Competition for the MKA stand design
The meeting of the Architectural Council began with the awarding of the winners of the competition for young architects to develop the concept of the Moskomarkhitektura stand. On March 30, many young people gathered in the ICA Great Hall for this occasion. The diplomas of the six finalists were presented personally by the chief architect of Moscow, Sergei Kuznetsov. The main award and the right to implement their project went to Mikhail Beilin and Daniil Nikishin, founders of Citizenstudio. They proposed a concept called "Form of Creativity", the essence of which is the thematic division of the stand into four parts - each with its own individual design.
Hotel complex with apartments on Ostozhenka
The project of the hotel complex, developed by the companies "Dmitry Pshenichnikov and Partners", "Finproekt" and "Factory of Contemporary Architecture", involves the reconstruction and reconstruction of two buildings at the intersection of Ostozhenka and Prechistenka streets - houses No. 6 and No. 4. The first is planned to be almost completely demolished, retaining only a three-storey street facade, above which three more floors will be built on with a slight indent. The second house, in accordance with the current regulations, needs to be preserved, leaving the facades and dimensions unchanged.
The largest building on the land under development is house No. 6, which increases to 22 meters in height. The authors propose to solve its facades very splendidly. Particular attention has been paid to the façade facing the courtyard: bay windows and rich decor appear here. The authors explain this by the desire to provide views from the side of the Kropotkinskaya metro station, from where the house will be clearly visible. As for house No. 4, the building will retain its historical appearance only from the side of Ostozhenka. The courtyard facade is also being rebuilt, acquiring "more expressive", according to the authors, features. The project also affects the underground part - the entire space under the buildings and the courtyard is being used for parking. The courtyard itself, landscaped and green, is supposed to be closed, access to it will be allowed only to the residents and residents of the complex. Terraces are provided for the townspeople, which are being erected over the existing retaining wall. On them, according to the designers, you can arrange summer cafes.
In addition, the authors took the initiative and developed an additional proposal for the repair of the Red Chambers, which are adjacent to the construction site. They proposed to dismantle the later extension, opening the historical facade of the building towards the square, and to restore and put in order the butt, which was cut off during the construction of the metro and turned into a side street.
Evgenia Murinets, after listening to the speaker, explained to the council members that the project has a number of inconsistencies with the GPZU. In particular, without exceeding the permitted height marks, the designers went far beyond the boundaries of the building site of house No. 6 from the side of the yard.
But besides this, the council members had many questions about the project. Equally negative was the idea of adding a compact three-storey house, which eventually only one wall would survive, and the decision to rebuild the courtyard facade of house No. 4. Alexey Yemelyanov, head of the heritage department, who was present at the meeting, explained that this cannot be done by law. “House 4, although it seems at first glance nondescript and has been covered with a net for many years, however, is one of the oldest houses in Ostozhenka. In this case, fantasies on the theme of its "decoration" are unrealizable: according to the regulations, all facades should be preserved, "Yemelyanov concluded. He also called unacceptable attempts to somehow remake the Red Chambers, since this is an architectural monument of the 17th century. Emelyanov spoke out just as harshly about house # 6. He doubted the correctness of the designers' attempt to "imitate the old architecture." According to the head of the department, this is not the best solution: the house is poorly entered into the context and looks bad both from Ostozhenka and Volkhonka.
Alexander Kudryavtsev fully agreed with his colleague. In his opinion, it is criminal to deal with such a symbolic place for Moscow in this way. The project does not take into account the natural rise of the relief and the peculiarities of the development, where historically large and tall buildings were located on the far side of the street, and in the area of the considered site, on the contrary, there was always a low-rise, "porous" structure with breaks and gaps. Now, according to Kudryavtsev, the new 6-storey volume is turning into a bulky curtain blocking the street.
Sergey Tchoban also picked up the idea. In his opinion, this is a place for the formation of the entire area, subtle and important, but the authors solve it in an extremely strange way. The idea to build a house the same height as the neighboring one, he called a mistake: it will kill the scale of the street. The entire building as a whole, including the pompous design of the facades, seems foreign in the structure of Ostozhenka, Choban is sure. He also did not like the idea of turning the courtyard facade into the main one: the building is clearly visible from the Volkhonka side and is of great importance for the city, but this is not a reason to turn it into a birthday cake. According to Choban, the modern volume of variable number of storeys would look more advantageous here. The architectural style was also criticized by Andrei Gnezdilov, who suggested that, trying to compete with the architects Dubovsky and Kekushev, whose buildings occupy a leading position on Ostozhenka, the designers risk losing outright. It would be more honest and correct, in his opinion, to go into a more modern style.
