The construction boom that Moscow experienced in the late 1990s and 2000s is comparable in intensity to that in Berlin, when, after the reunification of Germany, the gaps at the site of the Wall were filled, and Western investments came to the eastern zone. But if Berlin, even with all the reservations, can boast of considerable achievements in the field of architecture and urban planning, the urban environment in the Russian capital has not become more attractive or more convenient during the boom years. But now, when the time of rapid construction has ended, and the city administration has changed, there is an opportunity to rectify the situation. However, it is not so easy to obtain the necessary high-quality projects for this, and to solve this problem, the chief architect of Moscow, Sergei Kuznetsov, chose the most promising way of holding competitions.
Hans Stimmann, who chaired the Berlin Senate for Housing and Construction from 1999-2008 and, in fact, served as the chief architect of the city, organized or served on the jury of many competitions and is well aware of the merits and demerits of this method. Despite the obvious difference between the German and Russian situations, his experience seems interesting to us, and we acquaint our readers with the judgments of Hans Stimman.
The conversation between Archi.ru and Mr. Shtimman was held in connection with his lecture “The restoration of Berlin 1989 - 2013 and current problems” organized by the Union of Moscow Architects, which took place on May 14, 2013 at the Central House of Architects.
The competition is a useful tool, but not a universal one: it is not a guarantee of a high-quality result. Let me remind you that many architectural masterpieces were built without any competition at all: the pavilion in Barcelona and the New National Gallery in Berlin by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier's "Housing Units" in Marseille and Berlin, the buildings of K. F. Schinkel, Cologne Cathedral and the Marienkirche in my hometown Lübeck. Contests attract so much attention, cause so much discussion, because many hope every time: as a result of the competition, they will receive a project of perfect quality. I believe that this is a misconception: a good project does not need a competition, but a good architect. But how do you decide who is the best? Every architect, every critic has his own opinion on this matter. Therefore, everything here depends on the specific value system by which the definition of "good architecture" is given.
During those 16 years, when I headed the construction department of the Berlin Senate, I acted in accordance with my "coordinate system". Since the city was very badly destroyed during World War II and later, when the post-war city planners completed what they started with bombers, architects like Daniel Libeskind, Zaha Hadid and Rem Koolhaas were not required there. We didn't need “object” buildings like Frank Gehry's - we needed an urban structure, an urban fabric structure. Therefore, I invited architects to participate in competitions organized by my department, in which I was sure that they would fit their buildings into the city structure.
The famous Pariser Platz square with the Brandenburg Gate is located in the center of Berlin. The buildings surrounding it were destroyed in World War II, and then it was part of the exclusion zone between the eastern and western parts of the city. In the early 1990s, I developed a master plan for the square: since we already had a "landmark" monument - the Brandenburg Gate, so all other buildings had to give it the first place and correspond to the city structure. And all the architects of the new buildings had to take into account my standards: the maximum height on the roof (18 m), the height of the cornice, possible materials for the facade.
Therefore, even located there
Frank Gehry's DZ Bank headquarters doesn't look like his typical job. I'll tell you how it happened. The leaders of this bank organized a closed competition for the design of their building, inviting "stars" from all over the world, including Gehry, to participate: they wanted their representation in such a prestigious place to be visible. The competition was held in two rounds, and I was on the jury: since I, as an official, decided whether to issue construction permits or not, my opinion was interesting to investors even during the design process. And my position was strong not only because I was an official, a "bureaucrat", but also because I influenced the style of architecture of new Berlin buildings.
At the end of the first stage, the participants showed their draft designs to me and the investor. I know Frank Gehry personally, I like his buildings in the USA and Bilbao, but after looking at his project, I told him: “We already have our own 'Guggenheim' - our Brandenburg Gate, and they are much more important than this bank building, that's why you will never win a competition with this option”- it was a work in the spirit of Bilbao. He listened to my words, changed the facade, and now, in my opinion, this is the best facade on Pariser Platz: in sandstone slabs, with clear rows of windows and beautiful details. Looking at it, no one will say that this is Gehry's building. But inside (and the interior is everyone's personal business) there is a sculptural atrium quite in the spirit of its architecture. So the bank got a very correct, serious facade, just like a bank manager, but inside this building is a little extravagant.
