Archi.ru:
Tell us about your new projects in Russia. Recently you participated in a competition for the building of a museum for Volgograd - little is known about this competition in Russia, and even the presentation of competition projects took place in Rome. Was it a custom competition?
Eric van Egeraat:
Yes, the customer from Russia, the MAN Trading Company, wants to build a Museum of the History of the Cossacks in Volgograd to house his private collection. Six architects from six European countries were invited to participate in the competition for the design of the new museum building. The projects were presented in Rome; I think, in addition to saving on transportation costs, the choice fell on the Eternal City, because it has always inspired creators. It is expected that soon all six projects will be publicly shown in Volgograd.
The concept of my project is only partly based on the history of the Cossacks. This is a story of loud, often notoriety, a story of people who are independent, brave, cunning and cruel. Some consider the Cossacks liberators, others - mercenaries who fought and killed for money. However, while working on this project, I first of all thought not about the Cossacks and their past, but about the young people whom we want to attract to the museum in the future, say, in 2017. Today they are more interested in surfing the Internet and meeting friends than going to a museum.
The amazing history of the Cossacks goes back several hundred years. How to connect it with today? What exactly to show? I think that people will be interested in looking at the everyday life of the Cossacks: how they dressed, how they arranged their life, how they built their houses and villages. These places have a strong tradition of wooden architecture, so I decided to use wood as the main building material for the new museum. However, I have given this traditional material a modern shape by combining it with glass: the glass walls are covered with a wooden grill. This is a simple and economical solution, suitable both for the Museum of the History of the Cossacks and for the city as a whole. I was pleased with the result of the work: thanks to its form, the project looks modern, but this trend is balanced by the abundant use of simple traditional materials.
In our time, a museum collection, even a very good one, is not enough to attract people. Therefore, we added several additional functions, tried to create a space for an entertaining pastime, stimulating, among other things, an interest in history and culture. A contemporary museum is more than just a place to house a collection and organize exhibitions; we tried to turn it into a dynamic and attractive public area, into a subtle instrument for organizing the life of the city. The new museum has the potential for renewal and revitalization of the urban environment that is so necessary for Volgograd.
Archi.ru:
How did you manage to do this?
Eric van Egeraat:
Volgograd is not the most beautiful city that I have seen; there are no architectural masterpieces or even simply attractive buildings from an aesthetic point of view. In addition, there are few public places in the city that are attractive to citizens. Therefore, an important task for me was to create a well-organized and comfortable urban environment. The site is very conveniently located in the city center, next to Lenin Avenue and a few blocks from the Volga embankment. The museum building will be adjacent to two public buildings - a synagogue and a library. According to my plan, the new museum, together with the synagogue and the library, should form an independent logical unit of the urban infrastructure. As connecting elements, I suggested using the area in the frontal part of the project and the park in its center.
My colleagues in their projects placed the museum building in the center of the square, so that it actually breaks the unity of this vast public area, leaving space for only two small squares in front and behind the museum. I acted differently: I moved the museum towards Lenin Avenue and introduced a new element to the square - a large wooden wall. The presence of this imposing wall separates the busy city highway from the cozy, well-maintained museum space, without disturbing the unity of the square. From the side of the square, the wall attracts views in the direction of the museum; from the side of the museum, it is a reference point for meetings and communication, the premises of a cafe and a conference hall. Some of the events, as is done at the Strelka Institute in Moscow, can be held on the square, right in the open air. The climate allows it. People love to spend time outside. My project offers more than just another unusual building in the city center - it recreates part of the urban space, stimulates communication and the desire to meet, directs the flow of city energy, revives interest in outdoor events, spending time outdoors, in tradition and history.
Archi.ru:
Is the wall only needed to divide the urban space?
