Evolution Tower: why the wedding palace disappeared and how the façade is constructed

Evolution Tower, beside Bagration Bridge, grew out of a proposed complex with a wedding palace at the foot of a commercial tower. In the completed scheme, a shopping arcade and public square took the place of the ceremonial venue, while the spiral silhouette remained. Rotating floor plans and insulating glass units bent within their façade frames create the appearance of a continuous glass spiral.

Kettle and the RMJM team linked the early form to marriage; Philipp Nikandrov and Gorproject described its later structure and new purpose. These accounts distinguish two stages of the project: the office tower had already been conceived before the wedding palace was removed from its base.

What did the original design involve?

The RMJM team was designing a complex for plots 2–3 of Moscow City, with a commercial tower and a wedding palace at its base. According to Tony Kettle’s account, he led the practice’s concept design team, working with Karen Forbes, a professor at Edinburgh College of Art, and drawing inspiration from Rodin’s The Kiss. Wedding ceremonies were part of the complex’s intended use and also explained the sculptural form of its silhouette.

From a 16-storey wedding palace to City Palace Tower

In an article for CTBUH Journal Philipp Nikandrov traces several successive briefs for the site. In 2004, the city authorities considered a wedding palace as a standalone, 16-storey building of around 30,000 square metres. The design that won developer Snegiri’s competition that year looked different: two glass volumes of different heights, with a slight rotation of the opposing façades. This version only hinted at a twist; the spiral form was developed in the next iteration.

By 2005, the architects had developed the winning design into City Palace Tower. As Nikandrov recalls, the city wanted a striking building for ceremonies, while the developer sought to increase the complex’s total and lettable floor areas. The architects combined a wedding palace at the base with a commercial high-rise above.

Nikandrov describes one intermediate sketch as two ribbons inspired by the yin and yang symbol: a dark ribbon and a light one represented a couple. After several revisions, the design became less literal, and the wedding palace was placed beneath the atrium’s curved glazing, which the designer likened to a ‘bride’s skirt’. Kettle and Forbes also associate the search for a form with Rodin’s The Kiss. These are different participants’ accounts of their artistic references, rather than grounds for declaring the sculpture the sole source of the geometry.

Nikandrov gives the floor areas for a later version of City Palace Tower: the wedding palace occupied around 2,000 square metres beneath the atrium, with an office tower of approximately 80,000 square metres rising above it. These figures show that the ceremonial function occupied a small part of the complex, yet gave the entire project its name.

In Nikandrov’s account, the top of the early tower also continued the wedding theme: he envisaged a ‘bridal veil’ above the bar on the uppermost level. The atrium below and the crown above linked the ceremonial theme to the office high-rise. Both details disappeared from the completed Evolution Tower; the designers of the new scheme topped the surviving spiral with steel arches.

In the June 2007 CTBUH bulletin the early version is still presented as a 47-storey tower whose twisting ribbons represent a bride and groom. This documents the design stage: both the number of storeys and the use of the base changed in the completed complex.

Kettle Collective’s May 2015 announcement concerns the completed building: according to the practice, construction took just under four years. The publications from 2007 and 2015 thus mark different stages — a design incorporating wedding facilities and the completed office tower.

How did the design of Evolution Tower change?

There is no wedding palace in the completed complex. Lead designer Gorproject describes a shopping arcade within the podium, exits towards Vystavochnaya metro station and Bagration pedestrian bridge, and a landscaped, terraced square above. Architect Philipp Nikandrov describes the completed tower as an office building and dates RMJM’s original concept to 2005–2007 and construction to 2011–2014.

The interpretation of the spiral also changed. In the Kettle team’s account, it is associated with a couple and marriage. In Gorproject’s description, the two ribbons of opposing façades, meeting above the roof, resemble a DNA molecule and symbolise evolution. The geometry dates back to the early design, although the designers of the later version explain it differently.

Reworking the design after the crisis

In his article for CTBUH, Nikandrov dates approval of the revised concept to 2006 and the tower’s building permit to 2008. Initial work on the podium began as early as 2005. These dates refer to different stages: preparing the base, approving the documentation and erecting the high-rise section.

Funding for the project stopped in late 2008 amid the global economic crisis. According to the architect, work could resume after a change in the investors and a restructuring of the financing in 2011. The credit facility required rapid construction; the designers sought to make it possible to build the complex-shaped tower within a schedule and budget comparable to those of a conventional rectangular skyscraper. He says the schedule influenced the choice of structural frame and façade technology.

