On May 29, a press conference was held in the building of the Udarnik cinema, dedicated to summing up the results of a closed international competition for a project for the restoration of a former cinema and its adaptation to a museum of contemporary Russian art. During the press conference, the names of the three finalists were announced: first place was awarded to Robbrecht en Daem architecten (Belgium), second - Stephan Braunfels Architekten (Germany), and third - Arata Isozaki & Associates (Japan) … The final winner will be determined by the ordering party. We publish projects and reports from the press conference and comments from the jury members.
The press conference was held within the walls of the "Udarnik" cinema - a constructivist architectural monument, which is part of the famous House on the Embankment complex and built by Boris Iofan in 1931. On this rainy day, famous architects from all over the world, representatives of the largest museums of modern art, professors and art critics gathered in the bright hall of the first floor, illuminated by many large chandeliers immersed in vaults lined with regular large circles. Everyone was eagerly awaiting the announcement of the results of the competition. The participants - and a total of six teams were selected for the final design stage - awaited the results with excitement, and the large audience walking around the hall and examining the projects hung along the snow-white walls with genuine interest. And this is not surprising, because the International Cultural Foundation of Breus, which ordered the competition, announced its desire to turn the "Drummer" into a new museum two years ago. Since then, the public has watched the fate of this unique architectural monument of the early 20th century, not without concern.
But, I must say that the organizers approached the fulfillment of the task in a very reasonable and delicate manner. Only those architectural firms that have experience in implementing large-scale museum projects and restoration of architectural monuments were invited to participate in the competition. One of the main criteria for evaluating competition projects was a careful and respectful attitude towards the building. And the jury, which included such highly professional experts as curator Jean-Hubert Martin, architect Jean-Louis Cohen, director of the Museum of Modern Art in Antwerp Bart de Bare, director of the German Museum of Architecture DAM in Frankfurt am Main, Peter Schmal, director The State Museum of Contemporary Art in Thessaloniki Maria Tsantsanoglu, director of the NCCA Mikhail Mindlin, architect Sergey Skuratov and head of the BREUS Foundation Shalva Breus, could not but inspire confidence.
Bart de Bare, who began his speech with a declaration of love for the city of Moscow, noted that “the competition brought together the best architects, and each of them showed his own special vision of the future museum. For the jury, the choice was extremely difficult, since it was about an important site of the city, which was once the center of attraction for Muscovites. Years later, the cinema was abandoned and forgotten by the townspeople. Now the architects are faced with the task of returning this magnificent building to Muscovites."
Indeed, the participants of the competition were given a very difficult task - to preserve the special image and unique atmosphere of the cinema, to create a space of a completely different kind in it. Museum activity implies a large number of open and well-lit areas and various scenarios for organizing the exhibition space. Mikhail Mindlin noted that from the point of view of the museum, the area of the cinema is not large, and here, moreover, it is required to place not just a museum, but a real cultural center. At the same time, projects must clearly meet the requirements of restoration, and the proposed architectural solution should in no case overload the building.
Maria Cantsanoglu explained that the selection of the jury was based on three main criteria. Firstly, it was important whether the proposal was in line with the terms of reference of the competition and the principles of working with architectural monuments. Secondly, the possibility of the multifunctional use of the premises, the holding of various events in the building was assessed. And thirdly, the project was not supposed to intrude too actively into the architecture of the building, endowing it with features unusual for it. As noted by the jury, all six finalists did an excellent job with their tasks, but the victory remained with those who demonstrated the most delicate handling of the legacy of the past.
Peter Schmal, sharing his impressions of the jury meeting, said that the projects of the three leaders of the competition became apparent almost immediately. The question of the first place did not provoke any discussion either. But the projects that took the second and third places turned out to be very close in terms of the number of jury votes - the gap was minimal. At the same time, Shalva Breus stressed that, despite the distribution of seats, all three bureaus have a chance to conclude a contract with the customer for the implementation of the project. The final choice will be made within 2-3 weeks based on the results of personal negotiations between the customer and the architects.
We present the projects of the three finalists with the author's explanations and comments of the jury:
First place. Robbrecht en Daem architecten (Belgium)
The museum, according to the author, is a living organism. The head of the bureau Paul Robbrecht noted that the Udarnik building is a real representation of the world, not embellished with too many details. The protagonist of the project is the light, which literally fills all the premises of the museum, indicating a smooth transition from the semi-darkness of the basement to the most illuminated galleries under the dome of the building. Its architect made it open and transparent. In addition, the internal space of the museum has access to the river and a mesmerizing panorama of Moscow. The exhibition spaces are surrounded ("shrouded") by educational studios and archive rooms that preserve the history of the monument for the future.
Jean-Hubert Martin on the winning project
“The project is close to the original, to the image that Boris Iofan once conceived - and“Drummer”was created as a kind of sign in the city. Paul Robbrecht, in his project, provided opportunities for a very flexible use of the architectural features of the building and opened it to the inhabitants of the city. The uniqueness of the project lies in the abundance of natural light with which the architect fills the entire space of the museum thanks to the decision to open the central dome."
Peter Shmal I admired the sensitivity of the approach to the building:
"The author was looking for the soul of the building more than anyone else and, it seems, was able to find it." *** Second place. Stephan Braunfels Architekten (Germany)
Stefan Braunfels is sure that a museum of modern art presupposes the presence of a wide variety of cultural trends - in addition to painting and sculpture, it can be music, and dance, and a theater, a cinema, and a concert hall. Therefore, the author suggested creating a rather flexible space suitable for any contemporary art. The minimalism of his approach is due to the desire to leave as much exhibition space as possible, while retaining the shape of the circle, which is so actively used in the external appearance of the building and in its interiors. The ground floor has been converted into a large and open foyer that can also be used for temporary exhibitions. On the three levels above, it is proposed to organize premises for multifunctional use. Outside, the architect also makes some changes - for example, to arrange a large red "flag" over the main volume, which could simultaneously serve as a place for posters and banners. It is a temporary and, if necessary, easily disassembled object.
Peter Schmal:
“Braunfels offered a minimalist approach to creating a contemporary high-end museum. The project looks very convincing, although this approach, in my opinion, does not fit well with the building itself and Moscow as a whole - even from the point of view of its implementation. " *** Third place. Arata Isozaki & Associates (Japan)
Izozaki proposed to arrange three independent galleries inside the building. The second floor is reserved for the placement of large-sized exhibits. Another gallery, located on the lower level, is being transformed into a flexible and versatile space, while the third will serve as a media gallery, where, in particular, theatrical performances can be staged. Also on the ground floor there will be a large restaurant overlooking the river, and Isozaki will place all educational studios on the balcony. The facade facing the street, like the first floors of the building, makes it as open as possible. The original floor plan of the cinema remains virtually unchanged, except for the lowering of the ground floor level, which allows the exhibition space to be expanded. It is planned to use movable glass partitions to organize all kinds of exhibitions. The black cube in the center of the room serves as a mobile gallery. So, if necessary, the cube can turn white, hang in the air, or completely disappear.
