The project of replacing the arch over Syromyatnichesky passage was published on the website of its authors, the Intermost company. On Monday evening, he became known on social networks, appearing first on Twitter Nesobyanin, and then on the unofficial public of the MCD (which, according to the press service, has nothing to do with the organization).
The arch, through which many passed on the way to the Artplay design center, turned out to be dearly loved, and the project of its demolition, in itself, to put it mildly, primitive, shook the networks in just a few hours. Who just spoke in his defense: here is the post of Ilya Yashin, and here is Pavel Gnilorybov. Several notable media outlets reviewed the opinions expressed in the networks: The-Village, Meduza, Afisha, Strelka Mag.
You can sign two petitions: at change.org and at podpisi.org.
It is not surprising that the project disappeared from the Intermost website on Tuesday. But, as Medusa rightly noted, it was preserved in the cache. Moskomarkhitektury, also on Tuesday, circulated a press release stating that "the project did not receive the AGR either in the form presented or in any other form." The Russian Railways company, which is expanding the tracks, told the Moscow City News Agency that the project was “just being developed and will go through all the necessary approvals”.
It is planned to expand the bridge from the existing 6 to 8 tracks for MCD-2 and MCD-4, and the tram tracks under it, which are now laid in a rare way of "weaving" due to a narrow arch, will be converted into two conventional ones, supplemented with an automobile lane and a sidewalk.
-
zooming 1/4 Arch over Syromyatnichesky proezd Photo: Archi.ru, 2020-18-06
-
zooming 2/4 Arch over Syromyatnichesky proezd Photo: Archi.ru, 2020-18-06
-
zooming 3/4 Arch over Syromyatnichesky proezd Photo: Archi.ru, 2020-18-06
-
zooming 4/4 Arch over Syromyatnichesky proezd Photo: Archi.ru, 2020-18-06
The arch, indeed very charming and atmospheric, was built in 1865, at the same time as the Andronievsky viaduct from the classic view of the monastery. Indeed, it is an atypical phenomenon for Moscow, and the wave of indignation on social networks looks quite understandable and justified. Although one must think that if the famous cultural cluster was not nearby, the fate of the building without a protective status in the way of the interests of the federal project of the capital's public transport would have been a foregone conclusion. And now, you see, nothing is really known yet. A contradiction arises: either a spiritual historical arch, or the public transport of a metropolis.
We talked with three experts: one for preservation, the other for demolition, the third is confident that it is possible to preserve the arch and provide the IDC with new capacities.
***
Rustam Rakhmatullin,
Coordinator of the Public Movement "Arhnadzor":
“The section of the Central Diameter on the section from Three stations to the Andronikov Monastery, I would call the most problematic for city protection in the 2019-2020 season. The list of problems includes the Kalanchevsky overpass, the Andronikov overpass across the Yauza, which is sometimes mistakenly called the Zolotorozhsky bridge, and everything in between. The demolition of two houses with numbers 8 on Novaya and Staraya Basmanny streets has already taken place here (see the review of demolitions in Afisha, - editor's note). During the quarantine, we only managed to remotely stop these demolitions for a while in order to make measurements. The outbuilding of the Balk-Polevy estate on Novaya Basmannaya was measured by hand, and the measurements of Varentsov's apartment building on Staraya Basmannaya, as far as I know, were made officially and using the laser method. Then both houses were lost.
As a result of several rounds of negotiations, the Kalanchevsky overpass received a third decision and a second AGR with the motto "More Shchusev". Of course, this is not a recreation or completion according to Shchusev in full: the combination of an arched truss with a stone arcade is a completely new image, but we had no other options.
The Andronikov viaduct has just been denied arming at the request of 2007. I do not know whose application was, it was filed before the foundation of "Arkhnadzor". Probably due to the threat of an additional track extension on separate supports, which happened in 2008. The extension was made from the south and disfigured the general classical panorama of the Andronikov Monastery with this arched bridge from 1865.
Alas, the current government of Moscow does not accept bridges and some other engineering facilities for protection, so as not to interfere with any, even the most theoretical reconstruction. The 2007 application did not interfere with the construction, and the current refusal probably indicates a desire to comply with the appearance of the law with a new increase in the number of tracks. According to our information, this time the paths on new supports will appear from the north, and the paths from the south will be expanded. The indentations on the new supports allow you to physically preserve the bridge, but exclude its view. Today, June 18, 2020, some work has begun on the Andronikov Bridge and on the embankment adjacent to it. At the same time, we do not find any urban planning documentation, no approvals.
-
zooming 1/3 Andronievsky bridge Photo: Archi.ru, 18.06.
-
zooming 2/3 Andronievsky bridge Photo: Archi.ru, 18.06.2020
-
zooming 3/3 Andronievsky viaduct start of construction works Photo: Archi.ru, 18.06.
So the threat to the tram tunnel in Syromyatnichesky proezd is only part of the problem of expanding tracks and reconstructing bridge crossings from Kalanchevka to Yauza. The arch of the tunnel was built according to a separate project, but simultaneously with the Andronikov viaduct, in 1865. There is 350 m between them and a common embankment. They definitely belong to a single complex of engineering structures from the middle of the 19th century. An attempt to put the arched tunnel on guard, as I said, is doomed under the current government of Moscow. Requesting protection is a serious endeavor. In this situation, it should be redirected to criticize the very practice of the mayor's office to deny protection to undoubted engineering monuments.
According to the comments of the Moskomarkhitektura, no project in Syromyatniki has been approved, that is, the materials that have appeared on the network have no legal status. I will add that the MCD project is federal. Moscow actually takes note of the federal PPT, in particular the red lines, but issues AGR for separate project proposals. This is the AGR of the Kalanchevsky overpass, approved by the chief architect of the city.
What we saw yesterday on the designer's website in Syromyatniki resembled the original version of the new Kalanchevsky overpass. It was simply demolished and built on concrete supports with through passages. You can compare yesterday's pictures with the neighboring passage, closer to the Kursk railway station, along Verkhnyaya Syromyatnnicheskaya street, where we see a simple concrete ceiling, a technical structure without any imagery.
If, in the case of the Kalanchevsky overpass, we managed to change the project towards the maximum preservation of antiquity, why not do it both in Syromyatniki and on the Yauza.
We are ready for negotiations with the customer and the designer, similar to those that we were able to carry out on Kalanchevka. By the way, the designer in Syromyatniki is different, and the negotiation formula will have to be rebuilt."
***
Mikhail Blinkin,
Director of the Institute for Transport Economics and Transport Policy, National Research University Higher School of Economics:
“Here's what I will say in response to your question about the arch built in 1865, through which I passed many times, heading to the addresses known to you.
About ten years ago, at the St. Petersburg forum, I took part in a conversation on a similar topic with the famous Catalan architect Josep Acebillo. The former chief architect of Barcelona shocked the Russians and other European interlocutors with a judgment that I quote from memory, but - I guarantee - without breaking the meaning: “The decision to demolish an old building is as much a creative act of an architect as designing something new. In Barcelona, I gave the go-ahead for the demolition of about 30% of the total set of old (sometimes very old!) Real estate, while at the same time preserving the iconic buildings that define the city's appearance. Come and see: it seems to have turned out well!"
From my point of view, the arch under consideration, taking into account the poor level of current maintenance and repairs of the last 100 years, already, alas, does not represent any cultural and historical value. However, I clearly realize that this judgment is nothing more than the judgment of an ordinary city dweller who (unlike an architect!) Does not have the right to a “creative act”. On the pragmatic side of the matter, where I have the right to professional judgment, demolition is all the more necessary. What worries me most about these issues is the lack of a clear institutional framework for resolving them. Such a framework is necessary for conducting a correct professional discussion with a substantiated discussion of the issue of what the city loses and gains in each particular case.
Do you see there, in the area of this arch, the possibility of competent and talented design while maintaining the arch?
Most likely impossible. The reservation, "most likely", I am making because of the very shallow immersion in the details of the project."
Ilya Zalivukhin,
architect, urban planner, AB YAYZAPROEKT
“I work at Artplay, often walk through this arch. And I don't see any contradictions: the arch should be preserved and the WDC should develop.
When developing a city, it is necessary, first of all, to preserve two most important types of infrastructure: social, which includes cultural heritage, and ecological infrastructure. Transport, the third most important type of infrastructure, in my opinion, should take them into account, that is: tunnels should be laid under forest parks, bridges and engineering structures should be designed taking into account the cultural heritage.
How to do it? Firstly, modern technologies of the XXI century allow you to do anything you want. Perhaps some part of the city budget should have been directed to the design and construction of a more elegant, thin bridge crossing, which, for example, would pass as the second canvas in the foreground, but would allow this arch to be preserved. I am sure that technically it is possible to solve any problem, the main thing is to set the task.
It is quite obvious that there is no point in abandoning the creation of the Moscow Central Diameter in order to preserve the arch. I don't know if there are other options for tracing it at this point. If the tunnel is important, and it is important, then another solution can be found. If the routing cannot be changed, if it is impossible to build a high-quality and modern engineering structure, having allocated a budget for it, then I do not exclude that the problem can be solved even by optimizing the train schedule. To harmonize the interests of the departments responsible for passenger and freight transport and use the tracks more efficiently, as was done in Paris and Berlin, where many trains pass along the same track, and they only expand at the stations. For some reason we are laying additional tracks, while if you think about it, then, probably, it would be possible to put more trains on the same tracks. By the way, a comprehensive master plan for Moscow, of which I am a supporter, could help to regulate the interests of different departments. Then, perhaps, nothing would have to be demolished. It is necessary to consider various technical possibilities, but I am sure that it is quite possible to find a solution in which the historical arch will be preserved and the MCD will receive all the necessary capacities. If you want."
