We continue to ask the chief architect of Moscow questions that interest our readers. In this interview, among other things, we discussed with Sergey Kuznetsov the topics proposed by Dmitry Khmelnitsky, Vitaly (FVV) and Evgeny Drozhzhin.
Archi.ru:
– Our readers have many questions activities of the renewed architectural council. How do you assess his work and can we talk about concrete results now?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
- During the period that I am in the position of the chief architect of Moscow, we have implemented a number of important initiatives of the mayor and the government: this is the provision on the AGR, and the regulation of our own activities, and the transfer of all services of the Moscow Committee for Architecture in electronic form, which is important from the point of view optimization of work and interaction of business with the authorities, and much more. The resumption of the work of the architectural council, I consider one of the main achievements.
On the one hand, the percentage of projects approved by the board is not very high. But, in my opinion, this speaks not so much about the rigor of the advice as about the level of design, which, unfortunately, does not yet fully meet modern requirements. In addition, we, as a rule, consider the most difficult and confusing questions, to which sometimes there is no single answer. For example, at the last meeting of the council we were presented with a good architectural solution for a hotel on Nikitsky Boulevard, but given the significance and history of the place, we could not approve it. Often this is not even a question of the professionalism of architects, but a question of the influence of numerous factors - such as, for example, the unsettledness of the site, the environment, transport problems, etc.
On the other hand, it seems to me that all the decisions made by the council were very balanced and adequate. The council consists of very competent people, their opinion is significant. And I don't remember a single decision that we would later regret or want to reconsider.
The result of the council's activities will, of course, be the buildings that will appear in Moscow.
Everything that is built after the approval of the council, it seems to me, corresponds to the required quality. Of course, it's not for me to judge this, but for the Muscovites and, no matter how pathetic it sounds, for their descendants. But at least I don't see any major failures.
I would like to clarify what are the legal grounds for the activities of the architectural council, and what rights does it have?
- The council was approved by the decree of the Moscow government, there is a provision governing the activities and rights of the architectural council, which is also confirmed by the decree of the Moscow government on the AGR, and, of course, the urban planning code of Moscow (for more details on the legal basis for the work of the architectural council, see the Moskomarkhitektura website - ed.) We managed to defend the necessity of the existence of this body before the city leadership, and for the city it is certainly a blessing. The personal support of our initiative by Sergei Sobyanin was a great success. I am convinced that for cities such as Moscow or St. Petersburg, consideration of significant and complex architectural and urban planning projects should be a prerequisite, despite the fact that the Russian city code, in contrast to Moscow, does not imply this, alas. If there are colleagues who disagree with me and believe that it is worth just issuing TEPs, and leaving the construction and architecture of the building on the conscience of developers and investors, then I am ready to argue with them.
The resumption of the Arch Council is the right decision not only from the point of view of the law, but also from the point of view of common sense. Moscow, with all its diversity and diversity, has always been and remains one of the brightest cities in the world in terms of architecture. And this is largely due to the fact that architecture has always been very closely examined here.
How has the procedure for reviewing projects changed in comparison with the previous practice?
- These are both qualitative and quantitative changes. We managed to establish a project review process. Working reviews, like architectural councils, are held regularly. We work very seriously and at a good pace, which is why we can confidently speak about the quality of the decisions we make. But, as I said above, it will not be we who will evaluate it, but the residents of the city. At the same time, it is a fact that we have removed the tension in the market associated with a huge number of issues that were simply not considered by anyone. In less than a year, the number of projects reviewed by the Moskomarkhitektura has increased by about seven times.
In addition, it should be added that all reviews, except for the routine ones, have become absolutely open. This is a public procedure, and the decision-making mechanism is visible to everyone. If we compare it with how it happened before, then today we have made a huge step towards openness. We always invite representatives of the press, but what is more important - all interested colleagues of the architects can attend the meetings of the council. Thus, the motivation and arguments of the council members when approving or rejecting a project become obvious to everyone. Everything happens in a single form, we do not single out anyone and do not oppress anyone. The Archcouncil is not a place of execution where people come as if they were being executed. This is the place where people come for the right advice. We have a common interest - the city. I am sure that none of my fellow architects wants the city to receive new “slaps in the face” in the form of low-quality buildings. On the contrary, we all strive to ensure that only worthy examples of modern architecture appear on the territory of Moscow.
