Archcouncil

Archcouncil On March 5

05 March 2014

On March 5, 2014 the Architectural Council of Moscow did not accept any of the projects under review in the form in which they were submitted, but made a number of important recommendations for improvement. This, as noted at the end of the meeting by the chairman Sergey Kuznetsov, is one of the main missions of a deliberative body.

ADM’s proposal for the redevelopment of “Sputnik” hotel and surrounding area

Andrey Romanov from ADM Architects presented the project for a hotel and shopping complex at 38 Leninsky Avenue, which was commissioned by “Parallax Center.” Located currently at that site is the 16-story “Sputnik” hotel with a 2-story annex, outdoor parking lot, transformer substation, decorative pond and a small park. The project proposes to preserve the square, reconstruct the 16-story building for Holiday-Inn and construct two new buildings: a 22-story hotel building for Staybridge and a 3-story office and shopping center with an elongated facade along Leninsky Avenue.

All parameters of the project are fully consistent with the evaluation of an Urban Land Development Plan (ГПЗУ). The surrounding residential area imposes restrictions on insulation which were taken into consideration and reflected in the design of the shopping center which consists of varying heights of 6, 12 and 18 meters. The desire to not disturb the existing pedestrian traffic and instead provide them with comfortable entrances and “shelter,” resulted in the idea of a stepped and undulating facade, with entrances to cafes and boutiques created by overlapping volumes.

Authors of the project tried to find a reasonable compromise between the traditional desire of those who commission shopping centers to have more blank walls and the legitimate need in the city of light and transparent volumes. From an architectural point of view, this building was highly appreciated by members of the council. The well laid out landscaping preserved and gave “new life” to the territory, which also was favorably received by the council.

However, the reaction to the other two buildings that make up the project was not so clear-cut. Sergey Kuznetsov questioned the 22-story building’s shape which repeats the undulating contours of the square. Since the new volume of the building is quite large and active, he suggested the consideration of a more traditional rectangular form. Other council members, including Evgeniy Asse and Vladimir Plotkin, recommended to reduce the height of the building which inevitably enters into a dialogue with the neighboring residential tower. Another recommendation was to revise the transportation scheme and make the circulation in the area in a clockwise direction for convenience.

Summarizing the discussion, Sergey Kuznetsov said that it would be good to think over the facades of both buildings and propose a variation that is closer to the current look of “Sputnik.” Leninsky Avenue was built by professionals who invested certain ideas into the architecture which should be respected. In all other respects the style suited everyone, and after the designers make revisions to the design, most likely the decision to issue an Architecture and Urban Planning Resolution certificate will be made according to established procedure.

“Silver Tower” complex by Swanke Hayden Connel Architects

The project of a residential complex on Serebriakova Way that is comprised of three towers with 52 floors, a multifunctional stylobate, underground parking and a separate detached garage, caused a lot of talk even before the Architecture Council meeting. Initially, the project by the international architecture company Swanke Hayden Connel Architects, which was commissioned by “Nord-service,” was presented for examination by the Chief Architect. But, because of the extraordinary size (1,600 apartments and 4,000 residents), the project was submitted to the Council.

Presenting his work, architect Altan Gursel said that the complex “Silver Tower” (working title of the project) was once part of the government project “New Ring of Moscow” in which several sites in the capital received approval for high-rise buildings (a document was issued in 2005 for this site). In 2012 the program was suspended but by then some work had already been done in the Sviblovo region and now it is planned to be resumed.

The new project in terms of height and other parameters prescribed in the Urban Land Development Plan (ГПЗУ) meets almost all requirements. Nevertheless, the totality of the design caused understandable excitement and concern among members of the council, especially after representatives of the Administration of Town Planning Regulation and the Prefecture of the Northeast Administrative District, as well local residents all shared their concerns.

Dissatisfaction with the lack of landscaped areas, playgrounds and recreation areas was voiced by local residents. Concern was also expressed whether there will be enough places in kindergartens and schools for the children of the residents of the new complex. The damaging effects of large-scale construction on nearby buildings was also brought up since such precedents have already occurred in Moscow.

