Foreign architecture came to Russia. Actually, it was almost always created here in one way or another. Among the iconic structures built in Russia by foreigners, the Assumption Cathedral (Aristotle Fiorovanti), the Peter and Paul Cathedral (Domenico Trezzini), St. Isaac's Cathedral (Auguste Montferrand), the Bolshoi Theater and Manege (Osip Bove), the Alexandrinsky Theater (Carlo Rossi), the Smolny Institute are widely known (Giacomo Quarenghi), Centrosoyuz (Le Corbusier) and many others.
Today, more than ever in the world, there is much talk about architecture. Unusual shapes of buildings, construction of new cities, environmental projects and new records for high-rise construction … In Russia (and in such developing countries as China and India), there is an increasing concern about another topic - the role of foreign architects in the design of the most prestigious private and public orders. Russians have the right to think. Will this trend lead to the loss of centuries-old layers of the local cultural context? Are foreign architects, some of whom have never been to Russia or are here for a fleeting way, capable of creating spiritualized, and not soulless, albeit brilliant projects? Will the import of design ideas lead to the erosion of one's own ambitions in architecture? And finally, won't the new symbolic buildings proposed by Western architects diminish the dignity of Russia as an independent intellectual power?
Among the foreign architects practicing today in Russia are the stars of the first magnitude. The uninitiated still have to understand the difference between such architectural movements as modernism, postmodernism and deconstructivism, but now Russians know the names of the British Norman Foster and Zaha Hadid, the Frenchman Dominique Perrault and the Dutchman Eric van Egerat. All of them are building important urban and cultural complexes that will become symbols of the new Russia in the coming years.
That is why, in the Russian pavilion of the XI Architectural Venice Biennale, Russian projects of foreign architects are widely represented along with projects of the best Russian architects.
I discussed this interesting feature of the forthcoming exhibition with some foreign architects practicing in Russia. They invited me to their workshops in New York and London, where we talked about the Russian experience of architects, their vision of modern Russia, about the influence of the Russian school on their work, about what Russians should learn from foreigners, and in general about architecture, so different and incomprehensible. It should be noted right away that these foreigners are a very motley group of architects, and it would be wrong to simply divide the exposition of the Russian pavilion into ours and not ours. Thus, New York architects Thomas Lieser, Rafael Vignoli and Gaetano Pesce were born and raised outside the United States, while practitioners in London, David Adjaye and Zaha Hadid, were far from the UK. However, the works of these architects are part of the culture of the countries where they live and practice today. I would like their buildings in Russia to become an integral part of the national heritage of Russia. There is no point in opposing some architects to others. After all, they all work for the good of Russia, and this is the main thing.
Grigory Revzin, curator of the Russian pavilion, decided to arrange architectural models of Russian and foreign projects on a huge chessboard. It seems that such a symbolic game is played not by architects and not by the countries they represent, but by real circumstances and forces - bureaucratic, social, urban planning, market, ambitious, patriotic, and so on. Architectural models, like chess pieces, advance, retreat, move diagonally, castle, queen or even leave the field, personifying the rapidly changing landscape of modern landscaping in Russia.
In recent years, a lot is being built in Russia. All over the country, and especially in the capital, there is a big construction boom. The vast majority of projects are carried out by local architects, and only a small proportion are made by foreigners. However, the ratio of the projects presented at the exhibition - 50 to 50 - indicates that there is serious concern in Russia about the excessive role of foreigners in construction. Rather, this concern is not related to their share of participation, but to the fact that it is the foreign bureaus that have received many of the most prestigious orders in the country. Norman Foster is building the tallest building, the Russia Tower, and is preparing a project for the reconstruction of the Museum of Fine Arts. Pushkin and rebuilds New Holland in St. Petersburg. The second stage of the Mariinsky Theater will be built according to the project of Dominique Perrault. Nicholas Grimshaw won the tender for the construction of Pulkovo Airport, Riccardo Bofill - for the Congress Palace in Strelna, Chris Wilkinson - for the reconstruction of the Apraksin Dvora complex, Thomas Lieser - for the Mammoth Museum in Yakutsk, RMJM - for the tower of Gazprom headquarters Okhta Center”. The largest business center in Europe, Moscow City, is being built up by Americans and Europeans, and not a single Russian architect is involved in one of the largest urban planning projects in Moscow - Park City.
Should I be seriously worried about this situation? Rafael Vignoli believes that “the question is not whether the architects are foreigners or not, but whether they are good craftsmen. A good architect can work anywhere, because he will not come to a new place with a ready-made project that was successful or was rejected elsewhere.” Perhaps this is one of the most important statements of the current discussions. Russians are more likely to benefit from a quality product than from the patriotic awareness that this or that object was created by a Russian architect. “Ideas are born, circulate, move to new places, and often become an integral part of a particular culture. The main thing is to share and exchange ideas, and if the best ideas come from abroad, so what to do about it? You need to accept them. These words belong to the youngest participant in the exposition of foreigners' projects in the Russian pavilion, 42-year-old Briton David Adjaye. This opinion is consistent with the situation in the world. All over the world, the fantasies of foreign architects are often more attractive than the proposals of local architects.
