In the 1960s, the construction of office buildings was extremely limited. The Minister of the USSR Electronics Industry, Alexander Shokin, decided to build his ministry building under the guise of the Research Institute of Radio Components. Later he would say: "We are deceiving the Soviet government in its own interests." The leadership of the Moscow City Council knew about its idea, but did not interfere with its implementation, for which in 1966 a plot was allocated at the corner of the future Novokirovsky Prospekt and Sretensky Boulevard.
The order for the implementation of this project went to Mosproekt-2, to the workshop of Igor Pokrovsky, the chief architect of Zelenograd, who designed the ministry's facilities in this city and successfully coped with the matter. On August 31, 1966, the management of the institute informed the customer that “Comrade F. A. Novikov.
The solution was determined immediately and in a single version. At the corner of the avenue and the boulevard, on the stylobate raised in this lowest place of the square, two towers stood, like radio lamps on a panel. The towers are of different height and different in cross-section. The big one - one hundred meters high - is oriented towards the avenue, directed from the city center to the square, the smaller one - 84 meters high - to the outer side of Chistoprudny Boulevard. At the same time, in the background, along the diagonal axis, is the building of the conference hall and the dining room. Another element of the composition is the courtyard, lowered two floors below the surface of the stylobate, where the upper floor is occupied by perimeter galleries connecting all the buildings, and the lower one is the laboratory of the research institute, which, according to technology, should have been on the mainland. And I will note one more detail: the height of the floor in the research institute is 4.8 m, and the span of the ceiling is 12 m, and in the small building, respectively, 3.6 and 9 m. Pokrovsky supported this decision.
In April 1967, the town planning council, having considered the preliminary design of the complex, decided: "To approve basically the method of spatial composition … providing for the construction of a group of detached high-rise buildings on a corner plot …". And in January 1968, when considering the next stage - the design assignment - the same council approved the architectural and construction part of the project, noting its high quality. On August 2, 1968, the project was approved by the decision of the Executive Committee of the Moscow Soviet, and then approved by the ministry - the customer.
At the same time, it turned out that the 25,000 m2 he needed fill the large tower of the research institute and the public block, and the small one was left without function. But this did not bother Shokin. A year later, the workshop received an order for a design of a 10,000 m2 computing center, precisely tailored to the capacity of the small tower. And the project as a whole received approval. In 1969, construction began and the customer insisted on my moving to Moscow. Further work on the project proceeded without Pokrovsky. The ground conditions required the installation of benoto piles and heavy three-meter monolithic foundation slabs. This work dragged on for almost three years. In the meantime, the project received its final revision.
At the same time, a number of urban planning mistakes were made in the construction of the center of Moscow. Vertical accents that have arisen in the historical environment have raised doubts about the appropriateness of previously adopted design decisions. A grandiose exhibition of all projects within the Garden Ring was held in the Manezh.
I was present at the visit to the exhibition by V. V. Grishin, a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the first secretary of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU. After examining the exposition, he said: "You want to build a new center, but we want to keep the old one." After that, a special decision was made by the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU and the Moscow City Executive Committee, according to which the town planning council had to re-consider all projects of high-rise buildings in the city center. In August 1972, a re-discussion of the complex on Turgenevskaya Square took place and the council confirmed its 1968 decision.
However, the situation was getting worse. Many projects have been redone. I received a recommendation from the chief architect of Moscow M. V. Posokhin to carry out the second, reduced version of the project. To my question about whether he has a direct indication in this regard, he answered in the negative. He must have thought it necessary to play it safe. I declined to fulfill this request. The Novokirovsky Prospect workshop (headed by P. P. Steller) made a sketch of a lowered version of the building on Turgenevskaya and an image of a high-rise building with a noticeable distortion. All new materials on the objects of the center were displayed in the vestibule of the GlavAPU building, and on one Sunday in December 1972, in the presence of the authors, Grishin was shown new design materials. Posokhin reported on all the projects, and then, leading the capital's leader to the prospects of Turgenevskaya, invited me to defend myself.
Glancing at the stretchers, Grishin said: "I like the low one more." I give reasons for my decision. After listening to my motivation, he repeats:
- And I like the low one more.