The representative of the customer, in turn, assured that all works on the site are conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations, constant monitoring and necessary hydrogeological surveys are performed, and according to calculations the construction of the new complex is to have no impact on existing buildings.

Moscow’s Chief Architect, Sergey Kuznetsov, also reassured the residents, recalling that before the beginning of the project’s construction a mandatory comprehensive examination will be held with the results made available to the public.

There were also comments on the complicated traffic situation in the area. The project addressed this issue during the design process. In city plans there are programs for improving infrastructure in the area so in terms of the implementation time frame, those programs coincide with the project under consideration.

The detached garage also was critiqued for its style, function, and placement next to an existing garage. Sergey Kuznetsov stressed that the content of this building needs to be reviewed from the point of view of the first floor, which should be occupied by public functions.

Andrey Gnezdilov, chief architect of the Institute of the Moscow General Plan, questioned the strategic calculations because of the large scale of the project and inevitable consequences. Will 1,970 parking spaces be enough? Where will 500 students go to school?

In response, Sergey Kuznetsov reminded his colleagues that the city shall be responsible for the decisions made and shall complete the construction of the facilities that are necessary at its own expense. If the Architectural Council has doubts about the availability of community infrastructure and facilities, the request is forwarded to the Department of Urban Development, and its experts upon determining the need for it, initiate the construction of new schools and kindergartens in the area.

In conclusion, Kuznetsov asked the authors of the project to consider all the voiced comments and to first submit a draft in working order in order to understand what to do with it next: nominate it for the regulation commission for the subsequent issuance of the Architecture and Urban Planning Resolution or for a repeat review by the Architectural Council.

Kotelnicheskaya complex

Last item on the agenda concerned the administrative educational and residential complex located at 21 Kotelnicheskaya Embankment. It includes a U-shaped 6 to 7-story volume of the residential section which faces the embankment and a 3-story Moscow State University of Design and Technology facilities building, situated between 1st Kotelnicheskaya Lane and the embankment.

This is another project with a difficult fate. The contract for construction on the plot of .67 hectares was concluded back in 2002, after a of couple years construction began but due to administrative reasons the construction was frozen in 2006. A new Urban Land Development Plan was received only in 2013 with reduced technical and economic parameters, including height: 7 floors instead of 11 and a maximum height of 25 meters. However, the building spot and general layout remained unchanged, and an examination showed that all the buildings on the site are suitable for further construction. The remaining issue was the architectural design.

“Architectural studio of Saveleva and Storozheva” designed the project. The placement of the new complex received preliminary approval by the regulation commission, but it was recommended to revise the facade design. Ideally a competition should be held but at minimum a co-contractor should be brought in. The proximity of such architectural dominants as one of the Seven Sisters skyscrapers imposes certain obligations.

The client “SU-207” decided to invite a co-contractor and brought two facade designs to the Architectural Council meeting. However, none of them received unconditional approval.

Because of a church nearby, the volume along the Kotelnicheskaya embankment consists of two sections of different heights. The architects suggested a unified solution as well as a varied version, but both within the same style. The members of the Architectural Council, however, agreed that the difference between these two parts should dramatic, or instead of a juncture of two varying heights, two separate buildings should be created.

In addition to the consensus on making two separate buildings, it was agreed that the facade designs as presented were not acceptable and should be reworked, citing a lack of quality in the rhythm and individual elements of the design.

“I propose to support a more modern interpretation of the facades and to recommend further work in this direction,” concluded the chief architect of Moscow.

After the meeting, Sergey Kuznetsov once again drew the attention of the press to the essence of the Architectural Council’s mission: discussion and recommendations.

"Usually journalists expect from us straightforward solutions, "approved"/"rejected." But to approve or reject a project is not always our main goal. The Architectural Council primarily makes recommendations — as it did today. Certain criticism was voiced for all the projects that were reviewed, but it does not cross them out. The projects may very well be realized, but first all comments of the council must be taken into account."




 

E-mail:
Name:
Подписаться на рассылки: