In this
post I would like to express some of my thoughts concerning the newly built Entertaining Centre in Moscow – “KVN planet”
building not far from Mar’ina Roscha metro station. KVN – “The Club of the
smart and the merry” is a Russian humor TV show-competition. In the year of 2012 a building of “Havana” cinema
theatre was presented to KVN by Russian government with the aim of
transforming it into a new concert platform. Afterwards a competition between
Russian architectural companies took place where different architects and
designers offered their own modern solutions for a new façade.
The first
place was taken by Vera Butko and Anton Nadtochiy - architects of “ATRIUM” bureau.
Their project changed the image of late modernism “Havana” building beyond all
recognition. The building is draped with
two gigantic metal “ribbons” which
created a flexible dynamical envelope completely covering the previous shape of
the cinema theatre. According to this project, the walls should have been
covered with multicolored tiles creating an asymmetrical pixel pattern.
the project
the actual building
A big deal
of Russian architects, designers and people of Moscow government are very excited
about this project. Honestly, I cannot understand such an admiration. What is
the reason for using such strange huge grey bands. According to Vera Butko, it
is called “dynamic architecture”, but as for me, it looks like an enlarged sketch
paper model of a student. I used to pass through this building daily and I can
say that the “dynamic” metal roof is so massive that it is just scary and does
not remind me of a smart and merry club at all.
Besides, to my mind, the angles where the ribbons bend are not clear.
They seem to be not on their own place. As
if they appeared in a sort of haphazard way. In addition, as I can see, the
roof consists of two curved shapes which are not in a conversation with each
other. Each “ribbon” leads an its own life.
I also have
many doubts about the pixel pattern. As it is stated in the project, it should
be multicolored, but as it exists now, the pattern consists of different tints
of pink tile. What is the connection or association between humor competition
club and peachy-pink color? I cannot get rid of a thought that the Club (if not
to take into consideration the roof) reminds me of a cake of children soap.
In my
opinion, there was a number of other conceptual projects of the façade, which
were far more successful and interesting for Moscow. For instance, Andrey
Chirnichov’s workshop offered an idea of multi-colored TV sets of different
sizes embedded into the façade. I strongly believe that as an idea, this
project is much more promising.
Taking
about “Dynamic architecture” I would like to mention the building of cinema museum
in Amsterdam. To my mind, this is what is called “dynamics in architecture”. The shape
of the building looks pretty convincingly.
I am very
interested in other opinions about KVN building. And I must admit it does not
look so bad in night time with all its illumination and media projections. But
as a whole, I feel sorry for Russian modern architecture. Almost always, as I
can see it in “smart and merry” building, it looks overloaded, too complicated
and not well thought through...
Valeriya Nikonova
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt was quite interesting to read your post, now I just want to say some important information that was not mentioned in the text and comment some of your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all it is necessary to say that the competition has started in the end of Dec. 2011 and finished in Feb. 2012 and on 1 april 2013 it was already the opening ceremony (after this time the building is not in use and nobody knows why). It is very short time for the project.
Secondly Atrium had very small chance to win this competition therefore they made two offers for it one simple and usual and another that showed designer's creative approach. The jury have chosen the most eccentric project.
Thirdly the main idea of the project was to make an interesting modern-looking building from the "box" (Chernichov’s building still looks like a box therefore I don't like it). Main purpose was to reorientate the building to most important places nearby and main visual viewpoints. So because of the context (two large intersecting magistrals, new square and metro exit) the construction has become such complex shape. Proportions of elements react on the viewpoints that are not near the entrance zone that nobody uses but on the viewpoints that are not close to the entrance like from the road, square etc.
Thirdly because of very short building period, corruption and so on the quality of details become worse. The way it worked with color, as you said, for example aluminium panels became 1 mm thick instead of original 2mm therefore sometimes it reminds the foil.
Forthly I know only three russian mature bureaus who do something that might be called as “Dynamic architecture”, and these are first in Russia. So it is not simple for them to make first steps. But even such small number of architects who has their own designer’s approach and can creatively and technically show it sounds quite positive to me. "EYE of Amsterdam" is a great "dynamic" project but it can't be compared with KVN at all because of the ambitions, scale, construction etc.
