Archi.ru: Nikita Igorevich, how and why did you decide to introduce a subject called "Reconstruction of Historical Buildings" into the program of the Faculty of Architecture?
Nikita Yavein: I think I will not be too original if I answer that such a course seemed to me to be simply necessary. Indeed, today there are two irreconcilable camps in the profession - architects and restorers, who often find it difficult to find a common language and work together. In the Soviet era, we had, maybe not the most perfect, but understandable and logical method of working with monuments. Firstly, the monuments themselves were few, secondly, the handling of them was clearly stipulated by legislation, and thirdly, a class of restorers was formed to serve this category of objects. But after the very concept of a monument changed radically in the 1980s and the number of protected objects increased tenfold, it became clear that the old system did not work. And the new one, strictly speaking, never appeared …
Archi.ru: Frankly, we are used to thinking that this is, first of all, a legislative problem.
N. Ya.: I would say that only part of the problem lies in the legislative plane. A very important part, but a well-written law in itself is unlikely to be able to solve it, since there are no those who can and want to implement theoretical postulates. And the postulates are such that several hundred thousand monuments cannot live in the same way as several hundred. Hence, a compromise must be sought. But neither the architects who design new objects, nor the restorers are capable of this.
Archi.ru: And how do you teach students to compromise?
N. Ya.: I show them hundreds of various examples of reconstruction and adaptation of monuments. I systematize projects in a certain way, including by typology, and by how exactly the internal space is modified, and I try not to accompany the images with comments, but to allow students to draw their own conclusions and accumulate impressions about the variety of approaches to the problem. Fortunately, this is already the fifth course, I meet with thinking adults, who find this technique very responsive. I want to emphasize that as part of the course, I do not consider the experience of America, Japan and China, I focus on Europe, I show both the southern, more strict approach to adaptation, and the northern, completely free and sometimes even unbridled. And then, against this background, I show the Petersburg experience - from individual buildings to large-scale urban planning projects.
Archi.ru: No comment too?
N. Ya.: No, in this case I am already commenting - otherwise I risk being accused of teaching vandalism. However, there are also more than enough tough examples of handling monuments in Europe, because many experts interpret the Venice Charter very unambiguously: the new must be different from the old, so that the new contrasts with the old, and often openly parasitizes on it. For example, when a new building completely absorbs the old one or, conversely, hides in the old one, and one becomes a sarcophagus for the other. Of course, here you can't do without comments at all, and I'm even glad that my collections of examples are able to dispel many harmful illusions.
Archi.ru: Do I understand correctly that by harmful illusions you mean precisely the opposition of modern architectural forms to historical ones? It seems to me that now the majority of Russian architects will grab hold of their hearts, they are defending the right to express themselves in the language of their era with sweat and blood …
N. Ya.: Well, this is an understandable reaction in response to what has happened in Moscow and many other cities of Russia over the past 20 years, but you need to understand that this is a kind of growing pain. There are monuments, there are modern objects, and at the junction of the two poles a fundamentally different design language should be used, understandable to objects of the past and not detracting from the merits of those that have not yet been built. And all these games of opposition, as practice shows, are more appropriate in the former industrial and similar territories.
Archi.ru: And what is the outcome of the course? Do you give students any practical assignments?
N. Ya.: At the end of the course, students give me credit. Neither I nor the system are yet ready to deepen the subject. We tried to give students term papers on the adaptation of cultural heritage objects, but this was not crowned with much success. You see, in contrast to new construction, where the initial data are clear and finite, the meaning of work in the field of adaptation lies in the most in-depth analysis of the existing situation. Here you need to proceed from the context, from the history, from the aura - in general, take into account a lot of non-material factors, which students with minimal practical experience are simply not capable of. I think that in the future my course may grow into some kind of additional education for architects - after having defended their diploma and having worked for a year or two, they will be able to return and receive additional specialization within six months or a year.
Archi.ru: Nikita Igorevich, if you follow your logic, then the competitions held today in such a number on the concept of reconstruction of certain historical objects, it turns out, are not really needed at all? I mean, tight deadlines and not always clearly written terms of reference lead to the fact that the participants simply have no time to deeply delve into the needs of the object, and they limit themselves to coming up with beautiful wrappers for them.
N. Ya.: I think that adaptation is really, in principle, not a competitive theme. Firstly, precisely because the main thing here is the analysis of the existing situation, and not inventing a new one. And secondly, because in Russia in such competitions the winner is not the one who proposes the most thought-out project, but the one who guesses how to change the initial data and what exactly can be violated.
Archi.ru: It seems to me that these are already comments to the last two major competitions for the adaptation of monuments - New Holland and the Polytechnic Museum. By the way, your workshop participated in both.
N. Ya.: Yes, New Holland has shown in all its glory: even if everything is more or less clearly spelled out in the terms of reference, the one who breaks everything wins. I personally have nothing against the Work AC bureau, but its project provides for the demolition and partial dismantling of internal structures, the construction of a new volume close to the old one, violation of the building front along the Admiralty Canal embankment and much more, which is generally strictly prohibited by law. Where is the logic? Nor is it in the history of the Polytechnic Museum. Of the four projects that reached the final, two paper projects won, which did not imply implementation at all! Yes, this is such an artistic drawing, which, apparently, corresponded to the state of mind of the members of the Museum's Board of Trustees, warmed them and touched them. But the museum has a huge number of real problems that the authors of these projects did not even begin to solve!
Archi.ru: Does this outcome mean, in your opinion, that both projects will never be implemented?
N. Ya.: There will be, if in the end it will be other projects, or if the winners become overgrown with consultants and accompanying persons. Or, which I think is most realistic, if the projects are implemented in stages. A piece was adapted here, then there, then somewhere else. And, by the way, this is not the worst option - in a sense, this is the compromise we need, which is not yet so popular in Russia.
