Alexey Muratov, round table moderator:
When we were thinking about the topic of this round table, we somehow naturally recalled lines from the poem by Venedikt Erofeev “Moscow - Petushki”: “… everyone says the Kremlin-Kremlin, from everyone I heard about it, but I never saw it myself. When I look for the Kremlin, I invariably end up at the Kursk railway station. This is a good epigraph to our round table. For many years, competitions have been held, dreams of beauty embrace both architects and organizers, but, as a rule, this does not end with anything at best, and at worst it ends very badly. The question arises: are competitions needed in Russia and, in particular, in Moscow, if they are bad at holding them?
I would like to quote two quotes. The first is from Mikhail Anatolyevich Belov, who recently wrote on Facebook:
“Now the competition is a familiar screen word, ritually symbolizing that they want the best and, as it were, choose. We now have a lot of such words-screens, hiding behind which, you can engage in personal gesheft - this is, first of all, reform, innovation, modernization. Everyone has listened to these words-screens, words-cliches for a long time and do not take them seriously. This verbal noise and ritual husk resemble the cliches of the Brezhnev era, and sometimes Gorbachev's "perestroika" and "acceleration". Hypocrisy rules the modern ball, or rather the disco. For many years, starting in 1996, I have been talking about competitive hypocrisy, but things are still there, I even got stuck even deeper."
Another quote is from Denis Leontyev, who wrote the following in an article for Project Russia:
“International contests are organized in Russia with the aim of: getting a PR effect; increasing the political and symbolic capital of the organizers by attracting prominent officials and famous architects to the jury; opening of project financing. The purpose of the architectural competition is not: to develop a transparent procedure to ensure a fair distribution of orders; improving the quality of the urban environment; selection of an adequate architectural solution, including analysis of potential risks associated with its implementation; creating conditions for the emergence of new architectural bureaus”.
And again I will repeat my question: if we are doing this with competitions, do our city need them so much today? Are they capable of solving the problems existing in our city? First I would like to give the floor to Grigory Revzin.
Grigory Revzin:
I still think that contests are needed. To begin with, I will say a few words about the history of the contests. At the beginning of the twentieth century, an architectural and artistic weekly was published in St. Petersburg. Everyone who publishes architectural magazines understands what it is like to be published as a weekly. At the same time, one, and more often three or four contests were published in each of the issues. During the 1910s, about a thousand buildings in Moscow and St. Petersburg were built through competitions. Then it was a usual, routine procedure, everything was based on competitions. There was no architectural and art weekly in Moscow, but the Moscow Architectural Society published once a year a yearbook of about 500 pages, which described about a hundred competitions. And this is in a provincial town! Moscow at that moment was the second city.
The wave of architectural competitions, by which we know the Russian avant-garde of the 1920s, is not a consequence of any special creative aspirations of the Russian avant-garde, but a consequence of routine. It was obvious to them that they could only choose a project based on the results of a competition. It all ended with a competition for the Palace of Soviets, when Comrade Stalin determined his architectural tastes and gave almost all the winners of the competition some parts of Moscow, so to speak, for feudal feeding. On this basis, institutes, workshops, sometimes departmental feeding, sometimes territorial were formed. We lived with this feudal system throughout the Soviet era. During this period, there were some competitions, there were attempts to revive the system, but they did not seriously change it. As usual, there were creative competitions within design institutes.
You see, these are two different systems: the system of feudal feeding, the distribution of orders for large institutions - state and private, but one way or another is the support of the state in design - or free competition. Competitions today contradict not only the system of fair distribution of orders, because from the point of view of institutions that are accustomed to receiving an order, it is unfair that they do not receive it. But the entire system of design, detailed design, and coordination is designed for that very feudal system. The contests turn out to be strangers' children, who do not understand where they come from and it would be nice if they were not.
I will recall the situation in 1996-1997, when Alexander Kuzmin became the chief architect of Moscow. At this point, he had several ideas in his program, including he wanted to launch architectural competitions. And contests were held: at first, rather funny - to the fountain, then - to the island, Borovitskaya Square. At that time I interviewed him, then he believed that the main public and private orders that affect the city center should be distributed on the basis of competitions. All this died pretty quickly, not even living up to the year 2000. There was, however, a competition for the Moscow City. This is a separate story where Mikhail Khazanov won. He remains the winner, but as a result, a completely different project is being built, with a different functional program, a different team of authors and in the wrong place. It is clear that this has nothing to do with the competition.
Alexey Muratov:
The same story was with the Manezh.
Grigory Revzin:
There is no ill will, there are direct economic interests of a large number of people, because this is a matter of distributing orders. The whole system, and not some individual person, resists this. Competitions are rejected. The same story was with the St. Petersburg competitions, which intercepted the initiative of Moscow. As soon as the competitions begin, we get a lot of complaints about them - both from the point of view of corruption in the selection of winners, and from the point of view of the incompetence of the jury, and from the point of view of the absolute inability of the winner to the design system in Moscow. As a result, those structures that have to agree, develop working documentation, simply fail the project. Do you remember what happened to the Mariinsky Theater, when everyone came to the conclusion that it could not be built at all. This is in a situation where a little later a competition for a Beijing opera was won. And it was built, despite the fact that it is much more complicated than the project Perrault invented for us. However, our structures have proven that Perrault's theater cannot be built. They are powerful enough, these structures.
