Reconstruction of an office building on Bolshaya Yakimanka into a hotel complex
Homeland Architecture Bureau presented to the council a revised version of the reconstruction of the building at the intersection of Bolshaya Yakimanka and Khvostov Lane. The project was already considered by the council in June this year, but has not received approval. The initial data for the design were a significant, but complex site, devoid of its own adjacent territory, and a repeatedly rebuilt house, in the place of which a church was previously located. Only the outline of the walls survived from the church, which was included in the new building. The existing house is the result of the last reconstruction - the 1960s, carried out by the architect Leonid Polyakov. Completely preserving and strengthening the existing frame of the house, the authors developed new facades for it, which, according to them, were designed in the style of industrial modernism, and also provided for a complete redevelopment of the space inside.
Trying to take into account all the previously expressed comments of the council members, the designers have developed several options for solving the facades, completely abandoning the modern version. The hotel is being built to accommodate diplomats, so the customer even organized a survey, trying to find out how future guests see the exterior and interiors of the building. They agreed on a calm and more classic version with numerous decorative elements, ledges, pediments and mosaic inserts. From the side of Bolshaya Yakimanka, the house looks more ceremonious: in the place of a small break in the plane of the wall, a large projection passes, splitting the facade into two equal parts. The entrance to the restaurant, located on the first floor of the hotel, is also located here. The main entrance to the hotel is organized from the side of Khvostov Lane under a long canopy. The entrance area is also accentuated by a French balcony located directly above the entrance doors. Along the façade, there is also a small landscaped area with a parking lot for disembarking passengers.
Particular attention in the project is paid to the corner of the building at the intersection of the street with the lane. In one version, the corner is rounded and decorated with a tall mosaic panel, which immediately identifies the building as a diplomatic corps. In another, more "solid" version, the angle is displayed more clearly, due to which the composition becomes balanced and symmetrical.
As for the interior, practically nothing has changed in comparison with the previously presented project: the outline of the walls of the former church serves as a double-height lobby with a registration area for guests; there is also a restaurant and a billiard room on the ground floor. There is a large conference hall on the second floor, and an observation deck on the operated roof.
Despite the fact that the project is not being considered for the first time, the council members were very critical of it. Evgenia Murinets explained that the discrepancies of the GPZU still remain unresolved, in addition, big questions arise about the decision to use the city territory for the arrangement of parking in front of the hotel. There are also many complaints about the entrance itself. Sergei Kuznetsov noticed that the entrance from Khvostov's side does not look like the main one, but the secondary entrance from Yakimanka is drawing all attention to itself. The chief architect does not understand why the authors accentuate and emphasize it with a high rectangular ledge and numerous details, while the facade facing the alley is very boring to solve. Another question is the discrepancy between the ground floor plan and the building composition.
Evgeny Ass and Andrey Bokov also asked this question.“If I enter the hotel from Khvostov Lane,” Ass suggested, “how will I get into the elevator hall? Only overcoming long and tangled corridors? The room layouts also do not meet the typological standards of a four-star hotel. There is neither a sufficient amount of service, nor the quality of solutions to meet the declared class. According to Ass, there is no operator who can work with such small numbers and narrow corridors.
Sergey Tchoban also agreed with Ass and suggested that the architects completely redesign the hotel's layout. This proposal aroused the indignation of the customer, who recalled that the project is supervised by the Russian Foreign Ministry, so this is not so much an issue of architecture as of foreign policy, and it is impossible to radically alter the project at this stage. Choban, in turn, recalled that the Archcouncil is an advisory body, and if the customer is satisfied with poorly made numbers, then he has the right to keep them. Sergei Kuznetsov intervened in the discussion, drawing the attention of all those present to the fact that any building in Moscow is being built for many years, and in no case should a poor-quality project be approved just because this or that ministry is interested in it. “If you are satisfied that right at the entrance to the hotel there will be bathrooms and technical rooms, and the best areas will be given to corridors, then we can also agree with this. But the architectural council will defend the external appearance of the building, since this place is very significant for the city,”concluded the chief architect of Moscow.
