What is regeneration? Regeneration of the industrial coastal sea zone of Baku Regeneration of industrial territories.

Project: Urban planning regeneration of part of the industrial territory of the Krasnoarmeysky district of the city of Volgograd on the principles of flexibility and sustainability.

In the project, using the example of one of the industrial territories of the Krasnoarmeysky district of Volgograd, a solution was considered modern problem functional repurposing of industrial zones of large cities based on the principles of urban planning flexibility and sustainability. The choice of the industrial coastal territory of the rope plant as an object of urban planning is a consequence of the fact that such territories are valuable areas in a broad urban planning sense - socio-economic, functional planning, recreational, landscape composition. The research part of the project proposes to use the principles of urban planning flexibility and sustainability to develop models of elements of the planning structure, namely residential blocks, which are the main planning units of the new urban planning structure formed on the basis of urban regeneration of the industrial territory of the Krasnoarmeysky district of Volgograd. Features of the project. The project proposal is interesting in that, based on the existing urban planning situation, non-standard ways of solving the complex urban planning problem of urban regeneration of the industrial territory and the adjacent part of the residential territory of the Krasnoarmeysky district are proposed. The creation of a new planning structure for this territory is based on a clear functional zoning with the identification of the main functional zones of residential, public and industrial-ecological cluster zones. The concept is based on the use of integrated urban planning and environmental approaches to create sustainability and flexibility of the environment, based on. the use of various typologies of residential formations in order to ensure the investment attractiveness of the designed territory. The basis for creating models of new residential neighborhoods is the principle of dividing their territories into private space, semi-private and public spaces. In your project based on scientific research and the development of neighborhood models for a given territory, based on the principle of urban planning flexibility and sustainability, offers new types of residential neighborhoods. The typology of residential neighborhoods is characterized by planning variability, multifunctionality, hybridity and sustainable building density. Thus, it is proposed to use options for socially adapted housing, designed to meet the needs of people of different social status. The structure of the neighborhoods clearly follows functional zoning and represents a universal habitat for people of different age groups. The environmental focus of the design solution is based on the creation of an interconnected system of green connections and spaces in the structure of the designed territory. The transport structure ensures that the entire area is safe, open and accessible for pedestrians, cyclists and people of all types. social groups. The urban composition of the designed territory is based on the principle of regular compositional connections with all its elements, this ensures the interconnectedness and interpenetration of the block structure. The main planning connections are pedestrian promenades. It is especially worth noting the use of a system of bypass channels, which not only have great importance in improving the microclimatic conditions of the designed area, but also play an important role in the engineering infrastructure system (rainwater collection and recycling)

Introduction

In the structure of a developing modern city in last years The problem of renovation of industrial areas is particularly relevant. The term renovation refers to the adaptive use of buildings, structures, and complexes when their functional purpose changes.

The feasibility of renovation and the introduction of alternative functions is determined by social, economic, psychological, historical and aesthetic factors. Many industrial enterprises are being moved from the city center to its outskirts, into the region. When abandoning the industrial use of the territory, it is planned to reduce the negative impact on the environment.

The use of internal territories, the architectural, spatial and functional organization of which currently does not correspond to their urban planning significance and potential, usually does not involve the renovation and restoration of enterprises. Therefore, one of the options for using the territory is complete demolition existing object and construction of a new complex from scratch. ( Gelisen Quarter Kirchen, Germany, architect. M. Kowalski– on the territory of the furnace production plant) [Add. 1].

But with this method, the costs of demolishing objects, clearing the territory, and so on significantly increase. Moreover, in many cases, industrial buildings are architectural monuments and are protected by the state (which is very typical for our city [ ]).

That is why in this work I want to consider examples of various options for transforming industrial areas and facilities with preserving buildings and changing functions, and analyze the experience of various countries and architectural studios.

1. V.S. Antoshchenkov. Course of lectures “Modern urban planning”

Center for Arts and Media Technologies in Karsruhe

I would like to start the comparison with examples from foreign design practice.

The first object I would like to consider is Center for Arts and Media Technologies in Karsruhe(Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie Karlsruhe), Germany [Add. 2].

The placement in 1997 of a modern public center on the territory and buildings of the industrial enterprise IKWA-Karlsruhe-Augsburg became one of the examples of a radical reconsideration of the role of industrial facility in updating the urban landscape. The wide, three-story high blocks of the factory building are arranged symmetrically around ten courtyards. The building is made of concrete frames filled with brickwork on the facades. Abandoned in the seventies and then occupied by artists, the building was eventually reclassified as an industrial landmark.

