So, tomorrow there will be an election for the President of the Union of Moscow Architects. "Does it really matter?" - will ask non-architects and many architects will join them. Over the past decades, the union has lost its former authority and significance, both in the eyes of the authorities and in the eyes of the professional workshop. The halo of former greatness and the attractiveness of numerous legends and anecdotes about allied affairs continues to warm the hearts of its loyal members and attract new ones. But to the question of what the role of the union is now, what is its mission, neither one nor the other will be able to answer. In this situation, the role of the president of the union, with all the pathos of the post, seemed unattractive. There are a lot of routine administrative and representative duties, bureaucratic jungle and "headache" due to constant threats to lose the property of the union. Which of the active practicing architects needs such a social burden? Nobody, therefore, the list of candidates for this honorary post, as a rule, used to be limited to a couple of names.
This year, something unprecedented happened - the list of candidates announced by the control and auditing commission two weeks before the elections included five names: Pavel Andreev, Sergei Kiselev, Viktor Logvinov, Evgeny Olshansky, Andrei Taranov. It is not easy to understand the reasons for such a crowd on the approaches to the "throne" of the Union of Moscow Architects. For example, Viktor Logvinov, the current president, did not manage to do something so important in the two previous terms (which is almost 8 years) that he decided to retain his usual powers. A similar motivation is possible with the vice-president of the union, Andrey Taranov, who has recently been more and more actively participating in the leadership of the union. But what could have prompted such successful architects and leaders of large design teams as Pavel Andreev and Sergey Kiselev to look for additional (and very burdensome) responsibilities, one could only guess. As well as about the reasons that prompted the public activity of the permanent General Director of the Central House of Architect Yevgeny Olshansky.
Probably, everyone interested in this paradox would have remained in the dark until the conference (and possibly longer), if not for the initiative of one of the candidates - Pavel Andreev. He considered that democratic principles require to present to the electorate those for or against whom this electorate will have to vote.
It is rather strange that such a thought did not occur to the employees of the AGR apparatus. It is possible that this is due to their extreme workload in preparing for the conference, which also prevented them from sending out an invitation to the press meeting organized by Andreyev and the CDA Directorate. As a result, 30 people attended the first meeting of the Union of Moscow Architects in the history of the Union of Moscow Architects and their voters, most of whom belonged to the campaign headquarters of the main characters of the evening. There were very few people who were simply interested and interested professionally (i.e., representatives of the press), so we will try to serve as a mouthpiece for the candidates, so that this momentous moment is not wasted and all those who are not indifferent can form their own opinion about the motivations and programs of the candidates.
But before giving the floor to the candidates, it is necessary to dwell in more detail on two significant points that can clarify the content of the speeches. This is the upcoming transition of the union to the status of a self-regulatory organization and the upcoming presidential elections for the Union of Architects of Russia this fall. Without this information, the whole point of the pre-election polemic risks getting lost between the lines of the program theses.
Let's start with the latter. Immediately after the end of the Zodchestvo-2008 festival, the next VII congress of the Union of Russian Architects will take place in Moscow. There is no official information about the venue and the agenda of the meetings yet, but it is known that the main issue, in addition to the notorious law on the SRO (self-regulatory organization), will be the election of the new president of the SAR. The Grand Union and the Moscow Union are in the same situation - after a long period of existence under the leadership of the same leaders, they have to make a choice with far-reaching consequences. And if in Moscow everything is somehow simpler, then at the all-Russian level clashes of regional interests and an active struggle for spheres of influence are not excluded. So the spring turmoil in the Moscow branch of the Union can be seen as a prelude to the upcoming autumn battles. Moreover, a short time interval between events makes it possible to carry out reforms in two key organizations almost simultaneously.
According to unofficial data, such a "revolution" is planned and one of the candidates for the post of head of the Union of Independent States - Pavel Andreev is a like-minded person of the main contender for the presidency of the Russian Union - Alexei Vorontsov and a probable ally in the renewal of the Union.