Can the recently announced competition for the development of the concept for the development of the territory of the Sickle and Hammer plant be considered a real achievement of the Arch Council?
- Certainly. Both this competition and the competition for the design of a shopping complex on Slavyansky Boulevard are all the result of the activities of the architectural council. It was based on the results of the meeting of the council members that a decision was made to place these sites on the competition. Customers in both cases met us halfway. We are trying to establish a dialogue with investors, and they listen to us.
What do you expect from the Hammer and Sickle competition, and can this site become a kind of model for the development of industrial zones located on the territory of Moscow?
- I think this is an important competition. And it's not even about the site. Before that, a rather useful competition was held for the design of the territory of the ZiL plant, but it did not receive the publicity and the scale that we provide today to all significant competitions. And I think it is extremely important to draw the attention of the professional and non-professional community to such issues. People should be well aware of what is happening in the city and, moreover, they should feel their involvement and responsibility for the decisions made so that the implementation does not cause irritation or surprise. We are ready to support the active civil position of the population in every possible way, we are ready to listen to any opinions. Therefore, this competition is another step towards the development of dialogue with the public. We strive so that people through the media or through direct participation in certain procedures could observe how and on the basis of what decisions are made, from what quantity and quality of competitive projects the winner is selected. It is very important.
And, indeed, I think that this competition can become an exemplary one. At the same time, I do not believe that all sites should be conducted through a competitive procedure. Competitions are relevant only for the most important areas for the city. And in this case, the competition becomes the best tool for finding the highest quality solution. But we don't want to create a conveyor. Not all masterpieces of world architecture are the result of a competitive selection. We react according to the situation. As soon as a significant and at the same time complex territory appears, ready to develop, we enter into negotiations with the investor and decide on the tender. At the moment, in addition to the territory of the Hammer and Sickle plant, another topical urban planning competition has been launched for the international financial center in Rublevo-Arkhangelskoye. In my opinion, the holding of two such significant sites through a competitive procedure is already a very great achievement. A couple of years ago it was difficult even to imagine that these territories would receive such development.
In your interviews, you have often named the development of the large Moskva River project as one of the promising tasks. Are any details and details of this work already known today?
- At the moment, we have already started developing and preparing the first concept, which will become the task of the competition. There are plans to hold a large international competition for the development of the territory along the Moskva River. This project will also cover some industrial areas. However, unlike the aforementioned competitions, this competition will be more conceptual. We understand that the solutions obtained as a result of its results will be difficult to implement exactly, since we are talking about a gigantic territory. Based on the proposals received, it is planned to develop a general program for the development of the Moscow River. In this case, we expect to receive a certain bank of ideas, according to which we will gradually master and develop this territory. If we evaluate objectively, then the project for the planning of the Moscow River, given the enormous scale of the covered territory, is impossible to prepare, as well as to approve such a document. We will solve this global task gradually. So far, it is only clear that, despite the complexity of the issue, it still needs to be "moved" somehow. We are taking the first steps, hoping that in the course of intensive work we will be able to find the right solution and understand what to do next.
Is there already some certainty about the timing and regulations of this competition?
- We have already started, but it is still quite difficult to set the exact dates. I think that preparation and implementation will take at least a year.
It is known that Moskomarkhitektura is preparing serious changes to the regulatory framework. Tell us in more detail, what are these changes?
- Yes, changes are planned. We have created a working group whose activities are focused on the preparation of adjustments to existing standards. However, one must understand that any change must be carefully weighed, all factors must be taken into account. This is a very serious job. I can say that there are a number of issues on the regulatory framework on the agenda. We are talking, in particular, about a change in the norms of insolation, as well as about the transition to a new building system - from a micro-district to a quarter.