The competition for the reconstruction, maintenance and expansion of the plant building was won by the architectural studio ASP SCHWEGER ASSOZIIERTE. The architects successfully preserved the 1918 building and introduced new high-tech elements. For example, to avoid the negative impact of noise and vibration on the building, the sound studio was moved outside the factory in the form of a large glass cube in front of the facade.

Modern electronic technologies, as a rule, require space - no more than an ordinary box, so in industrial scale halls, with large spans, the factory was a potentially ideal container.

By covering the courtyards with lanterns and transforming the interior spaces, the architects achieved the ideal modern and functional space. Solar generators placed on the roofs power the tram tracks of the surrounding areas.

At this site, special attention was paid to transforming the area around the building, trying to create the most natural natural complex around the building, thereby playing with contrasts between high technology and a return to nature when leaving the building. The parking problem was solved by installing underground parking throughout the entire building. The entire area above this garage is a green lawn, with eight modules of artificial relief with tree plantings. The modules are made of metal sheets, thus preserving the “memory of the place”, its industrial past.

1. Mixed media - architectural design of an art center in Karlsruhe, Germany. The Architectural Review, April, 1998 by Layla Dawson
2. V.A. Nefedov. Landscape design and environmental sustainability. - St. Petersburg, 2002

Gas tanks in Vienna

The next object that caught my attention was gas holder complex in Vienna, Austria [Add. 3, 4].

Gas tanks were built in Vienna between 1896 and 1899. Initially, these bulky buildings (62 m internal diameter and 72 m high) served as gas reservoirs, but in 1970 they became unused and all technical equipment was removed. What remains is the brick shell and 90,000 cubic meters of interior space, which are protected as listed buildings.

In 1995, it was decided to transform the function of the existing gas tanks into housing and commercial and business premises. After the competition, 4 architectural studios were identified, each of which took one of 4 buildings for work: Coop-Himmelb(l)au, Manfred Wehdorn, Wilhelm Holzbauer and Jean Nouvel.

All architects approached the transformation of buildings differently. Nouvel's interior consists of 9 segments arranged in a circle, with a slight indentation from the existing walls. There is a 14-story residential building here. Inside there is a shopping center covered with a dome, connected to all 4 gas tanks, surrounded by lawn and vegetation. In the project, Nouvel also had the idea of ​​creating his own microclimate inside the gas tank by hanging climate control equipment under the dome, but it did not come true.

Gas tank "B" was entrusted to the Coop Himmelb(l)au workshop. If all other architects formed only internal volumes, Wolf Prix proposed adding 3 new forms, one of them from the outside, thereby showing modern architecture to those who do not get inside the complex. Inside the building there is a cylindrical volume with offices, outside there is a broken flat screen shape, also with office space, and on the 1st floor there is a multifunctional hall for public events, shops and entertainment.

In the project by Vedorn Architects, the space inside the gas tank is divided into 8 sectors, each of which is divided by height into functional zones: housing, offices, retail, parking (from top to bottom). The courtyard above the garage is covered with a large glass dome, forming a recreational public area.

Wilhelm Holzbauer approached the design of the filling of the 4th gas tank in a different way. His project has no common internal space. On the contrary, inside the cylindrical volume of a residential building rises to its full height. The buildings extend from it with three blades, thus dividing the entire internal volume into 3 courtyards.

In addition to the 4 main buildings, the complex includes many other buildings of various infrastructure. This includes an entertainment center built by Rüdiger Lainer and a shopping mall connecting the gas tanks. The complex has also undergone significant development underground.

These buildings were a kind of culmination of the industrial zone. An absolutely closed, self-sufficient structure, rising above warehouses and vacant lots. After reconstruction, they remained the highlight of the entire area. Only now these are not abandoned skeletons, but attractive, fashionable offices, apartments and shops. In my opinion, this is one of the most successful world examples of reconstruction of an industrial facility of this scale. And as Prix himself says: “... the Gasometer project is a rear example of local urban center creating a tension between the city’s historical core and new developments” - “... the gas tank project is one of the rare examples of urban centers creating close connection between the historical core of the city and new, developing buildings".

Melbourne's high-rise center

Melbourne's high-rise center[Appendix 5]. This object is interesting from the point of view of the originality of the interaction between the historical building and the new development.

Melbournians consider their city to be the most... "technically equipped" in the Southern Hemisphere, this complex is often called "Consumer Colosseum". The author of his project is Kisho Noriaki Kurokawa.

