The project of the restoration of the Golitsyn estate with its adaptation to the Gallery of Art of the Countries of Europe and America of the XIX-XXI centuries.
The project for the restoration of the estate for the needs of the Pushkin Museum. A. S. Pushkin was presented to the council by its authors Yuri Avvakumov and Georgy Solopov, who began work with this architectural monument long before the closed
competition for the concept of the development of the entire museum complex. Recall that then Yuri Grigoryan became the winner, and it is he who is now involved in the reconstruction project of the quarter.
The complex history of the old building made the project extremely difficult. Avvakumov said that the estate was built in the middle of the 18th century according to the project of the Petersburg architect Savva Chevakinsky. It was one of the most notable buildings in Moscow, not only because of its striking architectural appearance, but also because the first public museum, open to the public three times a week, operated here. In 1774, the estate was partially rebuilt by Matvey Kazakov, and then remained unchanged until 1929, when the Communist Academy was located in the estate. Then the manor house itself lost its front pediment and was built on two floors (the author of the add-on is unknown). As a result, the once expressive building lost its historical features and already in this form has come down to our time, when the question arose about its reconstruction.
The main idea of the authors was to return the building to its original historical appearance, created by Chevakinsky and Kazakov. It was about the first two floors, where, according to the presented project, the lost pediment and balustrade appeared. As for the Soviet superstructure, which according to the documents is also part of the architectural monument, since it is impossible to demolish or modify this part, it is proposed to rebuild it from new materials, but with the preservation of all proportions and details. Such an ambiguous decision is associated, firstly, with the great deterioration of the walls that do not meet the requirements of a modern museum, and secondly, with the need to recreate the balustrade, for which the existing walls will be somewhat displaced inward. In addition, instead of the previously existing window openings, blind niches will be arranged over the central portico.
From above, the entire newly erected superstructure, as conceived by the authors, is covered with one large glass shell. According to Georgy Solopov, the structures of the glass dome echo the transparent roof of the main building of the Pushkin Museum, designed by Vladimir Shukhov. The authors insist that by “putting on” a shell on the building, they are not trying to hide the existing architecture: rather, it is an attempt to distance themselves from the events of 1929, when the building was deliberately deprived of all manor features in accordance with the political order.
In addition to the aesthetic solution, the cladding forms a very robust double-contour façade including top cold glazing and warm contour. Among its advantages are acoustic protection, and improving the operational characteristics of the building, energy saving, etc. Considering that the walls of the superstructure, in contrast to the manor walls, are too thin, strengthening and thickening them with the help of such a transparent casing seems to be quite justified. This is especially important, since the halls are supposed to exhibit the works of the impressionists and post-impressionists from the collections of Shchukin and Morozov, the cost of which, according to Avvakumov, is several times higher than the cost of all work on the reconstruction of the building. At the request of the monuments protection authorities, the glass shell is supposed to be made temporary, so that in case of complete rejection of such a decision by the population or the negative impact of this element on the urban environment, it can be removed.
An additional underground floor, which appears in the new project, is reserved for museum equipment. The space on the ground floor was rebuilt in such a way as to make room for a spacious lobby and, at the same time, to preserve premises for exhibition halls. Open exhibition spaces on the third and fourth floors with a ceiling height of 4–6 meters are connected by a large amphitheater staircase. The second level is given over to the state halls of the museum.
After the report of the authors of the projects, Marina Loshak, Director of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts A. S. Pushkin, who supported their ideas for the layout of the renovated building. However, she admitted that the interpretation of the facade raises some doubts in her and expressed the hope that the opinion of professionals, including the chief architect of the quarter, Yuri Grigoryan, will help find the right solution.
Anticipating the discussion, Andrei Batalov, a member of the Federal Scientific and Methodological Council for Heritage Protection, said that earlier the project had been thoroughly reviewed by experts who, together with the authors, tried to find a compromise solution. The idea of returning the building to its historical origin was unanimously supported. The possibility of replacing the materials from which the Soviet superstructure was built was also confirmed. At the same time, experts insisted on preserving all its details: otherwise, it would be considered a violation of the law. Glass shell is a case that experts have not yet encountered in their practice, but given that it emphasizes the ancient core of the building, they took it as a valid solution. The only and indisputable condition was the temporary nature of this structure - only in this case the project could be implemented in the presented version.
The members of the council were literally bewildered by Batalov's speech: why first demolish and then erect in new axes, and even with dummies of windows, a superstructure that has no special historical value? Sergey Kuznetsov also doubted the rationality of creating a glass dome: "Isn't it easier to strengthen the existing walls so that they can withstand the necessary loads?" To this, Yuri Avvakumov replied that any change - the thickness of the walls or the location of the windows - will be considered as new construction, and only reconstruction is possible within the framework of Russian legislation. But even if we admit this possibility, the brick wall will never be so effective. It was decided to make the windows above the portico blind solely to preserve the priceless collection.