The competition for the construction of the Pompidou Center in Paris was won by the tandem of Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers (Italian and British), the reconstruction of the Reichstag in Berlin was carried out by Norman Foster (British), the Sydney opera house was designed by Jorn Utzon (Dane), many buildings in London's Canary Wharf built by American financial companies on projects of American architects, and Daniel Libeskind (Pole) won the competition for the restoration of the World Trade Center in New York. Today, according to his general plan, the city ensemble is being raised according to the projects of Europeans, Americans, Japanese, and Israelis.
Why abandon this approach in Russia? My interlocutors drew attention to a fairly wide range of circumstances that objectively arouse the need for Russians to cooperate with foreign masters.
The irresponsible policy in architecture and construction, pursued for decades in the USSR, led to the collapse of architecture. In this dramatic situation, architects had to adapt to the limited possibilities of typical panel construction. Non-standard projects have become the rarest exception. There was no variety of materials. No attention was paid to the commercial side of architecture. The country has not accumulated experience in designing special types of buildings. This refers to skyscrapers, airports, shopping centers, modern hospitals, aquariums, amusement parks, stadiums, townhouses, environmental and other projects. Therefore, prestigious projects are ordered by foreigners. This ensures the modern level of such structures. Participation in projects of local forces is highly desirable, but they are not always ready for the level of today's design. In the West, a young specialist who comes to a bureau is surrounded by professionals with twenty to thirty years of work experience. In Russia, 20-30 years ago, they did a completely different architecture, and 15 years ago they did little at all. This frightening generation gap, of course, does not in the best way affect the upbringing of a worthy replacement.
However, sometimes there is no one to order not only airports, but also something more modest in Russia. Only about 12 thousand architects are now practicing in the country, three thousand of whom are located in Moscow and St. Petersburg. With the modern volumes and complexities of construction, this is negligible. According to the American magazine "Design Intelligence", in 2007 30 thousand architects were practicing in the UK, 50 in Germany, 102 in the USA, 111 in Italy, and 307 thousand in Japan. In Portugal of ten million, as many architects are practicing as in Russia!
Attention should also be paid to many other important factors of international cooperation. Famous architects, followers of different directions and schools, bring with them new ideas, attract new manufacturers of modern technologies and materials to Russia, which expands the capabilities of the local construction complex. This enriches the existing approaches to design, provokes discussion and response from Russian architects.
This medal, of course, has another side. Leading architects today cannot do without new horizons, without countries such as Russia. Star architects such as Foster, Hadid, Koolhaas, Gehry, Libeskind and Calatrava are constantly surfing the world in search of the most ambitious projects. They are cramped within the boundaries of their cities and countries. There are not many places in the world that could afford to commission more than one project from each of these eminent architects. But in their offices dozens of orders are being designed at the same time. David Adjaye explains: “I am more of a wandering architect. Like my other colleagues, I follow the emerging economic opportunities in the world that bring me into contact with new customers, or rather patrons of my creativity."
The higher the reputation of an architect, the more first-class professionals from all over the world seek to get a job from him. Norman Foster's office employs architects from 50 countries. A Russian architect participating in an international competition understands that he is opposed by the best combined teams in the world. Winning such a confrontation is like winning the jackpot. Therefore, Russia needs comprehensive transformations - opening international branches of leading bureaus, exchanging advanced knowledge, technologies and resources, participating in joint projects, attracting foreign designers and engineers to local offices, and professors and students in universities. It can be argued that the participation of foreigners in Russian projects leads to widespread development of the wealth and diversity of world architecture. This should ensure that Russian architects enter the world market in the near future, and their participation in projects abroad.
The business world has its own reasons. The more famous the name of the architect, the less money you need to spend on advertising the project. Even if Foster fails to create masterpieces in Russia, they will say that what he will build, they will say, was built by the famous Foster, the author of the glass dome over the Reichstag and the Millennium Bridge over the Thames. The participation of a renowned foreign architect attracts investors. If a master has created a first-class and profitable project in Berlin and London, then it is believed that in Moscow he will most likely be successful. In some cases, the implementation of projects is impossible without the participation of stars. The stars are forgiven a lot. With their help, you can rebuild a lot. Here's an example. When Hirst Publishing Company decided to add a tower over a historic building in New York, it was clear that only the involvement of an internationally renowned architect would convince heritage defenders and other conservative organizations of the project's merits. A banal environmental architecture would not pass here. There are no real world stars in Russia yet. So they have to be written out, like fashion brands from abroad.
