The new canopy of the passage at the chapel on Krasniy Prospekt drew criticism. One of the main complaints about the unusual design is that it stood across the view of Zakamenka
It became known last week that the opening of the underground passage on Krasny Prospekt was postponed again. On Against this background, among the experts again flared up the debate about the appropriateness of the design, which appeared there two months ago, it has made the company the “carrier system” Denis Gerasimov – it also has built an unusual glass roof in a Moscow park “charge”. Why, despite the company’s experience, its decision was criticized in Novosibirsk, explained Igor Popovsky, an architect, associate professor of the NSUADI Department of Architecture and a member of the town-planning council of the Novosibirsk Mayor’s Office.
The sheds over the entrances to the underground passages were originally planned to be installed on Lenin Square: in particular, such a solution, only not in blue, but in red, was proposed at the exit to the State Bank. I was categorically against – the existing granite fences, I think, are quite normal. When leaving the metro, there is an opportunity to open an umbrella, there is a canopy. If necessary, there could be some inconspicuous tempered glass solutions. And here is such an active form next to the architectural monument.
At that time, there was an active discussion at the presidium of the City Council, and in the end it was decided not to install them on Lenin Square. Someone suggested to practice at the passage near the Pervomaisky square. The proposal was treated sluggishly, and they did not consider it. Now I understand that it was necessary to conduct a separate discussion – both for this place, and in general for all exits from the passages. But then I was already pleased that this construction, at least on Lenin Square, did not appear.
It is difficult to peel off snow from the visor, while it will not save those leaving the passage neither from it, nor from heavy rain
When the visor was installed, it turned out to be different from the visualization proposed at the city council. There was a completely straight slab, thin stretch marks, the slab itself was thinner. And here is a bent corner, powerful stretching, twisting on a pole. Although the council doubted that the structure would be the same as in the sketch: when the slab is calculated, it always becomes more powerful – and that is exactly what happened.
From the very beginning, the head of the customer’s department for the construction of underground transport structures, Alexander Mysik, asked how this structure would then be operated, because there would be snow on it. This is happening now: the snow lies, it is difficult to remove it, in the spring it will be dirty, while the visor is set high and there is also snow on the steps. From a blizzard, rain, especially with a wind, it is also unlikely to save from a thunderstorm.
There is one more point that Aleksandra Arkhipova drew attention to: the structure blocks the perspective of the Oktyabrskaya Highway. From the point of entry into the passage at the Pervomaisky square, a view opens onto the distant bank of Kamenka, where interesting buildings are now appearing, this perspective shows the depth of the city. She is now lost.
To the sudden screw on the support of the structure, purely aesthetic questions – not counting the fact that it serves primarily as an advertisement for its creators
At one time, the exits from the passage at the grocery store “Under the line” and the bank were closed with “lids”. They were developed by Tatyana Ivanenko, and they were made very stylishly: they were based on modernism, but fit into the context of the classics, there was some kind of baroqueness in these “shells”. They fit into the environment, “lived” there until they were removed.
I understand that the initiators of the new design wanted to do something avant-garde and unexpected, but avant-garde things are not always appropriate. We are told that very few people liked the Eiffel Tower at first, but now it is a symbol of Paris and France. Perhaps the authors of the construction think so: they say, they did not understand us, because our people are backward, the approaches are conservative. But I would not call myself a conservative, although I went to that city council to oppose. I have supported Denis Gerasimov’s projects more than once, but then I said that we have other sites where you can experiment with the avant-garde: then it was still not clear what would happen to the passages on Lyschinsky Square, with exits from the Sportivnaya station.
Now this is how one exit from the transition is designed. Such a visor will not appear at the chapel above the passage – it would be just strange. As for the other exits from the passage, this is the territory of the mayor’s office. Usually, if a developer builds something ugly, then he is guarded by the Urban Planning Code: he does not violate the regulations, but he likes an ugly building – that’s all. But here is the jurisdiction of the structures of the mayor’s office, and you can’t tell what bad developers we have.
Removing the structure is easy – only the will of the mayor is needed. The initiators of its installation may refuse to dismantle it, but the mayor’s office will find the means. Of course, there will be confrontation, difficult conversations, but it is not difficult for the transition to return to its original appearance.
There may be different attitudes towards such objects, but the fact that they are brought up for discussion, that the authors can listen to different opinions, will give them the opportunity not to get into a puddle. Although, of course, not all developers in our country are capable of feeling shame and engage in dialogue.
Earlier, the designer showed what modern luxury actually looks like, and explained why the scandalous “Putin’s palace” only causes laughter.
And before that, the Novosibirsk artist showed how the signs should look, if you make them according to the rules – it turned out to be unexpectedly stylish.