Mixed Views for RMJM’s Okhta Center
Controversy is surrounding the latest design of the 400 meter tower for Gazprom, a Russian energy company. Designed by RMJM, the tower, known as Okhta Center, will dominate the skyline, towering over the spire of St. Peter and Paul Cathedral. The new design may actually become the tallest building in Europe, which begs the question that even though we have the capability of building taller and larger, should that be our priority?
More about the tower after the break. 
In addition to serving as the headquarters for Gazprom’s oil unit, the center will also include a concert hall, art museum, and hotel. With these programs, supporters say the tower will be able to transform the “depressed city into a thriving one.”
Yet, critics are concerned that the tower will alter the essence of St. Petersburg that, up until this point, was characterize by a “low rise profile and ambience of a 19th century city”. David Sarkisyan, Director of the Moscow Museum of Architecture stated, “The tower is a symbol of political ego and people will always resent it.” Even UNESCO has threatened to strip the city of its status as a world heritage site if the tower is built.
The group design director for RMJM, Tony Kettle, defended the project, “A city needs a hierarchy of buildings so that the ordinary and the special work with each other. If every building attempts to be special, then they will all become ordinary; so there needs to be a good reason for a building to be out of the ordinary. The issue of energy is the central concern of our time and Gazprom, as the largest supplier of energy in eastern Europe, is one of the reasons for Russia’s wealth and rebirth, putting it into the ‘special’ category.” (Read his complete statement here)
It is an interesting and seemingly occurring debate (see the MoMa project as reported earlier on AD) over whether architects should attempt to move the field forward by introducing radical structures, or whether architects should make more “traditional” structures that adhere to the context in which they are situated. By no means should architects not continue to push the limits, yet in a society where there seems to be a constant need to out do the last design, architects should also be mindful to creative innovative projects that can do more than just stand out in a skyline.
As seen on World Architecture News.
when it was time to vote i didn’t pick this project. And in fact I now like it. Totally represents gazprom and it’s way more beautiful than some Chicago spire or Tour Signal. It has a meaning in St. Petersburg. Should be built as the Shard in London, or the MoMA tower.
As they say the real question is not “should it be built” but “Should/Can Architecture go forward”?
Totally out of proportion and context for this particular city, a pure petroleum ambitions symbol.
XD
looks like one of the four “Dubai Towers” from TVS…
I think this project is quite amazing actually, they should build it if they have the resources. Nothing wrong with wanting a “symbolic” building if you can afford it.
Mr kettle isnt smart enough to convince that its a good idea building big and without context for a mobster style run company. Only rem could hahahahhahahha
I reget this triumph of crime for the st.petersburg community which deserves better treatment.
http://rutube.ru/tracks/2491983.html?v=58951b8171309672141f2f4f1bb85104
all truth about the Ohta-center sky-scraper
During the last war, anything this shape would have been bombed – sharpish!
i totally agree with the unesco! Why this old city needs a “skycrap” in that height? anyhow: why need the company such a tall tower? is this the cooperate identity of gazprom? to work inside a tall tower is nothing special. no communication, nothing. the boss will be sitting on the top and the manager under him the youngest staff are on the lower floors. nice!
is just the symbol of a long penis. when i remember right, i liked the jean nouvel project much more. even it was also quite big, but it was much more like one community.
by working and living in shenzhen i hate tall towers more and more.
They make laws and never fulfil it. Why not to create a project which suits all the aspects.. law, creative design, employment improvement and safety of city’s historical view?? British architects have already spoiled smooth and steady view of UK cities with constructing those dynamic, torsile business centres which are abnormal for human’s perceprion of surrounding space.
D.teil is right telling it looks like a symbol of a long penis (Uncle Freud has warned us about it…)
But for some people not to use Gasprom money is a real vital loss!
8:01 PM Sep 27th
Mixed Views for RMJM’s Okhta Center http://bit.ly/1KEuVm
1:41 AM Sep 28th
Mixed Views for RMJM’s Okhta Center http://j.mp/OpYbL
5:00 AM Sep 28th
"Passionate arch debate about Okhta Center in StPetersburg | ArchDaily" (http://twitthis.com/aundi5)
10:12 AM Sep 28th
Mixed Views for RMJM’s Okhta Center http://j.mp/fSiB7
1:10 AM Jul 23rd
http://www.archdaily.com/36317/mixed-views-for-rmjms-okhta-center/