Archi.ru:
What Ostozhenka has created is one of our few architectural achievements. You went beyond the limits of architecture and started talking about urban planning problems, analyzing not individual sections, but the urban environment. And here you were, one might say, the first
Andrey Gnezdilov:
Yes, we were really the first then. Since the end of 1988, we have been working on a project for the comprehensive reconstruction of microdistrict No. 17 "Ostozhenka", now this kind of work is called a planning and surveying project. It was a turning point in the country, the time for change was coming.
The first thing we did on Ostozhenka was to restore the historical parceling, the boundaries between households, between public and private land, and we did this long before the very concept of private property appeared in the country. We shifted to the plane of civil law, rethought neighborly relations. In fact, there is neither beauty, nor architecture, nor urbanism in it - these are just the regulations necessary for the normal development of urban development, the rules of behavior.
And now, with these guidelines, I came to the Institute with the aim of promoting and implementing them, because over the past 20 years nothing has fundamentally changed neither in the regulation of urban planning, nor in the City Code. The city is still being designed according to SNIPs, adopted in Soviet times, in accordance with the socialist philosophy of common land ownership. At the same time, attempts are now being made to separate this land independently. That is why so much ugliness appears in the city - houses are built according to the principles of socialist SNIPs and in no way fit into the urban fabric, which is formed at another time and according to other laws.
Is it possible to project the principles of the historically established development on new micro-districts?
Of course not. But when we design new volumes, we must ask this question. Even when designing in the field, we create a kind of functional formation, and we have to think over how the streets will be located and how wide they will be, in which part the public space will appear, and where there will be private property. Neighborhood rights should be clearly defined, which are currently missing in the civil code. For this reason, civil principles are being substituted by professional agreements, which is fundamentally wrong.
The city needs clear rules of the game: chess, for example, at first glance seems to be a simple and understandable game, but the number of games in it is infinite. The genius of this game lies in the fact that simple rules combined with circumstances and context create an endless number of beautiful and interesting interactions.
But one gets the impression that such rules exist in Moscow, there is a landscape-visual analysis, regulations …
Both landscape-visual analysis and regulations do not work automatically. There is always a human factor, research is carried out, on the basis of which the researcher makes a particular decision. In New York, for example, for each separate area of the city there are rules - the cross-section of streets, their height and width, the so-called envelope of the sky, are spelled out. And there is not even a way to argue with this.
That is, it only seems that there are rules in Moscow, but in fact all of them do not guarantee a predictable result. If there is a need to formulate rules, what role can the General Planning Institute play in this?
Now, by order of the Moskomarkhitektura, the norms of urban planning are being developed. It is very important that they include the basic principles of neighborly law. The developer must understand that there are restrictions, including those that apply to his private property. However, there are gaps in the legislation that today do not allow regulating human activities within private property.
Therefore, it is now pointless to adopt a document without reinforcement at the level of civil legislation?
Quite right, initiation of the law is necessary. So far I do not understand how it is possible to submit such a bill to the Duma. Now changes are being prepared in the Civil Code, but so far only those primitive norms are being supplemented that relate mainly to dacha relations.
Is this one of the functions of the chief architect of the General Planning Institute?
No, this is rather my personal position. The Institute should deal with urban planning norms, we have such powers, but of course, we cannot change the country's civil code.
What should the chief architect of the Institute do? It is clear that the Institute is a rather complex structure, in which very little space is left for the architecture itself
For me, architecture is by no means boxes and decorations, but a systematic approach to transforming space. From my point of view, architecture is the environment that a person creates, on all scales - from interior to natural landscape.
In this case, shouldn't you have any problems with the transition to the issues of city planning? The scale just changes. The development of your bureau also went from the Ostozhenka microdistrict to larger urban formations and to the concept of the development of the Moscow agglomeration
Even now I have remained on the scale of the metropolitan area, only in the context of the metropolitan area. There is no mental conflict, it's just that the design object is quite large-scale, but at the same time it has its own face.
Not many now dare to say that Moscow has its own face. They often say that it can be different and that it is good
I'll explain. I am not saying that Moscow has a certain face or image, but there is a clear and distinct structure of the city as an organism. His face is not some kind of external characteristics, but a structure, a system.
What qualities distinguish this system?
A good doctor sees a person not as a set of bones, meat and fluids, he sees him as a system that functions naturally, he sees its deviations and diseases, he understands that this system can lead to death. In my opinion, this is very close to understanding the structure of the city. Moscow in its structure has always been radial-circular: a web of roads with an obvious center and rings that appear around it at different times. First, there were fortress walls, then - city streets, the Garden Ring, the Third Transport Ring, behind it - the Fourth and the Moscow Ring Road. Moscow as a bicycle wheel is a rigid and understandable scheme. However, for a number of reasons, it does not work as simple as it looks.