Construction of the complex, located in the historical center of the city, was carried out in 1986-1991. It consists of a high-rise office building, a futuristic-shaped shopping center, as well as other cultural and entertainment facilities. The 55-story skyscraper looms over a nearby shopping center; Various materials were used to decorate its facades: aluminum, stone, mirror and tinted glass.

Japanese motifs are clearly felt in the building. Part of the shopping center is a huge 20-story glass cone. Inside it stands a monument to Australian history - a brick tower built in 1894 - the only surviving structure of the former lead pipe factory that once stood on this site.

In this case, the existing tower was not particularly important from an architectural point of view. However, this is an important high-rise dominant feature of Melbourne, to which city residents are accustomed. This is a part of the past, the city's history, which Kurokawa carefully preserved, protecting it with a glass cone, making it into an interior detail of the new shopping center.

As Kurokawa says: “One of the methods for creating polysemantic and dual architecture is quoting fragments of historical symbols”.

New Holland

Let's gradually move on to Russian territories and first consider Sir's project Norman Foster, his proposal for the renovation of the territories of the island of New Holland[Adj. 6].

New Holland will be a triangular island in St. Petersburg on its own supports with a variety of cultural institutions located on an area of ​​7.6 hectares. The project includes a theater, conference rooms, galleries, a hotel, shops, apartments and restaurants with a moving arena in the center.

The remarkable historic buildings, originally intended for timber storage, will be converted into hotels and retail space, interspersed with a range of performing and visual arts spaces. A whole complex of business buildings located along the perimeter of the “triangle” will make the island the center business activity, and not just an entertainment center.

Following the contours of the existing port basin, the arena is under open air will be surrounded by a theater, boutiques and restaurants with views of the water. It is intended mainly for open-air performances; if necessary, it can be filled with water (for regattas) and also filled with ice for use as a skating rink. The project also provides infrastructure to connect to the city. New bridges and roads will be built.

In my opinion, this project is one of the most worthy large-scale projects in the center of St. Petersburg for Lately. The warehouse area, which has been empty for many years, can finally become public knowledge. Foster carefully considers every detail of the new complex. Attention is paid to the color of the roofs, and to the preservation of poplars and other vegetation, which even the St. Petersburg public council proposed to remove, and even to the composition of skylights in the roofs, due to the unwanted light of which the island can change its usual black silhouette at night. I would like to see the same attention paid to other new development projects in the city center.

1. Pavel Nikiforov. "Norman Foster defended the poplars of New Holland"

Water Museum

One of the successful reconstruction projects of an industrial facility, in my opinion, carried out by our architects - water museum on the territory of the Vodokanal enterprise[Adj. 7].

The reconstruction of the water tower building is the first experience in St. Petersburg of reviving old industrial buildings that have lost their former purpose. This project is an experiment in mixing the styles of the 19th and 21st centuries. The main task was to restore, cleanse from later “layers” and adapt to new functions the internal spaces of the tower. Preserving the integrity of the interiors - beautiful halls with arched ceilings.

“But the way we ensured this “conservation” belongs to a completely different architectural strategy. It is more of a sign, a functional sculpture. Not just a strong form - a meaningful form. The architectural essence of any tower is upward movement, and the glass vertical staircase reveals this movement, usually hidden from the viewer's eyes. The brick building is, as it were, duplicated, losing its materiality.”- says Evgeny Podgornov, head of the Intercolumnium workshop.

The red-brick octagon of the water tower, designed by the architects Merze and Shubersky in 1860-1863, is connected with water only functionally: the monolithic volume denies any fluidity. The architects of the Intercolumnium studio, who were reconstructing the tower, managed to solve not only substantive issues - placing the World of Water Museum in the Tower - but also figurative ones. Requirements for the preservation of the historical interiors of the Tower led to the removal of the elevator and stairs into a separate extension. It was this that became the main focus of the reconstruction. In its forms and material one can read the image of water. Along with the tower, the area around the museum was also successfully transformed. A park has been laid out, a fountain has been installed, and sculptures have been erected.

Yakut Gallery

As a negative example, unfinished or unsuccessful, we can cite the Moscow project Yakut Gallery[Adj. 8]. An attempt to make an art gallery in the gas tank building of the Arma gas factory, in the manner of the Austrian project, it seems to me, was not realized. The creation of a glamorous club and gallery was reflected only in the internal appearance of the building, and even then it was not successful. An internal space monotonously covered with beams and slabs is not a good example of solving a difficult problem.