- Then let me criticize him. There are two equal volumes here. It is not clear what is most important in this space.
- There are two main ones.
- It doesn't work that way. Two generals do not command a division. In architectural composition, as in life, it should be clear who is who. And I continue:
- Moscow has always been a city of verticals. Forty-forty churches means forty-forty verticals.
- Let's show the management two options - concludes Grishin - let the author defend himself.
After a pause, he added, addressing Posokhin: "And you look again at the council."
In February 1973, the council discusses the project for the fourth time and decides: The Expert Commission and the City Planning Council give preference to the option of building up Turgenevskaya Square with two vertical volumes. It is noted that in this version of the project, the formation of a new city square is more expressively solved.
But consideration of two options in a higher instance did not follow. Construction continued. The frame of the large body is being assembled. However, the customer, dissatisfied with the slow progress of the work, lodges a complaint with the USSR Council of Ministers. On July 15, 1974, the issue was considered at a meeting with the Deputy Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers I. T. Novikov. He turns to M. V. Posokhin.
- Let's start with you, because you are the army commander here.
- If I were the commander, it would have been built long ago.
- How so? After all, you are the chief architect.
- So what. There is leadership and discipline.
The history of the issue is presented. Alexander Shokin invites me to defend myself. I again argue the decision and say in conclusion:
- Cowardly city planners never left anything worthwhile after themselves, and decisive people always meet opposition. This is normal, there is no need to be afraid of it.
The chairman asks:
- What's your last name?
- The same as yours.
The minutes of the meeting said: "Taking into account that a large amount of preparatory and construction and installation work has been carried out in construction for five years, instruct the chairman of the Moscow City Executive Committee, Comrade VF Promyslov, to personally consider the issue of further construction of this complex and submit specific proposals to the Council of Ministers of the USSR within five days."
On July 26, a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Moscow City Council was signed, containing two points: 1. To cancel the decision of the Executive Committee of the Moscow City Council of August 2, 1968 on the coordination of the architectural and construction part of the design assignment. 2. To oblige the GlavAPU of Moscow, within five days, to prepare project proposals for the placement of a complex with 8-10 storeys on this site using foundations made in kind.
On July 29, the Chairman of the Gosstroy of the USSR sends a letter to the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which says: “I would consider it expedient to continue the construction of the complex of buildings according to the approved project. In the event that, during the development of the project for the development of Turgenevskaya Square, it is necessary to somewhat reduce the number of storeys in buildings, the Moscow City Executive Committee and the Ministry of Electronprom should resolve this issue. "
By this time, the chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR A. N. Kosygin was on vacation and his 1st deputy K. T. Mazurov applied to him a resolution addressed to the heads of the two above-mentioned institutions: "I ask you to jointly consider this issue and make an acceptable decision."
I am invited to carry out the variants of the project and on Saturday August 1974 in the meeting room of the Executive Committee in the presence of Posokhin I show them to the mayor of Moscow A. F. Promyslov. One old, but slightly lowered and a couple of lowered ones with variable number of storeys. Looking out the window of the hall facing Turgenevskaya Square, I said: "If you castrate the towers, you will not see that they have been built." The mayor opted for a high-rise option. He just made a reservation: "Maybe lower it a little."
How much is this a little bit? And while the frame reaches that height, you see, something will change. In anticipation of possible new discussions of the problem, a large layout of the square was made. He seemed to prove my point. Construction, meanwhile, continues unhurriedly. But a new draft of the detailed planning of the center of Moscow is urgently being prepared.
The year 1975 has come. The planning project was completed, reviewed and approved by the city administration, and on April 11, 1975, Grishin himself wrote a letter to Kosygin and Promyslov's signature was also attached to it. It says: “The Moscow City Committee of the CPSU and the Executive Committee of the Moscow Council approved the draft of the detailed planning of the center of Moscow, which provides for limiting the number of storeys within the Garden Ring. Therefore, the construction of two high-rise towers in the city center is unacceptable. " It further suggests: "To carry out the construction of a complex … of a rectangular configuration, 8-9 floors high … using the erected foundations." On April 24, the document receives the resolution of the Prime Minister: “(T. Novikov (to one-fallen). Please consider … and submit proposals. "
On May 23, Shokin, guided by comprehensive argumentation related to additional costs, waste work and delayed construction deadlines, writes to Gosstroy: “ … the ministry objects to the construction of the proposed 8-9 storey version. After that, IT Novikov appoints a meeting on this issue for August 7. And on this very day I am going to Africa for supervision, where in the capital of Mauritania, Nouakchott, the embassy of the USSR is being built according to my project. My management does not inform me about the upcoming meeting. And I can understand them. They are tired of this problem. It will be easier to solve without me.
