There was a dispute on one of the Internet forums where Perm architects gather and discuss construction news, and where the main favorite topic is the obstruction of the strategic master plan and general plan of Perm. The dispute concerned various aspects of the new urban planning model being introduced in the city, which presupposes strict regulation of the maximum building parameters, including limiting the number of storeys in most of the city to six floors in order to create a more comfortable, human-scale urban environment. And in the course of the conversation, I repeated the idea that I had already expressed for a long time and repeatedly that Russian cities are seriously ill and any building built for them is either a medicine or a drop of poison. This statement is already almost ten years old, until now it has not been particularly disputed by anyone, but here I got a rebuff. No, - they told me, - all this is demagoguery and idle reasoning. We love our city and we have no sense of illness. Everything develops normally, there is no need to treat. And it was also said that the attitude to the thesis “the city is sick” is precisely the dividing line that divides the supporters and opponents of the strategic master plan on different sides.
But this post is not about the master plan. It's about architects. About their attitude to the city.
I've only been in Perm for a little over a week. I was born and raised in Novosibirsk, and hardly any of my fellow countrymen who know me can reproach me for my dislike of my native city. And the thesis under discussion was expressed in relation to him. Loving your homeland does not mean not noticing its shortcomings. To love is to try to make your city better? And who, if not architects, has the opportunity for this?
I think in this place my interlocutors-members of the forum will again accuse me of demagoguery. Because love is love, but architecture is still not a hobby, but a profession. And those who are engaged in it earn money for their food. And it is not the city that pays them, but a very specific customer, who has his own specific business - to build at a cheaper price, but to sell it at a higher price. And this is normal, the only incident is that the consumers of architecture, alas, are not only the architect's customer, and even not only those people who will live in a particular house, but also all the townspeople and guests of the city. Another thesis that has to be repeated often (and it was not me who first expressed it) that architecture is the most public of the arts. You can turn off the TV, not go to the theater and cinema, not listen to music, not read books - but where are you going from architecture? It is impossible to avoid the daily contemplation of deformities, except by leaving, and after all, many leave, voting with their feet against the uncomfortable space.
It turns out that the architect has two customers, and one (the developer) pays and clearly defines his requirements, and the other (the city) not only does not pay, but also cannot clearly formulate his wishes. And the issue of the quality of the urban environment arising as a result of the implementation of the architectural project becomes the personal affair of the architect, the issue of his talent, education, understanding of the city, ability and desire to convince the developer - and, I repeat, no one pays the architect for the quality of the urban environment, but pays for the designed square meters. … And if you start fighting for it (quality), you can lose the order, and earn the reputation of an obstinate performer.
And what happened in Perm, what is the fuss, why the architectural community has been in agitation for more than a year and a half? And what happened in modern Russia was unprecedented, the authorities suddenly became concerned with the problem of the quality of the urban environment and presented strict requirements to developers and architects how to shape the environment. A strategic master plan with a set of rules to achieve its proper quality, a general plan developed on its basis, regulation of the maximum permissible building parameters - traffic rules suddenly appeared in anarchic construction so far, and, of course, for those who are used to building without rules, this is unpleasant.
The architects simply lost the habit of the fact that the city can formulate its own requirements for architecture, which differ from the wishes of the developer. And if in the past the city determined them in the process of coordinating the project by the chief architect, now there is no such procedure in the city code, and it is possible to require compliance with certain parameters during construction only by setting their maximum permissible characteristics in advance in the regulations. And in such conditions none of our architects worked at all.
The architects were not ready for the city to formulate its position in relation to the urban environment. They do not want to leave the cozy niche of "specialists in servicing the needs of developers", to learn approaches to design that are unusual for us, but have long been generally accepted in the world. They don't want to be doctors. But then one should not be surprised that you are not invited to discuss the problems of urban development.
Do you think that there is no illness?