The gallery is only the first attempt to transform the factory territory into a business park; it is planned to install offices and trade. I would like further design to turn out more successfully. As an example, we can cite the diploma project of Moscow Architectural Institute graduates in 1998 (authors O. Dikhtenko, E. Vintova).

Golden Island

Now let’s turn to projects that have not yet been implemented, and see what awaits us in the near future.

Discussion of the project is in full swing in Moscow "Golden Island"[Adj. 9].

The Golden Island program covers the territory of the island opposite the Kremlin from the Bolshoi Moskvoretsky Bridge to the monument to Peter the Great on the Spit of the Island and for the first time creates conditions for the integrated development of the territory historical center with an area of ​​more than 40 hectares. We are interested in the part of the island now occupied by the Red October factory - the western tip of the island.

The factory buildings, which are monuments of industrial architecture, are planned to be reconstructed after its withdrawal. Taking into account the height of the premises and the architecture of the buildings, it is planned to accommodate various public functions and individual “lofts” - places of residence and work for artists, sculptors and representatives of other creative professions.

On the site of the demolished factory buildings, which are of no architectural value, it is planned to build an elite residential complex. On the western part of Strelka Ostrov, in a place surrounded on three sides by water and remote from city highways, there will be a hotel, cafes and restaurants.

This territory, due to its geographical location, is in itself a very attractive recreational and walking area. All embankments in this area are being transformed into a green walking area designed for free visits by Muscovites and guests of the capital. The western part of Strelka will be connected by pedestrian bridges to the site of the monument to Peter I and the Park of Arts.

The parking problem has also been successfully resolved in this location. Two-story underground parking area of ​​about 50 thousand sq.m. will be located under the bottom of the hydraulic structure of the Vodootvodny Canal between the monument to Peter I and the Maly Kamenny Bridge. The underground parking space will connect to the underground part of the Megapolis Center complex on Strelka Ostrov.

Red Proletarian

And finally, let’s look at an unimplemented project, an architectural and planning concept for the development and restructuring of the plant’s territory "Red Proletarian", proposed by a famous Moscow architect Sergei Skuratov[Adj. 10].

In the planning structure of the projected territory, the main thing is seen to be the interpenetration of two urban planning directions: “white” and “red”. Their interaction, based on the color scheme of the red-brick and white-stone architecture of the monastery, becomes the main style-forming theme of the new quarter. At the same time, the red color represents monastic and red-brick industrial buildings. White is the color of decorative finishing of monuments of classical Moscow architecture and the main color of new, light and dynamic architecture of the 20th century. This figurative solution allows us to simultaneously preserve the “genius loci” and rehabilitate it under new life and new features.

The entire territory of the quarter is divided according to the “private - public” principle into two categories of spaces. The first category of spaces is pedestrian boulevards combined with transport access to houses. Ten courtyard spaces, raised 4 meters above the ground, unite all residential buildings. Each group has a different number of houses, a different configuration in plan and a different functional saturation. Large trees are planted in the central zone of all courtyard spaces. The perimeter of the courtyards has different geometries and different solutions.

Under the pedestrian and transport zones-boulevards there are underground parking lots with car washes, parking spaces for residents at the rate of two cars per apartment, guest parking spaces and spaces for employees. At the intersection of two pedestrian zones, a square of European scale is organized with a hotel building and a shopping and entertainment center for residents of the area located on it.

Conclusion

Thus, using examples from domestic and foreign practices of architectural design and urban planning, we examined various options and methods for introducing new architecture into existing historical industrial buildings. Different approaches quite a lot, and many of them are successful and justified.

The policy of renovation of industrial areas is especially relevant for our city [ for St. Petersburg - approx. ed.]. St. Petersburg may lose unique monuments of industrial architecture if the city government does not take decisive measures to restore them. Many buildings of factories and factories, built in past centuries, are today in an extremely neglected state, while remaining architectural monuments.

Today it is not possible to return all monuments to their original appearance without investment funds, which is why the city has high hopes for tenants and owners of historical buildings. The policy of creating something new, rethinking industrial buildings, will lead to an influx of funds, investors, and will make it possible to recreate and maintain monuments.

Complexes of plants and factories, built in St. Petersburg in the 18th - early 20th centuries, were initially designed as objects that formed a huge industrial space of the city. These are entire ensembles, the architecture of which is not inferior to other historical and cultural monuments in terms of its expressiveness and beauty.

