"Close-up" is a relatively young company by architectural standards, which managed to develop and prove itself quite quickly - over 11 years - to start working with large projects, steadily present at Moscow and Russian festivals with projects and implementations; Last autumn, with the project of the shopping center in Tepliy Stan, the architects passed the qualifying stage of the WAF. The company has more than a hundred employees and a structure that is non-standard by modern standards: it consists of a balanced number of architects, designers and engineers, which allows you to take responsibility for a wide range of tasks and, in addition, to conduct projects in full, working through both creative and engineering sections., and illustrating ideas with attractive sculptural models.
Archi.ru:
I have seen the definition of "Close-up" as a full cycle architectural company. Could you somehow clarify this definition?
Sergey Nikeshkin:
"Close-up" is the general designer who leads the project from start to finish, from the birth of the idea and concept to the development of working documentation and architectural supervision of the construction. One of our main advantages is the use of the latest technologies, which allows us to implement the full cycle of design work as efficiently as possible.
Andrey Mikhailov:
We immediately realized that there are not many companies in Moscow in which the creative architectural component is complemented by an integrated approach to design. There are almost no or very few of them. On the one hand, there are individual architects' workshops, on the other, engineering companies that do not have their own architectural "face". Having united, we found our own successful niche - and our customers, for whom it is important not only to get a good architecture, but also not to collect subcontractors in the process of work throughout the country.
We ourselves worked with subcontractors for some time, but then we realized that it was unprofitable and inconvenient to outsource tasks; first of all, quality suffers. And they began to assemble a full-cycle company, which we have been for several years now.
When did you start working? I found two dates on the site, 2009 and 2011 …
We did not immediately come to the idea of a full-cycle company, at first we planned to work with two separate companies, engineering and architectural, and in August 2008 we created Stroyengineerproekt, which is, indeed, already 11 years old. But then, 3 years later, "Close-up" appeared, and it became the main one. We are both founders there and there.
Did you really start working on your own right after graduation?
S. N.: Not really, at first we worked at Format 100 for several years, where Andrey and I met. I am 6 years old, starting from the second year of the institute, my architectural skills and taste were formed in this bureau. We maintain warm relations with the manager - Elena Borisovna Alipova and remember that time with gratitude.
How did you get through the 2008 crisis? Many workshops then closed, and at that moment you were just starting, but resisted and grew into a large company
A. M.: We have always diversified customers, never worked with one or two. In addition to large companies, we worked with government orders and with private clients, which, as you know, are less subject to fluctuations. We are now adhering to the same policy.
But we did not always grow, there were small reductions, in 2015 we cut from 90 to 70 people, now there are about 140 of us.
How difficult is it to manage a company with more than 100 employees without losing quality? I heard that the optimal amount is 30-40, and if more, then you have to hack
S. N.: Not easy. But we have about 30-40 architects, and the named number of employees also includes engineers and designers.
A. M.: Yes, when the structure becomes too large, control is lost, which can affect both our immersion in each object and our relationship with customers, the ability to participate in all meetings. Now the number of employees is approaching the limit, we estimate it at 150 people or a little more. Then the work becomes bureaucratic, the ability to make decisions quickly is lost. So far, we are at the stage of controversy about further growth.
Approximately how many projects can you manage at the same time?
S. N.: Depends on the size of the projects. I think about 10-15 medium-scale projects, up to one hundred thousand meters. It is clear that they are stretched out in time, often it is not a year, but two or three years.
Your website states that you are working in BIM. Why did you decide to switch to it and how long did it take?
S. N.: We passed for about two years, hesitated for a while with the choice of the program, then we bought Revit, we believe that we did the right thing. In our opinion, BIM is the most effective just for a company like ours, where all employees work in the same state. But the industry is dynamic, it is necessary to constantly improve competencies, since the requirements of customers are growing very quickly, sometimes, I would say, they are overestimated in terms of labor intensity and detail. So that the project does not cease to be profitable, you have to monitor everything that happens quite sensitively, decide in which cases you need to work with detail, and where it is redundant and you need to argue.
About certificates LEED and BREEAM, did you manage to get them in any projects?
A. M.: So far, only in the Skolkovo facilities, in which we participated as an engineering company, we did the P and RD stages, after the completion of the construction, BREAM certificates were received. And for the university building
Skoltech, where we acted as a general designer.