Eric van Egeraat:
The wall is intended not to divide the urban space, but to highlight a part of it - and to protect it. It is very important. Most European cities are proud of the so-called secret corners. That which is hidden and awaits the solution, that which will give the traveler who has wandered here a feeling of sudden beauty, peace and safety. The public areas of European cities are designed around the principle of combining available spaces and spaces waiting to be discovered. In the projects of Soviet cities, the principle of universal openness and accessibility dominated. Not everyone likes this kind of openness. Along with it, we must create corners of comfort and privacy - even in the very center of social life. Places where people can take a break from the aggressive urban environment, indulge in thoughts. The wall serves this very purpose - it creates another world, a world of peace and security. Another world - but not the other world, because the dividing line drawn by it is conditional; it's a light stroke, not a solid line. A translucent wall accentuates part of the space, rather than isolating it.
Archi.ru:
I can't help but notice: a few years ago Evgeny Ass proposed a project for a similar wall in Perm. Have you seen this project?
Eric van Egeraat:
No, I didn't know about him. I just found out from you.
I wouldn't worry about that. Even if I knew about the existence of this project, I don't think it would stop me from using the wall. In the traditional sense, a wall is a symbol of protection and safety; for today's Volgograd with its harsh urban environment, devoid of transitions and flexibility, this is an actual symbol.
Public places are the property of the townspeople, their property. With or without a wall, in this place everyone should have the opportunity to walk, sit and chat, organize some kind of impromptu - for example, a theatrical performance. In a word - have a good time.
Archi.ru:
The jury's decision is still unknown?
Eric van Egeraat:
First, the project will be shown to the public, and only then a decision will be made; during this time, all parties participating in the decision-making will have time to formulate their wishes.
Archi.ru:
Did you like the projects of one of the competitors in the competition?
Eric van Egeraat:
I found the project by Massimiliano Fuksas interesting: a very attractive building, like a diamond cube, located directly opposite the synagogue. One point is very important here - is it possible to build such a perfect glass cube? Because if the cube turns out to be faulty, I question the need for another glass box for Volgograd. There are boxes of all kinds in town, and most of them are terrible.
As for the rest of the projects, some of them lack nuance. They enrich the urban environment no more than any local architect would. From my point of view, this is a failure. Should a city choose a strictly commercial project just because it was created abroad? In Russia, this has happened recently and it happens too often.
Archi.ru:
Some time ago in the newspaper "Vedomosti" there was an article devoted to the problems with
the project of the Sberbank campus, which is being built according to your project in Istra. What is the problem there, who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant?
Eric van Egeraat:
Nobody, there is no trial.
Archi.ru:
But what, after all, is the catch?
Eric van Egeraat:
As usually happens in such cases, the problem is with the budget. Some construction participants insist that the budget needs to be doubled. I insist that the object should be built in strict accordance with my project and its cost should more or less correspond to the price agreed at the very beginning. This means that even with the emergence of new items of expenditure, the cost of the project should not exceed 10%. Maximum 20% of the original amount, but not twice as much.
As a general designer and author of the project, I prepared all the necessary drawings and completely completed the design. Even at the beginning of construction, complaints began about the lack of funds. This is not my area; I am an architect, project author, general designer. Therefore, I did not interfere. But when, during construction, it was proposed to make changes to my project to save budget funds, I, of course, spoke out against this. Here's the building, here's the budget; the cost estimate shows the costs clearly and in detail. You just need to build a building in accordance with the agreements.
Archi.ru:
Do I understand correctly that the general contractor was trying to increase the budget at the expense of your project, and that was what prompted the letter to German Gref mentioned in Vedomosti?
Eric van Egeraat:
Yes.
Archi.ru:
But nevertheless, the work continues?
Eric van Egeraat:
Our team has suspended work for the time being due to all these events; in addition, work cannot be continued in the absence of funding. Officially, construction continues. As far as I know, checks are taking place at the moment.
Archi.ru:
The complex is almost completed, how long is it left to complete?
