Multifunctional residential complex on Bolshaya Pochtovaya Street
It is proposed to build a large complex on a site bounded, on the one hand, by Bolshaya Pochtovaya Street, and on the other, by Rubtsovskaya Embankment of Yauza. At present, this territory is home to factory buildings, rebuilt many times during the Soviet era, and now abandoned. In their place, the architectural studio "ABV" proposed to build a new residential area with a separate office part, a shopping center and all related infrastructure. Buildings of variable number of storeys, from 5 to 17 floors, are lined up in two rows along the projected through boulevard, which connects the street with the embankment, forming an open and accessible environment for citizens. In total, it is planned to build eleven residential buildings, four office and retail buildings, a built-in kindergarten with a dedicated area and a two-level underground parking.
It is proposed to set up a quiet park near the water on a plot free of buildings. Moreover, according to the speaker, the formation of an active public space around the complex was a personal initiative of the customer. In addition to two large squares, against which the boulevard abuts on both sides, it was decided to create a pedestrian bridge across the Yauza, which would allow to connect two banks of the river that are not connected in any way today. So far, this proposal has only been submitted for consideration, but it has no legal basis, since this site is not in the ownership of the investor. In addition, a new transport hub is planned to be developed on the opposite bank.
The architectural solution is characterized by restraint. All houses are made in the same style, clinker tiles in warm brown and milky white shades dominate in the decoration. The facades facing the water are more “active”: two contrasting towers stand out here: one is a residential one with a wave-like glass facade, the other is an administrative one, white and laconic.
The existing buildings on the territory, according to the decision of the tolerable commission, will for the most part be dismantled due to the lack of historical value. Only one of the buildings, facing the river, was decided to be preserved and renovated, later being adapted as an office and shopping center. Also, as part of the work with the site, it is planned to recreate two previously existing water towers. One of them will be added to the reconstructed historical building, the other will grow on the opposite bank, on the Semyonovskaya embankment.
Anticipating the discussion, Evgenia Murinets noted that the project contains some inconsistencies with the GPZU. So, in the office part, there is an excess of the permitted areas, and the building on the southern side of the site is more than 3 m higher than the allowable one. Sergey Kuznetsov doubted the disinterestedness of the initiative to improve the territory: the customer voluntarily allocates a significant site for the park and city squares, but can he properly exploit them? Moreover, in the presented project, these spaces look insufficiently developed. The proposed transport hub is not yet tied to the existing situation, although the very idea of its formation, according to Kuznetsov, deserves approval.
Andrei Gnezdilov supported Sergei Kuznetsov, making a rather radical proposal - to give the land allocated for public spaces to the city. This, in his opinion, will allow avoiding an operational conflict in the future. He also agreed that the decisions with access to the embankment and the square seemed incomplete. “The pedestrian street that is being created will not live if we do not provide for a high-quality solution of two squares. So far, we see a kind of parking in a foreign territory, an entrance to a garage, etc., instead of a public space, Gnezdilov commented on the project. As for the architecture, Gnezdilov liked it - it was restrained and of high quality, which is especially valuable for the capital.
The project was supported by Alexey Vorontsov, who was satisfied with the town-planning concept, and the functional content, and the image - understandable and honest. His only wish was the proposal to work out the project for compliance with the requirements of landscape-visual analysis and interaction with significant objects in the neighborhood, as well as provide the complex with parking lots. The decision to connect the street and the embankment seemed to Vorontsov very correct, but he doubted the need to recreate the previously demolished objects - "except perhaps for the sake of preserving the memory of the place." Yuri Grigoryan spoke out more harshly on this matter. In his opinion, the fate of the surviving buildings is determined in a barbaric way: “Why, given such a dense development, it is necessary to demolish these small and harmless houses? - asked Grigoryan. - These volumes could be used reasonably, they are quite conveniently located on the site. But if you do demolish them, then why then recreate them in the form of models and hide them under glass? What value will these models have for the city?"
Alexei Yemelyanov, head of the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage, answered Grigoryan's question. He explained that the entire territory of the industrial zone under consideration was greatly transformed during the Soviet period, and therefore lost its historical significance. All buildings have many temporary layers, they were rebuilt and repaired many times, so the commission in this case definitely refused to preserve them, recommending that they be recreated and included in the project. The only exception was one building overlooking the embankment: its commission obliged to keep it unchanged.
Yuri Grigoryan agreed with the arguments of the representative of the Moscow Heritage Committee and even expressed his readiness to support the project, but once again stressed that such inattention to the historical environment is unacceptable for him. He also advised the authors, if the proposal for the construction of the bridge is approved, to take it to the square in front of the complex, instead of cutting it into the historical building. It will be more logical and fair in relation to the city.
Vladimir Plotkin approved the presented project, noting the good access to the water and the correct orientation of the boulevard. However, he agreed with his colleagues that the boulevard needed to be completed in the form of squares. Plotkin did not like the elaboration of the courtyard spaces, which were cut through by motorways. The authors should somehow neutralize the influence of transport - he is sure.
