- If we cover the Zaryadye park project as a whole, from a “research” point of view, what do you consider to be its key features?
Charles Renfro, Diller Scofidio + Renfro:
“This park is not one particular place, but a series of experiences that, when taken together, form a completely unique type of experience. It is very important how the park starts, its “front door”. Of course, Zaryadye is quite porous, you can get there from different points, but we think that most visitors will enter from the north-western corner of Red Square, closer to St. Basil's Cathedral. It is there that we create a change of mood and atmosphere with the help of what we called 'wild urbanism' (“wild”, natural urbanism - ed.): The urban situation of Red Square and the surrounding quarters merges with a natural environment reminiscent of the nature of the Moscow region and all of Russia, superimposed on it; the result is a doubling of the environment: one of them is natural, the other is man-made. In addition to the entrance area, there are many other places in the park where we are trying to develop the idea of an "augmented environment": you are in the fresh air, but your experience is different from being in a normal natural environment. It does not feel like a forest, but a new type of landscape created specifically for this park. Although the park seems to be far from Moscow, it is different from it, it is natural and you can get lost in it, there you can also rediscover the city with the help of viewpoints and visual connections - unusual, to which you did not have access before, with the top of the hill, or from the middle of the river or from the boundaries of the park to adjacent streets. That is, this place exists both separately from Moscow and in Moscow. In this sense, Zaryadye is related to our High Line flyover park in New York, which is raised nine meters above the streets, but visually connected with all parts of the city and also serves to get to know it again.
Ken Haynes, Hargreaves Associates:
- I would like to emphasize that we consider the fusion of architecture and landscape, blurring of boundaries and contours to be a special, different and unique property of the park. This also applies to a large scale, where the buildings are inscribed in the relief, and the level of detail - when the paving does not have a clear edge according to the scheme - a side stone, and then plants: instead, a fusion of pavement and greenery. This merge has many levels, which is very interesting.
During the competition, your project seemed to be the most spectacular of the finalists' works. It was courageous to offer such a park for the center of Moscow, in a historical context, with the UNESCO World Heritage Site - the Kremlin and Red Square - very close. What goal did you set for yourself? Did you think that Moscow needs something spectacular like an amusement park?
Charles Renfro:
- There are three answers to this question. On the one hand, the competition project required a lot of covered space, which under normal circumstances would have formed into a building; under the surface of the park there are a lot of covered areas. And so our first reaction was not to place buildings on the surface of the park, but to create a system where the landscape and architecture form a single whole in such a way that the structures are mostly hidden. From some points of view, architecture is not visible at all, from others - it manifests itself as the facades of buildings. That is, our tactical decision was to make the covered structures less visible. At the same time, we offered a unique solution for this site in response to the need for indoor spaces: landscape and architecture merge to form a new formal language. This language works in two ways. It brings unambiguous modernity to the center of Moscow - a lot of glazing, large-span structures, consoles. At the same time, it is muted, since it does not violate the horizon line, does not compete with the existing monuments of Moscow architecture. At the same time, he does not sound timid, he does not say: "You know, I am not something new," but rather declares: "I am a new way of solving a problem." He recognizes the historical character of the center of Moscow, without showing any sign, "iconic" character. If we recall other competitive projects, with buildings on the surface of the site and rather extravagant formal gestures, ours was strikingly innovative, but at the same time much less competitive with the Kremlin and St. Basil's Cathedral. Our goal, of course, was not such a competition, but the creation of an image that would complement the architectural impression of the rest of Moscow.
But the bridge is very "iconic", it declares itself
Charles Renfro:
- This is not a bridge in the traditional sense, it does not lead from point A to point B. It gives people an unusual impression of the river, being 10 meters above the water surface. Its function is to be a place to admire the city, not an object to look at, not an “iconic” landmark of the park. Undoubtedly, he will attract a lot of attention, everyone will take pictures of him, he is monumental. I must say that in the course of our work on the project with local contractors, the project changed, the bridge became reinforced concrete, enlarged - and became more visible than it was intended in the competitive version. We don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, it's just that he has become different - including more iconic.
Are there any other changes compared to the competition project?
