Residential Complex on Barvikhinskaya Street
For the second time, Aimex-Group presented to the council a project of a residential complex at a large junction of the Moscow ring road and Mozhaisk highway. Last time the project was not approved. All council members noted an unsuccessful architectural proposal for such an important place at the entrance to the city. But first of all, the authors were recommended to revise the compositional and planning solution of the house, hidden in the depths of the site and not forming either a courtyard or a public space. The conclusion of the last meeting of the council was a recommendation to work with the shape and location of the building, moving it, for example, closer to Barvikhinskaya street or deciding in the form of a high tower.
Two months later, the architects presented a completely redesigned version. Instead of a corner house, opened towards the arc of Barvikhinskaya Street, an elongated 16-storey plate appeared, placed along the chord of this arc. Its ends are turned towards the Moscow Ring Road and towards the center of Moscow. In the depths of the site there is a 3-storey block of a kindergarten and an elementary school, which fixes the border of the site. Thus, it was possible to form a closed, cozy courtyard, which was so lacking in the previous version.
The architecture of the building has also changed. The two-part composition was replaced by a solid volume, slightly expanding upward due to the overhanging floors. Active plastic and horizontal cornices appeared, splitting the house into six unequal parts, including the area of public ground floors, solved in lightened glass. The authors presented to the council several options for facades using different finishing materials and colors - from mostly glass and monochrome to variegated.
The members of the council liked the new version almost less than the original one. They again saw the main flaw in the location of the volume. Sergey Kuznetsov recalled that earlier the authors were recommended to submit several planning solutions, but this recommendation was ignored. The tower version has not been considered at all, and the proposal with a plate along the street looks very unconvincing.
Andrey Bokov agreed with Kuznetsov. According to him, there were no special improvements in the project. At the same time, new problems arose. In particular, the house, standing along Barvikhinskaya Street, blocked all views for residents of neighboring buildings. The colleague's judgment was also supported by Vladimir Plotkin, who agreed that in this situation it is very difficult to assess which of the presented options is better. “The first option was an example of infill development that did not interact with the environment, but did not interfere with it,” he reasoned. - The second option looks unfinished, does not solve the tasks assigned to it. However, such a solution would be possible if the building with a lower number of storeys would acquire a smoother outline, repeating the line of the street. Also, Vladimir Plotkin drew attention to the unfinished ends of the house. They, and not the main facade, will be visible in the city's perspective and when moving from the Moscow Ring Road. In his opinion, this is not the most successful inclusion of the building in the panorama of Moscow.
Alexey Vorontsov and Mikhail Posokhin agreed that something must be done with the ends. Vorontsov explained that if you make a two-section house, then you need to do it gracefully. To Posokhin, the presented option seemed completely unacceptable, since it "aggravates the situation that has developed in recent years in this area." According to him, to date, an organized space has been formed on the territory under consideration: on the one hand, there are two complexes designed by Boris Levyant, on the other, there are cruciform towers in plan that support the theme of the entrance gates to the city. The new building, according to Posokhin, does not solve the urban planning task assigned to it. Possokhin's idea was developed by Alexander Kudryavtsev, who noted that the site under consideration becomes "a bridge, a hinge connecting the architecture of the 1980s that exists here with modernity."However, the presented house does not fulfill this function, but, on the contrary, seems foreign - he is sure.
Andrey Gnezdilov also supported his colleagues, who advised the authors to think carefully about an intelligible solution to the general plan: to offer an adequate layout, to think over the routes of pedestrian and transport movement. Until all this is done, there is no point in seriously considering the presented versions of the facades. Although they, according to Gnezdilov, seem too crushed, their scale does not correspond to the context, and the building has no silhouette. As a result, none of the council members began to discuss options for the facades. We stopped at the need to redo the volumetric-spatial solution again, and only then proceed to the design of the facades.
Sergey Kuznetsov summed up: “Authors should prepare at least two different versions. It can be a contextual extended house that follows the direction of the street and blends with the surrounding buildings. The height of such a house should be reduced as much as possible. A contrasting, accent and high-rise version with a readable silhouette is also possible."
Residential complex on Polyany street
The site is located at the intersection of the projected Solntsevo-Butovo-Vidnoe highway and Polyany street. Surrounded by the Bitsevsky forest, this territory has a number of limiting factors, such as the gas pipeline running along the section and the nature protection zone crossing the site exactly in the middle. The designers from the Ostozhenka bureau proposed to move both the green strip and the gas pipeline to the periphery of the site, which is why a certain green buffer section appeared along its border, separating the residential area from the highway.
