Protest over St Petersburg tower

[Vympel]

Link

Protest over St Petersburg tower

About 3,000 people have rallied in St Petersburg against plans to build a huge skyscraper in Russia's former imperial capital.

Demonstrators voiced anger at the city council's decision to approve construction of the 400m (1,312 ft) Okhta Centre for the gas giant Gazprom.

They said the tower would spoil the city's historic skyline.

The UN cultural body, Unesco, has said building the tower could endanger the city's status as a world heritage site.

On Saturday, demonstrators chanted "No to the tower!" and "History is more important than money!" at the rally in central St Petersburg.

"This action will destroy my city, the city where I grew up, and the city that I want to save for my grandchildren," Galina Safronova, aged 55, was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

Russia's culture ministry is also objecting to the building of the needle-like glass tower.

The ministry has asked prosecutors to examine whether last month's official approval of the project violates Russia's federal law.

The skyscraper has been designed by British firm RMJM and would cost some $2.4bn (£1.5bn) to build.

Are you kidding me? Building an awesome looking skyscraper is going to 'destroy' the city? What, the St Petersburg skyline is supposed to forever look like it does now? Forward progress please. Say yes to kickass modern architecture. Who knows, in 300 years, it might a world heritage site.

[Darth Wong]

The existing skyline:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... burgFL.jpg

I don't see what's so special or historical about it. Is there some other picture which makes it look less like a totally generic blob of low-lying buildings with the occasional tall building breaking the monotony?

[Zor]

Did anyone besides me think that this was going on in the city formerly known as Leningrad when reading the thread title and seeing he who posted it?

That said, i am a bit of a sucker for really tall buildings and i am going to second Darth Wong's remark. This is just building a new modernist structure against other smaller modernist/post modernist structures.

Zor

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Did anyone besides me think that this was going on in the city formerly known as Leningrad when reading the thread title and seeing he who posted it?

It in fact is that St. Petersburg, "Russia's former imperial capital".

That city's skyline appears to be mostly older buildings, with the two taller buildings also looking rather historic. Link one, Link two
Darth Wong apparently took the first image to come up when googling "St. Petersburg Skyline", which actually is a picture of the Florida town.

I don't think that cities should stay static in look if they have history behind them, but I do have to disagree with any assessment that the planned building is "kickass architecture".

[Questor]

Did anyone besides me think that this was going on in the city formerly known as Leningrad when reading the thread title and seeing he who posted it?

That said, i am a bit of a sucker for really tall buildings and i am going to second Darth Wong's remark. This is just building a new modernist structure against other smaller modernist/post modernist structures.

Zor

It is. Mike's picture is the wrong St. Petersburg, which is an easy mistake to make if you are googling.

The giveaway for me are:

About 3,000 people have rallied in St Petersburg against plans to build a huge skyscraper in Russia's former imperial capital.

Demonstrators voiced anger at the city council's decision to approve construction of the 400m (1,312 ft) Okhta Centre for the gas giant Gazprom.

I'm pretty sure that the Tsars never resided in Florida, and Gazprom is the russian national oil company.

[Darth Wong]

Did anyone besides me think that this was going on in the city formerly known as Leningrad when reading the thread title and seeing he who posted it?

It in fact is that St. Petersburg, "Russia's former imperial capital".

That city's skyline appears to be mostly older buildings, with the two taller buildings also looking rather historic. Link one, Link two
Darth Wong apparently took the first image to come up when googling "St. Petersburg Skyline", which actually is a picture of the Florida town.

I don't think that cities should stay static in look if they have history behind them, but I do have to disagree with any assessment that the planned building is "kickass architecture".

Ah, I see. Well, I can see how it might be interpreted as "historic", but that looks more like a historic building or two than an entire historic "skyline".

[RedImperator]

The existing skyline:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... burgFL.jpg

I don't see what's so special or historical about it. Is there some other picture which makes it look less like a totally generic blob of low-lying buildings with the occasional tall building breaking the monotony?

That's St. Petersburg, Florida.

This is St. Petersburg, Russia:

Central St. Petersburg is a city of baroque and neo-classical architecture, laid out along formal avenues. Gazprom's new headquarters would fit in about as well as a landed UFO, and at its size, it will absolutely dominate the skyline--seriously, it's nearly as tall as the Empire State Building, and they plan to build it in a district where no buildings taller than 42 meters are allowed. Worse, it's the centerpiece of yet another stupid car-centric tower-in-the-park project; take away the tower, and the rest of the complex would fit right in alongside the New Jersey Turnpike.