Serious remarks were made about the organization of the closed courtyard. Sergey Kuznetsov pointed out to the authors that the council always speaks out against such decisions. New construction should have a positive impact on the quality of the urban environment, and not vice versa. Here, a part of the territory significant for the city is being improved, but at the same time it is not public, and the terraces above the retaining wall mislead the townspeople, since they do not lead anywhere. Andrei Gnezdilov compared this decision to intervention. People should be able to freely pass to Prechistenka and have access to the buildings located on the territory, otherwise the seizure of the territory turns out. The authors must stop such liberties, Gnezdilov is convinced. The courtyard-bastion also caused bewilderment among Sergei Tchoban, who proposed creating a humane urban space open and accessible to people.
Rustam Rakhmatullin, coordinator of "Arkhnadzor", also made his remarks. He said that Arkhnadzor has been watching the site under consideration since 2009. Both buildings, which are currently planned to be virtually destroyed, were denied protection, and public figures associate this with the development of the presented project. At the same time, there is an assumption that house No. 4 is the chambers of the 17th or the beginning of the 18th century, in connection with which additional field studies are required. House No. 6 can also be operated only in the regeneration mode, which implies the recreation or replenishment of the historical appearance. The demolition of the main volume and the addition of additional floors are neither the one nor the other, which means they can be considered as an illegal act.
The discussion was summed up by Sergey Kuznetsov. He recommended that the authors seriously revise the project: change the planting of buildings without overstepping the permitted boundaries, open the courtyard, coordinate their design possibilities with the Heritage Department and prepare several stylistically different options for the architectural solution.
Residential building on Malaya Ordynka
The residential building, designed by Andrey Romanov and the ADM bureau, is supposed to be built in Zamoskvorechye, on Malaya Ordynka street. The site allocated for construction now houses buildings of the Soviet era, designated for demolition. In their place, it is proposed to put a residential building - L-shaped in plan, due to which it is possible to form a small courtyard inside. The varied development of the street, which has preserved the old wooden and brick buildings, as well as churches, prompted the authors to create an equally diverse street facade. Having placed it along the red line of the building adjacent to the firewall of the neighboring house, they divided the facade into three parts and each decided in their own style. One is made of natural light stone with wood inserts and elegant balconies. The other is made of red embossed bricks with belt profiles and openwork balcony railings. For the third part, adjacent to the neighboring house, two options were proposed - stone-brick and entirely glass. The latter was developed at the request of MKA and Sergey Kuznetsov, who considered that there should be at least a visual gap between the existing and the buildings under construction, and the glass facade also looks radically modern, which is interesting in the historical environment.
The courtyard facade, in contrast to the street, the authors decided to make solid, from natural stone and wood. Such a soft palette, according to the designers, will create a cozy atmosphere in a small courtyard, which, despite its modest size, will be landscaped and divided into several green recreation areas.
Immediately after Andrei Romanov's speech, Sergei Kuznetsov said that two such different examples of work in the historical environment were deliberately submitted to the council: one - a hotel on Ostozhenka - imitating historical buildings, the other - a house on Malaya Ordynka - modern and distinctive. According to the chief architect, the second option turned out to be preferable and fit well into the space of Old Zamoskvorechye. Council members did not argue with the chief architect. Everyone liked the project - both the level of detail, and the delicate attitude to the environment, and the desire to form a comfortable urban environment around them. Andrey Gnezdilov and Vladimir Plotkin were slightly embarrassed by the idea of breaking one building into three parts. "Structurally, this is one, maximum - two houses, - explained his position Gnezdilov, - but you are trying to confuse us and depict three different facades." According to Plotkin, a two-part facade would have looked more honest. There is some paradox in the three-part solution, the targeting of the house is lost. However, this issue could become a topic for a separate professional conversation, and as an author's decision, which will remain on the conscience of the architect, Plotkin agreed to accept the project. Andrey Romanov explained that he expected such questions, but the decision to divide the house into three parts was quite deliberate. According to Romanov, this is due to the desire to correspond to the scale and character of the street: for the sake of this, one can sacrifice the purity of the principle, the architect is sure.
Alexander Kudryavtsev was also upset by the authors' reluctance to preserve the memory of the place, because instead of one house, they designed three, moreover, adjoining the existing building. As a result, a very long facade was formed, contradicting the permeable structure of the street with gaps between buildings. Sergei Tchoban strongly supported the work. According to him, this is a good example of an ongoing and successful project. He called the option with the third glass facade the most preferable, since it is he who helps to create a visual pause - the very gap that Alexander Kudryavtsev regretted.
As a result, it was decided to support the project of a residential building, keeping the author's decision.
