Archi.ru: Sergey Olegovich, in one of your interviews you said that the task of an architect is to design good houses. What, in your opinion, is the task of the chief architect of the city?
Sergey Kuznetsov: The task of the chief architect is to create the conditions for good houses to be conveniently designed. I want really worthy and the best architects to design them, and I believe in the principle of competition. Our office was built in a free competition mode, all the largest objects were obtained by us through tenders, and I am sure that only the quality of architecture can and should be a selection criterion. The task of the chief architect is to explain this to the authorities, customers and developers, to pursue a systematic, deliberate policy of improving the quality of the architectural appearance of Moscow. Competition is the fertile soil on which good architecture should grow. And it's not just about the design phase. The competition should continue after, because the implementation of a quality project requires control of all stages. Many things are difficult to immediately take and adopt legislatively, but you can introduce a system for tracking the quality of architecture, manage "personal affairs" of construction companies, customers, developers and monitor the quality of architecture they issue as a final product. And if they have proven themselves well, consider this experience in the future.
Archi.ru: Do you see your role in creating conditions for high-quality and fair architectural competitions?
S. K.: Yes. You see, this is not the task of the mayor or even the deputy mayor for construction, because these are people with a wider range of responsibilities. Of course, there is also the level of the community, trade unions, associations and public organizations. As practice shows, they have always existed, but they could not achieve serious changes, for example, with regard to the right to guaranteed author's supervision. From my point of view, the chief architect is the very force that can make and defend such decisions.
Archi.ru: Do you consider it necessary to develop good taste among the customer and the consumer of architecture? What tools does the chief architect have for this?
S. K.: In my opinion, the main thing is to explain to developers that they need to trust professionals. Although, of course, taste also needs to be developed. For example, at SPEECH we published an architectural magazine and showed good examples in it, explained in simple language why some things should be done correctly and some should not. This is an attempt to develop taste. A large number of events, lectures, round tables that Sergei Tchoban and I held in different cities of Russia and abroad are attempts to act in this direction. In general, I think, through the professional press and in general through the press, it is necessary to educate taste not only among customers, but also among city residents. Because it is impossible to make a city a place to live without the citizens' interest in architecture.
Archi.ru: Do you agree that over the past 20 years people have learned to demand good service in cafes, but in relation to the city the level of expectations has remained very low, the culture of consumption of the urban environment has not been formed?
S. K.: Yes, that's right. The culture of consumption is a very important factor that determines the quality of life. At the same time, you need to understand that if people are dissatisfied with something, the reasons for this dissatisfaction must be sought, including in oneself. You know, there is such a principle of raising children: if you are dissatisfied with something in a child's behavior, write down what exactly you do not like in his behavior, and then write down what you do not like in your attitude towards the child. And start by correcting your perception. When you do this, you will see that the first list has shrunk by itself. I myself am a father of three children and I know for sure that this principle works - both within the family, and in the relations of people with each other, and in the relationship between a person and a city..
Archi.ru: The competition for a draft concept for the development of the Moscow agglomeration has just ended. Many experts say that the discussion was set high by foreign teams who understand each other very well and speak the same language. If so much depends on competitions in the city, how open should they be and how to increase the competitiveness of Russian architects?
S. K.: I'll start with agglomeration. I was present at the presentation to the mayor of Moscow of project teams' proposals, and I cannot say that foreign architects set the bar. Yes, they do bring in certain quality criteria, and I think we need to learn from Western design culture. But the performances of our teams - both TsNIIP Urban Planning and Andrey Chernikhov - made a very good impression. Their depth of understanding of local problems and peculiarities was clearly visible. For example, they emphasize that it is difficult to think in large, regular forms in an already established territory, and Moscow is not expanding into empty space. Architecture is first of all real estate, it is tied to a place, therefore knowledge and experience of working on the site is very important. It's one thing to ask foreigners to make cars, irons or televisions for us. Asking them to make architecture for us is much more difficult because it is tied to a place. Therefore, my attitude to working with foreign architects is rather ambiguous.