Do you now take design sections separately or refuse such "piece" work?
Now, as a rule, we refuse, because it interferes with our work. We can take a project not from the beginning, for example, from stage P, but we do not take engineering sections without architecture, since we consider one of our advantages that all sections are linked with us. Everyone is sitting in the same room, they can approach each other, we have a very friendly atmosphere, we don't want to break it. We think that this may have a bad effect on our reputation and "karma". In addition, there is now a great demand for full-cycle work. For two years now we have been refusing to work with separate sections of other people's projects.
S. N.: In general, it is obvious that it is more convenient for the customer to work with a company where you can come at any time and discuss all issues with all the performers.
A. M.: Previously, when we did not have a full cycle, we often had to visit customers, and now they come to us more often. As a result, the meetings are very efficient.
The distribution of roles between you, the two leaders, is well known: you, Sergei, are an architect, you, Andrei, are an engineer. But how do you work and how you interact; Are you directors of two divisions and are you acting alone or in constant communication?
A. M.: We are two directors, we have been sitting in the same office all our lives. We planned to make a partition, but it never appeared - we realized that we didn't even need a glass one. I am responsible for the administrative and technical part, for the creative one Sergey. For the rest, we constantly communicate, we make all decisions together, we discuss, and this probably saves us from a lot of possible mistakes.
Sergei, then the next question for you is about creativity. How do you work with a project idea? Do you trust the visual solution to GAPs? In other words, how much is your workshop an author's, or is it similar to a design institute?
S. N.: In general, I do not mind if someone from the chief executive officers or architects proposes an interesting decision, to accept it, but so far I can’t say what happens … While the main decisions are on me. Perhaps, sometimes I would like to get closer to the second option, but basically so far the first is being obtained, with my significant participation.
But sometimes we arrange internal contests and brainstorming sessions - we announce a specific creative task, analyze proposals together, and make a decision by general vote. We assign bonuses. A useful experience, but alas, it is not always included in the final project. If I don’t like the proposal, then it will not go further, but it’s not so easy to get me to like it.
Are there any projects in which the ideas of an internal competition have taken root?
The most striking example is the velodrome. But I thought that the authors of the idea would be worried about the further development of the project, but this somehow did not happen, I had to defend the ideas of the concept and the quality of architecture, which was not easy, since the contract was state.
How often do you participate in contests?
In open, perhaps, since our airport project in Chelyabinsk did not win, and we are not participating. Not that this is a principled position, but looking at what was built there in the end, somehow the desire to participate disappears. In closed ones, at the invitation of customers - yes, without them it is impossible to work now.
In one we won relatively recently. It was a competition for an office center in Moscow. Now we are continuing to refine the project. We showed him at Zodchestvo. Part of the project is the reconstruction of a refrigerator building from the beginning of the 20th century, we keep it, but transform it in the loft key, cut through the windows, change the floors, add a food court. Behind it along the driveway are three office volumes. The project is called Beetle, from the word "beetle".
But here they did not win, they recently found out about it - a house in Kaloshin lane with terraces. Sorry I liked it.
Heard about your studio work, tell us about them, please. Are they part of the search for a form or rather a presentation of an established idea?
My wife and I love to live outside the city, we have a workshop there, we are interested in working with our hands, we make, in particular, furniture. And we like to make models ourselves from natural materials: wood, metal, fired and unbaked ceramics. These works do not participate in the search for a form. So yes, wrap up and presentation.
I saw at the exhibitions a model of the above-mentioned airport in Chelyabinsk, metal, with a sagging facade. How did his form come about and how does it appear in you in general?
It is important for me that the form is not random, that the meaning is embedded in it. In the concept of the Chelyabinsk airport, look: we have two portals, one depressed - it seems to respond to the flow of incoming departures, and the second squeezed out is the exit.
What objects do you consider to be key and important?
A project that I really like, which was shortlisted by WAF last year - a shopping center on Tepliy Stan. It seems to me that his solution turned out to be organic and contextual, corresponding to the trends in the development of modern architecture. Fortunately, there was enough time for the design, and we are also happy with the implementation.
Here you proceeded from the restrictions, in Chelyabinsk you understood the flows - what else do you motivate your plastic decisions?
