After the resignation of Yuri Luzhkov, there were persistent rumors in the architectural community that Kuzmin, who, like the other heads of departments, received the position of acting. head of department, will not stay in this post. Among the main possible reasons for the resignation were the urban planning policy of recent years and the adoption of the Updated master plan for the development of Moscow until 2025. And there really were reasons to believe this: immediately after being approved as mayor, Sergei Sobyanin began to criticize both with might and main. The head of the Research Institute of the General Plan of Moscow Sergey Tkachenko, the head of the Union of Architects of Russia Andrey Bokov, the general director of the State Unitary Enterprise "Mosproekt-2" Mikhail Posokhin were named as possible candidates for the post of chief architect. However, these forecasts were not destined to come true.
Experts believe that the main reason for Kuzmin's reappointment is the absence of other real competitors. Which, as noted by the architect and curator Yuri Avvakumov, is a manifestation of a systemic crisis in Moscow architecture. “Whoever is appointed, both, as they say, are worse. Over the past 15 years, the city has obviously not improved, but in many respects has significantly reduced the main indicators of comfort. In any world rating related to ecology, living standards, transport, culture - Moscow is now in the region of the 150th position. This is entirely the fault of the corrupt government, not excluding the chief architect hired by it,”he is sure. As noted by Yuri Avvakumov, in terms of the level of decisions that Alexander Kuzmin made and is taking, we can say that he personally also corresponds to this 150th place: “His public activities are not satisfied with both the public and progressive professionals, but perhaps it suits the authorities. And the city, as it was authoritarianly governed under Luzhkov, remains so to this day,”the architect believes. In his opinion, in order to solve the architectural problems of a megalopolis, a serious professional institution, authorized to make decisions, is needed, and not one engaged manager. And it is natural that citizens must be involved in management, as is the case in many European cities.
Architect Yevgeny Ass also recalls that there are many examples in the world when the chief architect “really works for the good of the city”. For example, in Barcelona, Jose Acebillo is not part of the political establishment: he has already outlived six mayors. “The continuity of the city architect at the post is a good tradition. Kuzmin is Luzhkov's man and a faithful executor of his policy; all urban planning mistakes, so obvious today, are on Kuzmin's conscience. Whether he will be able to turn his face to the city, and not to the mayor, will in many ways determine the nature of his work in the future,”reflects Yevgeny Ass.
According to the architect Sergei Skuratov, none of the potential candidates for the post of chief architect is fundamentally different from Alexander Kuzmin in personal qualities, unless, of course, you count the imprint left on the last 15 years of work under the leadership of Yuri Luzhkov. “Undoubtedly, each of them has qualities and merits that would allow them to fulfill the official duties of the chief architect, but none of the three hypothetical applicants has ever been subordinate to such a strong and authoritarian mayor,” Skuratov said. - So, for example, Sergei Tkachenko is Kuzmin's “right hand”. He is a very gentle person, he will never go into conflict with the city leadership for the sake of professional principles. Mikhail Posokhin could even be an avant-garde artist, he has the rudiments of professional "hooliganism" in his character. He loves strong, cognitive architects. He is not always lucky with his employees: strong architects try to work on their own, and not under the supervision of such an authoritarian leader. He was always the second person in Moskomarkhitektura after Kuzmin, controlling the development in the city center. He knows the problems of Moscow as a whole, undoubtedly, worse than Kuzmin and Tkachenko. Kuzmin knows the city right down to every house, he is like an encyclopedia. Bokov is completely different - he is a strategist, politician, orator. He is the president of the Union of Architects, and this is his niche. I respect him as an intelligent person, an orator, able to voice important things for high leadership, to defend the Union. But he's too neat, too careful. These qualities, it seems to me, would greatly hinder him as the chief architect of Moscow, because architecture is a search thing, often conflicting, often requiring risk. " Some changes, Sergei Skuratov believes, could have occurred if a new figure appeared among the candidates, a non-systemic architect-practitioner, but those were not found in the city, or it was decided not to look for them. “The choice of Kuzmin's candidacy in this period is the most reasonable, in my opinion. It is necessary to use the experience and knowledge of our chief architect - they will be irreplaceable if only he will constantly and actively defend his professional position. The professional community is ready to help him in this,”Sergei Skuratov is convinced.
Among the positive aspects of the reappointment of Alexander Kuzmin, the chief architect of the Center for Historical and Urban Planning Studies, a member of the Presidium of the Expert Advisory Council under the Chief Architect of Moscow (ECOS), Boris Pasternak, notes the well-known democracy and readiness for dialogue. According to the expert, Kuzmin is quite capable of revising the rules of land use and development in the shortest possible time, to give proposals for adjusting those decisions that cause public discontent - infill development, odious projects within the boundaries of protected zones. “Alexander Viktorovich should concentrate his efforts first of all on removing the Moskomarkhitektura from subordination to the building complex, since now the capital's architectural department is busy with the design of decisions that are made in the structure of the latter”.
