As far as I know, before the onset of the crisis, many Moscow architects were involved in supporting foreign projects. But for many, this cooperation was something auxiliary, like additional earnings - and not everyone tried to draw any conclusions and generalizations from the experience of communicating with foreigners. And to formulate for yourself what is the difference between Russian and foreign practice. All the more interesting is the story of Andrei Romanov, an architect who for two years had a chance to work with both "ordinary" foreigners (mostly British), and with Frank Gehry - who last summer designed a building at the intersection of the Garden Ring and Samotechnaya Street. The ADM Bureau provided support for this project.
It would seem that Moscow architects, who were fortunate enough to work with Frank Gehry, repeatedly visit his studio - not just like that, but on business - should be infected with the desire to try to design something such a "star". Not at all. According to Andrey Romanov, for the vast majority of projects, such a complex architecture is completely inappropriate. Moreover, the method of designing Gehry's workshop turned out to be so complicated and expensive to implement that already during the discussion of the project last summer it became clear that at the moment it is almost impossible to build such a unique building in Moscow, if only because there are no suitable contractors.
ADM architects, whose buildings were previously distinguished by restrained architecture, now (after comprehending the experience of working with foreigners of "different ranks") are even more striving for simplicity in combination with elements of Western design methodology. About what this technique consists in - our conversation with Andrey Romanov.
Julia Tarabarina, Archi.ru:
A year ago, you said that the period of cooperation between your studio and foreign architects should someday end - and now it ended, as I understand it, forcibly, due to the crisis?
Andrey Romanov, ADM:
I am pleased that this period was exactly what it was, and we can say that it ended on time, albeit forcibly. For two years we have worked with companies of different directions. We got different but useful skills. And it's good that the period ended on its own, because it would be difficult to voluntarily leave it.
How consciously did you start working with foreigners and what was the reason for this - commercial (to make money), professional (to learn from experience) - or both at once?
Both, of course. The commercial component, of course, was not in the last place. However, if this work was not interesting to us, then we would have immediately abandoned the first proposed project - a residential building on Stanislavsky Street. the construction of which, by the way, was recently completed.
How did you find foreign partners?
We received all joint projects from one customer - a well-known development company. We somehow immediately developed good relations with this customer and subsequently they offered to work with foreign colleagues.
This means that the customer chose the foreign partners
I cannot but note that when conducting tenders, the customers consulted with us too, respecting our opinion. It was interesting to look at the process through the eyes of the customer.
What was your part of the job - project support?
It depended on who we were working with at the moment. If we talk about John Mac Aslan, the cooperation there turned out to be creative, partnership. For example, we proposed alternative options for the facades of a house on Stanislavsky Street, one of which was adopted. We managed to establish an unusually constructive dialogue - everyone listened to each other, and from the proposed options they chose the one that suited everyone.
It often happened that we sat down together, applied tracing paper, drew sketches.
There was also work of a more technical nature. We finalized the project taking into account Russian standards, underwent an examination, made working drawings. So somewhere the work was more, somewhere less creative. But in all cases it was participation in the design process from start to finish, we were present at all discussions. This is very important for me - after all, foreign bureaus work in a completely different way than we are used to. We, one might say, before that did not know at all how, for example, office buildings should be designed.
And what are the differences?
There is a certain technology for designing office buildings. In the west, it is well developed. I think that only those companies that have worked with foreigners really know how to design a "core", shell-and-core, stairs … This is a definite technique until you go through it with someone who knows how to do it - you will not understand. Only after working and seeing the technology in the process. Not only having looked at someone else's plan once - but having gone through the entire discussion as a whole. After sitting in many meetings, and best of all, repeating at multiple sites.
In Russia, I must say, very few people use this approach at all - which is easy to notice, looking at many plans of the projected buildings.
Is it all verbal? After reading textbooks, it is impossible to master this technique?
We are not aware of such textbooks. The point is that design is a complex process. Each site has different problems, different solutions. “Reading in textbooks” is like learning English from a self-study guide. Someone, I heard, succeeded - but, of course, it is better to communicate with a native speaker. It's the same here - when you see how experienced people consistently solve all these problems - you absorb it much easier.
Further, abroad the very approach to design differs radically. From the earliest stage, many specialists are involved - consultants: marketers, engineers, designers. At the very first stage, an engineering concept and a constructive concept are necessarily made. There is a parallel work, discussion by all participants, lengthy workshops.
There is no such thing that the architect first independently, without consultants, draws a preliminary project, which immediately after approval becomes a dogma and from which one cannot retreat. When first one comes up with something abstract, and then the other tries to sell it to someone. Such a pre-project, unfortunately, is often born as a "big" architectural victory, which then ends in minor defeats, leading to an overall sad outcome. Many ideas collapse because they are not viable. Even experienced architects make mistakes easily. But these mistakes are easy to fix at an early stage - a few sketches are enough, which an engineer or designer can even make by hand. But on the other hand, the architectural concept gets a good base, which can then be developed to make the product of high quality.