Charles Renfro:
- If you look at the competitive version of the idea and what is being built now, all the parts and components conceived then, different landscapes and their special relationships are in place, and we are very pleased that everything turned out this way. On the other hand, which is quite normal, each complex urban project has many layers - literally and figuratively, and it is influenced by many forces that appear only during the implementation of the project. For example, the entire park has become a few meters higher, and as a result, some of its architectural parts are now more visible than it was intended by the competition project. But thanks to the elevation in the park, there are more places where you feel connected to the city. That is, such changes always have positive and negative sides. In general, the biggest changes compared to the competition project are in the size, but not in the concept.
We would also like to do more work on the passive "stable" elements that were originally conceived. We managed to implement many of them: due to the fact that the architecture is built into the landscape, it retains heat, it also lets the sun in, protects you from rain and snow. However, the geothermal heating system included in the project, the water circulation scheme, etc. were eventually removed in the interest of saving money - a typical story - but these changes are completely invisible. And the spaces of the park will feel and work as a whole as we expected and planned at the stage of the competition.
Probably, after such changes, the park will not receive any environmental awards or certificates of resource efficiency? Or is it still possible?
Charles Renfro:
- You know, this park is so much more environmentally friendly than the Rossiya hotel (laughs) that it will receive the highest certificate from this point of view. I'm not sure if we even qualify for LEED or BREEAM certification. Our goal was not to make the park a demonstration project for green technologies. We wanted to show how people can feel themselves in a space where passive systems work - solar heat is captured, etc.
Brian Tabolt, Diller Scofidio + Renfro:
- We were really interested in redirecting energy flows on the site, using energy as a building material or to create impressions for the visitor. And so we came up with all these more active systems that would be solar powered and generate energy for off-season heating and cooling. Baterias will become part of the mesh shell, their energy will be spent on individual lamps and other elements of the park. In general, the park is "stable", it is a place where people will come many times, it will become a part of the city's life. At the same time, we were less interested in the “obligatory” lists of eco-elements than the possibilities of redirecting energy throughout the year, climatic zones where the “passive” form of the park creates warm and cool spaces.
David Chacon, Diller Scofidio + Renfro:
“What attracted us to the competition was that it was required to create a park that would be used all year round. To summarize, the park as an international, spectacular attraction will not work all year round. In winter, probably, not tourists will come there, but Muscovites - children, pensioners. Therefore, the park is not only a performance, not only for tourists, and this interested us.
This is a very interesting question - all-season use, because this is a problem for all Moscow parks. What has been done at Zaryadye to attract people there in winter?
Charles Renfro:
- The project includes a "supplemented" climate, which was an attempt to expand the area where one could comfortably stay in the cold season, outside the premises. We did this mostly with passive measures - solar radiation, heat trapping, wind protection - all of which were largely preserved in the final design. In addition, the park will have two all-season attraction points, both food-related - a restaurant and a market like the New York market in Chelsea, which will hopefully be year-round. The restaurant has a lot of glazing, but also a warm atmosphere; there are views of the river from there. Another year-round playground will be a children's educational center: it is quite large, larger than originally conceived. And the last component is a more tourist-oriented media center, located closer to Red Square, with an exposition about the nature and cities of Russia. And, of course, the Philharmonic Hall will open in the park, where concerts are scheduled for 250 days a year. Although it is not located in the center of the park, it will still attract people there: first they will go to listen to the symphony, and then to the restaurant, and at the same time they will move around the park.
Brian Tabolt:
- One of the reasons for the fusion of architecture and landscape in Zaryadye was our desire to make it so that you could move in the fresh air, but never move too far from any shelter - trees that block the path of the wind, a large roof overhang, which almost all pavilions have it - it will protect from snow, wind, rain, creating an area that is both closed and open. At the same time, the pavilions resemble huts in the forest or caves: you can approach them, warm up, and return further to the park. All this is done so that you can stay in the park longer than usual and not freeze. And there are always already listed covered points of attraction.
The large mesh shell above the Philharmonic was designed by us together with the engineers Buro Happold and Transsolar: despite the fact that it is completely open on all sides, the geometry of the space between the hill and its roof allows you to keep the heat of the sun during the day, creating a kind of warm bubble in it. top point. It works like a greenhouse without doors, and there you can warm up without going into the room. It is unlikely that it will be possible to sunbathe there, but the jacket can be taken off - or just relax and admire the park, the Kremlin, St. Basil's Cathedral through the mesh shell - it is quite comfortable even on a cold day.
