The projected site on Varshavskoe highway, ow. 9/1, most of the arch council is very familiar: the buildings of Sergey Skuratov's Danilovsky Fort are facing the embankment, next to it, on the one hand, the Danilov Plaza business center was built according to the SPEECH project, and on the other, the DM Tower business center is under construction. In addition, as Sergei Kuznetsov recalled, even under the previous owner, a competition was held for the development project, in which some of the architects who were present at the council took part, for example, Nikolai Lyashenko. However, the author of the current project, Andrei Romanov, head of the Architectural Dialogue with the Metropolis bureau, is also aware of this site: one might say, he returned here 15 years later after working on Danilovsky Fort at the Sergei Skuratov bureau.
The plot itself is of a strange, ragged shape, stretched beyond the territory of the fort: on the reverse side it is pressed by a natural complex, on the sides - two office centers, so that the planned development, in fact, takes place "in the courtyard" of the Skuratov complex. It should be noted right away that the function assigned to the site - public - in this case, at the suggestion of the developer (LLC "Specialized developer" DM Apartments "), is interpreted as an apart-hotel, and formally this is not a violation. But it was this fact, multiplied by the density of 34.3 thousand m2 / ha, that became the main point of disagreement of the Arch Council with the presented concept.
According to the ADM 55 project, 120 m² of floor area were assembled into three equal towers with an elevation of 90 meters and a symmetrical landing relative to the central building of Danilovsky Fort. The idea was to level the complex contour of the plot as much as possible, to make the composition simple and clear, and to free up more space for landscaping. “We should try to unravel such urban collisions, not confuse them,” noted Andrei Romanov, and the strange contours of the plot, in his words, “should not break the composition”.
The towers were raised on a stylobate with underground parking, and the resulting territories were transformed into three small landscaped zones: an avanzone with a checkpoint, a central “parterre” and an area with sports grounds just behind the others. Unlike the fort, where, according to the architect, there is a lot of "architectural material," meat ", a lot of walls, everything is solid and massive," the planned houses have a lighter and less complex grid. The colors of the bricks and plastic of the volumes are designed for a dialogue with Danilov Fort, and the checkered structure of the facades echoes Danilov Plaza. The brick was shaded by metal inserts under the windows made of cut through bronze-colored sheet, behind which the air conditioners are hidden. And on the front facades, Andrei Romanov convinced the developer to make balconies with floor-to-ceiling windows. In addition, there are interesting nuances in the plasticity of the towers: the planes of the parallelepipeds are, as it were, "depressed" in several places, and the floors receding into the depths of the masses complicate the silhouette.
But back to the site. The public function recorded in the GPZU was not accidental here. Although from the moment the Skuratovsky fort appeared on the Novodanilovskaya embankment, an active city life came here in the form of a creative cluster at the Danilovskaya manufactory, new office complexes and some kind of establishments, the potential of the territory is underutilized. The industrial zone, and the unorganized territory of the natural complex, and the not very presentable embankment with the absence of a distinct pedestrian zone remained. The punctures to the river, marked by the arches in the building of the Danilovsky Fort, cannot work in full force, because a permeable pedestrian grid has not yet appeared. The development of the social function should undoubtedly contribute to this, therefore the apart-hotel, into which this function was “packed” as a result, was discouraged by the arch council.
“The residential function should not be the dominant here, since the documents approved for the site presuppose a public function,” reminded Sergei Kuznetsov. - Yes, a hotel is allowed here, which customers like to turn into apartments. But we are fighting this. " However, added the chief architect of Moscow, the hotel can be a "normal public space", only this should be articulated in the project. “On one side and on the other, there are office centers, behind the industrial zone … Still, we are used to the fact that housing in the city is connected with streets and public spaces. The presence of Danilovskaya Manufactory with its diverse functions nearby is also not very convincing, even from the point of view of commerce,”Sergey Skuratov expressed his opinion. Next, the author of "Danilovsky Fort" subjected the ADM project to a thorough critical analysis, presenting an equally convincing counterpoint for each point in Andrey Romanov's concept.
Three symmetrical towers in the composition of the project - a vertical placed along the axis of the fort, the decision, according to Skuratov, is rather unfortunate, creating an obsessive dominant. “These houses should have even shapes that will complement, but not pull the blanket over themselves. The fact that symmetry appears is a disadvantage, not a virtue, because any symmetrical composition will affect the human eye more strongly than the asymmetry of the fort. If all the houses were as narrow as possible, there would be less bricks on them, and they would resemble the masterpieces of modernism of the 1960s, it would be better."
The facades in brick do not allow the buildings standing in the depths to be secondary to the fort and, according to Sergei Tchoban, can give the impression of a single coalesced mass. Contrast of materials would, on the contrary, help to emphasize and highlight the volumes. “The density with each new accent on this territory becomes more and more, as in many places in Moscow spontaneous“City”appear - they are interesting because each building is as contrasting as possible in relation to the other. But if one topic begins to prevail, it becomes difficult and intrusive. These three brick towers create a center of gravity, which is superfluous for this composition, they try to be like a fort, and this is bad. The material needs to be changed …”.
Sergey Kuznetsov agreed with the need for further formative searches, alternative to skyscrapers. He recalled that the increase in the mark here was associated with one of the projects during the last competition, when the architects found it possible to raise the volume “on its feet” in order to let the public pedestrian zone pass under it. In the current project, this has lost its meaning, since the height was simply "chosen" by the residential towers. Sergey Skuratov suggested trying the option with overhanging volumes over the territory of the natural complex, which would allow reorganizing the masses, moving them away from neighboring buildings and, for example, avoiding the appearance of apartments that look out the windows of the Spichevsky business center.
According to the council, zoning issues in the project should be considered in relation to the initial, public function of this territory, where transit is to appear. The allocation of an essentially closed, landscaped area in the IFC with the only, in fact, access under the barrier from the checkpoint does not solve the problem of permeability and connectivity, the Arch Council noted. According to the architects, at least one additional pedestrian entrance to the territory is needed here. Sergei Skuratov recalled that in the fort itself there are arches through which "you can agree on communication with the embankment." But each customer, the architect added, “sits like an appanage prince in his castle and does not want to enter into any general decisions. We should think about it and almost force us to legislatively interact with customers of neighboring sites, this is just a rule of good form - to offer to meet and at least discuss …”.
Alexander Asadov added that the authors should definitely “probe” the possibility of building pedestrian connections both in the direction of the river and in the direction of Varshavka, especially since there were such proposals in the last competition. “I remember other bids for this place, and I'm not sure that the original theme with towers would have been in demand here. But I’m not sure that it’s impossible to do that,”said Sergei Kuznetsov. - It is important for me that the search takes place and the options are demonstrated. If the function of the site is public, then it should be with a clearly expressed social component. Now we have not seen this in the project, so we will reject it today and, I hope, will soon see another level of elaboration."