The discussion was summed up by Sergey Kuznetsov, who offered to support the presented project. The chief architect described the work as good and calm, corresponding to a high quality average level and modern standards. The town-planning part is the most problematic here, since earlier on the site there was an isolated industrial zone not connected in any way with the city. By creating a through pedestrian street, the designers, according to Kuznetsov, partially coped with this problem. But questions remained. For example, from the side of Bolshaya Pochtovaya Street, people are greeted by the entrance to the garage. It should have been pulled back into the territory, and on the square, say, a restaurant had to be arranged. In this case, the space would look more advantageous. In his opinion, the end case should be made more accentuated. The reaction of buildings to the proximity to the river also seemed insufficient to Kuznetsov, especially at the level of the first floors, which "look indifferent." But with all the shortcomings, it was decided to support the project, recommending that it be finalized in working order.
Hotel "Belgrade" on Smolenskaya street
The Belgrade Hotel was built on Smolenskaya Street in the 1970s as part of the town planning ensemble of the square in front of the Foreign Ministry building. Together with their "twin tower" - the Golden Ring Hotel - they formed a gate on the way from the Garden Ring to the Foreign Ministry, standing on both sides of the Stalinist skyscraper. However, in the early 2000s, the Golden Ring was reconstructed and received a superstructure: a two-part volume with a rectangular base and an oval end, similar to a washer.
Today the question arose about the reconstruction of the second tower - the three-star hotel "Belgrade", which must be brought in line with the requirements of the new operator - "Azimut". The architectural studio "T + T Architects" was invited to design. As the head of the workshop, Sergei Trukhanov, told the council, they had three main tasks: reconstruction of facades using modern materials, construction of a two-storey superstructure-restaurant - paired with a neighboring tower, as well as ensuring comfortable access for visitors to the hotel. The architects presented to the council three options for the solution of the facades. The first, the main one, assumed maximum continuity and preservation of the existing image. It was proposed to completely replace finishing materials and glazing. In the stylobate part, the depth of the pylons increased. The division of windows also changed. The other two options are more noticeably different from the original: there are clearly traced corner elements, lamellas on the edges, and the relief of the walls.
The superstructure was also presented in two versions - rectangular, echoing the base of the superstructure of the "Golden Ring", and oval, repeating its upper part. For a rectangular superstructure, the authors came up with a volumetric cladding that takes over the plastic of the facades of the main volume of the building. The oval volume is completely glassy and smooth.
Changes in the project also affected the adjacent territory, which the hotel almost does not have. Taking into account such a lack of space, the architects proposed to organize an entrance from the side of a neighboring residential building, and also provided additional pockets for disembarking passengers. I also had to solve the problem of the lack of a pronounced entrance group. For this, a protruding portal was created, emphasizing the entrance area. It was impossible to place the visor so necessary for the hotel: the boundaries of the site end almost immediately behind the canvas of the main facade. Nevertheless, the authors have prepared a visualization where a visor is provided, suggesting that the Arch Council can help resolve land issues.
Sergey Kuznetsov agreed that the hotel needs a visor and promised to help find the best solution. Evgenia Murinets noted that without changing the boundaries of the site, the placement of the canopy is impossible, only non-capital construction is permissible. Having dealt with the visor, the council members began to discuss the building itself. Vladimir Plotkin categorically spoke for the maximum preservation of the facades. Even the appearance of vertical divisions of windows is, in his opinion, a radical change in the character of the building. Historically, the facade had a very precise direction, a pronounced theme, all its facets are valuable. The color of the glass and the shade of new materials are also important, which should be selected in strict accordance with the existing image of the building, Plotkin is sure.
Sergey Kuznetsov fully supported his colleague. Recalling that he had once completed coursework on this site, he stressed that it is of particular importance for the city. “This is a unique and one-of-a-kind ensemble, which was implemented within the framework of a single master plan. The two towers were conceived to be the same. After the reconstruction of one of them, their unity was threatened. If you now agree to new changes, then in the future you can get two completely different buildings. You cannot change one flank without paying attention to the other. Our descendants will not forgive us if we now destroy such an ensemble. Therefore, the only correct option would be to strictly adhere to the original author's intention,”summed up Kuznetsov.
As for the superstructure, the members of the council did not even consider the option with a rectangular volume, unanimously speaking in favor of the oval. According to Alexei Vorontsov, the rectangular restaurant upsets the already delicate balance. A similar opinion was voiced by Andrey Gnezdilov: “I cannot support the project as presented. It is necessary to restore the pairing and make the same superstructure as over the neighboring hotel. " This position angered Yuri Grigoryan, who expressed bewilderment at the fact that the superstructure is taken for granted. He is sure that a serious mistake was made a few years ago. Why does it need to be repeated today on the second tower? As a result, Grigoryan proposed not only to abandon the project of the superstructure over the "Belgrade", but also to eliminate the existing superstructure over the "Golden Ring".
The result of the discussion was the decision to send the project for revision in order to reconsider the project later. The very idea of reconstruction and renovation of the building was liked by all those present. But the authors' inattention to the ensemble did not allow choosing a feasible solution from all the options presented.