What do you think about the Philharmonic project?
Charles Renfro:
- We did not participate much in the work on the Philharmonic building, only we chose a place and position for it in relation to the park at the stage of the competition. All of this is preserved in the final draft, and we really appreciate it. Moreover, we are even surprised by this fact, because our idea was quite radical: the building should be perceived as a large architectural object from the street, and as a large part of the park from the other side. We know little about the project itself; TPO "Reserve" is engaged in it. But we successfully collaborated with them when we were engaged in the junction of the park and the Philharmonic building.
In our climate, trees stand without leaves in late autumn, winter, early spring: the park looks very different. How is this reflected in the project?
Ken Haynes:
- The palette we used is very interesting, and in all four seasons. For example, birch trees - their white bark looks amazing in winter, and in autumn the yellow color of the leaves is also very beautiful. There will be many perennial plants and herbs in the park. Even in winter, the grasses do not lose their color and structure, and when they are not covered with snow, they sway in the wind. In the spring there will be flowers, in the summer there will be movement, a completely different color palette will be in the fall, and the structure in winter. We always take into account seasonal changes.
Charles Renfro:
- There is also a large area of evergreens, which also gives variety.
How did you take into account the practical side of the difficult ecological situation and climate in Moscow when you designed the park?
Ken Haynes:
- Do you mean air quality?
Yes, the air quality, but the main thing is the problem with deicing agents, which are often very dangerous for plants
Ken Haynes:
- We discussed the issue of the maintenance and operation of the park, in particular, the removal of snow so that it does not harm the plants. We are against the use of salt, which is harmful to them, therefore, even at the beginning, we recommended other methods - in particular, glycolic and other non-salt products. If we take mechanical means, then we suggest using machines with brushes instead of plows, because plow snow blowers do a lot of damage - including paving.
At the beginning of our conversation, you mentioned the High Line: did your experience in designing this park influence the work on Zaryadye?
Charles Renfro:
- Certainly! The High Line became the starting point for thinking about the question: how to create a new type of park in a very dense urban environment? For the High Line, we invented the pavement through which grass can grow: it reminds of the ruin that this flyover was before the park was created. The pavement works in a similar way at Zaryadye. But since in Moscow this is not a linear park, but rather a field, we decided that the paving would now surround the trees, then part, then turn into very soft paths, constantly moving from hard to soft or green, and vice versa.
We also really like the fact that from the High Line you can see New York in a different way. I do not consider the High Line to be a real park, it is primarily a viewing device, where there is simply landscaping: after all, people come to the High Line not for the sake of trees and flowers, but for the sake of being in the city. And in Moscow, we wanted to create a park where you can both seem to be in nature and rediscover the city for yourself.
Zaryadye is a big project, and its completion took a lot of time …
Charles Renfro:
- Actually, not at all! (laughs) It's not that big and it all happened really fast!
Nevertheless, during this time, I believe you have gained some experience of working as an architect in Russia. What are its main differences from practice in the United States?
Charles Renfro:
- Let me dot the i right away: we won the competition, made the masterplan and the concept of the park project. But from that moment on, we are project consultants, and architects are our Russian colleagues. Therefore, our experience is very different from how everything would happen in America, where we would be involved in all the intricacies of the development and detailing of the project, architectural supervision. And here we were consultants who helped the team to solve problems so that the realized park was close to our concept. And we have fully coped with this task, given that the profession and the construction sector are not as developed in Russia as in Western Europe and the United States. And it was in many ways an educational process: we helped Russian contractors, designers, architects understand how to put everything together. I believe that this park for Russian professionals was a step into the unknown, which nevertheless allowed them to get acquainted with the latest systems and technical knowledge that we included in the project.
Brian Tabolt:
- Despite the fact that small landscape projects are being implemented in Moscow, Zaryadye is the first new large park in a long time, and therefore no one had much experience in creating parks. As for the American workflow, everything is always done very carefully, methodically, accurately, which allows us to control the situation in many ways, but at the same time things are going slowly and with difficulty, sometimes with a great reluctance to take any risks. But it is possible to work in another way, so we were pleased with the desire of our Moscow colleagues to try to implement such a large and complex project in a very short time. There was a very optimistic atmosphere at the construction site. It turned out very interesting and completely different than at home. I think it would be more difficult in the States to implement such a large-scale project in such a short time.
