Attempts to identify the most worthy objects among the architecture of the construction boom period of the 90-2000s have been made earlier. The rating was compiled by Project Russia magazine: it includes such objects as the Moscow International Bank on Prechistenskaya embankment and the McDonald's building in Gazetny lane. Three well-known architectural critics Nikolai Malinin, Grigory Revzin and Elena Gonzalez for two years led the project "Building number …" in the Museum of Architecture, in which every month one new building was exhibited. Among the elected were, in particular, the shopping center "Gvozd" and the house "Patriarch". Other experts compiled a list of the five best buildings that featured Mikhail Belov's Pompeii House. However, before trying to sum up the architectural results of the twenty years, when only in the center of Moscow about the same number was built as during the entire period of Soviet power, it is necessary to develop criteria by which this architecture will be assessed. The discussion began with an attempt to find them.
Aleksey Muratov said that recently, when discussing such topics, there has been a seemingly subtle, but nevertheless very significant replacement: instead of the term “monuments”, the word “heritage” is being used more and more often. Thus, it is not memory that comes to the fore, but inheritance, i.e. "Good", "property". The economic component becomes the main one, and from the classical Vitruvius triad "benefit-strength-beauty" preferences pass to benefit. Indeed, the adaptability and polyfunctionality of buildings is the most demanded criterion, and beauty as a universal concept does not exist. Sergei Skuratov agreed with him that only a person capable of development, be it a building or a person, can live a long and beautiful life. Relevance and quality should become the main requirements for architecture, its adaptation to the city, which in turn should be regulated and controlled by civil society, which was completely absent during the entire past twenty years, hence the result - only three, maximum five buildings of the period under consideration, according to Skuratov, meet these requirements. To this, Boris Levyant noted that according to statistics all over the world 3-5% of buildings under construction fall into the category of outstanding, and this is normal, because a practicing architect may not have such ambitions at all, he simply solves a specific problem. Much more important from Levyant's point of view is that these twenty years have changed the minds of architects, the understanding of architecture as a social environment, open to the city and included in what is happening around, has come. Sergei Tkachenko was even more optimistic, speaking in the spirit that Moscow is not St. Petersburg, and any architecture takes root here, and even the secondary becomes relevant on Moscow soil. Everyone agreed that although our achievements in the global architectural process are still more than modest, such a number of erected structures cannot fail to grow into quality, and, perhaps, "accelerating", we will be able to make a breakthrough.
All the architects who participated in the discussion were in solidarity in the low assessment of the quality of modern Russian construction. The global trend is not to demolish anything, but to adapt and adapt, but for this, buildings must be reliable and durable, must age beautifully. Modern construction technologies, which Skuratov called "vulgar innovations", especially curtain walls, will lead to a reduction in the recycling period, which will have a detrimental effect not only on the environment, but also on ideas - there will be less and less innovation. The theme of the artistic idea also touched upon all those present. The architects explained that a museum or a theater can be unique objects, a school, and finally, apart from housing and offices, practically nothing is being built in our country. In addition, the otherness of thinking, capable of generating new ideas, which in turn, of course, are a commodity, must be nurtured from childhood. An artist must have his own program, his own identity, and such manifestations must be protected and cherished, and our society not only does not wait for such people, but also fights against them.
In general, answering the main question of the discussion about the value of the architecture of the recent past, all the participants shifted the decision onto the shoulders of future generations; although their advice should certainly not be taken too seriously. Boris Levyant spoke in the sense that even if everything built in the post-Soviet period had to be demolished, nothing terrible would happen: “but what remains by chance will become a monument of the era”. Sergei Skuratov suggested waiting until all current authors die, and then thinking about what to do with their creations. Sergei Tkachenko in a milder form agreed with him: "whether the city accepted this architecture, it will be seen later." Alexey Muratov, observing the process from the outside, tactfully said that each period has its peaks, and all of them will definitely be cataloged. However, we know that the most notable of this period has already been cataloged in Nikolai Malinin's guide to Moscow architecture in 1989-2009 and in several other books. So the interested descendants will have the opportunity to give their opinion on the architecture of our new past.
