Thus, “River Park” represents a decade-long effort overall, with ADM Architects contributing seven years – a substantial timeline in itself. All the blocks are connected by a public embankment featuring shops, cafes, and salons on the ground floors. Across the development, albeit to varying extents, there is a prevailing theme of terraced volumes descending toward the water and terraces. The design and realization coincided with the burgeoning interest of Moscow developers and buyers in open terraces, with this project serving as one where it became evident during construction that apartments with terraces were in higher demand and ultimately sold better.
The two-thirds of the complex designed by ADM Architects are characterized by a blend of strict regularity – at times even rigid structure – the dominance of brick, and persistent efforts to incorporate sculptural accents. These accents range from subtle to almost megalithic: bold and confident gestures.
Notably, the architects here abandoned the vertical pairing of floors in groups of two or three, opting instead for an “honest” grid that balances vertical and horizontal elements. By day, the buildings appear distinctly solid and sculpted with confidence. By night, under backlighting and silhouetted against the sky, they resemble volumetric frameworks with irregularly filled segments, their edges seemingly torn open. Illuminated windows, like pieces in a sliding puzzle, further enhance the perception of lightness.
ADM Architects introduced the idea of alternating end terraces within the volumes in “River Park” for the first time. This architectural ingenuity enhances privacy between neighbors.
The result is a rigorously organized version of a “Habitat” form, with a confident cascade of open steps framed by frameless glass railings that subtly highlight the façades.
Moreover, “River Park” became a testing ground for creating semi-public and private spaces for residents. All blocks are interconnected by pedestrian bridges and archways, allowing the courtyards to be navigated from above. These upper areas feature various playgrounds for children and designated relaxation zones for adults, such as barbecue equipment.
The architects also began exploring new approaches to form here. While plate-like “shifts” of floors were first implemented in the Discovery residential complex back in 2015, “River Park” introduced upward-expanding brick folds. These folds, particularly in certain perspectives, make the buildings resemble flowers. Could this have been the precursor to ADM Architects’ later experiments with tower plastique?
The recently completed blocks continue the methods and approaches developed in Blocks 1-3 but interpret them more strikingly.
One key reason for this evolution is the site’s location on a corner – not an urban corner in the traditional sense of the term, but a riverine one. The 90° angle aligns with the confluence of the man-made backwater, the bay, the Nagatinsky Channel, and the Moskva River itself. Historically, this area featured a functional beacon during its port days. Now, a symbolic lighthouse stands on the square where the shoreline makes a turn.
Yet the project’s most striking feature is not the tower or the protrusion – but the void, more of which below.
Two light, terraced volumes are positioned not perpendicular but parallel to the shores, utilizing the right-angle meeting of water masses. The end terraces of one building face the Western Bay, while those of the other overlook the Nagatinsky Backwater.
Between the two structures, an open space ascends, creating a pause that serves as a central architectural highlight. This void mirrors the gap between the two shores and even visualizes it, amplifying its presence through the layered plates of the buildings.
While the terraces rise uniformly and evenly, the height of the wings varies, creating a balance between symmetry and asymmetry. Interestingly, the height difference between the two volumes reflects the lengths of the water bodies they face – Western Bay being in fact shorter than the Nagatinsky Backwater. This is a nuanced contextual response, as is the interplay with the land’s narrow isthmus.
At the “meeting point” of the two volumes, on the corner, a public terrace emerges at the height of three floors. This terrace functions as an intimate courtyard-like space for gatherings and small events. From here, one can see the courtyard, the promenade, and the water, as well as enjoy a unique perspective of the terraces ascending in opposite directions.
The two wings of the corner building resemble sails in silhouette, with the gap between them forming an inverted triangle. The triangular outline is echoed by the plan of the neighboring red-brick tower. This tower is a rare example in ADM’s portfolio, with no comparable structures currently attributed to the company. Its triangular footprint tapers toward the water, and the façades feature prominent open balconies with copper-toned underlays.
These two buildings are both rhythmic and jagged, engaging dynamically with the surrounding space, perhaps even more so than the terraces. Their design creates a unique volumetric pattern rooted in modernist principles and represents the most original accent in the entire complex. Walking along the promenade and rounding the corner offers the best view of this feature.
In contrast, the design of the two other buildings situated further back is more subdued and forms a quieter backdrop. Behind the corner building, there is a straightforward red-brick structure with a grid of square façades and a square footprint. When viewed from the plan, this building complements the triangular house, forming a pair. However, the further structure is far more restrained in its execution.
To the west, the backdrop is defined by a light, folded plate-like structure and a closing dark-brown building. While the former echoes the red “bouquet” buildings from clusters 1-3, the latter showcases a restrained yet dynamic slope, a favorite technique of Andrey Romanov and Ekaterina Kuznetsova’s. Similar “steps” can be found in their other works, such as along the Novodanilovskaya Embankment or in the recently completed HIDE residential complex.
From certain angles, the buildings of “River Park” evoke a Manhattan-like aesthetic: a strict yet varied alignment. The skyline remains undisturbed, held confidently in place. Within a context that is partially “micro-district” in character and partially shaped by the natural, scenic freedom of the landscape, the structures stand out evenly and neatly, featuring a respectable brick palette. They create a city by the water where none existed before. This approach resonates well with the architectural agenda of Moscow in the 2010s, reflecting a precise and professional response to the project”s objectives. However, what stands out is the presence of another emerging narrative – less restrained, more expressive and sculptural. Built on patterns and understated yet bold gestures, the regular slopes of the terraces, with their functional alternation, evoke not only a tamed vision of “Habitat” but also modernist pyramid houses and triangular structures. Here, one can discern both continuity with the past and a glimpse into the future – a precursor to larger-scale experiments in the development of Moscow River’s waterfront areas.