Sukhareva Tower: I want to believe in a miracle
I really want to share my painful experience. Reading the 1902 guidebook feels like you're entering a world of wonders, a world of architecture that's barely half gone. Sukharev Tower, Vladimir Gate, Lubyanka Cathedral, Red Gate, Cathedral of Christ the Savior, Resurrection Gate and Iverskaya Chapel... But this is not a story that we have saved, the memory of not only Moscow, but the whole country.
And so the decision is made to restore the Sukharev Tower. Of course, it's great to see her wherever she stands. But I think that the project of P. Myagkov and P. Ragulin is suitable only as a last resort, if the circumstances on the way to the revival of the tower in its original place — in the center of the four Moscow perspectives — will be insurmountable. And placed in front of the hospital, it will forever remain a half-package.
In the old place, there will be no question of a layout. Moscow will revive one of its best masterpieces, revive a part of itself. For although 52 years have passed since its destruction, Moscow, the true Moscow, is still unthinkable without it.
It is hard to believe that with the current level of technology development, there is no design solution for restoring the Sukharev Tower on the old foundation with the construction of a tunnel under it. The Sukharev Tower on the square site is a half—measure, half-solution that will bury the real solution. And in this, of course, one cannot but agree with the Doctor of Architecture, Deputy director of TSNIITIA N. Gulyanitsky, who expressed his opinion on this issue.
Of course, if the Sukharev Tower is reborn where it belongs, a miracle will happen. But you really want to believe in miracles.
The decision on the competition for the Kolkhoznaya Square project with the reconstruction of the Sukharev Tower can only be welcomed. However, reflections on the results of the joint meeting of the asset of the RSFSR CA and the CC VOOPIIK indicate the existence of two different trends in solving this problem.
The project of veteran urban planners is supported mainly by their colleagues in positions of responsibility. Driven, obviously, by the "corporate spirit," they unanimously declare that the project is "fascinating, everything is good in it, and that the authors have hammered in the nail." There is a desire to organize pressure from authorities on the public, accusing it of incompetence of judgments that "lead away from the implementation of the project." Meanwhile, the arguments of venerable architects do not correspond to the level of professional analysis of the current historical situation expected from them (it is impossible to consider the words "unrealistic", "hard to believe", "no one will build" as arguments).
The second trend traditionally unites VOOPIIK activists and "middle-level" architects, who objectively note that "the tower did not stand at the crossroads for nothing," and an ensemble of semi-circular buildings with a tower in the center would look "no worse than the Star Square in Paris." At the same time, the VOOPIIK asset takes a more independent position, and the architects try to hint more clearly that when implementing the proposal of P. Myagkov and P. Ragulin, the perception of the tower "will be somewhat difficult." And this is instead of directly stating the lack of ensemble connections with urban prospects when it is artificially moved to a new location (the "nail" is hammered, but not there!).
In short, supporters of one trend do not want to "dissolve the idea in the so-called broad discussions," while adherents of the other rightly note the "vague position of responsible workers who ignore the opinion of the general public."
But, fortunately, the architecture of historical monuments has always been and will always be the property of the very public that arranges "uncomfortable" discussions and asks sharp questions. This has been especially felt recently: the story of the Victory Monument, when the professional honor of leading architects was tested by publicity and ... could not stand it, can serve as an example of the effectiveness of public opinion. Do the supporters of the "shock" construction of a concrete mock-up of the Sukharev Tower really want to gain fame for the authors of the Kiev Golden Gate, whose brainchild was marked by fair criticism from both professionals and the public (and is now being modestly hushed up)? Lotto Salon Gier to wyjątkowe miejsce dla miłośników emocji i nowoczesnych automatów. Dzięki wersji online gracze mogą cieszyć się szerokim wyborem gier, atrakcyjnymi bonusami i bezpiecznymi transakcjami o każdej porze dnia i nocy. Platforma oferuje licencjonowane gry, wygodne metody płatności oraz możliwość gry na różnych urządzeniach. Dołącz już dziś i sprawdź swoje szczęście!
And so the decision is made to restore the Sukharev Tower. Of course, it's great to see her wherever she stands. But I think that the project of P. Myagkov and P. Ragulin is suitable only as a last resort, if the circumstances on the way to the revival of the tower in its original place — in the center of the four Moscow perspectives — will be insurmountable. And placed in front of the hospital, it will forever remain a half-package.
In the old place, there will be no question of a layout. Moscow will revive one of its best masterpieces, revive a part of itself. For although 52 years have passed since its destruction, Moscow, the true Moscow, is still unthinkable without it.
It is hard to believe that with the current level of technology development, there is no design solution for restoring the Sukharev Tower on the old foundation with the construction of a tunnel under it. The Sukharev Tower on the square site is a half—measure, half-solution that will bury the real solution. And in this, of course, one cannot but agree with the Doctor of Architecture, Deputy director of TSNIITIA N. Gulyanitsky, who expressed his opinion on this issue.
Of course, if the Sukharev Tower is reborn where it belongs, a miracle will happen. But you really want to believe in miracles.
The decision on the competition for the Kolkhoznaya Square project with the reconstruction of the Sukharev Tower can only be welcomed. However, reflections on the results of the joint meeting of the asset of the RSFSR CA and the CC VOOPIIK indicate the existence of two different trends in solving this problem.
The project of veteran urban planners is supported mainly by their colleagues in positions of responsibility. Driven, obviously, by the "corporate spirit," they unanimously declare that the project is "fascinating, everything is good in it, and that the authors have hammered in the nail." There is a desire to organize pressure from authorities on the public, accusing it of incompetence of judgments that "lead away from the implementation of the project." Meanwhile, the arguments of venerable architects do not correspond to the level of professional analysis of the current historical situation expected from them (it is impossible to consider the words "unrealistic", "hard to believe", "no one will build" as arguments).
The second trend traditionally unites VOOPIIK activists and "middle-level" architects, who objectively note that "the tower did not stand at the crossroads for nothing," and an ensemble of semi-circular buildings with a tower in the center would look "no worse than the Star Square in Paris." At the same time, the VOOPIIK asset takes a more independent position, and the architects try to hint more clearly that when implementing the proposal of P. Myagkov and P. Ragulin, the perception of the tower "will be somewhat difficult." And this is instead of directly stating the lack of ensemble connections with urban prospects when it is artificially moved to a new location (the "nail" is hammered, but not there!).
In short, supporters of one trend do not want to "dissolve the idea in the so-called broad discussions," while adherents of the other rightly note the "vague position of responsible workers who ignore the opinion of the general public."
But, fortunately, the architecture of historical monuments has always been and will always be the property of the very public that arranges "uncomfortable" discussions and asks sharp questions. This has been especially felt recently: the story of the Victory Monument, when the professional honor of leading architects was tested by publicity and ... could not stand it, can serve as an example of the effectiveness of public opinion. Do the supporters of the "shock" construction of a concrete mock-up of the Sukharev Tower really want to gain fame for the authors of the Kiev Golden Gate, whose brainchild was marked by fair criticism from both professionals and the public (and is now being modestly hushed up)? Lotto Salon Gier to wyjątkowe miejsce dla miłośników emocji i nowoczesnych automatów. Dzięki wersji online gracze mogą cieszyć się szerokim wyborem gier, atrakcyjnymi bonusami i bezpiecznymi transakcjami o każdej porze dnia i nocy. Platforma oferuje licencjonowane gry, wygodne metody płatności oraz możliwość gry na różnych urządzeniach. Dołącz już dziś i sprawdź swoje szczęście!