Opera theater studio in Sredny Kislovsky lane
The project of the opera house was developed by the companies "Central Scientific and Restoration Design Workshops" and "Archstructure" within the framework of a large project for the reconstruction of the complex of the Moscow State Conservatory named after P. I. Tchaikovsky. The Mosproekt-4 team was responsible for the concept of the territory planning. The authors got a complex plot - an old and cramped Moscow courtyard with partially decommissioned buildings of the conservatory. Low, extended buildings are located strictly along the perimeter of an almost square courtyard, in the center of which there is another two-story building. Because of it, only narrow corridors on the sides and a small area in front of the central entrance remained from the open courtyard space. One can get to the territory of the future theater only through a narrow arch from the side of Sredny Kislovsky lane.
A part of the buildings of this courtyard was allocated for the needs of the theater, and most of them at the time of the beginning of the design were in a deplorable state. One of the side buildings in the eastern part of the site, which is a newly identified monument of cultural heritage, is proposed to be preserved and restored in the project. Back in 2003, it ceased to be used for its intended purpose due to the collapse of structures, but ten years later it was restored by the forces of the conservatory. The central volume, which has lost its historical appearance, was decided to be dismantled and rebuilt in new materials, but in exact accordance with the previously existing building. Above it is a two-story "washer" wrapped in a double-layer façade made of frosted glass with built-in interactive LED lighting. This superstructure is designed to compensate for the lack of space by accommodating training studios, workshops and rehearsal rooms. The impressive underground part that has arisen serves the same purpose.
The lateral and central buildings are connected by a common atrium. The atrium serves both as the central entrance to the theater and as a distribution, buffer zone: all the main rooms are located around it. In the atrium, bounded on both sides by the street facades of the buildings, there is a grand staircase leading deep down. The fact is that the theater stage with 500 seats is hidden in the underground part. Going down the stairs, visitors will be able to get to the level they need - a balcony, mezzanine or parterre. The hall is equipped with a modern transforming stage that can be easily resized and provides an almost instant change of scenery.
According to Evgenia Murinets, the presented project is fully consistent with the State Property Fund. Representatives of the Department of Cultural Heritage expressed special support for this work. At the same time, it was not possible to avoid a long and contradictory discussion. It began with a series of questions from virtually every member of the board. Most of all, they were worried about the only entrance to the territory through the arch, which does not meet either urban planning or fire regulations. Sergey Kuznetsov drew attention to the fact that the side building is very closely adjacent to the building in the neighboring area, but at the same time, instead of a logical firewall wall in such a situation, a huge number of windows appear.
The solution of the superstructure, which externally looks like a stage box, but is not, also seemed ambiguous. Sergei Kuznetsov thought it was irrational: why remove the stage underground, and make a dummy above? The authors explained that the stage does not need natural light, and since we are talking not just about a theater, but about a theater-studio, there is a whole list of premises - rehearsal rooms, training studios, workshops, etc. - that need natural light. The arguments of the architects did not convince Alexei Vorontsov, who is sure that it is not entirely correct to accentuate the upper part of a purely utilitarian purpose in this way. This will deceive and confuse the visitor, who, when approaching the theater, will decide that the stage is at the top. The image of the superstructure should be solved in a simpler and cleaner way, Vorontsov is convinced.
Andrei Gnezdilov called the layout and layout of the theater “exotic”: a hall in the basement, in a volume similar to a grate box - rehearsal halls that could fit into any other volume, the windows overlook not the street, but the corridor. “Despite the fact that the work is done with high quality and witty, it does not leave the feeling that they are trying to deceive you all the time,” explains Gnezdilov. - The form is convincing, but the content is false. And it makes me very critical of my work."
Evgeny Ass, who noted that the authors coped with their task in many respects, nevertheless expressed distrust of the decision to turn the entire central volume of the historical ensemble into an entrance lobby with dressing rooms. He also did not like the solution with the superstructure. In his opinion, she does not enter into a dialogue with the environment, she remains a "stranger" in this small and quiet Moscow courtyard. The spaces inside are very tight, but there is no integration of new construction into the urban fabric with an extraordinary urban-planning compaction, Ass is sure. In his opinion, the entrance to the courtyard is also not articulated in any way: how can the spectator find the theater, how will he guess that he is hiding inside the courtyard? You can't see him from the alley. Ass could only compare the presented solution with the Praktika Theater, where you also have to enter through the “gateways”. Here his colleagues disagreed with Ass. Sergey Kuznetsov recalled that in the modern world, cultural objects often find themselves in extremely cramped conditions, and this is not the fault of the architect. Aleksey Vorontsov added that this location, on the contrary, creates a special romantic atmosphere, reminding of European streets and courtyards: “You won't find theaters in Verona or Venice right away, but this does not make them less attractive to visitors,” Vorontsov commented.
Sergey Choban also supported the project. In his opinion, it exists in difficult border conditions. But the authors, nevertheless, manage to create even a kind of public space. Of course, it needs to be strengthened by a variety of functions, more emphasis should be placed on the central entrance area: "this could solve the problem of his anonymity." To demolish the central building and rebuild it, in Tchoban's opinion, is a very dubious undertaking. It would be much more honest to build a new and integral theater without a superstructure. But, knowing that in the security zone the law only allows one to operate in the regeneration mode, Choban proposed to support the presented project, which, according to him, was carried out cleanly and accurately, because in such conditions it is a good and original solution. Choban's thought was picked up by Alexei Vorontsov, who suggested that a public function should be provided on the ground floor - a cafe with a summer terrace or a small restaurant instead of technical rooms, which would noticeably revive the entire theater complex.
