ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. RESTRUCTURING AND RESTORATION

PHENOMENON OF «SITE» AND «NON-SITE» IN THE POST-INDUSTRIAL CITY

Vestnik MGSU 1/2013
  • Skopina Maria Valentinovna - Nizhny Novgorod State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering (NNGASU) Candidate of Architectural Sciences, Senior Lecturer; +7 (831) 430-54-92, Nizhny Novgorod State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering (NNGASU), 65 Il’inskaya St., Nizhny Novgorod, 603950, Russian Federation; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Pages 66-71

In the first part of the article, notions of «τόπος» and «hora» are opposed as the archetypes of «the place». For example, a more exact size of a place (the size that appeals to the characteristics of “topos”) can be defined using cartographical terms measured a priori or through the connection with other places. As for the size of “hora”, it is characterized by a certain degree of relativity. In the second part of the article, subjective and objective connections of a person and a place are analyzed. Etienne Souriau`s point of view is cited as an example. According to his opinion, a certain part of the space can represent a place on condition that it is the subject of cognition. Also, Georges Perec`s view is considered, according to which a measurable size of a place doesn`t always coincide with a perceptional, tangible size (which is a characteristic of “hora”). A similar reflection can be found in Martin Heidegger`s, Maurice Merleau-Ponty`s, Georges Didi-Huberman`s researches. Positions of representatives of the humanistic geography are studied. They believe that a place has a size of “hora”, not a topographical size. That is, a place is determined not through geographical coordinates (a position in space) but through the meaning which people attribute to a certain part of space.The third part of the article has the author’s reflections about the fact that the 20th century brought the notion of «non-place» as opposed to the notion of «place». This term was introduced by French anthropologist Marc Augé. The notion of «non-place» is opposed to the notion of «anthropological place» (lieu antropologique), that is opposed to the place which has anthropological characteristics. «Non-places» are spaces without their own sense and purpose. They give rise to new scales of communication, relations and movements in the post-industrial society.

DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2013.1.66-71

References
  1. Rey-Debove J. and Rey A., editors. Le nouveau petit Robert. Paris, Dictionnaire Le Robert, 2000, 2949 p.
  2. Berque A. Les raisons du paysage. Paris, Hazan Publ., 1995, 192 p.
  3. Souriau Å., Souriau A. Vocabulaire d’esth?tique. Paris, PUF Publ., 2010, 1472 p.
  4. Malnic E. Folies de jardin. Paris, Ch?ne Publ., 1996, 143 p.
  5. Yi-Fu Tuan. Espace et lieu; la perspective de l’exp?rience. Paris, Infolio Publ., 220 ð.
  6. Martin Heidegger. Stroit’, zhit’, myslit’. [To Building, to Live, to Deliberate]. Essais et conf?rences (1958). Traduit de l’allemand par Andr? Pr?au. Gallimard Publ., Paris, 2003, pp. 182—183.
  7. Merleau-Ponty M. L’oeil et l’esprit. Paris, Gallimard, 2007, 93 p.
  8. Aug? Ì. Non-lieux, introduction ? une antropologie de la surmodernit?. Paris, Seuil Publ., 1992, 155 p.

Download

Integration problems of the old and the new in urban space development

Vestnik MGSU 6/2014
  • Azatyan Karen Rubenovich - National University of Architecture and Construction of Armenia (NUACA) Candidate of Architecture, Associate Professor, Department of Architectural Drafting and Architectural Environment Design, National University of Architecture and Construction of Armenia (NUACA), 105 Teryan str., Yerevan, 0009, Armenia; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
  • Engoyan Anna Robertovna - National University of Architecture and Construction of Armenia (NUACA) Candidate of Architecture, Associate Professor, Department of Architectural Drafting and Architectural Environment Design, National University of Architecture and Construction of Armenia (NUACA), 105 Teryan str.,Yerevan, 0009, Armenia; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Pages 7-16