In the middle of the 19th century, railways came to the city, and none of them repeated the street and road structure. Railroad lines were laid through ravines, inconveniences, turning into scars that cut the city tissue. It is clear that the railway had no purpose to harm the city, it had to come to the station, and for this the shortest and cheapest route was chosen. As an example, I will cite the Nikolaev railway, which, as Skokan says, burst into the city tangentially, like a comet, and stopped at the future square of three stations. Then there was a shot from the Yaroslavl railway, etc.
Railways are a separate structure with their own needs for growth, station facilities and infrastructure, which, again, is not connected in any way with the city and even systematically opposes it. When a train enters a city, passengers don't even know where they are. They see not Moscow, but an alien structure built into it - City-2 or System-2. (The term of A. E. Gutnov). This is a kind of symbiosis of two alien organisms - Moscow and the railways.
At the beginning of the 20th century, just 50 years after the construction of the first station, the government of Imperial Russia initiated a large infrastructure project - the Moscow District Railway. (now the Small Ring of the Moscow Railway) At that time, this line crossed the territory of Moscow only in the Luzhniki area, and the main part of the ring passed through the territories near Moscow. It was not just a railway, this ring connected all existing railway lines - so that it would be possible to transport cargo without difficulty, say, from the Yaroslavl branch to the Paveletskaya branch. And again, the Moscow International Railway turned into a system-2, not connected with the city. Currently, there is a decision to launch passenger trains on the Moscow Railway, to develop transfer hubs, and to develop the adjacent territories. The implementation of this program will have a fundamental impact on the change in the urban structure. Life will come here, these zones will become full-fledged parts of the city.
At the time when the railways were just being built, they served as a framework on which, instead of a public function, an industrial city developed. Railway traffic was launched in 1908, 9 years before the revolution. During this time and for another 20 years of the Soviet system, the entire Moscow industrial belt grew - and all along the railways. The factories, like the railway lines, occupied very inconvenient places in the city. Despite the fact that factories were city-forming objects, they were completely excluded from the urban fabric.
The industrial era ended, and with it the industrial city died, and remained outside the city life. For the residents of this part of the city, there is simply no, they do not use this space in any way. Now there is a lot of talk about the development of industrial territories, but in reality it turns out only to eat off, where possible, in small pieces around the edges. The systemic development and inclusion of industrial zones in Moscow is still ahead.
Another part of the city, almost entirely dropped out of it, is the river. It is just as impenetrable and is the same separator as the railways, and just like them, it is occupied by industrial facilities and wastelands. At the same time, the length of the Moskva River within the city limits is about 80 km, and comfortable embankments are arranged for no more than a quarter of its length. At the same time, the Moskva River has a huge recreational and species potential. No street in the city offers such distant points, solemn views and perspectives like a river. And this quality is also by and large not revealed in any way.
Thus, we have a city developed by only one third.
Does the fact of your appointment to the post of chief architect of the Research and Development Institute of the General Plan mean that the city government supports your initiatives? And how does your professional position compare with the work plans for your new position? Is there an opportunity and perspective to bring these two lines into one?
Everything that I have just told you is a wonderful fairy tale, my philosophical vision of the city as an object. I am aware that these ideas cannot be realized in one day. However, it is extremely important to have such a program as a kind of tuning fork for your activity. The other day we considered the projects of TPU at the Moscow Railway, pondering how to integrate them into the surrounding city, how to define their zone of influence. Obviously, it will not be possible to solve all the issues at once. For example, the Moscow Railway station is located 700 meters from the metro station. To get a knot, one of the stations must be moved, and this is almost impossible for a number of purely technical indicators.
As for the position of the Government, I do not know it, I have not yet presented my ideas to them.
But as the experience of Sergei Kuznetsov shows, the dialogue with the authorities resonates, if only because they now need to gain political points. This situation could be used to the benefit of the city.
My function is to formulate tasks. But in an environment where all urban planning activities go backwards, this is quite difficult. First, a master plan should be developed, then a master plan, followed by a PZZ, territorial schemes, planning projects, a GPZU for each site, and at the very end - the parameters of an individual house. And now everything happens in exactly the opposite sequence.
What's stopping you from developing a master plan?
To do this, you need to try to reverse the current trend, reverse the movement, which is not so easy to do. The existing vector was formed due to the fact that at one time we did not manage to create a legislative base, and the customer did not want to wait, the ground under his feet was on fire. Now we are working like a fire brigade, and in fact, no one is happy with it.
Perhaps there is a chance to reverse the process by grabbing somewhere in the middle. As the tree is easier to turn over the middle than the top, so we probably should have developed planning projects first, and based on them, develop a certain quality standard. At the same time, it is necessary to approve the norms of urban planning, then, perhaps, it will be possible to return to the right direction. With Sergey Kuznetsov, we are already discussing planning projects and the possibility of bringing them to an acceptable, good quality, without canceling the existing developments. The same principles can be used to work on the master plan and master plan.
