Today the results of the first stage of the Open All-Russian architectural competition for the project of facade solutions and interior design of premises on the territory of the Center for Urban Culture "Pravda" will be summed up: participants will be named for the second, project stage, selected by portfolio. The task of the contestants will be to develop a design solution for the facades and interior decoration of the Center for Urban Culture "Pravda" using ceramic tiles and ceramic granite produced by KERAMA MARAZZI.
The printing plant "Pravda" (1931 - 1937), built by Panteleimon Golosov on Pravda Street, in Soviet times produced - in addition to the newspaper of the same name - a variety of printing products, including other periodicals, postcards, etc. The editorial building - the main building of the plant and its most famous component - was badly damaged by fire in 2006 and is now in an unsatisfactory condition (its competition has nothing to do with it). The complex also includes a variety of production facilities and social institutions for Pravda employees.
Despite the fact that not the entire complex of the Pravda plant became the object of the competition, and not all of it has a protective status, plans to modernize the facades and interiors of its buildings raised many questions - both regarding the fate of the plant and its main building that survived the fire, and - in general - the attitude to the monuments of the avant-garde, the preservation of their authenticity - not only physical, but also aesthetic.
We give the floor to the organizers of the competition and experts.
Sergey Georgievsky, Head of the Organizing Committee of the Competition, Director of the CENTER Agency:
Archi.ru:
- Which buildings will receive the new facades from porcelain stoneware?
Sergey Georgievsky:
- The aim of the competition is architectural and artistic solutions for the facades of Building 3 and Building 7, as well as the design of the premises of the former workshop and the connecting corridors of Building 2 on the territory of the Center for Urban Culture "Pravda". Also, the purpose of the competition is to form new approaches to the renovation and development of industrial architecture in the urban environment.
Another of the tasks of the competition is to get away from the tradition of utilitarian use of ceramic granite that has developed in post-Soviet cities and demonstrate artistic techniques for using ceramic granite together with other building and finishing materials. We are not talking about completely covering the façade with porcelain stoneware. Competitors must demonstrate the combined use of porcelain stoneware with other materials, taking into account the stylistic features of the buildings.
The objects for the competition were selected on the basis of the future concept of the Center for Urban Culture "Pravda", the organization of the courtyard and public spaces, as well as because of the differences in the architecture of these buildings.
- Does the terms of reference provide for the preservation of the plastics of the existing facade (repetition of details - ledges, undercuts, etc. - in the new material), will the existing facades be hewn away when installing a curtain-sided facade made of porcelain stoneware or remain intact? Did the TK include any other characteristics and elements that would be desirable to retain? Was the special architectural value of the complex as an integral work of Panteleimon Golosov taken into account when organizing the competition and drawing up its terms of reference? If so, what measures have been taken?
- The facade of building 3 has elements characteristic of the general historical architecture of the complex. At the same time, the building does not belong to a cultural heritage site. According to the building passport, the monument of regional significance is building 2. No special encumbrances are imposed on the facade of building 3. Building 3 is historically and functionally related to building 2, therefore the competition task obliges the contestants, when developing a solution for building 3, to take into account the existing plastic of the building, architectural elements and the general compositional and planning structure, composition and architectural appearance of the territory.
In current use, the façade of Building 3 adjoins the main open public space within the complex, where street food stalls and small architectural elements are now located. Through the facade of building 3, the entrance to the internal premises of building 2 is carried out, there are show rooms, photo studios open to outside visitors. The object of the competition is public corridors and a workshop, which now do not have a holistic architectural solution.
The terms of reference takes into account the limitations due to the preserved fragments of the interior:
- metlakh tiles;
- metal tiles;
- a system of information boards (warning signs and posters);
- wooden external sliding doors.
Also, restrictions are imposed on the supporting frame of the building, the ratio of blind and glazed surfaces, the location of window openings, the location of vertical connections: stairs, elevators, the facade of building 2.
Building 7 also overlooks the common square of the Pravda Center for Urban Culture. This is an example of late construction. Therefore, the building does not represent the current architectural value, does not enter the boundaries of the cultural heritage object, and accordingly does not impose special restrictions on the design. At the same time, the building itself is very functional from the point of view of adaptation for new use. Workshops and creative studios are located here. Building 7 is very similar in shape to other industrial buildings that can be found in numerous Moscow industrial zones.
This is relevant, since one of the objectives of the competition is to offer a high-quality model for the renovation of industrial facilities, which receive a new functional purpose, by architectural means using available finishing materials - in order to further broadcast this experience to other facilities in Moscow and the regions.
