The foreign part of the Biennale's exposition was intended to show domestic architects, developers and officials how to solve the problem of mass housing: avoiding a drop in quality - both construction and architectural - and giving out the required amount of square meters per year to people. There were enough options for specific solutions: expositions of 14 architectural firms from around the world were supplemented with a separate stand in Madrid and a slideshow dedicated to the most interesting new and renewed cities in Europe in terms of housing construction. If we omit the last part of the exhibition, which, due to technical features, was difficult to read, its first two sections showed two sides of mass - and ideally social, accessible - residential architecture.
In the case of Madrid, which, along with Barcelona, is considered one of the most advanced megacities in the world in this area (especially in terms of reconstruction and new construction of residential areas), the exhibition showed "star" exercises on the topic of affordable housing: it seems to have bypassed everything architectural magazines "Mirador" complex of the MVRDV workshop and the development of the Carabanchel and Usera districts, where, along with Spanish architects, FOA, Ville Arets and Tom Maine worked. These buildings are striking in their imaginative structure, these projects include witty solutions and attractive "gestures", but their main difference from the second part of the International Pavilion program is in the status of their authors. That is, apparently, this selection of projects should break the prevailing stereotype that classifies the design of mass housing as uninteresting, often purely technical, and unworthy of "successful" architects.
The exhibition of works by fourteen specially invited foreign participants (the exposition of projects of the 15th, Edouard François, did not have time to open the Biennale in the Central House of Artists) develops the "Madrid" theme. Here are some of the architects who have made tangible personal contributions (sometimes theoretical rather than practical) to the design of mass housing.
Most of them are really excellent craftsmen, whose projects sometimes amaze: after all, making very interesting from the point of view of an architectural solution, functional and attractive buildings with that meager budget, which, as a rule, is provided by the state in such cases is simply a feat. In such cases, you have to save on everything (including the expressiveness of the building's appearance) - and in any country of the world, the result is often something similar to Soviet sleeping areas: if not "Khrushchevs", then typical buildings of the turn of the 1970s - 1980s -s. But the exhibition in the portico of the Central House of Artists proves that with a truly creative - and responsible - approach, all these "unfortunate circumstances" can be overcome. This inspires optimism, like any proof of the unlimitedness of human capabilities, but this is where the positive emotions evoked by the pavilion end.
The point is that it is rather difficult to draw any useful conclusion from the works of the "exhibitors" for the Russian situation: they are too diverse. For example, in terms of cost: along with projects of truly "social" (albeit by Western European standards) housing, one can see the works of architects, clearly designed for well-to-do people: closeness to nature, as in the "Helamaa and Pulkkinen" complexes, or a romantic fascination with the past like Krier - Kohl is very rarely affordable. The British “Proctor & Matthews” demonstrate another variation of the typically Anglo-Saxon “suburbia”, and Yves Lyon, undoubtedly an honored urban planner and urbanist, has somewhat lost his individuality in details with the extraordinary scope of his projects.
However, the projects of most of the presented workshops command only respect, but they offer many different ways of solving the “housing problem” in Russian cities at once; it turns out to be very difficult to choose the right one, and the curator is not going to help the audience in this.
I'd like to follow the path of the Austrians "Baumschlager Eberle" or the Danes BIG: their options for social housing are very attractive and thought out to the smallest detail. But the budget for the implementation of these projects clearly exceeds the average Moscow indicators, not to mention other cities.
The visitors of the Biennale are also presented with an obviously more affordable version of the Ofis Slovenes: their working conditions are closer to those of Russia, if only for historical reasons. But it is difficult to compare the scale (and needs) of Slovenia and Russia, although housing projects from this workshop can well be attributed to the most interesting examples of architecture of the early 21st century, regardless of typology and geography.
Also, Stefan Forster works in a similar historical point of view from the domestic setting, presenting at the Biennale his projects for the reconstruction of the dilapidated housing stock of the German city of Leinfeld, which was previously in the territory of the GDR. From painfully familiar typical five-story buildings, he made bright residential complexes with updated facades, courtyards and, most importantly, the layout of apartments. It used the fact that Leinfeld, the former important industrial center of East Germany, is a "waning" city, so there are many empty apartments and even houses, which gave Forster room to maneuver. Perhaps this would be an ideal solution for many cities in Russia, if not for the eternal financial problem: what the FRG can afford is not always possible for the Russian Federation.
It is with regard to material resources that the example of Chile seems curious: the "center of action" Elemental, led by its director, the wonderful young neo-modernist architect Alejandro Aravena, is actively solving the problem of housing shortages and the displacement of slum dwellers. The scheme of modular two-story houses developed by them is very ingenious and has stood the test of time. Simultaneously with the Moscow Biennale, it is now being demonstrated at the Triennale in Milan, among a selection of projects for temporary housing for regions affected by natural disasters. But this is precisely where the difficulty lies: this project is nothing more than a fortified version of a "change house" or a summer house, which is poorly suited for countries with continental and sharply continental climates.
Summing up this undoubtedly instructive exposition as part of the Moscow Biennale of Architecture, one can only notice that, as usual, we will have to go our own way: “calling the Varangians” in this case will obviously not solve the problem. But maybe this is not a bad thing: we have enough talented architects, and if any of them wants to compete in the design of social housing with foreign colleagues, it will be a win-win situation for everyone.