Another reason why Russian developers prefer foreigners is named by Grigory Revzin. He believes that "the standard of business of our architects does not match the standard of our businessmen." In other words, customers who can afford it prefer to do business with professional offices located in a stylish office somewhere in London's Battersea or Islington, with clear notions of contractual obligations, a strong record-keeping culture and, of course, solid experience in quality design. It's more expensive, but safer and more comfortable. It is known that when Jacqueline Kennedy was looking for an architect for the prestigious Kennedy Presidential Library, the choice fell not on the great Louis Kahn, but on the not so great, albeit outstanding, I. M. Pei. A significant role in this was played by the latter's ability to be a subtle diplomat and his ability to provide exceptional comfort to the customer. Which was the last thing for Kahn. The Presidential Library was far from the only project that “floated away” from it to weaker competitors.
Many of the architects invited to Russia strive to invent their own unique architecture. In this they see the meaning of their creativity. Competition requires architects to continuously search for new answers to our time, specificity of place, cultural context and many other factors. “Good design is a commentary on today's life. This is not just an expression of form and style, but a reflection of what is happening in everyday life. This is a commentary from the real world,”says Gaetano Pesce. And the Briton William Alsop says: “I got away from the idea of what architecture should be. My mission is to know what architecture could be.” This is the kind of experimental, not contextual architecture that the most ambitious customers want to get. Otherwise, who would think of ordering contextual architecture from a foreigner?
The theme of the XI Architecture Biennale, proposed by its curator, leading American critic Aaron Betsky, is Out There: Architecture Beyond Building. This vagueness in the definition of the theme allows different national pavilions to present their own interpretations. Becki himself, explaining the meaning of the exposition at a press conference in New York, commented on his idea in the following way: “Architecture is everything that is connected with buildings, but not the buildings themselves. We must not allow buildings to turn into graves of architecture. We are obliged to create such architecture so that it helps us to feel at home, to learn and define the world in which we live. Architecture should help us understand the ever-changing world. Therefore, it is not about buildings, but about what happens to us around them, next to, inside, outside, through them, what and how they frame, what they focus our attention on, and so on. In other words, the usual traditional compositional construction of monumental buildings no longer meets the complex modern relationship of a person with society and the environment. One should strive to create architecture free of buildings. Authentic architecture is hidden away from construction - in the landscape, environment, in the flickering of the disordered visual series of the city bustle, and so on.
To create such an interesting and unusual environment, it is necessary to involve different architects, practicing in different cities and having different experiences. The foreigner's commentary is especially curious about things that local architects overlook. So, quite unexpectedly, in the project of the Pulkovo airport, Nicholas Grimshaw has features that are not inherent in his high-tech architecture. In the folded design of the roof, fragments of knobs are guessed, encircling the domes of Orthodox churches. But in Grimshaw they are abstracted on a huge scale into a floating upside-down landscape painted in a noble golden color. This project demonstrates how location can influence an architect's vision. In St. Petersburg, expressive high-tech also acquires poetic, almost spiritual qualities.
Many Russian projects by foreign masters are created in a comprehensive and large-scale manner, significantly influencing the existing historical urban fabric. Such radical transformations, so characteristic of Russia today, must be carried out through competent planning based on international experience. At the same time, even the best ideas from all over the world cannot be brought to Russia. They need to be organically integrated into the specific local context.
We live in an amazingly interesting time. There are no chapels of dreams. There are almost no limits to what is possible. Already today, towers of one and a half kilometer height are planned in the world, cities with zero environmental pollution, with practically waste-free technologies, new environmentally friendly types of transport are being invented. The variety of materials, shapes and sizes is truly admirable. Imagine what wonderful cities you can build by rationally using the new economic opportunities of modern Russia, multiplied by international urban planning experience!
All foreign architects with whom I had a chance to talk, feel genuine pleasure from the opportunity to work in Russia. For them, this is a chance to create new, unusual architecture, often on an unusual scale, and sometimes in style. Zaha Hadid, who is working on three projects in Moscow - a private house, a business complex and a residential high-rise - said about her experimental bureau: “We work globally and would like to refrain from speculative influence on our architecture of local national characteristics. Any such speculation can only distract from our desire to express in architecture the essence of the modernity of the new city.” Here we are talking about working in different countries, as on training grounds for updating and expanding the architect's own repertoire. Do Russia need such projects of vanity?
I am sure they are needed! Russia needs projects by leading masters. They have something to offer - their unique visionary talent, the ability to create not just new sophisticated forms, but the conditions in which new forms of social life arise.
They think about this a lot, the minds strive for this, which set the tone in modern architecture. William Alsop, for example, in his reasoning calls for the construction of cities that hover above the ground. "The land," he says, "must be given to people in order to plant gardens on it."
Is this destined to come true in Russia? A garden of fantastic beauty - what a wonderful metaphor for a new city!