We are now starting the same cycle. We have a new chief architect. And it will probably be the same as under Alexander Kuzmin: it will be found that the jury is corrupt, that the winner is chosen incorrectly, that he is incompetent, and so on. There are always losers in the competition and they are always offended. And this wave will undoubtedly continue.
But I want to say that today we are in a rather specific situation: the government, as the main customer, since the private order has somewhat shrunk lately, the government has absolutely no respect for Russian architects. If you turn to government officials with a proposal to invite a Russian architect, they, as a rule, do not hesitate to reject him and ask for a foreigner. The population also does not support architects at all. As soon as there is talk about new construction, it turns out that it is very easy to assemble a movement that will be categorically against any new building - be it a music school or a kindergarten. But it is impossible to collect those who support the construction. In our country there is a total disrespect for architecture, and especially in Moscow. In order to prove to society that architecture is something good, I see no other way than to show some kind of dreams that can captivate people. It cannot be done otherwise than through a competition.
You see, the system of mainline architects, the feudal system that Stalin invented, is convenient because the customer can dictate anything to the architect, change it, negotiate, etc., since the project is not a public document. At the design stage, we do not know at all what is being built. The architect is nobody at all in this dialogue. In the case of Yuri Luzhkov, this was clearly visible, 20 years under his leadership led to total disrespect for the architectural profession as a whole.
Alexey Muratov:
Do you think that competitions can restore respect to an architect?
Grigory Revzin:
Yes. I believe that there is simply no other option. Another thing is that I'm not entirely sure that the contests are capable of this, because the resistance to these contests will be very strong.
Alexey Muratov:
I will immediately ask a question to Sergei Kuznetsov, who, as I understand it, is a supporter of architectural competitions. Grigory Revzin has now outlined the sad fate of architectural competitions in the era of your predecessor, Alexander Viktorovich Kuzmin. Are you not afraid that your competition initiatives will suffer the same fate as the 1996-1998 contests?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
First, I subscribe to what Grigory Revzin said. Everything, indeed, is so. The existing system of selection and implementation of projects in every possible way opposes competitions, does not accept them, for it the competition is a completely alien organism. Although the official policy implies that all objects should be distributed through a tender, everyone understands perfectly well what kind of tender it is in accordance with Federal Law No. 94. It has nothing to do with what we, sitting here, mean by an architectural competition.
I see the problem that Grigory Revzin outlined - the lack of respect and understanding of architecture by society and the authorities, and in a word - by society. The problem is acute. People don't like architects, they don't know what they are designing. And overall there is some general dissatisfaction with modern architecture. If you ask the population what architecture they like, then modern buildings will definitely not be included in this list. Buildings from the Stalin era or even earlier will be named.
Thinking about how to popularize architecture and achieve an improvement in its quality, based on my personal experience, I quickly came to the topic of competitions. I started practicing architecture early, at first it was interiors and rather small objects at best. For the first time, I touched the architecture of large houses after meeting Sergei Tchoban and working together with him in Germany, including participation in German competitions in Germany. In Germany, the vast majority of objects are distributed through competitions. There, this, as described by Gregory, is a routine process. The situation is similar throughout Europe. I can say that having cooked in this environment, I believed that it could not be otherwise, I just did not know how the ordering system works in Russia. It was obvious to me that architects are famous and important people, not simple, but socially responsible members of society. Society understands this, and the authorities, as a part of society, know architects by sight. I recently met with the former Minister for Regional Development of France, who oversaw the Greater Paris competition. For him, knowledge of architects and their objects is a normal thing. He knows these people personally. It can be seen that he speaks with them in the same language. At the level of power, this is a completely different feeling. It is unlikely that representatives of the Moscow government know the names of architects freely, with the possible exception of Mikhail Mikhailovich Posokhin, whom everyone knows. The percentage of famous architects in our country is incomparably small in comparison with the European one.
Nevertheless, I believe that the competition is not an end in itself, but a tool to achieve the quality and competitiveness of domestic architecture, as well as a professional lift for young people, including not only new workshops, but also individual young guys who are just entering the profession. … A young architect, as a rule, is a person who still has a rather small professional experience in terms of knowledge of standards and design details, but great enthusiasm, knowledge of the latest technological advances, programs, software, he is interested in periodicals, is familiar with world experience. All this is already accumulated in the last courses of study and, in good cases, is embodied in bright ideas and concepts, of course, relying on the experience of senior architects.
In addition to attracting young people, competitions make it possible to compare a large number of options, create conditions for healthy competition between existing workshops. Judging by myself, and each person evaluates their experience, I can say that when interesting architectural projects began to emerge in Russia, there were quite a few competitions. They were not public and open enough and were held without the involvement of a professional jury, but nevertheless these were competitions. For example, a competition for a house project on Mozhaisky Val, organized by a developer, in which Speech also took part. Our main competitor was then Sergey Kiselev. There was also a number of large workshops. It was real, serious competition. In short, there were attempts, and there were many of them. It cannot be said that the competition institution did not exist at all since Soviet times. Although, of course, the state order was not distributed that way.