The experience of foreign workshops, as well as the successful projects of our architects, is very important. There are many abandoned industrial buildings in the city, for example on the Obvodny Canal embankment. In our city, new architecture is always a compromise, so the practice of combining the language of classics with the language of modern architecture, widely used in the West, is seen as a radical gesture. Therefore, in order to be realized, it must be deeply meaningful and motivated.

Maxim Andreev, St. Petersburg, December 2007
This article is the subjective opinion of the author
When using materials, a link to the author is required

Konstantin Chamorovsky

Five floors of glass and concrete on the site of the estate courtyard and garden, the completion of the main house of the estate in a pseudo-historical style, the construction of a four-level dungeon - this is what, according to the developers of regulations and certified government experts, the regeneration of the historical and urban environment of the Elagin house at Strastnoy Boulevard, 11 looks like .

Is new construction possible in the protected zone of the monument? Federal Law No. 73-FZ of June 25, 2002 “On objects cultural heritage…” gives the answer to this question in the very definition of the security zone:

Protected zone is a territory within which, in order to ensure the safety of a cultural heritage site in its historical landscape environment, a special land use regime is established, limiting economic activity and prohibiting construction, with the exception of the use of special measures aimed at preserving and regenerating the historical, urban or natural environment cultural heritage site.

New construction is possible, but only within the framework of the regeneration of the historical and urban environment of the monument. In turn, regeneration is defined in the new version of the Regulations on protection zones of cultural heritage objects, approved in 2015, as

restoration, recreation, replenishment of partially or completely lost elements and (or) characteristics of the historical, urban and (or) natural environment.

The territory of the property is completely included in the united protection zone No. 040. The developers of the regulations “took into account” this fact, limiting new construction on the regulated site at Strastnoy Boulevard, 11 with the following parameters:

– new construction within the framework of special measures aimed at regenerating the characteristics of the historical urban environment using the following indicators:

– average number of floors – 3-5 floors. (maximum relative elevation 18.8 m / maximum absolute elevation 174.7 m);

– preservation of open space on the side of the yard along the stone fence along the building line of Strastnoy Boulevard with the possible installation of a light lantern above the developed underground space (the height of the light lantern should not exceed the length of the stone fence - 2.35 m);

– maximum number of floors / maximum height (absolute mark) – 5 floors. / 18.8 m (174.7 m);

– a neutral style solution that does not violate the priority of the cultural heritage site at the address: Strastnoy Boulevard, 11, building 1;

– rhythmic design of the façade, characteristic of buildings in the second half of the 19th century.

It should be understood that in the possession of 11 on Strastnoy Boulevard there never existed the now lost 3-5-story buildings that could be recreated as part of such a regeneration. In fact, the regulations allow the destruction of the estate courtyard and garden, occupying them with “outbuildings” that are significantly larger in size than the Elagin house itself and will inevitably destroy the ensemble of the city estate, its historical environment and the visual perception of the monument - the main house. Damage is also caused to the development front of Strastnoy Boulevard as a whole - and yet the closest neighbor of Elagin’s house is the ensemble of classicist buildings of the Novo-Catherine Hospital. Not to mention the possible damage to the building itself during construction with the development of underground space. A reasonable understanding of the term “regeneration” does not accommodate such decisions - which did not prevent the Moscow government from agreeing on urban planning regulations in which the requirement for regeneration is only a ritual formula.

Where did such outrageous development parameters come from? A possible answer is provided by a pre-design proposal, which was considered a year before the approval of the regulations cited above at one of the meetings of the Expert Advisory Public Council (ECOS) under the chief architect of Moscow. The construction parameters at Strastnoy Blvd., 11, “a hotel complex as part of a building restoration project with elements of reconstruction in a regeneration mode” strikingly fit into the town planning regulations of the site, approved a year later, as if tailored to them. Approved despite the fact that in 2009 ECOS recognized the pre-project of S. Poshvykin and S. Suzdaltsev from workshop No. 8 of Mosproekt-2 as leading “to the complete loss of the historical and cultural value of the identified cultural heritage object, a radical transformation of its perception”:

The Presidium of ECOS cannot approve the submitted “Pre-design proposals for the construction of a hotel complex as part of a building restoration project with elements of reconstruction in the regeneration mode”, which provide for the dismantling of part of the building, the extension and superstructure of an identified cultural heritage site, the complete elimination of the entire natural landscape environment of the main house of the estate and construction on its historical territory of a 4-story building with a multi-level underground parking, since the planned activities will practically lead to the complete loss of the historical and cultural value of the identified cultural heritage site, a radical transformation of its perception and will damage the historical and urban planning characteristics of the territory adjacent to Strastnoy Boulevard.