Yuri Grigoryan stressed that he has great respect for the authors and their work, but at the same time he does not understand such a fierce desire to separate the superstructure and the manor house. In the image of the existing 4-storey building, Grigoryan does not see anything terrible: on the contrary, all Muscovites are accustomed to perceive this house as such. The presented solution is an attempt to find a compromise between the author's vision and the need to preserve history, and this compromise here, according to Grigoryan, is impossible. “The proposed solution would be understandable if we were talking about the historical part of the building. I am worried that a remake is hiding under a glass cover. The cap itself is very beautiful. I perceive it as a bright author's gesture, which is too much for an architectural monument. In addition, I do not believe in its temporary nature,”concluded Yuri Grigoryan, fully supporting the project in terms of planning decisions. Yuri Avvakumov did not agree with his opinion: “We deliberately avoided any author's gestures in this work. It's not about self-expression, but about the efficiency, rationality and safety of an insanely expensive collection. Talking about a two-contour facade is at least strange. In any European city, this technique is used very actively and has repeatedly confirmed its viability. As for the temporary nature of the dome, this is not our decision."
Not satisfied with the author's answer, the council members continued to discuss the absurdity of the decision imposed on the architects to recreate the superstructure. Evgeny Ass, calling the work very strong, suggested that the authors had become hostages of the ambiguous position of the restorers. Ass is sure that it would be much more honest and promising to build a new, modern superstructure in a light cloud of a glass screen. Here Andrei Batalov could not resist, indignant that the position of the experts was called ambiguous: "This is not about the position of the restorers, but about the observance of the law." The chief architect of the city entered the discussion with the question of the possibility of revising the status of the superstructure. Batalov reluctantly replied that there is an opportunity to change the registry entry, but it is extremely difficult to achieve a revision.
Andrei Gnezdilov also reacted with great doubt to the newly erected structure, convinced that the protection status should be changed so as not to build dummies. The project also evoked a double feeling in Mikhail Posokhin, who concluded that all manipulations with the superstructure were connected with the museum's desire to preserve the property fund. But the wall, which shines through the beautiful structure invented by Avvakumov, irritates Posokhin - there is a certain "impurity" in it. Hans Stimmann supported his colleagues, noting that the implementation of the proposed project would result in a dubious hybrid.
Vladimir Plotkin and Sergei Tchoban expressed a diametrically opposite opinion. Plotkin expressed his confidence that the presented work deserves praise: “The complex protection status and mutually exclusive requirements of any architect could be confused, but the authors found a solution and coped with it brilliantly. Roofing is really an author's gesture, performed very artistically, and you shouldn't be ashamed of it. At the same time, the project solves all tasks correctly. Plotkin's only doubt was caused by easy-to-assemble roof structures. In his opinion, they should be permanent.
Sergei Tchoban replied to his colleagues that, of course, you can try to change the status of the superstructure, but this is an almost impossible task. At the same time, the presented project has a clear philosophy. The original appearance of the estate is being restored, the part of the building that appeared at the beginning of the last century is ideologically preserved. The third, modern layer is superimposed on top. Thus, the authors tell the story of the house, and in this sense they must be supported by all means, Tchoban urged his colleagues. In his opinion, if the author's decision is preserved and the project is implemented exactly in this form, the city will receive a very striking structure. Another thing is that the technical, constructive part is poorly worked out in the project. As a result, the roof will become very dirty and age poorly. To avoid this, a new technical solution should be developed within the existing architectural proposal. But the main problem here is that in Russia, according to Choban, there are no good specialists, they must be invited from abroad, which is not cheap, but only in this case it will be possible to exactly implement the author's intention.
Having listened to the members of the council, Rustam Rakhmatullin, who was present among the spectators in the hall, asked to speak. He cited as an example the only project implemented in Moscow, similar to the one under consideration: a building in Bryusov Lane, which was being reconstructed by the Rozhdestvenka bureau. According to Rakhmatullin, the authors themselves today admit that it was an unsuccessful experience in erecting a contrasting, expressive volume over a historical building. Rakhmatullin urged to completely abandon the superstructure and restore only the estate. It is clear that Marina Loshak did not like this idea very much.
Sergey Kuznetsov tried to summarize the results of the discussion. He noted that this is perhaps the most difficult issue for the entire period of the functioning of the new composition of the Arch Council. He also admitted that when he first saw the project, he seemed completely unviable to him. However, after listening to the authors with their professionalism and incredible gift of persuasion, I decided that it could still be implemented. Today, a lot of questions arise regarding the technical side of the project. In addition, the chief architect emphasized that too many doubts were expressed during the discussion, which did not allow supporting the work. He offered the authors two options for the development of the project. The first is associated with an attempt to revise the status of the superstructure, which will allow it to be solved in a new way, while retaining the glass dome. The second option is to calmly relate to the existing four-story volume and work with the roof structure.
