With this interview, we begin the project "column of the chief architect" of Moscow. Every month we will ask Sergei Kuznetsov questions on topical topics. Today our hero -
competition "Tsarev's Garden".
Archi.ru:
Sergei Olegovich, what is the background of the Tsarev's Garden competition? Why was it decided to hold it?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
- The site really has a very complex history. Initially, the project for this site was developed by the ABV Group workshop headed by Alexey Vorontsov, and even the construction of the site was started. But then, due to various reasons, the project was suspended, and the site went to Sberbank. The task of Sberbank, a rather ambitious customer, was to create a top-level facility - which is very logical given the importance of the site. Unfortunately, the process of implementing the plan was not built in the most optimal way. The customer tried to attract famous Western architects to develop the concept, but cooperation with them did not work out. To adapt the project, Vyacheslav Osipov was involved, who as a result became the general designer and author of the project. As a result of this sequence of events, a project was born that did not fully reveal the potential of the site. I am not saying that as a result of the competition it will be possible to create such a project that everyone will be happy with. However, we will make every effort to raise the quality level of architectural solutions.
That is, the competition was entirely your initiative? How did the customer perceive this idea?
- Yes, the competition was my initiative. And it was supported by the Department of Cultural Heritage of Moscow and personally by Alexander Kibovsky - a man who, although not an architect, understands very well how a city should be formed in a historical context. The customer initially did not want to change the project, but after a thorough discussion of all urban planning, architectural, historical aspects of this project and its importance for the perception of the entire embankment of the embankment and the panorama of the Kremlin, we reached an understanding. I am very grateful to the representatives of the Sberbank team for agreeing to take into account the interests of the city and for meeting the proposals of the Moscow Committee for Architecture and Architecture on holding an architectural competition.
On what basis were the participants selected for the competition?
- The competition was closed. The participants were selected on the recommendation of the customer, the Union of Architects of Russia and the Moskomarkhitektura. We wanted the competition to be attended by Russian architects representing various stylistic and methodological approaches to the creation of modern architecture. In addition, it was important for us to gather the contestants whose authority and talent is generally recognized. As a result of careful analysis and selection of applicants, it was decided to focus on the teams included in the final list.
- If I understand correctly, the competition was not originally announced as a competition for the adjustment of facades. What was the subject of the competition?
- After the idea of holding the competition was approved, a real debate unfolded about what should be the subject of the competition. My position in this respect was quite tough: I believed that the subject of the competition should be the architectural solution of the building as a whole, and not separately the facades, as the customer insisted. The customer, of course, had his own motivation. The fact is that the site is so complex and has so many restrictions that it was not at all possible for the customer to submit a volumetric-spatial solution to the competition. His team has done a tremendous amount of work in collaboration with marketers, architects, designers and historians. A serious analytical base was prepared and even construction work on the site began. Naturally, the customer argued for the preservation of the existing solution, although he himself did not consider it the most optimal.
Having started to study the situation and prepare the task of the competition, we realized that the restrictions on the site are really, very, very serious. But at the same time, each limitation individually is surmountable when the architect finds the correct, justified and, to some extent, an outstanding solution. All specialists spoke about this directly. Even the key parameter - the ray of visibility from Ordynka to the St. Basil's Cathedral, due to which the composition acquired a significant difference in heights (low buildings along the bridge and high ones along the distance from it), could be revised. I repeat, if the architects proposed an ingenious and out of the ordinary solution, we would be able to remove even this limitation. In the competition task, recommendations were given on the elevation marks, where this beam was taken into account. The architects were told that this is only a recommendation, but by no means a strict requirement. We, against the wishes of the customer, did not position this competition as a competition for the design of facades. We were ready to make concessions on urban planning restrictions for the sake of a proposal that would fully reveal the potential of this site.
- Why did some of the participants change only the facades, while others developed the project from scratch?
- Indeed, the competition projects were divided into those in which the architects tried to follow the recommendations prescribed in the assignment, and those where the authors deliberately deviated from them. The indicated restrictions were dictated by specialists from different instances. We - members of the jury, organizers of the competition and myself - have repeatedly drawn the attention of the participants to the fact that these are only recommendations, and they are free to offer their own vision. We even had a special introductory conversation, during which we explained in detail that there are a lot of restrictions on the site and a lot says for sticking to the existing composition - however, we are in search.
