Archcouncil Of Moscow - 68 | Architecture of Russia 2024

2024 Author: David Durham | [email protected]. Last modified: 2024-01-09 00:51

The meeting of the Arch Council on November 3 was the third remote one. Before the meeting, Sergei Kuznetsov announced the recent update of the board: Alexander Petrovich Kudryavtsev, Yevgeny Ass, and the expert's representative Valery Leonov left the board. The new participants in the process were Tatiana Guk, Director of the General Planning Institute, Yuliy Borisov, Olga Aleksakova and Petr Kudryavtsev. Jokingly, Sergei Kuznetsov commented on the last appointment as follows: "someone from the Kudryavtsev family should be on the council simply on a secret conspiracy of the world government," and then congratulated Alexander Kudryavtsev on his birthday, which fell on the day of the meeting. Further, the chief architect announced a new round of the architectural award of the mayor of Moscow, the acceptance of applications for which, according to the plan, should begin on December 1.

We considered one object - a residential complex on the site of the Slava watch factory demolished in 2008-2011, behind the Tverskoy overpass bridge opposite the Belorussky railway station. The design on the site of this industrial zone has been going on for a long time, the concepts of complexes of various sizes have been replacing each other for 15 years. We considered the first stage of the residential complex overlooking the red line of the avenue.

The first stage of the residential complex "Slava"

Architectural and functional concept

"1st stage of the multifunctional complex - Apartment complex"

Address: Leningradskiy Prospekt vl. 8

Architects: Dyer Rus / LLC "PODZEMPROEKT"

Dyer Rus: Philip Ball (leader), Balash Domokos, Tamas Deilinger, A. S. Dzeva

Customer: MR-CENTER LLC

Developer: MR Group

Project participants: VEB, a specialized developer "Slava"

Sergei Kuznetsov described the place as extremely responsible, and the submitted project as a new one: "it will probably be very publicly resonant" - and urged experts to be as objective as possible in their assessments, making a reservation that he deliberately does not voice their opinion at the beginning of the conversation.

Phase 1 project includes 575 apartments, 253 parking spaces in one tier of underground parking and commercial / public spaces. Its site, facing Leningradsky Prospekt and the beginning of the 1st street of Yamskoye Pole, occupies 1.2 hectares. The territory of the second stage is located in the depths, along Yamskoye Pole Street, and, according to the author of the project, Philip Ball, when designing, he considered both stages in a holistic manner. The total area of the 1st and 2nd stages is 3.7 hectares [note that the planned complex has 3 and 4 more stages, on the opposite side of the 1st street of Yamskoye Pole].

ЖК «Слава», Ленинградский проспект, 8 © DYER / из материалов, показанных на архсовете Москвы

The complex consists of 6 apartment buildings. The maximum marks, this is Philip Ball underscore separately, do not reach the permitted height of 75 m - in the highest towers at the depth of the site 17 floors and 66 m. According to the author, it was extremely important for him to fit his project into the urban environment of Leningradsky Prospekt with maximum delicacy - "As if he had always been there", while preserving, however, the modernity of architecture. Therefore, building 1, adjacent to house 10 along the avenue, is the same in height and echoes in facade solutions. The lower tier of the next building 2, receding from the red line, is given over to cafes and restaurants at the corner, a glass wall 9 m high appears here. In the upper tier, starting from building 2, two glass floors appear. Cafes are planned on the first floors in Leningradka and Yamskoye Pole Street, and office space on the sides of the lobbies of residential buildings is planned in the towers along the inner passage. The entrance to the parking lot is located at the back of the internal passage. Loading of the cafe is planned from the backup of Leningradsky Prospekt, but at night.

ЖК «Слава», Ленинградский проспект, 8 © DYER / предоставлено: Москомархитектура

Three distant volumes, lined up along the passage, perpendicular to the 1st street of the Yamskoy field and separating the first stage from the second, are designed as three towers of variable height. All glass superstructures are solved in the same way, otherwise the facades vary, albeit within the framework of similar solutions. Philip Ball emphasized separately that the facades are not flat, but complex, multi-layered.

In the private courtyard, the authors, according to Philip Ball, tried to create as much greenery as possible - a kind of private park for residents, both in the first stage and in the second, where the buildings are arranged along the contour with less regularity. The total area of the internal park of the 1st and 2nd stages is 1 hectare. The first floors of the second stage are given over to the rented areas of cafes and restaurants. In front of the oblique eastern corner and along the northeastern border of the 2nd stage, small green spaces are planned, open to the townspeople.

When asked by Alexander Asadov, Philip Ball replied that the developers and designers of the 1st and 2nd stages are the same - MR Group and DYER.

Criticism of the project has developed in a wide range: from the town-planning role of the project and the elaboration of town-planning, including transport, materials, to volumetric construction and facades.

According to Alexander Asadov, the project should be considered in conjunction with the second stage, perhaps by regrouping the areas: now the first stage is over-packed, it is possible that the second will later "grow". In the first stage, he proposed to move the tower of building 5 into the depths of the site, forming a courdoner in front of him, facing the inner street; or even move this building to the 2nd stage. Noting the very small area of the yard for residential buildings, Alexander Asadov compared the ratio with the neighboring Stalinist houses: there is a yard of about 60, and the height of houses is 30, here, on the contrary, the yard is 30, and the height is more than 60. Sergey Skuratov called the yard “catastrophically small”, Andrey Gnezdilov is a "well".