Of course, I have fears that attempts to launch the competition program will lead nowhere. But this does not mean that it is not worth trying. I believe that with a certain amount of experience, knowledge, energy and the support of the architectural community, I can make a difference. Any business may not work out, but this does not mean that it should not be started.
Alexey Muratov:
Sergei, do I understand correctly that you are advocating that now the entire Moscow order should be distributed on the basis of tenders?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
To declare that the entire Moscow order will be distributed among tenders, of course, would be very rash on my part. Now, wherever possible, I am talking about tenders - with private customers, with state ones, in various state institutions, in state unitary enterprises that have a city order. I can now list a number of our initiatives, where we are really moving, although of course I cannot be one hundred percent sure that everything will work out.
However, in the areas where we are active, progress is obvious. For example, the Moscow metro. We have now selected several stations for the interiors of which we are planning to hold competitions among Moscow architects. Currently, negotiations are underway to organize them. Another area is parks. Let's say Zaryadye Park. It would seem that everything is obvious with him - the president of the country personally gave instructions to make a park on this place. Nobody argues with this, on the contrary, everyone actively supports it. It is clear that a project of such importance cannot be developed otherwise than within the framework of a competition. An attempt was made to hold a competition, but, to put it mildly, not all were recognized as successful. After that, I, together with colleagues from the Strelka Institute and Mosproekt-2, have been conducting explanatory work for a long time, showing and telling. A lot of people are involved in this work, for example, Andrey Bokov will be involved in the near future. We have been fighting for several months now and receive a hat from the city leadership for the fact that they have not yet begun implementation. But the fact is that literally at every stage, in order to get off the ground, remaining in the legal field, one has to invent incredibly complex schemes. I am telling all this so that you understand at what level of resistance we are. But we are talking about a competition, which is declared by the highest level of government and therefore there is not a single person who disagrees with this project.
There are a number of private objects, with the customers of which it will be possible to negotiate so that they bring them to the competition. This is also quite difficult, because the developer is the owner of his money, and getting him to distribute the order in a way that is not obvious to him is also a very difficult task. Especially against the background of the general perception of the competition as a dishonest and corrupt act.
Alexey Muratov:
Tell me, has this feeling strengthened after you became the head of the Moscow City Architecture Committee, or, on the contrary, has it dissipated?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
Rather, it was dispelled, because I see that the system is so complex in management that much cannot be done for functional reasons.
There is a general mood of anxiety today. If we find at least one or two competitive projects, implement them and present them to society as a positive experience, then this will already be a breakthrough. Today, negotiations are underway in all areas. We are negotiating with Stroynadzor, which undertakes to monitor the implementation of the competitive objects in the form in which they were designed, up to the point that video cameras will be installed at construction sites. In general, we carry out extensive control over the quality of project implementation. Colleagues who have attended the recent review have seen how everything is happening. We look at samples of materials, invite customers, write protocols that guarantee that the objects will be implemented in strict accordance with the architect's project, using the materials and facade details chosen by him. We personally review and approve samples of materials. This is a total work in all directions. I believe that only a combination of tools can lead to some kind of results. A huge amount of work is being done. Every day for me starts at eight in the morning and ends very late. And most of the time is spent on this activity. And the more people you manage to ignite with these ideas and moods, the better.
Alexey Muratov:
Andrey Vladimirovich, have you been kindled by this competitive mood? I am asking you because, in theory, you should be the main pessimist, at least, the Union of Architects of Russia has been talking about competitions for 20 years and all the time with an unobvious result.
Andrey Bokov:
Sergei Kuznetsov now has the following task - to ignite everyone with the mood. But we have laws. In fact, we have Federal Law No. 94, which made competitions the property of everyone except architects. It's amazing. Competitions today are becoming the most popular occupation of a huge number of officials and all other persons, but not architects. We, who brought the very topic of contests into the public consciousness, found ourselves somewhere on the sidelines. This is a problem that has arisen here and now - the problem of Russia at the beginning of the 21st century. No country that respects itself and its surroundings, its architects has this problem. Even in the gloomy Soviet years and in Stalin's time, competitions were almost the main event in professional life. They were not an instrument, or practically were not an instrument, but were a major event, the result of which was the emergence of new names and new images. It was a matter of politics; the task of constructing a building based on the results of a competition was often out of the question. The task was of a different nature, no less significant for the fate of architects and the profession.
Generally speaking, there are two traditions - European and American. In America, there are no contests, there were none, and those that exist end in approximately the same way as our contests, for example, the contest at Ground zero. But why is this happening? In America, life is organized completely differently, and the city is shaped differently. There is no government order, almost all large projects are financed from related financing. There, people prefer to look each other in the eye and each client has its own architect. At the same time, great attention is paid to tasks and procedures. All of them are spelled out in a way that we never dreamed of. And they are the ones who guarantee the result that is observed in America.
It's a completely different story in Europe. The chief architect of any European town, large or small, in Italy, Spain or France, is endowed with fantastic power that our chief architects never dreamed of. And a whole range of effective tools for managing the formation of the urban environment. And in Europe there is the same competitive tradition that was so successfully formed in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, and then abruptly disappeared.
