The meeting was not, as Sergei Kuznetsov immediately emphasized, neither a meeting of the arch council, nor a city commission - the chief architect of the city, on whose initiative the meeting was held, called it a "collegial discussion." The reason was an open letter from Felix Novikov, the author of the Palace of Pioneers on the Lenin Hills, in which he strongly objected to the proposal of Kleinewelt Architekten for the reconstruction of buildings 8 and 11 of the Palace, recalled the existence of a project previously developed by him himself together with Ilya Zalivukhin, and demanded “an open meetings of the Architectural Council of Moscow and public discussion in the Union of Architects”. The meeting was Sergei Kuznetsov's response to this demand.
At the meeting, Felix Novikov spoke about his project to expand the Palace of Pioneers. Now we are publishing this project with the author's illustrations and with the author's description. Below you will find a short report on the meeting and Felix Novikov's response to his critics, which was not heard at the meeting. So, a word to the authors of the project:
The concept of a comprehensive renovation of the Moscow Palace of Pioneers
Authors of the project proposal:
The author of the Moscow Palace of Pioneers, People's Architect of the USSR, laureate of the State Prizes of the USSR and the RSFSR, Doctor of Architecture, Professor F. A. Novikov
Architect I. V. Zalivukhin, Jauza. Architecture & Urban planning
17.03.2020
“It is known that the Palace of Pioneers, which opened on June 1, 1962, was, although the main, but only one stage of the construction of the complex. A little later he was given a 25-meter swimming pool in the next block. In the next 57 years, nothing but repairs was done here. Below is a longitudinal 3-part cascade of the site relief.
A 2018 drone photo shows us the main building, buildings 8 and 11, the stadium, the parade square, the entrance alley and the park behind the Palace adjacent to it. But the rest of the territory remained undeveloped, the complex did not receive a clear functional structure and, as a result, its composition remained unfinished. In 2009, Viktor Yegerev and Vladimir Kubasov, together with Ilya Zalivukhin, made a design proposal, placing a new building on the site of building 8 and showed it to Luzhkov. Yuri Mikhailovich preferred to build objects of the 2nd stage, but was soon dismissed from office. Egerev, Kubasov and I continued to work with Zalivukhin. Egerev on the general plan drew two buildings on the sides of the long axis of the stadium, Kubasov - an object equal in volume to the Palace - instead of the stadium. In 2012, Ilya and I completed the “Concept of the Complex Renovation of the Palace”, the last adjustments to which were made at the end of January this year. Kubasov is now busy with another object and does not plan to participate in our project.
The decision taken last year to restore the Palace will restore the original layout of the building, return it to its previous appearance and, at the same time, raise the question of the functional and compositional completion of the complex.
Our concept of renovation of the Palace, in addition to the restoration of the main building, includes four objects, two of which Nos. 8 and 11 are proposed to be decisively rebuilt, and two others - Nos. 9 and 10 - to be rebuilt. Its motivation is associated with one and a half times greater load on existing facilities, the need for large areas for group and mass classes for children, as well as the development of its content. Let's consider these objects. consistently. Currently, the 8th building is a group of 4 buildings of different styles, built in different years, standing 5 meters below the entrance alley and the parade square - and do not make up any meaningful composition. They are devoid of any "palace" and have neither style nor compositional connection with the main building. They are now considered identified cultural sites. We applied to the Moscow City Heritage Agency with a statement to deny these buildings this status. In the response sent to Zalivukhin and signed by the deputy. the head of the department Kondrashev said: - quote - "… consideration of the issue of inclusion or refusal to include objects in the register is planned for 2020". You can judge for yourself whether these buildings meet the requirements for objects of cultural significance.
Here is a gym, designed by Arkady Polovnikov. He was on our team and he was entrusted with this job. We propose its demolition because we consider it necessary to ensure the functional clarity of the complex. The hall should be where the stadium is located, in the renovated sports center. We will return to it later.
The second building is a panel addition between the hall and the school, made in the 80s.
The third is a 1935 school with a post-war extension.
And now let's ask ourselves: what do children come to the Palace for? My answer is for the dream of my future. And they come to the school building. But they go to school 5-6 times a week, 9 months a year, for 11 years. What's the dream here? There is another question as well. It was built by Leonid Pavlov. How do you feel about this? More on this later, but for now let's see the project of Pereslegin's team.