Of course, having designed several buildings, architects can also guess where the technical rooms and so on should be. But the architect is often forgotten, and when there is a specialist nearby, he clearly does his job - he says: you did everything well, but do not forget that you will have a technical floor here. Or that the kernel should be arranged in this way. From the very beginning, the architect is accompanied, he is helped.
These are elements of professionalism. They are very important, although they are not always related to the architectural image - rather, to the quality of the product as a whole. But if the house is uncomfortable, it is still a defective house.
And yet, what has changed in the "architectural" part itself - philosophy, plastics?
I will try to formulate. Here the point, apparently, in our Russian architectural education: we are taught to "make masterpieces." This noble thesis is actually being embodied somehow wrongly - many architects strive to cram everything they know and everything that they have ever thought of into each of their houses. Monuments to themselves are often built. This leads to redundancy and taste problems. To acquire the ability to create a simple, stylish, clean facade - for this you need to turn your mind around a little.
In some situations, it is necessary to make an appropriate home, to get into the context exactly, to correspond to the function and the task at hand, finally. Make a beautiful home. Which does not mean that the house should be average and gray. It must be beautiful and appropriate. Don't try to make the house harder than it should be.
There is an element of humility in this …
Is it? No, I don't think that this is humility, it seems to me that this is an element of professionalism. After all, who is a professional? This is a person who always knows what he can and cannot. Without a creative search, of course, it is impossible, but the question is how to look and where to look. For each line drawn, you need to answer. If you are not sure that you can draw this line or that it must be drawn, then it is better not to draw it. You can call it any way you like, but I know for sure that if eighty percent of Moscow houses were trying to make them not more complicated, but simpler, it would be better.
You have experience of working, let's say, with various representatives of foreign architecture. On the one hand, with those who make the mentioned average quality level, on the other hand, there is an experience of communication with Frank Gehry. What's the difference between them?
Different tasks. Gehry doesn't design cheap office buildings. He just doesn't take on such tasks. There cannot be many like him. There are only a few of them.
Architects - "stars"?
Yes. In order to become a "star", you need, firstly, an innate talent, and secondly, you need to go through the "thorns". Then, when the task arises to make a masterpiece - for example, in a certain place you need a city-forming building, like a museum in Bilbao - you will approach this from completely different positions.
But if you are approached by people who want to earn their first money on some medium-sized construction, you do not need to try to make a very complex house. Because, firstly, it will not work - in the process of work everyone will try to cut you off. And if you make a stylish, beautiful facade, take the time to proportion well the simple windows - simple ones! If you draw well. You will not try to screw something, but simply - you will make a simple stylish home. To draw beautifully a simple thing is, in fact, difficult. And the task is quite worthy. The approach to designing such a house differs from the approach to designing a unique object. You need to invest a different level of ambition.
Almost all foreigners have a sense of taste, something instilled in it: either by the environment, or by education. After all, you open a magazine - and the difference between the facade painted by a Western man and ours is striking. I know for sure that this is not a question of giftedness - but just some kind of aesthetics associated with a sense of proportion and taste. It is with this, in my opinion, that there are problems in Russian architecture.
Is this related to our agreements?
It seems to me that the problem of approvals has long been a self-deception. When we were building a house on the Garden Ring in the early 2000s, there really was a directive: it was impossible to build modern houses in the center of Moscow. This was announced and imposed. It was very difficult to introduce modern style.
There is no such installation now. Officials began to see something pretty in modern architecture. There is some code, but this code is much weaker than before. Therefore, if someone says that the negotiation process spoils something, then these are either very weak customers, who themselves are afraid of everything, or simply an unconvincing architecture. Convincing modern architecture today is quietly being negotiated.
And yet, what did Gehry give you? How is it different?
He is different in everything. What he gave now is difficult to say, because he was my favorite architect for a very long time, almost from the third year to graduation, I studied his work. Then he specially went to see Gehry's buildings, not even knowing that he would have to work together.
How is it - Gehry's favorite architect, and now you set your mind on restrained and appropriate architecture?
The fact is that if you try to make a Gehry thing on an ordinary site and in a limited budget (that is, in conditions of 95% of orders), it will be funny. It's like trying to compare the Zaporozhets and the space rocket. They simply cannot be compared. If you attach rocket nozzles to the Zaporozhets, it will not be a rocket, it will be a caricature.
Some architects do this - they try to build something a la Gehry. I don't like all this. I believe that if there is a task to make a simple, beautiful and inexpensive office building, then it is better not to open Gehry's book at this moment.
