Sergey Kuznetsov
An introductory story about the principles that should now form the basis for the formation of the urban environment:
“The system of dormitory neighborhoods and a center oversaturated with events that has developed in Moscow has divided the city into separate functional zones, throwing the person himself out of the life cycle. A person is too dependent on the area in which he lives. Because of this, life in Moscow cannot be considered comfortable enough. Today's planning must comply with such principles, when a person, regardless of where he lives in the city, exists in a normal, comfortable and developed urban environment.
For a long period of time, Moscow was built up like an ordinary European city, following the same principles as Paris, London or Berlin. The street was a place saturated with a variety of functions, and at the same time it was the territory of a comfortable human existence, and not only provided urban transit. This led to the correct planning of land use, division into plots, clear rules of neighborhood were formed, comfortable courtyard territories were formed in the absence of losses in space. In short, there was a very rational organization of the environment. 19th century Moscow was a pedestrian-friendly city. Moreover, this can be said not only about Moscow, but about most Russian cities of that period.
In the years 1930-1950, a different scale of development emerged, solving new economic and social problems. However, the basic principles of quarters are still preserved, and even the mass and first panel construction of those years has its own face, interestingly designed facades of houses, etc. The most negative impact on the urban environment occurs during the work of Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev and his struggle with architectural excesses.
During this period, there is a shift from humane planning to rational.
Today, when these principles have already sunk into oblivion, and no one is forcing them to comply, we see that the periphery of Moscow continues to be built up in the same way as in the days of Khrushchev. The city has grown greatly in scale, the number of storeys of buildings has sharply increased, the abundance and size of the city's sleeping quarters frightens.
In a word, the same principles of the radiant city of Le Corbusier continue to operate with a minus sign, when a certain clearing is dotted with giant buildings and at the same time, the arrangement of the space between the houses does not bother anyone.
But the formation of the environment in today's understanding is the main task of the architect and urban planner. I see that this is the reason for untidy improvement, and the emergence of gigantic undeveloped spaces, and the lowest level of social control, or rather, its complete absence. We are trying to reverse this situation today. The quality of architecture, in my opinion, is not discussed at all: every house should have its own facade, its own face.
Today we will talk about the principles of quarters, about the need to create public spaces in the first floors of residential buildings, about the variety of facades inside the quarter and about the humanity of the building in general."
Sergey Kuznetsov gave examples from his own practice, as an attempt to create that very comfortable and humane environment with the existing tools - regulatory and legal. At the same time, the chief architect emphasized that “this is still not ideal, but from an architectural point of view, these examples are close to Western models, and having seen such buildings in Europe, we could take them for granted”.
Residential complex Edalgo in Kommunarka with houses of different architecture and height, with courtyard spaces, public and pedestrian streets.
Project in St. Petersburg - panel construction, where each house has its own facade and all the basic principles of quarter development are observed.
Project on Presnensky Val - municipal construction, where it was also possible to bring the layout closer to the block scheme and create a commercial street front with a public square.
Reconstruction of the Korovino industrial zone - development of municipal buildings, crossed by two streets, one of which runs strictly along the red line, and the second is intra-quarter. Wide sidewalks are organized here, thanks to which the streets become a full-fledged public space. There are practically no waste areas in this project. Each house has its own facade.
Skolkovo development project - a site located on an urbanized territory annexed to Moscow. The project provides for a low number of storeys, the presence of pedestrian zones, gradation into courtyards and streets. According to Kuznetsov, if this project succeeds, it can become a model example of how one can work in the territories annexed to Moscow in order to get such an urban fabric in which it is pleasant to live and work.
Andrey Gnezdilov
On the main differences between microdistrict and block buildings:
“We have a mixed concept of a quarter and a microdistrict, they are perceived as some kind of territory bounded by streets. However, the differences are very, very significant. For example, in the microdistrict there are huge spaces of courtyards in the absence of pronounced internal streets and the huge dimensions of the buildings themselves. I decided to show the traditional quarter development on the example of Odessa - a city with a clearly defined street network. The photograph taken in western Biryulyovo clearly shows the composition of freely spaced volumes located on a common land: the land, as it was stated in the writings of Le Corbusier, should belong to everyone. Thus, the houses make up a beautiful readable composition, but can this space be considered a habitat?
In microdistricts, the courtyard area is perceived as urban, but not private. When the house does not face directly onto the street, but is located in the depths of the site, then the residents have a natural need to fence off their territory.
Thus, an impenetrable wall of endless fences is formed in the city.
Frontal development, typical of historical quarters, creates a natural border between street and courtyard spaces and does not require the construction of additional fences.
If we talk about the scale and relations of society within the building, then, it is clear that with a quarterly building with a lower population density, all residents know their neighbors. In the microdistrict, the situation is reversed, so even the entrance of a multi-storey residential building is not perceived as a private space. As for the courtyards inside the microdistrict, they abound in waste territories, vacant lots of undetermined purpose are formed there, which cannot be mastered by residents, there are unreasonable driveways and spontaneous parking lots.
