On May 31, we published the announcement of the competition for the design of the facades of the new building of the Tretyakov Gallery in Lavrushinsky Pereulok, based on the messages of the organizers and on what was said during the briefing dedicated to the start of the competition. Unfortunately, not all of the information was correct. Yesterday we received from the director of the Mosproekt-4 institute and the head of the Union of Architects of Russia Andrey Bokov refutation, which we publish below:
“The information published on the Internet does not fully correspond to reality, namely, neither I nor the Mosproject-4 institute are participating in the competition.
In addition, the student competition has already passed. The students' projects, unfortunately, have not yet been seriously considered, although, in my opinion, they are of undoubted interest. The architectural council of Moscow undertook to evaluate the work of the students, and the gallery, I hope, will express its gratitude to the participants of the competition and mark the best works.
"Mosproekt-4" has been working on the project of a new gallery building for 15 years. During this time, several versions of the project were created. The latest version passed an examination and a building permit was obtained. Now we are talking about adjusting the approved project.
The joint efforts of the institute and the gallery resulted in three-dimensional solutions that fully correspond to the current ideology of the museum complex. From making a decision on the choice of over two dozen facade solutions proposed by the institute, the new management of the gallery very delicately avoided, as well as from attempts to formulate the task. The management of the gallery accepted the proposal of the chief architect of the city of Moscow to supplement the statements proposed by the Mosproekt-4 institute with a number of invited architects, and for many years a unique situation has arisen in the city and country when the fate of a landmark building can and must be decided by the professional community.
I consider the competition proposed by the chief architect of the city as a form of professional support, advice, expertise from colleagues in solving a difficult project problem. Therefore, it would be natural to agree on the list of participants, whose opinion would be valuable for me and my colleagues, and productive in the interests of solving this problem. Unfortunately, for reasons I didn’t understand, there was no such agreement, and the final composition was formed without my participation. The appearance on the list of Mr. Tchoban, whose invitation in my presence, the chief architect of the city at first flatly refused, turned out to be quite unexpected.
The condition for participation was agreement with the existing planning solutions, which became the basis of the project, which is being developed in the shortest possible time and the revision of which is not discussed by the customer. The city's architectural council as the highest architectural body, in my opinion, has to complete a professional examination of the extensive material presented.
If this experience turns out to be successful and a convincing, adequate decision is made based on the work done, copyrights are not violated, then there will be every reason to consider this experience positive and unique in its way. That is, we will receive a tool for solving the most difficult professional problems through such contests. And the Union will welcome such an experience, and I, as its president, will too.
If the worst fears are confirmed that competitions of this kind, in violation of professional ethics and copyright, become a form of unfair competition, a form of architectural censorship, a reason for dividing into friends and foes, the results of the competition will have neither the support of the professional community nor prospects."
A. V. Bokov