More than a month has passed since the announcement of the three finalists of the competition for the concept of Zaryadye Park, and we continue to publish the winning projects in detail. The project of the consortium MVDRV, which took the honorable third place, focuses on the historical heritage of this territory. The Russian architects in the consortium were the Atrium bureau of Vera Butko and Anton Nadtochy. We asked the architects to tell us more about the project and about the experience of cooperation with the famous Dutch.
Archi.ru:
So you suggested an archaeological park?
Anton Nadtochy:
- Archaeological - too simplistic interpretation. We have designed a modern park based on the history of this unique place.
Vera Butko:
“At the same time, we wanted to get away from literal re-creation as far as possible; not get hung up on restoration, reconstruction, or pure archeology, but give an up-to-date interpretation of history. I am a graduate of the Department of Restoration and have always been sensitive to history and monuments, but nevertheless, the order was for a new park and architects were invited precisely according to this criterion.
How did the idea of a modern interpretation of history come about?
Anton Nadtochy:
- As soon as the list of teams participating in the second round was announced, journalists began to call us, and we had - literally within five minutes - to decide what to say to them. Vera and I arranged a blitz-discussion on the topic: what is the main thing for us in this project, and what is Zaryadye associated with for Muscovites? - and very quickly came to the conclusion that its historical and cultural uniqueness is the most important thing. At our first meeting with Winnie Maas during the orientation workshop, this topic also became a priority. Accordingly, we talked with him about the history of Zaryadye, about archeology. We recalled Pompeii, talked about superposition (superposition of structures) and palimpsest (layering of meanings), about existing world analogues, about Moscow and Muscovites … Already on the first day we agreed on what to do, it remained to figure out how to reflect history and at the same time make the park modern.
Since it immediately became obvious to us that there was serious work to be done on the historical context, we invited Anna and Natalia Bronovitsky, the most experienced specialists in this field, to the team. We also turned to Russian consultants for cultural planning, dendrology, and transport issues for help.
Vera Butko:
“We were sure that the rest of the contestants would offer different interpretations of the history of the place. It seemed to us that this is the only correct solution for this site. And then, to our surprise, the others did not have anything like this.
- How did the project develop?
Vera Butko:
- It all started with such ruined catacombs … First, Maas suggested experimenting with the contour matrix of historical maps of Zaryadye, separating the layers in space into several levels. For example, they tried to "squeeze out" only houses, then only streets, to come up with some formal and semantic algorithms. Somewhere these new elements were made from clipped bushes, somewhere concrete to walk both on top and between them. The lower layer of the park was a labyrinth, which housed the main functional program, and the upper layer was a panoramic park. Effective and radical, but it was clear that no one would accept it. We thought it was impossible to build a labyrinth in the center of Moscow. As a result, it was possible to make the park comfortable and functional while retaining the bright initial idea.
The project is based on the principle of "superposition". The architects filtered out a number of maps of buildings that existed at different times, choosing the most interesting ones. Also, the plans of two unrealized projects were taken into account: Narkomtyazhprom and Chechulin's skyscrapers. The authors also introduced two diagonal view axes: from the double arch of the Kitay-Gorod wall to the Beklemishevskaya tower and from the skyscraper on Kotelnicheskaya to St. Basil's Cathedral. All together, combined in one layer, formed an ornamental grid of paths, not devoid of generalization, but still not decorative, but motivated by pre-existing buildings.
Since the historical relief of Zaryadye was destroyed even during the construction of the Rossiya Hotel, the mesh was bent to match the main elevation difference and the requirements of the projected functions. “The Dutch cut this ornament out of paper and bent it for a long time, pushed it through,” Vera Butko recalls. “So at some point the symbolic trace of the Vesnin brothers' tower, conceived in the 1920s, but not built, turned into a“bump”in the tourist center.”
The large number of paths allows you to create a variety of walking routes, turning the park into an emotional and intellectual attraction. Paths made of large hollow concrete blocks of two meters wide rise 40 cm above the ground. They are multifunctional: they also serve as benches and lanterns. As conceived by the architects, in any place one could sit down with his legs dangling. There are also niches for illumination directed both into the park and under the feet - therefore, their contours in the night views glow. In the dark, a net of light hovering over the grass and between the bushes would look tempting. The design of the paths, mainly laid on former roads, makes it easy to open any site for archaeological research and subsequent exposure. At the same time, the density of the network, provided by the combination of different maps, allows a large number of people to pass through the park: in the TZ the park was defined as "transit", people should stay in it no more than 1-2 hours. In this sense, the introduced diagonal view axes, among other things, guarantee the possibility of quickly traversing the territory. In general, the park turned out to be flexible, open to transformation: at any one could change both a fragment of its landscape and the function of any separate part - all this without prejudice to the overall concept and perception.
Many mini-parks, placed between the paths, have become the hallmark of the project. The explanatory note promises "750 gardens". This is a whole natural kaleidoscope based on the richness of Russian nature. Moreover, the authors, unlike their competitors, operate not so much with climatic zones as with landscape diversity, highlighting flooded meadows, country gardens, manor parks and other similar elements of various heights, natural texture, and varying degrees of naturalness of occurrence. So, from the original image of the "Pompeian labyrinth" in some places figured shorn bushes have been preserved. Exhibited in place of lost buildings, they look like an exaggerated historical setting and, at the same time, a piece of romanticized Versailles. This multi-sized puzzle with variant vegetation and functions was, to some extent, a response to the TOR's requirement to avoid large open spaces.