Returning from a business trip, I was familiarized with a letter of the same name, addressed to the Council of Ministers of the Union, where it was said: "… GlavAPU developed project proposals for the creation of a new complex consisting of low-rise buildings and an additional corner building along the perimeter of Turgenevskaya Square … At the same time, losses due to changes in the project are estimated at approximately 2.0-2.5 million rubles." And then the following text follows: “To consider the issue of the responsibility of persons who allowed the development of a project for a complex of buildings without reference to the project of planning and development of the center of Moscow.” Attached to the letter is a brief resolution of Kosygin, who this time was in his place: "Agree" and signature.
To the credit of my leadership, the fact of irresponsible attitude on the part of the persons leading the development of the project of this complex has not been established, - VD Vasiliev, chief engineer of "Mosproekt-2", informed GlavAPU in a letter.
It became obvious that it was useless to continue the struggle for the high-altitude option. As a citizen of this country, I had to obey the decision of the head of government. However, I could not come to terms with the project imposed on me. In February 1976, I presented another option. He was also identified immediately and in the singular. The fan composition, consisting of four blocks and a corner tower - insert, replaced the high-rise one. Two additional buildings compensated for the loss of space. The buildings are on the same stylobate and the conference room and courtyard are in the same position.
The project was considered and approved by the presidium of the town planning council chaired by M. V. Posokhin. In a letter from the Deputy Chairman of the USSR State Construction Committee G. N. Fomin, addressed to Shokin, it is said: "Gosstroy of the USSR considers it possible to agree with the option of a reduced number of storeys of the complex … with additional placement of buildings in the depths of the site, agreed by the GlavAPU of Moscow."
Then, simultaneously with the continuation of construction, work was carried out on the project of the complex, which was approved by the customer in June 1977. Then the unhurried consideration of the project in the GlavAPU examination began, which was completed only in August 1981. Moreover, in the process of this work, the sanitary inspection demanded the resettlement of residential buildings located in the immediate vicinity of the new buildings, and in 1983 the Moscow City Executive Committee decided to resettle them and subsequent demolition.
Suddenly, there is a request from the GlavAPU management to execute a version of the project without a vertical emphasis on the corner of the composition. It is not hard. It is enough to take a photo of the layout, pour ink over the corner tower and photograph the result.
The two design options are being discussed by the architectural council. In place of the chairman V. A. Nesterov. Posokhin behind the scene. The protocol says that three members of the council spoke out for the tower: A. A. Savin, Ya. B. Belopolsky and L. N. Pavlov. Against one: N. N. Ullas. And then it is written: "To report on the discussion of options for the architectural design of buildings and expressed opinions to the leadership of the Moscow City Executive Committee." In the subsequent decision of the executive committee of the Moscow City Council on the approval of the complex dated March 18, 1982, it is written: "All buildings are provided with the same height of 38 meters."
I could not come to terms with such a decision. Openly fighting him didn't make sense. There was only one thing left - to act at your own discretion, at your own peril and risk. The workshop completed the working drawings of the tower and coordinated them with the industry. However, the customer does not accept this documentation. At a regular operational meeting at a construction site at the end of 1984 with the participation of the deputy head of Glavmospromstroy, the foreman asked him the question: "What, are we going to build a tower?"
“Of course we will,” the deputy replied, ironically also by the name of Grishin.
- And the customer does not give drawings to the industry.
- And you give it yourself, without him.
So all the products were ordered: metal, reinforced concrete, panels. At the end of 1985, preparations began for the installation of the tower. Big trouble was to be expected. But on December 24, a plenum of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU took place, which considered the organizational issue: "The plenum relieved V. V. Grishin of his duties as first secretary of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU in connection with his retirement" … Two days later, I received a document on the approval of the tower, signed by the same V. A. Nesterov.