Eric van Egeraat:
Due to the problems mentioned, it will take at least another year to complete the project.
Archi.ru:
The light, low-rise architecture of this complex may seem unexpected for Sberbank. How did you manage to convince customers of the correctness of such an architectural solution?
Eric van Egeraat:
Idea
the project of the Sberbank Corporate University was adopted almost immediately. Yes, I wanted to make the architecture of the complex not so much representative as contemplative, not a tower for protection from the outside world, but a space for thought and reflection. The facades are completely glass. The doors of classrooms, departments and classrooms go directly to the street, which allows you to more often find yourself alone with nature.
I wanted this architecture to become an expression of the idea of transparency, openness, dialogue with the environment. So that the unusualness of the project does not feel like foreign, I softened it with simple design principles and traditional materials; so I used a lot of wooden structures.
The chosen construction method is complemented by the idea of energy efficiency. My goal was not to blindly follow international green building standards, but rather to express the simple idea that we should not litter and pollute the environment. Even in a country as rich in resources as Russia, little thought about the rational use of energy and state capital. Having studied the preliminary analysis of energy consumption of university buildings, we came to the conclusion that it is possible to reduce these figures by nine times, following international practice. We have shown that in addition to minimizing costs, we can create a healthy and sustainable environment for students, teachers and staff.
Archi.ru:
Have you involved any European companies to work on this project?
Eric van Egeraat:
Yes. For example, we worked closely with the renowned German professor Hausladen, who specializes in energy efficiency projects. Interestingly, he proposed simpler technologies, thanks to which we were much less dependent on the engineering of the project and were able to create a more comfortable environment for the users of the project. The principles of natural ventilation are applied in all buildings of the complex. We are trying to do without traditional air conditioning. Instead of circulating air masses, we regulate the temperature within the volume of the building using the floor, ceiling and wall structures. With the help of moderate temperatures and the regulation of thermal masses, we create a comfortable temperature inside buildings. For a long time, some of the customer's employees did not believe that all this would work, and only with the personal support of the chairman of the board of directors and his determination to follow the best practices in Europe, we were able to convince the entire team.
Archi.ru:
Are you currently working on one of the Moscow City skyscrapers?
Eric van Egeraat:
Yes it
Mercury City Tower. The tower was designed by the American architect Frank Williams, who unfortunately was unable to complete the project, he died in 2010. I was offered to help with the completion of the project. I completely redesigned the top of the building and designed interiors for public areas. I like the building: it may not be the most modern skyscraper in Moscow, but it is definitely the most elegant and pretty. I really respect the work of Frank Williams and consider myself only an assistant in this situation. It seems to me that overall this is a good job, the tower looks like a classic American skyscraper. By the way, the highest in Europe. I am proud to have taken part in its design and was able to transform the tallest building in Europe!
My interior design is simple and discreet, with an emphasis on height and space. I decided not to add new shapes, but simply suggested cladding with travertine. Ceiling height - 12 meters. Mikhail Posokhin, who worked for Frank Williams and continued to lead the project after I was invited, persuaded me to choose a finishing stone with a gloss. I am delighted that we have been able to achieve a ubiquitous finish on floors, walls and ceilings with matt brushed travertine; this small detail gives completeness and coherence to all public spaces, emphasizing the power and monumentality of the building's architecture.
Archi.ru:
What are you working on outside of Russia? What's your favorite project right now?
Eric van Egeraat:
Construction ends now
the new building of Leipzig University in the former East Germany. On the territory of the university, built six centuries ago, there was once a church. In the 1960s, it served as a meeting place for opponents of the regime - it was called the "church of freedom of speech." For which the communists destroyed it in 1968. After the unification of East and West Germany, the idea of rebuilding the church became the subject of heated debate, with people from West Germany wanting to completely rebuild the building, and East Germans opposed. Since something has been destroyed, they said, it’s not worth rebuilding it, it’s better to create something really new. So, contrary to the usual ideas, East Germany turned out to be more progressive, while West Germany gravitated towards conservatism.