By 2015, the pre-design proposals of Poshvykin and Suzdaltsev evolved into the “Project of adaptation for carrying out work affecting the structural and other characteristics of the reliability and safety of the identified OKN”, developed by LLC Poshvykin Group by order of LLC Strastnoy, 11. To be fair, it should be noted that the dismantling of part of the main volume of the monument, which was supposed to be dismantled by the 2009 pre-project, disappeared from the project (judging by the materials at our disposal). However, the subject of protection of the cultural heritage site is designed in such a way that it leaves the northern part of the L-shaped volume of the building virtually defenseless - namely, it was supposed to be dismantled, according to the original plan, preserving only the eastern facade. The western section of the stone fence is also not included in the protection. Therefore, there are still reasons to fear for the safety of these elements of the monument.

At the same time, plans for the development of the site have not changed. “Adaptation” of a cultural heritage property still includes:

– construction from the side and courtyard façade of the monument of a 1-5-storey above-ground part with office premises and a 4-storey underground volume...

– construction of a 2-story building on the side of Strastnoy Boulevard, adjacent to the left side of the historical building...

– construction of a 4-level atrium at the junction of the historical and the part being completed, in the dimensions of the lost winter garden.

It is proposed to complete the monument, imitating the original, so that the facade along the boulevard will double in length. The part to be completed is being built behind the historical manor fence, with a slight indentation from the red line. According to the documents, the solution for the completed part “in the form of a pseudo-historical extension, exactly repeating the architecture of the historical right wing of the building” was recommended by the Department of Cultural Heritage. And to this half-real, half-fake volume, a five-story (if you don’t take into account the four underground levels) glass-concrete box “of a neutral style solution that does not violate the priority of the cultural heritage site” will be attached at the back.

During the new construction, the western extension will be demolished, which does not fall within the territory of the monument, but is included by the Object of Protection in the volumetric-spatial composition of the building to be preserved in 1913. However, what kind of preservation of the volumetric-spatial composition can we talk about with the complete destruction of the estate ensemble?

In the spring of 2015, the architectural and urban planning solution proposed by Poshvykin Group LLC was approved by the Moskomarkhitektura. In the summer of the same year, the project passed the state historical and cultural examination. Describing the condition of the monument, certified experts V.V. Fomin, V.I. Bubnov and S.E. Shungin note that the household of a city estate retains all the main elements: the main house, an outbuilding, a stone fence with a gate and a garden; “formed in the 1910s. the boundaries of the property and the volumetric-spatial structure of the development have reached the present day practically unchanged.” It would seem that the statement of the preservation of the ensemble should be followed by the conclusion that development of the territory of the estate is inadmissible. However, the conclusion reached by certified government experts is exactly the opposite. Having not seen any contradictions with the requirements of federal legislation on the protection of monuments in the adaptation of a cultural heritage site described above, they recommend that the Moscow City Heritage Department approve the presented decision. To agree as the regeneration of the historical and urban environment that destroys not only the environment, but also the ensemble of the urban estate itself.

When the examination of Fomin, Bubnov and Shungina was published in the spring of 2016, participants in the public discussion immediately drew the attention of the Moscow City Heritage to inconsistency parameters of construction approved by experts to the requirements of regeneration as “restoration, reconstruction, replenishment of partially or completely lost elements and (or) characteristics of the historical, urban and (or) natural environment.” However, in its decision, the Moscow City Heritage Preferred to rely on the 2010 regulations. Comments about the inconsistency of the project under review with the regeneration requirements were considered unfounded due to the fact that the proposed parameters for new construction are allowed by the town planning regulations of the site. The Moscow City Heritage Department chose not to notice that this regulation itself violates the requirements of federal legislation. Based on the results of the consideration, a decision was made “to agree with the positive conclusion of the state historical and cultural examination dated June 17, 2015 and to approve the design solutions of the “Adaptation Project” to obtain a positive conclusion of the state examination.”

We have to admit that the term “regeneration” is still filled with the most arbitrary content, incompatible with either the spirit or the letter of the law in the form of a clear formulation given in the new edition of the Regulations on Protection Zones. In the current situation, Arch Supervision considers it necessary contact the prosecutor's office with a statement about checking the legality of construction project approvals on Strastnoy Boulevard, 11. It’s time to introduce “regeneration” into the framework of what is permitted.

