Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: GAZPROM CITY - St. Petersburg Russia

  1. #1
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default GAZPROM CITY - St. Petersburg Russia

    Russian Window on the West Reaches for the Sky


    From left: RMJM London; Studio Daniel Libeskind; Herzog & de Meuron Architekten
    Under the designs for Gazprom City, a business complex planned for St. Petersburg, the main tower would soar
    higher than the city’s landmarks. Though critics say it will ruin the skyline, Gazprom is likely to get its way.

    nytiimes.com
    By STEVEN LEE MYERS
    November 28, 2006

    St. Petersburg Journal

    ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Nov. 22 — Gazprom City, a proposed complex of stylish modern buildings that evoke, among other things, a gas-fueled flame, a strand of DNA and a lady’s high-heeled shoe, would sit on a historic site on the Neva River here, opposite the Baroque, blue-and-white Smolny Cathedral.


    Joseph Sywenkyj for The New York Times
    A sign across the Neva River reads, "The project of the 21st century."
    Gazprom is determined to press ahead with the project and will soon announce
    the winner of the international design competition.

    In any of six designs under consideration, the main tower would soar three or four times higher than this city’s most famous landmarks, an alteration of the landscape that has drawn heated protests from the director of the Hermitage Museum and the head of the local architects’ union.

    But Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled energy company, is determined to press ahead and is soon to announce the winner of an international design competition. As an arm of the Kremlin, opponents say, Gazprom usually gets its way.

    During the summer the company invited prominent foreign architects to submit plans for a proposed business center for its newly acquired oil subsidiary. In an unusual gesture of openness, the company put its proposals on display here at the Academy of Arts — and on the Web at www.gazprom-city.info — and invited the public to vote.

    [As of Nov. 27, a spiral by the British collective RMJM London held a narrow lead over proposals by Daniel Libeskind of New York and Jean Nouvel of Paris.]


    RMJM London Limited
    A design by RMJM London Limited.

    While its proponents say the project will provide a needed economic transfusion for a city that has always labored in Moscow’s shadow, critics say there has to be a better way. “Even if it were made of solid gold,” said Vladimir V. Popov, the president of the Union of Architects of St. Petersburg, “it would nevertheless kill the city.”

    The architects’ union has refused to participate in the jury Gazprom has chosen to evaluate the designs and has threatened to file suit to stop the winning version from being built. In addition to inveighing against the project, the Hermitage director, Mikhail B. Piotrovsky, has organized meetings of preservationists and architects to propose alternative sites.

    “Something the city needs is development,” Mr. Piotrovsky said in an interview in his museum office in the Winter Palace, which itself established acceptable height limits for most buildings here for decades, “but let’s not destroy the old city.”

    Gazprom, though, has certain advantages that make a skyscraper appear inevitable despite the public outcry. Not least are its ties to the Kremlin and the fact it is the world’s fourth largest company, with a capitalization of more than $250 billion.

    The project also has the support of St. Petersburg’s leaders, including Gov. Valentina I. Matviyenko, who has championed the new business center, with an estimated cost exceeding $2 billion. President Vladimir V. Putin, a native of the city, has long supported efforts to relocate companies and government ministries to the city.

    That the city’s zoning laws forbid anything in that area higher than 48 meters, or 157 feet, appears to be no obstacle, recalling a Russian aphorism.

    “It is forbidden,” it goes, “but if you really want it, then it is possible.”

    Gazprom officials said they would have the law changed.

    Gazprom has embraced for itself the legacy of Peter the Great, who built the city by decree at the beginning of the 18th century to become a new capital and Russia’s “window on the West.”

    And like Peter the Great, the company turned to foreign, not Russian, architects, inviting seven to submit designs. Six agreed: Jean Nouvel of Paris; Massimiliano Fuksas of Rome; the Swiss team of Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron; Rem Koolhaas of Rotterdam; RMJM London; and Daniel Libeskind, who of course designed the master plan for the World Trade Center site.

    Herzog & de Mauron Architekten AG
    A design submitted by Herzog & de Meuron Architekten. The Gazprom City
    project would sit on a historic site on the Neva River in St. Petersburg.


    Studio Daniel Libeskind LLC
    A design by Studio Daniel Libeskind of New York,
    one of the six designs submitted by architectural
    firms vying to build Gazprom City.


    Fuksas Associati S.R.L.
    A design by Fuksas Associati S.R.L. In any of six designs
    under consideration, the main tower would soar three or
    four times higher than this city’s most famous landmarks,
    an alteration of the landscape that has drawn heated protests.


