Project of an Orthodox Spiritual Center with a gymnasium in Yuzhny Butovo
An Orthodox center with a gymnasium for 160 students is supposed to be built in Yuzhnoye Butovo on the territory of the existing temple complex. The rectangular plot is bounded on one side by Ostafievskaya Street, on the other by Academician Pontryagin. Church buildings are surrounded by a very diverse building - from multi-storey panel housing to expensive cottages behind high fences. They have been planning to build a school here with an Orthodox bias for a long time, in addition to this, projects are being prepared for a new cathedral, significantly larger in size than the existing temple, as well as administrative and economic blocks.
As the speaker from the Rionela company told the council, when designing the spiritual center, the architects tried to follow the style of the existing ensemble, based on the traditions of Pskov and Novgorod architecture. The large school building occupies a long corner plot within the complex. One of its ends, facing the existing church and sandwiched between the projected economic and administrative buildings, is designed in the form of a traditional house church under a high golden dome. The facades of the school use the image of chambers with large arched vaults and numerous decorative elements. The building's shape and extensive glazing, according to the speaker, are linked to the need to provide adequate lighting in classrooms and recreational areas.
After listening to the report of the authors of the project, Sergey Kuznetsov explained why this work was submitted for discussion by the council. The fact is that recently the ICA has been actively discussing with the Moscow Heritage Committee and the Russian Orthodox Church the stylistics of temple structures, trying to understand whether it corresponds to the present day, whether it needs to be modernized, or, on the contrary, is strong in its archaism. The considered project of the gymnasium, included in the temple complex, exacerbated this discussion, in connection with which the chief architect decided to appeal to the council members.
Yevgenia Murinets told the audience that this project, firstly, does not correspond to the GPZU due to the excess of the permissible height - instead of the two floors allowed on this site, the architects designed a three-story building. Secondly, the proposed architectural solution raises a lot of questions. Indeed, the members of the council began the discussion with a heated discussion around the elaboration of plans, the functional content of the building and their discrepancy with the external image. Andrei Bokov advised the authors, before undertaking the design of such a significant project, to carefully study the history of architecture and, in particular, the works of A. V. Shchusev. Evgeny Ass asked the architects not to hide behind the word “Orthodoxy”, creating unconditionally bad architecture: “There is no Pskov or Novgorod school here. This is some kind of pseudo-quasi-Byzantine style with very poorly worked out details. Ass also had complaints about the planning structure of the building, where a dining room is arranged under the house church in the apse, and school recreation does not receive even half of the necessary lighting. In addition, he had a question related to the typology of the Orthodox school: should it somehow differ from the usual one? In the Butovo project, if there are any differences, then only for the worse.
In addition to the quality of drawing the facades, which clearly leaves much to be desired, Sergei Tchoban also saw a problem in the contradiction that arises between the very large scale of the building and the crushed details. In his opinion, the school should be viewed as an ensemble of several houses with a more human scale and clear structure, thanks to which the details would receive a completely different quality.
Mikhail Posokhin did not see in the project the joyful palette that is inherent in temple architecture. He also strongly disliked the numerous functionally not justified in any way, but at the same time expensive decorative elements. For example, the arrangement of a huge walking gallery along the entire elongated facade of the building, due to which almost the entire first floor disappears, seemed to him very irrational. According to Posokhin, the building should be simplified as much as possible, made cheaper and rid of unnecessary pathos. The school must not compete with the architecture of the existing temple. Posokhin was outraged by the authors' desire to "deceive" the townspeople, giving one of the ends of the gymnasium the appearance of a church, while inside there is not even a small chapel.
Andrey Gnezdilov also agreed with the rest of the council members. Recognizing that this is a very important and necessary project, he could not support it in any way, because "the sign does not correspond to the content." The project is frustrating with numerous fake components and such strange solutions as the entrance, organized right in the apse. And this is not to mention the fact that there is a very illiterately solved educational space, where dark rooms are hidden behind seemingly large stained-glass windows.
Alexei Vorontsov complained that the project destroyed one of the main achievements of pre-Petrine architecture - the cross-domed system, which the authors simply forgot about. Vorontsov advised the authors to think about how to make the building adequate to the present day. This idea was picked up by Alexander Kudryavtsev, who noted that in the 1910s. Orthodox architecture began to actively use elements of modernity, but the revolution interrupted the natural evolutionary development for many years. In this project, one can see an attempt to use the experience of the masters of architecture of the beginning of the last century, but its interpretation is too primitive. The authors, on the advice of Kudryavtsev, should carefully study the historical analogues.
Hans Stimmann in his speech delicately bypassed the issue of the architecture of the presented building, only wishing the authors more courage and courage in the future. His comments were about the urbanistic solution, in which there is no relationship between the buildings of the complex in the work. It is especially worth considering the relationship between the school and the existing church. The church, as a spiritual center, should stand out against the background of the surrounding buildings, especially public ones - which is the school. In addition, the proposed master plan does not imply the organization of the courtyard, which can also be regarded as a mistake. Fencing off from the city, the temple complex becomes very similar to a monastery. According to Stimmann, the arrangement of a small area between the temple and the school will immediately solve this problem, turning the complex into a cultural center accessible to the townspeople.