The technical task of the competition implies that for fixing ceramic granite, systems of hinged (ventilated) facades are used, which allow preserving the original finishing material. Mixed use of porcelain stoneware with lighter materials will reduce the additional stress on the existing facade of the building.
- Did the heritage experts take part in drawing up the terms of reference for the competition? If so, who and what was their role, if not, at what stage will they be involved, what will be their task? Who exactly are you planning to attract? Will the opinion of architectural historians be officially confirmed and taken into account in the jury's decision?
- The result of this competition should be a concept. In accordance with our legislation, the involvement of heritage experts is not mandatory at the concept stage. According to the law, in the case of developing a project for adapting a monument for modern use, experts must be involved at the design stage.
The terms of reference were developed by analysts of the CENTER Agency. The competition is held in two stages. 1st stage - qualifying for portfolio. 2nd stage - development of the Test Project itself. An extended terms of reference, taking into account all the restrictions, is provided to participants at the 2nd stage of the competition. When compiling it, the opinions of Alexandra Selivanova, Elena Ovsyannikova, as well as other experts expressed in the public field in relation to the subject of the competition were taken into account.
To clarify the status and boundaries of the object of architectural heritage, our team consulted with Marianna Evstratova, architect, ex-chief curator of the Museum of Architecture. AV Shchusev, chief specialist of the Moscow Heritage Committee on the architecture of the Soviet period, and in terms of the renovation of industrial facilities of historical and architectural value - with Marina Khrustaleva, an architectural historian, coordinator of the Arkhnadzor public movement.
Vasily Baburov
employee of the Laboratory of Urban Planning Research, Moscow Architectural Institute:
The Pravda Combine is a unique architectural ensemble of the twentieth century, formed over half a century (1930–80s). Its core is a masterpiece of constructivism - a complex of editorial and printing houses designed by Panteleimon Golosov together with his students and colleagues.
Pravda is also a very large city block with an internal layout. While purely production functions were retained, the plant, like all other industrial zones, was closed to outsiders, i.e. excluded from the public life of the city. However, in the post-Soviet years, the situation changed, tenants appeared who significantly diversified the functional "palette" of the complex and thereby opened (albeit not fully) "Pravda" to the townspeople.
It's time to take the next step and shape this life architecturally. This is very important not only for Pravda itself, whose buildings need restoration and renovation, but also for Moscow as a whole. The main vectors of the urban planning policy of the last 20 years are the development of free territories and the reconstruction of transport infrastructure. Both of these lead to the degradation or disappearance of open urban spaces. Redevelopment of industrial zones to some extent compensates for these losses. Arma, Artplay, Red Rose, Stanislavsky Factory and many other projects not only returned vast territories to the city, but enriched it with attractive buildings and places. Pravda is located in the center of a large area bounded by the Leningradskoye Highway, the Third Transport Ring and the railway. These places are rich in interesting architecture and, moreover, are not spoiled by odious buildings, but the area is still not very friendly either to local residents or to other Muscovites and visitors.
Pravda has long been in need of an integral urban planning concept (master plan) that would define the rules of the game for owners, investors and architects. As the experience of most successful conversions of production territories shows, this is a mandatory step. However, there is no question of this - today the plant is divided between different owners who act on their own, without coordinating their plans with each other, since they are not obliged to do this. The situation is complicated by the fact that some of the buildings are architectural monuments, and some are not.
The absence of restrictions unties the hands. For example, it becomes possible to conduct competitions with potentially "pathogenic" programs containing topics such as the search for architectural and artistic solutions for the facades of buildings of the 1930s, taking into account the use of inauthentic materials (porcelain stoneware). Although the design objects (buildings 3 and 7) do not have a protected status (ie, the law allows their change), de facto they are part of the architectural ensemble of the Pravda Combine. It turns out that the program obliges the participants to develop projects that can damage this ensemble. If the competition were “paper-based” (that is, it would not involve implementation), then even in this case it would have produced a negative effect (harmful ideas form false values). What will happen if they move from words to deeds?"
Alexandra Selivanova
Head of the Avant-garde Center on Shabolovka, senior researcher at the Museum of Moscow:
“The idea of renovating the internal facades of two courtyard buildings of the Pravda plant and the interior of the printing building raises many questions. Almost by chance, when we learned about the announcement of the competition and got to the presentation, we managed to somehow influence the situation: after the questions asked and posts on Facebook, the terms of reference were corrected. In particular, the organizers guessed to contact Marianna Evstratova and received from her the full subject of protection of the complex, from where they learned that the heritage site is not only the administrative building, but also the printing house (building 2, included in the competition)! At the time of the announcement of the start, the organizers did not know this … Today the composition of the jury (which also changed almost by half: among others, the director of MARSH, Nikita Tokarev, and - unexpectedly - Roman Direktovich, project manager of the Center for Urban Culture "Pravda") will sum up the results of the first stage - selection of participants, and on December 9, the terms of reference will be published. I hope that after all the information received, it will include the surviving elements of the interiors of the printing house: metlakh and steel tiles, glazing and frames of skylights, preserved woodwork, technical stairs, etc.
