In the blog of Alexander Lozhkin, a discussion began on an article in which an architectural critic discusses the policy of the so-called popular among the current government. "Big projects". We are talking about large-scale urban planning transformations, which, under the patronage of the state, are being implemented in Russian cities for certain events, such as the G8 meetings, SCO summits, Universiades, Olympics, and so on. “The special status of megaprojects and tight deadlines provoke officials to ignore the law,” Lozhkin said. By putting things in order, they, for example, can get carried away and "clean up" the historical buildings, so that later they can build a bright tourist remake there. “In combat conditions, there is no time for architecture,” the critic regrets. - Russian legislation is not very conducive to the emergence of non-trivial architectural solutions for budget money. And it is not the best way to fill the megastructures with architectural content”.
Enoden in the comments justifies the practice of such targeted financial injections based on the experience of Belarus. There, such a practice is called “dozhinki”: “This is when every year a regional center is chosen, some sad collective farm concert is held in honor of the harvest festival - but for this occasion the city is polished for many months, decent sidewalks and bus stops are made, repair, restore architectural monuments, paint … ". Lozhkin agrees, in a similar way in the mountainous Altai settlements are put in order on the eve of the national holiday El-Oyyn. Only in general it is rather an exception to the rule, while in other "large projects" there is a lack of a systematic approach to the choice of places of implementation and design. homo_forsaken believes that megaprojects still provide, though not urban planning, but administrative benefits: under the conditions of the next "construction of the century", the local management system is being improved. However, Lozhkin does not share this optimism: “This is exactly how they worked in Kazan for the 1000th anniversary. Only the "clicking" of less difficult tasks did not work out…. Therefore, I had to come up with the Universiade in order to repeat the feat."
It is characteristic that Russian architects are practically not allowed to approach “big projects”. Lozhkin himself sees the reason for the following: "The customer considers the designers not as people who can change the quality of the environment and offer effective and effective ideas for its organization, but as" decorators "involved in the artistic and technological design of the decisions already made." According to stopavto, attracting foreigners is just "a safe way to make money for those who invite them." As for the quality of the projects they carry out, stopavto sees nothing unique in them: “A building designed by a star can be built, but the environment cannot be imported. Simple copying does not work, because society is different. And in order for something to work out it is necessary to investigate this society. " But Lozhkin, in the end, still protects foreigners - they know how to research, and do not take kickbacks, because the reputable bureau has "and there are enough recoilless orders."
And yet, isn't the Russian construction market too much carried away by cooperation with foreign designers? This question was asked by the architect Maxim Bataev, who wrote a short essay on Natalia Shustrova's blog. The occasion was the manifesto of Yuri Avvakumov, written on the eve of "Architecture", in which the curator of the festival called on the participants to reflect on the concept of "Russian architecture". According to Avvakumov himself, "if a work of Russian architecture is more likely to be created than built, more work than a parade, then it can be considered Russian not only by its location, but also by the spirit of creation." Bataev agrees - the “spirit” inherent in Russian architecture has left it since the last twenty or thirty years our architects “have been trying with all their might to make up for the lost time during the Soviet period - to merge or at least achieve similarity with Western architecture”. But, alas, they did not succeed - "the European approach to design in most cases boils down to simple formal copying."
The author of the comments, under the nickname Olga, is even more filled with skepticism: “There will soon be no such thing in the modern world: Russian architecture. Even our norms want to liquidate and glorify the Eurocodes”. “There are many settlements in the world built on the basis of Eurocodes,” objected Vadim. - Is it bad there? Or do these "codes" not care about the people who live in them and who look at them? Yes! Foreigners are also building in Russia. What have you set up? The inner world of Baturina and Luzhkov? " - the paradox turns out. Yu sees the way out: “There is nothing wrong with looking at a Western example. Unfortunately, either we are wearing +20 glasses and we do not see anything, or our eyes stick together when looking at Europeans. In general, we used to look west in the same way. But they did their own thing! " Therefore, - continues Yu, - "Russian architecture needs to raise the tradition and in this context, tradition should not be understood as archaic, but it is worth using modern technologies for the traditional reading and presentation of materials."
An anonymous user cites the architect Kise Kurokawa as a cue: "Architecture will eventually move away from the universal international style and move to an intercultural style, which aims at a symbiosis of the universal and the regional." - "Kurokawa is right, a symbiosis of the universal (world experience of design and construction) and regional (Russian motives)," notes Olga, "however, in our country we are still on the verge of introducing a universal style, or rather the style of BU architecture."
What it is, "Russian architecture", we will probably see very soon at Zodchestvo, but for now, in conclusion of today's review, we will mention the discussion of one very specific and very important project for St. Petersburg - the reconstruction of Sennaya Square. As kleomen writes in the blog of the Living City, “through the efforts of residents, public organizations, architects, the Orthodox parish and cultural figures,” it was possible to adjust the project in such a way as to carve out of it a plot for the restoration of the Church of the Savior on Sennaya. “The dedicated public transport line and the freeing up of space for pedestrians are no less pleasing,” notes kleomen.
The main opponent of the reconstruction of the temple was aliksumin: "Instead of building forgeries, it would be better to preserve what has not yet been destroyed." And further: “I cannot answer what exactly there needs to be built and whether it is necessary at all…. If it is the church that is needed, then it can be it, only it must be built in modern forms. " The European example does not suit Peter, teufelus is sure: “They try not to disturb the buildings, although there are precedents, like at the Marienplatz in Munich. Do you know a lot of good modern buildings with us?"
The temple should be "modern", the community members are sure. Many participants in the discussion spoke out against the "traditional" churches that the Patriarchate is building everywhere today. As deux_pieces put it, “This is a galvanized corpse. I have seen such churches in Moscow. An absolutely dead body. " Umnyaf also agrees with this: “Is there really no request for a new church architecture in the ROC and in the educated part of the“Orthodox community”? Do they want to live the entire XXI century with the state five-dome?"
Some considered the restoration of the temple inappropriate at all. “It's a strange idea to build a church on this site! - writes kosh_ko. - There and so you will not push through. The pedestrian space of the square will be destroyed.“PIK” is already enough, the space needs to be preserved and the yard - the entrance to Gorokhovaya, should be renovated”. koriolans are also confused by the narrowness of the site, and especially the neighborhood of the temple with the metro station: “What kind of church can be built over the metro? In pictures with three people in the background, it all looks decent. But there every minute hundreds and hundreds are walking. " And further: “I would not like the decision to be made under the pressure of the“Orthodox community”…. Then the "engineering task" will be adjusted to this very "any price", the calculation of future passenger flows will be adjusted to the project and will not correspond to reality, etc. " In other words, the “temple-metro” symbiosis does not inspire the residents of St. Petersburg too much. However, the initiators of the project are unlikely to listen to the opinion of the public.