The article discusses some problems of combination of old and new elements of urban space development, positive interaction of which significantly contributes to the unity and originality of architectural and artistic image of a city. The сonstantly evolving complex structure of the city exists not only in space but also in time. With the time the spatial structure of the city changes, as well as the ideas about aesthetic values and the problems of combination of nonsimultaneous formation elements arise. In the article the problems are considered from several points of view: interaction of the old and the new, formation of the historical monuments, their estimation, protection and integration to the new system. Research and analysis of some integration problems of old and new in the development of urban space lead to the following main conclusions. In a complex system of a city the coexistence process of structures is important, created in different times - the integration of old and new, which forms the unity of the urban environment. Integration of old and new, where the old acquires new qualities and the new is in harmony with the old, forms the historical layers, which give the ability to perceive the city in time. The time factor, saturating these layers, gives the city a personality and creates a link between the past, the present and the future via physical structures. In the integration of old and new artistic image formation based on contrasting expressiveness is essential, which is also advisable in case of ensuring the compositional and artistic communication between new buildings and historic zones. In the structure of the city not only unique monuments are valuable, but also their later additions and ordinary building complexes, which are the elements that form the environment and conditions of its perception, express the characteristic features of a certain period and complement the multi-layered artistic image. The combination of old and new is more effective coexisting in the interconnected system of urban processes of layers, created in different times, where a rethought historic building changes the relationship with the environment, gets a new meaning, becomes viable, expands the artistic potential of the new ensemble and associates with the area and its history. Process of the protection of historical environment and facilities in the city should always be considered in a unified approach with the tasks of reconstruction and the formation of new complexes. Protection and reconstruction process should include a wide range of approaches. Task of protecting an individual object, its parts or the building complex, individually defined for each case, contributes to the saturation of the image, where the introduction of the elements of different periods illuminates the process of changes within long time period. In the case of the introduction of the new in the old, modern architectural form should be converted into a part of the formed structure, must not violate the general while showing individuality, but saturate its historical diversity and preserve the opportunity for further development, the formation of flexible composition systems capable to transformation, is an ongoing task in present.

DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2014.6.7-16

References
  1. Dutsev M.V. Sovremennyy gorod kak prostranstvo dialoga [Modern City as a Space of Dialogue]. Sovremennaya arkhitektura mira [Modern Architecture of the World]. Issue 2, Мoscow, Nestor-Istoriya Publ., 2012, pp. 221—244.
  2. Rashidyan G.H. Glavnaya ploshchad’ Erevana vo vremeni i prostranstve [Main Square of Yerevan in Time and Space]. Yerevan, EGUAS Publ., 2007, 155 p.
  3. Zeidler E.N. Mnogofunktsional’naya arkhitektura [Multi-use Architecture]. Мoscow, Stroyizdat Publ., 1988, 151 p.
  4. Gutnov A.E. Mir arkhitektury [World of Architecture]. Мoscow, Molodaya gvardiya Publ., 1985, 352 p.
  5. Ikonnikov A.V. Arkhitektura goroda [The City's Architecture]. Moscow, Stroyizdat Publ., 1972, 215 p.
  6. Ikonnikov A.V. Prostranstvo i forma v arkhitekture i gradostroitel’stve [Space and Form in Architecture and Urban Planning]. Мoscow, KomKniga Publ., 2006, 352 p.
  7. Gel’fond A.L. Arkhitecturnaya tipologiya v aspekte zhiznennogo tsikla zdaniya [Architectural Typology in Terms of the Life Cycle of the Building]. ACADEMIA. 2011, no. 2, pp. 40—47.
  8. Schroeder U. Variabel nutzbare Hauser und Wohnungen. Bauverlag GmbH. Weisbaden und Berlin. 1980.
  9. Samoylov Yu.G. Besedy o professii arkhitektora [Talks on the Profession of an Architect]. N. Novgorod, N. Novgorod State University Publ., 1991, 96 p.
  10. Timokhov G.F. Modernizatsiya zhilykh zdaniy [Modernization of Residential Buildings]. Мoscow, Stroyizdat Publ., 1986, 190 p.
  11. Linch K. The Image of the City. The MIT Press, 1ST edition, 1960.
  12. Frampton K. Modern Architecture: a Critical History. Thames & Hudson; Fourth Edition, 2007, 424 p.
  13. Azatyan K.R. Opyt modernizatsii zhiloy zastroyki pervykh desyatiletiy XX veka [The Experience of Modernization of Residential Development in the First Decades of XX Century]. Izvestiya soyuza stroiteley Armenii (sbornik nauchnykh trudov) [Bulletin of Builders’ Union of Armenia (Proceedings)]. Yerevan, 2013, no. 1—2 (185—186), pp. 53—63.
  14. Zumthor P. Thinking Architecture. Second, expanded edition / Published by Birkhauser. Basel — Boston — Berlin, 2006. P. 65.
  15. Rashidyan G.H. Tsentr Erevana — kakim emu byt’ v budushchem [The Center of Yerevan — How it Will Look Like in the Future]. Byulleten’ stroiteley Armenii [Bulletin the Builders of Armenia]. Yerevan, 1999, no. 3 (32), pp. 13—15.
  16. Dutsev M.V. Integral’naya kontseptsiya arkhitekturnoy sredy na primere gorodov Gollangii i Germanii [Integral Concept of Architectural Environment on the example of the Netherlands and Germany]. ACADEMIA. 2012, no. 4, pp. 12—20.