There are many factors, each time in different ways. I would like to invest the maximum in the architectural idea: to reflect both the history and the limitations of the site, and the specific wishes of the customer, so that all factors are combined in a single "orchestra". The tasks are all different, it is impossible to unify them. The only stable criterion to which one should strive, in my opinion, is the high quality of the architecture.
What is the quality of architecture for you? What should she have in order for it to take place?
I think the key word is relevance. For every occasion. Sometimes it needs to be catchy, for example, if it's a public building, it needs to attract attention. Sometimes, on the contrary, the building should be inconspicuous, well rendered, but delicate and fit into the context. Sometimes a building strives for "invisibility", dissolving in the landscape, so as not to interfere with something more important. It all depends on the task and the circumstances.
For me, a work of art in general, including architecture, should be as modern as possible and correspond to the development of the world level of aesthetics and culture, the latest trends. There are many factors, a whole set: modern, appropriate, convenient, necessary for the customer and consumers. We are not working for ourselves.
I catch on the word that there is modernity? For you personally?
Not postmodernism.
What is postmodernism to you?
Postmodernism is a fairly broad concept and extends to different spheres, both philosophy and literature are involved. Definition, of course, is not easy to give, I will not take such courage. But for me it is primarily aesthetic eclecticism, mass culture.
But can you get historical allusions? For example, if the building responds to the history of the place?
Unfortunately, I am not immune from this, because customers often want something like this. Citations, literature. Here is an arch, let's make an arch on the house too. Such allusions are almost always irrelevant.
After all, the context can be emphasized by modern means, to make the old building shine from the modern neighborhood with new colors. Not necessarily flashy, it can be done delicately. You will highlight your modern building, and you will be honest with the context, not imitating it: you will get an equal dialogue, without fakes and mimicry. It is very difficult to achieve such a dialogue, but that is the architect's task.
Andrey, a question for you - how difficult is it to work with an architect?
A. M.: For so many years we have developed a methodology [laughs]. I think Sergei also has to find a balance between our commercial success and the creative component. Of course, it is clear that a complex project may require b about more labor costs than usual. Then we assess the complexity, find a compromise - we are looking for a solution that will make the project beautiful, but engineering feasible.
I remember when we started, Sergei was more antagonistic, now, I think, we both "cut ourselves off", learned to find reasonable compromises. It happens that we may be happy to build something super-expensive, but the customer does not have the money for it. So it is necessary to look for solutions that will suit both the customer and us.
S. N.: Here's an example - a tower of a residential complex. Making standard floors is boring; with a change in layouts, an interesting plastic may appear. And of course, designing each floor separately, we complicate the work many times, we need to connect them to each other and convince the customer, but in the name of architecture we have to work and insist on our solutions.
A. M.: As one of our colleagues says, a doctor puts his customer in anesthesia during an operation, and for some reason no one does this during construction.
Take, for example, NPK Krunit - did you have to insist on something in this project?
S. N.: Here, exactly, the customer quickly accepted everything and was satisfied with us, in contrast to the previous designers unknown to us … There are, however, not so many complexities and subtleties: only small load-bearing columns common to four floors and a deepened entrance under the console. I do not like protruding visors, I try to solve the entrance group as a recess.
And if you recall the cases that required a fight or a dispute with the customer?
S. N.: On the residential complex "31 quarter", which is now being built in Pushkino. It consists of four towers on a stylobate, and the customer wanted the stylobate to be accessible only to residents and visually fenced off from the city. It took a lot of effort to convince him to make the courtyard open to the townspeople - now the stylobate descends both to the embankment and to the street by a wide staircase.
How do you plan to develop? Do you want to expand the range of your typology, design, for example, a theater or a park?
A. M.: Now we are interested in educational complexes, we deliberately began to even take more projects of kindergartens and schools in order to understand the typology. Theaters, of course, are an interesting topic, but the niche, as you probably know, is rather closed, it is difficult to get into it. Sergei has a dream to design an airport, and I support him in this.
S. N.: As for educational projects, we have the concept of a campus on Sakhalin, it is already six years old, at some point it was “frozen”, but now it seems that this story can start developing again.
It is interesting because a park and a fairly large educational institution are combined there, they interact with each other. I would say that the landscape inspires us not so much in itself, but as part of the task, part of the architectural solution. Then he works more actively and then he is interesting. And of course, I would like to work with projects in which you can maximize your realization - you want the effect of your work, a larger number of users of your architecture, a larger audience.
