The interview is available in video format; below you can read the transcript of the text.
The full list of the members of the Arch Council can be seen here >>
Video recording of the interview. Part 1.
Video recording of the interview. Part 2.
Archi.ru:
The talks about the new composition of the architectural council have been going on for half a year, practically from the moment you took office as chief architect of Moscow. Why so long?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
It seems to me that it is not the conversations themselves that have been going on for so long, but for so long we have been engaged in the issuance of a resolution and work on the regulation on the Arch Council, its functions and powers (I will extract from the position, see here). This turned out to be quite a challenge. We are tightening the framework for work in the coordinating structures, and the arch council is, of course, a coordinating structure. There is a fight against corruption and so on. For objective reasons, consideration of all the details from a legal point of view took a lot of time. And so the resolution on the Arch Council was issued.
But why so long is not a question for me. I have never been the initiator of these conversations. The fact that our architects and the community are interested in it, I think, is good and great, because it is an indicator of interest in architectural activity in general. But, on the other hand, I noticed that architects have such a trait - I don't know if there is something similar in other professions, but ours definitely does: the issue of the status and prestige of meetings anywhere is too important in itself. I personally suspect that in some cases we are dealing not so much with a desire to fight for the quality of architecture, but with an urge to be present in an important organ. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't want to be ugly in the eyes of those people who sincerely want to participate in work and achieve joint success. But the abundance and density of conversations is caused rather by the first factor than by the need to start working and consider something as soon as possible.
Archi.ru:
Is it possible to change the composition of the Arch Council?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
Yes, of course it is possible. Moreover, it is necessary. I wanted the roster to be as rotated as possible, and this proposal passed. It is obvious to me that the arch council should not be very large - otherwise there will be a lot of discussions, contradictions, conversations. A large number of people, having gathered together, can hardly make decisions, and the arch council in this case would be ineffective. Therefore, I wanted the lineup itself to be small. But, since there are a lot of people who want to work on the council, so that we can change it and take turns addressing these issues. It would be interesting then to compare the decisions taken by one composition of the council and another. The change in the composition, moreover, would be an event capable, to some extent, of endowing the activities of the Arch Council with an additional plot.
We have compulsory rotation every year. Moreover, for the first composition, we did not select the entire quota of the required seats: according to the regulations, there can be from 12 to 21 members of the Arch Council, now there are 15. The remaining seats - depending on the active position of certain architects in the public field of discussion, depending on If new names appear in this field, several more people can be included in the council. Well, I emphasize once again that the rotation will not be one hundred percent. That is, it is not necessary that we replace everyone once a year. But there will be some kind of quota, I don't remember now whether it is fixed in the resolution or not. Of course, we will noticeably renew the composition of the Arch Council every year.
Archi.ru:
Who will make this decision and who made it now?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
The decision was taken collectively. In general, the principle of forming the Arch Council was rather complicated. Not that we sat down and wrote a list of surnames pleasant to our ears and decided that it would be an arch council. We took a rather difficult path: we collected recommendations from representatives of various public organizations connected in one way or another with design: the National Association of Designers, the Russian Union of Architects, the Moscow Union of Architects, educational institutions (MARHI, the Academy of Architecture, Strelka) - everyone who or otherwise are actively present in the discussion field. We interviewed a fairly large number of specialists and made an extended list of all the people who were recommended.
Then they selected a certain top of this list - those who were mentioned more often than others. And already with this top they worked more closely. There were certain permutations in it. And then the coordination began: after the dropout, the composition was agreed with the leadership of the Stroycomplex. The final composition is endorsed by the leadership of the Stroycomplex and the city, and it was drawn up on the principles that I described. Further decisions will be made according to the same algorithm.
Archi.ru:
Still, who were they interviewed - architects, officials?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
I said - the National Association of Designers, there is a specific leader, Mikhail Posokhin, they gave their list. I do not know what the mechanism was, but, as we assume, there were internal meetings of the association, at which they made their list. Unions of architects gave their lists. That is, everyone we interviewed wrote lists. And they were not everywhere from twenty people. The lists were forty people or more. From these lists, the composition was collected. It is clear that it is very difficult to interview each person - although I can say that there were quite a few applications for inclusion in the Arch Council in this form. It can be seen that people are interested in this, but I approach such interest with restrained optimism and believe that many people have not the same motivation that would seem to me to be the right one to work in the Arch Council.