Now about the global. To our great regret, with all the good intentions of the operators of the competition, it is impossible to work with the legacy like that. The very essence of the competition contains insoluble contradictions. The first task is: "To create a new look for buildings and interiors of a unique historical building." It's an oxymoron. Moreover, it is a violation of the norms and principles of working with heritage, ranging from "indecent" to "illegal", depending on what is prescribed in the subject of protection. The fact that the organizers of the competition refer to the "absence of encumbrances" in the documents of title - this, frankly, belongs to the first category. If this competition claims to be a model for similar situations ("to offer a high-quality model for the renovation of industrial facilities"), the ostrich position is unacceptable here: "this has nothing to do with the competition", "there is another owner", "these elements are not included in the subject of protection" … The administrative building of Pravda, one of the key monuments of constructivism in Moscow, which is crumbling nearby, cannot be ignored. It is impossible to pretend that the complex consists of separate independent elements, some of which (moreover, with separate facades) can be "decorated", and some - not to notice. One cannot be guided by the formal approach “appears” or “does not appear” if one is pompously talking about preserving the heritage of the avant-garde and specifically the Golosov complex.
And finally, about the principles. The curtain facade made of porcelain stoneware, that is, tiles imitating natural stone, for a constructivist monument (I am talking about the plant as an architectural complex) is a spit into eternity. Especially in the context of the speaking name of the complex - "Pravda". The essence of this desire to “cover”, “curtain” and “hide” does not change - be it siding from the 1990s, alucobond from the 2000s, porcelain stoneware from the 2010s. The developers engaged in the renovation of the industrial premises have already learned that it is absurd to cover the historical pre-revolutionary brick with porcelain stoneware or imitation brick - it just needs to be cleaned. It remains to understand this in relation to reinforced concrete and terrazite plaster of the 1920s and 1930s. Landscaping courtyards - of course. Small forms? Yes. But why hide architecture?
Everything that Ginzburg, Vesnins, the same Golosov fought against - with false decorative facades, with imitation and forgery, with external "beauty" - everything is here. How can the design of individual facade walls of buildings be proposed for the competition, if we perceive them three-dimensionally, in space, in motion? Decorators of the Golosov era, who decorated the facades for meeting the Chelyuskinites or May Day demonstrations, used fabric and plywood for such purposes. It's both cheaper and more honest. And what has to do with architecture when it comes to theater."
Tatiana Tsareva
expert in conducting state historical and cultural expertise at the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation:
“I learned about the competition from an interesting and heated discussion on Facebook (
post by Alexandra Selivanova), in which very important and non-trivial issues were raised, including the question of how to relate to buildings that, by an oversight of the researchers, were not included in the ensemble of the cultural heritage object, which are a number of buildings of the historical and cultural monument of the newspaper "Pravda" (1930s, architect PA Golosov), proposed for reconstruction.
In general, joining the general tone of the statements, I would like to once again note the need to finalize the historical and cultural study of the entire complex of buildings of the Combine of the newspaper "Pravda" and approve on its basis a new composition of the ensemble, develop and approve the Subject of Protection for newly included a comprehensive restoration project and adaptation to modern use. And only after that all sorts of events and experiments with tiles will become legitimate - under the supervision of restorers, of course, in places that have completely lost their authentic finish and are not included in the subject of protection of the monument.
I understand that all this is easy and simple to tell an expert, but it is probably very unpleasant and offensive to listen to the customer, who is convinced that the established by law and, in our opinion, the absolutely correct procedure will lead to the building being able to restore its quality and, accordingly, commercial characteristics, at best, in a few years and it will cost a lot of money. And I want to immediately and now put everything in order by the method of "cultural intervention", "artistically using" porcelain stoneware, widely discussing it in the media, receiving praise and applause from everywhere.
To make it quickly, effectively, inexpensively is a tempting model of the future standard for transforming abandoned and neglected monuments into fashionable urban points of attraction. Of course, I would not want to “stifle in the bud” the desire of the owners to openly discuss with the public projects for the reconstruction of valuable buildings, suggesting “extraordinary solutions” - this openness should be encouraged and developed in every possible way. But the fundamental support of such an approach to work with valuable building elements may lead to the creation of a precedent for the cultural community to approve irreparable changes in the stylistics of valuable urban buildings only on the grounds that the building is not formally included in the list of monuments."
