Diller Scofidio + Renfro’s Winning Proposal for Zaryadye Park: “Wild Urbanism”

YouTube Preview Image

UPDATE: The video detailing ’s winning proposal for Moscow’s Zaryadye Park has just been released. In it the three partners discuss the central idea behind the proposal – “Wild Urbanism” – in which plants and people are of equal importance and “nature and architecture are merged into a seamless whole.” They explain how each of ’s varied landscapes – its tundra, steppe, forest, and wetland – will be imported to the park and overlapped into ”enfolded nodes” that will house sustainable, artificial micro-climates that will allow for year-round use of the park. 

The Strelka Institute has announced the winner of the two-stage international competition to design Zaryadye park, Moscow’s first park in over 50 years: Diller Scofidio + Renfro.

The consortium led by the New York-based firm, beat out an impressive shortlist. Russian-led TPO “Reserve” came second and MVRDV third.

Zaryadye Park, 13 acres of land just a minute’s walk from the Kremlin and the Red Square, is hoped to “project a new image of Moscow and Russia to the world.” See the renderings from Diller Scofidio + Renfro’s winning proposal for Moscow’s new and most important public space, after the break…

Diller Scofidio + Renfro’s winning proposal. Image Courtesy of KB Strelka
Diller Scofidio + Renfro’s winning proposal. Image Courtesy of KB Strelka
Diller Scofidio + Renfro’s winning proposal. Image Courtesy of KB Strelka
Entrance from the Red Square – Diller Scofidio + Renfro’s winning proposal. Image Courtesy of KB Strelka
Diller Scofidio + Renfro’s winning proposal – Masterplan. Image Courtesy of KB Strelka
Cite: Quirk, Vanessa. "Diller Scofidio + Renfro’s Winning Proposal for Zaryadye Park: “Wild Urbanism”" 19 Nov 2013. ArchDaily. Accessed 31 Aug 2014. <http://www.archdaily.com/?p=447637>

12 comments

  1. Thumb up Thumb down +6

    The site plan…what?? A blob here, a squiggle there, and a bunch of peel-up-the-corner’s everywhere else (it is DS+R, after all).

    What a mess. I’d be interested to see what the other teams produced, but if this is the winner, we’ve seriously regressed since the La Villette days of intelligent public park competitions with clear, interesting concepts, rather than confetti of ‘stuff’ thrown all over a site.

    • Thumb up Thumb down +10

      Wasn’t “confetti of stuff” part of the concept behind both Tschumi’s and OMA’s Vilette entry?

      • Thumb up Thumb down 0

        Fair enough…I guess I was getting at the fact that although it was back in the high-theory and high-formalism days of the 1980′s which seems irrelevant today, the La Villette projects (OMA, Tschumi, Eisenman) had a strong intellectual argument for their proposals. You can call it bs, but at least it was there.

  2. Thumb up Thumb down -3

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

  3. Thumb up Thumb down +1

    That is to say that the story is amazingly thin for a company that prides itself on being a conceptual heavy weight. Converging the elements of Russian, tundra, prairie and woods and replicating (!) their bioclimatic conditions for the purpose of popular recreation??.. I´m ok with DS+R being an ill-informed foreign “star” that does international competitions for the sweet cocktail of PR and (potentially) big bucks. But they could do better than that… Or perhaps they couldn´t and this entry represents their obvious intellectual limitation? As for the competition itself, this whole undertaking was as bad a mistake as taking a decision on tearing down the Hotel Russia several years ago.

    • Thumb up Thumb down -1

      “[or perhaps] this entry represents their obvious intellectual limitation?”

      You haven’t been paying much attention to Diller’s work lately, have you? It’s been garbage since the Blur Building. They keep repeating the same few tricks over and over again – this is just the latest casualty.

  4. Thumb up Thumb down +2

    It’s troubling that the most compelling image, by far, is the one with the yellow trees. And that’s the one that has nothing to do with their proposed architecture…

  5. Thumb up Thumb down -2

    hopefully this will go the way of their arberdeen project and be a non-starter. historically significant constructivist projects are rotting all over moscow without anyone doing a thing to preserve them, but they want to build this in the heart of the city?? that city needs to realign its priorities.

  6. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    I don’t care what the concept is: this design looks horrible and is not a space i’d like to inhabit. space planning fail.

  7. Thumb up Thumb down +1

    is it just me or does this look a bit sh*t? Maybe its very conceptual and I just cant be ar@sed reading the small print. I hope it looks brilliant at eye level and I will be proved wrong.

  8. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    I think this is a very interersting project. I would argue it is just as conceptually rigourous as any of the Parc Vilette proposals but that the concept, in this case, comes from an analysis of the macro (national) context, the role of Moscow within Russia and an exploration of how time (in the seasonal sense) can be edited. In what way is this a less valid conceptual investigation than Eisenmann or Tcshumi’s philisophical approach (Derrida, Decontrucivism etc…) or Koolhaas’ horizontal version of Delirious New York’s programmatic arguement? All 4 of these are conceptually sound and thoroughly designed.

  9. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    To me, the issue is not the level of rigor in the intellectual framework so much as how easily that framework could be appropriated by Disneyworld.

Share your thoughts