A noticeable difference between the project and the others is the parking lot, in the solution of which the original idea of the lower labyrinth was reflected. Paying attention to the presence of the root-park- in the word parking, the architects turned it into another underground landscape, where you can hide in bad weather, from where you can get to the Philharmonic Society and the Museum of Moscow. The entire rectangle of the foundation slab of the former hotel "Russia" was given to the parking lot: the number of parking spaces turned out to be much larger than the five hundred required according to the terms of reference, which allowed the authors to make the arrangement of cars quite free, and also to propose to move buses here from Vasilyevsky Spusk. In some places in the lower space, light wells appear - trees sprout from the lower tier to the upper tier, forming a smooth transition from the parking lot to the park. “We made the parking a continuation or, more precisely, the entrance to the park. The park began already here, and people, arriving in cars and buses, would immediately find themselves in a comfortable space,”explains Vera Butko.
At the park level, the perimeter of the hotel is marked with a tape of small decorative pools. A rounded hill almost in the center is a paraphrase of the "navel of the earth", under its dome there is a tourist information center "Moscow gates" - the poetic name echoes the idea of hospitality: tourists would get here, getting off buses and cars. The paths climb this hill, the gaps between them are covered with glass, on the surface of which one could also walk. The top point of the information center dome was supposed to become a viewing platform for photographing.
- How did you find yourself in the MVDRV consortium?
Anton Nadtochy:
- We met at the 2012 Venice Biennale (Sergei Kuznetsov had just been declared the chief architect of Moscow, the saga with competitions has not yet begun) and then agreed to do something joint, if the opportunity presented itself. During the year there were several attempts, both on our own and on their initiative, but it was only at Zaryadye that we first reached the stage of joint design. The Dutch were the initiators here.
By the way, in this competition the requirement for the participation of Russian architects in the consortium was not mandatory. But from our point of view, designing in such a place is not possible without a deep understanding of its specifics.
What are your impressions of the joint work?
Anton Nadtochy:
- We have extensive experience in working with foreign companies. We worked with German, British, French companies and our assessment of their activities in Russia is rather ambiguous.
But Zaryadye has become a very interesting and exciting work for us. MVRDV are some of the most conceptual architects in the world, they have a lot of experience in both realizations and competitions. Once they have developed a basic approach, they develop it consistently and uncompromisingly. Therefore, all their projects turn out to be very accurate, somewhere radical, but always conceptual and formally interesting. We were inspired by their work while still young architects. I especially remember the year 2000, a visit to the Holland pavilion at Expo 2000 in Hanover and the conceptual exposition they themselves developed at the Venice Biennale. It was super!
Vera Butko:
- They have a well-established technological process, which does not interfere with the creative principle. The whole team literally lights up with work, and all participants perfectly understand their tasks. Vini is, in principle, a very charming person, capable of sparking an idea; the architects in the bureau hear him perfectly, quickly grasp the idea and instantly start working - go to their places and everyone starts to do their part. Inside the team, there is an atmosphere of utmost trust and openness, and the internal responsibility of each member.
Anton Nadtochy:
- The Dutch have a completely different work structure. They have a high culture of organizing interaction between team members. It is difficult for us to find partner companies: engineers, designers, therefore, for example, it is easier for us to have our own designers on staff than to contact an external bureau - the culture of information exchange, dialogue between "allied partners" has not been formed.
They have - as I understand it, this is generally the case in Europe - there are many highly specialized companies, none of which does the entire volume of work on the project entirely; they interact with each other and at the same time they all work for a common end result. There are, of course, design "monsters" who can do everything from start to finish, but they fail in the creative part: they do everything, but at an average level.
In specialized companies, on the contrary, there are super-specialists who can do one thing very well. Therefore, they have a very well-developed interaction and exchange of information between bureaus with different specializations. In addition, MVRDV is an international company, they design and build all over the world, and this is also a specific experience.
- How was the work organized in this case?
Anton Nadtochy:
- First, a schedule was drawn up: two weeks for analysis, a month for developing a concept, then some more for shaking it up, submitting it, and so on. The general outline was determined and further MVRDV, as the leaders of the consortium, began a controversy between all participants in the process. We and the Swiss landscape designer Anuk Vogel were involved in the discussion. In the subsequent stages, the engineering company Arcadis. From time to time, the Dutch threw in such conceptual questions, asked them to all the participants in the process. For example: the task was to make the park modern; accordingly, the question “what is modernity?” Was discussed for a long time. and "what is modernity for Russia?"
At the end of July, there was a joint workshop in Rotterdam, where fundamental decisions were chosen from a variety of options.
In the process of work, we constantly analyzed and translated all the background information, participated in collective discussions and offered our options, formed a functional diagram, the entire cultural program. We have adapted and linked the proposals of our colleagues with the specifics of the territory, local mentality, norms, etc.
Vera Butko:
- We must pay tribute to the extraordinary capacity for work and productivity of the Dutch, their culture of graphic expression and the exchange of graphic information.
It was a great job and we are happy with both the process and the end result. We believe that our joint team managed to create not only a comfortable park space, but also to preserve and interpret the historical and cultural specifics of this unique place.
