Yesterday, on March 18, in an office at the chief architect of the city Leonid Fomenko and in the presence of the mayor Vladimir Chaika and the secretary of the City Council Vladimir Korenyugin heads and representatives of all fractions in city council gathered once again to hear answers to 8 controversial questions according to the General plan.
For this purpose - to give the fullest answers to the most controversial questions - from Kiev there arrived employees of UGNIIPG "Giprograd": the chief architecturally - a planned workshop No. 5 Andrey Kudelin and the chief specialist of a workshop Boris Skorobogatov.
And though controversial questions was 8, the most heated arguments caused questions of gardening and traffic intersections (bridges).
We will begin with a question, disputes round which quickly ceased (in comparison with duration of disputes on bridges and roads), - a question of increase in quantity of green and recreational zones in the central part of the city.
According to A.Kudelin, the square of public green plantings at territories of building of the city has to make 19 sq.m / the people (now this indicator makes 12 sq.m / the people).
Designers saw an exit in increase in public green plantings at 386 hectares generally at the expense of coastal territories of the rivers the Southern Bug and Ingul. Thus designers allocated important value for such recreational zone as Alyauda, - they have to turn green even more. But here in what a question: on Alyaudakh the earth under a housing estate of what the deputy Alexander Zholobetsky reminded is taken away.
However, as it became clear, designers didn't know about it - to them simply didn't find time to report about it though as A.Kudelin insisted, would have to. "Mass building of the peninsula of Alyauda completely - eternal kills forever opportunity for inhabitants of the central part of the city to reach green plantings", - A.Kudelin told.
That is, the question "rationing" of green plantings per capita Nikolaev remained open.
The head of PR fraction in the City Council Pyotr Zibrov another interested:whether the question of demolition of an old one-storeyed housing estate in the center of Nikolaev in favor of the organization on a park or square vacant place (for example, one-storeyed building near Komsomolskaya St.) was considered?
In reply A.Kudelin noticed that such options are considered only when the urban saturation reaches a critical limit. Nikolaev still has reserves in the form of coastal zones and Alyaud.
"You have no such territories where something could be taken down and told that it is economically justified. But when land value will be another, such option can be considered. Settlement indicators of land value and for action of the Master plan will be that for today that it will be unjustified action. We can't as design institute, it to recommend you", - A.Kudelin told. But I added that if there will be any investor who will assume financing (resettlement of people, a construction of green plantings), deputies will be able at session quietly to vote for it - it won't contradict the General plan.
And now about transport and bridges.
The question of extension of the explanatory note "Internally - city transport" where asked to add still any type of transport, except the high-speed facilitated RADAN subway (developers called it the easy subway), and remained without satisfaction.
According to developers, for our city, along with traditional means of transport (the bus, the trolleybus, the tram), this "RADAN" which will connect Matveevka with the Ship area, and also the area of "Sorting" and "Scaffold" very much will approach.
According to B. Skorobogatov, the cost of the easy subway - in 2-4 is less, than the subway (a problem that deputies of city council don't know, how much is construction of the traditional subway, and developers so and didn't tell anything about it). And, A.Kudelin considers, other alternative "RADANU" in our city isn't present. Besides, developers consider, in Nikolaev "red lines" (distance between houses and the carriageway) initially are so well designed and made that houses shouldn't be taken down as "corridor" for two strips "RADANA" will occupy 10 meters.
But most of all deputies and designers argued concerning bridges. Initial (the first, main) the so-called "Japanese" bridge has to be constructed.The second on turn as deputies consider, has to be Shirokobalkovsky (from the Wide Beam on the opposite coast of the Southern Bug), and the third - the bridge through "Levanevtsev".
Designers think differently: the "Japanese" bridge, to the second - the bridge through "Levanevtsev" has to be the first. It would be quite good to stretch the bridge with st. of Kirov with a conclusion to Geroyev Stalingrad Ave. It is available - the conflict. And business at all that designers designed the bridge which construction doesn't depend on Nikolaev at all (and it will unload Varvarovsky Bridge for 10-15%). But it is difficult to disagree that one more city bridge is necessary to the city. Here only the place for this city bridge to designers and deputies seems a miscellaneous.
Designers stand up for the bridge through "Levanevtsa" - it is an element of the highway of city value with the continuous movement which main function is unloading of the existing overloaded streets.
The bridge has to be six-band, and the road to it has to pass with Industrialnaya St. through nowadays existing (but not necessary to Ministry of Transport, and he is ready to refuse it) old railway station (the old railway station). The cost of construction of this bridge - 3-4 billion UAH. But these two bridges - through "Levanevtsev" and "Japanese" - are elements of uniform system and if not to build the bridge through "Levanevtsev", the system falls and won't be able to solve city transport problems in a complex.
Besides, emergence of the bridge in this part of the city will give an impetus to development of territories on other coast of the Southern Bug.
Pyotr Zibrov became the spokesman of idea of first priority of construction of the bridge through the Wide Beam. The head of PR fraction said that it is more rational - people shouldn't drive the car through all city. It will unload the central part of the city from transport, will give the chance to remove both transit, and passenger transport, without involving the central part of the city.
Besides, the deputy didn't understand how the stream from the six-band bridge can be contained to Krylov or Karpenko's two-way streets if to expand them there is no opportunity. It won't solve but only will create a huge transport problem, the deputy spoke.
Besides, there is also one more moment about which P. Zibrov didn't tell. Designers can't know and understand it, but we - that can imagine that will begin when under construction of the bridge will start taking away in "Levanevtsev" the earth - the earth which is occupied for a long time with cottages and which has owners...
But designers consider that construction of this bridge won't solve a problem of transport service of new sites of inhabited construction in the central part of the city. And to lay the bridge through the Wide Beam on other coast of the Southern Bug it is unpromising - a pier, the city won't develop in this direction, but will develop along existing highways, namely towards Odessa and Kiev. And to build at first Shirokobalkovsky Bridge, and then bridge through "Levanevtsev" - waste of money.
At a today's meeting the final decision - whether will be submitted the General plan for session of city council on March 24 or not - it isn't accepted. The mayor at parting told that will decide on this important question only on Saturday - when will receive documents on discussion of the draft of the General plan at meetings of the deputy commissions and in conciliation commission.