Archi.ru:
The list turned out to be very interesting and very diverse. In it there are people from what is called the old time, there are people from the new time, and even there is one foreigner. This is very new. Doesn't this contradict Moscow rules and laws?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
And there are no rules here, so I think this is normal. Of course, the ideology of the Arch Council, explaining why the list is exactly like this, is not taken from the ceiling, it is thought out. There should be a balance, as you rightly said, between people - I would not call them people of old and new times - and people who worked with the city know it, are, among other things, bearers of reference information - plus they can explain the logic of acceptance certain solutions. Projects at the Architectural Council are always considered in the context of neighboring territories, and there is always a need for knowledge holders who are well versed in how decisions were made on these territories.
There must be continuity, of course: there is no need to throw out the child with water. We cannot start urban planning activities from scratch every time. Like, let's cancel everything and admit that everything that happened was very bad and let's start sculpting our own. People will also come after us and will also say that everything was very bad. And we will start endlessly, while others take a hundred steps, we will take twenty five steps from the same place, and in the end we will remain in total five steps from zero. I think this is wrong. It is necessary to critically evaluate, but also to understand in what logic decisions are made, to find something good and continue to use it in the future.
There is a balance between representatives of the authorities, officials - and people of the commercial market or the public field (you can call it differently). Here, too, the balance is approximately halved. The people who will implement the decisions and who will bear the responsibility will be inside the council in discussions with people who represent the interests of a wide range of professional community and public opinion. It should also be understood that the named composition of the council is by no means all who will be able to take part in the discussion. Specialists in certain areas will be invited to the meetings - consultants, experts. This is also not forbidden, but, on the contrary, is encouraged. The aim of the council will, of course, be to make the most competent decisions: everything is open, accessible, understandable. This does not mean that a certain group of lobbyists has gathered who want to defend certain things or, on the contrary, cut them down. Decisions, of course, will be taken by procedural voting, but the discussion will be broader.
Archi.ru:
And yet why Stiman, and not, say, Jose Acebillo?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
You know, I’ll say right away that it was my idea to invite a foreign specialist to try one. I think that if the experience succeeds, we will invite more. Why Shtiman and not someone else? Firstly, there will still be such a body, it does not exist yet, but when working on the master plan and the city plan, we want, as a continuation of the competition for Greater Moscow, to make the “Greater Moscow” bureau of specialists, consultants who will help us make a master plan for the city. … There will be enough foreigners there, because many foreigners took part in the competition for Greater Moscow. We do not feel the absence of international experience. Therefore, there was no goal to invite many foreigners.
Why Hans Stiman? His candidacy, of course, will seem interesting to many. I'll explain in more detail. It seems to me that in many respects it corresponds to the ideal. Firstly, he was the chief architect of Berlin, and for quite a long period of time. And Berlin is a very interesting model city, it is the merger of two urban planning schools - western and eastern, which it united. In fact, there were two Berlin. This is a rare city in Europe, which has been actively developed over the past 10-20 years. I do not know of any other city from the iconic, capital cities, which would be built up like this. Moreover - in the central part, the most important in urban planning. In fact, with the direct participation of Hans Stiman, a new city center was created.
Prior to that, Berlin was one of the European cities of the second plan. If you rewind 20 years ago, then we must admit that the push was made in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall: before that, no one perceived Berlin as an interesting point on the map of Europe. They were perceived as politically tense, but architecturally interesting, I guarantee not. A colossal leap has been made in these little more than 20 years. Such urban development, which Berlin received, including image development, was not known to any city. Today it is one of the most fashionable points on the map of Europe, the most interesting, and from the point of view of urbanism, it is perfectly solved - there is no problem of traffic jams and transport in general, the sociology of the city functions interestingly. The city is complex, multinational, one of the largest, by the way, in terms of its population of diasporas - in particular, there is a significant Turkish diaspora in Berlin. There are difficulties that we also have in Moscow, but there they are already being successfully resolved in one way or another. So I think the sum of Hans Stiemann's experience is very interesting.
