Multifunctional complex as part of "Moscow City"
The new building is planned to be built on the first line of the Krasnopresnenskaya embankment development as the final component of the Empire Tower complex and the entire Moscow City International Business Center. This is a responsible place with a long history: different bureaus managed to work on the project, the concept changed several times. In April 2013, with the support of the ICA,
a closed competition, the winner of which was the UNK-project bureau. Alexander Tsimailo and Nikolai Lyashenko also developed their own version of the new IFC. However, they did not take the prize, and the concept was very different from the one presented by these architects now.
The second phase of the "Empire Tower" complex involves the construction of a building with a standard set of functions for this place - apartments, hotel rooms, offices and retail. Tsimailo, Lyashenko and Partners proposed to place all this in two buildings. One, trapezoidal, with a large courtyard, is turned towards the embankment, the other, in the form of a plate, adjoins the high-rise Empire Tower. Both buildings are placed on a stylobate occupied by shops and cafes. Alexander Tsimailo explained that the trapezoidal shape is associated with the desire to provide panoramic views of the Moskva River to the residents of the apartments (this is the function that occupies the outer perimeter of the 18-storey building). The hotel rooms face the courtyard with landscaping and a fountain.
It is proposed to use two main materials for finishing the facade - dark glass and decorative brass elements. Most of the walls of the main building facing the embankment are occupied by structural glazing. The dark and smooth canvas is interrupted by golden brass “slits”. On the main façade on the lower floors, they are made small, but gradually stretched out, working on the urban scale and perception from distant points. A similar technique is repeated on the side facades, but there the "slots" are no longer stretched vertically, but horizontally.
In addition to the architectural solution of the complex, the authors proposed to create a new pedestrian and public area. From the stylobate they extended a wide bridge hanging over the carriageway embankment and connecting the complex with the river.
Evgenia Murinets, after listening to the report of the authors, explained that today the council is invited to evaluate the preliminary concept, which after the meeting can be supplemented and revised. There is no talk of getting AGR yet. She also drew attention to the fact that the proposal with the organization of a new pedestrian zone over the embankment contradicts the GPZU and requires additional approval.
Sergey Kuznetsov explained that the idea of constructing such a bridge has been in the air for a long time. The new public space, he said, is of great importance for the city, so the council is ready to actively support such a decision in the event of a revision of the GPZU. The only thing that he drew the attention of the authors to was an insufficiently clear solution to the bridge. “Now the platform looks like a giant balcony for the residents of the apartments,” said Kuznetsov. "We need to come up with a more articulated solution, so that from distant points this space looks like a public one." Nikolai Shumakov suggested that the designers go even further and build the bridge directly into the river, however, this option seemed unrealistic to most of those present.
Basically, the presented concept did not raise any questions. Only Alexander Kudryavtsev complained that the new volume would half cover the ellipse on the tower behind it. In addition, Kudryavtsev was embarrassed by the inclination of the projected building towards the embankment, while historically "all the buildings of the City strove towards the center."Vladimir Plotkin stood up for the designers, explaining that the second stage of the complex was originally conceived, and the authors of the tower had to be aware of this. Alexander Tsimailo specified that the distance between the tower and the new multifunctional complex is supposed to be about 25 meters. This will provide a good close-up view of the tower. It will hardly be possible to preserve the view from a distance with any geometry of the projected building.
As a result, it was decided to support the presented concept, giving the authors the opportunity to independently search for ideas on the structure of public space and preserving the integrity of the perception of the complex.
Reconstruction of a building for a hotel on Bakuninskaya street
The design site is located in the center of Moscow, 200 meters from the Baumanskaya metro station, surrounded by ordinary residential buildings. Currently, the site is occupied by a T-shaped building of the former automatic telephone exchange, built in 1928. The low constructivist building has not been used for its intended purpose for a long time and, according to the authors of the project from the "Architectural Bureau of AI", is in a deplorable state. It does not have any protection status, so it can be disassembled in accordance with the issued GPZU. It is recommended to keep only the street facade.
To the designers, this approach to the historical object seemed wrong. They convinced the customer to preserve and restore the entire volume overlooking Bakuninskaya Street using archival photographs. It is now entirely gray, but, according to the archives, it was originally two-color with vertical red-brick inclusions. In addition to the color scheme, the building is proposed to return all the lost details, including the window frames. The constructivist building is planned to be used as a spacious hotel lobby with a double-height atrium and a sculptural staircase in the spirit of the Russian avant-garde.