The main drawback of the project, according to Vladimir Plotkin, is "lack of a sense of the environment." The hall for 500 seats is not very large and is quite commensurate with the existing space of the courtyard, but the quality of the space was not noted in this project. As for the planning solution, Plotkin considered it very ingenious and, in general, supported the project. As a result, with a slight preponderance, it was decided to approve the work, recommending that the authors take into account the comments: to think over and organize the courtyard space more carefully, to “calm down” the upper superstructure and to plan the first floor more variedly.
Administrative office building in Kostomarovsky lane
The plot allocated for the construction of an office building developed by ABV Group occupies a corner position at the intersection of Kostomarovskiy lane with Kostomarovskaya embankment of the Yauza River. Nearby there is a bridge across the river, and on the opposite bank, exactly opposite the site in question, is the Spaso-Andronikov Monastery. The design had to take into account the importance of location and the numerous limitations of landscape-visual analysis in order to maintain a good view of the monastery from all vantage points. As a result, the initially simple volume, which occupied a rectangular section stretched along the lane, turned out to be truncated and cut off many times. The part of the building from the side of the embankment had to be lowered to 4 floors, in addition, it was heavily "cut" on the sides, because of which the straight end turned into an acute angle, similar to the bow of a ship, directed towards the river.
The main volume of the building, reaching 34 meters in height, also acquired smooth, rounded outlines at the end from the side of the river. He, as if trying to hide his presence, is completely glass. The small four-story part is noticeably more material, and there are two options for finishing it. The first one is made of dark red bricks with metal inserts and white horizontal belts of arkhbeton. The second one is made of light natural stone. The main entrance to the building is organized from the side of the lane. On the ground floor there is a view restaurant.
Anticipating the discussion, Sergei Kuznetsov explained that it was no coincidence that such a small object was submitted to the council for consideration. Here, its place in the city is extremely important - it is significant both from the urban planning point of view, and in connection with the responsible neighborhood with the monastery, and in view of the citywide task of forming the front of the embankments. In the opinion of the chief architect, the presented project - high quality and well-designed - looks too functional. “Such architecture could be appropriate anywhere else in Moscow, but here it seems too simple. The volume was cut in accordance with the height and view restrictions, without adding anything of our own, commented Kuznetsov, expressing a general distrust of such design methods, when the architectural image and silhouette of a building are formed only by insolation standards and permitted height parameters.
Andrei Gnezdilov agreed with the opinion of the chief architect, adding that from the very beginning of the design he was familiar with the project and observed with bitterness how "traditional methods of landscape-visual analysis lead to the appearance of such angular, awkward volumes." As a result, according to Gnezdilov, trying not to harm the monastery, the new building, on the contrary, begins to argue with him. “Here we need a non-trivial author's solution, a trick,” Gnezdilov is sure. Mikhail Posokhin adheres to a similar opinion, convinced that in such a significant place it is necessary to work better on the architectural image.
Vladimir Plotkin did not support his colleagues, remembering that in his practice he himself very often finds himself in a situation where architecture is determined by limitations and proximity to some “sacred” object. Then both the city and the customer require the architect to make a modest, inconspicuous, as contextual architecture as possible. It is always very difficult. That is why the architect did not give the authors such bold advice as the previous speakers. In his opinion, the authors made a very neat volume, but the angular position in the open space willy-nilly makes it dominant, the building cannot be hidden. Therefore, the authors should carefully consider high-quality solutions: "perhaps the high quality of implementation will stretch the entire volume." Plotkin also advised to try to solve the building in one material. “The building is quite small, but it has a two-part composition, accentuated by the use of different materials. Probably, completely solved, say, in natural stone, it would look more solid,”Plotkin recommended. The authors, in turn, showed one of the original versions, where the office center is made entirely of glass. The members of the council liked the option.
But then Sergei Tchoban joined the discussion. He, refusing to seriously consider the volume chopped up by restrictions, turned to the council with a proposal for a possible revision of the elevation marks. In his opinion, the front of the embankment should be deliberately formed by a larger and more important object, especially since the existing neighboring houses are much higher and larger than the one under consideration. The facade facing the embankment needs to be worked out well. Now the whole shape of the building seems unconvincing to Tchoban and must be revised, otherwise the city will get another urban planning error. Sergey Kuznetsov immediately addressed the question to the representatives of the landscape-visual analysis, and it turned out that there was an opportunity for revision, it was simply that the task was initially to form a depression towards the river, taking into account the prospective development of the territory of the Serp and Molot plant.
Evgeny Ass added that, in addition to revising the entire volumetric-spatial composition, taking into account the newly emerging possibilities, it is worth thinking about accentuating the corner. In addition, the site with which Ass worked a lot together with the students of MARSH, should be considered not only from the point of view of the neighborhood with the monastery. The object should be both a part of the perspective line when viewed from the bridge, and a single whole with the development of the embankment. But to make a volume "of such a strange shape that historians in the future puzzled over what could have happened to it", according to Ass, is by no means impossible.
The discussion was summed up by Sergey Kuznetsov. In general, he expressed respect for the work done and confidence in the high qualifications of its authors who were trapped. He suggested that they think about alternative options - either, at Plotkin's suggestion, to slightly simplify the volume and solve it in one material, or, at Tchoban's suggestion, to completely revise the form. Both options will be considered in working order.