The need for reforms has become especially relevant in connection with the adoption by the State Duma of the Russian Federation of the federal law "On self-regulatory organizations" No. 315-F3 dated December 1, 2007. This document does not at all reflect all the problems and needs of existing public organizations, especially such specific ones as the union architects of Russia, uniting professionals from many areas: architects, landscape designers and interior designers, teachers, theorists, heads of design organizations (commercial and budgetary) and retirees. There are many claims to the adopted law, in addition, the technology of transition to a new form of existence is not clear, moreover, the goals and objectives of the future organization are not clear. How and what will it do, whose interests will it defend, how will it be able to integrate into the existing realities of architectural and construction practice and adapt to new conditions after Russia's accession to the WTO? All these questions will inevitably arise before the new leaders of the head and regional divisions of the union, the future of the organization, which existed for almost 80 years, if we take as a starting point 1932, the date of the creation of the Union of Soviet Architects, will depend on the thoughtfulness and consistency of their actions.
This task is disproportionately more difficult than all those that the leaders of the Union had to solve in recent decades. Global crisis processes in the country and in the industry forced them to focus on maintaining the organization in a more or less stable position. The current situation requires super-efforts to transfer the state of stagnation into an evolutionary process. Whether the candidates are ready for such efforts, whether they see the purpose and ways of applying these efforts, we will find out only during the conference.
Not everyone was ready to present their programs during the "round table", but even in the brief summaries of their keynote speeches, it seems to us, the motives and main "areas of attention" of the candidates are reflected. We will give quotes from the speeches of the participants in the meeting in the same order as they followed at the round table.
Pavel Andreev. Head of Workshop No. 14 Mospracta-2 named after M. V. Posokhina. Vice President of the Union of Architects of Russia. 54 years old
“We have recently witnessed two electoral processes, in both of which the election of the president became a kind of final, culminating point. Our elections are, on the contrary, the beginning of a process, the beginning of changes that are important enough for the Union's domestic and foreign policy. Over the past four years, I served as vice-president of the Union of Architects of Russia, where I got acquainted with the Union problems and formed my vision of our social activities.
It is shared with me by the small team that Alexei Vorontsov gathered in the presidium of the Union of Architects of Russia. These are people with whom I studied at about the same time, with whom I am friends and with whom I am united by a similar way of life, which has shaped us as active members of society, who have the experience and strength to implement our plans. The most important thing in our program: the Union of Architects has been and remains an organization that unites all architects in Russia, and reforming the Union of Architects into a self-regulatory organization is a long way to a legal form that will allow us to adequately respond to the changing situation in the country. How to do it?
We all have to understand this. Ahead are consultations with lawyers, who also ambiguously assess the adopted law and consultations, I do not want to hush up anything here, with authoritative and power structures, in order to understand how they are ready to cooperate with us in implementing our decisions. The reform will take place not only at the expense of the actively working part of the union, which makes up about a third of its members. This, as they said at the time of our youth, is the vanguard of our workshop and it is they who earn the money that everyone needs so much.
The rest: students, recent graduates and, of course, people who, due to their age, have already departed from practice, who are able and willing to serve the common cause, cannot be excluded from the renewal process. We must build a system capable of regulating the activities of all members of the union and realizing their potential. This will help establish the rules of the game that will make this alliance truly indispensable for all of its sectoral interest groups.
It should be a single union that can expand its scope by registering absolutely all certified architects and, as its main functions, ensure the professional interests of its members and monitor the quality of services (for example, through certification) provided to consumers, the main one of which is is society and the state. We are not only experiencing processes of internal growth, but also the difficulties of entering the global system of economic relations. There are international standards, there are a large number of our colleagues from other countries with whom we will interact in one way or another.
Therefore, the problem of protecting the market, so that we, our children and young colleagues would not be left without work and serve only "local architects", should become one of the priorities. Your work needs to be defended. I repeat once again that, in my opinion, the conference today will have not so much a choice of a specific candidate as a choice of a path."
Sergey Kiselev
General Director of OOO Architectural Workshop Sergey Kiselev and Partners. 54 years old.
“This will not be a program, but, if you like, an honest confession.
I must say that in childhood and adolescence I was a completely asocial type. But because of the unspent potential for public work, I took up youth problems, first at GIPRONII, and then at the Commission for Work with Young Architects at the Union of Moscow Architects. Over time, I became a member of the AHU Presidium, and then Vice-President.
