Archcouncil

Delicate compensation: Archcouncil meeting on 09/04/2014

14 April 2014

On the agenda was a single project of an office and shopping complex at the intersection of Kutuzovsky Avenue and Kulneva Street, but this project came with a long history and already has been partially built. For one of the buildings, studio № 3 “Mosproyekt” and TPO “Reserve” developed four options of volume-spatial and facade designs. The Architectural Council’s task was to choose one of them.

The Architectural Council

The Architectural Council

The construction site is located in the western district of Moscow at the intersection of Kutuzovsky Avenue and the Third Ring Road, and covers an extensive area extending along Kulneva Street in the west and the Third Ring Road in the east. The southern part of the site is adjacent to Kutuzovsky Avenue and the northern part opens onto the Moscow River embankment.

The Architectural Council

In 2006 a project by “Sergey Kiselev and Partners” proposed to build a complex of four buildings with a total area of ​​about 368 thousand square meters with underground parking. But in the eight years since then much had changed.

First, two of the four blocks (marked in the project as A and Б) — two towers of 47 and 41 floors in height are being actively built, and the 10 storey building (Г) is already built.

The Architectural Council

Second, the transport logistics have become more complicated so the Archcouncil recommended that the transport arragement be reviewd at a meeting of the traffic commission of the Committee for Architecture and Urban Planning.

But the main reason for the adjustment of the project was that the fourth building — the 10 storey building B — from the beginning had occupied a part of the site that is shared with the adjacent railroad. More precisely, placed directly over the railroad tracks, and partially taking up the platform. That said, the management of the Moscow Railroad refused such an “overlap,” and the client (JSC “International Center”) had to revise the plan to be strictly within the boundaries of the allotted land.

The Architectural Council

Due to boundary changes the total building area was reduced by 8 thousand square meters. So all four volume-spatial designs proposed by the architects of “Mosproekt” and TPO “Reserve” were an attempt to somehow compensate for the shortage of area. “Mosproekt” developed one option (option 1), options 2 and 3 were developed by TPO “Reserve”" and the 4th option is the result of joint efforts by the two bureaus.

The Architectural Council

After a report by Roman Kananin (“Mosproekt,” studio № 3) the project as a whole was reviewed. It turned out that the differences between the options was only in the above ground parts.

Option 1 proposed by “Mosproekt” has variable heights, from 10 to 16 floors. For the facades it is suggested that golden panels be used — made of aluminum or with a filling of mirrored glass. And the roof to be landscaped and utilized with an arrangement of recreational areas.

The Architectural Council

Option 4, which was modified with the participation of TPO “Reserve,” is a lite version of option 1, and also includes roof-top gardening. The height varies from 10 to 18 floors, while in the middle of the building a smooth cutout has been designed that visually softens its volume. The color of the facade of this option is also gold or silver.

The Architectural Council

Vladimir Plotkin, chief architect of TPO “Reserve” presented options 2 and 3 to the Archcouncil. Compared to 1 and 4, they are more concise and calm: Plotkin stressed that in developing the options, a strong emphasis was placed on continuity with the previous decisions and on a reasonable combination with the part of the complex already constructed.

The Architectural Council

Between the options of TPO “Reserve,” option 3 is distinguished by a small tower of 17 floors. This tower in the simplest and most obvious way compensates for the missing square meters and, as noted by architect Sergei Tchoban, successfully works with the towering “President-Service” building next door.

The Architectural Council

However, Marina Pluzhnikova, Deputy of the Directorate for the Architectural Council and an expert on landscape and visual analysis, despite the fact that analyses did not reveal any apparent contradictions of height, still recommended to go with the option with the lowest number of floors — option number 2.

The Architectural Council

Most members of the Archcouncil were in favor of option number 2: with its maximum number of storeys — 12, which is only two “extra” floors compared to the original project; the contours of its volume smoothly repeat the silhouettes of the blocks already built. Vladimir Plotkin described the modules for facade decoration in particular — they are in the form of triangular mini bay windows at an angle of 20 degrees to the line of the facade. Their peculiarity is that one side is mirrored glass, and the second is"blind," made of dark or light-colored stone.

The Architectural Council

The glazing can be oriented in one direction or another, and so as you get closer to the building (the main point of perception is from the Third Ring Road) an interesting visual effect of “moving gears” will be created. In this way, the smooth volume design will be livened up by a dynamic “interactive” finish.

According to the members of the Architectural Council, this option is good not only in the minimal number of storeys, but also in the overall compactness of the solutions, which in the words of Mikhail Posokhin, “does not add another voice to the complex, one already saturated with different architectures.”

The Architectural Council

Architect Eugene Asse lamented the fact that the project had to be changed in principle — from his point of view, the option by “SKiP” was more solid, and it would be better if the client put up with the shortage of square meters and retained the original idea. However, in choosing from the proposed solutions, option 2 also seemed to him the most appropriate.

Only Alexander Kudryavtsev was in favor of the other options, 1 or 4. According to him, one of them could create “an interesting context for the modernism of Sergei Kiselev, and Stalinist architecture.” The place directly opposite Moskva City “deserves better” and “a new plasticity and picturesqueness” could have been opened up here.

But as all other members of the council voted for option number 2, chairman and chief architect of Moscow, Sergey Kuznetsov, in summing up the meeting, decided to choose this as the main option for further work.


Images: Architectural Council


Publications on the topic

 
LOAD MORE ...
 

E-mail:
Name:
Подписаться на рассылки: