Lukomorye theme park
Pushkin, Detskoselsky Boulevard, section 13
Designer: SUNLINE-STROY LLC
Customer: "SVETOCH" LLC
Discussed: architectural and town-planning appearance
The idea to open a theme park based on Pushkin's fairy tales Svetlana Goloverova, the general director of SVETOCH LLC, has been nurturing for more than a decade. The project is supported by Russian Railways, in 2017 it was approved by the Investment Council, and in 2019 the city allocated a six-hectare plot for development on the border of the Buffer Park.
The City Council considered the concept, which was developed by the Dutch company Jora Vision Europe B. V. with the participation of St. Petersburg colleagues from Sunline-Stroy. As it turned out, not all foreign designers are equally good.
A unique case for the City Council: the chief architect of the project, Marina Kauponen, literally called on experts to criticize the presented work, calling it a “re-match” first - apparently, she failed to establish a dialogue with foreign colleagues. The story was accompanied by heavy sighs, dramatic pauses and quotations of the "eloquent" Dutch in the most controversial places.
The proposed building is essentially a decorated hangar. The shell, according to the Dutch, "creates a wow effect, intrigues the visitor and reflects a grandiose design." Among the references are plowshares and birches, in the renders there are almost abstract groves glued to the facades. Inside there will be several themed zones with attractions and playgrounds, the Pushkin Museum, and a fountain show. On the visualizations with the filling of the park, the eyes, by the way, rest: here the authors unexpectedly leave the aesthetics of Turkish resorts in the direction of Bilibino illustrations.
The building does not exceed the permitted 10 meters, it is proposed to open a new station nearby
Small October railway, and for a comfortable approach of buses and cars - to develop the road network. On a peak day, the park is expected to receive 2,000 visitors.
Most of the members of the City Council warmly reacted to the idea of a park based on Pushkin's fairy tales. As Mikhail Mamoshin noted, "we are all products of Pushkin's fairy tales." As for the appearance, it was predictable that there was nothing but criticism and wishes to "urgently restart the project."
Felix Buyanov considered the Dutch approach offensive: “Why should an outrageously kitschy hangar-type architecture appear in the brilliant suburb of St. Petersburg? There cannot be such a primitive form here. " Evgeny Gerasimov suggested that "the Dutch consider us natives" and urged to instill good taste in children.
Mikhail Mamoshin saw three ways out of the situation: to make a neutral hangar, which are often found along the railway; refer to multimedia facades or super graphics. Sergey Oreshkin drew attention to the fact that when working with such a site, one cannot do without a landscape architect. Svyatoslav Gaykovich considered that “everything is strange in the project”, calling it “a box from the area of missed opportunities”.
Vladimir Grigoriev also saw great prospects and benefits for the city, but was surprised by the authors' train of thought: “Such a pictorial function allows any shell and shape. The site is large, there could be a plastically complex composition that would help to reach the heart, understanding, soul of a child. There is no need to make a large semblance of a toy, this is psychologically disorienting: children will begin to love everything big, regardless of quality, this is dangerous. There should be a building that, with its architectural qualities, would give rise to aesthetic feelings, love both for Pushkin and for architecture."
More about the project ->
Residential complex near "Juno"
St. Petersburg, Marshal Kazakov street, building 21, building 2, letter A
Designer: LLC "PARITET-GROUP"
Customer: LLC "Specialized developer" LSR"
Discussed: architectural and town-planning appearance
Andrey Sharov's workshop worked with a plot of almost regular rectangular shape on Marshal Kazakov Street. The proximity to the Yunona market and the port industrial zone is enhanced by the Kazakovskaya metro station being built next to the future complex.
The architects went through several options for the layout of buildings and settled on the following: the axis is a pedestrian boulevard, on either side of it there are six 23-storey plate houses and four 25-storey towers symmetrically located. According to Andrey Sharov, such a master plan gave large courtyards, permeability and the ability to implement the customer's apartment design: the complex is dominated by studios and one-room apartments without loggias and balconies. The author also pointed out the disadvantage of the solution: the axis-boulevard does not lead anywhere and does not end anywhere, but there is hope that in the future there will be large objects that will complete the ensemble. The customer has already received a deviation from the permitted height of 40 meters. During the discussions, the class of housing - "hard economy" was also revealed.
The opinions of experts were divided: some liked the master plan and the facades, others found them primitive.
The reviewer Alexander Kosharny called the solution strong: “a powerful composition has been created from simple techniques and forms”. Yuri Zemtsov, after some doubts, recognized the complex as quite convincing. Evgeny Podgornov described the buildings as “generally pleasant and laconic”. For Felix Buyanov, the town-planning technique turned out to be "impressive and quite appropriate", only the clearer high-rise accents were lacking. Mikhail Mamoshin supported the work and saw many meanings in it.
-
Image 
zooming 1/5 Residential complex "Marshala Kazakova, 21" © Paritet Group
-
zooming 2/5 Residential complex "Marshala Kazakova, 21" © Paritet Group
-
zooming 3/5 Residential complex "Marshala Kazakova, 21" © Paritet Group
-
zooming 4/5 Residential complex "Marshala Kazakova, 21" © Paritet Group
-
zooming 5/5 Residential complex "Marshala Kazakova, 21" © Paritet Group
Anatoly Stolyarchuk found himself in another camp, who considered it impossible “not to react to the intersection of two highways and the metro station to which the residents of the quarter would rush,” in which Vyacheslav Ukhov warmly supported him. Alexander Karpov was concerned about visual ecology: “the facades distort the perception of perspective, the buildings seem to expand upward, and the“dancing”windows at the ends make us doubt the sustainability of buildings.” Evgeny Gerasimov was "far from enthusiastic, but he did not see any problem either." According to him, “the project is pragmatic and reflects all the realities of our life, responding to the request of the time: to continue to settle people in separate apartments in one way or another. It's not worth making him playful artificially."
Vladimir Grigoriev summed up: “the complex is really extremely pragmatic and reflects the realities of the time. But the simplicity turned out to be frightening for the authors, and they did not bring this primitivism to a ringing. The step towards decorating the facades is an attempt to disguise the elephant in the bushes, that is, the lapidary forms impressive in their composition. It cost less to invent and more to remember: Leonid Pavlov, Georgina Kandilis, Le Corbusier."
More about the project ->
After the meeting, Evgeny Gerasimov drew the attention of his colleagues to the demolition of the Design Bureau of Special Machine Building on Lesnoy Prospekt: “There is no need to say how much Grigory Simonov did for Leningrad. But I do not see a reaction from the Union of Architects, there is no hope for our hailstorms: they are interested in any shed or paving stone before 1917, they heard something about constructivism, but there is no one to stand up for Stalin's architecture, which is no less a brand. We shouldn't be indifferent to this."