Nikandrov attributes the decision to drop the wedding palace to the city authorities’ loss of interest in a ceremonial venue in the middle of a business district, and to concerns about traffic congestion affecting wedding processions. This is the explanation of a participant in the project. Following the revision of the brief, the complex was named Evolution Tower in 2011; the office space, already included in earlier plans, remained.

The architects removed the lower, ‘skirt’-shaped atrium, the original crown and the upper-level spaces for celebrations after the ceremony from the version incorporating the wedding palace. According to Nikandrov’s article, the faceted façade was reworked into a smooth glass envelope. The spiral remained, but the architectural details around it changed.

The decentralised building services scheme was replaced with a centralised one, and three plant levels were added. A change in the lift system required the central core to be redesigned. According to Nikandrov, five more levels were added to the office section, bringing the total from 47 to 52. A drawing of the early version therefore cannot be treated as a plan of the completed building.

Comparing the stages also requires an understanding of what survived. Nikandrov identifies the spiral silhouette and the main structural grid as unchanged. He attributes the podium, the top of the tower and the building services systems to the revised version. The overall twist is recognisable in the archival rendering, but it cannot be used to reconstruct the completed building’s design.

How does the tower’s twist work?

The plans of adjacent typical floors in Evolution Tower are rotated by approximately three degrees relative to one another; the designers put the total rotation at 156 degrees. A vertical central core and eight columns form the basis of the structural frame. Four corner supports follow a helical path, while cantilevered sections of the floor slabs support the projecting portions of the rotating floors. This structural scheme is described by Gorproject.

The geometry can be imagined as a stack of square plates: each successive square is rotated slightly around a shared vertical axis, with its corners offset from those of the square below. In the tower, this rotation defines the outer profile, while the loads are transferred through reinforced-concrete floor slabs, beams, columns and the central core.

Published accounts differ on the number of levels and the total angle: Nikandrov gives 52 rotating levels and 156 degrees, Gorproject gives 50 rotating floors and the same 156 degrees, while façade consultant ITL Engineering gives 150 degrees. Separately, the lead designer reports 55 above-ground levels in the complex. The sources do not explain which levels they count from; the general principle is sufficient to explain the geometry — adjacent typical floors rotate by approximately three degrees.

Vertical supports and helical corners

The three-degree rotation applies to the plans of adjacent floors. In Gorproject’s scheme, the central core and the main columns remain vertical. Four corner columns follow a helical path; the CTBUH technical article counts them separately from the eight straight supports. This allows the reinforced-concrete frame to support the rotated floor slabs without rotating the central core.

The designer gives spans of around 15 metres between the eight main columns. The beams form a roughly octagonal outline around the core, while cantilevered extensions support the portions of the slabs that project beyond it as the floor plan rotates at each level. This preserves the usable floor area and the building’s outline as the corners shift.

In his CTBUH article, Nikandrov specifically notes that the structural system has no outrigger plant floors linking the core to the outer supports. The architect explains that a reinforced concrete frame was chosen to save construction time. The rotating floor slabs remained complex to construct, but were cast around a repeating arrangement of vertical supports.

According to Nikandrov, the tower stands on a 3.5-metre-thick reinforced concrete slab supported by piles. Around 8,000 cubic metres of concrete were poured for the slab in 48 hours. The diameter of the circular columns decreases from approximately 2.1 metres at the bottom to 1.2 metres at the top.

Nikandrov describes twelve columns around the central core: eight straight columns along the perimeter of the inner octagonal layout and four helical columns at the corners. Photographs of the tower reveal the rotation of its outer outline, but the façade conceals this structural distinction. The white diagonal bands should not be mistaken for independent load-bearing supports.

Formwork for a changing floor plan

The same formwork could not be used unchanged: the outline of each successive floor slab shifted relative to the one below. According to the CTBUH article, the designers divided each floor into three sections and planned the casting of the core walls and slabs as a single construction sequence. A specially developed self-climbing system was used for the four helical corner columns. This was where the geometric concept became a requirement governing the organisation of daily construction work.

Formwork manufacturer PERI describes the ACS system made for the helical corner columns, the combination of ACS with VARIO GT 24 formwork for the core, and RCS P protection panels around the perimeter. The company supplied special UNIPORTAL formwork tables for the floor slabs. These systems allowed the formwork to rise with the frame and the slabs to be cast with changing outlines.

