the unanimity of the members of the council, as well as the hostility of the very function of the shopping center towards the city, promised to re-submit the revised project of the shopping complex for discussion.
The project of restoration of the lost monument of the XVIII-XIX centuries. - the estate of Saltykova on Bronnaya, Vladimir Kolosnitsyn represented at the council and said that his workshop has been designing this object since 2005.
Plot - more than
famous, this is the quarter of the Nekrasov library behind Novopushkinsky square. The library moved from there to Baumanskaya street in 2002 (perhaps not everyone knows, but at first it was planned to build a new building for it on the site of the fallen Bauman market; then the project of the NCCA building, also subsequently canceled, took its place). For a discussion of the project at ECOS in 2009, see here.
As Vladimir Kolosnitsyn said, initially it was planned to build a shopping center in the former Nekrasovka quarter, but after discussion at the public council, the function was changed to apartments with underground parking.commercial premises and a state educational institution of artistic and aesthetic orientation for children with disabilities. The project involves the reconstruction of the outer facades of the estate, while the inner facades cannot be restored due to the lack of historical documentation. The buildings will be located along the perimeter around the courtyard.
The historical background was presented by Boris Pasternak. He said that the main house of Countess A. S.'s estate has survived to this day. Saltykova. In 1955, its second floor was disassembled and recreated with some distortion. The project involves the restoration of the floor according to drawings from M. F. Kazakov. At the end of the 18th century, the house was flanked by two wings, then the entire site was built around the perimeter, finally, in 1910, the most famous corner building was built according to the project of Julius Diederichs (the sign of the library is still visible on it). Several buildings of the quarter were demolished in 1996 (spontaneously, as the historian and one of the co-rapporteurs Olga Zamzhitskaya noted during the discussion). In addition to the main house, there is still building No. 6 - a cabin barn of the early 19th century, deprived of its conservation status and intended for demolition.
Andrei Gnezdilov strongly opposed disguising the new building in a new volume and with a new function under the old one, and even more so - to call it restoration. Yuri Grigoryan agreed with him, who offered to decide on the main thing - is it a reconstruction project or construction of a new volume? If this is a recreation, then in this case the buildings should be built in full accordance with the original using identical materials, but in no case from concrete with fake stucco molding. Not only external, but also internal facades should be restored, otherwise another low-quality remake will turn out. If this is a new object, then a competition should be held in order to find the most interesting solution that can create new scenarios of public life in such an important place for the city - Pushkin Square.
The question: to restore or build a new one - became central in the discussion of the project. Sergei Kuznetsov immediately spoke in favor of a new architecture, and not only in this case, but also on a city-wide scale: “If a building is lost for some reason, it makes no sense to rebuild it. An example of the reconstruction of the Moscow Hotel is before our very eyes. It seems to me that it is more honest to build a modern facility on a historical scale."
Alexander Kibovsky explained that in the current situation, when the internal facades cannot be restored, and the volumes of buildings are very different from the original, the question of whether this project can be called restoration at all should be decided by the expertise.
Evgeny Ass spoke out categorically against the demolition of building No. 6. He also stressed that “architecture belongs only to its own time, which is written in the Venice Charter, which Russia signed. Therefore, it will not be possible to restore what was lost”. In the project shown, according to Evgeny Ass, the quarter is “something incomprehensible - neither old nor new,” its volumes are greatly exaggerated, and the first floors are closed for public functions - which is unacceptable.
Mikhail Posokhin lamented that in this situation any project would turn out to be bad: if the buildings were restored, they would be called a fake or remake, if a new one was built, they would be accused of destroying heritage monuments. To restore buildings that do not imply a commercial function, according to Posokhin, today it is impossible, since it requires huge funds. Supporting this opinion, Alexey Vorontsov recalled that according to the law, only reconstruction is now possible on the territory of the monument (and the site is located on the territory of a cultural heritage site), despite the fact that we would like to see “actual” architecture there.
The attempt by the authors and the customer to pass off the residential apartments as a hotel was also criticized. This question was raised by Yuri Grigoryan. Grigory Revzin called the decision to place housing in the building undoubtedly harmful for the city, together with the initiative to create a center for disabled children here. The hotel is a public space, the ground floor with the restaurant and lobby is always public. The opposite situation is with the apartments. And the children's rehabilitation center, according to Revzin, is included in the project in order to "fight off the press and opponents of the project - they say, we destroyed the monument, but we have children." Lies Revzin offered to expose and honestly admit that it is planned to build residential apartments and no one is going to rehabilitate any children there.
As for the issue of reconstruction, here Revzin remarked: “We are all present at the scene of the crime: the historical buildings and the Nekrasov library have been destroyed. Now, on the basis of this crime, we are invited to accept a certain compromise, to which we have not the slightest right. If the building is restored, then it should be done absolutely literally, without the slightest deviation from the drawings, with the preservation of all layers, including building No. 6, which has value precisely as a historical layer. Otherwise, the object will have no value at all. In the case of new construction, a tender should be held."
The idea of the competition was also supported by Vladimir Plotkin and Sergei Tchoban, who noted that only unique objects of exceptional importance for the city and the country should be recreated. The two-storey front of the quarter being restored, according to Sergei Tchoban, does not correspond to the changed urban planning situation - therefore, a solution is needed here that corresponds to the present day.
Hans Stimmann noted that such a debate would be quite possible in Berlin as well; he also supported the idea of constructing a modern building through a competition. The topic was supported by Alexander Kibovskiy: “I am the enemy of any remake. Grigory Revzin said very correctly that we are at the scene of a crime. When we build something remotely similar to the destroyed cultural object, we actually legalize this crime”.
“Ideally, an architectural competition should be held on this site,” summed up the discussion, Sergei Kuznetsov: “There may be different versions of modern architecture. This does not mean that the object should be glassy, luminous, challenging."
Multifunctional complex with car service and underground parking at the intersection of Rublevskoye and Rublevo-Uspenskoye highways.
Introducing
this project to the council, Vladimir Plotkin noticed that he was very surprised to learn that the customer intends to revive this project: TPO "Reserve" worked on it about 10 years ago and since then the project has been forgotten, and all contractual relations have been completed.
Since then, around the triangular section for which the complex was designed, many new automobile objects have appeared. Thus, the construction of a complex with a car service facility here was functionally justified. In terms of the building, it looks like a catamaran or, as Vladimir Plotkin said, like a shark. The smooth lines of the facades face highways and are designed to be perceived from the windows of passing cars. The volume is accentuated by a deep notch in the center, at the point of the main entrance to the building. Structural glazing was used for cladding the facades. A slightly shortened "fin" is made of aluminum panels in combination with a fairly free glazing pattern. A tuning studio is supposed to be located on the ground floor. The second floor will be given to trade, and the administrative premises will be located above.
The transport scheme of the project was developed separately, without the participation of "Reserve". Mikhail Kreistman explained the decisions of the transport scheme: the site is located next to the Moscow Ring Road, it is practically impossible to organize an exit from which it is practically impossible, therefore, the entrance to the territory is planned from the rear side. In addition, it is planned to reconstruct the Moscow Ring Road and expand it towards the construction site. Therefore, the building will most likely have to be significantly moved deeper into the site.
Members of the council did not express any claims to the project and unanimously decided to approve it.
See also about the meeting of the Arch Council on the Moskomarkhitektura website
