The reconstruction project of the capital's Triumfalnaya Square this week was in the center of attention of the architectural blogosphere. Blogger Ilya Varlamov has been closely following the square since July, when, to everyone's indignation, the white tents of Chaikhona No. 1 were erected there. The Moskomarkhitektury then commented that a competition for landscaping would be held and Chaikhona would be removed in the fall. And so it happened: Ilya Varlamov writes that the Moscow Department of Overhaul has already chosen a designer - “it was an unknown company that had previously repaired hospitals,” the blogger reports, and adds that “when selecting the winner, the design experience or qualifications of engineers have a weight of only 3 %, and the proposed deadline is almost half. " However, it was not the plans of the department that held the competition that sowed confusion in the blogs, but an alternative reconstruction project published by Varlamov, made on a voluntary basis by architects from the Megabudka bureau. The architects boldly proposed to drown the Mayakovsky monument into the deepening of the new amphitheater, for which they paid. “In a nightmare, Kibalnikov and Chechulin could not have dreamed that their creation would be put in a pit,” Mikhail Zaikin, for example, comments on this. But the "immersion" of the monument "completely neutralizes the public pathos and its political power," notes Ekaterina Degot. Nikita Asadov believes that “they will cover it with a tile and that's it, and the project is quite appropriate and in the spirit of the times, quite a hipster-friend,” especially since so far there is nothing to oppose the modern trend of popularizing urbanism and replicating successful analogs, the architect concludes. And the netcomment user generally believes that Varlamov is thus lobbying for the construction of an underground parking lot, which in reality will turn out to be an underground shopping center.
Elena Gonzalez is of a different opinion, according to which “Megabudka” should not have proposed such a project even in the order of Komsomol enthusiasm: “We must completely forget how to understand the city in order to produce such clones of Gorky Park on it. Should architects have at least some sense of place? " - writes the critic. "Putting a monument to Mayakovsky in the pit at the entrance to the underground stall and toilet is beyond the bounds of vulgarity." At this, the discussion on the ProRus blog turned into a dispute about whether Megabudka should have advertised its proposal at all, because, according to Elena Gonzalez, “it’s somehow completely sad to receive this not from villainous construction contractors, but from my brother architect ". Others are sure that Megabudka did everything right and on time, revealing the urgency and urgency of the problem.
In the community moya-moskva.livejournal.com, in the light of the final of the competition in Zaryadye, bloggers discussed an alternative concept that would meet the wishes of city defenders. The project originates from the previous, declared unsuccessful competition in 2012 and is an architectural and archaeological reserve. However, not everyone recognized the restoration of monuments in Zaryadye as a good substitute for the “natural urbanism” of Diller Scofidio + Renfro. For example, user shurikbarne writes that “it's good to restore hot on the trail. And what we were obviously overfed with were remake museums, regular squares and tile paths”. The discussion between supporters and opponents of "re-creation" continued in the blog of the St. Petersburg critic Maria Elkina. More recently, passions raged here around the Judicial District, in the place of which the author of the blog defended exclusively the park. Now Maria Elkina is defending the current project of the park in Zaryadye, arguing with Arkhnadzor and its supporters.
The author of the blog az-mnogogreshny.livejournal.com also entered the controversy, writing that he won "the most fabulous, freaky project, clearly not designed for implementation." However, the blogger considers the idea of restoring the lost monuments to be unsuccessful. Instead, az-mnogogreshny proposed to emphasize the merits of today's Zaryadye as an excellent vantage point by organizing observation platforms and visual corridors in the park. The closest thing to this idea, according to the author of the blog, is the TPO "Reserve" project. In the comments, the author's position was approved: instead of "bells and whistles with tundra and caves", many would agree to see in Zaryadye "just a beautiful park without ideas."
By the way, since November a new interesting resource has been launched on the network - the "Map of the ages of Moscow", where you yourself can track the historical strata in the buildings of the capital. The ages are marked with flowers - all pre-revolutionary Moscow, for example, lilac, and the subsequent XX century is divided into "stylistic periods" that coincide with the reign of the general secretaries, which is closed by the only mayor in this row - Yuri Luzhkov.
And the urban planning policy of the current Moscow authorities continues to be discussed in the RUPA community of urbanists. The reason for a new discussion was the "manifesto of quarterly development", published the day before in "Vedomosti". The article dealt with the "new urban planning concept", which is being prepared for Moscow by the Research and Development Institute of the General Plan, Moskomarkhitektura and MNIITEP. Well, at RUPA they tried to figure out how the quarterly principle of development fundamentally differs from the microdistrict one. “The main difference between“K”and“M”is the principle of planning. For "M" it is free, ie. not tied to the structure of the UDS, - comments Vasily Baburov. - Completely different "ideology" of the UDS - block development does not provide for the movement of transport inside (ie through the courtyards). " But on the way to kindergarten or school, you will have to cross the streets, reminds Alexander Antonov, while in the microdistrict - "everything is at hand." Urbanists have recognized that, ideally, both models are good; in an ideal microdistrict, for example, a complete spatial separation of pedestrians and vehicles was assumed, writes Vasily Baburov, recalling the experiment in North Chertanovo. But the Moscow authorities, according to Om Mireazmov, listing the advantages of the quarters, pursue other goals - "to allow the construction lobby to build the same high-rise buildings even denser than now."
The specific Moscow context, as you know, gives all Western models a special flavor - this is convincingly written by the author of the blog alexineu.wordpress.com, which studies the gentrification of the Ostozhenka area "in a Moscow way". Where in Europe, as a result of similar processes, unattractive urban areas are turning into tourist areas, in Moscow the once interesting area with the potential has turned into a gold mine, which turned into an absolute disaster for the urban environment, concludes alexineu.
Well, the constant critic of the capital's mayor's office and one of the authors of the blog ru-vederko.livejournal.com Peter Shkumatov this week earned reproaches for lobbying the interests of motorists for his recent post about the uselessness of paid parking. The blogger considers the innovation to be a “tool for creating difficulties” for motorists, which, however, will not reduce the peak traffic loads, because the residents of the Zamkadye will immediately come to the vacant place on the road. They have no other choice, because investors, building up former agricultural fields, do not give money to create infrastructure, including the development of public transport, the blogger writes. The author made a radical conclusion - to limit the growth of Moscow and its population, which, of course, does not fit into the plans of the mayor's office, and, by the way, is disputed by other bloggers who are confident that the stake on the development of OT will save from transport collapse.
