|
|
 |
|
| 21.02.2007 | ||
In 1300, the first fortified settlement came into being at the mouth of the Ochta/Neva estuary in the area that is now St. Petersburg.
This place that is steeped in history has been chosen by Gazprom Neft as its administration centre. In December 2006, an ideas competition was decided: RMJM from London won with an almost 400 m high tower for 20 000 Gazprom employees as well as various ancillary buildings on both sides of the Ochta.
The competition decision was to cause an uproar, however, because the architects Kisho Kurokawa, Norman Foster and Rafael Vinoly left the jury under protest. They criticised the fact that just six skyscraper designs were shortlisted. Kurokawa plainly stated that there should be a definite limit placed on height in order not to jeopardise the cultural value of the city. A masterplan for the city’s development has been in place since 2006 which is valid until 2025 and stipulates a height limit of 48 metres.
Criticism is becoming increasingly loud in St Petersburg. The phrase “It smells of oil!” has been on people’s lips since it became known that Putin also intends to establish the oil exchange in St Petersburg. Citizens’ action groups and even the Russian Architects’ Association have rallied against the “corn cob” tower design. They have also criticised the expected further encroachments into the city, which is renowned for the uniformity of its buildings and has been protected as a UNESCO world heritage site since 1986. UNESCO representatives, who were staying in St Petersburg from 29 January to 3 February for a conference on the management of historic cities, were downright hassled by citizens and local press alike. They were expecting them to make clear statements about Gazprom’s intentions.
It now lies with the governor of St Petersburg, Valentina Matvienko, to bring the Gazprom-City plans into line with the provisions of the masterplan. If this does not happen, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee could place it on its list of endangered world heritage sites at its conference in June. As the most recent examples of Cologne, Dresden, London and Isfahan have shown, this will cause a political rumpus. Governor Matvienko is deemed even a candidate as Putin’s successor in the upcoming elections. However, as she also sat on the competition jury and is reported to support Putin’s vision of a new era of building in St Petersburg based on oil and gas, there is certainly a great deal of controversy to come over the next few months.
|
* * * 34 votes |
Subscribe (RSS)
I heard, that the Gazprom-City should be built outside of the city zone. So it would be legal.
Anna
Legal or illegal is not the question when it comes to the criteria of this World Heritage site. For sure there is an impact on the city even when the skyscraper is build in the buffer zone around the core. And for sure oil and gas money could help to save and restore St. Petersburg. But who will decide legally about the future of the town: Gazprom and the politicians behind this firm, the City Governor or the people of St. Petersburg?
Robert Schäfer
Dear Robert,
There is no decision made about the building yet. But if they start to build, how long could it take to lose the title and what does it mean for the city?
St. Petersburg has about 4 million people. How many of them demonstrated against Gazprom-City? It would be interesting to read the opinion of someone who lives there.
Anna
Does it matter how many people dare to demonstrate? The city applied for the World Heritage label and it was granted. This comes with the obligation, to save the heritage and take a closer look on the proper city development. If UNESCO decides to put St. Petersburg on the red list, it is the job of the City Governor (with the help of President Putin and for sure Gazprom) to tell the world about their ideas and visions for the future of St. Petersburg.
The importance of the Baltic Sea Region will increase in the next decades, like experts know. So St. Petersburg will play a leading role for Russia. The town will grow and it is better, to have concepts in the drawer. I guess, the Gazprom-City Highrise building is just a teaser.
Robert Schäfer
Hello to All,
The matter that made me write to you is saving of historical architecture view of St.Petersburg. The problem is in intention of “Gazprom”, Russian gas monopolist to build a 320-meter skyscaper near to the Smolny Cathedral built by Rastrelli in XVIIIc. and the Bridge named in honour Peter the First (Russian Tsar), a masterpiece of the short age of Art Nouveau. It breaks a city statement that restricts max high of buildings in St.Petersburg by 48 meters. That monster will devour the city. Others will come after him. That is barbarism.
Here is link of our protest community that contains more details of the problem:
http://community.livejournal.com/save_sp_burg/120110.html#cutid1
http://gazprom-city.spb.ru/
Our community would be grateful if you or some of you could help us in our protest against the awful plan by a loud word from abroad as well. The town and inhabitants need in wide public second.
Otherwise, the North Venice will remain only in our memory.
Whether it will happen: http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r29/Andrevvv/2.jpg
Thanks.
Andrew
artist
Andrevv
Dear World Community!
I would like to propose my opinion as ex-citizen of St.Petersburg and a person employed in real estate.
We can discuss for a long time the etics and critisize creation of such famous architects as Mr. Foster, Mr. Kurokawa. And of corse it doesn’t matter whether citizens, UNESCO and city legislation support or against such projects… Because we all know The Power of Lobby! 3 sites (President, Gouvernor and Gazprom) interested in this project)) so…
But, St. Petersburg needs a Down town/ a City etc. It should differs from Moscow’s “skyscrappers ring”. It might be a business region not on historical area.
What about developement on Western part of Petrogradskaya side. This part of the island is full of industries but there is no projects of it’s relocation. By the way now this island formed as a business region of St.Petersburg. Infrastructure is the problem but it has the desision.
Why not?
Nikolai