Download

Urban aspects in the creative heritage of D. Gilardi in Moscow

Vestnik MGSU 8/2015
  • Frolov Vladimir Pavlovich - Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU) Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of History and Philosophy, Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU), 26 Yaroslavskoye shosse, Moscow, 129337, Russian Federation; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Pages 41-50

The interest to Domenico Gilardi, one of the leaders of Moscow classicism and Empire, to his masterpieces and geography of architectural heritage is expressed in different investigations. Russian and foreign scientists pay great attention to the features of his works, his place in the classical style and influence of the Italian school. One of the most important aspects of the architect’s creative work is urban planning, and especially his participation in creation of the architectural ensembles of Moscow, city-forming qualities of separate buildings. The article is dedicated to the 230th anniversary of the birthday and the 170th anniversary of the death of an architect Domenico Gilardi. The article discusses architectural features and creative ways of D. Gilardi, special attention is paid to his urban planning activity in Moscow, his contribution to the historic development of the capital city is analyzed. On the example of specific buildings and structures, which eventually became historical-cultural monuments of Moscow, the author shows the activity of the architect in a complex historical period of the city’s reconstruction after the fire of 1812. The author concludes that the main buildings of the architect D. Gilardi are still among the best examples of the architecture of the Russian Empire.

DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2015.8.41-50

References
  1. Arkhitektura i gradostroitel’stvo. Entsiklopediya [Architecture and Urban Planning. Encyclopedia]. Moscow, Stroyizdat Publ., 2001, p. 412. (In Russian)
  2. Bol’shaya Rossiyskaya entsiklopediya [Great Russian Encyclopedia]. Moscow, BRE Publ., 2008, vol. 10, 767 p. (In Russian)
  3. Bol’shaya illyustrirovannaya entsiklopediya : v 32 tt. [Big Illustrated Encyclopedia : in 32 volumes]. Moscow, AST : Astrel’ Publ., 2010, vol. 10 : EVR-IZ, 504 p. (Arguments and Facts) (In Russian)
  4. Lasunsky O.G., editor. Voronezhskaya istoriko-kul’turnaya entsiklopediya. VIKE. Personalii [Voronezh Historical and Cultural Encyclopedia. VICE. Personalities]. 2nd edition, revised. Voronezh, Tsentr dukhovnogo vozrozhdeniya Chernozemnogo kraya Publ., 2009, 456 p. (In Russian)
  5. Tvortsy tekhniki i gradostroiteli Moskvy (do nachala XX veka) [Creators of Technology and Urban Planning of Moscow (The Beginning of the 20th Century)]. Moscow, Yanus-K, 2002, 376 p. (Masters of Science and Education of Moscow — 18—20 in Portraits and Characters) (In Russian)