As for the tenders in general, then, firstly, Russia has entered the WTO, and everyone needs to be prepared for the fact that competition will intensify. Secondly, from my experience of working with foreign architects, and of a very high level, I can say that it is very difficult for Western teams to start and finish a project here, to bring it to an end. Therefore, I believe only in consortia, in an alliance of Russian and foreign teams, and foreigners should have offices in our country, and Russian bureaus need to build up international contacts and try to do projects abroad, including strengthening the country's image, which now only holds on oil and gas. But I am not for open, but for controlled competitions, when first there is a preliminary screening by portfolio and criteria, and then a creative competition, preferably on a paid basis, so that strong teams participate that are able to bring the project to implementation.
Archi.ru: In one of your interviews, you talked about the chaos that the diversity of balconies, air conditioners and other similar things brings to the urban environment. But we can say that this is the way people live in a rather dull neighborhood environment. Do you consider it necessary to organize such spontaneous manifestations?
S. K.: I am sure that it will not work to make the urban environment sterile, no matter how hard you try. But trust me, good quality objects do not encourage people to paint graffiti on them, remodel balconies or hang ads in an unorganized way. The same advertisement is a way in which you can decorate a city, or you can disfigure it if it is poorly drawn and placed in the wrong place. The same applies to urns, and stops, and a lot of other things, and all of them need to be thought of. Since the Soviet era, Moscow has been built up with typical housing, which, by its similarity, makes people do something, often not even because they do not like something. It's just that a person is inclined to be different from others in something, and this must be taken into account in architecture: you make a typical section, make different facades, different halls on the first floor, different entrance groups. I believe that the activity and desire of a person to be different from others can and should be used to organize the environment. Therefore, it is necessary to provide for a place for the air conditioner and design an entrance so that one does not want to paint on the walls and throw garbage in it. This is all done with the tools of architecture as environmental management. But at the same time, one must be aware that a person's desire to stand out from the crowd is inherent in his nature. And you need to give people the opportunity to realize this desire in a non-destructive way.
Archi.ru: What tools does the chief architect have for this? Will you be able to influence how facades, fences, yards will look like?
S. K.: There is a department of the chief artist of the city, nice and responsible people work there, but their team must be strengthened by good young artists who want to work, first of all, for their own image, since the salary in government agencies is low. I invite young professionals - graphic artists, object and landscape designers, painters, sculptors, architects - to contact us. I myself plan to start recruiting after returning from Venice. This service should show itself more actively, initiate competitions, take a position that is understandable to the community, and influence the quality of the improvement. 90% of the city is an already established structure, we do not come to a new place and do not start filling it from scratch. We need to work with what we have and correct mistakes. I will definitely do this, although the order of tasks is not yet fully clear to me.
Archi.ru: Another sore point for Moscow is the preservation of the historical heritage. In your opinion, how long should it take for a building to become an object of historical heritage?
S. K.: This is not only about time. Why did people care about heritage at all? If you rewind time 150 years ago, there were no architectural monuments as such. There were historical, semantic monuments related to what happened in them. Only when a critical mass of houses was formed, which, as they grew old, became ugly, and even less beautiful new houses came to replace them, this prompted people to think about the fact that there is some kind of heritage that makes sense to preserve. It must be understood that the root cause of the hysteria around the legacy that arose then was that at some point the new became much worse than the old. Fear of the new and concern for the preservation of heritage have been developing for decades, people are used to believing that nothing in the city can be touched in principle, because in the place of the old some new nightmare will arise, much worse. I am sure that if you find a way to influence the creation of good architecture and create conditions for its development, then gradually this fear will disappear. People will still feel attached to some places, but they will gradually stop being afraid of any changes in the city.
Archi.ru: Now the idea of creating architectural councils at municipal assemblies is heard, it is still rather vague, but it reflects the demand for a high-quality environment at the local, district level. How do you feel about such initiatives?
S. K.: In general, of course, I have a good attitude, but on the other hand, this is such a declaration from the series “it is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick”. Of course, it is necessary that creative, capable people develop their living environment in each separate area. But there is a huge problem: we have a very short bench. I mean the lack of competent personnel. Therefore, in reality, I find it right to use the master planning tool and strictly follow the master plan program to fill in the gaps and voids of the urban fabric. Transferring this work to the municipal level and conducting it on an initiative basis, I cannot imagine in reality, at least not yet. And I do not believe in a direct appointment either, because our practice shows how people appointed from above eventually begin to engage in their own interests locally, not on a competitive basis, but through some kind of personal connections. And where these people come from is also not very clear. So my answer is competitive base and master planning.