In the block, we can usually see a calm and quiet courtyard and orderly parallel parking along the streets.
Another issue concerns infrastructure and public functions. In a residential neighborhood, services are mainly offered by private businesses, but all of them, as a rule, are located in inconvenient and random places, for example, in the basement of a residential building or between exits from entrances, and the life of such enterprises is extremely unstable.
It is another matter when, initially, during the construction of a building, its first floors are assigned to public functions.
In this case, a completely comfortable urban environment is formed."
Andrei Gnezdilov also spoke about the differences between a highway in a microdistrict and a street in a block building.
The highway is, first of all, a transport artery devoid of a building front, and the street is a public space for citizens.
The block has a continuous and permeable network with a high density of streets, while in the micro-districts there is a sparse grid with long distances. For example, in Barcelona, a city with a pronounced quarterly development, the street density is 16 km of streets per 1 sq. km, and in the average residential area of Moscow this figure is only 6-8 km of streets per 1 sq. km. km. It is clear that the permeability and connectedness of the environment in Barcelona is much higher than in Moscow.
In order to form a new high-quality urban environment, Andrei Gnezdilov proposed returning to block development, which was very popular in Russian practice before the revolution. Regular building made it possible to properly master the space, replace and transform buildings without changing the transport, pedestrian and public framework of the city. In the practice of the Ostozhenka bureau, where Andrei Gnezdilov worked for a long time, there was experience in the practical application of the principles of quarter development, in particular, in projects developed for Samara and Tver. Neighborhoods should include public functions - schools, parks, etc. The options for building a quarter can be very different.
Gnezdilov also showed examples from the practice of Narine Tyutcheva, who, together with her students at the Moscow Architectural Institute, developed Veshnyaki district revitalization project, within the framework of which this territory could be re-planned into quarter development. With such a decision, all indicators that determine the standard of living of the population would increase - the percentage of greenery, localities and the number of residents would increase. Roughly the same experience was proposed for the Novogireevo area.
Sergey Melnichenko, General Director of the Guild of Architects and Designers, on the norms of urban planning:
“My task is to try to develop standards and rules under which the topic of today's seminar would become not just a subject of conversation, but a norm of life. You have to understand that today we are not starting from scratch.
Before the revolution, there was a very good regulatory framework in Russia, and the rules were very simple and straightforward.
Today, the basic principles in the development of urban design standards for us are simplicity and consideration of traditions, realism, brevity of presentation, consideration of the territorial factor, the obligation to apply the norms and control over their implementation.
It is clear that each separate district of Moscow differs from the neighboring one, therefore, individual approaches are required, however, the principles of the formation of residential buildings should be similar. Few people know by what principle city territories are selected for reconstruction and preparation of a planning project. It is clear that all changes occurring, an increase in population density, etc. are taken into account.
But more than a hundred years ago, the British, planning reconstruction, studied the state of health of people living in this area.
It seems to me that it would be interesting to use this method for a comprehensive coverage of urban planning issues. If in some part of the city the mortality rate turns out to be higher than the norm, an investigation of housing and hygienic conditions should be appointed, architects, statisticians, etc. should be invited. A comfortable environment is determined, among other things, by the state of health of the population.
Laws and norms must be written in a simple and understandable language, and these norms must be humane.
I will cite an illustrative document from 1928, from which it can be seen that already at the beginning of the 20th century, the designers understood that Moscow is a heterogeneous city requiring a certain zoning. In addition, in this document, the norm of the maximum height for each zone of Moscow was indicated, when the height of buildings decreased from the center to the periphery. This is just an example of standards addressed to a person."
At the end of his speech, Melnichenko cited as an example the book of American authors Ch. J. Ramsey and G. R. Sleeper "Architectural Standards", where only 17 pages out of 1070 set out all the basic principles of urban planning and there are answers to all questions. He also said that a law is currently being developed as an obligation of the city to society, which so far fits in only 14 pages. But also instructions will be attached to the law, which will provide the most detailed information with a variety of examples from world practice.
Hans Stimmann
shared his experience of planning Berlin after the fall of the Berlin Wall:
“Between 1949 and 1989, Berlin was not only divided politically, it was full of contradictions in terms of urban development.
West Berlin was oriented towards Los Angeles and New York, while Moscow was an example for East Berlin.
After the unification of Berlin, the plans of the 18th – 19th centuries became the basis for the new development of the city. In the face of the complete loss of historic buildings, the city's layout, street profile and shape of squares became the main bearers of city memory and the foundation of Berlin's new master plan. Also, the master plan fixed the height of the building, and this meant parting with the picture of an open city, functionalism and post-war modernism characteristic of Berlin.