The greatest criticism was caused by the fact that the courtyard is fenced and intended only for residents, and there are few spaces in the project open to citizens. Sergei Skuratov called the problem of dividing private territories and public spaces in the project unsolved: “… we know perfectly well that if there is a private yard, then the owners and visitors of all commercial or state institutions do not get into this yard. There must be a system of interaction between public and private space. This is a very difficult task and it has not been solved here in any way."

Sergei Tchoban proposed, when reconsidering the project, to make “a single attractive space that does not divide in such a rigid way” the residents of the complex and other townspeople: “it is clear that there could be some restrictions on the entrance, but it should be more tactful and not in such proportion [as it is now] that leaves no space for the public. It is very important not to separate the huge private park from the public movement. " Petr Kudiavtsev, stressing that there is a great lack of squares and parks in the area, in addition, noted that now in the project the complex works as a "breakwater" of pedestrian flows, and should organize them and distribute them competently. Andrei Gnezdilov, noting the insufficiency of the materials shown, stressed that the project does not solve the problems with transport that arise in this section.

We discussed the glass upper tiers for a long time: will they hide the technical floors or not? Nikolai Lyashenko, who was the first to ask this question, called the "crystals on the roof" "self-deception" and suggested immediately calculating the likelihood that they will look more massive. Nikolai Shumakov called the glass finishes that go through all the corus as intrusive.

The attitude of experts to the facades and the volumetric solution of the complex turned out to be uneven: Alexander Asadov called the facades harmonized, Olga Aleksakova supported the tactfulness and accuracy of the proposed solution in this place and supported the project as a whole. Nikolai Lyashenko called the low height of the buildings an important and responsible decision. Tatyana Guk, while supporting the built-in facades into the building of the avenue, nevertheless considered them simple. But already Timur Bashkaev, referring to the project as “very professionally made” and “made strongly”, noted that it “contradicts what we expect from this place”, namely, “stronger vivid statements”, I saw in the project a fear of "licked environment" and the absence of an architectural statement: "if we want Moscow to become more diverse socially and architecturally, we must increase the number of sites for which we are increasing the requirements."

Mikhail Posokhin spoke out more radically than others, defining the project as provincial: “This highway has always been designed for outstanding structures that should illuminate some stages in the development of our architecture. You can't make boring architecture in such a place, which has already become provincial for Moscow. Facades are not creative, not forward-looking. This project, I don't know who loved it there, but probably people who are not great in terms of urban planning and architecture of Moscow as well. And as a Muscovite, who was born in Moscow and worked there all his life, it will be a shame if such a key place appears as one of you said … “no” project. Here he is exactly none for today. We cannot spend the capital's land on "any" building. How many projects we already have that are more progressive, more interesting. " Mikhail Posokhin called the project an erroneous urban planning decision and was surprised, in addition, at the height limitation (however, Leonid Kondrashov from the DKN soon explained that the 75 m limit is dictated by the united protection zone No. 266, to which the site belongs).

Vladimir Plotkin began with the fact that he would not be so categorical, called the volumetric-spatial solution of the first line quite correct, but he also considered the facades somewhat timid and expressed doubts about the variable play of volumes on the second line: higher, to get an altitude of 75 m is, in principle, permissible. According to Vladimir Plotkin, although the place is not the gateway to Leningradsky Prospekt, it is “very responsible, accent, dominant,” and something more interesting and energetic, if not high-rise, could appear here.

According to Sergei Tchoban, "everything here radiates uncertainty, both urban planning and in details." Sergei Tchoban highlighted the materials of the facade: “When we talk about sustainable space, we are talking about the absence of gentrification. When we talk about a sustainable building structure, we are talking about materials that are durable and age well. And here, starting from the third floor, Alpolek is used, which imitates natural stone. And I ask myself: is this generally a standard that we should somehow consider on Leningradsky Prospekt? I would say that metal facades here on the first line should be viewed with caution, and even more so if they imitate other materials. " Sergei Tchoban proposed to choose the permitted height, to make the towers thinner and more noticeable. Nikolai Shumakov also noted that the buildings are "thick" - according to the head of the CAP and AIA, "there is a feeling that here the customer has run over the architect."

Sergei Kuznetsov, summing up the discussion with the words: “it is clear that opinions are scattered between very critical and just critical,” suggested sending the project for revision and then discussing it at the Arch Council again, defining the discussion as an “important service” for the developer.

The chief architect of the city noted that the developer MR Group, who is engaged in the project, "is known for a very careful approach to architecture" and recalled the Tsarskaya Ploshchad complex, located further north along Leningradsky Prospekt: city center as well. The requirements that we, in my opinion, quite rightly, make to this site, have not been implemented here."

According to the chief architect of the city, he, like his colleagues who spoke earlier, would expect brighter solutions on this site. Sergei Kuznetsov, making a reservation that he cannot insist in this case, mentioned the competition as a recognized means of finding such solutions: ready for this and need some bright and interesting solutions, which the authors must be ready to defend."