Generally speaking, nothing needs to be invented. The International Union of Architects has published a program detailing how professional practice should be organized. It follows from it that the competition is not an independent, independent procedure, but is built into a very verified system of relations. The cornerstone of this system is the code of honor. This is the foundation. In America, the code of honor is the most perfect document to date, which is confirmed by American law, civil code and law enforcement practice.
Everything is arranged in such a way that there is no place for an honest and transparent competition in our country. The contests we are talking about have been superseded by other contests. I think that I will not betray a big secret if I tell you that in a conversation with me, the Minister of Regional Development of the Russian Federation said that today the results of all competitions held according to a well-known formula by management companies and customers are 100% predictable. This is not happening out of the blue, this is a kind of defensive reaction to the fact that the country is mired in the abyss of deprofessionalization. A free market and free competition all over the world are balanced by the qualifications of the participants with a rigid selection of those who are admitted to this free market. I think a lot of people know what eligibility requirements are in the United States. We have no restrictions on this score. You can not have a diploma, have nothing in your heart, three days before the announcement of the competition, create an office and win the right to carry out design work. And in order to somehow be safe, the authorities and society are developing the very bureaucratic mechanisms that today operate flawlessly according to the minister's feedback.
Alexey Muratov:
Do you think that you first need to correctly build a system of architectural activities, and only then hold competitions?
Andrey Bokov:
Of course, I don't think so. Competitions must be held, and everything must be done, and Federal Law No. 223 opens up such opportunities for us. There are chances, if you use them correctly. You know, for example, that the last competition for the Mariinsky Theater was held in such a way that one of the requirements of the prequalification procedure was the presentation of a design solution: portfolio, price, plan or schedule and price.
Yes, of course, we will come to the state in which Germany is. By the way, in Germany quite recently the law, according to which the executor of all projects above the indicated cost, was determined on the basis of tenders, ceased to operate. Moreover, during the qualification period, a certain number of foreign participants were obligatory. What was the reason for my participation, in particular.
Do you actually remember what Wright said about the contests?
Alexey Muratov:
Yes, yes, mediocrity is judged by mediocrity. Denis, do you agree that the competition is a procedure for mediocrity, and there are very few chances to hold at least one normal competition in Moscow in the foreseeable future?
Denis Leontiev:
There is a mediocre architect named Richard Rogers. He won the competition for the Pompidou Center at a time when his portfolio contained only a home for his father or stepfather. There are less successful examples - this is Watson with his opera. And to hold a competition that everyone, without exception, would be happy with, in my opinion, is impossible.
Alexey Muratov:
At Strelka, you hold contests quite often. You worked under the previous leadership of the Moscow City Architecture Committee and the city, and you work under the current one. Do you observe any dynamics? Do you have restrained optimism? Restrained pessimism? Aggressive pessimism?
Denis Leontiev:
I have aggressive optimism. Contests of ideas, which are now actively promoted, have turned into a profanation in Russia, there is no further action behind them. From my point of view, when a competition becomes a real market instrument, when it serves as a way to distribute orders, it is much more expensive and more significant. The weight of the solution gets bigger. When an architect is invited to draw a picture for free that will fall into the trash bin tomorrow, it is a profanation. I agree that the position of the architect in society today is very ambiguous and invisible. His professional activity is of no interest to anyone either in Russia or, even more so, in the world. The only way for a Russian school to start globally legalizing is through competitions.
Alexey Muratov:
I would like to ask Sergey Skuratov and Andrey Lukyanov. It seems to me that, from the point of view of common sense, neither the customer nor the architect need tenders. The client is more accustomed to working with those architects whom he knows well and who can give some predictable result. And it is easier for an architect to receive orders directly, bypassing competition. Therefore, it is not very clear to me why architects should organize a competition movement, which, in principle, they do not need. And customers don't really need that, right?
Andrey Lukyanov:
No, the customer really needs a competition. I carried out almost all my projects through competitions. Most of the architects present here have participated and won in one or another competition that I have conducted.
The customer needs a tender in two cases: the first is when you do not know what to do. So it was when we did not know what to do with the territory of the Kauchuk plant, where Sadovye Kvartaly is being built now. We had no idea how to make a 12 hectare piece of the city an elite one. The competition brought together the best architects. According to its results, one winner was determined, and all the other participants received for design for a specific section of the developed territory. As a result, we found the right solution with a large community.
The second reason forcing to apply to the tender is cost optimization. When you talk to only one architect, he sets his price, and you have nothing to compare with. When you honestly tell him that you have 2-3 more lucrative offers, the so-called gold rush begins and, in the end, there is an architect who is ready to do the same job with high quality for more reasonable money. This is a rather cynical business practice.
There are also unique cases when the competition becomes only a hindrance. Here we are talking about Richard Rogers. Once I was solving a difficult and cynical problem, when from 60 thousand square meters of area I need to make 100 thousand meters. Then I went to Richard Rogers, clearly understanding that no competition could interest the local authorities so much that they would allow me to do what I had planned. I brought Rogers, he drew the concept, and everyone was in a wild ecstasy. Approved 165. It was a clear task and we solved it.