  6. Arkhitekturnye ansambli Moskvy XV — nachala XX vekov. Printsipy khudozhestvennogo edinstva [Architectural Ensembles of Moscow of the 15th — early 20th Centuries. Principles of Artistic Unity]. Moscow, Stroyizdat Publ., 1997, 472 p. (Russian Urban Planning Art) (In Russian)
  7. Grabar’ I.E. Dementiy Ivanovich Zhilyardi i ego shkola [Domenico Gilardi and his School]. Istoriya russkogo iskusstva [History of Russian Art]. Moscow, I. Knebel Publ., 1910, vol. 1. Arkhitektura. Dopetrovskaya epokha [Architecture. Pre-Peter Epoch]. Pp. 42—43. (In Russian)
  8. Yaralov Yu.S., Zemtsov S.M., editors. Zodchie Moskvy [Architects of Moscow]. Book 1. Moscow, Moskovskiy rabochiy Publ., 1981, 302 p. (In Russian)
  9. Molokova T.A., editor. Praviteli Rossii i razvitie stroitel’stva [The Rulers of Russia and the Development of Construction]. Moscow, MGSU Publ., 2012, 296 p. (In Russian)
  10. Nikolaev E.V. Klassicheskaya Moskva. Ocherki arkhitektury moskovskogo klassitsizma i ampira [Classic Moscow. Essays on the Architecture of Moscow Classicism and Empire]. Moscow, Editorial URSS Publ., 2010, 272 p. (In Russian)
  11. Molokova T.A. Vosstanovlenie Moskvy posle pozhara 1812 g.: novyy oblik goroda [Reconstruction of Moscow after the 1812 Fire of Moscow: New Look of the City]. Vestnik MGSU [Proceedings of Moscow State University of Civil Engineering]. 2012, no. 6, pp. 17—22. (In Russian)
  12. Molokova T.A., Frolov V.P. Vliyanie ital’yanskoy arkhitektury na gradostroitel’stvo Rossii [Influence of Italian Architecture on Urban Planning of Russia]. Vestnik MGSU [Proceedings of Moscow State University of Civil Engineering]. 2011, no. 4, pp. 128—134. (In Russian)
  13. Angelini P., Navone N., Pfister A. Architetti neoclassici ticinesi fra Neva e Moscova: i fondi grafici degli archivi Adamini e Gilardi, catalogo della mostra (Venezia, 21 aprile — 20 maggio 2001). Fondazione Giorgio Cini — Archivio del Moderno, Accademia di Architettura, Università della Svizzera italiana, Venezia — Mendrisio, 2001, pp. 19—53, 87—90.
  14. Navone N., Tedeschi L. Dal mito al progetto. La cultura architettonica dei maestri italiani e ticinesi nella Russia neoclassica. Mendrisio : Mendrisio Academy Press, 2004, pp. 629—663.
  15. Pfister A., Angelini P. Gli architetti Gilardi a Mosca. La raccolta dei disegni conservati in Ticino. Mendrisio, Mendrisio Academy Press, 2006, 244 p.
  16. Il’in M., editor. Moskva: Pamyatniki arkhitektury XVIII –— pervoy treti XIX veka [The Architectural Monuments of 18th — the first third of the 19th Century]. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1973, 354 p. (In Russian)