Another important topic is the calculation of parking spaces, which is now not tied to the capabilities of the road network, but, according to the standards, is done only on the basis of the volume of construction. But building gigantic parking lots, realizing that cars will not be able to drive up to them, is completely pointless. In such situations, it is necessary to reduce either the volume of construction or the number of parking spaces, inviting people to switch to public transport. Also, work is underway to separate the concepts of apartments and hotels, to legitimize the procedures for a creative competition, which today simply does not exist at the legislative level as a concept. This is a vacuum, a gap that needs to be filled. We believe that the form of the GPZU should also be corrected. In a word, the work is being actively carried out, but now we are at the very beginning of the path.
Today, quite stringent requirements are imposed on new buildings. Will any changes affect the existing development? For example, in terms of beautifying facades or developing infrastructure?
- The question of the existing city, unfortunately, is not entirely within our competence. We can only be introduced when it comes to some kind of renovation. In those cases when we deal with new construction in already built-up territories, we always try to prescribe the need for the development of adjacent territories at the level of the technical assignment, provide for the connection of new objects with existing buildings, for example, when renovating the housing stock. Thus, it is possible to avoid the effect of infill, which is always dangerous. We are trying to spread planning over a much larger area, so that the building gradually turns into a kind of unified structure, even if at first it looked like a point structure. We are doing everything that depends on us, but in general, the Moskomarkhitektura does not solve the issues of landscaping and repairing facades.
Readers of Archi.ru are interested in whether steps are planned to recreate the unique, but lost architectural monuments on the territory of Moscow?
- Literally at the last architectural council, we considered the project of a hotel complex on Nikitsky Boulevard. Previously, this place was the location of the notorious "Nightingale House", which in the 1990s. was demolished. As a result of the discussion of this project, we asked the authors and customers to develop an option not just for the development of this site, but for the reconstruction of the lost object. At the same time, I must say that in most cases I oppose the reconstruction, because no matter how close the recreated version is to the original, it will still be a fake. I always advocate new construction, inviting authors to create examples of good modern architecture that can be perceived as a sign of their time. As for the project on Nikitsky Boulevard, in this particular case, we simply could not fail to take into account the importance and responsibility of the project and its location. That is why it was decided to consider all the options, including the option of recreating the historical appearance of the "Nightingale House".
What tasks are paramount for you in the near future?
- One of the main tasks is to complete what has already been started. Of course, we will try to complete a number of landmark and already launched projects, such as ZiL, recently approved by the State Plant of Complexes, Zaryadye Park and other projects by which Muscovites will judge the work of the Moscow government and Moskomarkhitektura as well. It is important that we do not stand still, all our initiatives (somewhere to a greater, somewhere to a lesser extent) are developing.
The same can be said about competitive practice, which contributes to an increase in the level of competition, and at the same time - professionalism. Competitions should be held at all important venues in the city. To date, contests have allowed us to get off the ground with projects such as the Tretyakov Gallery or the Pushkin Museum. The Tretyakov Gallery project was just recently presented to Vladimir Putin and approved by him. For me, this is a confirmation that we do not just solve problems, but we solve them successfully. This is a success for the city.
But the number one task is the general plan of the city. It must cover the annexed territories and must be developed on a reasonable basis that meets the realities of the time. The new city master plan will take into account all those planning elements that have not yet been taken into account or made inaccuracies. And these are economic, demographic and social components. If you look at the general plan of 2010, then it has already missed the mark in the calculations of motorization, growth and the nature of the population. The new document should take into account all these factors as much as possible, acting as a kind of code of approach to planning.
I believe that one of the important tasks is to popularize Russian architecture in the world. It is equally important to attract the world's top specialists to our country in order to create high-quality facilities. The ultimate task is to make Moscow a city comfortable for life and interesting in terms of architecture. This will attract new people here and keep those who live here. It is known that the main resource for which all cities are fighting is human. We will fight for the quality of the population - for professional, qualified people who contribute to the development of the capital in all directions. All our work is aimed at bringing the development of the city to European standards, so that the city is just a city, and not a set of disparate territories, residential neighborhoods and industrial zones. Of course, this is a super task, but all our initiatives are connected with its solution.