    Office for Metropolitan Architecture
    A design by Office for Metropolitan Architecture.


    Ateliers Jean Nouvel
    A design submitted by the French architect Jean Nouvel.

    Nikolai T. Tanayev, general director of Gazprom Neft Invest, the subsidiary overseeing the project, said it was intended to restore the city’s status as a bridge to European culture and investment.

    “We live in the 21st century, not in the 18th,” he said. “Views are different. If you spoke of launching satellites in the 18th century you would have been accused of devil worship.” He compared the current criticism to that lodged against the construction of the Eiffel Tower in Paris in the late 19th century.


    Joseph Sywenkyj for The New York Times
    A view of St. Petersburg as seen from the observation walkway of St. Isaac’s Cathedral.
    Critics say a proposed complex will ruin the skyline.

    At the Academy of Arts, on the Neva embankment, the exhibition has drawn the curious to see models of the six proposals. Visitors are asked to vote for their favorite on a ballot that declares, “The City Chooses the Future.” People can also vote online.

    One irony, not lost on some, is that the city’s voters no longer have the right to choose their governor, since Mr. Putin abolished direct elections for regional leaders in 2004. Nor can they vote “against all,” a ballot choice eliminated from Russian elections this year.

    Ilya V. Tatarinov, an architecture student, expressed doubt that the public’s choice would sway Gazprom, and the company confirmed that the voting would be only one factor in the final decision. Mr. Tatarinov said he had little doubt that the project would proceed. “It is absolutely not appropriate for the city,” he said. “But most likely they will build it regardless.”

    A worn factory — obscured by a giant panel announcing Gazprom’s project — now occupies the site. Although few object to revitalizing the rundown area, some opponents noted that it was the site of a Swedish fort from the 17th century and therefore had archaeological significance.


    Joseph Sywenkyj for The New York Times
    A bridge that runs across the Neva River to the location of the project. The architects’ union has
    refused to participate in the jury to evaluate the designs and has threatened to file suit to stop
    the winning version from being built.

    And while the site is seven miles from the very center of the city, they argue that Gazprom City’s main tower would be visible from almost any point, destroying what Aleksandr D. Margolis, the head of the Charitable Fund for the Saving of Petersburg and Leningrad, said was an architectural harmony that had been largely unaltered for nearly three centuries.

    The project’s supporters counter that the city of Pushkin, Gogol and Dostoyevsky, Tchaikovsky, Diaghilev and Shostakovich, not to mention Lenin and the Bolsheviks, should not let its past bind its future.

    “There is a mistaken belief that St. Petersburg’s center has remained unchanged since it was founded,” Deputy Governor Aleksandr I. Vakhmistrov said in a written response to questions. “In the last 300 years, however, the city has changed. New houses have been built in place of old ones.”

    He went on to say: “St. Petersburg should preserve its architectural traditions, but should not reject improvement.”

    Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

  2. #2

  3. #3

  4. #4

    Default

    wandering camera site has photos of exhibition
    http://www.enlight.ru/camera/news/06_nov/index2.html



    RMJM London Limited:




    Рэм Коолхаас:



    Даниэль Либескинд:



    Жан Нувель:




    Жак Херцог (Jacques Herzog), Пьер де Мерон (Pierre de Meuron):



    Массимилиано Фускас:



    Keep in mind the author of the site is against the project, as so am I. This is not a place of a high rise and certainly those as uninspired as these.



  5. #5

  6. #6

    Default




    December 2, 2006
    Architecture
    A Russian Skyscraper Plan Divides a Horizontal City

    By STEVEN LEE MYERS
    ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Dec. 1 — Russia’s largest company, Gazprom, announced on Friday that it had chosen the architecture firm RMJM London to design this city’s tallest building, brushing aside arguments from preservationists and residents that the project — whoever the architect — would destroy the city’s architectural harmony.

    RMJM’s winning proposal includes a twisting glass tower that would anchor a business and residential center planned for a site on the Neva River opposite the Smolny Cathedral, one of the city’s most famous landmarks.

    As now designed, it would rise 1,299 feet — higher even the Peter and Paul Cathedral, built 300 years ago by Peter the Great, which is just over 400 feet tall.
    Gazprom’s chief executive, Aleksei B. Miller, hailed the project as a “new symbol of St. Petersburg” akin to city landmarks including the Admiralty, St. Isaac’s Church and the Peter and Paul Cathedral.