We turned to the pre-modern street layout and developed it.
This quality is perceived primarily by pedestrians and cyclists. And this is a prerequisite for new-found urbanization.
Quarterly residential developments in Barcelona, Budapest, Milan, Paris and Berlin in the real estate market belong to the premium class.
The success of the neighborhoods is determined by the attractiveness of the street space with a simple system of connections.
The central districts of Moscow, with their mixture of circular and radial streets converging in the center, are an example of 19th century urban planning. You can easily navigate in Moscow without any navigation devices. And this is the main historical value of the city, which must be preserved. When planning the city's transport network, it is necessary to give priority to pedestrians and cyclists, organize pedestrian zones, develop public transport, promote the concept of targeted use of parking spaces for residents of this particular area, and organize intercepting parking lots. We have made extensive use of this experience in Berlin, and the result of this policy is that the city center has become more attractive. The city model for cars a la Los Angeles is no longer relevant today."
At the end of the speeches of the main speakers, a discussion of the presented reports took place, during which
Alexander Vysokovsky
asked the question: why, knowing all the advantages of block development, we continue to build multi-storey microdistricts with chaotically placed houses? According to Vysokovsky, the problem of the transition to quarterly construction is in the area of not only architectural, but rather legal, legal, economic and political discourse. He stressed that
block development is, first of all, the personalization of space, the way to create an environment marked by the person living here.
It is necessary to regulate and regulate social processes. There will be a very serious conversation with the norms of urban planning. The problem is that in Moscow there is no central urban development link, namely, legal regulation with the help of land use and development rules. It is necessary to regulate the relationship between developers, residents and authorities.
Ekaterina Larionova, Head of the Department of Territorial Development of the Academy of National Economy of the Civil Service under the President of Russia, commented on the important thesis that
density, not altitude, should be a priority for Moscow.
However, it remained unclear for her how to work with this thesis. If we are talking about the historical center, then, of course, it is better not to increase the number of storeys there. But if we are talking about the periphery, then a high number of storeys is acceptable with good infrastructure. The delicacy of the approach is important when ensuring density. In the projects presented in Sergey Kuznetsov's presentation, Yekaterina Larionova saw excessive laconicism and asceticism, but in her opinion, it is important to take into account other factors when developing standards. In England, for example, a whole catalog of universal urban planning solutions was created, used in the design of typical buildings in London, and there was no asceticism, there was aesthetics.
She also posed the question: is Moscow at the present stage of its development a European city, or does it gravitate more towards an Asian city?
Is it right for the capital to follow the European development model?
From the point of view of creating a new regulatory framework, according to Ekaterina Larionova, this is very important to understand.
Sergey Kuznetsov
I noticed that the principle is important, not the form. The principle of zoning space into private and public is mandatory. Of course, the city should be diverse, but the periphery should not differ from the center only by minuses. Kuznetsov stressed that he and his team will persistently implement the principles of humanity in the environment. The stake is made on the revival of the traditions of Russian urban planning, and here it is no longer important which city to consider Moscow - European or Asian.
Maxim Perov
objected to Sergei Kuznetsov, noting that Moscow developed as a European city for only 15 years, starting in 1899, after which the war began, and then there was already Soviet urban planning. According to Perov, today it is important to think about the methodological foundations. The crisis of the design methodology is associated with the fact that the entire toolkit is sharpened for the industrial economy, while now there is a transition to post-industrial development.
Sergey Kuznetsov
replied that at present, on behalf of the mayor of Moscow, the Moskomarkhitektura is preparing amendments to the town planning code. He called on his colleagues to actively participate and expressed his readiness to listen to all suggestions and wishes.
Irina Irbitskaya, Director of the Center for Urban Development Competence of the Academy of National Economy spoke about the importance of transition to new design standards. Their appearance is extremely necessary, because today, with the current design standards, only a genius can develop a good project. And since there are not so many geniuses in the country, we get those very sleeping areas. With the advent of new standards, people who produce microdistricts will get a good tool for creating a high-quality urban environment.
Evgeny Ass
noticed that the urban planning discourse in our country is still very poorly developed. This meeting, in his opinion, in this sense is somewhat one-sided.
Previously, a radiant city was considered humanism, now it is a quarterly layout.
But in fact, everything is not so simple. The discussion of what a modern city should be like is going on all over the world. If Dutch or Finnish colleagues were present here, they would have doubted such a unambiguous decision. In Finnish cities, for example, there is no quarterly regulation, but there is a fantastic quality environment. According to Ass, this is a matter of repeated and very competent discussion.
Summing up the discussion, seminar moderator Boris Dolgin
supported Evgeny Assa, noting that the conversation was just the beginning of a long and productive discussion: “It is important that we have come to the realization of the need to humanize architecture. Then the question arises, how to create conditions for the implementation of the aforementioned theses?"