Press release:

Now in the capital there are about 27 thousand hectares of industrial zones, but during the reorganization, according to the latest statements by the authorities, only 7.5 thousand hectares will remain under industrial enterprises. Questions arise: what will happen to almost twenty thousand hectares of space? What are the possible scenarios for the transformation of these zones? Which is preferable: gentrification or regeneration? Is culture capable of becoming a sought-after resource for the development of industrial territories in Moscow?

The solution to these issues is also related to the task of involving the ZIL Cultural Center in revitalizing the territory of the AMO ZIL plant. The reason for the discussion was an exhibition held at the ZIL Cultural Center, at which the concept of the “ZIL Peninsula” from the architectural bureau “Project MEGANOM” was presented. The ZIL Peninsula project won the international urban competition, which started in early 2012 with the support of the Moscow Government, in which 17 leading companies participated, including the French Valode& Pistre, UBERBAU Architectureand Urbanism from Germany and Mecanoo Architecten from the Netherlands.

The authors of the ZIL Peninsula concept came to the conclusion that it is necessary to use the territory to solve the pressing problems of residents. The main idea of ​​reforming the territory of AMO ZIL is integration. Integration of 297 hectares, inefficiently used and occupied by production, into the economic, social and cultural life of the city. Integration of the existing road network into the transport network of the South and Southeast and, thereby, redistribution of the load from Andropov Avenue and the Third Ring. Integration of residential and public development into the existing “framework” of one of the oldest manufacturing enterprises in Moscow.

Currently, the project is going through the stage of public hearings - materials on the planning of the territory of functional zones No. 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 of the Danilovsky district of the Southern Administrative District of Moscow (AMO ZIL territory) are presented at them.

The discussion will cover the following issues:

• Scenarios for transformation of industrial zones: gentrification and (or) regeneration.
• Culture as a resource for the development of industrial territories.
• Challenges of development of Moscow industrial zones.
• Prospects for attracting resources from the ZIL Cultural Center for the regeneration of the territory of the AMO ZIL plant.

Participation expected in the discussion:

• Sergei Kuznetsov, chief architect of Moscow,
• Yuri Grigoryan, member of the Architectural Council, head of the “Project Meganom” bureau,
• Vitaly Lutz head of zonal workshop No. 15 of the State Unitary Enterprise “Research and Design Institute of the General Plan”,
• Igor Zakharov, General Director of AMO ZIL.

Invited experts:

• Elena Zelentsova, director of the ZIL Cultural Center
• Kapkov Sergey, Government of Moscow
• Alexander Vysokovsky, Dean of the Higher School of Urbanism at the Higher School of Economics
• Zuev Sergey, Dean of the Federal State Institution RANEPA
• Vizgalov Denis, urbanist
• Alina Saprykina, Artplay Design Center
• Trotsenko Sofia, Center for Contemporary Art WINZAVOD
• Larionova Ekaterina, head. Department of Territorial Development, Federal State Institution RANEPA
• Olga Karpova, Dean of the Faculty of Management of Sociocultural Projects, Moscow Higher School of Economics and Social Sciences
• Mikhail Labazov, architect
• Nicholas Champkins, consultant architect of the ZIL Cultural Center)
• Irina Mikhailovna Sakhno, RUDN University
• Dolgin Boris, scientific editor of the portal Polit.ru
• Nikolay Vasiliev, architect
• Denis Romodin, local historian
• Andrey Mrost, organizing consultant

The term “regeneration” can and probably should be considered in two aspects:

Firstly, as one of many dozens of terms starting with the prefix “re-...”, having multiple connotations of meaning a return to a past state, its restoration, the resumption of some activity, the birth of something again, etc. Many of these terms are used in cultural heritage conservation; and in different countries preference is given to different terms, and the meanings actually put into the same terms may differ greatly.

Secondly, as a term that has received particularly significant application in the practice of preserving cultural heritage in our country, where it has been used since the 1980s. is increasingly actively and widely used to refer to this type of action in construction and urban planning, which is characterized by a careful attitude towards immovable heritage sites and the historical environment of settlements, and the desire to restore their city-forming role. Moreover, in 2002 the term was enshrined in Federal law“About objects of cultural heritage...”, where “preservation and regeneration historical, urban planning or natural environment" is recognized as the only possible goal of construction activities in the territory of protective zones of cultural heritage sites (No. 73-FZ, Article 34, Part 2).

At the same time, one often has to deal with very different interpretations of the content of this normative establishment, which negatively affects the practice of actions of state bodies for the protection of cultural heritage and the objectivity of the conclusions of the state historical and cultural examination.