    “This new, modern project will give birth to a new mentality for St. Petersburg, which lives in a new, modern civilization,” said Mr. Miller, appearing with the city’s governor, Valentina I. Matviyenko. “And its citizens will feel the pulse of the new economy, the pulse of the contemporary world.”
    Gazprom selected the RMJM proposal over five other designs by the noted architects Jean Nouvel of Paris; Massimiliano Fuksas of Rome; the Swiss team of Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron; Rem Koolhaas of Rotterdam; and Daniel Libeskind of Berlin.

    The competition stirred weeks of ferocious debate. Even as Gazprom’s executives met with city officials and experts on the selection commission at the company’s headquarters on the English Embankment, a small group of protesters passed back and forth aboard a small trawler in the Neva, dressed as clowns and mental patients and holding a sign deriding the project. “Lunatics City,” the sign said. (The project is referred to as Gazprom City.)
    There was also dissension within the selection panel. The Japanese architect Kisho Kurokawa, who was invited to serve as a member of the jury, read a two-page statement on Friday describing his vision for St. Petersburg, which would preserve its cityscape on a lower scale, and opposing any of the projects under consideration. He then resigned from the jury and left. In a telephone interview later, he said the city’s current limit on building heights was “the most sensitive issue to keeping the existing cultural value of the old city center.”

    Before the architect was chosen, the project came under attack on several fronts, and potential challenges remain.
    The St. Petersburg Union of Architects, the director of the State Hermitage Museum and other preservation groups have threatened to challenge it in court. This week three members of the city’s parliament appealed to the country’s prosecutor general, saying the project would violate budget rules and a city zoning ordinance that restricts buildings in that part of the city to 157 feet.

    One of the lawmakers, Mikhail I. Amosov, said on Friday that the construction of a skyscraper, as Gazprom specified when it solicited proposals, would intrude into St. Petersburg’s horizontal cityscape, which has remained largely unaltered for two centuries.

    “Eventually we are going to lose the shape of St. Petersburg that we inherited from previous generations,” Mr. Amosov said after Gazprom announced the decision.

    With offices throughout Britain and in Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore and Bangkok, RMJM ranks among the world’s top 15 architecture firms in size. The St. Petersburg commission will significantly expand the firm’s presence in Russia, where it is already building a 46-story office tower in Moscow called the City Palace.

    RMJM’s managing director in Britain, Tony Kettle, said in a telephone interview that the firm designed the tower with St. Petersburg’s cityscape in mind, evoking the city’s Baroque architecture, especially its punctuating spires.

    “We’ve created a new spire that elegantly breaks into the sky,” he said.

    Mr. Miller and Ms. Matviyenko said the decision to select RMJM had been unanimous and made no mention of Mr. Kurokawa’s resignation. Planners said that RMJM’s design had also drawn the most votes from visitors to the project’s Web site, www.gazprom-city.info.

    They emphasized that while they had chosen a design, the exact details remain undecided. Philip Nikandrov, RMJM’s Moscow director, said the project’s most controversial feature — its height — could still be reconsidered.

    Ms. Matviyenko, the St. Petersburg governor and a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin, the city’s most prominent native, strongly defended the project against its critics. She said the project’s site was outside the historic center, which is recognized by Unesco as a cultural landmark. She added that Gazprom’s willingness to build a business center for its newly acquired oil company would inject sorely needed revenue into the city, which has not enjoyed the energy-fueled boom that has transformed Moscow.

    “Without big companies coming, without turning the city into a financial and economic center, we shall never have these resources,” she said, “and the unique architectural heritage in the center of the city will be quietly falling apart before our eyes.”






  7. #7
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Towers Will Change the Look of Two World Cities

    nytimes.com
    By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF
    December 4, 2006

    Architecture

    The current mania for flamboyant skyscrapers has been a mixed blessing for architecture. While it has yielded a stunning outburst of creativity, it has also created an atmosphere in which novelty is often prized over innovation. At times it’s as if the architects were dog owners proudly parading their poodles in front of a frivolous audience.

    This mad new world was much in evidence last week when planners announced the results of two major international competitions that included some of the world’s brightest architectural luminaries. In each case, a tower design will significantly alter the skyline of one of the world’s most beloved cities. But while the design for the Phare Tower in Paris is a work of sparkling originality that wrestles thoughtfully with the urban conflicts of the city’s postwar years, the other, the gargantuan Gazprom City in St. Petersburg, Russia, is a bone-chilling expression of corporate ego run amok.

