Alexey Ginzburg Architect Biography

His grandfather Moses Ginzburg is the author of the Narkomfin house project on Novinsky Boulevard, the reconstruction of which could not be completed for almost 30 years. And his father Vladimir Ginzburg invented the once popular film center on Krasnaya Presnya, which after many years became known as the Nightingale. The decision on his demolition led to mass pickets from opponents of the construction in this territory of the apart-complex.

But Alexei Ginzburg himself with his architectural bureau Ginzburg Architects will participate in a project that has already caused numerous discussions among the city -defenders. We are talking about the reconstruction of the whole historical quarter in the area of ​​the Ivanovo Gorka. The hype, which turned around, corresponds to the real state of affairs? I was offered to engage in several separate objects as part of houses that are restored on Ivanovo Gorka.

In Khokhlovsky Lane, d. In Kolpachny per.

But I really believe that such a restructuring of this building will not make significant changes to the structure of the quarter inside which it is located. In addition, in Kolpachny Lane there are buildings on which restoration projects have already been prepared by other design organizations, independent work is underway with each of the cultural heritage objects. As for the public reaction, it seems to me that its main reason is the insufficient awareness and the fact that a large number of people through social networks spread inaccurate information, where the truth is mixed with untruth, thereby created a wide resonance through public opinion manipulation.

In response to the accusations “why they didn’t do this before” I would like to note that only restoration surveys and design for such buildings take a fairly long time. In the same place, as the city defenders say, just demolition is planned? According to the methodological manuals of the Department of Cultural Heritage, this process is called regeneration.

Unfortunately, there are no definitions of the word “regeneration” in the Town Planning Code. It is important to emphasize here that the height of the building will not change. Yes, its area really increases, but in this case it is unfair to blame the developer of this project of a predatory approach. Usually in the reconstruction projects in Moscow, as you know, completely different numbers appear, and in this case we are talking about square meters.

In the building, instead of the attic, the fifth floor will be completed. The function of the entire object does not change: it was and remains an administrative building. The juggling with the word "business center" is inappropriate here. It can be said, and has been a business center for the past 40 years. I tried to find out whether there were appeals and applications for the inclusion of this building in the cultural heritage, but I did not find a single one.

What surprised me was that no one prevented activists from raising questions about the value of this building earlier. Of course, the issue of protecting unique modern buildings is important, for this it is worth analyzing valuable buildings of the entire period - gg. In the new project of Kolpachkaya facades, 9A, to fit into the historical environment, the architectural motifs of the existing building and its color scheme were used.

The house is located in the middle of the quarter and is visually not related to the development of the alleys of the district. But in all cases, we tried to preserve its architectural characteristics just such as not to change the environment of this place. The Ivanovo Gorka is unique, but it also brings the features of the mixing of the styles of houses built in different eras characteristic of Moscow.

The number of new construction in the center has declined in recent years, each new project has become the topic of serious discussions. But with all this, Moscow is not a city-museum, but a living modern city. Yes, the appetites of developers, who come with a desire to increase the density or build some quite sufficiently influencing objects, correctly limit. But here I did not see the desire to solve "exclusively commercial tasks and engage in the restoration of the environment." Making radical changes is not planned.

And the desire of the project opponents to attract attention, inventing non-existent arguments from the series that there will be a smoking room of a business center on the playground, it seems to me in the wrong way to conduct a dialogue. Some buildings will be ready in two years, some in three, given the fact that restoration is a rather painstaking process.

The deadlines for the building on Kolpachny, 9a, are not yet known to me. Now they were united by a management company, the purpose of which is to create a comprehensive project that meets the modern requirements of the city. I know that there are different rumors, but among the owners there are no names from the Forbes list, this is the private capital of ordinary entrepreneurs.

Is that so? The enemy has such projects and in general opponents of the restructuring of historical buildings, the main argument is that the developer not only makes certain changes to some objects there, but completely changes the environment. As an example, I can give a discussion on the development of the territory near the building of the Central Union on Myasnitskaya Street.The developer does not touch this object, but reduces the zone of the monument and thus violates the integrity of the historical environment.

Do you think the same story on the Ivanovo hill? I believe that there are objects of modern architecture, which are correctly and must be declared as monuments of cultural heritage. Some of them are declared, but architecture —th. I also talk about the need to give the buildings of Soviet modernism - a very important architectural style - the status of objects of cultural heritage.