Anyone who is ready to participate in this search can make another option. Therefore, there was no dissidence on the part of individual participants. Sergey Skuratov, Alexander Tsimailo with Nikolai Lyashenko and Yevgeny Gerasimov took a completely conscious and balanced step, radically revising the existing project. And the fact that the rest of the contestants preferred to remain in the existing dimensions and preserve the composition of the original project was their personal decision. Each author, at his own discretion, chose the way to fight for victory in the competition and made a decision whether to make an architectural manifesto or find a compromise.
But Sergei Skuratov in his interview for Archi.ru said that his project did not meet the conditions of the competition, and therefore lost
- This is not entirely true. Sergey Skuratov is a very talented architect with a heart for the result, which causes great respect. That is why he was among the contestants. And, by the way, I proposed his candidacy. He initially had his own radical position, his own view. And this view was supported by me even before the start of the competition. I do not refuse my words. The truth is that when we started looking at objects at the jury meeting, most of the jury members noted that they saw no reason to deviate from the recommendations given at the beginning of the competition. They did not see in Sergey's project that outstanding proposal that would force them to reconsider their decision and forget about all the limitations. It was not chosen precisely because of the architectural design, and not because of the violation of the terms of the competition. As mentioned earlier, we (the customer and the jury) were ready to take this step.
Did you agree with that?
- Not quite. I was just counting on a fresh look and did not hold on to the recommendations. The variant proposed by Evgeny Gerasimov turned out to be the closest to me, although this project assumed a change in the original composition. The approach he proposed seemed to me quite appropriate in this area, but when discussing this project, the jury members expressed comments about the somewhat heavy, excessive massiveness of the volumes facing Bolshaya Ordynka.
Perhaps, if there were more participants, then we would be able to find the right way to make a higher building front along the Bolshoi Moskvoretsky Bridge, violate the recommendations, but get a more advantageous solution. Alas, we have not found such a solution. I would not support Sergey Skuratov's project due to the fact that the mono-volume presented by him, a silhouette building with a fairly regular facade seems to me inappropriate on the site under consideration. I myself live next to a similar building -
"House-ear" on the Khodynskoye field - and although it fits into the surrounding buildings, it makes a depressing impression on me. I believe that such an object in the center of the city would be completely alien. The jury came to the conclusion that there was no point in fighting for a new composition, especially since the existing one was repeated in a number of projects - for example, in Ilya Utkin, Nikita Yavein and Maxim Atayants. We collectively came to the conclusion that it is necessary to involve several architects in the further development of the project, who could develop houses of different character within a given composition, as it historically happened during the development of city blocks. The approach of modules with different facade design for a given building morphology seemed to us the most appropriate and justified than the emergence of a large-scale, but monotonous structure. A similar mono-structure already existed in our country - the Rossiya hotel, and, if you remember, it was demolished. Separately, it must be said that today it is extremely difficult to find an architect who could create a mono-masterpiece in a series of rather heterogeneous buildings. We didn't find him. We decided that it makes sense to contact different architects in order to involve them in the work on the formation of a new version of the complex. It has yet to be found and developed on the basis of the project proposals that won first place in the competition and the existing solution of Vyacheslav Osipov.
How do you generally assess the projects submitted for the competition? What did you personally like or dislike?
- I was one of the nine members of the jury, and my opinion could not be decisive, as in all other competitions. But I have already voiced my opinion above: in my opinion, the most accurate solution was proposed by Evgeny Gerasimov. The optimal principle of building this site is well read in the concept of Nikita Yavein with its different heights and differently ornamented facades. At the same time, I would not recommend in any way to implement such a project in the form suggested by the authors. Its architecture is too active for this place, even flashy. You can, of course, talk about creative courage, but I would not dare to build such a house near the walls of the Kremlin.
