Multifunctional shopping center on Zemlyanoy Val
The project of the complex was presented to the council by its author Alexey Ginzburg, head of the “Ginzburg Architects” bureau. The site occupies a site free of construction at the entrance to Taganskaya Square. At different times, they wanted to build an office center, a multifunctional complex, or a hotel, and last year they decided to build a multifunctional center here with trade and public functions.
Taganskaya Square was originally formed as a trade, and it was surrounded by dense urban development. However, during the construction of the Garden Ring, many historical quarters were partially or completely demolished. So a vacant lot arose at the site of the proposed construction. The architects set themselves a difficult urban planning task: to restore the quarter and at the same time to solve the building so that it echoes the dominant of the square - the Taganka Theater, located opposite.
The authors have developed several variants of the project, taking into account the relief that rises towards Taganskaya Square, and partially covering the building plot of two security zones. The building is planted along the boundaries of the site, with a separate entrance to the complex, a pedestrian sidewalk and even an internal street 6 meters wide. It is planned to make a large atrium inside the multifunctional complex, into which all spaces of the complex will be turned - shops, a cinema, restaurants and cafes.
The main solution for the facades is focused on creating a fractional volume, consisting of three elements, which made it possible to link the center with the heterogeneous buildings of Taganka. Dark brick is a response to the architecture of the theater, while elongated vertical glazed openings, on the contrary, contrast with its blank walls. Where the building falls into the security zones, the brick volumes are lowered, and completely glass, and therefore almost immaterial floors protrude above them. In addition to this option, other versions were proposed - for example, with the active use of white stone instead of brick.
Discussing this project, the council members took into account the incredible complexity of the existing urban planning situation. Hans Stimmann even marveled at the courage of the authors who undertake to unravel such a "tangle". However, there were more than enough questions and comments to the presented work to send it for serious revision.
Firstly, some discrepancies with the GPZU at elevation marks were immediately identified. The maximum possible height of the building should not exceed 15.8 m. And if this parameter is observed on the south side, then from the north, where the relief is significantly reduced, the height of the building in terms of absolute marks reaches 22 m.
Secondly, transport issues remained unresolved: the drive along the IFC is only 6 m wide, which is not enough to ensure normal traffic. Council members unanimously noted that the location of the shopping center will put a colossal load on the road network, which is already heavily congested. In this regard, the question arose: why did the customer abandon the earlier decision to build a hotel? According to the speaker, this was a necessary measure related to the economic component of the project. Andrei Gnezdilov questioned the decision, which did not imply an upper entrance to the territory, instead of which there was a dead-end courtyard. In his opinion, it would be more correct to connect the yard with the road. Alexey Ginzburg explained this by the fact that such a bundle is greatly hampered by a difference in marks of about 2.5 m.
The construction of the complex in the presented form is also unjustified from the point of view of landscape-visual analysis, since its corner blocks the view of the temple of Martin the Confessor. To maintain an overview, you need to lower the height of the building in this place to 11 m.
But the main obstacle was identified by Alexander Kibovsky, who reminded his colleagues that there are security zones on the site, and construction there is prohibited under Russian law. However, if council members consider that building is needed in this place, then it is possible to revise their boundaries. But, while this issue remains unresolved, there is no point in discussing the project.
Among other things, the council members made a lot of comments on the structure and architecture of the building. Sergei Choban noticed that the trade function does not get along very well with so many windows, which is more consistent with the image of an office and business center. In addition, the use of glass is not justified everywhere functionally. Ginzburg, in turn, assured the audience that no cupboards and screens would appear near the windows. On the upper floors, along the window openings and in areas with panoramic glazing, it is planned to place cafes and restaurants, and below, where the retail premises are located, the windows will serve as showcases.
Alexander Kudryavtsev doubted that the completely horizontal completion of the building correlates with the theater. The author of the project explained that the theater was the reason for such a silhouette decision: "The horizontal line softened by glass volumes on the sides best of all responds to the architecture of the theater with its blank facades and heavy structure."