The members of the council, indeed, very zealously began to defend the appearance of the hotel complex. Evgeny Ass admitted that looking at the project, he does not feel “any sincere involvement of architects” in it. They were offered a stunning place in the center of Moscow - Yakimanka, with a rich history, the remains of an old church. There were a lot of reasons to say something, but the result was poor architecture with a very conditional "order", which, according to Ass, would be more suitable for the district committee. In his opinion, such a building should not appear in the center of Moscow. Sergei Tchoban recalled that last time the authors were advised to “calm down” the facades, avoid symmetry and excessive decor. However, the large risalit remained in its place, and the decor seemed to have increased even more. The very style of the building, imitating the architecture of the early 20th century, looks unconvincing. The decision to make the corner part deaf also seemed dubious to Choban: the most beautiful view corner rooms are usually located here, and on the ground floors there is a restaurant or any other public space. “The corner needs to be accentuated! It is strange that the first floor is completely blocked,”Yuri Grigoryan supported his colleague. He also suggested that the authors try to "marry" the church and architecture of Polyakov in one project, identify all the layers, preserving the history of this place. Grigoryan also did not like the decision to use the space of the church for the vestibule: "In my opinion, you cannot enter the building through the church, it would be much better and nobler to leave this space without function."
Summing up, Sergey Kuznetsov announced that, given such a huge number of comments, the project could not be agreed upon. Observing the obvious difficulties of the designers in finding the optimal solution, he invited the council members to act as consultants, and not just advisers, together with the authors to work on the project in order to solve all the difficult moments together. Such an experience, according to Kuznetsov, has already been and brought its positive results.
Project of a hotel with apartments "Kazakova-Park" on Kazakova street
It is proposed to build a large hotel complex with apartments in the Basmanny district of Moscow, on the site of a small three-story building on Kazakov Street. On a plot of 0.63 hectares, 46 hotel rooms and more than 170 apartments with their own entrances isolated from the hotel block are expected to be located. The large, 45 meters high volume of the building is proposed to be located strictly along the red line of the street. From the south-western side, the site is bordered by the railway line of the Kursk direction. Under the entire plot, including the courtyard, there will be an underground car park.
The designers of the Atomengineering company presented two options for the stylistic solution of the facades to the Council. The first, according to the speaker, is focused on the current "neo-Russian" style and architecture of Byzantium. The second, more restrained, is solved in "neoclassicism" with the use of an order.
The council members did not like the project. “Nobody likes an amazing project,” Sergei Kuznetsov sarcastically. And it's not about taste preferences. Evgenia Murinets reported that the project does not correspond to the GPZU in terms of technical and economic indicators. The excess of the area is more than 2000 m², and instead of the permissible 35 meters in height, a 45-meter volume is proposed, blocking the view of the Church of Nikita the Martyr. Yuri Grigoryan immediately suspected that, under the guise of a hotel, the authors were trying to agree on an ordinary residential building, devoid of its own territory, infrastructure and a sufficient number of parking spaces. Apartments are rooms of the highest category, and as part of the hotel they should have separate service rooms on the floors, but the project does not include such rooms. The hotel block is not separated into a separate section, so it can easily be converted into apartments. At the same time, according to Grigoryan, presenting a residential building as a hotel, the authors do not envisage a proper solution of the facades. For example, there is no single concept of glazing balconies and loggias, which after the commissioning of the object will be chaotically glazed by residents, and the house will turn into a "slum".
Andrei Gnezdilov agreed with Yuri Grigoryan, who also noted that the style of the building does not correspond at all to the place it occupies in the city and its scale. An attempt to impose a classic order on the structure of the house turned out to be extremely unsuccessful: the windows do not coincide with the order lattice, and the cornice lies on the lintels of the windows. Sergei Tchoban addressed the main reproach to the building's urban planning location. One-sided orientation of apartments to the railroad is, according to Tchoban, not the best solution. He advised the authors to think about how else to "plant" the building, given that the surrounding houses along the street are located in different ways and there is no urgent need to tie the new building to the red line. Tchoban also criticized the facades: the windows do not "sit" one under the other, too small divisions do not correspond to the scale of the building, etc.
Andrey Bokov called the house aggressive towards the environment. According to him, turning the volume is a very powerful technique that will "break" the environment for many years to come. For Evgeny Ass, the project caused a feeling of complete despair. Not to mention the fact that the master plan was executed illiterately, and the layouts do not correspond to the declared function, the very aesthetics of the building caused strong rejection by Ass. The proposed solution, in his opinion, has no real relation to Russian culture (despite the "neo-Russian style" declared by the authors): indeterminate rhythm, incomprehensible distances, unacceptable coloration. “This project is an alarming signal for me,” Ass said. - Our Moscow architecture is at risk. There is a danger that architecture will move in this direction on the wave of patriotism. It will be a serious blow."
Sergei Kuznetsov, who was mostly silent during the discussion, concluded that the submitted project can in no way be supported: both aesthetics, and function, and compliance with the GPZU - everything in this project can be criticized. Agreeing with the statements of his colleagues, he turned to customers who, in his opinion, trying to save money on design, do not think that the construction of any building in the center of Moscow is a very serious and responsible task, which must always be remembered. The council's decision was a recommendation to radically revise the project, without fixing on the current decision.
