Oct. 21, 2019
Resolution of «the Urban Context» Expert Session

Boris Yushenkov
City moderator, real estate consultant


Dmitry Baranov
ITMO, Laboratory ofTransport Planning

Vitvitsky Ingmar
Founder of Ingmar Architects

Golubeva Yana
Director of MLA+

Caddins Steve
Coordinator of the "Beautiful Saint Petersburg" movement, expert of the Institute of Design and Urban Planning, ITMO University

Nadezhda Kerimova
Associate Professor of the Chair of Architectural Environment Design
of Saint Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, expert in urban gardening

Fedor Konkov
Managing Partner, Urbanika

Lameko Arsenii
Geoanalyst of Vympelcom

Stepura Mikhail
Senior Urban Planner

Uralov Ivan
Former chief architect of Saint Petersburg, Committee for Urban Development and Architecture

Filimonov Ilya
Member of the Committee for Urban Planning and Urban Development of the RGMD (Russian Guild of Managers and Developers)

Kholodnov Alexander
Consultant on territorial development, ex-director of Urbanika


1. Impulse for qualitative increase of competitiveness of Saint Petersburg.
The park represents an opportunity for the city to improve its attractiveness in a fundamental way. And not only for tourists and citizens at leisure, but also for the investors. Suppose that the park (and the urban practices generated by it) change the quality of life in Saint Petersburg so much that Amazon decides to open their office over here — that will be a worthy result of the project implementation.

2. A platform for implementation of the city's sustainable development theme.
There are 17 UN sustainable development principles — here you do not need to invent anything and can simply apply them in the Park's design. Public, conscientious efforts on implementation of these principles can provide relevant experience for the whole country, because nothing like this has been done in Russia to date.

3. An occasion and a platform for launching changes in urban interaction.
So far, Saint Petersburg is only experienced in the protest activities (Angleter, Okhta-Center, Saint-Isaac's Cathedral). In our city, we have no experience of constructive dialogue, have no examples of creating positive practices. The works on the Park will provide this opportunity, in teaching us not to conflict, but to seek and reach compromises together with citizens, experts, businesses, city administration. For example, interaction with people on the park territory even before opening.


1. Variability, exibility, gradual development.
At all stages — design, construction, commissioning, operation — it is proposed to implement step-by-step solutions that will allow to adjust various aspects of the Park depending on the constantly changing circumstances and demands of citizens. For example, you can temporarily test some solution/function, and if it turns out to be successful, only then look for its permanent materialization.

2. Interaction with water, all-seasons use, wind protection.
These are three fundamental principles that should underlie the Park's landscape. Limited access to water, a season with low attendance and strong winds are the plague of all coastal territories of the city. Solution of these problems will give benefits to the Park and an example for other projects to follow.

3. Recolonization, bringing nature back to the city, grown trees from the start.
Bringing lush growth back to the city is a trend undertaken by dozens of leading cities in the world. In the Park, trees should not play the principal part rather than supporting ones. We can afford to plant grown, tall trees from the start. For example, critics sometimes call Zaryadye "Manezh Square covered with withered vegetation".This should not occur in Saint Petersburg.

4. Inclusion of surrounding territories in the design area borders.
The park as a part of the green frame of embankments, being connected with them and included in the roundabout walking route "Park — Spit of Vasilyevsky Island — Palace Embankment — Peter and Paul Fortress — Park".

5. Minimum of functions and attractors, a park for individuals rather than for the multitude of tourists.
Experts propose to shift the design accent from entertainment and commercial functions to natural, landscape, recreational solutions. We do not need a place for concerts and parades, but calm corners of nature, a place where one can stay alone and meditate.

6. Versatility of the Park through creation of the sites that can be occupied by various functions/activities.
Let people choose how to use them, let them conduct their own experiments there and choose the best solutions. These can be the sites that change functions after a small conversion, or fully universal sites that can be used during the day for different activities.

7. Introduction of creative laboratories in the Park managed by communities and residents.
In such laboratories, the function is not set once and for all, but is selected by enthusiasts based on the requests of the local residents/visitors.


1. Demolition of building of Arena Hall Business Center.
The proposal goes beyond both design projects and federal funding. But, like the High Line, this can be implemented on private donations. If the demolition takes place, the Park would lose that monstrous backdrop of glass and concrete. (Note: The facility is located outside the battery limits of the Competition Concept development. The thesis is contained in the resolution in order to reflect the views expressed at the event.)

2. Architectural rethinking of the Eifman Theater's facades.
The Eifman Theater was placed by its designers in a completely different environment. Now, perhaps, it is necessary to raise the question of compliance of its facade solutions and the Theater's elevation points with the new project. (Note: The facility is not the subject of the Competition Concept. The thesis is contained in the resolution in order to reflect the views expressed at the event.)