The extended courtyard wing of the ATS, however, is fully demolished. In its place, the authors have designed a three-star hotel, which grows into a five-story superstructure hovering over the existing building. It houses long-term apartments. The floating effect is created by the visual separation between the building and the superstructure console. A rounded glazed gallery with a winter garden has been created in the "gap". The architectural image of the superstructure is deliberately restrained and minimalistic. Painted glass and fiber-reinforced concrete panels are used for its decoration. The authors explain that they did not want to argue with the architecture of the former PBX and tried to emphasize the modern character of the new built-in volume.
In addition to reconstruction and new construction, which will increase the construction area up to 17 thousand square meters, landscaping and landscaping of the adjacent territory is planned. The concept of the improvement was carried out by Russian architects in collaboration with their English colleagues.
The presented project caused a lot of questions and disputes. Council members strongly disagreed with the demolition of part of the constructivist building. In their opinion, the arguments in favor of demolition are unconvincing. The building is quite suitable for new use, and its condition can in no way be called emergency. Why demolish the existing volume and build a new one in its place? Sergei Tchoban called this approach "half measures." The authors tried to justify themselves: it is difficult to adapt an industrial building for a three-star hotel. Choban did not agree with this: inside, you can easily place a loft-style apartment, think about the development of the trade function - it is impossible to say that these premises are not suitable for use.
Aleksandr Kudryavtsev tried to challenge Sergei Tchoban's categorical position. To him, the approach of the authors trying to preserve the building that is not a monument seemed witty and interesting. Of course, there are certain risks in the process of implementing such a bold idea, said Kudryavtsev. First, there is a danger that the historical façade will be demolished and imitated. Secondly, there is a great temptation to fill the gap between the historic building and the superstructure, because about a thousand square meters disappear there. The superstructure, according to Kudryavtsev, should be made more inconspicuous, move deeper into the site from the front line of the street. In addition, it would be right to involve professional restorers in order to reproduce the historical facade as accurately as possible, repeating not only the lost details, but also the inscriptions in the original graphic design.
Vladimir Plotkin also supported the project with caution. According to him, the authors faced an extremely difficult task, and they offered a very controversial solution. At the same time, as it seemed to Plotkin, the project managed to preserve the "constructivist spirit". Therefore, the implementation of such an idea is quite possible, but only on condition of preservation and restoration of the courtyard part of the automatic telephone exchange. From the options for the architectural solution of the superstructure presented to the council, Plotkin chose a more restrained one, with large glazing areas. In this case, he explained, softness works better than contrast. Nikolay Shumakov also agreed with his colleague, noting that the designers are acting within the framework of the law, according to which the building can be demolished. They are trying to preserve it at least partially, and this should certainly be welcomed, he is sure. His only recommendation is to try to reproduce the proportions of the demolished part in a new volume being erected in its place.
Only Sergei Tchoban expressed his sharp disagreement with the presented project. “I am fundamentally against such an approach and I want my opinion to be taken into account and heard,” said the architect. - Today we call constructivism all the architecture that emerged in Moscow in the 1920s. But there were different trends, among which the buildings that came from the St. Petersburg school stood out. In this case, the combination of new materials with the traditional monumental neoclassical structure and composition is obvious, which is typical for the St. Petersburg school. For such a building, pressure, if not rape, by an overhanging volume is absolutely contraindicated. The sheer monumentalism of the original composition is thus suppressed. The turned and very large superstructure looks like a postmodern mockery. In this case, it is absolutely inappropriate,”- said Choban.
The second, also completely unacceptable moment, noted by Sergei Tchoban - the demolition of the part of the existing house going deep into the site. In this case, the T-shaped composition is destroyed, which is unacceptable. The architect recommended that the authors consider other solutions. For example, the yard volume of the automatic telephone exchange leaves about one third of the site free. There are no obstacles to build a new tall building on a free site, perhaps with a protruding console when there is a lack of space. Thus, it will be possible to keep the existing building unchanged. Otherwise, there is a risk of getting another and well-known "Academy of Posner", concluded Choban.
Sergei Kuznetsov, taking into account the heated debate caused by the presented project, suggested not to make a final decision on the project on Bakuninskaya so far, so as not to give either a positive or negative conclusion. The chief architect asked the authors to present additional archival and historical materials in working order, and most importantly - to explore all the possibilities for preserving the constructivist building as a whole. According to him, there are no obvious reasons for the demolition so far, which means that every opportunity should be used to preserve the building valuable for Moscow.
