The well-known critic Grigory Revzin, perhaps, never spoke enthusiastically about Arch Moscow. Critical notes in his texts did not disappear even after the founder of Project Russia magazine Bart Goldhoorn became the curator of the festival and added the NEXT program for young architects to it. The article “Childhood Curvature Disease” in Kommersant is skeptical about this year's exhibition of young architects: “The exhibition turned out to be about architectural education, and this is a strange education. Our young architects do not know how to make air conditioning, or plumbing, or heating in a house; they are not interested in the problem of square meters, structures, or any kind of convenience. They are taught to think conceptually. They are taught to be relaxed, provocative, paradoxical. " Young architects “design” birdhouses, balloon houses, cut out little people with pigtails from cardboard - “the exposition is distinguished by some kind of relaxed benevolence, partly reminiscent of the atmosphere of a cartoon,” notes Revzin. "This is such a trend, they are now some kind of herbivores, not just people, but daisies." Behind this childishness, in the meantime, the question arises: "Where do they teach those who know how about functions, structures, engineering, expositions, marketing?" Revzin did not find the answer to this question at the exhibition.
The opinions of the readers who commented on the article on the Kommersant website, as expected, turned out to be exactly the opposite. Visitors to the exhibition mostly agree with Revzin: “… This is exactly the impression - an exhibition of handicrafts in a kindergarten. And it looks so strange against the background of all this Western architects with their ideas of sustainable and socially oriented architecture”(Elena Bulatova). And the participants of the exhibitions offendedly correct the author: “It is not necessary to equate all schools with the same brush. In addition to the Moscow Architectural Institute, there are still architectural schools in Russia that are not engaged in empty form creation. We do not sculpt your mythical cubes. Social environmental orientation is generally our specialization. Not to mention the economic sector in education, marketing and strong teachers in structures "(Nadya Snigiryova, 5th year student of the Vologda State Technical University, presented at Arch Moscow among 4 architectural schools). Inevitably and immediately the theme of the capital - the provinces pops up: “Children from other cities make less beautiful models than at the Moscow Architectural Institute, but there are a lot of good decisions about functionalism, construction and the solution of social issues. But who needs these children not from the Moscow Architectural Institute with less beautiful models? " (Tatiana Kozlova).
One way or another, it is obvious that the problem is not only in architectural schools, but also in the organization of their exposition. Not only Grigory Revzin tried unsuccessfully to find the works of the promised "several hundred architects from 12 countries", hung "in different nooks". Tatyana Kozlova adds in the comments: “Where is the clear structure of the exhibition, where is the understanding on what basis the objects are placed in one way or another. As far as I understand, I didn't see some of the objects, because I got lost and got confused, there is some chaos in the CHA, doesn't it bother anyone?"
Olga Sobolevskaya, the author of the material on the RIA Novosti portal, was also imbued with a critical attitude towards Arch Moscow. From the expositions of architectural bureaus, which this time were record-breaking few, she made a sad conclusion: "Although the curators of the architectural forum emphasized that urban planning concepts are a priority for architecture, the projects of domestic participants in the show speak of the opposite."The author found only examples of infill development there, with the exception, perhaps, of a project by Evgeny Ass, Vlad Savinkin and Vladimir Kuzmin, in which architecture students under the guidance of these famous teachers offer various options for reorganizing public space in the center of the small South Ural town of Satka.
It is curious what the main characters of the festival, the young architects, think against this background - Afisha asked the participants of the Avangard Prize about their projects and their attitude to the current urban planning policy of Moscow. Architects, as it turned out, have little interest in the latter, but they are very keen on their own developments. According to one of the 4 finalists of the award, Igor Chirkin, who presented a fabulous office-proto-shed for the competition, "the only good thing that happened from the new events is the reconstruction of Gorky Park and the move of Garage." Artem Ukropov approves the conservation of the historical center as an urgent measure, "until a viable plan for further development is invented," and Nikita Asadov believes that everything is bad in Moscow - "and from the good, only some small fragments come across that cease to be noticeable if step back two steps. It is much more interesting for architects to work on clauses, the theme of which is “reading-hut”, which really does little to reflect on the pressing issues of the city. For example, as Alexey Ryumin commented on the clauses: “The task seemed to me somewhat absurd, I tried to reflect this in my decision. I mean the mutual decorativeness of the room and its functions - this is no longer a room with books, but Deleuze's "whatever-space", the architecture of which speaks more about the status and ideology of the social institution that contains this room than about reading books."
