Archi.ru:
- On April 23, the Moscow government approved a new regulation for the approval of AGR (architectural and urban planning solutions). What is new in it and what has changed now?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
- The regulations have not changed, they just became mandatory and more specific. In particular, if earlier we did not have any obligatory terms for consideration of the project, now the terms are set.
- And before the approval of architectural projects, it was in Moscow, then, was it optional?
- The problem on a global scale is that in no standards, nowhere is anything said about the quality of architecture in terms of its appearance, composition, height. It just isn't described in any way. All regulations are aimed at safety and compliance with standards - sanitary and fire, for example. For the entire territory of the country, perhaps, it should be so, so as not to create unnecessary obstacles. I think that when such cities as Venice were being built up, nobody really agreed anything either, there was just a certain culture, the manifestation of which was a beautiful city.
Since, objectively speaking, we do not have such a culture - or, to put it mildly, it is not widespread on a massive scale - we have to influence architecture in such important parts of the country as Moscow. For big cities, it makes sense to complicate the regulations and still consider architecture - I'm sure of that.
So yes, on our initiative, the Moscow law on AGR was adopted. There is a list of documents that must be submitted in order to pass the regulations. We will consider projects and carry out expertise. Based on the results of consideration at the regulatory commission, a certificate will either be issued or not.
- Since April 23, this regulation now has the force of law?
- Yes. However, there is an incubation period during which the interaction will be worked out: until September 1. Starting from September 1 of this year, it will be impossible to obtain a building permit without our certificate. For now, everything will be going on, let's say, in the same way. While the law allows you to evade agreement. Unfortunately.
Although we know that all investors, state and non-state, who behave in the market not as temporary workers, but in a civilized manner, nothing will fundamentally change for them. We have a number of additional review forms that help to pass the approval, that is, we do everything to make people comfortable to go through the approval. Our goal is not to get into conflicts. That's when people come to us, as it were, with a finished project and just try to put a signature under it …
Push through
- Yes, push through. This does not work very well already, because it is a path of conflict. There is little chance that we will not comment. Everyone agrees that our design level is rather low. Therefore, it is not worth counting on the fact that we will agree on a large percentage of projects the first time. It is difficult to pass the regulations if your material is not shown in advance and is not of sufficient quality for us to agree on it. We understand this. Customers understand this. Architects understand this.
Therefore, we propose, before going to the regulations, to voluntarily go through the working (and very loyal) review procedures. We propose to make life easier for everyone: you can come in advance, not catch me out there somewhere … I don't want to throw a stone into the garden of the previous team, but it was difficult to show the project in advance then. It's very easy now: the working review takes place on Wednesdays, starting at 10 in the morning. Free access, you can sign up through the website of the Moscow City Architecture Committee. We sit as long as necessary, look at all projects, give comments, remarks so that people can submit to the finished product for approval.
As an architect, I am used to working in the workshop mode: discussion - discussion - making adjustments, approaching the result in an iterative way. The working review is advisory in nature, we do not force you to go there, but this is a tool that allows you to bring an already normal project for approval. You can go there twice. If the object is important, you go to the architectural council.
The ideal solution is to hold a competition. This is generally the simplest, no consideration at all is needed. You conduct a competition, agree on the terms of reference for the competition and the method of qualifying the participants. Then we choose one winning project - that's it, period.
- In this case, there will be no regulatory commission?
- Well, it will be formal. We have to issue AGR, but it will be done easily and naturally, without any comments. But the competition, of course, must be of high quality, not self-made, with a good approved technical specification, with an approved composition and method of selecting participants, with the right jury of qualified professionals. That's all. And we can present important things to the architectural council even after the competition. The plan is very simple: I want everything more or less interesting and significant to be done in Moscow through competitions. I think this is the only correct decision.
I believe that the competition procedure is a worthy, good alternative to the Architectural Council. This is my deep conviction, but our council has the status of a law, we can use it as a legal instrument, and creative contests, unfortunately, do not have such a statutory status. Therefore, the proposal to hold a competition is advisory in nature. However, I want to say that based on the results of the first competitions held, that the competition is in many cases much more productive, since in this case the customer receives several good, well-developed, really high-quality options for one site, and can choose one of them. Here another problem arises - as a rule, it is a pity to throw something away.