For a long time, “hanging out” in the Moscow Union became a habitual occupation for me. But when Dmitry Lukayev, before his death, quite unexpectedly for me, asked me to take the Union, I was dumbfounded. I did not measure myself and the Union at all and could not take this request seriously. Only when Viktor Nikolaevich Logvinov himself, whom I considered most worthy of this position, himself asked me to nominate my candidacy, I broke down. I still remember the horror of the three days I lived with the thought that I would lead this organization. As a result, I managed to "self-catapult".
Viktor Nikolaevich took the reins into his own hands, and I became vice president and went to meetings every Thursday. These meetings remained in my memory as a time, how to say, without offending anyone, which was not sufficiently fruitful. The prospect of spending another 4 years like this made Evgeny Viktorovich Ass and me at the next plenum of the AUA board ask to withdraw us from the Presidium members. And the position of a "convinced refusenik" was firmly entrenched in me.
As a result, by now I have developed a rather frivolous attitude towards the Union of Architects. I stopped understanding a lot and, above all, my role in the Union. Why am I to the Union, it is more or less clear, but why do I need a Union? I do not want to say that I have outgrown and look at this organization from the top down, not from the bottom up, as I looked 8 years ago. This is not the point. I am already torn, doing badly what I do at work. I just don't have time. And then there's the Union. Well, why do one more thing badly? In response, I often hear such remarks: “The Union helped you in due time. Working with young people, you grew at the expense of the Union. These trips to America with Platonov. Without the Union, you would not go there. How would your career go then? Debts must be repaid."
And on some sunny day I thought what could shake life up? I am already 54. It seems that everything is there: there is a workshop, there is work, even a villa. Do not need anything. Maybe it's time to "pay back"?
At this point, talk began that my candidacy, which did not belong to either of the two groups, would suit everyone, ensuring the integrity of the Union, which is so important for us. After all, there are so few of us, and there are many tasks. Who will decide them?
When Vorontsov's team expressed a desire to work, it was such a relief for me. There were people who agreed to take on this overwhelming burden, which I absolutely should not take on. Now, it's much more important for me to focus on my creative work.
Consider this a public rejection. I will not run, although, I confess, at some point I felt that I could. If I am needed, I am ready to pay back "my debts."
Victor Logvinov.
President of the Union of Moscow Architects. 59 years old.
“I completely agree with the words of Pavel Andreev about the need for the continuity of the Union. I recall the thesis expressed by Dmitry Lukayev, who became for me the leading one as president of the Union of Moscow Architects: "the union should be necessary for everyone." I believe that we have not deviated one iota from this principle.
The same can be said about the veterans to whom we provide and will continue to provide assistance. And about young people, who are now just pouring into the union. Youth actions are held in a huge number: actions, festivals of the "City", contests, evenings; and they are all created around the union.
If you remember, 8 years ago the union was in a much more serious condition. Both financially and organizationally. And now the union is stable, prosperous and quite authoritative.
All this is the result not of words, but of concrete deeds that the Board has dealt with on a weekly basis. Solved problems, boring, uninteresting, with arguments.
Being the president of the union is a thankless job. To come here every day and sort out complaints, help those who ask for help, find reserves, resolve economic issues, I, frankly, would not wish anyone. There is no power in the union, no money. And I am somewhat incomprehensible to the incredible desire of my colleagues to take this place. If I had the opportunity, I would have gotten rid of this burden long ago. And I would pass it on to the same Sergey Kiselev or to several other decent people whom I could entrust this post to in order to preserve continuity.
I am very frightened by the reckless desire to enter into self-regulation, to disrupt the fragile stability that has developed in the Union, to disrupt the fragile balance of forces and human relations, to disrupt even the economic system of ensuring the Union. It is very dangerous. Now the union lives on 70-80% at the expense of its economic activities, which in a self-regulatory organization should be liquidated. In addition, we pin great hopes in terms of social assistance to veterans and youth on those organizations that the Union established and which, if self-regulated, will also need to be excluded from the Union.
That is why I decided to run again. I cannot surrender the Union now until I am calm. Let it be in a year or two. But now I cannot expose the Union to a real threat associated with the transition to self-regulation.