3. The increase of the relief from the water
to Dobrolyubov up to 3−4 floors — so that to construct laboratories and blocks of the Museum of Museums under the park from Dobrolyubov's side.

4. To elevate the pedestrian promenade above the park's surface —
to leave more space for greenery, to keep the greenery from trampling, to get overpasses for pedestrians to Peter and Paul Fortress and Buyan, and to preserve the acoustic comfort for houses on the other side of Dobrolyubov Street.

5. Construction of the Museum of Museums in the Park.
This refers to a number of exhibition blocks, each of them is to be passed for management to a world's leading museum (Louvre, Metropolitan, Prado, etc.). These museums are free to arrange exhibitions from their collections in their "own" block. If implemented, this idea delivers a breakthrough for the Park and the city and the entire country altogether.

6. To bring people to the park right now.
As soon as in spring to move a construction fence from the Neva River and to construct a temporary tent there. To use it to test residents activity hypotheses and to carry out presentations of concepts there, to discuss ideas about water, trees, communities, etc.


1. Nature
To plant grown trees as the main component and essence of the park. The value of imperial grandeur can be reflected in the park by the fact that Saint Petersburg is capable of planting large trees in the park from the start. Planting as filters of possible residual pollution. To give time to trees, to envisage in the Competition Brief "what the park will look like in 15 years". To make a place of established natural ecosystems that co-exist with us harmoniously. To make an outpost/platform of the idea of rehabilitation of nature in the urban environment, recolonization of the city by nature.

2. Variability/flexibility
To enable alternateness/constant changes, a place to experiment with everything — water, trees, communities. Variability of the park is very important. So that the facilities are to be built as temporary ones (for a season or several years), and then the buildings can be changed depending on the demands of people. The idea of gradual use with the interval of 5−10−15 years. To design facilities of limited time span that can be changed in the future.

3. Openness
To start receiving people right now, even in the course of construction. To make it a space for communication of Petersburgers. It should be a platform for experiments (with trees, with water, with communities).The experiment can be started right away, in spring 2020. Until June, we can revive this territory, put a pavilion there, and discuss the results of the competition in it. To be open to anyone who wants to express themselves and their ideas.

4. Interaction with the environment
It is important for the city to include this place into the tissue of the historical center. It is necessary to prohibit the design only within the boundaries of the park in the Brief. It is necessary to design for all the territory adjacent to the mirror of the Neva — this is the Spit of Vasilyevsky Island, and Palace Embankment, and Peter and Paul Fortress, as well as Alexander and Peter parks. The park should be placed in the context of the city center, embankments, their surroundings. To return the territory to the tissue of the city in all aspects (architecture, transport). It is required to design bearing in mind the environment. To make it a part of the green frame of continuous embankments.

5. Meanings of the project for the city
To make it an element of the global competitiveness of Saint Petersburg. To devise an idea that will lend a new sounding to the whole city. A platform where we explore how the city transport system turns towards people. It should comply to the model of sustainable urban development, and become an exhibition of achievements in sustainable development. It should become a platform for introduction of modern technologies. To introduce city techniques, practices, methods that can be borrowed, exported.

6. Attendance/Tourists
Not to attract too many people at all, should not be overcrowded. Not to make a park specifically for tourists, it is a park for Petersburgers. No crowds of tourists, no buses.

7. Filling
Not to collect all the requests: all ideas, albeit very good ones, cannot be placed together on this territory. It should not contain solutions foreign to our city (the example of the Japanese park by Sberbank in Crimea). Not to be a copy of other parks, it should bear its original solutions. Not to become the vanity fair in any sense — behavioral, architectural, or social.

8. Architecture
Not to include dissonant permanent facilities- such errors are difficult to correct. Not to focus on architectural dominants, do not make wow points for tourists. Not to be Zaryadye, not to contain wild solutions like glass bubbles. It is required to rethink the project of the Eifman Theater — it is now situated in differing environment, it is necessary not to make it look like a recreation center, it is necessary to reduce the theater's height.

9. Miscellaneous
 — The concept should not become the final point of discussion, thereafter it is necessary to continue dialogue. To be limited by applicable laws. If necessary, the laws need to be changed.
 — You must not hurry up, develop solutions too quickly: a half of the year is too short for the competition of concepts, mistakes are inevitable.
 — To be historical, but at the same time to be clearly made in the 21st century.
To give the opportunity for the city to "take o from the pause" in park designing which the city has been staying for the last 60 years. To reflect the memory
of the place, the history of the achievements of GIPKH.
 — To have creative laboratories + free lots for the world museums ("Museum of Museums").
 — All-seasonality of the park, all-weather spaces. Wind protection.
 — Use of wood for coating and for benches.
 — To preserve the magnificent views in both directions, but not to leave the space empty.