And when you consider one option, the problem of the opposite property - it would be good to at least pull something from this only option. The positions are absolutely contravert for the city. Of course, a competition is always a hundred times better than just considering one site on the board. Well, you can offer to redo everything. But what is there to redo if the same author will work? Suddenly, he is potentially simply not able to do well - remember, as in The Little Prince by Saint-Exupery: you cannot order the sun to change its course, it will not change it anyway. And who will be to blame? This is an instruction that cannot be followed. In this case, it's the same.
The competition is a wonderful and very convenient procedure. Now, after the arch council, the Don-Stroy company for the territory of the former Hammer and Sickle and TPS Nedvizhimost with the Slavyanka shopping center have taken up the competition. We are developing the terms of reference for the competition for Metrogiprotrans, for metro stations. We only recommended to hold these competitions, the customers agreed.
Who determines the composition of the participants in such a competition?
- An ideal competition should have an open phase. But, to be honest, we can only afford such an ideal option at iconic contests, such as Zaryadye, for example. To force investors to do this on their sites is, frankly, harder. After all, this is their money, their time, and besides, I must emphasize that we are looking for a compromise, and not dealing with restrictions.
- Do you recommend architects for participation in competitions?
- No, we do not recommend architects. We recommend making a competition. We say that the best thing to do is to make some good, qualified decisions, in a package to expose and choose. It's easier than putting one out, getting a bunch of comments on it and leaving with nothing.
Who now determines the composition of architects, if the competition is closed and does not have an open phase?
- The prequalification process is now not regulated, in a somewhat chaotic manner. I don't really like it, but I think it's better than nothing. A certain wide sheet is taken, plus or minus notable architectural offices on the market. And for various reasons, a so-called short sheet is made from it.
Who does it? Investor?
- Investor. But they come to consult with us. Now, for example, we have such a procedure going on at the Tsarev's Garden site. There was no Architectural Council, but even without advice, it was obvious to me that there would be many comments. I suggested that investors not waste time and hold a competition, now there is a selection of participants.
Of course, I am in favor of the open-phase competition procedure. When the final set of competitors is selected at the level of the jury and the expert council. This was done in the Polytech competition. I believe that it was an absolutely optimal, correctly conducted competition (by the way: the landmark competitions currently being held in Moscow are attracting more and more interest of the international community: Zaryadye was included in the top 10 competitions from the British weekly Architects Journal, and the Polytech winning project recently appeared on the cover of a prestigious international magazine).
Of course, there are people who reveal some malicious intent in the fact that the Polytech competition was won by the team of Fuksas and SPeeCH, but it was already said that I, not yet knowing the authors of the projects (the jury voted for the projects with conditional numbers - Archi.ru), did not vote for SPeeCH, and for 3XN. I believe that the situation with this competition was completely transparent and clean, however, people will inevitably be found who will find a straw in someone else's eye.
The open phase is carried out with a lot of restrictions. In particular, only bureaus with museum buildings in their portfolio could participate in the Polytech competition. Thus, not everyone even makes it to the qualifying stage
- Well, 49 applications were submitted for the portfolio competition of the same Polytechnic University. This is not enough. So I don’t know who exactly is not all. I repeat that the competition was still held by the Polytechnic University, it was not a competition under the auspices of the Moscow Committee for Architecture and Architecture, although I actively supported it. Therefore, in this situation, I would not answer the questions "setting - prequalification".
But I must say that when the participants of the final stage were selected, the number of points given by the experts for the portfolio was of a secondary nature. The discussion of the jury members was primary. Ultimately, the teams that made it to the final pool were at the top in all ratings. Although, for example, Rozhdestvenka (paired with Farshid Mussavi) got into this line-up from a rather low position. She had few rating points for portfolio, but nevertheless during the discussion, she passed by the sum of factors. Although they do not have any particularly large buildings. Here's a prime example. But on the other hand, in the voting of the board of trustees, their project scored 0 votes, and in the voting by the jury, it took fourth place - it went to the second round, but the last, and only thanks to the support of Grigory Revzin, he was the only one who liked this project. I don’t want to offend Rozhdestvenka, they made interesting layouts, and still their project is much better than what we could get without a competition. But from the rhetoric of the discussion, in principle, it was clear that this project, let's say, received a low rating; so the preliminary ratings, give or take, but give you the ability to predict the outcome.
How did the Board of Trustees vote? Anonymous too?
- Not quite. The Board of Trustees watched videos on which projects were presented by architects, but since the council consists of people who, in principle, do not really know architects, this was not essential information for them. They chose the project, not the person behind it. And the jury voted for anonymous projects, and then the motivation of each member of the jury was presented to the board of trustees in writing. The jury chose four out of six projects, but then all six were submitted for consideration by the board of trustees and the board could choose any project, even the last one according to the jury's rating.