There was another case when I came to one of the architects who dealt exclusively with elite housing and said that I needed a social housing project, and I would pay exactly three times less than it cost. And it is not surprising, but we have carried out such a project. It seems to me that at our round table we are not even talking about the urban environment, its improvement and development, but about how to properly use budget money in these conditions. So the example I gave demonstrates how this can be done, because the authorities themselves set the price. In general, in a properly organized competition, the most important thing is to summarize the results, which can become the simplest technical procedure, if the TOR is initially clearly and clearly drawn up and the evaluation criteria are indicated. What is the success of the Garden Quarters competition? We divided the summing up of its results into two parts and evaluated seven competitive concepts in two directions. The commercial component of the projects was evaluated by specially invited business consultants; the architectural merits of the project were determined by the architectural jury. The composition of this jury was formed by the participants themselves, who proposed their jury members, but if at least one participant did not agree with any candidate, we removed it. Thus, it was a transparent procedure, according to the results of which there were no offended.
Alexey Muratov:
Sergey Alexandrovich, are you a supporter of competitive procedures?
Sergey Skuratov:
Of course, I am a supporter of contests and an active participant. If all projects were developed within the framework of the competition, I would only be glad of this. But in order for competitions to become an effective mechanism for improving the urban environment and at the same time increasing the prestige of the profession in society, the law on competitive activity must become a law. It seems to me that the current leadership of the Moskomarkhitektura, SAR, SMA and other organizations should make every effort to at least pass the Moscow Duma a law on architectural activity. I carefully read all the materials that have been prepared for this, and I agree with almost all points. There are answers to almost all questions. I would like to say about three points in this position, which, in my opinion, are the most important.
First of all, this is, in fact, preparation for the competition. Qualification of those people who prepare contests. There should be complete openness, publicity of the discussion on this topic. The organizing team must have a high professional status and qualifications. People whose interests are affected in the upcoming competition, from government agencies and officials to local residents, should be able to somehow influence the formation of the competition program. Therefore, not only the competition itself should be announced, but also the procedure for its preparation.
The developed program must be approved and consolidated by the city, becoming a document from which one cannot deviate.
The next step is the jury selection procedure. For the result to be sufficiently objective, the jury must be as professional and impartial as possible. At one time, the SMA proposed to form a so-called competition commission, consisting of the most authoritative and reputable architects. The number of these architects in the jury of the total number, which, of course, may include officials, developers, etc., should have been at least two-thirds.
Alexey Muratov:
Do you think that the Union of Architects should hold competitions?
Sergey Skuratov:
I believe that any organizer of the competition should apply to the Union of Architects, or to another similar organization - the Academy of Architecture, SAR or Moskomarkhitektura. The city should have a list of reputable architects whose opinions would be weighty. The jury of the competition is a kind of aggregate opinion of individual members and the chairman of the jury, who has two votes in difficult situations. This is the only adequate procedure for choosing a winner, which has been developed by civil society and allows the formation of a relatively independent opinion. The jury must be sufficiently large, at least five architects, regardless of the theme of the competition. Otherwise, architects are invited to show off and very easily go to certain deals with the organizers of the competition.
The most difficult thing is the compliance with the strategy and the obligations that the organizer of the competition initially undertakes with the further implementation of the competition project. A mechanism must be worked out to avoid killing the competitive project in the implementation. Grigory Revzin correctly wrote that in Russia the implementation of a project is his death. Unfortunately, I agree with this. The previous 20 years have brought into the arena such a type of architects who are most important to survive, they practically did not resist the circumstances that followed them during the implementation of the project. Few architects can say that they managed to build a house the way they designed it. This is such a blatant Russian practice that flourished in a situation where the architect was practically unable to stand up for himself.
The last thing I would like to say is an analysis of the recent contests. I personally absolutely do not like the system, which, for example, was in the competition for the Polytechnic Museum, when instead of the jury there was an examination, and the final choice of the project belonged to the board of trustees, one hundred percent consisting of non-professionals, from people who did not answer to themselves, to society and in front of a professional workshop for the result of their own choice. A similar situation was with the Pushkin Museum, even earlier - in Strelna and in many other competitions organized at the same time at the highest level.
Andrey Bokov:
Sometimes we do not understand the subject we are discussing. First, Sergei spoke about the draft law on holding a competition. This document was made in full accordance with the materials of the ISA, this is an organization whose authority is confirmed by UNESCO and the United Nations. Competitions in the world are not held between organizations, but exclusively between qualified architects and individuals. We do not have this category, these people, as a rule, are united in Unions, Chambers, etc. These organizations are authorized to conduct competitions and qualify these competitions as those in which members of Chambers and licensed architects can participate and those in which they are not encouraged to participate. It is the policy of the ISA that all tenders should be open. Competitions that are organized outside the law, in a gangster manner that do not guarantee the observance of copyright, are not recommended and cannot be considered competitions. From this point of view, all competitions are held by Strelka, squirrel, etc. - these are contests in which self-respecting people, in the opinion of the Western public, should not participate. But we have no choice, and that's the whole problem.
Alexey Muratov:
Let's discuss the competition for the Polytechnic Museum separately.
