Reconstruction of an office building for a hotel complex on Bolshaya Yakimanka
The project for the reconstruction of the old office building was presented to the council by the general director of Homeland Architecture, Yulia Podolskaya. She said that the projected hotel is part of the preparation program for the World Cup, which will be held in Russia in 2018. In the future, the hotel complex is supposed to be used for diplomatic needs. The design site is located at the intersection of Bolshaya Yakimanka Street and 2nd Khvostov Lane. It currently houses a 4-storey building and abandoned garages. The garages will be demolished, and the building will be expanded towards the courtyard and increased by one floor with access to an exploited roof. It is planned to improve the adjoining territory, and move the central entrance to the end of the hotel from the side of the lane.
The diverse development of Yakimanka, where the odd side was almost completely rebuilt in Soviet times, and the opposite, even side, has preserved almost all the historical buildings, made the authors of the project seriously think about the architectural appearance of the future hotel. As a result, several options for the solution of facades were created, among which there were both historical stylizations and modern architecture. The Council was presented with two options, playing on the theme of 19th century historicism with many decorative details. As noted in the report, an attempt was made to create a vivid image, recognizable and slightly dominant over the environment. Natural stone, plaster and stucco were chosen for the decoration. The color scheme is restrained, in harmony with the environment. In the "modern" version, see a laconic volume with a monotonous pattern of hinged facades. Frosted glazing alternates with transparent, setting a clear vertical rhythm. The first floor, designed in dark clinker tiles, is slightly recessed, forming a small walking gallery along the building.
As for the planning solutions, the first floor retains a spacious double-height space, where a large lobby is located. There is also a restaurant here with its own autonomous entrance from the side of Bolshaya Yakimanka. All interiors of public areas are proposed to be solved in a "historical" way. Above the floors of the hotel are given over to rooms - there will be 62 of them in total.
Council members were unanimously critical of the submitted draft. Sergei Kuznetsov asked why the report did not say a word about the site containing the remains of a historic church. “How is it taken into account in the new project? And isn't it interesting for you as architects to play on such an important detail? For example, to highlight the apse on the facades, to reveal the history of the place in the interiors? - asked Kuznetsov. Yulia Podolskaya replied that a detailed historical and cultural analysis was carried out in the workshop, which showed that the church was destroyed and not used for its intended purpose since the 19th century. Therefore, there was practically nothing to save in the project, except for the contour of the walls - they are well read on the plans. The representative of the Department of Heritage Protection, who was present at the meeting, supported the authors, explaining that the designers were not faced with the task of rebuilding the temple, but they had to preserve its walls.
Andrei Gnezdilov found this formulation of the question inadequate: it is necessary either to restore the temple, or to demolish it completely. It now looks like a clumsy adaptation of an existing building with very fragmented plans. Such a planning solution is not suitable for a hotel, the chief architect of the General Planning Institute is sure. The authors of the project tried to defend themselves: “Partial demolition of the building is permissible, but complete demolition must be approved by a special commission. As for the restoration, it may take many years, while the project requires a certain urgency."
Having dealt with the church, council members began to criticize the architectural component of the project. Sergei Kuznetsov found it unacceptable to add a volume over the building to provide access to the roof. According to the chairman of the council, this element is out of the picture and requires a radical revision. Kuznetsov called the solution with a central entrance unclear, which is not highlighted on the facade. The architects explained that, according to the GPZU, they could not go beyond the boundaries of the facades, which follow strictly along the contour of the site, which means they did not have the opportunity to make a visor or a protruding entrance group. Sergei Kuznetsov was not satisfied with this answer: there are many other ways to designate the main entrance, in addition to the visor.
Sergei Tchoban spoke out very harshly. In his opinion, the modern version in this urban context could be appropriate, but not in the form in which it was presented to the council. Now the building resembles a large suitcase, which knocks out and dominates the environment, - commented Tchoban. Therefore, it cannot be considered in any way. And since the architects have not presented other modern versions, we have to focus on retrospective versions. Both of them seemed unsuccessful to Choban. He advised the authors to move away from the inappropriate and poorly designed image of the 19th century palace and create a more relaxed solution. Refuse the pediments, which here have received very unfortunate proportions, triangular and oversized cornices and semicircular decor. If you take a closer look at the surroundings, you will see a strict vertical and horizontal rhythm everywhere. Therefore, the authors in the street sweep should work with the plastic of horizontal cornices and vertical pilasters. As for the interiors, Sergei Tchoban categorically disliked them: "The design of the premises comes into sharp contradiction with the walls of the old building and church hidden under it."
Hans Stimmann joined the opinion of his colleagues, who perceived the project with bewilderment. The Garden Ring, he said, is an encyclopedia of Moscow architecture, and the new building does not add anything of value there. Summing up the protracted discussion, Sergey Kuznetsov asked the authors to finalize the submitted project, taking as a basis one of the "classic versions". At the same time, they should pay special attention to the context, work out the roof and the central entrance, and also try to creatively approach the presence of a church on the site, revealing it in the new architecture.
Hotel on Zemlyanoy Val
The design site is located along the Garden Ring, not far from the Taganka Theater and Yuri Grigoryan's Shokolad residential complex. Looking back at the very heterogeneous environment, the designers from the GRAN company suggested filling the empty space with a laconic but expressive 8-storey volume. The situation was complicated by the relief of the street with a significant difference in heights and the cramped area, squeezed from all sides by existing buildings and highways. In this regard, a detailed scheme for the movement of transport and pedestrians was proposed, providing for the organization of an additional exit to the territory from the Garden Ring and the arrangement of a sidewalk along the building with stairs and ramps overcoming the relief difference.
To organize the entrance to the hotel, it was decided to cut the first floor along a slant, thanks to which it was possible to somewhat expand the pedestrian zone. The first two floors were given over to the lobby, restaurant, cafe, conference room and other public functions. Above will be apartments and hotel rooms. There are also three underground floors that will accommodate parking and technical rooms.
As the speaker Andrey Pakhomov said, the architecture of the building is dictated by the environment. The authors tried to take into account the rhythm of the street with the alternation of large and small volumes, the style of the houses and their scale. As a result, a small scale of details appeared against the background of a large division of the entire building, working for the movement of the Garden Ring. The applicative effect on the main facade of the building and at its end changes the dimensions of the building, making it more tactful in relation to the environment.
The council members approved the town planning decision, admitting that the designers presented a very professional work and managed to find the right way out of a very difficult situation. Andrey Gnezdilov liked that the project preserves the existing relief and practically does not affect the landscape of the street in any way. At the same time, Hans Stimmann chided the authors for paying insufficient attention to pedestrians. “It is very convenient to drive past the building, but to walk, you will have to overcome a lot of obstacles,” he said. Sergey Kuznetsov stood up for the architects, explaining that here they did everything they could, and it would hardly be possible to change the position of the highway and the overpass.
Kuznetsov also praised the authors for their ingenious solution with the device of the main entrance, which, although it is in extremely cramped conditions, nevertheless works on the street and is visible to visitors. Sergei Tchoban agreed with his colleagues that the work was done correctly, but drew the designers' attention to a significant strategic mistake: the facade was designed as if another, large one was hanging over a small house, which looks out of place in this particular environment. The authors, according to Choban, should take the rhythm of Yuri Grigoryan's house next to the plot as a basis, make the building more "honest", calm and monolithic, without trying to create optical effects and "deceive" the city. This opinion was shared by all members of the council and, in the end, settled on the fact that the project could be finalized in the shortest possible time and reviewed again in working order.