They keep the gym, school and annex that has nothing to do with Pavlov, demolish the building and propose to replace it with a new one. At the same time, declaring respect for the author, the main facade of the school and the rear facade of the gymnasium were walled up by two-thirds, which is not allowed to be done with objects of cultural significance.
I am a student of Leonid Nikolaevich in the 4th year of 1948 - before submitting our proposal, I must justify the demolition of this school. In Moscow, there is a school number 464, built in the same year and according to the same project. Let's look at her.
Its address is Talalikhina st., 20, building 1. The building is authentic in everything. With a native pitched roof. It must be preserved. I note that in addition to schools, Leonid Pavlov built 26 more objects in Moscow. Some of them have reached the age of 40. None of them have protection status.
Now let's see the updated building number 8.
Functionally, we imagine the new building as a Center for Scientific and Technical Creativity. It is limited in size by the perimeter of the existing buildings and by the height of the concert hall building opposite to it. The main starting points for the design of the new building are as follows. We believe that it should be in tune with the main building of the Palace - be the same as if it had been built together with it in 1962. It should be included in the composition of the complex. This ensures the orientation of the building to the diagonal axis - a continuation of the axis of the existing alley that bounds the parade area and leads to the concert hall, as well as the diagonal structure of the 8th building itself.
In the new edition of the building, a bridge appears, connecting its second - the entrance floor with the level of the entrance alley and the parade square. One of the main themes of the entire composition of the Palace is the stepped silhouette - the box of the concert hall stage, the ends of the three club buildings and the audience rise. In building No. 8, this theme is supported by a central lantern.
We will show the 8th building from Vorobyovskoe highway and st. Fotieva.
The compositional center here is a three-light atrium on the 2nd floor, 24 x 24 meters in size with zenith lighting. The social meeting rooms in the main building are 12.0 meters wide. The new hall will be the best place for Christmas trees and other mass events. Recreation and group classes are located along the perimeter of the hall. On the 1st floor there is an auditorium for 400 seats, and in the light basement there will be housekeeping services, for which there is a building in Pereslegin's project, standing next to the 8th building. It is superfluous in the park of the Palace - as well as the neighboring driving school. Both will fit in the new 8 building.
In the horizontal structure of the facades, a podium stands out, at the level of the alley and the square, the entrance floor is marked by the rhythm of imposts, and the two floors crowning the building are similar to the facade of the main building of the Palace. At the same time, when viewed from the parade square, the building looks commensurate with a concert hall. Total area of the building 12,500 m2.
Building No. 11 and the stadium were designed according to our assignment by "Sportproekt" - the author of arch. Robert Upmal. A certain contractor took up its reconstruction and, having destroyed the building, abandoned the construction site. The building was narrow, it will get wider.
Pereslegin's project includes glass facades. There used to be and should be a wall here. There is a cafe in the center of the plan. The rest is divided into small and narrow, long rooms.
In our project with a wider building, lobbies, coaches and other services are arranged at the front of the above-ground floor. They are connected by a gallery, which also serves as a seating area. Changing rooms and showers in the underground floor. The space of the double-height sports hall with anti-aircraft lighting, 138 m long and 18 m wide, compensates for the loss of the hall, which was demolished in building 8. There will be movable partitions that will allow it to be divided into several halls of the required size in different versions for various sports activities. The section shows the lighting reception. Building area 4,000 m2.
And now about the cafe project. In Pereslegin's project, it looks at the courtyards of the adjacent buildings. How can you not say “Isn't it better to turn to yourself? We propose to build a cafe on the other side of the pond overlooking the Palace complex. It is included in the project no. 9 with an area of 500 m2… Now let's look at the view of the complex from a drone with 8 and 11 buildings and a cafe by the pond included in it and show the panorama of the park and the Palace from its terrace, oriented to the longitudinal axis of the entire composition of the complex.
We see the pond, the embankment, the entire three-part cascade of the relief, the wall of the 11 building, the stands of the stadium, the pioneer sign between the stairs. Above is the planetarium dome and flagpole. This whole panorama is crowned by the Moscow University, which stands on the same axis.
