We asked this question, while at the same time interested in the more pressing "what to do?" (see interview, October 11). They also asked about the opinion of authoritative professionals about the now widely discussed idea of demolition and relocation of monuments, first of all - to Peter I.
Ilya Utkin:
If we talk about the "Luzhkov style", then it seems to me that it is expressed in a contemptuous attitude towards all residents of the city and specialists - historians, sociologists, architects. "Caring for Muscovites" began with a lie - "improving housing conditions" turned into a mass genocide of residents of the center of Moscow and their resettlement to the outskirts. The "improvement" of the environment was felt even in the air, which began to smell like diesel fuel. Luzhkov's Moscow is endless building fences, trenches, mud and concrete mixers. Fake parties with mummers, buffoons, dumplings and vodka. In the spring, "for beauty" painted borders. These are the more frequent fires, where the roofs of doomed houses and historical monuments burned. These are the Shop on the Manezh Square and the ruins of the burned down Manege This is Peter the Scarecrow, an idol driven into the river by the hand of the owner. Mercedes on the sidewalks and office palaces in the playgrounds. These are newly-made "architectural monuments" with plastic - bronze bas-reliefs. This is a trash bazaar in the air made of billboards, poles, banners and light bulbs. These are station squares built up with supermarket booths. This is a traffic collapse with thick GIBDeshniki. This is Tsaritsino Culture Park. This is the palace of Alexei Mikhailovich in Kolomenskoye. Everything is fake through and through. This is a theater for fools, like a nightmare.
Sergey Skuratov:
"Luzhkovskiy style" is not only a stylistics, but also a methodology - thinking and solving urban planning problems. Diagnosis of everything that was built in Moscow under the tireless eye of Yuri Mikhailovich. Of course, there were architects who built without obeying the general direction, but they were still part of this giant flywheel that squeezed square meters out of Moscow. The goal of architecture was super profit …
I strongly disagree with the transfer of the monument to Peter the Great. It seems to me that this is not even so much a political gesture as another action to launder money, moreover, a record large amount of money. Well, I don't believe that the transfer of a monument, even such a large one, can cost 1 billion rubles! And if you really need to postpone it, announce a tender for this work and find a company that will offer the lowest price. At the same time, there will be at least some benefit from tenders.
Vladimir Plotkin:
I think that by the works of the so-called "Luzhkov style" we all mean approximately the same set of buildings. Do I need to demolish them? Frankly, some of them annoy me so much as a resident that I would give a lot for the fact that these buildings never existed in the city. However, as an architect, I understand that it is possible and necessary to correct only what has not yet been built, everything else is just high-profile PR campaigns and settling scores with an already defeated enemy. Today, after all, there are many truly monstrous projects in the city that have been approved but not yet implemented, and it is these, in my opinion, that need to be canceled or, at least, corrected. First of all, I, of course, mean the master plan.
Boris Levyant:
Do we need to demolish the most odious monuments that we inherited from the deceased mayor? Personally, I warmly support the idea of dismantling Peter the Great! Although it would be more correct to organize funding for a high-quality reconstruction of constructivist architectural monuments. In my opinion, the monstrous attitude towards constructivist architecture is the most striking manifestation of Luzhkov's style and spirit!
Vladimir Bindeman:
"Luzhkovsky style" is not only not the highest quality architecture, but also a number of urban planning techniques that have made a comfortable life in Moscow almost impossible. Take at least the rings that make it impossible to move around the city from point A to point B in a straight line. Or the huge industrial zones and territories adjacent to the railway tracks, which also force motorists to make huge zigzags. I don’t think that it is necessary to dismantle the monuments and, moreover, the constructed buildings - all this is nothing more than one-time political actions that have nothing to do with real urban development.
Urban planning mistakes undoubtedly need to be corrected, but this will take decades. And, in my opinion, it is worth starting with the transport infrastructure and building bridges over the deep waters of railway tracks. And, of course, to cancel the installation that it is possible to build in the historical center only formally copying the stylistic devices of the architecture of the past centuries. Unity is possible not only through fusion and mimicry, and I sincerely hope that this will be more obvious to the new government than to the old one.
Alexey Bavykin:
There is no Luzhkov style! This is not a style. This is not postmodernism, because there is absolutely no irony there, and there is no postmodernism without irony. These are, for the most part, low quality constructions, made with deviations from low professional level projects. There is no Luzhkov style, because it is lack of style. There is Luzhkov architecture as a phenomenon, but it does not pull the name of the style. Its main goal is to squeeze out money, so that very different structures actually fall under the concept of Luzhkov's architecture.
As for the monumental statues, I think the monument to Peter should be removed, because Peter I hated this city. But Peter was smart enough not to destroy this city, but to build a new capital. Maybe it's time to build a third?..
Yuri Avvakumov:
Postmodern kitsch. It is necessary to correct the mistakes of urban planning, and not someone else's taste.