    Together, they train a lens on the range of architectural approaches to a daunting problem: the clash between the classical city and the inflated scale of the new global economy. And they underscore the limits of the creative imagination when it is detached from historical memory.


    Unibail-Morphosis
    Thom Mayne’s design for the Phare Tower in La Défense, Paris.


    Alexander Drozdov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
    RMJM’s Gazprom City, planned for St. Petersburg, Russia.

    Designed by Thom Mayne of the Los Angeles-based firm Morphosis, the Phare Tower will rise amid the office towers of La Défense, the western business district conceived in the late 1950s as a way of expanding the city while protecting its historic core from overdevelopment. Embedded in this maze of generic towers and blank plazas, the tower will overlook the hollow cube of the 1989 Grande Arche and the elegantly arched concrete roof of the 1958 C.N.I.T. conference center.

    Given the array of talent involved in this competition, the results overall were surprisingly tame. The lipstick form and vertical gardens of a tower proposed by Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron are virtually a cliché of contemporary architecture at this point. And while Rem Koolhaas and Jean Nouvel made sincere efforts to address the nature of the site, both capped their towers with brutish geometric forms that feel strangely tacked on: in Mr. Koolhaas’s case, with four blocks that cantilever out from near the top of the tower, and in Mr. Nouvel’s with an upside down U-shaped mirrored form that suggests nothing so much as a gigantic magnet.

    By comparison, Mr. Mayne dug deeper into the site’s convoluted history to create a building of hypnotic power. Viewed from central Paris, the building’s gauzy skin, draped tautly over the tower’s undulating form, will have the look of luxurious fabric. But as you draw closer, the forms will appear more muscular, with massive crisscrossing steel beams supporting a perforated metal surface.

    The aura of the veil has a titillating vibe, but there is nothing superficial about this design. By drawing on what energy the site has — a tangle of roadways and underground trains — the tower transcends La Défense’s deadening urban reputation. Supported by a series of gargantuan steel legs evoking a tripod, the tower straddles the site, allowing pedestrian and train traffic to flow directly underneath. The skin lifts up to envelop a nearby plaza, linking it to an underground train station. Beneath this perforated metal skirt, gigantic escalators shoot up more than 100 feet to a lobby packed with restaurants and cafes.

    The approach recalls the machine-age fascination with physical and social mobility that yielded masterpieces like the Gare de Lyon in Paris and Grand Central Terminal in New York. Pushing the idea further, Mr. Mayne rips the top off an existing plaza to reveal the trains and traffic passing underneath. As you ride up escalators linking the plaza to the lobby, seams open up in the building’s skin to create vertiginous views of both an underground world of shadowy figures and the monuments of the beloved city past the Arc de Triomphe to the east.

    The notion of building as machine is tempered by the structure’s earnest environmental agenda. Double-layered skin on the south side of the building will deflect the harshest sunlight. On the north side, the surface peels apart to reveal transparent glass skin. The tower’s peak, conceived as an extension of the skin, seemingly fraying apart in the breeze, consists of a cluster of antennas and a wind farm that will generate electric power.

    By embracing a populist lineage that stretches back through the Pompidou Center’s exoskeletal structure to the grand lobby of Charles Garnier’s Paris Opera, Mr. Mayne extracts unexpected beauty from this psychologically isolated site. In so doing, he redeems a scorned area of the city while forging one of the most powerful works Paris has seen in a generation.

    If the Phare Tower demonstrates architecture’s potential as a civilizing tool, the design for the Russian energy conglomerate Gazprom matches Paris’s catastrophic 1972 Montparnasse Tower in its disdain for the architectural legacy of a world city.

    The competition, won by the London office of RMJM, involved many of the same architects as the competition for the Phare Tower, from Mr. Koolhaas to Mr. Nouvel to Mr. Herzog and Mr. de Meuron, but its obscene scale dwarfs that of the Paris site. Dominated by a lone 77-story tower, the project includes more than two million square feet of office space on a site at the edge of the Neva River overlooking the Baroque dome of Smolny Cathedral. Gazprom plans to triple the size of its development there in subsequent phases of construction.

    RMJM’s design is conceived as a pentagon that twists as it rises, culminating in a point akin to a spire. A second skin is wrapped around this structure with the goal of giving it a sleeker, more organic appearance. The tower rests on a banal corporate winter-garden lobby covered by a rooftop garden that slopes down to meet the ground at each end, in an intended echo of the classical gardens of St. Petersburg.

