Theater Et Cetera on Turgenevskaya Square
The existing theater building was built at the intersection of the Boulevard Ring and Myasnitskaya Street according to the design of Andrey Bokov and Mosproekt-4. From the moment of the completion of construction to the present day, the possibility of building the second stage of the theater has been discussed, which should simultaneously solve several important tasks: to design the central entrance to the theater, which is practically nonexistent now, to compensate for the lack of premises and rehearsal rooms, and most importantly - to complete the look of one of the central squares cities. The small extension plays an important role in the formation of Turgenevskaya square, and also interacts with the nearby Bazhenov house of Yushkov.
The authors of the second stage of the Et Cetera theater - the company "SatCo-Alliance", which replaced the previous designers in 2013, showed the council the project, solved in the style of the building of Andrei Bokov. The one-storey entrance group is significantly moved forward, the main entrance is accentuated by a canopy and an extended semicircular pergola overlooking a cobbled square with a subway windmill hidden behind the new decor. In one of the variants, it is proposed to make the roof of the entrance group operable. The main volume of the extension is a seven-storey rounded block tightly docked to the theater. The glass portal with red balconies, as conceived by the authors, should balance the composition and add splendor to the main facade of the building. Inside, in addition to the spacious foyer, there should be a large rehearsal hall, a "pocket" of the stage and administrative premises.
The council members did not like the project at all. From a small complaint about a strange and ridiculous visor at the level of the second floor, expressed by Alexei Vorontsov, the experts moved on to serious and numerous comments. According to Yuri Grigoryan, the main advantage of the existing theater was that it was not visible, it was lost in the environment. The idea of the authors to continue its architecture in a new building, according to Grigoryan, is completely unacceptable: “Architects and developers have mutilated this historically significant place for the city for many years. Now a new young team comes and decides to continue this tradition. Why? . Not a bit more than stylistics, Grigoryan liked the volumetric-spatial composition and urban planning solution, according to the expert - illiterate, without logic, respect for monuments and even an attempt to create a full-fledged public space.
The opinion of his colleague was shared by Sergei Tchoban, who criticized the decision to connect the seven-story volume with the one and a half-story extension of the entrance group. The square, which should serve as a connecting element between the building and the city, performs the opposite task, fencing off the street and blocking the view of the mansion. The pergola in the city, where it is cold and snowy for most of the year, seemed completely inappropriate for Choban. In his opinion, the architecture of the extension should be modern, not associated with the unfortunate image of the theater, and the area in front of the entrance should be made open and free.
The decision to keep the metro ventilation chamber on the site angered all council members. There was a general opinion on the relocation of an ugly kiosk that would cover the entire perspective. However, the speaker objected that this was a forced decision: an expensive transfer is not currently possible. In the previous concept of the second stage, the ventilation kiosks were hidden under a common stylobate. But then the project was revised, funding was cut. The underground part had to be abandoned, and the kiosks were again on the surface.
According to Vladimir Plotkin, the way out of this situation could be an extension in the form of a modern monoblock, freed from all unnecessary parts. Sergei Kuznetsov spoke out more sharply, who, understanding the authors' desire to organize the front entrance area to the theater, nevertheless pointed out to them that they had achieved the opposite results: the facade rather resembles a utility block or a grocery store loading area. According to the chief architect of Moscow, in the second stage, the excess of details looks even more chaotic than in the first stage, the architecture of which is unpopular among the people. Asked by Kuznetsov about why such a decision was made for the extension, the customer's representative recalled the cut in funding, due to which the underground part had to be abandoned, and that the composition and structure of the volume were determined by the Department of Culture. To which Sergey Kuznetsov objected that it is always possible to apply to the Department with a request to reconsider their decisions, especially since today there are no obstacles for this.
Mikhail Posokhin admitted that the architecture of the Et Cetera theater has always caused him a feeling of absolute rejection. Taking into account the perspective development of Moscow, today it is impossible to emphasize and develop such an architecture. The extension made Mikhail Posokhin unpleasant associations with a foreign formation, a growth or even a wart. According to the expert, the implementation of such a project will cause irreparable damage to the city.