  17. Evsina N.A. Arkhitekturnaya teoriya Rossii vtoroy poloviny XVIII — nachala XX vv. [Architectural Theory of Russia of the 2nd Half of the 18th — early 10th Centuries]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1985, 316 p. (In Russian)
  18. Rzyanin M.I. Arkhitekturnye ansambli Moskvy i Podmoskov’ya XIV—XIX vekov [Architectural Ensembles of Moscow and Moscow region of the 14th — 19th Centuries]. M. : Stroyizdat, 1950. 232 p. (In Russian)
  19. Bykovtseva P. Zhilyardi — Gagarin — Gor’kiy. Dom na Povarskoy 25-a [House on Povarskaya 25A]. Moscow, Imli RAN Publ., 2003, 114 p. (In Russian)
  20. Korobko M.Yu. Usad’ba Kuz’minki [Estate Kuzminki]. Moscow, Veche Publ., 2009, 88 p. (Usad’by, dvortsy, osobnyaki Moskvy) (In Russian)
  21. Beletskaya E.I., Pokrovskiy Z.K. Zhilyardi [Gilardi]. Moscow, Stroyizdat Publ., 1990, 168 p. (In Russian)
  22. Kirichenko E.I. Khram Khrista Spasitelya v Moskve. Istoriya proektirovaniya i sozdaniya sobora. Stranitsy zhizni i gibeli. 1913—1931 [The Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow. History of Design and Creation. Pages of Life and Destruction]. Moscow, Planeta Publ., 1992, 280 p. (In Russian)
  23. Ikonnikov A.V. Tysyacha let russkoy arkhitektury : razvitie traditsiy [Thousand Years of Russian Architecture : Development of Traditions]. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1990, 386 p. (In Russian)
  24. Arkin D.E. Obrazy arkhitektury i obrazy skul’ptury [Images of Architecture and Images of Sculpture]. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1990, 399 p. (In Russian)
  25. Bartenev I.A., Batazhkova V.N. Ocherki istorii arkhitekturnykh stiley [Essays on the History of Architectural Styles]. Moscow, Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo Publ., 1983, 392 p. (In Russian)
  26. Serbovelikov N.G. Vosstanovlenie kupola raboty znamenitogo D. Zhilyardi [Restoration of the Dome by famous D. Gilardi]. Arkhitektura i stroitel’stvo [Architecture and Construction]. 2006, no. 6, pp. 7—8. (In Russian)
  27. Komarova I.I. Arkhitektory. Kratkiy biograficheskiy slovar’ [Architects. Concise Biographical Dictionary]. Moscow, Ripol klassik Publ., 2000, 511 p. (Concise Biographical Dictionaries) (In Russian)
  28. Oleynichenko E.V. Knyaz’ S.M. Golitsyn — khozyain usad’by Kuz’minki [Prince S.M. Golitsyn — the owner of the Kuzminki estate]. Moscow, Veche Publ, 2008, 397 p. (In Russian)
  29. Samin D.K. Samye znamenitye zodchie Rossii [The Most Famous Architects of Russia]. Moscow, Veche Publ., 2004, 480 p. (In Russian)
  30. Filippova N.A. Formirovanie parkovoy struktury usad’by Kuz’minki — Vlakhernskoe [Formation of the landscape structure of the estate Kuzminki — Blachernae]. Russkaya usad’ba : Sbornik obshchestva izucheniya russkoy usad’by [Russian Estate. The Collection of The Society of Russian Manor Study]. Moscow, 1999, no. 5 (21), pp. 260—261. (In Russian)

