Archi.ru: Sergei Alexandrovich, how do you differ today from yourself when you are thirty or when you are forty? What comes with age?
Sergey Skuratov: Probably the most important acquisition is professionalism. For me, this quality comes not only from the ability to design good buildings and an understanding of what steps need to be taken in order for them to be built, but also from a sense of deep personal responsibility for everything that I, as an architect, do for the city. In what I am definitely not different from myself when I am thirty or forty, it is in the desire to work, to constantly look for and invent something new, not to repeat myself. The last thing I want to do is “bronze”, turn into a machine for the production of fashionable and stylish, but essentially identical houses. For the same reason, I am always very willing to tackle new typologies - this year, for example, with great pleasure I worked on a competition project for the Perm Opera and Ballet Theater and a concept for the development of the historical center of Vyshny Volochok.
Archi.ru: Is architecture for you a means of correcting and improving the existing situation?
SS: Rather, its enrichment and additions. No matter how striking a piece of architecture may be, it should not be a thing in itself. The essence of design is to create new visual and spatial connections, a new quality of the environment - it would seem that this is a hackneyed truth, but in practice it is very often difficult to comply with it. Especially in a city like Moscow, where the fundamental principle of all architectural and construction activities is squeezing square meters at any cost. Almost any customer is aimed at this, and I always have to be very strict to ensure that overestimated requirements for the number of meters do not get in the way of the quality of the project. After all, even the best architecture cannot exist without space, without air. No matter how spectacular the silhouettes of buildings, the pattern of their windows and decoration, we value architecture, first of all, for its spatial characteristics. It is no coincidence that the most beautiful cities in the world are those with a lot of space, greenery, where buildings are not cramped.
Archi.ru: It's no secret that Russian developers do not always share this point of view. How do you manage to convince the customer that you are right?
SS: Not everyone can be convinced, and not always. But, fortunately, there are responsible and thinking customers who are ready to compromise and, by reducing the number of square meters, make the composition of the complex more harmonious, balanced and breathing. In particular, I always strive to convey to the customer that the relationship of the facility under construction with the surrounding area, the environment and subculture prevailing in the area should always be solved by architectural means - it is precisely the well-designed buffer zones and thoughtful improvement, a reasonable combination of public and private spaces that ensure the success of the project. Fortunately, we managed to build such a constructive dialogue while working on the Garden Quarters project, and our relationship with Forum Properties is also imbued with mutual understanding. In general, I am deeply convinced: when building in a city, you always need to think about how your building does not offend the honor and dignity of the surrounding houses, and I am very glad that my customers share this point of view.
Archi.ru: And yet, looking at your objects, which are always very noticeable and bright, it seems that you are not limited to considerations of political correctness when designing …
SS: Of course, there are other considerations, for example, compositional considerations. For example, my new house on Burdenko Street is deliberately made both tall and active. In a very difficult and unfavorable visual environment that developed there, I needed a stone knight, a hero who would protect his residents from the surrounding bad taste. And it was the role of the vertical dominant that allowed the building to avoid visual fusion with the surrounding buildings. However, unfortunately, when I made this house 50 meters high, the coordinating authorities cut off 5 meters from it. It seemed to them that it was too high, and I had to redo the project somewhat.
Archi.ru: Sergei Aleksandrovich, if you have already touched on the topic of “shortening” buildings, I cannot but ask about the fate of the “House on Mosfilmovskaya”.
SS: Well, since the only initiator and supporter of this "operation" was Yuri Luzhkov, then, I hope, now the situation will calm down by itself, and none of the officials will insist on dismantling. In particular, as far as I know, Vladimir Resin was initially a categorical opponent of the dismantling of the building. However, the cancellation of the scandalous decision to dismantle my building does not mean that this situation cannot be repeated in the future. Neither the professional community of architects, nor the society as a whole are in any way protected from the arbitrariness of officials, and in this sense, with the resignation of one mayor, alas, little has changed …
Archi.ru: To what extent does this insecurity, in your opinion, affect the prestige of the profession of an architect?
SS: To be honest, I do not think that the profession of an architect is very prestigious today … Well, that is, it is undoubtedly quoted among young people, since there is a lot of money in this area and Moscow is actively being built, which means there is every chance of finding work, but the architect is not a positive hero in the public mind. It is no secret that the quality of construction in our country often leaves much to be desired, the project changes greatly during the approval procedures, so that the end result is almost always on the conscience of officials, customers and builders, but in the consciousness of society it is the architect who is to blame for all urban planning failures. This makes it very bitter! There is no profession more creative than an architect, there are no people more selflessly and scrupulously looking for options for a comprehensive and beautiful solution to the most acute urban problems, and it is in them that all the arrows of criticism and condemnation fly! Not in favor of the reputation of the architects, of course, is the fact that the entire existing system fiercely resists the emergence of modern architecture in the city. By the city I mean the boundaries of the Kamer-Kollezhsky Val, that is, the space that in the minds of absolutely all of us is associated with Moscow. Why, while the whole world experience shows that it is possible and necessary to work with monuments, and to build up their territories, there are protective requirements in Moscow that allow only regeneration ?!
Archi.ru: It seems to me that this is done solely in order to protect heritage sites from rough invasion and destruction.
SS: Of course, it is impossible to build anything and any size and shape on the territory of the monument, but for this there are professionals to solve the problem of the coexistence of the old and the new in the city as wisely and delicately as possible, preserving one thing and giving the second the right to vote.
Archi.ru: Who are the judges? Who and how, in your opinion, should assess the professionalism of architects and the solutions they offer?
SS: Good question! In my opinion, it is quite obvious that the current system of public councils cannot cope with this task. The Soviets are a legacy of the Soviet system, and they succeed in censorship much better than meaningful and constructive criticism. Do not misunderstand me, I am not against criticism as such, but I am deeply convinced that it should not come from officials, but from practicing architects and competent experts. It seems to me that the best alternative are competitions - national and international, organized honestly and having the status of law.
Archi.ru: In conclusion, I would like to ask, does your fame help or hinder you in your work and simply in life?
SS: Of course, publicity serves as a certain kind of means of influencing people. I am not shy and do not hide the fact that often it is fame, authority that give me the opportunity to put pressure in those cases when I think it is right, and raise my voice, and insist on my own. The feeling of my own righteousness, confidence in my knowledge and abilities helps me a lot both in life and in work. But these qualities also have downside. For example, communication with the media takes a lot of time, as well as participation in meetings of all kinds of councils. Plus, where others maneuver, adapt and somehow play, I always go ahead, like an icebreaker. But for professionals, life is always more difficult, and I think that the main result of my work is not these difficulties, but the fact that I am not ashamed of any of my houses. And it is this feeling that helps me the most - both in work and in life.