And, finally, let's talk about building No. 10. Back in 2010, I thought about how to build up a site along the Vorobyevsky Shessa, where there were objects of the 2nd stage. A park has grown on this land for 57 years, which should be improved. There was a pool and gyms here. But the first is already there, and the second is in our project. The "holy place" was left empty.
I remembered the project of "horizontal skyscrapers" by Lissitzky. Made a sketch. However, I did not know what to build. And the idea was there. I live in Rochester, New York. A children's museum was opened here in 2006. They went all over the world from here, from the USA. Now there are in many countries and in Russia too. For example, the toy museum in Sergiev Posad. But the museum in Rochester is called the National Museum of Play, the National Museum of Play, which is different. Its main task is the earlier vocational guidance of children. Before, the child slept with a pacifier in his mouth, and now with a pacifier in his mouth, he presses his finger on the screen of his smartphone. The Play Museum engages children in professionally oriented play. Including teaching programming.
First, they play a profession - they can imagine themselves to be anyone - a doctor, a builder, a scientist, an astronaut, and they will be provided with everything they need for such a game. This, figuratively speaking, "October Palace", will help children to determine their profession, and then they will come to the Palace of Pioneers to learn its basics. We propose to build a museum here, as the first game library in the country. There is hardly a better place for this.
Taking into account the peculiarities of the site, we depicted the building as a horizontal two-story volume (lower service, upper game halls) with a mirrored bottom reflecting the view of the park and the height of existing trees raised above it (there are voids there that you can lean on). And we included the object in our concept of renovating the palace from No. 10. The height of the building is justified by the change in the environment, the presence of the tower of the Korston Hotel and three 20-storey residential towers beyond the pond. In this case, the roofs 7 and 8 of the buildings are equal in height, as well as the roofs of the stage box 7 and the lantern 8 of the body. They are 15 m higher than the parade square. The square itself is higher than the lower plateau by the same 15 m. This means that the height - the horizon of the museum's roof is 30 m. And one more thing: The length of the Palace building is 230 m, the museum roof is 200 m. Between these linear buildings, the rhombus 8 of the body stands as a "hinge" for the whole composition.
It is represented by an image with new buildings 8 and 11, with a cafe and a museum of the game. Its area is 6,000 m2… Here is the first sketch on this topic - the place and method of composition. This is how we see the completed complex - functionally and compositionally. The palace was under construction for three and a half years. It is proposed to complete the restoration in 2023. This term is real for our entire program as well. In the next 57 years, hundreds of thousands of children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of today's Muscovites will come to the Palace and find here a dream of their future!"
F. Novikov
***Report: discussion on March 5, 2020 in the Great Hall of the Moscow Committee for Architecture and Construction
Introducing your concept
the restoration of the Palace of Pioneers and the development of its territory, Nikolai and Sergey Pereslegin emphasized that, as the authors of the concept, they like building 8 and they would like to preserve it, and the school, albeit typical, but differs from the school on Talalikhin Street in details. In addition, Nikolai Pereslegin emphasized that Kleinewelt Architekten, having developed the concept of the restoration of the Palace and the development of its territory, no longer participates in the work, since he transferred the entire initiative to the customer of the concept, the Rosrestavratsiya company.
About the supervisory board
Mentioning that after working on the concept, Kleinewelt Architekten handed over all the work to Rosrestavratsia, Nikolai Pereslegin called for the creation of "a council that would oversee the process." Since “we do not yet know who will implement it and how”, an open, transparent and professional observation of the process of the restoration of the Palace is necessary. The council, according to Pereslegin, could include architects, Arhnadzor and representatives of specialized deputies.
Objections to the project of Felix Novikov and Ilya Zalivukhin
The entire territory of the park of the 40th anniversary of the Komsomol, on which the palace is located, has a conservation status as a monument of landscape art. This means that nothing new can be built on this territory, even if some of the buildings that are now listed as identified monuments are not approved in a protected status. This position was voiced by the head of the Moscow Heritage Committee, Alexei Yemelyanov, who was present at the meeting, starting with the fact that the cancellation of the large-scale construction project on the territory of the Palace in 2009 was associated not with the resignation of Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, but with the protected status of the territory. In addition, according to Yemelyanov, as soon as the discussion of the future construction began, the department began to receive letters from residents of the Gagarinsky district demanding that all discussions of such construction be stopped. Residents' protests against "any construction on this territory" began in 2012, the head of the department for the protection of monuments said. “Although, as Aleksey Emelyanov noted,“in terms of accommodating children,”such a construction would have decided a lot. The head of the Moskomnalediya concluded his speech with an assurance that if ideas appear on how to expand the area of the Palace without violating the law - that is, without new construction, how to work with buildings 8 and 11, “we will listen with pleasure; but this is the law, any construction on the territory is prohibited."
