A three-storey historical building on the street. Makarenko, 4, bldg. 1 is in emergency condition. In February of this year, work began on its strengthening and reconstruction, the completion of construction along with the superstructure is planned in May 2020.
Initially, the chief architect of Moscow, Sergei Kuznetsov, said that the project of this theater has a long history, the theater was planned in a different place and by other bureaus, and that all proposals revolved around the idea of building floors and contrasting solutions, and not mimicry like a historic city. Then he gave the floor to the authors.
Georgy Trofimov, partner of the Kleinewelt Architekten bureau, outlined the main ideas of the project. The architects proceeded from the fact that this is not a residential building, but a theater, and this should be read. Although before the revolution the three-story building on Makarenko Street was a tenement house, now it needs to be rethought. The architects proposed two options: one conditionally historical and two contrasting ones. Then Georgy Trofimov moved to the defense of the first variation. Historicity must be illusory, the architect emphasized. On the one hand, the facade should be perceived as historical, on the other hand, the person should feel that something is wrong here. The upper three floors of the superstructure are a literal "mirror" of the lower three, that is, a reflection of the facade upward. In the solution of the superstructure, there are allusions to the ancient Greek theater with a backdrop and openings for the actors, and to Shakespeare's Globe theater, with a bay window, as it is depicted in Fludd's engraving. According to the Kleinewelt Architekten technology, they envisioned a plaster facade with fiber-reinforced concrete details - in a dark gray metallized color, in contrast to the historical one, made in light pastel colors.
The second version of the theater is contrasting in materials and style. It is flat, but due to its layering, it is easier to read. “This is a complex multilayer structure of a polished stainless steel façade and a brass sheet backing. Such a solution, on the one hand, creates the feeling of a public building, and on the other, the polished surfaces reflect the sky and smoothly connect with the historical part of the facade."
The third option is made of frosted glass with windows behind them, austere and quite typical when expanding a historical building: a glass box dissolving in the sky: “Glass superstructure with a drop-down corner. The transparent surface, behind which we see a certain depth of the building, is contrasted with the dense and dense structure of the historical façade."
Sergei Kuznetsov called the last two options too often encountered, as a result, the Arch Council practically did not consider them. But the first idea evoked a lively response from the audience.
But before discussing the facades, Sergei Skuratov and Andrei Gnezdilov drew attention to the incompletely clarified situation with the registration of a land plot and security legislation. The fact is that in the courtyard of the theater is adjacent to a house belonging to another organization (historically it was part of the same apartment building), the theater does not have its own courtyard and its own territory for passage. A representative of the Moscow Cultural Heritage Department gave a certificate, saying that the house was not an object of protection. Some of the questions were removed by the deputy director of the theater Alexei Prudnikov in his speech. He also explained why the theater needs the top three floors. At first, the building housed rehearsals, then a theater hall was created in the volume of the second and third floors and a foyer on the first. No more space left, expansion required. Since the bureau Kleinewelt Architecten was invited to design exactly the facade solution, Sergey Kuznetsov urged the architectural council to concentrate on resolving the issue of the facades.
Further proposals on the merits poured in, and the vector was directed from rather critical statements to interested and approving ones.
Timur Bashkaev noted the original idea of the first version with a reflected theatrical facade. He only suggested changing the colors: instead of "light bottom - dark top" to make "dark bottom - light top" to make the upper part of the building seem lighter. Timur Bashkaev called the third version of glass sheets on metal frames sparing, but “we have seen it dozens of times, it would be more original to apply the contours of the historical facade to the glass using LED lighting or in some other way”.
Sergei Skuratov urged, when speaking about reconstructions, to observe the method of analysis: 1) from the point of view of the environment; 2) in terms of style, the façade itself; 3) in general cultural terms ("what style is fashionable to wear now"). In general, the master was strict. He said that there are few options, and he is not satisfied with any of them: the inverted facade is the seventies, postmodernism, glass and metal facades do not correlate well with the historical street. “We scolded dummies at Lubyanka already thirty years ago. There are several ways to reconstruct the building, starting with Herzog and de Meuron's jokers, the glass-brick facade MVRDV (Chanel boutique in Amsterdam), and ending with the historical method like the superstructure of the Moscow mayor's office on Tverskaya (the Governor-General's Kazakov house on two floors in 1945 - L. TO.).
Alexander Tsimailo, speaking after the master, objected to him that an inverted facade is ok, only it is necessary to preserve the color of the lower part in the three floors being built. The upper three-story part is now heavier due to the dark gray color, it is necessary to neutralize the heaviness, preserving the nuances of reflection. In general, Alexander Tsimailo considered this line of thought to be promising.
Andrei Gnezdilov spoke in a similar spirit. A new facade is always important for the theater. Teatro Olimpico Palladio is a risky experiment, the prospect of an entire city. This is a props, a game of facade, and in this case, according to the concept, it turned out to be a game, but according to its implementation, it was serious and difficult. If the reflection were holographic, the target would be closer. “You are close to finding, but this is not yet the final version,” said the architect.
Then the discussion went on with a crescendo. Vladimir Plotkin cited an English proverb about a private joke in a public space. “I think the joke is appropriate,” he summed up about the theater project. "I like this proposal." “No joke, a metropolis is not a metropolis. You can joke once or twice, especially with the theater. I am for it,”said Vladimir Plotkin.
Vadim Grekov concretized the option of lightening the upper part of the facade, proposing a concave relief.
Nikolai Shumakov suggested that the authors had found an ingenious solution, but were afraid to implement it to the end, namely: there is a reflection of the lower facade, but there is no base in the reflection. The authors chose the correct words - “theater”, “backdrop”. We must take these ideas as a basis, but find lighter materials.
Yulia Burdova was short: "Irony in architecture is always difficult, I am for the development of the first option."
The result was summed up by Sergey Kuznetsov: “Let's refine the first version, the idea is good, but there are comments, the authors need to work them out and show the project again,” said the chief architect. Later, during a press approach, Sergey Kuznetsov recommended taking into account the experience of SPEECH and Tchoban Voss Architekten on Kamennoostrovsky Prospekt, where the Langensiepen house was built in 2006 with prints of sculptures on the glass facade, which looks great 13 years after construction. This is a promising way of working in a historical environment, says the chief architect.
