Archi.ru: Does the name of the ABV workshop mean "Andreev, Biryukov, Vorontsov"? Please tell us how your workshop came about.
Nikita Biryukov: We created a private workshop together with Alexander Garkaev back in the 1980s under the wing of the Union of Architects of the RSFSR. Then it helped, and many famous architects now founded the bureau there: Mikhail Khazanov, Alexander Asadov. Then my partner left the country, and I created the "B-studio" (Biryukov-studio) and was free-floating for some time, after which I ended up in a design institute. After working on my own, staying there seemed monstrous to me …
In 1992, almost 20 years ago, we created ABV - Pavel Andreev, Alexey Vorontsov and me. The workshop has been transformed many times depending on the form of ownership and various life problems. Then it turned out that Pavel Andreev went to Mosproekt and tried to realize himself there, for Aleksey at some point it became interesting to work at GlavAPU. For a long time I had both the economic and the creative part. When the workshop moved to the building we built in Filippovsky Lane, I felt that in its current form the company had become uncomfortable for me and initiated the division. It was peaceful: we divided the office, the ABV brand was bought out and went to me. Now we communicate on business, but everyone lives their own life. As for the gustatory vector, it has become completely different.
How exactly?
I would say that it has become more European. For myself, I conditionally subdivide today's new Moscow architecture into "Asian" and "European" - the second is closer to me: simple, strict and clean, without "nightmares".
Is your creative credo minimalism?
I like crisp, honest architecture. At one time in the Moskomarkhitektura I was even a little "nailed" for being too harsh. As far as my creed goes, I'm pretty eclectic. I have no hard attachments. Even the music I like is different: both Led Zeppelin and Tchaikovsky. I absolutely do not understand when people say: "Only this way and not otherwise." At different times in my life, I liked Gothic, Constructivism, Postmodern. When I studied at the institute, Japan was the ideal - I was going to live in an empty room and sleep on a mat. When I matured, time made its own adjustments - the range expanded, and I became more tolerant. I like German architecture, although it is a little dry at times.
How - with texture, color?
Differently. In "Seventh Heaven" at the Ostankino pond, we used ceramics, in general I really love this material for its warmth. We made the first office building "Volna" with this material, inspired by one photograph of a node of a building wall in London. At one time, I took many photographs of details, units of various houses. I love knots. In the future, they began to hone this topic. In the decoration of the mansion in Khilkov Lane, blocks were used, made by hand from fireclay clay. Now we are building an interesting house on Korovye Val. The previous customer was going to build according to the project of the British, brought the building to a zero cycle, then a crisis came, then the client sold the asset. The glass building, which was supposed to appear there according to the original plan, caused an internal protest in me, I am glad that it was not built. A new customer gave us carte blanche, we changed the house: we added color, we used my favorite ceramics.
Recently we started to work on a residential building in Smolensky lane. There we also strive to add variety. The house is quite tough and, softening the theme, we complicate the texture with the help of stone reliefs.
Is the classic theme not at all close to you?
I am not a stranger to classics either; once I even liked postmodernism, although that quickly passed. However, I believe that the language of classical architecture must either be proficient or honestly and accurately copied. It is worse when people do not know the alphabet, but still try to interpret. This is how inappropriate turrets appear, or even worse - straight columns without entasis, five stories high.
Sometimes a classic is a necessary measure, for example, during construction in the historical center.
Yes, we had such a case in practice - a building at 13 Kazarmenny Pereulok, located next to the Catherine Barracks. Inside, it is a very modern and European house. And its main facade is absolutely French, modeled after the houses of Ottoman Paris. The client insisted on this stylization because he was sure that he would not be able to harmonize the facade in the modern version. After all, ten or fifteen years ago, the architecture in the classical context was positively perceived in the center. Slowly, public opinion began to soften. Today, if the house is literate, then it almost never meets with resistance.
Are you really related to Osip Bove?
