Multifunctional residential complex "Western Port"
The project of the residential complex was developed jointly by three architectural bureaus - SPEECH, ADM and TPO Reserve. The proposed construction site is located on the banks of the Moskva River and includes an embankment. In Soviet times, starting from the 1930s, the industrial Western port was located here. By keeping this name, the authors of the project pay tribute to the history of the place. Nearby there is a unique architectural monument - the Church of the Intercession in Fili, a little further away - Moscow City.
Anticipating the report of the authors of the project, the chief architect of Moscow and chairman of the Archcouncil Sergei Kuznetsov told the audience about the importance of the site under consideration, in connection with which this project proposal was submitted to the council. “The area near the City is considered as one of the main alternative centers of Moscow, which will be able to compete with the historical part of the capital,” Kuznetsov explained. “In addition, being located right along the embankment, this complex falls within the boundaries of the new and most ambitious for today and the nearest future project for the development of coastal areas of the Moscow River.”
A speaker from SPEECH told the council members that during the design process, many options for planning decisions were made. According to the version chosen in the end, the complex consists of five residential block blocks and an office center, which stands separately, on the periphery of the site, of two high towers. The project also includes a kindergarten, a school and an apart-hotel: all of this is closer to the offices. Most of the territory is occupied by residential buildings with public ground floors facing the embankment. A two-level underground parking for residents is hidden under the entire plot.
There are entrances for cars between the quarters, but cars cannot enter the large square courtyards. It is planned to create a varied and rich environment with children's and playgrounds and high-quality landscaping there. To prevent motorways from cutting the complex into separate, unconnected formations, the authors proposed to create a transverse pedestrian boulevard, piercing the building through and through. For this, bridges were thrown across the driveways, under which the entrances to the underground parking are located.
The front of the building, facing the water, is pierced in each courtyard by a high arch, giving residents a view of the river. The embankment improvement project is still under development, but now the architects have presented several solutions for this important public area. The main idea is to turn the embankment into a green space with dedicated areas for sports and recreation. Perhaps the emergence of a beach, tennis courts, all kinds of art objects and summer cafes. The idea of creating floating terraces, allowing residents to descend to the water, is being worked out.
All buildings that form almost closed block blocks differ in height. The tallest of them look towards the river, and inside the courtyard the dimensions are reduced to six floors. It is interesting that the design of the facades of the buildings was developed by three workshops, which divided all of them almost equally among themselves. At the same time, the teams operated within the framework of a single design code. Thus, three main materials and two dominant shades were used: gray clinker bricks, terracotta tiles and natural stone. As a result of this work, each individual facade had to get its own face, and the complex as a whole - a variety of buildings.
The presented project caused mixed feelings among board members. On the one hand, the quality of the design and the high level of architecture aroused respect, on the other, some isolation of the new building from the existing environment could not but alert. Hans Stimmann was the first to speak. In his opinion, such a project can serve as an example and a model for the reconstruction of the coastal areas of the Moskva River. However, the architect is confident that the new project should be linked to the history of the place. Another remark by Stimmann related to a certain monotony of the building: if you look at the individual facades, they seem to be diverse, but everything looks the same together. Hans Stimmann also did not appreciate the decision of the embankment, which, according to him, now more resembles the coastal zone of a resort town, for example, Mallorca, while it should talk about its belonging to a metropolis.
Andrei Gnezdilov did not discuss the architecture of the project, but noted that the complex is designed as a large enclave that does not interact with the city in any way: the passages left for cars, like the courtyards, are closed for citizens, even the embankment cannot be accessed unhindered. The colleague was also supported by Sergey Kuznetsov, who noted that one of the tasks of the Moscow River development project is to create a single and continuous walking route along the embankments. Therefore, it is very important to think about how the townspeople will move along the river. It is equally important, according to Kuznetsov, to create clear perpendicular connections, which are not there at all now. The extended complex blocks the passage to the metro, and most importantly, to the Church of the Intercession in Fili, which is unacceptable.
Mikhail Posokhin outlined the opposite position. In his opinion, the project implements all urban planning tasks that could not be solved in other similar projects, including in the City, and its most important element is to provide direct access to the river. The attempt to create enclosed courtyards is laudable. As for the enclave of the complex, this, according to Posokhin, is rather a plus than a minus. “A person in a modern and aggressive metropolis really wants to hide inside a quiet and high-quality environment,” Posokhin noted, recommending support for the project.
Sergei Kuznetsov objected to him: the issue of the openness of space is a constant subject of discussion between the architect and the customer. However, an architect should always think about the city as a whole, so any development should be permeable, it should work for the city, not against it. A similar opinion was expressed by Alexander Kudryavtsev. He did not like the fact that the new construction did not react in any way to the environment, especially to the nearby temple. Andrey Gnezdilov also took up this idea: “We need to make a composition oriented towards the church and the city. Now the complex pays attention only to the river and does not notice anything else around it."
Small remarks also touched upon the unfortunate location of the kindergarten not in the center, but at the edge of the site, as well as the lack of visible landmarks, without which it is very easy to get lost inside the complex. In general, it was decided to approve the project, recommending the authors to work out all the indicated shortcomings in the working order.
***
Office building in Spartakovskiy lane
An 11-storey office building is planned to be erected near the Rusakovskaya overpass, between the Kazan railway and the Third Transport Ring. The site is surrounded by red-brick buildings, which were traditionally erected along the railroad tracks and in the landside areas. Old granaries approach the borders of the site. They are planned to be reconstructed and adapted for new use. In such an environment, the architects decided to build a building that responds to the style of the existing development.
The Council was presented with two options for an architectural solution. The first, developed by the "Thunders and Fingers" workshop, imitates an industrial building of the century before last. The authors use "speaking" details - glazing of characteristic outlines and proportions, muffled columns. For finishing it is proposed to use red clinker brick. This version of the project is called "Rusakovsky Viaduct".
The Kapstroyinvest company offered another option. Facades - also made of clinker tiles - look more modern in their version. White is added in the upper part, which lightens the volume and somewhat conceals its height, and, in addition, connects the new construction with the same two-color project for the reconstruction of the granary. The entrance area, according to the project, turns into a green lawn. A separate entrance leads to the public area and the restaurant. There is also a pedestrian zone and parking.
Without waiting for the reaction of his colleagues, Valery Leonov expressed extreme surprise at the presented project: “This work is a complete violation of the law. The project is so inconsistent with the norms that I am afraid that it can be implemented. Andrey Gnezdilov supported his colleague, calling the project very poorly done and the architecture strange. “I would like to understand: why are we looking at this project? If only in order to choose the most acceptable solution for the facades, then I would rather hold the second one. If we consider the project as a whole, then it does not stand up to criticism. There is no transport scheme, the landing of the building is illogical, there are no fire passages, the floor plans are completely undeveloped. By its absurdity, this project is just a champion,”concluded Gnezdilov, announcing that with such work it would never be possible to pass the examination.
Vladimir Plotkin doubted the advisability of recreating historical architecture using the proposed methods - with a concrete frame and tiles instead of bricks, since this is no longer a recreation, but a decoration. In this regard, it seemed to him the most acceptable to support the second option, which, however, also requires substantial improvement. Authors should look for a more harmonious grid of facades and think about completing the volume, since a strongly protruding cornice looks unconvincing. A similar opinion was expressed by Sergei Kuznetsov, who noted regarding the first option that the quality of the details in it works against architecture. The pylons dropping off at the level of the first floor look especially bad, which makes it seem as if the building is hanging in the air.
The result of the discussion was the decision to send the project for revision, recommending the development of a second, more modern version.