Sergey Kuznetsov read out a written statement by the head of the Scientific and Methodological Council of the Moscow Heritage Committee, Andrey Batalov, which said that the Palace of Pioneers was one of the few works of modernism that received protected status, and that the status of the park allowed the building of the Palace, during the period “associated with a change in social formation, namely, the disappearance of the pioneer organization ", to preserve and preserve the spatial structure of his ensemble," however, this also presupposes alienation from the author's desire to transform his work. This is a kind of payment for its preservation, it is possible to deprive the monument of the revealed status, but it is impossible to build on the territory of the monument that the work has its own life."
DKN representatives were also supported by Rustam Rakhmatullin from Arhnadzor, stressing that the law on the protection of monuments should be strictly observed and with the stipulation that even the insert proposed in the Kleinewelt project does not fully comply with the legislation.
According to Evgeny Ass, the case under consideration is "unprecedented in our practice, due to the remoteness of the author for a huge distance, and the project - for a considerable time." “I really like the project proposed by Felix Aronovich, - emphasized Evgeny Ass, - no one, except Felix Aronovich, feels this project better”. Evgeny Ass even called the project proposed by Felix Novikov “a natural continuation of the work that was started [in the first constructed stage - approx. Ed.]”, and underscore that he understands well the feelings of the author of the project, as well as the persistence with which he promotes his idea. However: "the law voiced by the keepers" does not allow new construction, and this must be resigned to,”Yevgeny Ass concluded his speech.
Pyotr Kudryavtsev, “as a sociologist who advised neighboring projects,” pointed to the activity of the community of residents of the district, calling it “one of the most powerful, comparable only to the Patriarch's Ponds [where there is now a struggle against the addition of a house on the pond, - approx. ed.]. Here “any professional movement will turn into a public one,” warned Pyotr Kudryavtsev.
It was said that if a precedent for violating the law on the protection of monuments was created, it would open the "Pandora's Box", that is, attempts to make such exceptions would start everywhere.
Summing up the conversation, Sergei Kuznetsov emphasized: "This is not only about the fact that we are hostages of a piece of paper" [of protection status], but "the opinion of the local community is that it is better not to touch it at all." In addition, “the situation is unprecedented for us,” we communicate with the “author of the monument,” but there are “many meanings” in it, and “we must adhere to the situation that exists”. Sergey Kuznetsov supported the idea of control over the implementation and quality of execution, but strictly repeated that we cannot go beyond the framework of the legislation.
In a word, the pioneers were left without additional meters, and the director of the Palace, Elena Melville, only said that “thanks for the dream”. And that if 3000 children have nowhere to study, it will be a pity. report: Yu. T.
***Resume by Felix Novikov
“We didn't have a professional conversation. Nobody, except Evgeny Assa, said a word about compositional axes, about composition, style and coordination of architecture of existing and proposed objects, nobody was interested in this. I have heard only two theses denying our proposal.
First - nothing new can be built. This is the law. But if from the very beginning it was known that the complex was functionally and compositionally incomplete, what would happen, relatively speaking, stage 2, if 35% of the territory was not developed (we did not touch it), how could this be prohibited? If the prohibition excludes development, children will not get comfortable conditions for club activities and mass actions (in our version of the complex, there are four times more additional space than in the project of Pereslegin), then this law contradicts the interests of children and should be canceled. And no one will convince me of this.
Second thesis - the residents of the Gagarinsky district object. They were scared. But let me speak to them and they will be on my side. Is it difficult to explain to loving parents that if the project is implemented the Palace will not be crowded? (Many of the former vacant spaces are now occupied by classrooms and the restoration will not be able to open them). That the complex will receive new functions and provide children with more varied activities? And in this I am still convinced that I am right.
I believe that if our concept of renovating the Palace and the surrounding park is implemented, Moscow will receive the complex, the second in importance and success after Zaryadye. And this will be a good gift to the present and future generations of children in the capital of Russia."