Nikandrov explains that four hydraulic platforms provided large working areas, while panels enclosed the top three floors under construction, sheltering the work from the wind. Guide rails allowed them to move around the perimeter without constant reliance on the tower crane. In the architect’s publication, six days per floor is given as the fastest rate achieved, with seven days as the average.

Structural analysis of the frame as built

In a 2016 engineering study Alexander Belostotsky and his co-authors compared three finite element models of the tower–foundation system: an ideal design model and two refined models accounting for the actual positions of the columns and walls. The analysis showed how measured deviations in parts of the frame already built affected its structural behaviour.

In one refined model, the researchers altered the positions of the supports; in the other, those of the load-bearing walls, allowing the influence of each group to be assessed separately. The floor slabs and walls were modelled using shell elements, and the columns and beams using line elements. These calculations concern the load-bearing reinforced concrete concealed behind the glass cladding.

Belostotsky and his co-authors took account of the construction sequence, the self-weight of the structure and façade, imposed loads, wind, snow and the load from the crown. The researchers assessed the structure’s static and dynamic behaviour. Their calculations indicated that the stress and strain parameters were only slightly sensitive to the measured deviations of the columns and walls. Within the limits studied and under the selected load combinations, the resulting values met the specified stability and deformation criteria; this conclusion does not extend to every possible alteration to the frame.

In a 2020 study of the monitoring system Belostotsky and his co-authors distinguish between the design model and instrumented observations of the completed building. They also propose monitoring movements in the load-bearing structure and the condition of the façade.

Belostotsky and his co-authors propose using measurement results to refine the building’s finite element model. In this approach, calculated behaviour is compared with that of the built structure, and the model is adjusted using actual data. The publication sets out a methodology and recommendations; it does not report numerical results from future calibration for each element of Evolution Tower.

In the 2020 paper, the researchers mention satellite-based displacement sensors, additional accelerometers and a rooftop weather station. They propose a separate monitoring scheme for the façade panels. The article lists these instruments as proposals for extending the existing system, without confirming that they were subsequently installed.

Steel arches above the roof

The two white bands do not stop at the top office floor. According to Nikandrov, in the completed crown they are linked by two twisted steel arches each spanning 41 metres, with additional supports. The architect interprets them as a ribbon forming an infinity symbol above the roof. This is a later symbolic version of the design; the original crown, with spaces for wedding celebrations, was revised when the wedding palace was dropped.

The crown was made from steelwork manufactured in Piedmont and delivered to Moscow in sections; on the roof, these were assembled using bolted connections accessed from inside. This is how Nikandrov describes the process. The scale of the components explains why completing the spiral became an engineering challenge in its own right, rather than merely a matter of drawing an outline. In photographs of the tower, the white arcs distinguish a unified composition from a façade that simply ends at a flat roof.

In Nikandrov’s article, the two arches of the crown are linked to the cylindrical concrete core by intermediate steel supports. Four smaller arched supports sit beneath the white bands. The infinity symbol rests on a separate steel structural system; it continues the pattern of the façade, although its construction differs from that of the reinforced concrete floor slabs below.

In his 2016 article, Nikandrov mentioned an open-air terrace on level 52 and a helipad at the top of the crown. These details concern the building’s architectural programme, rather than visitor access: the published materials do not confirm unrestricted public access to either. In the completed tower, a steel structure serving a different purpose took the place of the wedding crown.

Why does Evolution Tower’s façade look continuous?

The continuous appearance of Evolution Tower’s façade is created by cold-bent insulating glass units. They are manufactured flat and then fitted into pre-twisted aluminium frames: the slight deformation of each module smooths out the steps between the rotated floors. Nikandrov describes this technology in his CTBUH article, while Gorproject credits it with creating a visually seamless, doubly curved surface.

ITL Engineering, the façade consultant, reports contributing to the calculations, 3D modelling and preparation of drawings. The smooth outline was thus engineered for the manufacture and installation of individual façade modules.

How a flat insulating glass unit is curved

According to Nikandrov’s account for CTBUH, during factory assembly a flat insulating glass unit was laid horizontally in a pre-twisted aluminium frame. Under its own weight, it took on a slight three-dimensional curvature without heat forming. Modules assembled in this way create the curved surface.

The displacement of one corner of the insulating glass unit relative to the opposite corner, as reported by Nikandrov, did not exceed 50 millimetres. This slight curvature is repeated in the panels over the building’s full height, smoothing the transitions between the planes of the façade. The eye therefore perceives the glass surface as a continuous spiral.

