Business center "Optima"
Saint Petersburg, Torzhkovskaya street, 5.
Designer: LLC "BURO VIZEN"
Customer: JSC PI "Leningradsky Vodokanalproekt"
Discussed: project of reconstruction of a building into a business center with a hotel
The business center "Optima" is located near the metro station "Chernaya Rechka". This area, which is a kind of "buffer" between the historic part of the city and new residential areas, is built up mainly with buildings from the 1950s and 60s. The future business center "Optima" was erected a little later - in the 1980s, for
"NIIP Urban Development" and "Leningradsky Vodokanalproekt". The latter was the customer of the works: it was necessary to add a hotel with 99 rooms to the building, for which the Vision bureau decided to build on a five-story building with a cantilever volume, and to make an extension in the courtyard, where a reception desk and a staircase and elevator node would be located.
The project was first discussed at
city council in December last year, then the authors proposed two options for the superstructure: contrasting "author's" and "mansard", continuing the architecture of the existing facade. The experts recommended choosing the "author's" one and working on the details.
According to the architect Alexei Sadovsky, in the new version the accent protruding "zigzags" were replaced by balconies, "the console has become coarser and simpler, but calmer, the facade has a single style." The diagonal asymmetry has been preserved - at the maximum points, the console protrudes 3.5 meters. New materials - roofing steel and tinted glass.
Reviewer Nikita Yavein admitted that the add-on proposed by the authors gives him a difficult feeling: “It is possible as an experiment in this unaccented part of the city, with boring buildings in the 60s, but it will become a precedent, and many similar solutions will appear. This is allowed in other cities, but not in St. Petersburg."
The reviews were again critical: “why turn your neck like that”, “an abnormal vision of the architectonics of the building” and “disrespect for the authors of the house”. At the same time, Mikhail Kondiain, for example, noted that “the city must develop, life will force us to return to such projects”. To make the building interesting again, he proposed to completely “tear off” the new volume from the old one, to make it “soaring” - the height regulation allows. Nikita Yavein considered that the situation for self-expression was not the best and offered an acceptable, in his opinion, solution: indentation and lack of accents, in which even full glazing would look natural. An option was also announced to build the hotel as a separate building in the courtyard.
Vladimir Grigoriev noted that they began to treat Soviet architecture more attentively, and while it is not protected by the KGIOP, the city council can do this. He called the new solution more consistent, but still requires improvement.
Chief Architect's Report
Pplanning green spaces for general use in the development of territories for mass residential development
The second half of the previous City Council passed without Vladimir Grigoriev: in his absence, experts discussed the ZNOP almost more than the presented project. For this reason, the chief architect decided to discuss the issue separately, which is, in general, a rarity: members of the city council often offer to talk in more detail about some problematic issues, but so far this, it seems, has not been taken into account.
At that time, many expressed doubts that the development of PPT must necessarily appear ZNOP - sometimes this is impossible for a number of reasons, sometimes it is irrational, for example, if there is already a large park nearby, and meaningless mini-squares complicate the design, which is already squeezed by norms.
According to the set of rules “Urban planning. Planning and development of urban and rural settlements ", the rate of ZNOP per person - 16 m2, 10 of which are city-wide, and 6 are ZNOPs of residential areas. According to the law "On green spaces in St. Petersburg", the latter figure is different for different regions. For example, in the Admiralteisky district, the minimum standard is also 6 m2, in Primorsky - 12 m2, and in Kurortnoye - 18 m2… Now the majority of districts are provided with the standard, but if the decisions of the approved documentation for the planning of the territory are implemented, the situation will worsen sharply. For example, now the Kurortny district is 55 m2 ZNOP per person, and it will become 18.2. More than half of the districts will not fit into the norm.
In 2018, the KGA analyzed the city's territory and proposed to include another 114 hectares in the ZNOP list. According to Vladimir Grigoriev, it is obvious that it is necessary to renew and create ZNOPs, and not to remove them.
All experts agreed that the more greenery in the city, the better, but many found the laws on ZNOP imperfect.
Sergei Bobylev called the term legally incorrect, and proposed to derive the norm not for the region, but for each specific area. Nikita Yavein believes that the law needs to be finalized with the participation of architects: now it is just a line, a stone thrown into the water, from which there are circles.
Alexander Karpov spoke about the proven positive effect of greenery on humans: if a city dweller sees trees on his way, then this reduces the level of violence and aggression, improves cognitive abilities, and even increases the life expectancy of women. In his opinion, certain routes need to be planted: pedestrian paths that lead to schools and hospitals, “pocket” squares for mothers with children, and large parks where you can “disconnect” from the city view are also important. The expert noted that it is difficult to grow a large tree in the city - even engineering networks, which occupy the best places near the red lines, interfere with this.
Yuri Mityurev called for getting used to the law and reducing the number of housing in the project, if required, as well as making the design of green areas the same routine as designing networks.
Mikhail Mamoshin proposed additional solutions: vertical gardening of firewalls, window flower beds, pedestals, greening of roofs and stylobates of new facilities. The situation could also be improved by a program to revive greenery in the historic center. Svyatoslav Gaikovich and Mikhail Kondiain spoke in favor of privileges or compensation for developers if they allocate territories for ZNOPs or green roofs, for example.
Vladimir Grigoriev concluded that the problems with ZNOP lie in the area of regulation and urban planning.