I am not, but my stepfather is a branch of this kind. I am very grateful to this family. Once, by the way, I even found the Bove family ring. On Komsomolskaya Square (now the Moskovsky department store is in this place), houses were demolished, among them was the apartment building of the family along the Bove line. The previous government left the rooms in which the previous owners lived, and there, in an empty apartment, before the demolition, in a closet, there was a ring - Joseph's seal. On the other hand, my stepfather is a chemist, this is the Vorozhtsov family: my grandfather and great-grandfather are included in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
Why did you become an architect?
We lived in a skyscraper on the Red Gate, we had many famous neighbors. Including its author, architect Dushkin. He was a powerful guy. I remember how he was repairing his Volga in the garage. Then the whole academic crowd "lay" under the cars - they twisted the nuts, discussed rockets, science … Such a men's club. My parents watched me hanging out in an intermediate state, or maybe they talked with Dushkin, and decided to send me to architecture. Before that, I was drawn to design - painting was going very well, I felt color. Now I have no regrets, everything turned out well, it's a sin to complain.
With the onset of the crisis and the departure of Yuri Luzhkov, a whole urban planning era ended in Moscow. How do you assess its results?
In my opinion, what happened to Moscow is monstrous. I can't even figure out where this came up from. Before that, everything was more or less clear: constructivism, the Stalinist Empire style. Even when the decor was "cleaned" in the 60s, it was also clear. The architectural thought was professional. And then it was as if a nuclear explosion happened: a monstrous, dense Asiatic appeared - some kind of pretzels, a nightmare …
What is your version of why this happened?
Evolution was disrupted in the profession. Previously, architects worked for many years, gained experience, and, having gained access to orders, no longer allowed themselves outrageous disgraces. There were powerful creative units. And suddenly it turned out that everything is possible, there are no brakes. Both developers and architects have trained in the city. Poor people found each other - that's the result. Also, of course, money did a disservice to the city - the sphere was too profitable, there was no need to sell drugs.
Is it easier or harder to work now?
On the one hand, there was a kind of cleansing from the Asian frenzy that spoiled the city. On the other hand, it is, of course, very difficult to work now. Many went bankrupt, and the profits of those architectural firms that continue to operate now are zero at best. Customers, after the losses associated with the crisis, count every penny, and many are striving to reduce the wages of architects to a minimum. This is not entirely clear to me: rental and other rates have almost returned to their previous level, all prices, for food products and so on, not only have not decreased, but even increased - why should architects be paid less? This is not a market. This is a bazaar.
Also, design has now become very, overly pragmatic. Over the past year, we have only been calculating centimeters of usable area in order to "squeeze out" the maximum. Clients do not want to donate even 200 sq. meters in order to slightly increase, open vertically the lobby space. This is an understandable feature of commercial construction. But from the dominance of pragmatic tasks, melancholy sets in, no architectural thought can develop in such conditions.
High-quality architecture can appear only when the customer is ready to “pay for the air”, the organization of at least a minimal public space inside the building and for high-quality materials for the facade. It’s impossible to look at houses built from Styrofoam! Unfortunately, this fate did not escape us either.
Have you realized yourself as a professional?
I think yes. I am practically not ashamed of any house. Recently, we again received the CRE Awards, an award in the field of commercial real estate, "architect of the year" for Marr Plaza, office building at 13 Sergei Makeev Street. It is curious that the customer of this building was not an experienced developer and did not intrude too much into the process didn't save every penny. We, in a sense, had our hands free, and the house turned out to be commercially very efficient as a result. Customers have already sold it entirely to Norilsk Nickel, and did not lose.
When working in a workshop, do you always insist on your own architectural solutions or do you give your fellow subordinates some degree of freedom?
In my opinion, the time of personified architects in large and complex houses is over. When a person says, “I did it,” it is hard to believe in it. In any company there is a person who rules, and there are people nearby who profess similar ideas. I cannot say about all the houses that they are "mine" - this is a common kitchen, an alloy, a "broth" that is formed in the company. Therefore, I prefer to say, "We."