Grigory Revzin:
I would like to make a little clarification. I understand the logic of architects who want the final project to be chosen by professionals. But, unfortunately, the customer pays money for this and he has the right to make a decision. Probably, when such a system works for a long time and the customer trusts the professional community, this option is possible. In the 1900s, a system was adopted whereby the customer had the right to choose one of three, and sometimes of five, winning projects. The National, built by Walcott, for example, was fifth in the competition. The system that was invented for the Polytechnic Museum was built exactly on this principle. A professional jury chooses people who can complete the project on an equal level, and then the customer chooses. Today it is impossible to convince the customer that he should implement the project that the architects have chosen for him. It's a matter of respect.
Sergey Skuratov talks about the list of respected architects and community members. You see, they are respected within the community, but they are unknown to the society and the customer. The customer will not accept their opinion if they choose what he does not like. Therefore, let's leave a legal gap between what the customer likes and what the architect likes. Let's leave three projects for the customer to choose from. At least we, the professional community, could guarantee that this is a quality project.
Another thing is that we cannot always guarantee this. When Ishigami was chosen in the competition for the Polytechnic, I jumped to the ceiling and shouted: what are you doing, we need to choose a professional architect.
Alexey Muratov:
The competition for the Polytechnic Museum is a competition with a private customer. And he is not obliged to follow the norms of the ISA.
Grigory Revzin:
The state does not allow us to hold creative competitions for the project precisely because of the Federal Law No. 94. Therefore, in almost all competitions where I was a member of the jury or organizer, the same scheme was always used: a certain foundation or board of trustees is created next to a state organization, which is a private organization, it holds a design competition, as a private organization it has the right hold a competition for absolutely anything and choose what he wants. After that, the selected project is presented to the public, and then there is a competition in accordance with Federal Law No. 94 for detailed design. After that, a nightmare begins when, as Andrei Bokov said, the Ministry of Regional Development knows who will win.
Dmitry Velichkin:
The competition for the Polytechnic Museum has budgetary funding, not private. And personally, I have no complaints about the program of this competition. Another thing is that it was not performed. There were global violations, in particular - it was about affiliation. One of the first points of the program stated that Strelka was the consultant for the competition, and it was also said that Strelka employees and affiliated people were not allowed to participate in the competition. Nevertheless, the competition was attended by Yuri Grigoryan, who is a co-founder of Project Meganom, a co-director of Strelka's educational programs. In my opinion, there is a violation here.
In addition, the new chief architect of our city, Sergei Kuznetsov, was a member of the jury of this competition, and as a result, the company "Speech" and its western partners were among the finalists. Strelka explained this by the fact that in connection with the appointment of Sergei Kuznetsov to the post of a civil servant, he left Speech. However, in the register of single legal entities as of December 21, 2012, the company still had three founders, including Sergey Kuznetsov. And only from December 22, after all work on the evaluation of competitive projects was completed, changes were made to the register. In this regard, I have a question for Strelka, which was involved in checking the portfolio and submitted documents. The institute refers to a certain law firm that advised them on affiliation issues. I would like to understand in which field we are - in the legal field or as in that joke where all animals are equal, but some are more equal.
Denis Leontiev:
I am glad that you have no questions for the other four participants. I can tell you more about the tender procedure and our position. The Institute is the operator, our task is to create conditions for the competition to take place. There are two fundamental approaches here: there are state tenders, for participation in which each participant must submit a stack of endorsed, notarized documents. Many of our architects are simply not able to prepare such documentation. And our position is to create such conditions for the architect, under which he could quickly and efficiently prepare and submit a project. At the same time, we must guarantee the quality of the project to the customer.
In this regard, our institute did not ask in detail who owns what shares. This is not within our competence. Indeed, at the request of the customer, we attracted a law firm and together with it we checked the applications, considered all the questions that arose. We clarified the situation with Sergei Kuznetsov, and he provided us with a document on leaving the Speech bureau.
As for Yuri Grigoryan, the conditions say that employees of the institute and affiliated persons do not have the right to participate in the competition. An employee is a person for whom the institution is the main activity. Grigoryan does not fall into this category in any way. And, in the end, the jury made the decision about who to admit or not admit to the competition. This is not our decision. And the jury also approached this very responsibly, it sat for six hours.
Grigory Revzin:
We were provided with a contract for the sale and purchase of Sergei Kuznetsov's share in the Speech firm, from which it followed that he had ceased to be its owner, after which we considered Sergei Tchoban's project. The agreement was earlier, and the information was apparently entered into the register later. As for Yuri Grigoryan, we discussed this issue, including with Dmitry Velichkin. The architectural community is quite narrow, everyone knows each other. Such claims that someone is familiar with someone and someone works for someone will always arise. It is absurd to imagine that, for example, Dmitry Shvidkovsky is a member of the jury, and in this regard, the professor of the Moscow Architectural Institute Dmitry Velichkin cannot participate in the competition. Affiliation here means that a person can get either a financial result from a win, or administratively can influence it. In the case of Grigoryan, neither the one nor the other happened, because Strelka could not influence the result, and would not receive any financial preferences from the winnings. Denis Leontyev was not at all interested in Grigoryan and Choban being present among the finalists. And we, as members of the jury, were just interested in this, because the quality of the competition is determined by which companies eventually took part in it and made it to the finals. And these are some of the strongest architects today, and I am glad that they are taking part in this competition, which is why its importance is increasing.
