I remember the stagnant Soviet era. Stagnation in everything - and in architecture. The profession is in complete decline. On the rails of industrial housing construction, endless circulations of typical houses go. The architectural workshop is going through a deep depression. Architects emigrate to foreign countries and related professions. Those who remain faithful to their share drink and dream of a miracle. About the fact that instead of a soulless, anonymous, faceless customer in the person of the state machine, guided by stupid norms and rules, a living person will appear - with his own character, desires, ideas. This new customer will be a bright and distinctive person and he will need the same bright and original architecture.
We were lucky - a miracle happened! Before our eyes, a change of formations took place, which entailed the arrival of a market economy and new customers, the very ones made of flesh and blood. And what?
In Soviet times, the country was guided by the principle that new construction is carried out according to a single plan, which in the form of directives, laws and strict regulations should solve all problems of urban development. This approach somewhat discredited itself back in the 70s and 80s. Today's realities upset its very possibility. Under capitalism, the city turns into a kind of "playing field" where many forces operate, the vector of interests of which is directed in completely opposite directions.
The main players are divided into three camps - architects, customers, authorities. First of all, it depends on them what the new architecture will be and what direction the process of urban development will take. There is also, of course, the urban community, but in Russia it has practically never decided or decides anything. Customers, in turn, represent a rather complex and fragmented camp. There are state customers who are developing federal and municipal budgets, there are customers who grew out of Soviet SU (construction departments), UKS (capital construction departments) and all sorts of other things - Stroy, privatized after Perestroika, and, finally, there are private investors investing in construction your own money. These latter most often come with a close connection with developers, or they are both developers and investors in one person, that is, the most active participants in urban development, which is unthinkable without bright charismatic personalities.
The short history of domestic development has at least 3 stages. The first, "crazy" stage arose simultaneously with the perestroika reforms as private initiatives of enterprising people who worked mainly with other people's money and solely on enthusiasm, intuition and personal charm. Of course, it was not without criminal elements, all sorts of errors, abuse and violations. But the main result of their activities was optimistic - it became obvious to everyone that this type of business in Russia is promising and interesting to investors. The second stage, at the end of the 90s, is characterized by the emergence of large development structures, many of which are beginning to integrate with administrative resources to one degree or another. This is manifested in the combination of budgetary and private financing in the construction of large facilities, and in the personal public or private participation of officials in the activities of corporations, and in lobbying for certain interests. Meanwhile, the third stage has already begun - the time of powerful corporations, acquiring ever new functions, and striving to divide urban territories into zones of influence. Investment and development companies are not just players, they are a real force that raises the market. Today there is hope for a stable interaction of the "players", which, in fact, is the main sign of the transition from the "bazaar" to the market.
Rules of the game
No game is without rules. The absence or indistinctness of the rules turns it into chaos, where one-day winners seem to appear at short distances, but, by and large, everyone loses - wasting time and driving themselves into dead ends. As a result, the city suffers. Thus, the design of roads connecting the east and west of Moscow bypassing the historical center faced a difficult problem: places where it is possible to arrange multi-level interchanges have already been built up with commercial housing. This means that one of the real measures to solve the transport problem requires unrealistically high costs for the purchase of real estate, that is, it is not feasible in the near future.
The main problems of the market are the lack of long-term prospects in decision-making, the low level of private interests, and the ignorance of the interests of society.
In theory, the rules should be formulated by the authorities, based on the recommendations of professionals - urban planners. However, the only tool left to us as a legacy from the Soviet era - general planning - loses its meaning under market conditions: there are not only guarantees, but also real levers to fulfill its prescriptions. General planning implies the creation of ideal models of the urban environment, which is typical for authoritarian social systems. Today it declares its desire to build a dialogue with the owners about the development of cities, however, in the absence of a single concept of urban development, a single “game” does not work - someone plays checkers, and someone plays rugby. It is obvious that there are no chess players among the "players" yet - there are practically no strategic decisions that take into account long-term urban planning prospects. The entire experience of the post-perestroika development of Russian cities is built on satisfying the momentary interests of the participants in the game, spurred on by the psychology of “short money”. Hence the accidental development of free or specially liberated territories, and a sharp lag in the development of transport and road communications from commercial construction, and a total reduction in the historical environment, public spaces, and environmental resources.