This is an example of a closed competition with invited participants, which took place in 2 stages, when architects can discuss the project with the client and other key figures, at least with the jury members, and respond to this discussion in the second draft of the project. Yes, such a competition takes time, and it is a little dangerous, since it can encourage opportunists who find out exactly what they want to get from them and adapt to these requirements, being far from the most talented participants. But the question of the optimal type of tender cannot be solved universally: it all depends on the circumstances: who is the client, what type of building will be built, in what place. Therefore, the competition is not a panacea for all problems.
The Federal Chamber of German Architects [Bundesarchitektenkammer (BAK)], of which I am also a member, insists that the best type of competition is open. But this is how it happens in practice: you announce an open competition, and 500 young architects send you their designs. And respected architects, when they see an advertisement in a magazine about an open competition for a project of, say, a single-family house, they say: "Any idiot can draw it!" Therefore, large architectural firms cannot be enticed to participate in such competitions. An open competition is a chance for young architects to build something for the first time: a private house, a kindergarten, a school. But if you want an opera house, it requires an architect with a lot of experience, this is not just a piece, so an open competition is not for you.
I want to repeat so that there is no mistake: competitions are definitely necessary, but which type of competition is better depends on the situation: sometimes it is better to invite three architects, and sometimes one, and immediately work with him.
Here is another illustrative example of a competition in the early 1990s - for the design of a new station in Berlin. At first, the customer, the German railway company Deutsche Bahn, did not want to hold a competition at all, they already had their own architect, with him they came to me and showed his project. I was not a train station specialist, I had to study this topic, and in the process I realized that it was necessary to organize a competition. The railway workers agreed, but set a condition: the project must be ready very quickly, since the date of completion of the station was tied to the opening of the new building of the Federal Chancellor's Office, so that foreign guests invited to the ceremony would see the new central station, and not the construction site. Therefore, I arranged a short competition: the architect from Stuttgart, who was originally proposed by Deutsche Bahn, participated, and I also invited the Gerkan, Marg and Partners bureau, because from our joint work in Lubeck, where I previously headed the construction department, I knew: they are excellent specialists by designs. I also invited Josef Paul Kleichus, from whom I learned a lot in the field of urban planning. We went on a short trip to Germany to see the existing typology of stations. The Deutsche Bahn management was against the huge overlap for platforms, as this is too resource-intensive a decision, but I thought that this semi-public space is too significant, this image - trains, these huge cars, drive from the street into a huge hall - is very important, so that from it refuse. And our Berlin train station now also has such a hall. Then the participants of the competition presented their projects, and the head of Deutsche Bahn and I jointly chose the winner - Gerkan, Marg and Partners. This is an example of another important function of the competition: the state-owned company wanted to build a purely utilitarian, boring building, forgetting about its public role, and with the help of the competition everything fell into place.
But often contests, especially large international ones, turn out to be too costly and time-consuming. If you invite Rem Koolhaas, Richard Rogers, Zaha Hadid to participate, the preparation alone takes a lot of time: the task of the competition takes more than 500 pages, not counting plans and drawings. It is necessary to mention all the technical and any other details, provide detailed information on functions, budget, regulations, and possibly wishes for a formal solution, since it will not be possible to talk to the participants further, such competitions are usually held in an anonymous format. Therefore, if there is no time, it is better to choose a worthy architect, ask him to make a draft design based only on basic information, and, if everything goes well, then calmly deal with details such as bathrooms and security in the building.
This option is preferred by private customers, investors, because they save time and money, and also fear the often unpredictable result of the competition. But they often look for an architect, focusing on publications in magazines, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Moscow, Dubai - what is popular in the "architectural market". Investors do not know anything about the work of an architect and urbanist, they buy a building project as a design object, and that is why Dubai looks the way it looks. Every skyscraper there is trying to be "original" - like a hairdryer or something else. Therefore, the city authorities need to work especially with investors. So, as often as possible, I invited them to my place to discuss the urban planning situation and the development of the city. I offered them a trip to my beloved Barcelona, a beautiful lively city with strict urban planning regulations: they have been to Mallorca 100 times, but never Barcelona. And such conversations and trips are very important: this is an educational process that must be carried out by a city architect, a person who stands between investors and the architectural community.