The comments left to this material in Afisha are imbued with Revzin's irony, writes Bulatey: “They say that soon there will be an exhibition“VeloMoskva-2011”, where young bicycle inventors will demonstrate their models - with square wheels, a bicycle made of a river and a cloud, etc. " no_blogo continues: “Subtle! The direction is grasped correctly. It seems to me that in order to improve the appearance of historical Moscow, first of all, it is necessary to create an exclusion zone for any avant-garde and contemporary art."
Unfortunately, there were almost no comments in the press from the festival's curator Bart Goldhoorn about how Arch Moscow NEXT fulfilled its task - after all, it was initially viewed as a social lift for young architects. From the article by Grigory Revzin, we can conclude that this elevator is unlikely to work. But the director of the Central House of Artists Vasily Bychkov, who gave an interview to the Expert magazine on the eve of the festival, has no doubts for the purposes of Arch of Moscow. The difficulty of attracting young architects to competitions lies outside the scope of the profession, Bychkov believes, they simply do not have experience in coordination processes, and given the current level of corruption, it can be too expensive for a developer. Vasily Bychkov looks at the architectural work itself very soberly: “The concept of the Arch of Moscow has always been focused on the idea of the social responsibility of architecture to society. I am for maximum regulation, for restricting the freedom of an architect in mass construction and for maximum creative freedom when creating unique objects, but in dialogue with society. From the same interview, you can find out that the director of the Central House of Artists is a supporter of standard development and strict regulation of mass construction in cities. Vasily Bychkov's logic is as follows: we have a lot of bad architects, which means that they need to be regulated as strictly as possible (to limit absolutely everything, including color, material and size) so that they cannot spoil anything. An interesting position for the organizer of the main Moscow architectural exhibition.
One of the main characters of the last festival, the head of the Dutch bureau UN Studio Ben van Berkel, is much more free about architectural experiments. In an interview with Afisha, the Dutchman said that he is currently engaged in two major Russian projects - the construction of the Boris Eifman dance theater in St. Petersburg and the reconstruction of the VDNKh territory. Ben van Berkel noticed that he liked the "flamboyance" of Soviet architecture, but he considered the territory of VDNKh to be absolutely dead. His renovation project includes many new and unusual buildings - the Museum of Sounds, an agricultural business school, a miniature Rossiya park and even spiral residential buildings near the water. The architect believes that innovations do not interfere with the preservation of the cultural context: “Previously, cities were radically changed, now new forms appear neatly and gradually. The modernist approach and the search for a single style, universal harmony have not been working for a long time. " On this score, van Berkel admitted that he hates Mies van der Rohe - “in my opinion, this is an incredibly overrated architect who has been repeated so many times that it’s even indecent”.
The expositions of Ben van Berkel, Vladimir Plotkin and Spain became the leaders of the festival. The rest against their background somehow completely faded and, perhaps, only one object was remembered by many visitors of the exhibition for its eccentricity - this is the "Office-parasite" of the ZaBor bureau. In the blog "KR Properties" this project is covered in detail. People like it, although the sensation from the object is rather contradictory, writes d_jennifer: “The alien ship got stuck on landing. The main thing is for the walls of the houses to withstand. " oleg_kozyrev is preoccupied with the technical side: “I just didn't understand how the walls of the houses would really stand and, sorry, the issue of sewerage was not clear”. shadow_of_raven offers a solution: “I would put steel piles-pillars + pipe in sewers and utilities. I am interested in something else - how to walk on such a ladder in winter? You will come back !!! " mf_beauty doesn't like the project: “This is from the same series as the addition of glass and concrete attics over the four-storey buildings in Arbat. Well, this is out of place. " In general, "ugly, although the idea is great," concludes alex_men_1981.
In general, bloggers were reluctant to speak out about the festival, although, judging by the comments, many attended. Some, surprisingly, were scared away by Revzin's article, who, as one of the LiveJournal users put it, “poisoned Arch Moscow with dust”. However, photographer Ilya Varlamov, one of the main chronographs of Moscow events, did not miss the festival and published a photo report with lengthy comments. His assessments, however, are also critical: “Not a single large bureau presented anything efficient. And those projects that our architects showed can be immediately demolished after construction, as they are 20 years out of date. But foreign architects have something to look at."
Another photo report appeared on the seg_o blog - the author was dissatisfied with the visit, because there was very little architecture at the exhibition: “Moscow needs a new platform for architects. It is desirable that it is not a five-day one, but a year-round and regularly updated one, of course, not so expensive."
