Project of a hotel complex in Kursoviy lane
The architects of Tsimailo Lyashenko & Partners presented a new version of the hotel complex, which is supposed to be built in the Ostozhenka area, at the corner of Kursovy and Pozharsky lanes. The previous version of the building, designed by Scott Brownrigg and ABV GROUP, has already been reviewed by the Archcouncil, but has not received approval. As a result, the designers changed and the appearance of the complex changed completely. Instead of a glazed cubic volume with displaced floors, a trapezoidal monolithic house made of light stone with beautifully recessed window openings appeared.
Two versions of the project were presented, but one of them - with balconies protruding from the end - was 4 meters higher than the permissible altitude parameters, so the council members decided to support the version corresponding to the issued GPZU.
The council was somewhat embarrassed by the monotonous and at the same time pretentious decision of the building. The complex is clearly visible from Pozharsky Lane and, in the opinion of most council members, attracts too much attention. Andrey Gnezdilov noted the high quality and level of elaboration of the project, but, according to him, the building was made even too well: “for the context of the lane, such monumentality is a slightly overestimated self-esteem”. Gnezdilov was also supported by Evgeny Ass, who also noted some incompleteness of the volume with windows going nowhere.
Yuri Grigoryan disagreed with this statement. In his opinion, this project is much better than the previous one, and if the authors manage to stop at a height of 24 meters, then it is quite possible to achieve a good quality of construction. A similar opinion was expressed by Sergei Tchoban and Hans Stimmann, who are confident that very good results have been achieved since the last review. Vladimir Plotkin advised the authors to think about the courtyard facade, but emphasized that in general the building is being built very neatly into the environment. “The house itself is wonderful,” Andrei Bokov objected, “but it has nothing to do with the context. At the very least, the authors should have taken a closer look at its corner part, located at the intersection of Pozharsky and Kursovoy lanes. Now it is not marked in any way."
Another serious remark was caused by the master plan of the site: it does not organize public spaces and adjacent territories and does not solve the problem of interaction with neighbors. If we touch on the details, the mistake, according to Bokov, is the location of the gallery along the courtyard: its location on this side of the building is not justified. One gallery along the lane is quite enough. In addition, Bokov was embarrassed by the balconies, which, according to him, are not used in a permanent dwelling, let alone a temporary one.
Alexander Kudryavtsev was in solidarity with most of his colleagues on the board and gave preference to the 24-meter version, however, even if the height restrictions are observed, from his point of view, the volume seems hypertrophied - if we consider it as the end of the perspective. "A fairly large 6-storey monument appears on the site, which actually changes the main characteristics of the existing urban environment, its inherent features are replaced with completely new ones, and their advantage over the previous ones is not yet obvious," concluded Kudryavtsev.
Nevertheless, it was decided to support the submitted project, recommending that the authors pay more attention to the issue of interaction with neighboring areas, articulate the angle and finalize such controversial solutions as the gallery and balconies.
Hotel and office complex on Leningradsky Prospekt
A new version of the project of the complex, which was previously developed by the ABD bureau, was presented to the council members by its author Evgeny Gerasimov, who specially arrived in the capital from St. Petersburg to the Arch Council. According to his proposal, a 153-meter tower should appear on Leningradsky Prospekt, repeating the style of Stalin's skyscrapers. As a reminder, according to the results of the previous review, the customer was recommended to work out just such an option - with a high-rise tower and in accordance with the historical building of the avenue. The complex adopts the features of the famous Moscow skyscrapers in silhouette, in architectural details, and in finishing materials: mainly natural light stone is used. The high-rise with a spire is slightly shifted inland from the avenue, and the laconic and low volume of the administrative block goes directly to the Third Transport Ring. The tower and the block are united by a common 2-storey base, and there is a significant gap between them.
In addition to the figurative solution, which, according to the architect, brings us back to the traditions of Moscow construction, the tower allowed to significantly reduce the building area, freeing up a large space between the projected complex, the adjacent residential building and the Sovetskaya hotel. On this territory, it is proposed to create a green boulevard with fountains, and arrange passages for cars along the facades of buildings. In addition, it was decided to move the volume of the complex away from the red line in order to organize a wide pedestrian promenade in front of it.
Yuri Grigoryan immediately asked the authors a direct question about the exploitation of the image of Stalin's skyscrapers. In his opinion, the chosen style in a sense parodies the image of the "seven sisters", trying to stand in one row with them. In this regard, there is a danger of repeating the history of the Donstroy tower, which became a great trauma for the city. Now is a different era, but the authors of the project are trying to return to the past, devaluing the original Moscow. According to Grigoryan, it is possible to refer to traditions, but not so literally.
“The design should be approached very responsibly,” objected Evgeny Gerasimov. - Everything that is being built today is modern architecture. We are not trying to parody the past, but we are taking a step towards traditions. This does not change the evolutionary path of development."
Mikhail Posokhin also disagreed with Grigoryan. He is confident that the council made no mistake in proposing to revise the GPZU. As a result of the emergence of an expressive high-rise volume, the city will receive a new accent and landmark. In addition, the present project does not try to imitate the past; it contains many elements of modern architecture.
Andrey Bokov approved the very idea of inviting architects from St. Petersburg to Moscow. According to him, this experience opened up a lot of new opportunities and showed a different view of work within the capital. For example, the decision to move the tower away from the TTK would never have occurred to a Moscow architect, but here it looks more than appropriate. Hans Stimmann adheres to a different opinion: from an urban planning point of view, it is wrong to place a high-rise in such a way, it contradicts the morphology of the city; it would be much more logical to continue the line of the avenue. In addition, it seemed incomprehensible to Stimman the decision with the administrative block, which is not adjacent to the tower, but strangely moved away from it: in Berlin, the technique is often used when the tower grows out of the block.
Evgeny Gerasimov explained that such a decision is related to the perception of volume. From a distant perspective, it doesn't matter which side the tower is on, but close up it looks much more appropriate in the right side of the complex, echoing with Burov's house and not “drowning out” the narrow part from the side of the Third Transport Ring.
The block of the administrative building raised many questions among the council members. This decision was categorically disliked by Mikhail Posokhin, who suggested combining it with the tower at least with an atrium. Andrei Gnezdilov expressed concern that even if the gap between the volumes remains at the construction stage, they will still try to build it up in the near future.
Evgeny Ass noted that this project belongs to the typology of New York skyscrapers rather than Moscow ones. Stalin's towers, as a rule, were located on the square, occupying a dominant position in the city, in this case the indent from the red line was justified, which cannot be said about the situation on Leningradka. The language of the tectonic Moscow skyscrapers turns out to be embedded in conditions that are not typical for them. Ass suggested abandoning the idea of drawing parallels with seven skyscrapers, but making the complex part of a new era.
Of the small comments, the council members drew attention to the somewhat sagging spire of the tower, like in the Peking Hotel, suggested removing the driveways from the inner boulevard, providing direct access to the buildings, and also expressed the idea of setting up a view restaurant at the top of the high-rise.
In general, the project was supported with certain amendments and recommendations for further work.
The status of the conservatory building complex
Another question of the Archcouncil was devoted to the assignment of the status of a unique complex of buildings to the Moscow State Conservatory. PI Tchaikovsky on Bolshaya Nikitskaya street. There were no differences of opinion among those present, and the idea was unanimously supported.