An interesting example: in Moscow, all of a sudden, large firms began to buy up industrial territories inside the city. Mayor Yuri Luzhkov was very indignant: who is to blame for buying up so many urban areas? An internal investigation was announced. It turned out that the General Plan was “to blame”. Investors have learned this document very well and are buying up territories intended for reorganization. While the city had to leave these lands for itself for the development of its own needs.
It is quite obvious that time requires new tools for intensifying and regulating urban planning processes. The developed capitalist countries have long abandoned general planning and moved to the development of urban development strategies at the level of architectural design. They solve urban problems, relying on specific projects with the aim of linking the interests of all participants in the urban planning process, defending the interests of the city. The stronger the city authorities are, the higher the decision-making horizon, based on the needs of society.
It seems that advanced development corporations, headed by sufficiently young, smart and ambitious people, could act as full-fledged and effective partners in the implementation of urban development strategies, as is the case in the West. It is no coincidence that the scale of their construction projects is growing and reaching the urban planning level more and more. Today they are already discussing the possibility of building new cities.
However, in the absence of strategic planning, as well as of specialists - carriers of the new urban planning thinking - it is difficult for architects and developers to think about the prospects for urban development. The architect's consciousness narrows down to solving the design problem within the framework of the object. The developer's consciousness is a priori aimed at fulfilling his own business plan. The scale of the personality of both is suppressed by the need to fight for "one's own interest" - the game becomes shallow.
Only people with high civic consciousness, God-given talent or great ambitions try to go beyond linear interests and think about architectural quality. Are there many of them?
Architectural quality
An analysis of the quality of modern Russian architecture shows that almost everything that has reached the level of the world mainstream is done with private money. It is difficult to believe that a government structure can create something good. The larger the order, the higher the status of the customer, the more difficult the project is - there are more superiors and coordinating authorities, more interests of all sorts, in the last place pursuing the quality problem, weaker control over the development of funds for implementation. It is very difficult for an architect to resist this colossus. The concept of personal responsibility and interest is disavowed as a result. This happened, for example, with the metropolitan lines of the century, the so-called Grand Projects of Yuri Luzhkov - the Okhotny Ryad shopping center, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the reconstruction of the Bolshoi Theater, etc.
There is a chance for architecture when both the customer and the architect have an interest in life, courage and drive to participate in the game. Only self-interest can overcome the swamp of pernicious circumstances. Success largely depends on the ability of the client for team thinking, which the architect possesses by the nature of his “collective” profession. The personality of an architect - a professional who knows how to form a new living environment, and a priori striving to do this at the limit of his capabilities, is simply obliged to set the ideology of this cooperation. However, the developer-customer is always the master of the situation. Many brilliant projects have failed because of the greed and shortsightedness of partners. Nevertheless, there are many positive examples. The “couples” turned out to be very effective, where the architect and the client became like-minded people who won the battle for the quality of the project and its implementation - they are, first of all, exhibited in the Russian pavilion at the Biennale.
In an unscheduled economy, nothing happens without a developer. The foreign term in translation sounds like "developer". There is no such word in the Russian language, the closest thing is “ascetic”, but it means selflessness. And a developer is a businessman who directs investment flows in order to make a profit. He is a mediator and an active participant in the accumulation of forces and the formation of structures necessary for new and new projects and their implementation, he achieves results from all participants in the process. This most important profession is not taught at the institute, but it's time. It is necessary to introduce a new specialization in the Moscow Architectural Institute or, at least, to open architectural courses for "advanced training of developers", the purpose of which is to instill in them an understanding of the nature of architecture, which will undoubtedly facilitate the process of interaction with architects. Expecting selflessness from a developer is a utopia. However, strategically accurate decisions force him to channel his energy, talents and resources in the right direction. Then he himself and his activities acquire high social significance and become vital to his city, region, country.
Today, Russia, which is one of the most active architectural and construction sites in the world, is faced with the task of building a competent disposition of "players" and the rules for their interaction. This requires neither more nor less - the introduction of a new urban planning consciousness aimed at developing strategic thinking in the choice of ways of urban development; the principled position of the authorities defending the interests of the city and its inhabitants; the possibility of a direct dialogue between professional architects and the authorities; and the upbringing of a new generation of developers - with a heightened sense of reputation and high civic consciousness.