So, do you think that prequalification in the form of portfolio selection is a necessary stage?
- I believe that you need to evaluate the portfolio. Although, it certainly shouldn't be a critical argument when choosing a portfolio winner.
I must note that in one of the recent competitions held under our patronage - for the 4th section of Moscow City, a relatively new team on the market, UNK project, won. (here, too, when voting by the jury, anonymity was fully respected, the projects were numbered). And I think this is a very good precedent. Because contests are needed in order to create professional elevators so that you can get a good order without being affiliated with someone or already deserved on the market. From the point of view of the portfolio, UNK cannot boast of such kind of structures - nevertheless, they won the competition. This is a good, striking example. They will receive a contract and will continue to design and build.
- To what extent is it really guaranteed that architects will receive a contract based on the results of the competition?
- Guaranteed. Under the conditions of the competition, it is worth what, in fact, the fight is going on. She goes for a contract. The winner receives a contract.
But the terms of the competition are not a legislative document …
- Look: people sign a contract. In the contract for participation in the competition, each team states that if the jury recognizes the first place for this team, it will receive a design contract. Well, is the contract a law, a civil law? The following contract is a derivative of the tender contract, if you won.
Will the Moskomarkhitektura or will you personally monitor the implementation of all these agreements?
- Of course. Here, in fact, we return again to the law on AGR. Since we now have finally entrusted quality control, thank God, to Mosgosstroynadzor - of course, they have a new load, but this is the only way to track the result. Now the results of construction will be checked against what was in the AGR, which, to be honest, was not always the case before. Now we, as the authorities, can force them to go all the way from concept to implementation, to fulfill everything that was laid down in the approved project or in the project that won the competition. Now we can control it in a legal way.
How will all this happen?
- Well, for example, the other day we discussed with the customer one of the iconic objects of Moscow City. We say: “This is our policy. You can integrate into it. We will be friends and will agree on everything easily. You don't have to fit in. Then we will press you with formal procedures. I am always for friendship, for contacts, for interaction. " They say: “Of course, we are also for interaction. What is required of us? " I say: “Variants of facades, mac-ups. We go out, look, sign, then we look at the correspondence of the appearance … "- because, of course, our theme is mainly the appearance. It can be traced through samples simply: we sign the selected materials, we will endorse the facade samples, or give comments on them.
This is work, it is a heavy load. But I don't know of any other way to get a quality object. I think like a person who has worked in the market. This is how we got the quality of our objects: control at all phases. Here I am going to do the same, but of course, not for all objects in Moscow - for the most important ones.
- Will an architect who runs his facility be able to complain to you if he thinks that his project is being implemented incorrectly?
- We really count on the help of architects: in fact, this is their area of responsibility. It's just that when you talk to our architects separately, they are all terribly responsible, all for quality. And the results of the work are deplorable. Therefore, they usually say: the customer is bad, he does not listen to us. Then we say: ok, we are your allies in the work with the customer. We have a legal tool to compel him, to compel him to build efficiently.
I suspect, frankly, that there is a grain of slyness here. Because when I myself worked as an architect and I had problems - I always knew that I could overcome them. There have been scandalous situations in our history, refusal of authorship, but this was rare and was rather an exception to the rule. Basically, everything was fine if the work was organized. I suspect that there is also laziness, the reluctance of the architect to keep track of what he is doing. Here we will, of course, sort it out, but also just for ourselves to note that some architects are ready to answer for their work - to the city, to themselves, to their professional honor. Others are not ready. So, we will know this and draw conclusions. We will voice it. I am for publicity, I believe that heroes should be shown as heroes, and, let's say, irresponsible people should be shown as irresponsible people. When society becomes interested and it begins to note for itself that yes, look, there are those who do well, and those who do badly, it will be a shame to do bad things. I believe that. What if we achieve that it will be bad to do just ashamed, then we will not need any supervision.
What are the ways of working with public opinion: press, publications, statements …?
- Of course. Press, round tables, publications, statements. This is missionary work. The more people who value the quality of the urban environment, that is, our environment with you, join our ranks to promote these interests, the better. We are trying here to create a headquarters for promoting this quality. This is the main goal of the work of the Moscow City Architecture Committee - improving the quality of the urban environment. The more allies you get, professional, good, convincing, the better. Our number is growing by leaps and bounds, I'm happy.
Does the investor suggest the composition of the jury?