A similar remark was made by Sergei Kuznetsov: “A simple and convenient site in itself presupposes the arrangement of a large courtyard, but on the general plan, instead of this, the entire territory is methodically built up with buildings. It would be more correct to arrange the buildings around the perimeter. Summing up the discussion, the chief architect outlined a “maximum program” for revising the project: the architecture of the building should become calmer, the configuration should be revised taking into account the creation of an internal public square, and the plans should be brought in line with the external appearance and general requirements for educational institutions.
Administrative and communication center in Luzhniki
The administrative center, which will house the entire management of the Luzhniki complex, is supposed to be built on a site located between the park and the Third Transport Ring, on both sides of the substation in Novoluzhnetskiy proezd. The center is formed by two separate buildings. One, the main building, will occupy a trapezoidal area in the plan, and the second - a smaller elongated area, which is slightly to the side. The main building is a glass 7-storey volume, divided from the side of the park by two deep courtyards into three parts. Thus, the park façade turns out to be more fractional, less cumbersome. Continuous glazing of the walls allows you to best open the view of the green park from the offices. The authors proposed to make the façade facing the noisy Third Transport Ring, as well as the ends of the building adjacent to the adjacent buildings, less permeable. For this, high lamellas made of natural stone, pylons and blinds are used. And only the upper floors have panoramic glazing, since from there you can see the city and the Novodevichy Convent.
The representative of the Arena design institute, which developed the project, presented to the council three options for the volumetric-spatial solution of the center. The first one is the most laconic and economical, solved in simple rectangular volumes. The second has rounded courtyards, a colonnade and vertical stone pylons stretching out the silhouette. And the third is the most difficult to implement, with the silhouettes of blocks in the form of an inverted trapezoid.
Before discussing the project by the council members, Sergei Kuznetsov recalled that this object should become the final and one of the largest volumes in the Luzhniki panorama. In this regard, he asked to be especially attentive to the consideration of the project, but the council in its assessments was more unanimous than ever. Andrei Bokov proposed to completely abandon the discussion and give the authors the opportunity to independently choose the best option, since in terms of the quality of execution, all three versions are performed equally well. The members of Bokov's council heard, but decided to help the architects decide on the final version. Eugene Ass congratulated the authors on a successful project, and gave preference to the most rational first option, noting, however, that the scale of the park facade in it is large and here it would be worth borrowing the vertical division proposed in the second option.
The project was also praised by Vladimir Plotkin, who noted the absolute accuracy of the volumetric-spatial composition, the competent solution of the wall facing the Third Transport Ring, well-thought-out viewpoints and the presence of public ground floors, which will be especially in demand in such a large park. According to Plotkin, all three options could be successfully implemented in this place. But he gave his personal preference to the second solution - as brighter and more individual. Sergei Tchoban, on the contrary, found the second option dubious because of its mega-scale: “Such vertical columns and shutters are suitable for low 2- and 3-storey buildings. When you see them on a volume 26 meters high, a typology of government agencies begins to emerge. This is inappropriate here. In the first version, I like the laconicism and especially the division at the ends. This scale looks better than the colonnade or the giant frame offered in the latest version."
Alexander Kudryavtsev agreed with Choban. For him, the most important task is to preserve the Luzhniki ensemble with three main dominants and a panorama that opens from Vorobyovy Gory. “It is important to inherit the preservation of spatial ties within the ensemble, especially in view of the upcoming inclusion of this complex in the list of cultural heritage sites,” said Kudryavtsev. In solidarity with him, Alexei Vorontsov spoke out for the need to preserve the Luzhniki Stadium primarily as a sports park, and only then as an architectural ensemble.
Hans Stimmann reassured Vorontsov and was glad that the authors had quite succeeded in making the new object a part of the existing park. “From the point of view of an architectural solution, it is very difficult to combine the monumentality of the buildings of the Soviet period with the openness inherent in the present day. But the authors have coped with the integration,”Stimmann praised them. The only thing he advised to pay attention to was the excessive static nature of the facade facing the highway. The building, according to the German architect, must somehow react to speed, offering a spectacular image to passing motorists.
Mikhail Posokhin noted the high level of work and, supporting Vladimir Plotkin, noted that "the second option, if successfully implemented, has great potential to become a real architectural event." Andrey Gnezdilov expressed the same opinion and was the first to turn to the authors of the project, asking which version is closer to them. It turned out that both the architects and the client were in favor of the second option. After this recognition, further discussion came to naught. Sergey Kuznetsov offered to support the designers in their choice, especially since many of the council members were in solidarity with them.