Andrey Gnezdilov also supported his colleagues. In the presented project, he was upset by literally everything - from plans that do not give an idea of how the space is arranged, to the architecture itself. “When looking at the plans, one gets the impression that this is not a theater, but a village club,” explained Gnezdilov. “I think that in this project the will of the architects was strongly suppressed. There is a feeling that someone very unprofessional is running the process. It's a shame that the customer often treats the city center as his own summer cottage, not understanding the role and significance of the object. I believe that in this case it is necessary to completely, from scratch, redesign the project, change the team and terms of reference."
The emotional discussion was summed up by Sergey Kuznetsov: the project should be completely revised, including the terms of reference.
Sports and recreation center with a water park on Borisovskie ponds
The project of the sports complex was carried out by the ATiS company. The building is supposed to be erected in a large park near Borisovskie ponds. The architecture, according to the authors, was determined by the complex relief of the site with large differences in heights and the proximity to the natural complex. Trying to preserve nature as much as possible, the authors decided to make the building itself a part of the park. This is how terraces and ramps arose, leading to the exploited roof, where landscaping and landscaping are provided. A significant part of the complex is occupied by a water park. Its windows face the ponds, while the exploited roof and terraces face the street. Glass facades, according to the designers, should minimize the presence of the building in the park.
Commenting on the project, Hans Stimmann noted that the authors contradict themselves: while declaring their intention to preserve the park space as much as possible, they actually arrange the building in such a way that they take away from the park much more than they should. In his opinion, the volume should be shifted closer to the street, leaving green spaces alone.
The main remarks of other members of the council, indeed, concerned the location of the building on the site. Andrei Gnezdilov chided the authors for the indistinct solution of the entrance zone - it cannot be found on the plans presented. It is not clear how the building interacts with the street. In front of the narrow and small entrance, which, however, is intended for a sufficiently large number of visitors, there is not even a tiny square. As for the organization of passages on the site, including the exit from the highway, arranged at an acute angle, then, in Gnezdilov's opinion, it does not stand up to criticism.
Sergey Kuznetsov saw the main problem in the fact that the designers ignore the existing public space of the park and, moreover, fenced off from it. The building is located on the relief and from the side of the park it goes underground. The park façade is followed by a fire passage and a high retaining wall. Thus, there is no connection with the park. The attempt to create a public space on the roof also looks unsuccessful, since the exploited roof opens onto the highway with its noise and constant flow of cars. At the same time, there is no possibility of reaching the surface of the roof above the water park, from where the ponds are just visible. “It seems that the building is set backwards,” commented Kuznetsov, “And the whole area around it is simply tormented by passages. And all this is happening where the primary task is to create a center of attraction for the residents of the district and a high-quality green environment."
To the remark of the chief architect, the speakers replied that such an arrangement of the volume is quite justified: it is important to open a view of the water surface from the water park, it looks very attractive to visitors. It is impossible to arrange an exploited roof over the water park for technical reasons. Vladimir Plotkin agreed with the designers on this issue, stressing that it is important to determine the priorities here. At the same time, he noted that if he himself was engaged in the design, he would have made a choice in favor of species from the exploited roof, and even better - would combine one with the other. The functional content of the complex is correct and necessary for the residents of the area, but the building should be reoriented, Plotkin is convinced. Although his main remark was about the confusion of an insufficiently worked out master plan.
The submission of materials angered Mikhail Posokhin as well. On the presented tablets, the expert could not see either the master plan or the facades of the complex. With such a preparation, one cannot come to the arch council, Posokhin is sure. And if Alexei Vorontsov made a comment about the eclecticism of architecture, its inexpressiveness and impurity, then according to Mikhail Posokhin, he simply could not see any architecture due to poor quality graphics.
Interceding for the designers, Sergei Tchoban advised them in their subsequent work to lean either towards the landscape or towards the architecture. In itself, the attempt to arrange a public rooftop space is already commendable. But the wrong landing of the building blurred the whole idea. Therefore, it is necessary either to expand the landscape on the roof towards the park, or to remove it altogether, having worked more carefully on the architectural solution. This proposal did not like Yuri Grigoryan, who found the green roof the only valuable thing in the project. “Rather, the whole building should be made a landscape, completely covered with a green blanket, leaving only the entrances - holes in the houses of the hobbits. In this case, there will definitely not be any claims to the authors. If you completely abandon the landscape, then it will be a challenge to the park."
The result of the discussion was the decision to send the project for revision. Sergey Kuznetsov noted that the remarks made by the council regarding the second project are less critical, but in the meantime, the authors should seriously approach the solution of the general plan, transport scheme and the external appearance of the building.