On the Ivanovo Gorka, the developer does not reduce the zone of the monument and does not completely change the environment. On the contrary, rebuilding the modern building of the school, it generally retains its overall size, stylistic and color scheme in order to avoid a serious impact on the historical development that has existing today. Actually, in this story about the “demolition of the whole Ivanovo hill” the conversation essentially concerns the structure of 6 in Khokhlovsky Lane - the late extension to the building of the nineteenth century.

This is the pre -revolutionary building of the beginning of the twentieth century. In the issued project, part of which is our architectural and urban planning solution, a permit for the demolition of the extension, which was received earlier, was recorded. I believe that such historical environmental buildings cannot be demolished. Although it is not a monument of architecture, nevertheless it is part of the historical environment.

For my part, I will make all possible efforts so that it is preserved. But when public activists mix the demolition of the extension for hozob equipment, built at the same time, when the school building, speaking of it as an equal object to attract attention, I consider this to be manipulated. I was engaged in and are engaged in the restoration and reconstruction of various buildings in Moscow and would not participate in the project in which I doubt it.

I had to refuse from a number of design proposals in the historical center. I am not interested in Moscow as a means of making profit, but as a city in which I have been living since birth from birth. And I have the right to say my point of view as our opponents, since I act not only as an architect who has done quite a lot to preserve the Moscow heritage, but also as a person who, like them, lives in the city center and perceives it as an environment of habitats that I would not like to lose.

I believe that activists who write about this are really worried about the preservation of the historical environment, and I proceeded for these reasons. Therefore, I strove with each of these people who asked questions, get in touch and give information about our plans. True, I noticed that these explanations in most cases were not transmitted by them by another audience.

And then I see that there are residents of the same area who do not have idiosyncrazia to the events proposed in the project. I see how they begin to immediately poison them on social networks. And it also seems to be an element of the game with the audience. I see comments on people on social networks, believe that nothing in this particular case happens to turn the project into a battle for Moscow.

At the same time, it is clear that there were many cases when it was about the demolition of historical buildings, monuments, the construction of large structures that negatively affect the historical environment. Therefore, I explain to myself that, having burned in milk, people blow on the water. Family profession - how did you become an architect? Is this a continuation of family traditions or were there other reasons?

Alexei Ginzburg co-owner of Ginzburg Architects was born in the city simply, this happened when the profession of the architect was unattractive for someone after the campaign of Khrushchev against excesses in architecture and the transformation of the architectural specialty into the appendage of the construction complex we mean the decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR “On Eliminating Excesses in Design and Construction” of November 4 of November 4 G.

Therefore, if I had not seen my parents, who were incredibly passionate about the business, who, coming home from work, continued to work on projects, I would not understand that it was so interesting in it. And I can say that many architects who came to this profession in the middle of the X. Although then most often it was about the development of typical houses, and any individual building was perceived as an incredible luck that the architect could only dream of.

We created a workshop with a father in G. to finish this project only this year, but it was then that there was an attempt to start working with him. And since it was not included in the format of the State Project Institute, we decided that for this it was necessary to create private architectural practice. We have been waiting for this for 30 years. For these 30 years there were situations when they could be demolished.

But first of all, thanks to the efforts of my father, Vladimir Ginzburg, who was the first to attempt to restore this house, he managed to defend him. Why couldn't you start?Both legal problems related to land relations, and the position of the then mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov, who believed that the monuments of the avant -garde should be demolished that it was harmful architecture.

And the need for large one -time investments in financing this project. There were a lot of reasons. At some point, I already lost hope, and when the process suddenly moved from the dead point, the feeling arose that fate finally smiled at this house. In details, of course, I would like to achieve even more. But, given the complexity of the task, I am very pleased with what I managed to do.

For me personally, this, of course, is the largest project for the 25 years of the existence of our workshop. We tried in it to accumulate and formulate the methodology for the restoration of monuments of modern architecture. There are objects of new construction in the portfolio, there are reconstruction and restoration projects. We began to engage in restoration precisely because of the house of the Narkomfin.

After it, the restoration projects of monuments of not only modern architecture, but also the historical - buildings of the Izvestia newspaper on Pushkinskaya Square, the revenue house Talyzina on M. Dmitrovka, Sytin’s house in Sytin’s dead end, etc. In historical environmental buildings, implemented projects of several residential buildings: on ul. Gilyarovsky, 55, on the Trekhogorno shaft, 14, on the Serpukhov Val, we are also working on residential complexes in new areas of Moscow.