It should immediately be noted that between the use of the term “regeneration” in a broad sense - in urban planning activities for the careful, contextual reconstruction of quite significant territories, and in a narrow sense, relating to possible construction actions in protected zones of cultural heritage sites, usually having order of magnitude smaller than in the previous case, there is a big difference. Obviously, one should keep in mind two different interpretations of this term in relation to these tasks, although it is desirable, nevertheless, that these interpretations should somehow be mutually consistent and not be completely different directions.

In urban planning activities, the term “regeneration” began to be quite actively used in the USSR starting from the late 1970s. to characterize a comprehensive approach focused on the effective preservation and use of architectural and urban planning heritage and designate the work that implements such an approach.

At the same time, a terminological division of the country occurred. In Moscow, Leningrad, most of Russian Federation urban planners working in the historical environment preferred to use the term “reconstruction”, despite its certain compromise by the heritage-destructive practice of “socialist urban reconstruction” and semantic ambiguity. Yet for most conservationists in the world, reconstruction means “rebuilding”, or even “building anew”, in some ways even corresponding to our modern “reconstruction”. To capture the specific, saving nature of reconstruction, it was sometimes additionally classified as “comprehensive”, “sparing”, or something else.

In the western regions of the then USSR, in the Baltic republics, in Belarus, and partly in Ukraine, the term “regeneration” was used for such work. The Georgians turned out to be the most cunning. The complex of works they carried out in the historical environment of Old Tbilisi was designated as “reconstruction-regeneration”.

In methodological terms, the most clear definition of the understanding of the term “regeneration” in urban planning was developed in the late 1970s - 1980s. Edgars Pucin (Pucins) is the author and implementer of the Old Riga regeneration project. He called regeneration “the transformation of a historically developed urban complex by restoring its lost parts, planning and spatial structure, compositional integrity and functional activity.” At the same time, it was established that the purpose, and components regeneration should be considered “revalorization” - the recreation of architectural and spatial qualities and architectural and artistic qualities of the urban complex, and “revitalization” - increasing the functional significance by restoring lost ones or developing new ones that do not destroy the complex of public functions.

In foreign practice of recent decades, the term “regeneration” has been assigned mainly to actions for economic recovery, revival of the profitability of the functioning of the economic complex and processes public life in old cities (UK practice, Council of Europe Urban Renaissance program).

And in relation to our modern conditions and the current legislation on cultural heritage objects will probably be advisable to give the concept of “regeneration” a slightly different meaning, depending on what it is applied to: monuments and ensembles or places of interest, similar to how it is done in the Federal Law No. 73-FZ (Article 35, parts 2 and 3) in relation to the territories of objects.

And, if regeneration on the territory of a landmark and within its protected zone can be understood as allowing a significant degree of renewal to revitalize the object, “breathing life into it,” then in relation to monuments and ensembles, in our opinion, one should rather adhere to a strict dictionary interpretation of the term, namely: “restoration of lost parts, return to the original state and properties,” although in the dictionary this formally refers to the fields of chemistry, biology, etc. Of course, in relation to immovable objects of cultural heritage this can and should be specified.

Thus, in the Law of the City of Moscow “On the Protection and Use of Immovable Monuments of History and Culture,” adopted in 2000 (No. 26), regeneration is understood as: “... restoration of lost elements of architectural or urban planning ensembles” (Article 1). This seems to be close to what is desired, but I would like to have some more clarification regarding not only the elements, but also some characteristics of the environment.

It seems to us that research in this regard should be continued with the participation of a wider range of interested specialists of different profiles and areas of interest. However, at the same time, it still seems correct to act in the direction of specification and a fairly unambiguous understanding of the terms contained in regulatory documents. And then there are, for example, works where other terms “competing” with regeneration are introduced, such as, say, rehabilitation, “restoring original dignity,” the forms of which are supposedly restoration, and regeneration, and renovation, and, at the same time, it is recommended to “carry out within the framework of the regeneration regime.”

Thus, it is enough, as we have seen, that the debatable, but still normative term regeneration, the meaning of which should be negotiated, is being tried to be replaced by some other, no less debatable and, moreover, not contained in the normative term. In our opinion, this is a kind of slyness, an attempt to put into the form of verbal reasoning proposals for a more active change in the state of the historical environment of certain specific objects than seems permissible during regeneration, in its true strict meaning.

Comp. V.R. Krogius, June - July 2006

The term "regeneration"