The list of nominees for the competition this year included 11 objects. Is it a lot or a little? In the opinion of the curator of the Rating Marina Ignatushko, it is clearly not enough, especially in comparison with previous years, when it was necessary to arrange a multi-level screening in order to reduce the number of applicants from 20-30 to a dozen short-lists that are comfortable for the jury members. But if we recall that we are talking about a regional center, where the volume of investments in construction is many times lower than in the capitals, especially after the economic crisis, and where high-quality architecture, in principle, is not a priority for developers, 11 completed projects is a large figure. And what objects!
The stylistic, typological and large-scale range of nominees covers almost the entire spectrum of real estate under construction in today's Russia. Of course, there are multifunctional (trade and exhibition complex with office premises, LLC APM "New Project", architects Vadim Vagin, Maxim Gorev, with the participation of Irina Polivanova), office (reconstruction of the Gazprom. Transgaz building, Bureau "Archigraph", architects Maxim Shirnin, Kaurbek Bagaev, GIP Nikolay Novik), shopping centers (TC "Chkalov", NPO Archstroy and TC "Ganza", LLC "Line" + TMA Bykov) and residential complexes (residential complex on Blokhina street, Creative workshop Pestova and Popova, architect Yevgeny Pestov, Alexey Kamenyuk, and two residential buildings from the bureau of NPO Archstroy). Also among the nominees was the reconstruction of the hotel complex "Oka" (LLC APM "New Project", architects Vadim Vagin, Irina Konakova, with the participation of Tatyana Yarova), testifying to the unsinkability of the Russian tourism business, which is increasingly paying attention to the potential of the domestic market and investing in regional projects, as well as two social facilities: a polyclinic of the Internal Affairs Directorate on Malaya Pokrovskaya from LLC Firm "SS Proekt" and a new building of the Olympic Reserve School, designed in the personal studio of architect Alexei Kamenyuk. And for the first time a private residential house (LLC "Istra NN", architect Viktor Zhdanov) took part in the Rating. Which, most likely, should be regarded as a pleasant surprise - not only because this precedent opens the way to the competition for a rather extensive and interesting layer of modern architecture, but also because the "discoverer" himself turned out to be a very worthy opponent for larger and more expensive competitors, having occupied third place in terms of the number of points awarded.
The main struggle unfolded between two objects: a residential complex on the street. Blokhin, nicknamed "Tetris" in the Rating, and the new building of the Olympic Reserve School (codenamed "Gymnast"), which has already received a diploma at the Zodchestvo-2005 festival in the "Project. Public complexes, buildings and structures ", as well as the Grand Prix of the competition" U-KON. Art Project 2011 ". However, there was no particular conflict here, since among the authors of both objects was the same architect - Aleksey Kamenyuk, who has been working in the workshop of Pestov and Popov since 2004 and at the same time conducting his own practice. Both buildings develop the creative method characteristic of the last buildings of the Pestov and Popov bureau, based on the play of protruding and sinking blocks of different scales, reinforced by a clearly localized alternation of blind and glazed planes. In addition, certain parts of the building are accentuated by bright multi-colored spots that form a picturesque three-dimensional architectural picture that evokes clear associations with the painting of Piet Mondrian. Of course, the residential complex embodies a "lightweight" version of the method, while in the project of a sports complex, which a priori assumes a freer and more energetically saturated architectural solution, it has been brought to its apogee.
It is not surprising that the jury members, which included not only Russian journalists and architects, but also their colleagues from France, Israel, Germany and Finland (for which it is necessary to thank the curator of the Rating Marina Ignatushko), equally appreciated both of these buildings, seeing in them the individuality of the architectural language and the flexibility of its application. Nevertheless, the final calculation of the awarded points brought to the first place the extension to the building of the Olympic Reserve School. Thus, the expert assessment coincided with public opinion - according to the tradition of the Rating, not only professionals, but also the public vote for works of Nizhny Novgorod architecture.
The results of the voting were announced at, I would say, a solemn ceremony, but in fact the event turned out to be very informal, friendly and devoid of any officialdom. Friday evening, February 3, under the arsenal, where the opening of the exhibition “The City Is. Architectural tastes at the turn of the century”, gathered Nizhny Novgorod architects, students of NGASU, journalists and all those who consider modern architecture an important part of the city's cultural life, one of its iconic brands. The program of the evening was designed in such a way as to give the audience an idea of all the objects nominated for the Rating, and each of them was told not by the authors, but by invited guests - members of the jury, experts and representatives of commercial companies, who have been supporting the Rating for several years now: Maria Dobrodeeva (U-kon company), Oleg Klochko (AGC company) and Olga Milyaeva (Alcotek company). Each object presented was awarded a special diploma, the wording of which reflected its most characteristic feature, which the members of the expert jury drew attention to in their comments. Original video addresses to the audience were included in the program as "star" introductions. They were recorded by Yulia Tarabarina (chief editor of archi.ru), Nikolai Malinin (architecture critic), Max Malein (architect) and Nikolai Lyzlov (architect, head of Nikolai Lyzlov's studio).