Here I will allow myself to return to 1976, when there was an urgent need to decide on the "dress" of the building. The best thing that could be done then was to use the curtain panels of the World Trade Center, made according to American technology with the exposed texture of crushed granite. But only the color … In that object, it was gray. Looking around the space in which my complex was being built, I saw nearby the Corbusier house, the red columns of the metro pavilion, the red granite of the basement of the remarkable house of the Rossiya insurance company and the design of the entrance to Sretensky Boulevard, and I decided that my panels should be with rubble of red granite … And it was done. To implement the proper outlines of the stylobate, the cables of government communication had to be relocated, and this was also done. At the same time, the stylobate, its surface, walls and enclosing flower beds also received a red granite finish. It remains to plant red flowers in them.
-
zooming 1/7 General view of the complex. 1993 yearCourtesy of F. A. Novikov
-
zooming 2/7 Fragment of Turgenevskaya Square Courtesy of F. A. Novikov
-
zooming 3/7 Fragment of the complex Courtesy of F. A. Novikov
-
zooming 4/7 Fragment of the complex Courtesy of F. A. Novikov
-
zooming 5/7 Fragment of the complex Courtesy of F. A. Novikov
-
zooming 6/7 Conference hall and dining room courtesy of F. A. Novikov
-
zooming 7/7 Courtyard of the complex Courtesy of F. A. Novikov
I must say that with the change in the project version, Minister Shokin lost interest in the object. He understood that he could not sit in this building. And, indeed, in 1985 he resigned his post. He was replaced by V. G. Kolesnikov, who had much less influence. And this noticeably affected the already unhurried pace of construction. Unexpected events happened at the end of 1986.
In the newspaper Pravda (I don’t remember the date of publication and the author’s name), an article appeared with a reproach to the regional authorities, who allowed in its capital (I don’t remember the city either) the demolition of a residential building that “could still serve the people”. And the Moscow authorities, headed by the first secretary of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU B. N. Yeltsin, indifferent to the problems of urban planning and the mayor of the capital V. T. Saikin, the former director of the automobile plant, who did not understand anything about this matter, decides to abandon the demolition of two already resettled houses on my site, which immediately occupy some offices. And moreover, at the same time it was decided to abandon the punching of the Novokirovsky Prospect route to Dzerzhinsky Square. And the chief architect of Moscow G. V. Makarevich did not oppose this.
This meant that my stylobate would not receive its perimeter outlines, the complex under construction, instead of being surrounded by free space, would be squeezed by the ends of the preserved buildings and the avenue would turn into Novokirovsky dead end! The complete collapse of not only my plan, but also the Stalinist plan of 1935
But construction continued sluggishly. In the early 1990s, the Ministry of Electronic Industry, sensing the approach of its end, decided to transfer the complex to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Electric Lamp Plant subordinate to it. The new customer, not having the proper funds, started looking for a rich partner. It was a certain Osman Mansur, a Sudanese citizen who took possession of the complex for a good half century. However, he did not have the generously promised millions. Having hired a cooperative, he finished room by room, floor by floor, renting them out. It had nothing to do with architecture.
Everything would have continued like this if the Vice-President of Russia Alexander Rutskoi, looking at the building, did not want to place here the Land Reform Center he had just created and received Yeltsin's "go-ahead" for that. And then a battle began between the two owners, whose otvuk appeared on the pages of newspapers and on television. It seemed that the new owner was about to win. And so it would have happened if it had not been for the famous quarrel between the vice president and the president, as a result of which the Center was liquidated and Rutskoi surrendered the Red House six months before the surrender of the White.
It was funny and bitter to watch everything that happened. In addition, against the background of these events, something else happened, much more important for the fate of my project. Unbeknownst to the author, the plots allocated for the construction of additional buildings were transferred to other hands. Thus came the end of my fan composition. "The love boat crashed against everyday life …".
But life went on. By order of the RF Council of Ministers of 03.07.1993, the complex was transferred to the oil company Lukoil. On this occasion, intending to leave for the United States for a long time, I met with a new customer and introduced him to Grigory Saevich, who had not previously dealt with this object, as my successor. We cooperated with him for many years, together we designed and built the house "Flute" and MIET in Zelenograd, the embassy of the USSR in Mauritania. Our cooperation will successfully continue across the ocean.