The liberated territory houses a large complex of buildings that form seven closed courtyards. The plan is designed in the form of two "ridges" with long teeth of residential blocks deployed to the south. A boulevard line is drawn between them - the main public area of the complex. Along the front of the boulevard, in the first floors of the houses, there are shops and cafes with the possibility of taking out summer tables to open street terraces. The boulevard is open to the city, while the courtyards are only accessible to residents. They are expected to be completely pedestrianized. Passages are left only for special vehicles. Underground parking is provided for cars. Trying to make the complex permeable, the authors have developed a complex system of walking routes with numerous arches, ramps and stairs. As a result, you can get inside from almost any point on the perimeter of the site.
The complex silhouette with now rising, now sharply lowering parts is devoid of rigid geometry and, thus, imitates a heterogeneous and lively urban development. Street facades are also solved in different ways. A brick flat wall is replaced by a multi-colored facade with protruding bay windows, behind it - a more calm striped or emphatically "diagonal". The main emphasis is placed on the corner part facing the intersection of streets. In contrast to street facades, courtyard facades look more uniform and neutral. Only the cantilevered ends of the blocks facing the boulevard are revived.
Yevgenia Murinets, anticipating the discussion of the project, noted that it fully complies with the requirements of the GPZU, except for a small shortage of non-residential premises. However, despite this, many questions arose about the project. Sergei Kuznetsov made a comment about the inner boulevard, which, according to him, is poorly readable as a public space. It leads nowhere and does not originate from anywhere. The chief architect did not like the volumetric-spatial solution either: “The plan in the form of such a ridge does not work well. Five houses do not have street facades, only courtyards. And from the side of the courtyard, the complex begins to oppress with its monotony, especially given such a large scale of development. In addition, the closed structure of the complex is frightening, as a result of which we risk getting another city enclave. The presented layout Kuznetsov proposed to revise, make it more open and permeable, create gaps between the houses and arrange an additional longitudinal boulevard to the existing one, crossing the site from north to south. According to Kuznetsov, one could think about a completely different option - say, in the form of several detached towers.
Vladimir Plotkin stood up for his colleagues from Ostozhenka, but he agreed that now the boulevard has no direction. Nevertheless, he considered the overall composition of the project very “interesting and smart enough”: the territory is well used, and the scheme is quite viable. Only the driveways aroused doubts in him. Sergey Kuznetsov replied that the project should take into account the promising development of the city, and taking it into account it is difficult to maintain such a layout. The main exit from the territory will go to the north, which means that an additional vertical axis should appear.
Mikhail Posokhin was confused by the authors' reluctance to preserve and use the existing green zone. He is sure that it would be possible to take the idea of its preservation as a basis and build a complex around it. “Here we see a cruel attitude towards the natural environment,” he continued. "No matter how beautifully the project was modeled, it still turned out to be a camp-type settlement." Andrey Bokov agreed with Posokhin, but tried to support the architects, calling the work very professional, adequate and, perhaps, even fair, taking into account the requirements of the GPZU and the client's desire to settle more than 7,800 residents here. At the same time, in his opinion, the lack of long-term planning will inevitably lead to an error. Today it is unclear whether the surrounding forest will be preserved or whether it will also be built up. And if it is built up, how? It is impossible to design such a large complex without answers to these questions. So far, it looks like an island cut off from the environment. And it would be correct at least to provide access to the forest for future residents.
Sergey Kuznetsov explained that due to the lack of an accurate understanding of the development of this territory, one cannot refuse to consider a project for which there is already a GPZU. Ideally, of course, this area could become an excellent place for the construction of a serious public center, it is really needed here. But now there is no talk about it.
Alexey Vorontsov took a fundamentally different position, expressing confidence that the project has a right to exist. Knowing the experience of Ostozhenka, he did not doubt at all that such a complex would be ideally implemented. As proof, he cited a similar and already built residential complex in Balashikha - an excellent example, according to Vorontsov. In it, the authors make excellent use of the space, allowed parameters and indicators of the issued documents. And this is a good way out for the area under consideration, given that interaction with nature in this case does not work, Vorontsov is sure. A system of public and private spaces has been created, a green zone between houses and the road, a varied and interesting architecture is well developed: all these are the advantages of the project.
The colleagues did not share Vorontsov's opinion, but agreed that with further serious revision, the presented option can be considered, but only if the authors manage to make the complex permeable with a large and accessible public area, and the architecture more diverse. In addition, it was recommended to prepare a second, radically different from the original version.