Download

RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE OF YEREVAN IN 20TH CENTURY: MULTIFUNCTIONALITY IN THE STRUCTURE OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF THE FIRST HALF OF THE CENTURY

Vestnik MGSU 9/2017 Volume 12
  • Azatyan Karen Rubenovich - National University of Architecture and Construction of Armenia (NUACA) Candidate of Architecture, Associate Professor, Department of Architectural Drafting and Architectural Environment Design, National University of Architecture and Construction of Armenia (NUACA), 105 Teryan str., Yerevan, 0009, Armenia.

Pages 962-970

Subject: The buildings of the residential architecture of Yerevan of the 20th century make up not only a significant part of the city's housing stock but they are also the main components of the city’s image. Consequently, the study of architecture of these structures is important for solving the problems of city-building both in the present and in the future. In this context, a special place is occupied by residential architecture of the first half of the century one of the main features of which - the multifunctional structure - is the subject of this study. Research objectives: The goal of the study is to identify the features of the multifunctionality factor influence on the architecture of Yerevan's residential buildings of the first half of the 20th century. Materials and methods: The work was carried out on the basis of observations and published sources by the method of theoretical study, analysis and generalization of the material. Results: This work is composed of the following thematic units: the multi-use architecture and housing (i.e., the dwelling in the process of historical development of multi-use architecture); multifunctionality in the structure of the first multi-apartment houses of Yerevan (multi-use structure of apartment-houses of Yerevan in the 19th century); formation of the city’s multifunctional structure and the housing’s architecture (appearance of the city’s functionally integrated structure, formation of perimeter style of city-building, spatial organization of public services and their impact on the architecture of residential buildings of the first half of the 20th century); examples of multi-use residential buildings (some specific examples). Conclusions: The features of residential buildings caused by the multifunctionality of their architecture are identified as a result of the analysis and the key points of the results of the generalizing study are presented. These conclusions should be included in the process of general study of development of the residential architecture of Yerevan in the 20th century.

DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2017.9.962-970

Download

METHODOLOGICAL SUPPORT OF ECOLOGICAL SAFETY OF CONSTRUCTION WORKS IN URBAN LANDS EXPOSED TO LANDSLIDES

Vestnik MGSU 3/2012
  • Koposov Evgeniy Vasilevich - Nizhny Novgorod State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering (NNGASU) Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, Chair of UNESCO International Department of Ecological Development of the Volga River Basin, Rector 8 (831) 434-02-91; fax: 8 (831) 430-53-48, Nizhny Novgorod State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering (NNGASU), 65 Ilinskaya Str., Nizhny Novgorod, 603950, Russia; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Pages 138 - 144

The article presents the findings of the research performed within the framework of Analytical Agency-Level Target-Oriented Programme entitled Development of the Research Potential of Higher School in 2009-2011, Action 2. Project 2.1.2/9589 is entitled Development of Scientific Foundations and Technologies of Protection of Urban Territories from Natural and Anthropogenic Disasters and Negative Impacts. Nizhny Novgorod was selected as the object of research. Manifested dangerous geological processes underway in the city are analyzed in the long-term run. The article demonstrates that the worst hazard comes from the landslides that can destroy the life sustenance system of the city, including its water supply, central heating and other systems. Assessment of efficiency of existing landslide prevention measures is also provided. Dependence of landslide phenomena on the cycles of the solar activity is proven. The landslide development pattern for the coming years is simulated through the employment of the fractal analysis method.

DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2012.3.138 - 144

References
  1. Koposov E.V., Koposov S.E. Geoekologicheskaya otsenka tekhnogennogo zagryazneniya podzemnykh vod v karstovykh rayonakh [Geoecological Assessment of Technogenic Pollution of Underground Water in Karst Regions]. Monography. Nizhny Novgorod, NNGASU, 2010, 164 p.
  2. Koposov E.V., Grishina I.N., Ronzhina Yu.V. Metodicheskie osnovy otsenki formirovaniya podzemnogo stoka v zone vliyaniya krupnykh ravninnykh vodokhranilishc [Methodical Fundamentals of Assessment of Groundwater Runoff in the Zone of Influence of Major Water Storage Basins].Privolzhskiy nauchnyy zhurnal [Privolzhsky Scientific Journal], Issue 1 (13), Nizhny Novgorod, 2010, pp. 157—164.
  3. Koposov E.V., Grishina I.N., Ronzhina Yu.V. Osnovnye faktory, opredelyayushchie fil’t-ratsionnye svoystva gornykh porod [Basic Determinants of Filtration Properties of Rocks].Privolzhskiynauchnyy zhurnal [Privolzhsky Scientific Journal], Issue 1 (13), Nizhny Novgorod, 2010, pp. 164—171.
  4. Koposov E.V., Grishina I.N. Geoekologicheskoe issledovanie protsessov podtopleniya na territoriyakh krupnykh promyshlennykh tsentrov [Geoecological Research of Impoundments of Major Industrial Centres]. Moscow, Innovatsii [Innovations], Issue 3 (125), 2009, pp. 39—40.

Download

Results 1 - 5 of 5