In addition, this is a person who has colossal skills and knowledge in areas that we especially lack. This is the quality of architecture in itself: it is, let's say, the consistency and continuity of decision-making - from urban planning decisions and master planning to details, to where the entrance to the building is located, what is the size of this entrance, what is the entrance handle made of - to the smallest detail …I do not know of another specialist of this level, who simultaneously possesses a large store of knowledge, growing on the basis of the German town-planning school and town-planning experience: he had events in his life that allowed him to go through a lot in practice. Therefore, he seemed to me a very interesting candidate. I admit that we can then work with someone else, but I think it will be an interesting experience to start with.
Archi.ru:
How will this be implemented in practice? The person lives in another city. How often will the Arch Council be held? Will he come to meetings?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
Until the arch council will be held more often than once a month. We will invite him, he will come, he agrees to this. I do not see any difficulties in this.
Archi.ru:
Now about our council members. Out of 15 people, I counted about six practicing architects - heads and deputy heads of large workshops (Evgeny Ass, Alexey Vorontsov, Andrey Gnezdilov, Yuri Grigoryan, Vladimir Plotkin, Sergey Tchoban).
This is less than half of the total composition. Why did it happen so?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
This is less than half, but more than a third. I think this is a good percentage. We also needed to include people who are not architects, but representatives of the Moscow Heritage Committee, for example (Irina Savina, First Deputy. Department of Cultural Heritage of Moscow - note by Archi.ru). This is also necessary, many questions are related to this. The chief architect was supposed to be a member of the architectural council - I believe that this is my area of responsibility and I am not a practicing architect either.
There are also a number of people whom we have included: Grigory Revzin, a journalist and architecture critic, and with a large baggage of international experience. He is the Commissioner of the Russian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale - in Europe there is no more significant event, saturated with interest in architecture, than this biennale, I believe, does not exist. In addition, he knows the topic of architecture, international experience, the relevance of architecture like no one else - although he is not an architect either.
There were a number of people I thought it was right to include. There are some places left for architects, we have filled them. It seems to me that this is a normal, not bad balance. The question is: for whom is architecture? He's so philosophical. Architects do not work for themselves. Still, architecture is for a wide range of people. The goal was to reach the maximum number of interested people. Get representatives of those who are responsible and those who are interested. Yes, architects are representatives of the professional community, but the community should not overestimate itself and its importance. The community still serves people and customers by expressing the opinion of the market and those people. Therefore, the role of people from the community is important, but it is not final.
Archi.ru:
I would say this is a very positive position. But if we approach it from the other side: when these six architects bring their projects to the Archcouncil, how will they consider them? Leave the hall?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
You asked a question that I hear surprisingly often, although I myself do not perceive this as a problem. To be honest, we have no restrictions on the consideration of our own projects or the inability to vote on them. I have heard of all sorts of experiences in this regard. Someone says that they left the hall, someone didn’t. As it was before, I do not remember very well. But I don't remember anyone getting up and leaving. This is a public process. I do not believe that someone, having forgotten about their conscience, will begin to defend an unsuccessful decision, realizing that it lies in full view of the entire public. This would be inappropriate behavior. And it seems to me that there are no inadequate people in our council. So it doesn't matter, it is up to the architect and is not forbidden. The defense of your project must still be carried out by the author of the project, it does not matter whether he is a member of the council or not.
In the end, we can make some decisions within the council. Let's start working - and if we understand that it turns out incorrectly, in the end, we will make a decision that the author does not vote on his project.
Archi.ru:
Among the six already named architects in the list is Sergei Tchoban, with whom you recently worked at the SPEECH bureau. Although you left this office, everyone knows full well that you have maintained good friendships. How can you comment on this candidacy and how did it come about?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
It is foolish to hide or say that this candidacy is not related to me. Everyone understands this, everyone knows that we have been partners for a long time, we have created an office that, objectively speaking, is working successfully and the result of this successful work is, among other things, that I am the chief architect today. I think that the success of the office played an important role in this, and not only my personal merits or dignity.
As for his candidacy. Of course, there have been many discussions and conversations on this topic, but you quite rightly said that today, apart from a long joint history, I have no creative or economic contacts with my office. I left the founders and the authorship of the projects. My co-authorship remained only in the current, already started projects. I will not repudiate, maybe we will decide to design something else together, but now I try not only to participate in the projects of the SPEECH bureau, but also not to participate in any other projects. I believe that as a kind of moratorium, this is correct. I guess I'll stick with that, at least for a while, we'll see.
