The “wind of change” after the resignation of Yuri Luzhkov was felt immediately, as soon as the interim mayor, and then the Public Council, revoked the approval of the depository projects on Borovitskaya Square and the overlap of the Provision Warehouses courtyard. They started talking about the transfer of "Peter". All these are significant things, demonstrative - in the eyes of the public - the cancellation of several authoritarian decisions of the former mayor, one-time concessions to the defenders of the monuments. True, one has already heard: "perestroika", "revolution" … Is this so - time will tell, although it is unlikely to be so, let's pay tribute to common sense. The system does not change yet and does not even show any signs of such a possibility for it to change. And yet: there is a resignation, a change of power, which means there is a reason to talk about the need for changes, including in the system within which, for fifteen years now, a new metropolitan architecture has been created.
We asked several well-known Moscow architects the sacramental question “what to do”, trying to find out exactly what changes the architects are expecting.
Yuri Avvakumov:
The mayor's resignation can undoubtedly affect Moscow architecture and urban planning. But I would first of all recommend thinking about the convenience of life for citizens, not architects.
Alexey Bavykin:
For example, I don't want anything but one thing - to work in an atmosphere of fair competition according to clear rules and norms. And this is not. There is an administrative resource and delusional norms and rules, which are often mutually exclusive. One of the most important competition tools is contests. There are practically none of them either - the result of the adoption of Federal Law No. 94. And in general - the game without rules will end in a wreck for the architectural workshop.
Customers, officials, marketers, developers, etc. will completely grind us to pieces. Medium-sized foreign architects hired by large construction corporations will work. They will squabble less with each other, because they do not care what and how it will be built here.
Vladimir Bindeman:
There is no doubt that many architectural and urban planning decisions made in recent years have been very personalized. The influence of the individual on the entire architectural and construction process was cardinal, and in this sense, I think, after the resignation of the mayor, the situation will somehow change. It is difficult to list one or two measures that will improve or facilitate the professional life of architects. I think everyone understands that we are dealing precisely with a systemic crisis and that it is the system that needs to be completely changed - in particular, the system for making decisions, developing regulations, and coordinating projects. In particular, in my opinion, the system of tenders needs democratization. Today the very word "tenders" is almost a swear word, a synonym for low-quality and cheap work. It doesn't have to be this way! Tenders must be real, companies must be able to participate in them on an equal footing, and the winner is not the one who offers the lowest price, but the author of the most adequate solution to the task. In general, I think, no matter what measures we take to improve the architectural process now, we will inevitably come to the same thing - it is necessary to reduce the pressure of the administrative principle on architecture. True, I am aware that at first this can provoke chaos rather than recovery in the profession.
Boris Levyant:
I think that we will not notice any fundamental changes now. The era of Luzhkov is coming to an end, but it will take some time for the changes to manifest. It seems to me that, first of all, it is necessary to adopt urban planning regulations and PZZ, in order to exclude corruption opportunities of officials and completely exclude the possibility of officials from architecture working in the architectural design market.
Vladimir Plotkin:
For the worse, after the mayor's resignation, the situation in Moscow will definitely not change - I personally am absolutely sure of this. As for what needs to be changed to get better … Obviously, it will take many steps. One step is inevitably a step into a dead end. The situation needs to be corrected in a comprehensive manner, and, I think, it is necessary to start with laws - the General Plan of Moscow, the Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation. If the urban planning regulations are adequate and viable, architects will be able to comply with them, and if architects comply with them, then coordinating and advisory bodies will no longer be needed, at least in the amount in which they exist now. Of course, there are situations when the city regulation has to be violated - and in this case, the procedure for evaluating and discussing a project should be extremely democratic and professional.
Sergey Skuratov:
I think that the situation after the mayor's resignation will not change dramatically, at least until the 2012 elections, and the majority of Moscow officials will retain their posts. In order to overcome corruption, it is not enough to dismiss the mayor, it is necessary to change the entire mechanism of decision-making and the formation of laws in the field of urban planning and land use. I am deeply convinced that all architects should work on the basis of competitions, which are held on the basis of objective criteria. Many are now talking about the need to cancel the general plan for the development of Moscow. It seems to me that some of the provisions of this document really need revision and refinement, but I see more long-term planning and elaboration of a development strategy for Moscow for the next 40-50 years. Without this strategy, the most important urban planning decisions will continue to be made spontaneously, injuring residents and being hostile to them.
Ilya Utkin:
I do not expect changes. It just burst through the system and everyone started talking at once that it would be good to start a major overhaul. But the accident will be eliminated and everyone will calm down. There was a little smell of the "time of change" of the 90s, when the accident was more serious and it seemed that the "reasonable, good, eternal" would triumph. But what can change if the machine's system consists of the same people? Luzhkov is not an evil genius - he fulfilled the general will of his time, where money became the main driving force. And he suited everyone. Moscow has become a testing ground for technology, where a bureaucratic structure of commercial management and power was created, and where construction began to bring the lion's share of income. And everyone took part in this. But it turned out that construction and architecture are only seemingly inseparable things. When the main goal of power is commercial interest, it turns out that architecture is not needed at all. Or if it is needed, then as a screen to hide the lies and shamelessness of money-grubbing. Does the government need architects? This is also a question. It is no secret that in order for an architect to be realized, in order to build even "screens", one needs to approach the authorities and indulge their ambitions and tastes. The trouble is not that Luzhkov has bad taste, but that the architectural community could not oppose this onslaught of "evil forces" with either its knowledge or its professional pride. As a result, while talking about theoretical and stylistic problems, the war for the city was lost.
What needs to be done to rehabilitate the profession of an architect? And I don’t know how to return the creative function to architecture.
