Project of an administrative and business complex on Mozhaisk highway
According to A. Ponomarenko from LLC NPP Gradostroitelstvo, which presented the project to the council, its height is limited to 45 meters; looks out of the box of the main volume. The transport scheme involves the construction of a backup along the Mozhaisk highway for the access to the complex and its underground parking.
The history of the design of the complex on this site is not that very complicated, but is well known in the professional community. In 2006, Alexey Bavykin painted this building in the form of a giant arch -
we wrote about this project twice; the project took part in the exposition of the Russian pavilion at the 2008 Venice Biennale. Then Yuri Luzhkov, Yuri Roslyak and Yuri Grigoriev did not like his "deliberate ruin" (the history of the arch's transformations is described in more detail here). Finally, Alexei Bavykin proposed another version, this time without the arch, and in the summer of 2009 at a public council, in his own words, “reluctantly,” Yuri Luzhkov agreed with the project. We remind you what the projects of 2006/8 and 2009 looked like:
However, as we now see, the design did not end there, Bavykin's bureau subsequently proposed another option, which is now shown to the Arch Council:
Several variants of LLC NPP Gradostroitelstvo were presented to the architectural council as the main ones (thus we can quite clearly observe the evolution of the variants):
The shown solution raised a lot of questions among the council members: the overwhelming majority advised to return to the version developed by the team of Alexei Bavykin, as being clearer and more confident in the town-planning sense. Grigory Revzin called Bavykin's work more "workshop", and the submitted project, according to the critic, although not an example of "boorish architecture", does not solve the problem of the site in any way. Andrei Gnezdilov noted that Bavykin's version “reacts very correctly to the context. The new version misses the mark both on a large scale and in detail. The longer and more closely you look at it, the more disappointed you become: the diagonal corner ledge, it turns out, is not an entrance to the building and disorients visitors, a niche arranged in the first floors, which is visually perceived as a passage for pedestrians, is closed to the city, and the highway backup is nothing it does not give the project, because the exit from the parking lot is directed directly to Mozhaika."
Hans Stimmann and Sergei Tchoban recommended placing the building clearly along the red line, which would help to straighten the street profile, even despite the huge difference in height with its multi-storey neighbors. Sergei Tchoban added that the eastern facade is the city-forming one here and the emphasis should have been placed on it, and the decision to fix the corner, in his opinion, was extremely unfortunate. Evgeny Ass also spoke out against the angular solution, noting that the proposed diagonal was unjustified, as well as the solution of the building as a whole in the form of a volume inside another volume. The council members were confused by the lack of a coherent urban planning analysis, without which the discussion of the project generally becomes meaningless. In addition, the public part and landscaping of the territory are extremely poorly resolved in the project.
Vladimir Plotkin agreed with the proposed dimensions of the building, but advised to move the central entrance to the corner part accented by the authors. Alexey Vorontsov and Nikolai Shumakov shared the general opinion, who also pointed out the insufficient number of provided parking spaces and an incorrectly organized backup passage crossing pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. Nikolay Shumakov suggested that the authors make additional ground parking.
The project was supported, perhaps, only by Alexander Kudryavtsev, who called it quite "correct and emotional." However, the ambiguity of the town-planning situation also caused him great doubts about the correctness of the proposal. As a result, it was decided to send the project for revision. Summarizing the speeches of the council members, Sergey Kuznetsov also spoke in favor of the option proposed by Alexei Bavykin and recommended that the authors work out in detail the adjacent territories, reconsider the use of the first floors, which should become public, and think about the quality of work with the material in general.
Multifunctional shopping center project on Leningradskoe highway
Further, the council was shown the project of a multifunctional shopping complex on the Leningradskoe highway. The architectural bureau UNK project joined this project relatively recently; previous versions developed by ZAO Dannet Craven and ASP Architectural Engineering Company were not approved by the board.
Yuliy Borisov, one of the authors of the presented concept, said that their project was based on a detailed study of the urban planning and architectural situation in Leningradka, which is characterized by open first floors, vertical pylons and horizontal divisions. In addition, the authors took into account the previous and not entirely successful design experience in this area, when almost blank facades were facing the avenue. Thus, an almost entirely glass façade appeared with an uneven rhythm of vertical brass slats. It is also planned to use natural stone and energy-saving glass for decoration. The top of the building is marked with a cornice, which is also very typical for the surrounding buildings. The height of the complex is in strict accordance with the surroundings, and the location on the site is determined by the existing vector of the red line. The complex also includes a ground parking space located behind the main building. The authors suggested extending the pylonade from the complex towards the parking lot, hiding it and at the same time including it in the overall composition.
One of the principal decisions was the proposal to arrange a through passage with a length of 463 m through the complex. Its route starts from the metro, first goes along the pedestrian bridge over the railway tracks, and then "crashes" into the building, where it becomes something like an internal boulevard, crosses a large atrium space and then leads to
shopping center "Metropolis" (built according to the project of Boris Levyant in 2008, it is closely adjacent to the projected building). Yuliy Borisov noted that despite the identical names of the two neighboring shopping complexes, their owners are different, and the authors were tasked with fulfilling their project in a completely different style.
To protect the sidewalk from cars parked on it, the authors proposed to raise it by 30 cm, pave it, and plant trees along the edge.
In general, all members of the council agreed with the presented project. Some controversy has arisen around the complex's facades. Evgeny Ass and Nikolay Shumakov considered that such an open glass facade was completely inappropriate for the typology of a shopping center. However, other participants in the discussion approved this decision and found it more than appropriate in this context. Sergei Tchoban noted that "the authors have designed not just a new-fashioned facade, but an image that will not become obsolete in 10-15 years, will remain relevant, and its structure and correct rhythm will be perceived quite well even after years." At the same time, Sergei Tchoban advised the authors to think about the materials used, since “it is difficult to imagine a durable metal facade. Metal deforms very quickly and should be replaced with architectural concrete, which will insignificantly increase the cost of the project."
For Evgeny Ass and Mikhail Posokhin, it remained unclear how the projected building interacts with its neighbor on the right - they are stylistically solved in completely different ways, and the internal structure of the docking is not clear either. The junction of the pedestrian crossing pipe, according to Ass, also looks accidental and is not reflected in the architecture of the building itself. Alexander Kudryavtsev generally expressed doubts about the rationality of placing a shopping center on the site under consideration, which is too powerful and attracts very large flows of cars. However, Vladimir Plotkin noted that a shopping center already exists at this place, “the authors, by proposing to pass the flow of pedestrians from the metro through it, gave it an urban character. A significant plus of the project is pedestrian orientation. The only remark about the location of the entrance: the interpretation of the corner assumes that the entrance should be exactly there, but in fact it does not appear in the corner part. It is very important to correctly orient the visitors."
The dignity of the through passage was noted by all members of the Arch Council, however, they recommended to place more emphasis on it and to work it out more clearly. For example, Mikhail Posokhin was embarrassed by its length of about half a kilometer, and Grigory Revzin noted that it would be wiser to make a travelator there: “The movement inside the passage is not a very well thought-out part of the project. And without him, this project has no meaning at all for the city. In Hong Kong, for example, such passages are the main way of moving around the city, and there they are very competently solved. Hans Stimmann stressed that a very positive example of placing a shopping center in the city was presented to the council for consideration, and also noted the presence of shop windows and the absence of advertising on the facades as advantages.
It was decided to approve the project with minor adjustments.