I'm with the preservationists here. St. Petersburg's historic character and look shouldn't be damaged just to satisfy Gazprom's ego (they're not even subtle about it; the building even looks like a giant cock). This whole project hits the modernist trifecta: it's arrogant (ignores the site, makes no attempt to fit in), it's overscaled, and it looks like complete shit.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, to be honest, most of the original architecture was destroyed in World War II. What's left here are buildings which were constructed post World War II.

[Zor]

Well, to be honest, most of the original architecture was destroyed in World War II. What's left here are buildings which were constructed post World War II.

You would still have a large amount of Stalinist Neoclassical stuff, alongside the stuff that was restored postwar.

Zor

[RedImperator]

Well, to be honest, most of the original architecture was destroyed in World War II. What's left here are buildings which were constructed post World War II.

Well, enough is left to make the UNESCO list. And at any rate, it isn't just how old the buildings are. Even after what the Nazis and Soviets did to it, central St. Petersburg is human-scaled; this project most decidedly is not. In fact, it's exactly the kind of mega-architecture Stalin loved, except that Stalin had better taste.

[Darth Wong]

Oh wow, I see the plans for the new building now. It's ugly as fuck.

[RedImperator]

Oh wow, I see the plans for the new building now. It's ugly as fuck.

Check out the rest of the complex:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: everybody dumps on Jersey, but an awful lot of places seem to be in a hurry to look just like it. Even Russia, apparently.

[fgalkin]

The existing skyline:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... burgFL.jpg

I don't see what's so special or historical about it. Is there some other picture which makes it look less like a totally generic blob of low-lying buildings with the occasional tall building breaking the monotony?

Uh, Mike, that's Saint Petersburg FLORIDA.

THIS is the St. Petersburg skyline. You can see why having a 400 meter tower would spoil the view, yes?

St. Petersburg is currently a UNESCO world heritage site. IIRC, they promised to strip it of its status if it goes through.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[fgalkin]

Well, to be honest, most of the original architecture was destroyed in World War II. What's left here are buildings which were constructed post World War II.

That is simply and blatantly false. All of the buildings have been restored to their former appearance, even the ones in Pavlovsk and Tsarskoe Selo, which were in the middle of a war zone.

Leningrad itself has not seen any urban combat in the war, and all the damage was caused by shelling and air raids, but fortunately,the Germans never managed to do a proper carpet bombing of the city.

I am from St. Petersburg, and I know the city better than most people on the board, and this skyscraper is an absolute fucking DISASTER. The city is an architectural masterpiece rivalling the capitals of Europe in appearance. The Gazprom Cock would absolutely destroy the appearance of the historic center. You can look at the historical center photos here to see why.

Edit:

This is what the place where the tower will be built looks like now:



This

Will be here:


(Across the river from this)

It will be seen overhead from everywhere in the city.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[K. A. Pital]

Holy fucking crap, they actually managed to push this project through the governor? Poor St.Petersburg.

Moscow is already ugly as fuck thanks to the "modern businessman's style", now Petersburg would be a copy of it. Niiice.

[Vympel]

Well there's no accounting for taste

Architecturally speaking, old buildings do nothing for me. In fact I find most of them depressing. It's for that reason I dislike / am ambivalent about most of the European capitals. They're squat and ignominious, with nothing really speaking to me that isn't a really iconic landmark (Eiffel Tower, Acropolis at Athens*, etc).

Leaving aside the issue about the design of the skyscraper (I think it's cool, but then I love lots of glass) - why should anyone care about the skyline? If this sort of thought was around back when New York (which AFAIC is the most awesome city in the world) was being developed, no tall buildings would've ever got built. It had to start somewhere, no?

* Holy shit is Athens ugly. Worst. Capital City. In. Europe.

[Thanas]

I am suddenly glad that germany has laws against ruining the historical look of cities.

[bobalot]

Jesus Christ, that's fucking ugly. I think that architects must have a secret annual awards ceremony called 'Who can get away with the shittiest looking building design'

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Eh, I think the design is rather attractive, although the rest of the complex will inevitably turn out to be ugly as sin with those tower blocks. On the other hand, it clearly doesn't fit in with the rest of the city. If they were planning to build it in London or New York, then it'd be perfectly fine, and certainly better than another oblong stood on it's end. It's clearly not appropriate for St Petersburg though, judging from those pictures.

[Narkis]

That'd be a nice tower, in almost every other city. But I agree it doesn't fit with St. Petersburg at all. Why don't they build it in Moscow, for example?