The confrontation lasted for about 15 years and entailed rivalry among architects, both local and foreign. In my project, I suggested using the appearance of the structures of the 18th-19th centuries, giving them, however, completely new qualities. I created a completely new main building of the university and a new church building, but I preserved the memory of the lost. The interior space in my project closely mirrors the interior of the church, but instead of stone, I used ceramics and glass. Ceiling - ceramic. The surface of the columns is covered with glass, and in the rays of light, the space seems solid, but almost immaterial. This decision was appreciated by both opposing sides.
Although the project was accepted, it must be said that those who dreamed of reviving the church are unhappy that it does not correspond exactly to the original, and supporters of new construction complain that the building looks more like a church than a modern, innovative university of international level. This remains the most powerful argument of the secular side to this day. Goethe, Nietzsche, Wagner, Angela Merkel, Tsai Yuanpei, Tycho Brahe studied within these walls, the university raised a large number of Nobel laureates, Luther preached here, here Bach performed his immortal works! Leipzig University was founded in 1409, and among its first teachers and professors were those who left Charles University in Prague due to a dispute over the role of the church in education.
The construction took seven years, which is a very long time. This is one of the most challenging and interesting projects; I think that it is possible to implement it in this capacity only in Germany: every detail is made perfectly, everything absolutely corresponds to my project.
This project is based on my basic professional principles, the main one of which is love for the city. The building is located in the very center of the city, next to the central square. Thanks to the revival of the university and the campus, this place has become one of the busiest in the city; it attracts many young people and is home to many entertainment and business functions.
Archi.ru:
When you work with Russian projects, is your work different from European projects?
Eric van Egeraat:
Of course, this difference is enormous. Over the past 10-15 years, Russia has changed a lot. Despite the fact that these changes are not always for the better, she still appeals to me, because the work here requires complete dedication.
Compared to other countries, there are many people in Russia, so to speak, inexperienced and open-minded. They start things that many other countries don't even think about. Do you think there will be a private client in London or England who will conceive such a grandiose construction as, for example, in Volgograd? They won't even try. I was pleasantly surprised when I was invited to Rome to present my project for Volgograd with six other architects. This is only possible in Russia. It is not customary in the world to invite several architects to Rome to make a presentation for a building in a small town. It just can't be. I love that kind of boldness, that kind of scope.
The desire to do something unusual always attracts attention. Even in Moscow, which resembles a wild untamed animal that evokes fear and delight. Moscow is an unrivaled city, both in good and bad. Everyone is trying to change the situation as best they can, and this desire is very commendable. But all attempts fail. Here's another feature of Russia.
Archi.ru:
Everyone wants to change Moscow, but no one knows how to do it
Eric van Egeraat:
This is not entirely true. Even an individual can contribute to change in a city. So it was, is and will be. Of course, the first thought of every person is how to make the most money on the property belonging to him. As a result, faceless, monstrous and low-quality buildings grow around us. This has worked so far; but now the situation is starting to change. People are becoming more demanding, even in the face of an economic downturn. In an era of crisis, many have reassessed their priorities and needs, thinking about what they really want. Not new buildings, but new public spaces with a fundamentally different level of quality. As a result, Strelka and Red October appeared; this has never happened before in Moscow. Since 2006 I have been acting as a consultant for the planned reconstruction of "Red October"; at first it was supposed to build a group of buildings with various functions; then the emphasis shifted: we decided to first define the function of space, and therefore think over what buildings are needed here to deploy this function. I am sure that a unique urban environment can be created here: with an atmosphere of openness and friendliness, high-quality materialization and diversification of public spaces. And that would be a great achievement.
Archi.ru:
But this is a point solution. What do you think about Moscow in general?