Residential complex on Rublevskoe highway
A large residential complex is planned to be built at the intersection of Rublevskoye Highway and Yartsevskaya Street. This site is familiar to our readers, because earlier a competition was held for its development with the support of MCA and with the consent of the customer, PIK Group. The victory in it was won by the project of Sergei Skuratov, which is a composition of four laconic high towers. According to the 2015 GZK, the height of the structure allowed there decreased from 140 to 100 meters while maintaining the total area. There were also some changes within the PIK company. As a result, the developer refused Skuratov's project, and de Architekten Cie from the Netherlands was invited instead. In Russia, the APEX company was engaged in the adaptation of the concept proposed by the Dutch.
According to the new proposal, two groups of buildings are located on the site of a complex shape, each of which grows from a common low base. Both groups are deployed in such a way that an almost closed courtyard with high-quality landscaping, jogging and cycling tracks is formed inside. The first floors, occupied by shops and cafes under the canopies of the terraces of the second floor, face inside the courtyard. Numerous towers of different heights reliably protect the courtyard space from the noise of the two highways limiting the site. The roof of the base, which appears in the gaps between the towers, is landscaped. In addition, there are many open terraces for apartment residents at different levels. They are created due to a significant shift of massive rectangular volumes of buildings horizontally. Thus, spectacular consoles reaching four meters are also formed.
Particular attention in the project is paid to the decoration of the facades. The main material is clinker bricks of different shades and textures. The combination of the material allows you to achieve an expressive relief of the walls, especially in the lower part of buildings. The color also changes from base to top - from dark to almost white. In addition to the brick mesh, light walls and window openings differing in proportions stand out on the facades.
Without waiting for the assessment of colleagues, Sergey Kuznetsov immediately asked them to refrain from comparing the submitted project with the competitive one in view of a serious change in the conditions and requirements for the project. He also noticed that the complex is quite large in mass, but in this part of the city, located closer to the Moscow Ring Road, this is permissible. Moreover, the PIK company has been working with this territory for a long time, and everyone knows the company's desire to build exceptionally high-quality facilities.
Despite the appeal of the chief architect, Hans Stimmann instantly expressed great regret for the lost competition project, which he remembered well. According to the former chief architect of Berlin, the presented project loses noticeably against its background. Nevertheless, it is clear that the authors were solving a specific, but difficult task of organizing housing near the Autobahn. As a result, fencing off the highways, the complex looks too closed. “It would be worth turning it to the city,” advised Stimmann. Sergei Choban, having made sure that all the copyrights of the Dutch were respected, offered to support the project, although, by his own admission, he did not see anything remarkable in it. His wishes were related to terraces, which in the course of operation are at risk of being unauthorizedly built up by tenants. With a sigh, but still, Mikhail Posokhin and Andrey Gnezdilov supported the project with the wording “house is like a house” and “what can you do if they are building this way now”. Gnezdilov, however, recalled the mistakes of the general plan presented to him earlier, but immediately made a reservation that this had nothing to do with the Arch Council.
In opposition to other members of the council, Vladimir Plotkin again stood up, who, by the way, also took part in the aforementioned competition. He admitted that it is always very difficult for him to criticize the work of colleagues, but in this situation he has no other choice. The site has long been familiar to Plotkin - and not because of the competition, but because he drives past it every day in a car. According to the architect, this site is superbly located - with great distant views and vibrant surroundings. The projected complex itself stands on a high hill, so it will be visible from afar. All this is not taken into account in the presented project. The main mistake is in the city planning decision: buildings refuse to react to their neighbors and to the city as a whole. In addition, with a not too large area of 100,000 m2, the project could have received a much more elegant compositional solution. But here we see a very large mass, and it is poorly perceived from both close and distant points. The large overcrowding of buildings and the predominantly dark brick in the decoration - all this, according to Plotkin, gives rise to a rather gloomy image.
Yuri Grigoryan picked up Plotkin's thought, noting that now the complex looks as if it contains not 100,000 m2, but a million. He also suggested that the client deliberately canceled the results of the competition in order to continue working exclusively with Western architects. What did it lead to? Besides, instead of mono-volumes, we got a "warehouse of square meters in the form of a bunch of houses." All this, according to Grigoryan, looks bad, and this is a vivid example of how none of the principles of new Moscow development proposed in the MCA (quarters, public first floors, etc.), which are formally observed in this work, do not save the project and don't make a present to the city. Evgeny Ass noted that the point is not in the nationality of the designer, but in the relation of architecture to the context, and there is no such attitude in this project.
Sergey Kuznetsov, closing the meeting, noted that opinions were very divided on this issue. In this regard, he suggested that all comments be transmitted directly to the authors - the Dutch bureau de Architekten Cie - prior to the issuance of the AGR. Kuznetsov also suggested that it would be nice to invite the authors to Moscow and listen to their position. In the meantime, it is necessary to leave the neutral decision and wait for the revised version.