On a typical level, according to Nikandrov, the curtain wall comprises 108 façade panels in the shape of parallelograms, approximately 4.3 metres high and 1.5 metres wide. Each module’s geometry is determined by its position on the tower’s helical surface.

The CTBUH article singles out 27 façade panels on a typical floor that required two size variants as the angle of rotation changed. The seemingly uniform row required different drawings and checks on the position of each element within the overall glazing layout.

The CTBUH article gives the total façade area as 40,500 square metres, of which 34,500 square metres cover the typical sections between levels 3 and 51. For the cold-bent glazing, consultant ITL Engineering gives an estimate of 35,000 m², while Gorproject gives 60,000 m². The publications do not explain the discrepancy with the latter figure, so it cannot be taken as the area of those same sections.

The composition of the insulating glass unit also matters. Nikandrov describes an outer pane of heat-strengthened laminated glass and an inner pane of toughened glass. This combination allowed the required shape to be achieved while meeting safety requirements for the building envelope. According to Nikandrov, Guardian multifunctional glass reduces solar heat gain, while the thermal insulation of the double-glazed unit is comparable to that of the triple-glazed units commonly used in Moscow’s climate. This is the designer’s rationale for the chosen system, rather than a promise of a particular office temperature.

According to the CTBUH article, if damaged, the toughened inner pane is designed to break into small fragments, while the interlayer in the outer laminated glass retains the shards. This composition was chosen for a glazing unit that is bent within its frame during assembly and subsequently used at considerable height.

Production was split between countries: according to the CTBUH article, the insulating glass units were manufactured in Germany, while the aluminium profiles were produced in Russia on a dedicated production line. On Sika’s project page Josef Gartner is listed as the supplier of the façade structures. This collaboration explains why achieving a smooth appearance required both a design solution and the ability to manufacture its components consistently on an industrial scale.

Nikandrov considers the cold-bent units more advantageous in terms of cost and thermal performance than the stepped systems used previously. This comparison relates to his project and does not establish a universal rule for all skyscraper façades.

White ribbons and reflections

According to Gorproject and Nikandrov’s article, the glazing at the tower’s corners is inclined at approximately 14 degrees from the vertical. The line of reflected cityscape and clouds therefore changes direction as it rises along the ribbon. The architect describes the impression of the panorama rotating through 90°. This angle describes the optical effect visible on the façade, rather than any additional rotation of the floors: publications by Nikandrov and Gorproject give the tower’s total twist as 156 degrees.

The white bands define the diagonals of the twisting silhouette, while the glazing creates a smooth reflection between them. Together, these elements make the spiral clearly visible from outside.

The curtain wall consists of frames and insulating glass units, with joints between them. Its continuity is visual: the slight bends in thousands of units are coordinated so that the individual panels form an overall spiral pattern.

Maintaining the twisting façade

For cleaning and repairing the façade, Nikandrov describes a purpose-built cradle and a machine with three articulated booms. This allows the platform to move along the twisting surface, navigating projections and rotated sections. The consultant ITL also notes that raising the cradle and bringing it close to the glass required a dedicated solution.

According to the CTBUH article, the rooftop glass parapet incorporates opening sections through which maintenance equipment can pass. Guides and soft rollers limit contact between the cradle and the glass. The façade panels can be inspected and cleaned without the platform resting on their edges.

Nikandrov describes an auxiliary winch in the maintenance system with a lifting capacity of 300 kilograms. The article lists safety straps, attachments to the façade units and soft rollers that protect the glass as the platform approaches. The smooth envelope also required a dedicated solution for maintenance.

Wind testing and monitoring

The spiral envelope changes the distribution of wind pressure along the height and around the sides of the building. In a publication on monitoring Evolution Tower Belostotsky and colleagues report that the aerodynamic model was tested in a wind tunnel belonging to the British company BMT. Such tests are essential when designing the building envelope: a single overall wind load value is insufficient when airflow acts differently on different parts of a twisted façade.

The researchers also identified a limitation of the original calculations: by the time of their 2020 publication, development in Moscow City had changed from the surroundings represented in the aerodynamic tests. Neighbouring buildings affect airflow, so the earlier test results might not fully describe conditions around the completed tower. The authors proposed installing a weather station on the roof and comparing measured wind pressure with the model data. This is a recommendation by the researchers, rather than a statement that the additional system had been installed.