Mikhail Belov:
It seems to me that we are constantly walking in circles, it is like wandering with Moses, which lasts 40 years, and there is no way out of this for the simple reason that we ourselves have bureaucratized our consciousness. We endlessly operate with bureaucratic and now business concepts. We have forgotten that in architecture, besides the business component, there is also a sacred metaphysical component. This is not done by organizations, firms and companies, it is done by people who need to be educated.
Many here said that there are various competitive systems - German, American, etc. I am well acquainted with the German system, because I have been brewing in it for about seven years, and I am familiar with the Japanese one. I want to tell you that both are the subtlest stylization of the image of justice. The fact is that the crisis of modern architecture is global and very significant. Let's not associate competitions with the quality of construction in architecture. Look at some Latour Le Corbusier (La Tour tower on the roof of the "Marseille Unit", see the image here - approx. Archi.ru). Where is the quality? Made "tyap-blooper". But what does this have to do with sacred and metaphysical architectural quality. Do not confuse the "brand" of the building and its artistic, cultural qualities. And let's not say that competitions can improve our environment. Our environment is 98% crap, which has always been made and will be made out of competition. Competitions are only 2% of attractions where architects, or rather architectural bureaus, do their own PR. This will not improve the quality of the environment.
I am a long-standing and consistent supporter of the idea that architecture should be done by people, not bosses, not bureau co-owners, but specific architects. There is such a thing as "native speech". And when will we start making "native architecture"? Or is this question already closed?
Among other things, I have been teaching for 30 years. I have taught in different countries. And I want to say that if a capable boy or, which happens more often now, a girl, falls into your group, then you are very lucky. Until we create conditions for young and not very young professionals working in various styles (thank God we have this), have the opportunity to express their ideas, we will go in circles. Projects are invented by people, and implemented by design bureaus, this is a business where you can make good money.
The Japanese imitate Europe and America superbly, but in fact the Japanese system is very simple. There, architects are recognized as a separate caste, they are priests of beauty. Imitating the system of competition, they adhere to the most severe hierarchy. And life goes on as usual: let's say there is a certain sensei named Arata with his staff of hired employees. Often these are his students, it is customary to teach there. What he tells them, then they will do exactly, a step to the left, a step to the right - "immediately hara-kiri." But time passes, and this Arata invites the worker to the Sensei's office, that is, to his office, where, for example, three people are waiting for him, three of his current customers. And so Arata informs his employee that these people will now be his customers for the next 15 years, because Arata has already taught him everything and he is no longer his apprentice, but an independent architect who needs customers. So there they are! Can someone here so generously share their customers and let go of the one who brought him profit? We need to pick this out of our lives - if it works out, then with the help of contests, or better with the help of conscience.
Alexey Muratov:
Sergey Olegovich, do you think conscience can be an effective mechanism for picking out new golden boys and girls?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
I am convinced that you need to try different forms. What happened in the last 10-15 years with architecture and led to today's result, in any case, something needs to be done about it. We try with competitions without resorting to total reform. If the result is, then we will continue to move in the given direction. Otherwise, we will look for other measures to promote young architects and change the situation in general.
Sergei Skuratov spoke about reputable architects. This is a good idea, but I'm afraid there may be problems with its implementation. The same competition for the Polytechnic. Could you model a jury of five reputable architects who would not be affiliated?
Sergey Skuratov:
There are a lot of experienced and talented architects in Moscow, there are definitely 50 people who are able to formulate their point of view and competently convey it to the professional community. If foreigners participate in the competition, then for objectivity there should be a certain percentage of foreigners in the jury, but not the majority.
A separate topic is absolutely humiliating conditions for participation in competitions: if the competition is for a theater, then the portfolio must include a built theater. And if the competition is for a guillotine center, then only those architects who have already built such centers will be able to take part in it? But this is complete nonsense. Any architect understands that a professional who has built only housing can safely design a theater.
Sergey Kuznetsov:
I would like to add about the participation in the competition for the Polytechnic Museum of the company "Speech", which in this case accompanied the project of Massimiliano Fuksas. I think it's not worth talking about the formal side, as if we are not in court. A question to Dmitry Velichkin: what should have been done in this situation? Do not allow Grigoryan and Tchoban to participate?
Dmitry Velichkin:
I believe that it would be correct either not to admit these companies to participate, or you should leave the jury.
Mikhail Khazanov:
Ethics is probably the last thing we have left, corporate relations and human dignity. In any case, the years of greedy existence did not quarrel, at least most of the architects. This is important, and I, as vice-president of the Union of Moscow Architects in charge of competitive activities, will do my best to support this and soften, if possible, critical moments.
Today the competition looks like a mechanism for distributing orders, it has always been somewhat like that, I mean not conceptual competitions, but real ones. A wonderful system was worked out in them, by the way, at the suggestion of those present here, in particular, Mikhail Belov once proposed a rating list of one hundred names, confirmed by international prizes and the most prestigious Russian awards. From this list, 10 names are selected by random numbers, which make up 2/3 of the jury. If the two-thirds rule is canceled today, then a melting Moscow awaits us all. I propose to Moscow and the region to switch to this system, to implement and improve it step by step. And the Union of Architects will help all organizations that take the initiative in every possible way.
As for the competition for the Polytechnic Museum, it was a disgusting event, when Nikita Yavein and Yuri Grigoryan were removed without explanation. Discussions between lay people are always disgusting to the professional ear.
Olga Zakharova:
I wanted to support Sergei Olegovich and ask a question to Mikhail Belov. If you have been teaching for 30 years, have such vast experience and directly see the work of the talented children you teach, why do you not contribute to the compilation of such a list where the client could freely choose an architect? Young specialists have no other opportunities to prove themselves, except by participating in competitions. The more significant and larger the object, the more likely it is that the competition will turn into a bunch of titans who will never let the young guys get through. You will crush them with your experience, connections. I am sure that Sergei Olegovich has many, albeit small, but projects that can be entrusted to young architects.
Mikhail Belov:
There are incentive prizes for young professionals and, as a rule, they receive them. And then they can already claim victory.
Andrey Lukyanov:
In my opinion, our main problem is that the number of architects, for example, in Barcelona is equal to the number of CAP members. We do not have a culture of architecture in society. There contests are held on a certain formed basis, we do not have it. Accordingly, it turns out that our architect is, indeed, some kind of great, closed caste. Western architects are very accessible and calm people. And this also affects the public perception of the architect and architecture. Keep it simple and people will be drawn to you.
Denis Leontiev:
The competition is not needed by the customer and the architect, but by the society. In fact, the architectural caste is rather narrow, while it wants to design and choose itself. The result that we have today is the result of this caste character. And if the caste itself does not make decisions about changing the situation, then either it will continue to degrade, or it will come to a complete disregard of itself by society. It is obvious that today the problem of ignorance already exists.
Nikolay Golovanov:
Today we have no Chamber, no procedure and no law. And all the competitions that we are going to try to hold now, but this should be done, trying different forms, attracting different architects, making ratings, will still run into the problem of the absence of these three components. Therefore, the result that architects dream of is practically unattainable today. The result of the competition must be a protected copyright idea. In our country, after a person has won an award, anyone can intervene in the project, and the result in 90% of cases is not what the author dreamed of.
On the question of young talents. They will show themselves, for them there are public organizations, special contests, many conceptual contests for young architects are held. Thus, a person is quietly making his way. When a serious competition with serious budgets is announced at the level of qualified portfolios, there is nothing for a young architect to do there. And I don't see any tragedy in this, you need to move gradually. But without the Chamber, the law and the procedure, there will be no normal competitions. And, of course, this requires political will.
Sergey Skuratov:
I would like to defend that generation of architects who for 20 years made their way through an absolutely engaged layer of institutions created under Soviet rule. These architects have only now achieved some professional independence. And for this, for some reason, they are already called a caste. I reject all attacks, there is no caste. I have to categorically dissociate myself from what was said by Mikhail Belov, who presented the heads of the workshops as monsters, establishing an almost slave-owning system within their companies. A huge number of talented architects work in my studio, who are not oppressed by anyone, they have the opportunity to participate and successfully participate in youth competitions. We have a huge number of competitions for young architects in Russia.
But I believe that a really complex urban object should be obtained in a fight. It is normal and natural for all architects to be classified as experienced and inexperienced. But I am against the preference of young people at the expense of professionals, they must make their way on their own and the main criterion should be only professionalism.
Nikolay Shumakov:
Complete despair was outlined at the very beginning of our event. Whatever one may say, but Russia is all at the Kursk railway station. Whether we will use the translated materials of the ISA or turn to the wonderful program of the CMA, written on the basis of international programs with the direct participation of Mikhail Khazanov, but if there is no law, then each time there will be their own rules, no matter how much we want it.
Alexey Muratov:
I heard about the discussion of the law 20 years ago, the impression is that we are back in 1996 and are really running in circles.
Andrey Bokov:
There is a law on architectural activity - a sensible law. And the competitive procedure does not work, because the Federal Law No. 94 was adopted.
Sergey Skuratov:
When we discussed these issues in the early 1990s, the city's chief architect was not present. Unfortunately, today leading Moscow officials did not come to us, for example, Marat Khusnullin did not come. But, in any case, now the situation can be solved with a young initiative and new leadership. Yes, 20 years ago they also decided and 100 years ago they decided, but people are different, and each person has his own resource. Sometimes these resources are added up and sometimes they are subtracted.
Grigory Revzin:
There are filmmakers, they do not have a law on cinematographic activity, nevertheless, they live quite well. There are writers who also have no law. And the question is not about copyright, but about respect for them by the state. When you talk about a law that will be adopted and will do everything for you, and at the same time Marat Khusnullin and other statesmen do not come to you, it is not very clear how you will adopt this law. To pass the law, architects need to have lobbying opportunities. Unfortunately, these opportunities do not exist. Architects are not respected in our country.
The Law on Architectural Activity has been written and it is beautiful and wonderful, but I absolutely do not understand how to make it so that it is adopted and that it is enforced. This requires respect for this professional group, and respect can only be earned. Still, whoever you talk to about architects who are people who make decisions at the state level, they answer us: look what happened to Luzhkov's Moscow.