    The architects claim that the tower’s form echoes the glorious spires that puncture the city’s skyline; they compare the second skin to a fur coat that would create a buffer zone insulating the interior from the city’s harsh winters. No matter how they seek to mask it in metaphors, however, this is a conventional corporate tower of the sort that can be found in abundance in Dubai, Singapore and Beijing. The mixed metaphors are a painful trivialization of history — and a sorry attempt to hide uncomfortable realities behind postcard images and trite advertising.

    But RMJM was not the only culprit in this regard. Mr. Nouvel submitted a design for a row of slender towers encased in a transparent glass shell — a skyline frozen in a block of ice. A proposal by Daniel Libeskind consists of two asymmetrical towers whose swooping golden forms join to form a so-called “welcoming gateway” for the city.

    Mr. Koolhaas doesn’t pretend that such a mammoth project can relate to the classical city. Instead, he proposes to compete with it. Conceived as a cluster of towers of uneven heights, some of which seeming to hover above the ground, his project churns with all the desires and fears of the traditional city. Huge floor plates that connect the towers at midpoint are conceived as vast social mixing chambers packed with auditoriums, cinemas, restaurants and bars. A series of smaller office structures are scattered around the building like stacked ice cubes.

    The design is derived from an unblinking analysis of St. Petersburg’s darker history — from the regimented architectural planning under Peter the Great, an expression of the barracks mentality of a despot, to the city’s relative detachment from Modernism after power shifted to Moscow during the Soviet era. Mr. Koolhaas’s blocky forms, for example, are an echo of Kasimir Malevich’s abstract urban visions for a revolutionary society. His stacked cubes, arranged in a neat grid at the center of the development and more haphazardly along its edges, nod to the Soviet-era housing slabs that flank the site to the north.

    RMJM’s winning design bypasses that history in favor of the banal reductivism of the global marketplace. But not even Mr. Koolhaas’s critical eye could have overcome the profligacy of this project, whose scale and grandiosity Stalin might have appreciated.

    If Paris is proof that it is still possible to build big buildings that enrich a city’s meaning, Gazprom may finally reveal the limits of colossalism.

    Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

  8. #8

    Default

    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

  9. #9

    Default

    From what I can tell looking at maps it wouldn't be visible in this photo, unless you pan to the right or move back.





    The info on this page is FLAT WRONG.
    Last edited by Jasonik; December 13th, 2006 at 04:22 PM.

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Saint-Petersburg
    Posts
    1

    Default Photoes of projects and actions against the building

    Here are the photoes of all projects and actions against the building of Gazprom-City in Saint-Petersburg.
    http://saint-petersburg.ru/photo/section/42/




    and many others (79 pics).
    There is a slider on right side.

  11. #11

  12. #12

    Default RMJM. Disgrace

    Last edited by FGDR; January 10th, 2007 at 06:06 AM.

  13. #13

    Default RMJM. Disgrace

    Last edited by FGDR; January 10th, 2007 at 06:05 AM. Reason: RMJM. Disgrace

  14. #14

    Default RMJM. Disgrace

    Last edited by FGDR; January 10th, 2007 at 06:04 AM. Reason: RMJM. Disgrace

  15. #15

    Default GAZPROM and russia public prosecutor

    GAZPROM and russia public prosecutor

    Письмо депутатов Законодательного Собрания Санкт-Петербурга М.И.Амосова, Н.Л.Евдокимовой, С.В.Гуляева на имя генерального прокурора РФ Юрия Чайки



    Уважаемый Юрий Яковлевич!