* Holy shit is Athens ugly. Worst. Capital City. In. Europe.

You're not alone in thinking that. Not by far.

[Big Orange]

Some people complain about the steel and glass buildings sprouting up around Bristol's once decrepit docklands, but at least they fit in more into the surrouding skyline better than that giant glass needle proposed for St. Petersburg and are also not built widly out of proportion.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Eh, I think the design is rather attractive, although the rest of the complex will inevitably turn out to be ugly as sin with those tower blocks. On the other hand, it clearly doesn't fit in with the rest of the city. If they were planning to build it in London or New York, then it'd be perfectly fine, and certainly better than another oblong stood on it's end. It's clearly not appropriate for St Petersburg though, judging from those pictures.

Attractive? Maybe to a three-mile-tall woman in need of immediate sexual gratification. Seriously, it looks like an enormous glass dildo, and would make zero sense being placed among the rest of St. Petersburg's architecture.

[RedImperator]

Well there's no accounting for taste

Architecturally speaking, old buildings do nothing for me. In fact I find most of them depressing. It's for that reason I dislike / am ambivalent about most of the European capitals. They're squat and ignominious, with nothing really speaking to me that isn't a really iconic landmark (Eiffel Tower, Acropolis at Athens*, etc).

Wait, really?



Human scale, harmonious architecture, and pedestrian friendliness are squat and ignominious? Are you kidding?

Leaving aside the issue about the design of the skyscraper (I think it's cool, but then I love lots of glass) - why should anyone care about the skyline? If this sort of thought was around back when New York (which AFAIC is the most awesome city in the world) was being developed, no tall buildings would've ever got built. It had to start somewhere, no?

The analogy isn't even close. New York's first skyscraper was 11 stories tall and 21 feet wide, and built in the Beaux Arts style, a harmonious blend of several earlier styles (including Gothic, baroque, and neoclassical) which fit quite well in New York. It's most important early skyscraper is the Flatiron building, which is graceful, restrained, in harmony with its site, and only 22 stories tall. Lower Manhattan grew gradually until it looked like this:

Notice how the buildings all fit in together, even though they're in very different styles (ranging from the Gothic Woolworth Building to the Second Empire--and sadly, long demolished--Singer Building to the sleek and graceful Art Moderne 20 Exchange Place). That's because prior to Modernism, architects understood that how a building fits into its context is just as important as how it looks (they also understood that ornament and beauty on buildings make people happy, and how a building meets the street can be the difference between lively, desirable urban life and a block-long dead zone, but that's a rant for another time). Even the Empire State Building, which at the time it was built was among the only skyscrapers in Midtown (and other than the Chrysler Building and the later Rockefeller Center, it dwarfed the other skyscrapers that were there) blends harmoniously with its site by tapering gracefully as it rises from a five-story base that takes up the whole block.

Compare that to the Gazprom tower in St. Petersbug. It's wildly out of scale with everything else, it's sited in the middle of an office park straight out of New Jersey, it actually appears to get larger as it rises, and unlike even the ugliest New York skyscrapers (and as far as I'm concerned, New York hasn't had a good one since they finished Rockefeller Center in 1933, save for a handful like the Lever House), it's disrupting a World Heritage Site. It's an ugly, arrogant, stupid piece of shit.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Here Here Imp! I couldn't agree more.

Out of context, the building isn't THAT bad, I don't really like 'modern' buildings that much, they are usually cold soulless glass boxes. this one, isn;t THAT bad, I could easily see it in a more contemporary downtown, like Singapore, or HongKong, skylines which are know for large glassy modernistic buildings.

But, St. Petersburg? I mean, really REALLY? A city which is known world wide to have some of the best examples of neoclassical architecture in existence? It doesn't just nOT fit in, it destorys the feel of the whole city. But I htink the REAL crime here is the office complexes Around the tower.


I'm sorry but the instant I saw that complex the first thought i had was Pruit Igoe and ANYONE who knows what that abomination was should immediately realize what I am talking about there. That office complex sprawls over a considerable amount of land and EVERY single building on it seems a simple soulless glass box.

No I'm sorry, the tower has some redeeming qualities, in another city it might look quite nice. But the office complex? Pruit Igoe 2.0? NO Thank you!

[RedImperator]

Those open grassy voids are going to feel great at, say, around 6 in the evening in the middle of February. Especially if there's a little wind; Sukhoi could run wind-tunnel tests between that double line of mid-rise towers in the foreground.