I feel on the part of my opponents a lack of understanding of the dangers laid like a time bomb in the Law on Self-Regulatory Organizations.
The creation of an SRO from legal entities is an absolutely decided thing. In order to be convinced of this, you need to read the Law on Amendments to the City Code, adopted by the State Duma in the first reading, which says that all legal entities involved in architectural and construction design must be a member of one of the self-regulatory organizations. No matter how we resent this, no matter how we say that this will lead to the division of the Union into two parts, it still remains a fait accompli. Only minor adjustments are possible in terms of creating a self-regulatory organization of individuals or introducing qualification attestations. We have only two possibilities: either we push away from the Union self-regulatory organizations from legal entities that are formed from our own workshops, or we lead this movement and try to interest them, attract them to the Union. And where is there any schismatic activity in which they are constantly trying to reproach me?"
Evgeny Olshansky
Director of the Central House of Architects. 70 years
“My speech will not be related to the topic of self-regulatory organizations. I am working on the Central House of Architects and will talk about it. We are here thanks to the decision of the Moscow Government in 1999, which gave us the opportunity to live in this building until 2014. What will happen next, I do not know.
In the decision of the Moscow Government, it is written that this building is transferred to us for free use (without rent) with the right to sublease and with the right to use these funds for the maintenance of the building (current and major repairs, etc.), without agreement with the Moscow Property Management Committee. We use someone else's property, we exploit it and are responsible to the owner for its safety.
As long as the current Moscow Government is in place, no one will touch us. If Luzhkov ceases to be the mayor, in the worst case, we will simply be kicked out, in the best case, they will be given the opportunity to rent this premises. But in the latter case, we will have to pay rent and not a small one. Let's count. The total area of the House is 6 600 sq. M. If we take the average rent in the center of Moscow, for example, $ 100 per square meter, then we will have to pay about 1.5 million rubles a month. We do not have such amounts today. All the money goes to the maintenance of the House, and there is also current and major repairs. At whose expense are they made? At the expense of the Union? Not. Over the past 8 years, the House has received from Moscow about 800 thousand dollars for current repairs. Who gave that kind of money? It was given by my friends: Glavmosstroy, Glavinzhstroy and other organizations that no longer exist today.
My summary is rather short: in order to solve the problems that will arise in 6-7 years, we must now create a strong team that could defend the interests of the Union and its House in the future."
Andrey Taranov.
Vice President of the Union of Moscow Architects. 67 years old
“I won't take much time, because everything that was possible to say on this topic has already been said by the previous speakers.
To the extent that over the past 10 years, I have been working in the team of Viktor Nikolaevich Logvinov, I have been preaching absolutely the same point of view, the position regarding the Union, which he just spoke about. I think it makes no sense to repeat it.
The only thing I would like to add is that if I were elected President of the Union of Moscow Architects, I would pay much more attention to the problems of relations with the Central House of Architects. It seems to me that they got out of control, due to a number of circumstances, and the gorge that is constantly growing between the two closest neighbors is wrong. I believe that every effort should be made to ensure that the House returns to the fold of the Union, as it was originally intended, as it was simply. Because making a club with large membership fees out of the House of Architects, as Yevgeny Olshansky suggests, is not a solution to the problem. There are a dime a dozen such clubs in Moscow. What will happen then to the remaining thousands of architects who are not able to pay the large membership fees? The house should not belong to the wealthy elite, but to everyone. And it seems to me that in order for the house to exist as I see it, it must return to the Union."
Epilogue
We deliberately do not comment on the candidates' speeches. Firstly, because we do not consider ourselves entitled to influence potential voters, and secondly, because, in our opinion, the speeches themselves are quite eloquent and transparent. They have everything that is needed to assess the situation in the Union of Moscow Architects and around the Union. The rest will be decided tomorrow, when the remaining four candidates will speak to the participants of the XVI report-election conference of the AU with their detailed programs, on the basis of which the voting will take place.
We hope that such a dramatic plot will culminate in a worthy ending and tomorrow evening we will be able to present to your attention the next President of the Union of Moscow Architects.