In May 1995, Gregory and I met in Toronto. He showed me the project he had executed “Completion of construction and partial reconstruction of buildings for the administrative complex of JSC“Lukoil”. Completion, of course, is very conditional, partial reconstruction is reflected in the drawings and approved by the architectural council of "Mosproekt-2".
The protocol presented to me was signed by M. M. Posokhin and approved on behalf of the chief architect of Moscow L. V. Vavakin by some other person. We discussed the draft and my specific comments, which Grigory promised to take into account. However, later Saevich was removed from the design and I lost control over the further fate of the project. It was being commanded by someone else, whose name I did not know.
In 1997, in preparation for the 850th anniversary of Moscow, the capital's mayor Luzhkov visited the construction site. Glancing at the red walls, he said: “Moscow is brightening. We need to paint the buildings white.
- Someone objected: "Yuri Mikhailovich, this is granite!"
- What can not be painted? - the mayor insisted. And he insisted. The building was not painted, it was plastered. You can't wash it off. In 1998, the construction was completed and I saw a photograph showing the result of the creative activity of an uninvited co-author. I never dreamed of such a thing in a nightmare.
Let's look at the new building sequentially from the bottom up. The outlines of the stylobate have been drastically altered. It is not clear with what fear the two ladders were eliminated. The Ministry of Electronic Industry was a much more secret organization, but did not restrict access to buildings. Moreover, in the first two floors of the large tower, the Electron brand store was designed for the city. A long folded canopy leads to the entrance to the buildings, which suits the architecture “like a cow's saddle”. The large entrance portal covered the cantilever suspension of the tower. The silhouette of the building is distorted and the Islamic stepped "pomegranate" in the niche, widely used in the domes of ancient mosques and mausoleums, "adorned" the structure. It acquired the face of an "Eastern nationality".
I could not accept this personally. The magazine "Project Russia" No. 11 for 1998 placed on page 4 under the heading "Event" my letter with a denial of authorship. A second publication in Kommersant, accompanied by two texts, one of which belonged to Grigory Revzin, revealed to me the name of the author. It was Dmitry Solopov. Fighting with power not without success, I received a blow from behind from a colleague. It was not for nothing that even in my first year at the institute I heard a professional version of the well-known saying: "A man is an architect to a man."
Later, I came across a photograph on the Internet showing the equally crippled building of a conference room. It was built on, the anti-aircraft lighting of the hall was eliminated. Instead of underground connections, overground connections were built, covering the corner stained glass window. For this reason, a round lantern appeared. The wedding ceremony was unfastened in a strange way and the outlines of the stained-glass window were outlined in an equally strange way. Chur me !!!
However, the history of the Lukoil building did not end there. Apparently, the owners of this building themselves understood its "imperfection". That is why we conceived and executed in 2015–2016 one more transformation of it. This thankless task was entrusted to the architect I. Malozemova, who, apparently, sincerely sought to improve the complex. In some ways, she even succeeded. Looking at the new look, one can imagine how red-granite it would be, without a central portal and ridiculous visor, glass superstructures, with horizontal risalit niches that send a message to the vertical niche of the tower, in which an electronic "World Clock" would be suspended, executed as a piece of jewelry. They would be a better gift to the city than light effects. But this is not the main thing.
A "stub" of a disfigured architectural complex, embraced on both sides by the ends of old houses, cannot be a worthy decoration of one of the central squares of the capital of Russia. It's a shame. This is how ensembles are not created. Here, thirty years later, the redneck decision of the Moscow City Executive Committee of 1986 came back to haunt. What to do about it? I do not know. It is impossible to rebuild the complex so that it stands, as it was intended, in an open space. And therefore, I will end my story about the fate of the "Red House" with the following phrase: I cherish the secret hope that someone, someday, will think of blowing up this crippled structure in order to put on its powerful foundations what they are capable of carrying …
View of the building after reconstruction in 2016 Arch. I. Malozemova: Moscow Yandex. Maps - search for places and addresses, city transport
With a guarantee for the accuracy of the cited documents
31.03.2020