Ilya Utkin's project is notable for its splendor and baroque style. I am not against classical forms, and in general I am not against all architectural styles, if they are made with high quality. But again, to build such a large structure in this place does not seem right to me. The same can be said about the project of Maxim Atayants, who went even further, giving the complex a gigantic scale. In addition, its huge arches cannot be tied to the layout of the apartments, and this initially created an insurmountable conflict between the solution of the facades and the internal structure of the building. I can say frankly that I voted for projects representing classical, moderate and modern architecture. The difference in their approaches can give the desired variety of facades. Subsequently, it turned out that these were projects of Utkin, Gerasimov and Yavein. The difference in their approaches can give the desired variety of facades.
Alexander Tsimailo and Nikolai Lyashenko did not make it to the final vote, because the excessively large form they presented immediately rejected the majority of voters. Although I believe that for façade ideas this project could be considered. As for the proposal of Sergei Skuratov, there was a unanimous opinion that the appearance of such a volume in the body of Zamoskvorechye and Sofiyskaya embankment is impossible, this is too massive an invasion. The project immediately received a number of negative reviews. Although in the final vote it was considered as a motive for the facades. Sergey Tumanin proposed a very glass complex with constructivist motives. For me it was more of a paper architecture experience than a practical one. And this option did not attract many supporters.
The readers of Archi.ru, as well as the participants of the competition, had questions about the composition of the jury, which consisted of only four architects. How would you comment on this?
- I am satisfied with the composition of the jury. It included representatives of the customer, Sberbank and the technical customer, A. V. Kibovsky, A. L. Batalov and four architects, counting me. In addition, another architect served as the secretary of the jury. So a total of five architects participated in the jury. And there should have been more. Yuri Grigoryan and Mikhail Posokhin were unable to take part in the voting. That is, six architects were planned (more than half of the jury), and this is a very good percentage.
In the jury of the competition for the project of the Zaryadye park, the percentage of architects was even lower - no more than a third, including Western representatives. And there the composition of the jury did not cause any complaints from anyone.
Aside from specific examples, I am convinced that the jury of architectural competitions should not consist only of architects. It is necessary to be aware that the consumers of architecture are, for the most part, not architects. There is a wide range of specialists who are directly related to the development of the city and they must participate in making decisions that are important for the city.
And yet, why are there three winners in the competition at once? Really none of the presented projects satisfied the jury members?
- It's a little bit different. The opinion that there are three winners in the competition is wrong. Having considered the initial project and competitive proposals, the jury made an unambiguous decision: to leave the general composition, but to finalize it taking into account all the comments and options for the design of the facades. This composition should become the basis, the foundation for combining proposals selected based on the results of the competition, including the project of the general designer. This was a deliberate decision, although it was not unanimous. For example, Alexander Kibovsky, offered to show courage, not be afraid and build a mono-volume, but the majority decided differently. I emphasize once again that this decision of the jury cannot be regarded as uncertainty. On the contrary, it is confidence in choosing the right approach. In fact, I am not a supporter of such decisions, considering that it is not correct to choose several winners. But in this case, during the meeting, the jury decided to choose three architects who could offer completely different approaches.
How will the work on the project be structured in the future?
- It will still be discussed. Of course, architects will work in collaboration. I believe that the general designer should create a planning composition that implies different buildings, not only in terms of facades, but also in terms of dimensions, in which plastic can also be embedded. Each architect will develop his own version within the plastic tolerances.
How do you assess the results of the competition? Did you manage to achieve your goal?
- The feeling is twofold. Of course, the organization and scheme of this competition leaves much to be desired. And yet, it's better than nothing. I believed that we could find a new solution that would be very different in composition from the original one. I believed that we would be able to convince a group of specialists defending the view from Ordynka to St. Basil's Cathedral by offering them something very interesting and strong as an undeniable argument that would allow them to sacrifice this species. Moreover, in my opinion, the way this site looks from the side of Zaryadye and Vasilievsky Spusk is much more important than the view from Ordynka. This was my opinion, and I still do not refuse it, although specialists in the protection of monuments have strongly criticized me for this. I am sorry that such an option was not found as a result. On the other hand, I cannot say that the competition was defeated. The jury collectively found an adequate answer to the amount of questions that were put before it during the discussion of the previous project and competitive proposals. We have a good chance to get a quality object in the historical part of the city. We will try to make it go down in history with a plus sign.
