To mid-level urban planning solutions? From the exhibition "ARCH-MOSCOW-2007"
The ARCH-MOSCOW exhibition from the first steps showed its purely artistic intention, insisting on a monologue perception of architecture as art. However, its current curator, B. Goldhoorn, apparently sensing the glaring gaps in the body of the modern Russian city in contrast with the average western settlement, chose the theme of the 2007 exhibition “Urban Space” and tried to understand the current state of the “urban” component of Russian architecture . This is the level of public spaces and individual fragments of urban fabric - an intermediate middle step between the lowest, “point”, or “piece” scale level, and the “highest” - planning level, which presumes the integrity of the town-planning vision. Therefore, the key section of the exhibition - “Arch-catalog” - was this time not recruited in accordance with the architectural quality of the presented works, the place of the exhibitor in the professional ranking of tables, etc., but according to the principle of belonging to urban planning projects of such “middle level”. As a result, the usual catalog of masterpieces is actively replenished with products of the underlying layers and levels of the architectural process. It was this circumstance of the architectural and artistic incompatibility of the neighbors in the exhibition that displeased art criticism, which immediately responded to the revisionist demarche in the urbanistic direction, as well as the negative reaction of many visitors. 
The project from the group "environment reorganization":
tennis center them. Juan Antonio Samaranch.
TPO "Reserve".
V.Plotkin, S.Gusarev, T.Marlyarchuk, A. Butusov, A.Shumakova. Without claiming completeness and thoroughness, we tried to compare the approaches presented both in the Arch Catalog and in the commercial part of the exposition and analyzed over 50 objects (projects and implementations) by two main parameters: the degree of radicalism of interference in the historical environment, on the one hand, and on real compliance with the curator’s request — that is, the status of a city-level solution of the average level, on the other. The totality of the reviewed works was conditionally divided into three main typological groups: development site (successive development of the historically established or “new” environment), reorganization of the environment and its radical transformation. Regarding the second parameter, we tried to find out whether the presented works reach the city planning level, whether they are a tool to influence the functioning and development of the urban space, or remain nothing more than a mechanical buildup of the architectural mass, essentially alienated from its surroundings. The main results of our analysis are as follows: - about a third of the works presented can be characterized as aimed at a radical transformation of the current environment; - only about one fifth of the total number of projects falls under the category of “soft” development; - about two thirds (!) Of all the works presented, in fact, are “just houses”, which do not imply a special emphasis on the relationship with the surrounding urban space; - it is precisely town-oriented projects that provide the largest percentage (more than half of all) of radical interventions in the historically established environment. Thus, it can be argued that the radical transformational approach is decisive in medium-level urban planning concepts: we prefer to build each time anew, from a “clean slate”. And another important conclusion: the advantage behind a clear advantage of the works submitted by the authors under the guise of town-planning, but, in general, not being such, indicates the specifics of the professional consciousness of the architects themselves, apparently perceiving town-planning in a purely quantitative in comparison with the architecture plan - just as a change in the scale bar.
The project from the group "radical transformation":
The concept of building quarter â„–473 in Khamovniki.
LLC Sergey Skuratov Architects.
S.Skuratov, A.Panev, A.Egerev, A.Ivanova, A.Hasanov, M.Kiryanova, A.Dmitriev, O.Lebedeva. The feeling of a very unsatisfactory state of affairs in the domestic “middle-level” urbanism was reinforced by an appeal to the global experience presented in special expositions both at the Central House of Artists and at neighboring sites. Exhibitions on cities (London, Barcelona, ​​Amsterdam, Hamburg, etc.) and personalities (C. Zukki, M. Devigne, etc.) clearly demonstrate a deep gap in the understanding of urbanism in the scale of the quarter and the public space that is taken / washed / between them and us. They have a park as a temporary buffer on the evolutionary axis of the territory from prom to residential quarter (M. Devigne), forming green transitional vignettes from M. Schwartz and Amsterdam's “Guide to urban spaces”, we have - more and more elite-oligarchic housing in the rank of architectural super-objects of status consumption with licked courtyards with alpine slides and sweep, dangerous for a simple pedestrian, untidy-drawn adjacent territory. The “middle level” remains an ideal looming somewhere on the horizon ... For the full version of the article, see Architectural Herald , 2007, No. 4.
The project from the group "environment reorganization": tennis center them. Juan Antonio Samaranch.
TPO "Reserve".
V.Plotkin, S.Gusarev, T.Marlyarchuk, A. Butusov, A.Shumakova. Without claiming completeness and thoroughness, we tried to compare the approaches presented both in the Arch Catalog and in the commercial part of the exposition and analyzed over 50 objects (projects and implementations) by two main parameters: the degree of radicalism of interference in the historical environment, on the one hand, and on real compliance with the curator’s request — that is, the status of a city-level solution of the average level, on the other. The totality of the reviewed works was conditionally divided into three main typological groups: development site (successive development of the historically established or “new” environment), reorganization of the environment and its radical transformation. Regarding the second parameter, we tried to find out whether the presented works reach the city planning level, whether they are a tool to influence the functioning and development of the urban space, or remain nothing more than a mechanical buildup of the architectural mass, essentially alienated from its surroundings. The main results of our analysis are as follows: - about a third of the works presented can be characterized as aimed at a radical transformation of the current environment; - only about one fifth of the total number of projects falls under the category of “soft” development; - about two thirds (!) Of all the works presented, in fact, are “just houses”, which do not imply a special emphasis on the relationship with the surrounding urban space; - it is precisely town-oriented projects that provide the largest percentage (more than half of all) of radical interventions in the historically established environment. Thus, it can be argued that the radical transformational approach is decisive in medium-level urban planning concepts: we prefer to build each time anew, from a “clean slate”. And another important conclusion: the advantage behind a clear advantage of the works submitted by the authors under the guise of town-planning, but, in general, not being such, indicates the specifics of the professional consciousness of the architects themselves, apparently perceiving town-planning in a purely quantitative in comparison with the architecture plan - just as a change in the scale bar.
The project from the group "radical transformation":The concept of building quarter â„–473 in Khamovniki.
LLC Sergey Skuratov Architects.
S.Skuratov, A.Panev, A.Egerev, A.Ivanova, A.Hasanov, M.Kiryanova, A.Dmitriev, O.Lebedeva. The feeling of a very unsatisfactory state of affairs in the domestic “middle-level” urbanism was reinforced by an appeal to the global experience presented in special expositions both at the Central House of Artists and at neighboring sites. Exhibitions on cities (London, Barcelona, ​​Amsterdam, Hamburg, etc.) and personalities (C. Zukki, M. Devigne, etc.) clearly demonstrate a deep gap in the understanding of urbanism in the scale of the quarter and the public space that is taken / washed / between them and us. They have a park as a temporary buffer on the evolutionary axis of the territory from prom to residential quarter (M. Devigne), forming green transitional vignettes from M. Schwartz and Amsterdam's “Guide to urban spaces”, we have - more and more elite-oligarchic housing in the rank of architectural super-objects of status consumption with licked courtyards with alpine slides and sweep, dangerous for a simple pedestrian, untidy-drawn adjacent territory. The “middle level” remains an ideal looming somewhere on the horizon ... For the full version of the article, see Architectural Herald , 2007, No. 4.
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/9519/
All Articles