Isn't it easier to separate the current stream and bring one group out of it?
Such groups already exist - a group that deals with strategic planning, the general plan is already being dealt with by a team led by Alexander Kolontai, active preparatory work is underway for the formation of a master plan. I correspond with them every day, participate in the process, and I think that in the future I will be able to somehow influence their work.
Have you discussed your area of expertise with Sergei Kuznetsov?
We talked about two fundamental areas - Moscow urban planning legislation and planning projects, which are the practical side of the laws. I am starting to work on these topics.
How is your relationship with the acting director of the General Planning Institute Karima Nigmatulina being built? Many expressed doubts about the advisability of her appointment due to the fact that she is a mathematician by education, and not an urbanist or an architect? How will this affect the achievement of the set ambitious goals?
It seems to me that it was absolutely the right choice. The director of the institute does not have to be a city planner. His first responsibility is to lead the Institute, to organize a clear, efficient and at the same time comfortable system for employees, so that people can work with interest and full dedication. And to fulfill this task, Karima Robertovna has all the necessary qualities. The fact that she is a scientist and mathematician is only a plus. It is distinguished by clear, systematic thinking, which guarantees the consistent implementation of everything conceived. Moreover, I feel in her a pronounced desire to achieve this goal. There is a very strong energy in her, she is an active, decisive person, a real "motor", infecting colleagues with her confidence and positive drive. She is sincerely interested in all aspects of the functioning of the institute, plunges into even the most private issues.
What tasks have you, together with Karima Robertovna, identified as priorities for the near future?
There are many plans and tasks. Since the very first conversation, when the possibility of my appointment to the position of the chief architect of the institute was just being discussed, the range of topical issues and priority tasks has been constantly expanding. As I immerse myself in the affairs of the institute, more and more directions are added to my main functions of supervising current projects, developing urban planning documentation and planning projects. For example, we have just been discussing the necessity of launching a special educational program. We have not yet determined the format, perhaps it will be seminars or Workshops on pre-planned topics, within which employees can improve their qualifications and study international experience. We also want to invite lectures by specialists from related fields (economics, sociology, economic geography), Russian and foreign.
In addition, we plan to make regular presentations of all workshops, where they could informally talk about the most interesting current and past projects, and thus a creative and lively atmosphere of exchange of information and ideas would be created at the institute.
Another, in my opinion, extremely important direction is the improvement of the information collection system. I must say that the technical base for data processing already exists and it is more or less working. But there is a chronic lack of initial information on objects.
Together with my colleagues, heads of key departments of the institute: Mikhail Krestmein, Oleg Grigoriev, Valery Bekker, Oleg Baevsky, Alexander Kolontai, we form working groups in the main areas of activity.
Returning to the beginning of our conversation, how do you plan to use the "Ostozhen" experience in your new position?
I will use this experience in lawmaking. When working within the urban fabric, the experience of Ostozhenka is very valuable. In the bureau, in practice, we faced all possible scenarios of neighborly relationships and understood how they can be adapted. It seems that all this is simple to formulate, but it is much more difficult to change the Soviet mentality.
After taking a public office, you had to leave the bureau?
This is not a public office, and I am not an official. I work at a design institute, and, of course, I am on its staff. Therefore, I maintain partnership relations with the Ostozhenka bureau, but now I do not work there and do not plan to do so in the near future.
And how did Alexander Andreyevich react to your appointment?
Positively. He considers this to be a natural evolution, but not personally by me, but by the evolution of our bureau. And I completely agree with him. Because I have developed professionally within the bureau.
My youthful architectural attitudes, especially behavioral and creative ones, I learned while undergoing pre-graduation practice in Ashgabat with Akhmedov Abdul Ramazanovich. His attitude to the city as an object of projection made a very strong impression on my almost childish psyche at that time.
Which urbanists or urbanistic theories are close to you?
I will not list them all. Now on my desk is a book by V. N. Semenov "Improvement of cities". However, this does not mean that his theories can be easily applied to Moscow. Revzin wrote in one article very accurately that we live in a unique city, Moscow is both a post-industrial and a post-Soviet city. Among urbanists, I would probably name Alexei Gutnov, and with Alexander Skokan, his student, I am friends and have worked together for 25 years …
How do you feel about the idea of using international experience and attracting foreign experts?
It makes sense, if only to look at yourself from the outside. Now I also look at the system from the outside, but this is not for long - you quickly get used to it. Foreigners, too, first watch us with wide-open eyes, are surprised at everything, and then they realize what is happening and begin to live like us. We talked for a long time about the absence of civil laws, and so the foreigners who come to us, at first do not even realize that we do not have these laws.
What cities can you name as examples of correct urban development?
Moscow, in my opinion, is cooler than all other cities. It looks simple, but at the same time it has contradictions that create a huge number of problems, but at the same time make it unique. This is her positive potential and her future.
interviewed by Elena Petukhova