    Законом Санкт-Петербурга от 30 марта 2006 года № 152-14 (в редакции Закона Санкт-Петербурга от 13 октября 2006 года N 462-74) утверждена целевая программе Санкт-Петербурга «Строительство административно-делового центра в Санкт-Петербурге». Указанная Программа предусматривает строительство административного делового центра, а также жилых домов, объектов инженерной, транспортной, социальной и иных инфраструктур в целях обеспечения функционирования административного делового центра.
    В связи с принятием и реализацией Программы просим Генеральную прокуратуру РФ провести проверку следующих обстоятельств.
    Первое.
    Финансирование мероприятий Программы предусмотрено в размере 60.0 миллиардов рублей, которые в 2006-2016 году выделяются за счет средств бюджета Санкт-Петербурга в качестве субвенций ООО «Газпром нефть инвест». ООО «Газпром нефть инвест» является исполнителем основных мероприятий Программы. Указанное ООО учреждено компанией «Газпромнефть», которая, в свою очередь, является дочерним предприятием ОАО «Газпром».
    При обсуждении указанной Программы представители Администрации Санкт-Петербурга (губернатор В.И.Матвиенко и вице-губернатор М.Э.Осеевский) заявляли, что ее принятие обусловлено перерегистрацией в Санкт-Петербурге ОАО «Сибнефть» (впоследствии сменившей название на «Газпромнефть»), и что таким путем для компании «создаются комфортные условия работы в Санкт-Петербурге».
    Мы полагаем, что выделение указанных средств на реализацию, по сути, крупнейшего инвестиционного проекта, должно, в соответствии со статьей 80 Бюджетного кодекса РФ, рассматриваться как бюджетные инвестиции. При этом предоставление бюджетных инвестиций юридическим лицам, не являющимся государственными или муниципальными унитарными предприятиями, влечет возникновение права государственной или муниципальной собственности на эквивалентную часть уставных (складочных) капиталов и имущества указанных юридических лиц. Эти расходы могут, в соответствии с указанной статьей, включаться в проект бюджета только при наличии технико-экономического обоснования инвестиционного проекта, проектно-сметной документации, плана передачи земли и сооружений, а также при наличии проекта договора между органом исполнительной власти субъекта Российской Федерации и указанным юридическим лицом об участии субъекта Российской Федерации в собственности субъекта инвестиций.
    Однако, в настоящий момент все перечисленные документы и договоры отсутствуют. Более того, при обсуждении и принятии Программы неоднократно заявлялось, что будущий административный деловой центр будет являться собственностью ОАО «Газпром». Тем не менее, расходы на финансирование Программы уже включены как в бюджет Санкт-Петербурга на 2006 год, так и в бюджет Санкт-Петербурга на 2007 год.
    Просим проверить, соответствует ли законодательству Российской Федерации выделение коммерческой структуре «в целях создания комфортных условий для работы» средств бюджета Санкт-Петербурга в размере, ежегодно составляющем 6 миллиардов рублей - порядка 3 процентов от всего объема расходов бюджета Санкт-Петербурга.
    Соответствует ли законодательству Российской Федерации выделение этих средств без конкурса?
    Насколько это согласуется с установленным статьей 28 Бюджетного кодекса РФ принципом «эффективности и экономности использования бюджетных средств», а также с положениями статьи 80 данного Кодекса?
    Второе.
    В настоящее время в Санкт-Петербурге ОАО «Газпром» проводит конкурс проектов административного делового центра, который планируется разместить в устье реки Охта в непосредственной близости от исторических ансамблей Смольного и Александро-Невской лавры. Все шесть проектов, представленных на конкурс, разработаны иностранными архитекторами, и, в соответствии с условиями, сформулированными ОАО «Газпром», предусматривают строительство здания высотой более 300 метров. При этом проект планировки указанной территории не разработан и не утвержден. Действующий высотный регламент для данной зоны предусматривает строительство зданий высотой не более 48 метров. На выставке проектов, экспонируемой в Академии художеств, проводится опрос посетителей, которым предлагается оценить качество проектных макетов. Бюллетени для опроса снабжены как символами ОАО «Газпром», так и официальными символами Санкт-Петербурга. Из буклетов, распространяемых на выставке, следует, что в организации конкурса проектов принимает участие и Администрация Санкт-Петербурга. На какие средства проводится конкурс, на основании каких правовых документов, и с какими правовыми последствиями, неизвестно.
    Просим проверить, соответствует ли законодательству Российской Федерации проведение такого конкурса, с учетом того, что, в соответствии с Градостроительным кодексом РФ, все характеристики объемного проектирования, включая высоту будущих сооружений, должны устанавливаться на основании проекта планировки соответствующей территории.

    О результатах проверки просим проинформировать в установленный законом срок.

    С уважением, Депутаты Законодательного Собрания Санкт-Петербурга
    М.И.Амосов
    Н.Л.Евдокимова
    С.В.Гуляев

    http://www.tomchin.ru/city/analitic/5023.html

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Envisioning a Safer City Without Turning It Into Slab City
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 7th, 2006, 03:27 PM
  2. St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg, Russia
    By Edward in forum World Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 17th, 2006, 02:20 AM
  3. St. Petersburg: Name's Back, Soon Its Luster
    By Edward in forum Photography and Travel
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2002, 03:04 PM
  4. Bridges of St. Petersburg
    By Edward in forum Photography and Travel
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 24th, 2002, 09:50 PM
  5. White nights in St. Petersburg
    By Edward in forum Photography and Travel
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 24th, 2002, 09:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software