The main question of the evening - who will become the winner of the Rating - was visibly present in front of the audience in the form of a huge box covered with a white cloth. It contained the answer as to which of the buildings built in two years would be recognized as the best and whose culinary model would be ritually eaten to everyone's delight. In the end, in order to at least slightly reduce the intensity of passions, the organizers showed a rather eloquent hint - a group of girls-gymnasts performed with a wonderful number. After that, it became clear that the next to rise on the stage would be the architect Aleksey Kamenyuk, the author of the new building of the Olympic Reserve School, nicknamed, let us remind you, "Gymnast". Together with the architect, representatives of the customer of the project and the construction company that built it were awarded diplomas of the Rating and the Union of Architects of Russia. But the most important thing is to open the box and solemnly cut the 47-kilogram cake in the form of a completed building - Alexey Kamenyuk had to do it himself, wearing a traditional orange apron with the Rating logo and armed with a huge knife and spatula.
And the next morning, all those for whom the presentation of the objects-nominees at the ceremony was not enough, went on a tour of them in order to make sure from personal experience that there is decent architecture in Nizhny Novgorod and the Rating is not being held by chance.
PS
The Nizhny Novgorod Architecture Rating is held every two years. The enlarged time step is dictated by an objective necessity, because even in such a relatively actively building city as Nizhny, it is simply impossible to collect a line of nominees sufficient in quality and representativeness in one year. As a result, instead of reflecting on the topic of changing political conditions or the consequences of the economic crisis, the results of the Rating begin to claim something more, providing analysts with an excellent basis for diagnosing the regional architectural school and predicting its further development.
It is difficult to argue with the fact that in the 1990s the phenomenon of Nizhny Novgorod architecture was so bright and significant that no matter what buildings were being built in the city now, in the perception of an outside observer, they are all just echoes of past glory. And from this point of view, it turns out that the nominees of each successive Rating do not so much compete with each other as oppose the dictates of the canon, and the analysis of projects boils down to attempts to see in them either the adherence and creative rethinking of old traditions, or the revolutionary beginnings of an absolutely new architectural doctrine. You don't have to go far for examples. Even we, on archi.ru, with all our sincere respect for the Nizhny Novgorod architecture, historical and modern, since the mid-2000s, have analyzed and evaluated the results of the Rating using the same canonical "Procrustean lodge", announcing a paradigm change (Rating architecture of Nizhny Novgorod 2006-2007), then about the outlined ways of development of the regional school (Rating of architecture of Nizhny Novgorod for 2008-2009).
Now, looking back, we have to admit that we were wrong. All these were attempts to take wishful thinking, instead of trying to understand the objective reality, so persistently demonstrated by the results of the Rating. The urban architectural life of Nizhny Novgorod, which in former times more or less easily fit into the framework of monostylism, has changed dramatically after ten years, and one must approach its assessment with completely different criteria and measures. And, perhaps, first of all, it is necessary to abandon the unification on a regional basis. The phenomenon that we call "Nizhny Novgorod architecture" (meaning by this a single direction with a slight species diversity) has remained in the past. Now it has been replaced by the polyphony of the creativity of many architects, each of whom has grown out of it in one way or another, but during their “growing up” they have acquired their own style, their professional vision. The development of each individual workshop went its own way, new names were added to the previous leaders, the structure and quality of the construction order changed. Those. instead of a regional school with a rigid canon, many outstanding architectural personalities and teams perfectly coexist in Nizhny Novgorod. And it is absolutely senseless in this situation to try to impose or project the dogmas of the canon on the work of a particular workshop, evaluating them on the basis of proximity or, conversely, isolation from some imaginary "standard" of Nizhny Novgorod architecture. It would be more correct to admit that today in Nizhny Novgorod there are many very different and dissimilar architects who strive to make high-quality architecture for their city, as Nizhny Novgorod as they themselves understand and feel. These are Evgeny Pestov and Sergei Popov, Alexander Dekhtyar and Vasily Bandakov, Viktor Bykov, Yuri Bolgov, Alexey Kamenyuk, Sergei Tumanin, Viktor Zubkov, Valery Nikishin, Andrei Stepovoy, Dmitry Volkov, Stanislav Zubarev and many others, whose buildings become heroes of the next Rating.