For the conclusion I would like to say that these are just some of my thoughts that cropped up while reading. I guess after you find and understand some original author's texts or visit their lectures you wouldn't be so negative about the project.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am not surprised that this design won the competition. Valeria you say that the most eccentric project was chosen by the jury..of course it was. Isn't this somewhat the state of modern architecture (especially in art spaces) - big and strange. As an audience we demand to be shocked if we are to be impressed. I guess you could say that this art space(entertainment centre) is the perfect place to experiment with and exhibit design that is strange, new or surprising. But how innovative really is this post modern strangeness? It is strange for the sake of being strange which has been done before the world over. Maybe not in Moscow though. Maybe it 'works' here (but maybe not for design students!) and I agree with the lack of dynamics in the roof. It is like not enough foil has been pressed oddly and carelessly over something. I don't see movement in the roof. But who cares? It is sufficiently 'showy' to satisfy me. The search for 'good' architecture continues....
ReplyDeleteIt is true that all projects look very promising and sometimes over promising in 3D sketches and when the project is realized the real building usually looks less appealing. While looking to your picture selection I realized once more that this is the same case with “KVN planet” building. With 3D photos, I must confess that I quite like the design in terms of architecture. The metal ribbons on the roof and their fluid shape make me curious about what is hidden behind it. At that point I think the architectural office “Atrium” was successful; first it attracts the attention and by arising the curiosity (even you don’t like the shape) it pulls people inside. I think in this case the design works by achieving its goal: People enter to the concert hall.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would not say, that the chosen project is not suitable for this show. KVN appeared in the Soviet time and I still feel the spirit of the past in it. Therefore, the building should not be modern or even very beautiful. It should be just appropriate for the people who attend this club. I suppose that architects did not aim to create a masterpiece, but from my point of veiw they had caught the mood of the show.
ReplyDeleteI would like to say that the whole concept look Ok. The main problem is in chosen materials and in engineering solutions, because the original picture looks not so bad.
ReplyDeleteBut in my opinion the worst mistake was made with the font selection on the wall ("Московский молодежный центр"). The style of the building contrast with it.
Vera Chernyak
Valeriya, thank you for an interesting post. Sergey, thank you for important additional facts.
ReplyDeleteLet me express my brief opinion regarding this project.
As I see from collages, initially the ribbons (at least, the left one) had a functional purpose (apart from just conceptual idea of highways intersection) – a place for outside tv screens/projections. Ribbons were free, like waves, and touched the ground.
Below, on elevations, we see some changes in design: ribbons became limited in freedom, much smaller (they already do not touch the ground) and, overall, the object looks rather constrained. An illusion of dynamic initially presented at collages is lost in elevations. Moreover, the ribbons also lost their function: the left one because it became too small for being a screen and on the right one they put a huge sign.
I don’t know the precise history of this project development but it seems to me that elevations were prepared as a compromise decision after discussions with engineers and calculation (and probably cutting) a budget.
Now, subjectively, I think that it looks disappointing. The roof seems to be too heavy for this building. And there is no any dynamic at all. It gives impression of pretending to be a modern object but even not being completed already became out of days. Pretended to be a beautiful picture without any narrative inside. Like a monument to a company who is building it. Like a dominating object in the district.
And I agree with Vera, that changes in scripts also killed the idea and made building more conservative.
Personally, I don’t like this project (nor initial images, nor the concept, not the final outcome, including color palette). I can’t understand why the building of KVN must be an object of dynamic architecture, and why the idea of highways intersection was chosen for the design development - it does not have anything common with KVN or a history of the building. And I can not say that such decision (design with ribbons) brings any benefits to the site or to the building itself.
I would agree with Valeria that another project raised from the idea of tv screens had more potential and would look more organic on site. But, I think the problem was in presentation. The image is not strong enough, in my view. It looks uncompleted, like a student’s work, a bit unprofessional and because of this not as powerful and realistic as the collages from winner project. That is what about Zeynep Kun mentioned above. Beautiful 3d image is still just an image. But it is a market, a competition, and while professionals can look behind those beautiful pictures and understand the essence of the project, there are still a lot of people who buy only a ‘sweet package’.
Inna Vostrikova
IAD, Level 5
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Valeriya, for interesting post and thanks a lot for comments, I enjoyed reading them. In my opinion, unforgivable to use for facade of “KVN planet” such overused font, in such huge size and unsuitable color shade. Typography in combination with Lollipop color of wall panels seems to be more suitable for child art-school in comfortable small town.
ReplyDeleteDina Gordienko L4