Hans Stimmann noted that the authors of the project studied the history of the site very well, but advised the corner of the building facing Taganskaya Square to be made more pronounced and readable. After this remark of Stimman, a lively discussion on the topic of angles unfolded. Sergei Choban noted that if the authors, together with the investor, did not try to get as close as possible to the parameters prescribed in the GPZU, but would design an object appropriate for this particular site, then the corners would have to be removed altogether. “In the left corner, which is very representative from the point of view of the visual image, there is an entrance to the ramp with a catastrophically small radius of 4.5 m, which cannot be considered public. On the right, the distance from the projected complex to the neighboring building is only 6 meters, which very much resembles the principles of urban planning of the Middle Ages. Perhaps it would be worth giving permission for the construction of two additional floors, but to avoid urban chaos? " Choban asked his colleagues. Vladimir Plotkin, although he supported the project in general, noting the enormous work done by the authors, agreed that the northern corner raises great doubts: "The authors had attempts to make the corner easier and easier, and they seem to be more successful." Plotkin also advised to look very carefully at the planning structure, especially from the point of view of arrival at the parking lot.
As for the façade solutions, here the opinions were again divided. Mikhail Posokhin noted the division of the building into three volumes as a positive moment. Andrei Bokov said that it was necessary to get rid of the glass volumes, and Tchoban advised against imitating the Taganka Theater, an architectural masterpiece of its time, which should continue to be one of a kind. Sergey Kuznetsov proposed to make the front front of the building more ceremonial and open to the city, providing for several additional entrances.
At the end of a stormy and lengthy discussion, the members of the council agreed that the authors had done a tremendous job and, given the incredibly difficult situation at the site, found a good solution, which, taking into account all the comments, is quite possible to implement. Summing up, Sergei Kuznetsov advised the architects to finalize the project, which will be discussed again in the near future as a working consideration. As for the protected zones, their boundaries are likely to be adjusted.
Residential complex with underground parking and social infrastructure on Serpukhovsky Val
The project of a residential complex located on Serpukhovsky Val was presented to the council by Alexandra Kuzmina from Mezonproekt. She said that the work of the workshop on the site, where the industrial enterprise used to be located, has been going on since 2010. The first thing that should have been paid attention to when designing was the transport situation and the interaction of the complex with the nearby architectural monuments, in particular, with the Donskoy Monastery and its necropolis. The tracing of red lines cuts off about 1 hectare from the site, which made it possible to form its own dedicated lane for traffic along almost the entire perimeter of the site. As for the monuments, the landscape-visual analysis showed that the appearance of such a large complex here will not affect the perception of cultural heritage objects.
The stylistic decision of the complex, according to Kuzmina, was dictated by the preferences of future residents: according to a survey conducted by marketers, potential buyers of apartments are unambiguously inclined in favor of the Stalinist Empire style. Played a role and the name of the project - "Donskoy Olympus", which is why the authors decided to play with the theme of Ancient Greece in small forms and especially in the interior. The color scheme of the buildings is designed in linen and olive shades. Supposed materials for cladding are clinker tiles and archstone.
Also on the territory it is planned to build a kindergarten for 110 children. A public square with a low pavilion in the center is planned in front of the complex, which will house a restaurant, an exhibition block and, possibly, a club.
Even before Alexandra Kuzmina's speech, Sergei Kuznetsov explained to his colleagues that the customer had received an examination decision and a permit for the construction of the complex even before the law on AGR came into force. To date, the layout of the territory and the parameters of the building have already taken shape and cannot be corrected. Therefore, only the figurative and stylistic solution of the complex should be the subject of consideration. In this regard, small comments were made about the stylobate part, which Kuznetsov proposed to solve in a more brutal way, bringing it closer to the landscape. Hans Stimmann recommended that the authors reconsider the color scheme of the facades, which he called frankly unsuccessful. “Now it looks as if the permissible height of the complex runs clearly along the dividing line, and the authors are trying to hide everything that is higher by painting the tops of the buildings in an almost invisible color. On the left side, this line should be omitted, and on the right, it should be abandoned altogether,”concluded Stimmann.
Yuri Grigoryan was surprised that this project was submitted for consideration by the Arch Council: “The decision has already been made, construction has begun, the market dictates both the town-planning decision and the style of the Stalinist Empire style. The question is: what is the architect doing here?"
Nevertheless, it was decided to approve the project, obliging the authors to take into account all the comments made.