Naturally, the question may arise: here I am talking about the value of competition, and I myself have been chosen to the post of chief architect on a non-competitive basis. But I disagree with this wording. Qualification, competition, elections are very important, but you need to understand that in fact, all elements of the competition were in this decision. The criteria by which my candidacy was considered, among others, were named to me at the first meeting with Marat Khusnullin. And the main of these criteria is experience. Someone may not believe that at the age of 35 I managed to take part in so many large and small projects, but it is true, I have been working very intensively for a long time. We did a lot together with my partner Sergei Tchoban, but this does not mean that it was not done by my hands. For some reason, it is generally accepted in our country that before the age of 50 an architect cannot talk about some kind of experience, but I strongly disagree with that. You can do some kind of nonsense for 50 years, and then say that you have some experience. In our office with Sergei, I recruited employees (this was my duty) and always tried to select enough young people, because their minds are open to new things, they are able to develop. Before my appointment to the post of chief architect, about 50 candidates were reviewed, they were selected in a competitive manner, it can be considered a closed competition. In fact, all the competitive events took place, the competition was crazy. Many people do not understand who exactly made the decision? I think it is absolutely normal that if the Moscow Government forms a team for itself, then it makes decisions and bears responsibility for them.
Archi.ru: You mentioned past experience. What role will your experience of working in Kazan play in your activities in your new post?
S. K.: It was very funny for me to read somewhere a comment that we had a “Kazan mafia” here, because we were building a sports facility in Kazan. Marat Khusnullin, when I was invited, in my opinion, did not even know about this project, it was a revelation for him that I had a job in Kazan. But in general, Tatarstan is a wonderful region, and it is no coincidence that there is so much work for architects. This is the result of a reasonable and planned policy of the region. I personally gained a lot of experience there, since for several years I have been supervising the construction of our facility in Kazan and have been conducting missionary activities to explain to all participants in the process why it is so important for us to achieve quality at every stage, when there are a thousand little things and "the devil is in the details." Working in Kazan gave me a boost of optimism that in Russia it is possible to successfully develop the city as a single system. Before that, I was skeptical about the implementation of urban strategies in the Russian context, but it turned out that this is possible when there is a team of competent professionals.
Archi.ru: By the way, to the question of urbanism. A number of experts believe that Moscow needs not a chief architect, but a chief urbanist …
S. K.: It's hard to argue, the observation is reasonable, but there is no such person yet, that's the problem. This is again a conversation from the series "it is better to be rich and healthy." Of course, Moscow needs a chief urbanist, and I’m all for it. Indeed, I lack a lot of complex knowledge about the city, and if I can gradually improve my qualifications in the field of urbanism, I will be immensely happy to work for the city. At the same time, Alexander Viktorovich Kuzmin was such a serious urbanist, he could well be called the main urbanist of Moscow, he is a unique personality and could cover a huge number of issues. But even with such a strong specialist, you can see where Moscow has gone. This is a question of the team, a question of the attitude of power, because in this situation, one in the field is not a warrior. It is important that the city's policy is aimed at complex changes, and who exactly will implement them - the chief urbanist, the team of the chief architect or someone else - this is a question from the field of art of the possible.
Archi.ru: Maybe it makes sense to invite not only architects, but also urban specialists to the architectural council, in order to partially compensate for this deficit?
S. K.: In general, I highly appreciate the role of the council, and at the very first meeting in connection with my appointment, I suggested activating this tool. We need a board of professionals under the chief architect who will act as his advisers. Now a lot of analytical work is underway to form the structure of the council, I myself think a lot about this. It is important that it be a creative, constructive body that, in a calm and positive mode, will consider the tasks that are urgent for the city, guided by the desire to solve them, and not look for painful points into which you can prick. The focus on results should prevail, even if we do not find the perfect solution. It is better to move forward, albeit with flaws, than not to move at all, this is a fact. As they say in military science, it is scary to make the right decision. It is even worse to accept the wrong. But the worst thing is not to accept any. I consider this principle to be correct for myself. I need professionals, realists and, in a good sense of the word, pragmatists with a positive attitude.
