Our magazine has an unusual release schedule, to which, however, regular readers are used to: the last issue of the year is published not in December, but after a while, in February. So we give ourselves the opportunity not only to sum up, but also to comprehend the results of the year. In 2017, perhaps for the first time in many years, there was almost unanimity in the list of these results (as can be judged by the corresponding articles on archi.ru). In unanimity, however, there was also an acute conflict, since instead of the usual statement of a fait accompli, there were results that some attributed to breakthroughs, and others to failures.
It is for such cases - objectively bright, but subjectively ambiguous - and the editorial board of "PR" has taken it. For example, we dedicated the section “Object of the issue” to the project of the park in Zaryadye - and realized that in order for the story to claim at least some completeness, the volume of the section must be significantly increased (48 pages instead of the usual 12 or 24). We didn't just take a walk in the park - although this is exactly what is recommended to be done in the first place after reading all the material (it will become clear to you why) - but we spoke with those who did this project. Not with the whole team, unfortunately - there are dozens of people - but at home, on the sidelines. And they found out why, say, other projects-finalists of the international competition could not be implemented, what unique technologies are “buried” in the park hills, who could become the author of the Philharmonic, why the ponds are of exactly the same shape, where there are potholes in the oak benches, how in reality recreated the tundra, what is happening under the glass crust … And you know, literally every fact that someone made a claim to the project had a simple and reasonable explanation. And we, in turn, tried to explain why the park in Zaryadye, including the process of its implementation, so accurately reflects all facets of the Russian soul. Against this backdrop, the international recognition of the project (archdaily award of the year) seems even more significant.
It's not hard to guess what topic we chose for the main section of the magazine: the renovation went through all the events of 2017 like a red thread, having touched many personally. Therefore, we, on the contrary, looked at her as detachedly as possible. We studied the foreign experience and were convinced that everyone, without exception, is faced with the need to "reflash" individual fragments of the city tissue. And there is no “no problem” anywhere - all we can do is take into account their mistakes.
We remembered that a year ago the word “renovation” was used mainly in connection with industrial zones - and that their redevelopment is still relevant: the general plan of Moscow until 2025 provides for a change in the function of industrial territories with a total area of 2.4 thousand hectares - this is also about 300 "Arm". The only problem is that, despite several clearly successful examples of redevelopment of industrial zones, there is no debugged and understandable scheme for working with them. It so happened that the agency for strategic initiatives "CENTER" together with colleagues from JSB "Rozhdestvenka" and the Institute of the General Plan of Moscow just started a large study on this topic, combining the points of view of an architect, urban planner, defender of industrial heritage and economist. With our magazine, they shared separate results.
Bureau T + T architects in their methodological work did not think about industrial zones, but about buildings in general - be it a monument of constructivism, modernism, or just an "old building". In what cases is it advisable to demolish, and in what - to keep and adapt? And if you adapt - then for what? The architects proposed a universal test methodology to help find answers.
We have traced what meanings are put into all these concepts: redevelopment, reconstruction, renovation, revitalization. Architect Nikita Malikov explained in detail why this is “our past, present and future”, and we found interesting case studies - from the reconstruction of a 19th century monument in Volgograd and the revitalization of a panel block in Yekaterinburg to an experimental project of a “wooden city” at one of the renovation sites in Moscow. The global challenge of urbanization and the need to mobilize all internal urban resources - and to develop, above all, already built-up areas - have become drivers for such processes as changes in the typology of housing and approaches to planning neighborhoods. In a large review of competitions on this topic of housing, we investigated where we, most likely, will live in the near future.
The architects finally thought about it seriously - which is good news. A lot of evidence of this is collected under a separate cover in an appendix dedicated to 20 projects - finalists of the competition for the concept of five pilot renovation sites. And despite the fact that recently there was a large exhibition with them, we are sure that you will find a lot of new things in our materials. For example, about the fact that most of the participants have developed universal strategies for working with the existing fragments of the urban fabric, which can be extrapolated to other renovation sites (and not only). Why are some "sentenced" to demolition five-story buildings still worth keeping. What valuable tree species grow in the capital's courtyards. What morphotypes of development are popular among Muscovites, and how can Muscovites themselves be included in the renovation process so that it is as painless as possible.
As always, the rubric curated by Ilya Mukosey "From the life of architects" is full of humor and surprises, the heroes of which this time are Sergei Tchoban, Oscar Mamleev, Arseny Leonovich and Anatoly Belov. However, after the well-deserved "male pleasures", to which, to some extent, reading of our magazine can be attributed, we would like the reader to think. As the researcher of architecture Alexander Ostrogorsky aptly called his introduction to the "Theory" column (in it he showed the project for the renovation of the Ostozhenka district the way he intended), "we have learned a lot, but forgotten." It's time to remember.
You can order a new number here