- All are offered by the investor. We just agree. When all positions are agreed, signed - that's it, people get a green line further. They all signed with us, introductory, then they comply with these introductory, receive a predicted period, a predicted result. Here's the topic. They do not need to sit and make adjustments for many months and then still have some average result.
But the customer will spend more money by paying the bidders for their ordered participation
- Well, yes, he will spend more money. Remember Todd's Political Principles? - no matter what they talk about, they always talk about money. What is the problem? We say: colleagues, in order to make a building good and complement the city beautifully, you need to spend time and money on it. There is no other way. Well, not invented. Unfortunately. Therefore, yes - time and money will have to be spent.
- Who determines the amount of remuneration for the participants in the competition?
- The customer determines. If he comes to an agreement for free, the flag in his hands, please. This is not our question at all. There are some figures that are always similar, plus or minus, for participation in the competition, but much depends on the importance of the object.
Which buildings will be predominantly submitted for competitions?
- Anyone can be taken out. This is the discretion of the customer. I repeat once again, this is important: we only give recommendations. Moreover, we generally recommend holding a competition to everyone. Our recommendations can be more persistent in important cases, somewhere they can be less persistent. But the decision remains at the discretion of the customer. Any object can be the subject of a competition, a project of an urn or a bench can be done here … Artplay recently held an excellent competition for landscaping.
Are there any open tenders, or are there tenders in a genre other than investor ones for separate sites that Moskomarkhitektura plans to hold?
- We want, together with the General Planning Institute, to make tenders for planning pieces: for example, for Kommunarka, for the UDC. But this is only in those cases where the state budget allows. Where it works, we organize something - for example, in Rublevo-Arkhangelskoye we managed to reach an agreement with Sberbank to hold a competition for the architectural part of the planning. However, it is still too early to say that it will be launched.
It's clear about AGR - it becomes a law on September 1. But this story with competitions, when will it become law?
- It may never become a law at all. And maybe it will. There are a number of countries where the method of selecting an architectural solution for construction in a city through an architectural competition is legalized. There is. But now, to be honest, I don't even see an urgent need to legitimize this. I believe that by creating the correct review regime and good quality control, people themselves will come to the conclusion that the competition is the most civilized and loyal procedure for all participants in the process. I am in favor of acting with conviction. And if you manage to legitimize it, well, fine. But this is not so important.
Judging by the latest competitions, we can say that 60-year-olds sit on the jury, and younger architects, about 40 years old, are invited to participate. Whose initiative is this?
- Investor initiative. Unfortunately, there is still a very narrow circle of people to choose from. I say it again, here is a good competition in the City, because in general a rather young team won there. This is correct for the development of the market and the profession.
That is, there was no "plan of the chief architect" as to who should and should not be invited?
- Not. The plan is as follows: to raise a generation, to get a good, "thick", competitive layer of architectural firms.
On the issue of growing a generation. If there is a portfolio selection, then the investor is naturally interested in an experienced bureau. What should young architects do? How can they make their way to these contests? What are their paths?
- For young architects - to do interesting work where it can be done. Young architects may branch out from large offices and create their own bureaus, but as a portfolio, show the work to which they were involved in this large office. There are different ways, well, how do young architects spring up all over the world? Or make some small objects. The same UNK project, they did small things. Participate in open competitions, show the results of work. Well, all the architects know this, to be honest.
When there are many of our contests, more participants will automatically be required. And they will be looking for. You need to show yourself, you need to participate in exhibitions. Just take an active position in life. There are plenty of opportunities. Previously, an active position was meaningless, since it was not demanded by anyone. Now it is in demand by those who will hold contests.
The problem is that in order to qualify for a closed competition, through an open phase into a closed one, you really need to have a full hand in the competitive procedures. You have to train, learn to serve well, learn good architecture. There are many ways to learn. Previously, all these skills were unnecessary. So when I myself tried to break through, I understood that skills do not lead to anything, because there is no field where you can apply them.
How many contests do you plan to hold per year?
- I believe that if we implement our plans this year, there will be about 20 competitions per year. That will be good. If next year we reach 30, it will be super. So we will gradually move. The more there are, the more participants will be needed, respectively. But you need to understand that there will be no special office for young people, where you can come and say: add me to work. So here you need to be noticeable yourself, this, unfortunately, is such a necessity. We are not going to nurse and patronize anyone. We do this for those who are ready to move and need help, to open, so to speak, the gates that can be entered. But no one is going to carry the dog to the hunt. The dog itself must want to go on this hunt.