Eric van Egeraat:
First of all, there is no need to present Moscow with one gigantic problem. This is not a herd of horses to be contained. Moscow is multifaceted and multi-layered, it consists of a huge number of different elements. Some of them are working well, others are idle. It is necessary to provide them with suitable conditions for coexistence. Therefore, I see no point in significantly expanding Moscow. This will only exaggerate the problem. From my point of view, one should start with a radical improvement in the condition of individual regions. It is important to focus on improving what has already been created. You don't need a rigid sequence or a single strategy; each district should have its own strategy. There is simply no universal solution for the whole of Moscow.
Instead of talking about the city as a whole, it is better to just plant trees on Tverskaya - this will completely change the appearance of the center of Moscow. Just imagine the reaction of hundreds of thousands of people who come here every day! And reputationally Moscow will only benefit from this simple decision.
Archi.ru:
So you are a supporter of the theory of small matters?
Eric van Egeraat:
Not at all. I love big and successful projects, but I don't like it when people hide behind great plans. It is important for me that something happens. The biggest problem is that nothing happens other than chatter. The question of how politicians and professionals approach solving urban problems is very serious.
For example, 10 years ago I made a new city center in a small town in the north of Holland. The city administration, watching the people coming to the city bypass its center, asked me to develop a grandiose reconstruction plan. Having studied the situation in the city, I came to the conclusion that the center just needs to be thoroughly cleaned up, made more accessible and attractive. Instead of a grand plan, I proposed a new pedestrian zone and redesigned the pavement of all the central streets. We had a small budget when compared with Moscow projects, and all we had to do was to monitor the quality of the work. Now the center of this small town is considered one of the best public places in the whole of Holland. The project has proven to be very commercially successful. We just started on the same street. The results on the first street were terrible, but we learned this lesson, made adjustments and continued working. In five years, we have completely redesigned all public spaces - every street, every corner. It turned out very well. One has only to try and start working.
Archi.ru:
In Holland, did you work only with streets and squares, or did you remodel buildings as well?
Eric van Egeraat:
I only worked with streets and squares. Initially, the city authorities asked me to do the landscaping and beautification of the city - street lamps, benches, trash cans - but I refused. I only changed the paving and the functioning of the public space. This changed the attitude of residents to their city so much that almost all the owners of houses in the city center began to repair and decorate them.
Archi.ru:
How many similar urban projects have you developed? Were they all in Europe?
Eric van Egeraat:
Twelve - fifteen. Yes, everyone is in Europe.
Archi.ru:
Who was their customer?
Eric van Egeraat:
In the 1990s, 90% came from the city administration, but later more orders began to come from private companies and companies working in partnership with the city administration. They first developed the project and then sold it to the city. It can be said that the situation has evolved over the past decades from an administrative initiative towards a public-private partnership.
Archi.ru:
Have you received similar orders in Russia?
Eric van Egeraat:
It is difficult to develop such projects in Russia. There were talks about such work for Khanty-Mansiysk, but, unfortunately, the matter did not go beyond preliminary negotiations.
Archi.ru:
Why do you think this is the case?
Eric van Egeraat:
Russian leaders love to build, not equip. They seem to constantly declare by their actions: "This is my territory!".
The model of modern Russian development resembles the Soviet one with its planned economy, although these are two completely different models. The Soviet model was very effective and worked great. She created functional cities and districts, but she was completely unable to create a unique image of the city, to give the urban environment a feeling, to give the city a face. These things are not done "from top to bottom" by order. They are jointly initiated by different stakeholders: individuals, professionals and politicians - only then can we expect the result. The process should be more or less natural, be part of a working system. It cannot take place in an orderly tone, when someone suddenly declares: "So, let's start creating beautiful and cozy squares!"
Once in Kuwait I was asked to design 80 squares at once. I made them, but of course nothing was implemented. Because this is not the case when you can say: "I am a sheikh - and therefore I command that you build 80 squares." It won't work. Even if you have a lot of money.
