1st Dachnaya ↗
From an initial mixed-use proposal to an aparthotel concept. The project was scaled down after utility capacity was clarified.
01
An existing concept
The project began with an office concept developed in 2023. The building had already been placed on a specific plot and its architectural system established. When the client could not acquire that site, the proposal needed to continue under different conditions.
By the time the site changed, there was a defined programme and an existing concept. The next task was therefore adaptation: to test how the same functions and volumes could fit elsewhere, what would need to change and what this would mean for delivery.
Two sites of different sizes were considered. Comparing their land areas alone would not be sufficient: the actual building had to be placed and its operation examined. The first concept provided a common starting system against which both new versions could be assessed, preserving continuity across the project.
02
Two different sites
The larger option occupied the former trolleybus depot. It offered greater freedom for placing the complex, parking and landscape. The other site was more compact and required a tighter arrangement. Both involved demolishing existing buildings; neither began as an empty field available without further work.
The compact site also had a potential additional resource: adjacent land beneath high-voltage power lines. This was considered in the studies, but its availability required separate confirmation. The principal plot and adjoining territory could not automatically be treated as a single unrestricted area.
The buildings' positions and configurations were adapted for each setting. The diagrams below show how the complex occupies the land, what remains around it and where parking can fit. The larger plot supports a more open arrangement; the compact one requires closer coordination with the available surroundings.
03
The same programme on both
Both sites were tested against the same required programme. The comparison needed two proposals that genuinely accommodated the functions, rather than a developed design on one site and a schematic alternative on the other. Volumes and floor-by-floor areas were therefore established for each version.
The coloured exploded diagrams reveal this work from within. Functional blocks are separated by level, showing how the programme forms a building and changes when adapted to another plot. Parking demand and the possibilities for meeting it were examined alongside the building areas.
Both proposals proved viable. The differences did not invalidate the initial concept: it could be adapted to the more spacious site and the tighter one. This enabled a comparison of specific arrangements, constraints and construction implications instead of relying on an initial impression of the land.
Colours distinguish functional blocks; the diagrams show how the programme fits each building.
04
Parking made the difference
Parking strategy became the principal argument. In the larger site’s base scenario, the parking requirement could be met at ground level. The compact proposal needed a substantial underground component. Additional underground construction affected indicative cost even when the main office volumes appeared broadly comparable.
The larger plot also offered room for a sports area behind the building and a landscaped entrance square in front. We tested positions closer to the street and deeper within the site, considering how each placement influenced the open spaces that could be organised around the complex.
Retaining existing planting at the depot was examined separately. In the tested arrangements it compromised the layout, so new planting and an entrance square with a park were proposed. The new planting formed part of the overall layout together with the entrance square, parking and sports area.
Larger site
Surface parking; room for sports and landscape.
Compact site
Underground parking; adjacent power-line land needs confirmation.
«I was surprised that the two options differed less than I had initially expected.»
Alexander Gast, architect · translated from Russian
05
The decision is still ahead
The outcome was two adapted versions of the complex rather than a recommendation based only on plot size. Each tested the placement of the required areas, functional blocks and parking. The comparison also showed opportunities for landscape and issues requiring further resolution.
We recommended the larger plot for continued development: its parking strategy was more economical, while the available land supported sports and public space. The compact version remained a working alternative. Its constraints did not prevent the programme from being accommodated on the site.
The client received a basis for choosing and moving to the next stage, but the final decision is pending. A significant result was clarification of both sites: the original concept adapted more readily than anticipated, while parking provision, rather than land area alone, emerged as the key difference.
Project team and period
Chief Project Architect: Alexander Gast. Project lead: Alexander Kholodnov. Architects: Olga Vaulina and Evgeny Kwon. Coordinator: Olga Nabasova.
First concept: 2023. Adaptation and comparison of two new sites: 2026. The client’s final decision is pending.
