It would seem that not so long ago, architectural competitions were held almost everywhere. In 2003, for example, when the project of the new building of the Mariinsky Theater was chosen during an international competition, the practice of open creative competition between Russian and foreign designers and public discussion of the resulting projects was at the peak of its popularity. But after several high-profile scandals (and the Mariinsky II, alas, played a key role here), the competitive theme began to lose its attractiveness and, first of all, for developers, on which, by and large, it depends on which way the architect will be chosen for the future. project. The last nail in the practice of Russian architectural competitions was driven by the law on public procurement, which established the rules for holding tenders. It is clear that when the main criterion for selecting a project becomes its cheapness, the concepts of artistic quality and originality are automatically removed from the discussion.
On the other hand, Russian architects are increasingly participating in international exhibitions, where their projects and buildings are highly rated. Let it not be about the first places and the grand prix, but not the last positions in the short lists and special prizes have become quite common for our designers. Examples include the success of Russians at the World Architecture Festival (WAF-2009) in Barcelona and at the Leonardo-2009 youth festival. And Totan Kuzembaev's victory in the Dedalo Minosse competition with projects for the PIRogovo resort became a notable event in the life of the community and a reason for a large-scale presentation of the project, the program of which also included a round table organized with the participation of the Union of Architects of Russia and the Baltic Architectural Center.
The round table at the Central House of Arts gathered an unprecedented number of participants for such events. More than 40 people came to it, and all of them were key players in the Russian competition business or winners of various international shows, and everyone had something to say. And this is understandable: now, during the crisis, when architectural bureaus are sorely lacking orders, the lack of properly organized competitions is felt by the professional community especially painfully. Unfortunately, this greatly affected the course of the discussion itself: an attempt to simultaneously discuss the situation with the participation of Russians in international shows and the practice of holding open and closed competitions in Russia led to such a multipolarity of opinions that it was not possible to proceed to discussing any constructive proposals. … The discussion either went into the jungle of cause-and-effect relationships, pushing developers by all means to avoid a competitive system for selecting projects, then jumped to personal reasons for the non-participation of some architects in any kind of reviews. What really became evident during the roundtable was an acute lack of opportunities for communication within the architectural community and, as a result, the absence of even a hint of mutual understanding and any common professional position on the most important workshop issues. The inability to conduct a dialogue and jointly seek a compromise several times even turned into a tense exchange of views between the participants in the meeting.
The foreign guests present at the round table - the organizers of the Dedalo Minosse award Roberto Treti and Marcella Gabbiani, as well as representatives of Latvia - the chief architect of Riga Janis Dripe, architects Alexei Biryukov and Janis Alksnis, the head of the Baltic Architecture Center Aivia Barda, unwittingly poured oil on the fire. The creators of Dedalo Minosse, a competition in which an architect shares an award with his client, talked about how this concept can (and really does!) Influence the relationship between designers and their clients, increasing mutual trust and respect. And the Latvian colleagues shared their extensive experience of participating in a variety of competitions - from state, such as the project of the new building of the Riga Concert Hall, and municipal, for example, the competition for the building of the Jurmala City Hall or kindergarten, to private. It turned out that in Latvia this method of solving architectural problems is considered the norm, and every developing bureau takes part in dozens of such reviews every year, which presuppose obtaining the right to design and build an object.
Against this background, Russian architects could only state, to put it mildly, the not brilliant situation with competitions in our country. To many, it seems so hopeless that all attempts to turn the conversation into a constructive channel inevitably ended in hypothetical reflections in the subjunctive mood. “Now, if the state passed laws encouraging customers to hold tenders …” “Now, if customers understood what high-quality and beautiful buildings they can build as a result of the tender …” “Now, if society realized its strength and realized its democratic potential, demanding variability in addressing key issues of urban development and reconstruction …”On this quite Gogolian note, the round table ended.
And yet, one cannot say that the three-hour discussion was wasted. No matter how pessimistic the general situation may look now, the architectural community is able to change it. And holding such public consultations is the first step towards change. It remains to be hoped that the conversation about competitions that has begun will become the subject of the most wide-ranging discussion for the entire architectural community.