Sergey has colossal experience, first of all, foreign, which is very important for us. Now it would be strange to say that we are at the level of understanding the professionalism with which architectural objects are made in the West, in Europe or in the USA. This experience is useful to study. You do not need to copy it, but you need to know and understand. I can say objectively that in Russia there is not a single person with such experience of foreign design as that of Tchoban. This can be said for sure and unconditionally. Plus Sergey has a very good experience of working in Russia, by the way, not only associated with 'SPEECH'. In St. Petersburg, there are projects that were made even before the formation of 'SPEECH', marked with a lot of awards and prizes. Today, if you take any literature on Russian architecture, both within Russia and in the European context, there will be his projects. Although our joint projects have also received a large number of awards and prizes. So the qualifications are beyond doubt. Of the last big events - the Venice Biennale: received a special mention. For the first time ever, the Russian pavilion was awarded by the jury. I believe that, given the sum of these factors, it would be at least strange not to include such a specialist on the board. I do not hide the fact that I largely influenced the composition of the council, made a large number of proposals. So, I thought that this proposal should be submitted, introduced it and it was approved, so Sergei Tchoban is in the Arch Council.
Archi.ru:
You are planning to hold many contests, especially for iconic sites. How will the contests be combined with the consideration at the arch councils? Will the results of the competition be considered in meetings or are they parallel procedures?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
We are now working on the regulations for the competitions. I believe that competitions under the auspices of the Moscow Committee for Architecture - we want to introduce such a thing - could in principle be exempted from consideration. These are contests, where we consult with the customer on the composition of the jury, on the terms of reference, on the parameters that they introduce, we check the validity of those decisions that they want to put in the competition. Such contests, I think, can not be submitted to the council later. Moreover, of course, the jury will include a noticeable number of people from the Arch Council. The Council must agree with this.
Now it is difficult to answer one hundred percent. I think that many competitions - yes, but some can be discussed both there and there. We are now writing the regulation, it will still be discussed.
Archi.ru:
If the regulation on the Arch Council is ready, how will the function of the Arch Council change now? Will it meet more often or less often? To what extent will his decisions be more or less weighty?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
The answer to this question is related to the question about contests. There are especially public, high-profile objects, such that, regardless of whether it is a competition or not, whether it is my decision or not, will be submitted by the city authorities to the council, for example, due to the fact that there is an order from the president to consider this object at the arch council. The function of the arch council for the consideration of iconic sites, of course, prevails.
So far, it is assumed that the council will submit objects that have a GPZU and some volumes. Initially, I thought that it is wrong to discuss functionality or volume at the architectural council, or such questions as “to give the volume of square meters or not to give it” - this is a question for specialists who make calculations. Of course, we can say that they are swindlers, bought - but with this we will also fight.
It should be understood that this would turn the council into a kind of lobbying body, which would immediately become a target for people inclined to solve economic issues through the council, which is wrong. I am a supporter of considering on the council objects, the scope of which has already been determined. For example, they gave a kilogram of clay, what to mold out of it - a plate, an ashtray or a kettle? This is a question of advice, what to mold from a kilogram of clay, but the kilogram of clay itself is already there. Plus, some kind of limiters can be introduced: issues of height, width, depth, light - can be discussed, but the issue of area is not a matter of advice. Although, probably, on behalf of the city authorities, such issues can be considered. If, for example, the city administration says: we do not understand how many meters can be made here, let's consider this at the council, - well, let's not be forbidden. All the questions that can be brought up for advice are still difficult to describe. I think these can be very different questions. Life will show.
the text of the conversation is literary processed
and is not a verbatim transcript of the video
interviewed by Yulia Tarabarina, transcript by Alla Pavlikova
The new composition of the Moscow City Council: return to reading / | \
addition:
Excerpt from the regulations on the Architectural Council of the City of Moscow approved by Mayor Sobyanin on January 23, 2013:
return / | "According to the document, the Architectural Council is a permanent collegial and advisory body under the Committee for Architecture and Urban Planning of the city of Moscow, which reviews projects and solutions in the field of architecture and urban planning. The Council was created for the practical implementation of a unified urban planning and architectural policy in Moscow, improving the quality of projects used in investment and construction activities in the capital. The main tasks of the council are the professional assessment of urban planning and architectural projects and research works in the field of architecture and urban planning, analysis of existing and newly developed standards in the field of urban planning, architecture and related types of design activities."
source: press release of Moskomarkhitektura
return / |