Well, yes, Gehry works on public buildings …
He just has very different functions, there are hotels and offices, but these are always cases in which Gehry is needed. After all, this is also a product, the Americans understand it this way - a product of a different class: there is an economy class, there is a business, and there is a boutique. Boutique architecture. A special niche, not every developer is ready to build such an office, but only a certain percentage - they come to Gehry. Such architecture is much more expensive than an ordinary office building, here one must not only understand what is the essence of such a unique architecture, but also be ready to pay for it. Many people simply do not need this, the unique architecture of their business plan will not add anything. It is useless to arrange even a Zara boutique on the market in Belyaevo, no one needs it there. Just as it is useless to throw cheap jeans on the catwalk, no one will take them there. This is the market, architectural services are also a part of the market. We make a product, they buy it. And it must match the demand.
By the way, Gehry is also quite pragmatic in his approach. He came to the first presentation in Moscow with several architects and models from cubes. There were very diverse ideas, complex compositions that seemed unrealizable in our country. But before the project meeting took place, the customers took him to get acquainted with the leadership of our city. There he was told about the Moscow style, about Stalin's skyscrapers, he listened to all this and drew his own conclusions. Therefore, when they began to discuss the project in the customer's office, he broke a couple of layouts, then took it, put the cubes in a slide and said - this is how it would be best. If you want a skyscraper, here's a skyscraper.
Tell us more about Gehry. They say that architects, coming to work in his studio, make only models for three years
It's true. They come and make models for three years. This approach.
Did you have any desire to adopt this practice?
This does not contradict what we had in the workshop before - we always thought with models. We have always made them ourselves.
You used to have more styrofoam models in your workshop, but now wooden ones …
This is the result of communication not with Gehry, but with the British. After them, we began to make more cultural models, with windows and so on. It's just a better quality custom-made feed. Those customers with whom we work are important for them to see. They get used to this kind of presentation. When one day, instead of wood, they brought polystyrene, we were immediately told - where are our wooden models, we love them so much. For them, it is something like a toy.
Gehry's office, by the way, is very different from the English. English offices are prim, they don't make layouts themselves, but order.
Gehry's workshop is working with some unique computer program …
The program is called Gehry Digital platform, its prototype is aerospace development for designing missiles and ships. There is a Gehry digital company, they sell this program as a standalone product. Moreover, the contractors who work with Gehry also buy and master this program - he is happy to implement it, and says so, if you want Frank Gehry, then you also need this program. Architects provide contractors with files, a virtual model of the building, not flat drawings. Although, of course, everything you need can be printed.
Can this be viewed on a regular monitor?
Moreover, even on a regular computer. Outwardly, in terms of interface, it looks more like 3D-Max, but, unlike Max-a, all elements are "live", have parameters, as in Archikad. But if in Archikada the set of elements is standard, then everything is more flexible here.
I've been reading about this Gehry technology for a long time - it's known things. They first make a model, then scan it with a 3D scanner and look at the digital model. They print it out on a three-dimensional printer, correct it, stick something on it, scan it again, and so on several times - looking for a shape. Then engineers connect, drag through virtual pipes, taps, sockets - all this is there. Moreover, there are, for example, such specialists who, looking at what happens, can say that if you slightly correct the bend somewhere, then the number of atypical elements can be reduced by three times. This program is not only expensive, but it also requires very high qualifications from all participants in the process. Generally speaking, mid-level designers may not have the ability to work in this program. Only ten percent of specialists are generally able to confidently work with a complex three-dimensional model. All the rest - will only constantly make mistakes, it is easier for them to distribute flat drawings. This is a completely different world.
Another thing was that it was interesting to see this process in operation. There were, of course, also hopes - to get this program, to "run" it. But only to see, because it makes no sense to apply it in practice, since there are no contractors to whom the result could then be transferred.
By the way, when we were discussing who would build the Gehry building in Moscow, only one construction company timidly suggested that it might try. The rest did not even dare.
So how to build the Gehry building here was completely incomprehensible. We need special factories, special contractors. Our technical base will not allow it. So even if not for the crisis, it is unclear how this unique building would have been built in Moscow.
So, in general, what has the work with foreigners brought to you?
For us, as a young architectural firm, it was an invaluable experience. We have worked at very serious sites in the city and have gained very valuable connections and contacts. On the other hand, there are professional skills. We are now designing all our new objects based on a new, more pragmatic approach. In addition, we have learned how to correctly present our materials, which is very impressive for our customers. Plus, there has been a turn in mentality, which I consider important for myself.
Is the pivot a separation between “just quality” architecture and the architecture of the stars?
Understanding that other approaches are needed for row houses. That there are other aesthetic tricks to create a cool yet simple home. It was a period of architectural maturation for us. The inclination to active, if not to say aggressive, shaping for any reason, just for the sake of craving for self-expression, is no longer very relevant for us. We just try to make beautiful houses for people.
The approach to making a complex house where it is not needed is flawed. It is not so much bad in itself, but because it inevitably leads to failure.
That is, do you need adequacy?
Yes. You have to understand that a lot is worse than a little. Overkill can be worse than undershoot.