A more detailed scheme was proposed for the façade: 12 pressure sensors on each of the 17th, 34th and 50th floors, making 36 measurement points in total. These levels were chosen because aerodynamic test data for them had been retained. In addition to pressure, the researchers recommend monitoring the relative positions of the panels, movement joints and connection details. The smooth appearance does not eliminate loads on these connections: their condition needs to be assessed against the design conditions for wind and temperature changes.

The sensors proposed by the researchers are distributed across the four sides of the façade: three on each side at each of the three levels. Their placement corresponds to the retained wind tunnel test results for these specific heights. By comparing measurements with the model, engineers could check the pressure on particular sections of the twisting surface.

What became of the tower’s base and its connections to the city?

After the wedding palace was dropped from the plans, the designers placed a shopping arcade at the base of Evolution Tower, with passageways to Vystavochnaya metro station and Bagration Bridge. The podium roof became a terraced public square above the embankment. This is how Gorproject and Philipp Nikandrov describe the complex.

The terraced square and passageways

Gorproject gives the site area for the entire complex as approximately 2.55 hectares, of which around two hectares comprise landscaped terraces. The three-level podium, covering 28,000 square metres, houses the shopping arcade. These figures refer to different parts of the complex.

The square between the tower, Bagration Bridge and the embankment spans a change in level of around ten metres. Nikandrov writes of four outdoor moving walkways, while Gorproject refers to escalators; both publications describe connections between different levels. Beneath the square, the shopping arcade leads to Vystavochnaya station and the bridge. The revised layout and uses of the base accommodate everyday movement through the business district.

Nikandrov describes glass rooflights and entrance canopies above the square. They allow daylight into the spaces on the lower level and become part of the lighting scheme after dark. These details show how the designers connected the shopping arcade with the open space above it.

For the rooflights and canopies, Nikandrov describes laminated glass fins and stainless steel fixings. Electric glass heating is intended to prevent ice and condensation. The rooflights bring daylight into the spaces on the lower level while preserving the open pedestrian area above.

Nikandrov’s project description combines green roofs above the shopping arcade with heated paving in the square to melt snow and ice. The terraces and passageways were designed as an open space that remains usable during snowfall.

Nikandrov writes that an underground retaining structure built in 1997 for another project remained on the site. The city authorities also required a connection between the metro and the pedestrian bridge. The designers took both factors into account when reworking the base of Evolution Tower.

According to Nikandrov, the city authorities required a connection between the metro station and Bagration Bridge even before the final documentation for the new complex was approved. A temporary structure provided this connection while the project was being revised. The shopping arcade in the completed podium incorporated the passageway into the permanent layout.

Lifts and the central core layout

The earlier vertical transport scheme provided for 12 lift shafts with double-deck cars. During implementation, these were replaced with ten TWIN systems: two cars move independently within a single shaft. According to Nikandrov, the space freed up in the core was allocated to building services. The change in lifts required the tower’s interior layout to be revised.

The CTBUH article gives a speed of up to seven metres per second for the ten TWIN systems. Eliminating two shafts created space for building services on the floors; this additional space was significant for the office tower’s layout.

What remains of the original concept?

The completed Evolution Tower inherited its spiral form and the basis of its structural grid from City Palace Tower. Nikandrov lists the substantial changes: the wedding palace was removed from the project, and the crown, façade and building services were redesigned. The name changed along with the interpretation of the form, from a marital union to an image of development. The rotated floors and cold-bent façade units gave the glass envelope its continuous appearance.

On tours from Poklonnaya Hill to Moscow City the route leads to Bagration Bridge and the skyscrapers: from here, you can compare Evolution Tower’s spiral silhouette with its base and the surrounding buildings from outside.

Sources

1. Kettle Collective — Moscow City Evolution Tower
2. Philipp Nikandrov — Evolution Tower
3. Gorproject — Evolution Tower
4. ITL Engineering — Evolution Tower
5. Mos Radius — Poklon City
6. Philipp Nikandrov — Upward Spiral: The Story of the Evolution Tower, CTBUH Journal, 2016
7. CTBUH Newsletter, June 2007 — Sacred Union
8. PERI — Evolution Tower
9. Sika — Evolution Tower
10. Belostotsky et al. — structural strength analysis of Evolution Tower accounting for the actual positions of structural elements, Procedia Engineering, 2016
11. Belostotsky et al. — On the Status and Development of the Structural Monitoring System for Evolution Tower, Academia, 2020
12. Belostotsky et al. — On the Status and Development of the Structural Monitoring System for Evolution Tower. Part 2, Academia, 2020
13. Musée Rodin — The Kiss
14. Kettle Collective — Evolution Tower, completion note, 2015