The concept of expanding the F. M. Dostoevsky
St. Petersburg, Dostoevsky street, 2/5, letter A
Designer: Evgeny Gerasimov & Partners LLC
Customer: Fund for Support and Development of the Museum of F. M. Dostoevsky's "Petersburg of Dostoevsky"
The Dostoevsky Museum Expansion Project is being submitted for public and professional discussion already
not the first time. There are several reasons for close attention to it: the historical center of St. Petersburg and the name of the writer, financing of the project on a charitable basis with the participation of large businessmen, the lawn on the site, the modern facade of the museum is emphasized. The meeting was traditionally preceded by a single picket calling to prevent construction.
The first to speak was the director of the museum, Natalya Ashimbaeva, who again spoke about why a new space is needed: the museum will soon be 50 years old, it has significantly expanded its activities, there are exhibitions and various projects for which there is no place. The museum theater will move to the new building, which means that the old basement room will be freed up for storing funds. Now the museum has only 103 m for exhibitions2, the new building will have another 244.
Evgeny Gerasimov first acted as a co-founder of the Fund for Support and Development of the Museum of F. M. Dostoevsky”and spoke about the financing of the project. The building will be built at the expense of benefactors, including both ordinary citizens and businessmen: Andrey Yakunin, Andrey Molchanov, Felix Dlin. Design and engineering organizations work on a charitable basis - the workshop "Evgeny Gerasimov and Partners", DOKA Center and Tsn Group. For the construction of a building with an area of 1600 m2 it will take about 650 million rubles. At the expense of the collected funds, one of the three apartments in the museum building has already been resettled. In the future, the foundation will transfer to the museum all the premises, both new and old, under a contract of gratuitous perpetual use.
Evgeny Gerasimov spoke about the functional content of the future building and the transformation of the old museum. He dwelled on the facade in more detail: it will take into account the module of the floors of the neighboring buildings - the museum and INZHEKON, built in 1849 and 1912, respectively. Gray granite of various breeds, shades and textures will be combined with copper sheets, echoing the domes of the Vladimir Cathedral. They decided to abandon the idea of engraving quotes from Dostoevsky - "too frontal method." The facade turned out to be "powerful, tactile, expensive, but unsaid, so that it does not bother for a long time, and everyone sees his own in it." The courtyard facade will also be made in stone, and if you still need to put up an external evacuation staircase, it will be closed with a net, along which ivy will be allowed.
According to Evgeny Gerasimov, it is very important that the museum looks not like a tenement house of the 19th century, but like a public building of the 21st. When the site is transferred to the fund, the concept will be finalized in detail, but will not radically change.
Reviewer Anatoly Stolyarchuk, in order to sweep aside unnecessary discussions, immediately went through the "non-architectural" issues that cause a lot of controversy: there is an investment agreement signed at the 2018 Economic Forum that approves construction, the money is not budgetary, regulatory documents do not prohibit new construction on this site, the square is not liquidate, and partially build up and improve. The main question is: can there be a new building in this place, and if so, which one.
They tried to answer this question in the course of further discussions. Predictably, two camps have formed: architects, who believe what can and should be, and city rights activists who stand up for the preservation of the environment of Dostoevsky's Petersburg.
Anatoly Stolyarchuk believes that the architecture of different eras of Kuznechny Lane is quite capable of accepting a new building. And the facade is “meaningful, but not straightforward, falling into the scale and style of the environment”. Mikhail Kondiain agreed: “the authors took the rhythm, scale and horizontal sections, supported the cornice. The details are in line with the theme and contemporary reading of architecture. Nikita Yavein offered to drink to Yevgeny Gersimov's courage and charm and expressed the opinion that “a stone wall with different textures of high quality, which Yevgeny Gerasimov knows how to achieve, is the right move, it will replace the detail that we usually lack”.
The head of the B2 architectural studio, Felix Buyanov, called the work interesting and successful, and was also surprised at the apologetic tone of the architect and reviewer - the previous day the project was discussed at the Youth Section of the Union of Architects, and there he was greeted kindly. Evgeny Gerasimov, by the way, really looked a little tired of having to endlessly explain his work. Felix Buyanov also noted that if the courtyard facade and roof can be made green, then there will be more “nature” on the site than in the current park. The facade, in his opinion, turned out to be metaphorical: the titanic masonry hints at the titanium of Russian literature, "the bedrock of our invincible city has come to the surface."
However, the architects also had comments. Nikita Yavein doubted the "rich banking architecture", in his opinion, far from the spirit of Dostoevsky. According to Yavein, the glass thermometer of the atrium, which creates a “boutique effect and new Russianness”, “falls out of the general system” - this idea was supported by many of those present. Council members suggested that the atrium be made thinner or deepened. The bay window also caused doubts.
City activists spoke out more sharply. Deputy Chairman of the St. Petersburg branch of VOOPIIK Alexander Kononov called the concept "a radical invasion of the historical environment of the quarter and Kuznechny Lane" and suggested the path of architectural restoration (there used to be a tenement house on the site, which was demolished in the 1950s). Another snag: "the museum building is a monument of federal significance, which has items of protection: external and internal capital walls, which are illegal to break through." The opinion was also expressed that it is more important to moderate the ambitions of the foundation and restore the environment of Dostoevsky's St. Petersburg. The current solution is "an explosion, a blow to the expectations of people who come to see the conditions under which Dostoevsky wrote his works." Associate Professor of the Department of Architecture of the Institute named after I. E. Repin Sergei Shmakov voted for stylization. The head of the ECOM center of expertise Alexander Karpov referred to
Law 820, which prohibits changing traditional methods during new construction in this zone, at the same time expressing ironic confidence in the flexibility of the approach of the KGIOP lawyers.
Mikhail Kondiain defined the controversy surrounding the project as "disentangling the legacy of the nineties," when a town protection movement was completely justified in the city. But, according to the architect, the legislation that took shape at that time hinders the development of the city, which now lives in different realities: "A mummy instead of a living city is a terrible phenomenon, not an unpleasant tendency: there is no quality environment in the city center, there is nothing to give to the new generation." Mikhail Kondiain urged to find the right relationship with city rights defenders.
It seems that there are still some changes in these relations: the members of the city council spoke out surprisingly calmly and loyally. Towards the end of the meeting, however, someone began to demand an apology from the town rights activists, who in response threatened with a list of town-planning mistakes, but that was all.
Further, the project is awaiting discussion at the Council for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage.
