In September, an international Emporis Skyscraper Award named the world's best skyscrapers built in 2012. A total of 330 objects claimed this title, the fifth among which was the Russian House on Mosfilmovskaya. About the world recognition of the Russian skyscraper and the context in which it was built, Archi.ru talks with its author, architect Sergei Skuratov.
Archi.ru:
– How was the process of nominating Dom na Mosfilmovskaya for the Emporis Skyscraper Award organized? Did you apply yourself?
Sergey Skuratov:
- No, for me all this was an unexpected pleasant surprise. This is a completely independent award, for which many experts work. The only thing I can say for sure is that our house has already been nominated for a similar award - in 2010. It was the award of the Council for High-Rise Buildings and Urban Environment (CTBUH) - Best tall biildings 2010. True, then it was not yet completed and formally could not receive the award, but was noted by the jury as a nominee and published in the catalog in the five best European skyscrapers. I think that's when they noticed him. Frankly, I am very pleased to be among the winners of the award - in front of me are such figures of modern architecture as MAD, Aedas, Nouvelle and Foster, behind me - Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, RMJM and Cesar Pelly. And, of course, I consider this not my personal success, but a well-deserved reward for the entire project team, who managed to consolidate their efforts and create a truly extraordinary thing.
In other words, are you satisfied with the quality of implementation of the House on Mosfilmovskaya?
- You see, an architect is always dissatisfied with the quality of implementation - this is an axiom. In the process of implementing any project, there are moments with which the author does not agree. And this house is no exception, there are things in it that I would like to see realized in a different way. There are elements that the customer, for economic reasons, tried to replace or, conversely, add, for example, a shopping center, but I resisted, sometimes successfully. I think now it makes no sense to talk about what the “House on Mosfilmovskaya” could be - it's like a child who grew up and became what he became, not paying much attention to the expectations of his parents. One thing I can say for sure: from an engineering-constructive point of view, this is a completely unique facility for Russia, and in this sense, of course, I am extremely proud that I managed to bring it to mind. We owe a lot to this customer, who was not afraid of such a complex project. We had a wonderful designer Igor Shipetin, who brilliantly calculated all the structures and systems and thereby made the construction of a skyscraper possible. And a unique builder is the Svargo company, which has invested all its skills and powers in this project.
- Do I understand correctly that the project was implemented only by Russian specialists?
- We consulted with Western specialists on individual units, for example, on the formwork for the central core or on the technology for manufacturing matrices for facade panels - the latter were ordered in Japan, because we simply do not have such drums. But everything was done and controlled here. The technology of continuous casting of the foundation slab was invented and developed here, or, for example, all systems of compensatory measures for the shrinkage of a house, or a subject of special pride for both architects and builders - 55 inclined 18-meter columns of the atrium, each of its size and cross-section. They are cast from black monolithic reinforced concrete with fantastic quality!
- In other words, here it is - the embodied proof that Russian architects and builders can really come up with and implement a project of the highest complexity, in no way inferior to their Western colleagues?
- Exactly! Consultations with Western colleagues helped us to get answers to a number of complex technical questions, but the most important thing in this story is that there are specialists in Russia who are able to a) work at a modern level b) formulate the necessary questions, c) successfully apply the answers received in practice. On this project, a unique partnership of customers, architects and builders has developed, and they did not fall from the moon directly onto Mosfilmovskaya, they work here. It seems to me that the implementation of the House on Mosfilmovskaya is a long-awaited answer for our entire industry to the question of what professionals in Russia can do if they want to and if they are not interfered with.
- But it was the “House on Mosfilmovskaya” that at one time was interfered with and a lot …
- If you are talking about an attempt to cut off several upper floors of the house, then this is rather a financial struggle during a period of severe crisis, in which all available methods were used. It is possible that if the then mayor of Moscow had not been the husband of the owner of the development company, this story, in principle, would not have happened. It definitely has nothing to do with architecture.
Okay, let's go from the other side. If the implementation of projects of such complexity is in principle possible, why is there only one “House on Mosfilmovskaya” in Russia? Is it really just because this is an elite housing?
- To be honest, I do not consider this house to be elite. Just upscale housing, with good views and good build quality. Although, of course, in Moscow conditions this makes it completely unique, and therefore very expensive, and therefore inaccessible for the middle class …
There is really one house with this name, but there are more and more professionally built modern buildings. Another thing is that mainly housing, office and commercial buildings are being built. And this is that rigidly functional typology in which architectural breakthroughs are rarely desired - both by customers and by society itself. A developer willing to spend money on the beauty and unique quality of architecture is a rarity. This happens more often in small, less well-known buildings. But there are really few large, unique, especially public and cultural projects. The situation is different all over the world: the most famous, most interesting, most innovative buildings are buildings ordered by the state, and they are associated exactly with the city, country, culture. I really want it to be the same with us! Not only residential and office complexes should appear in the most noticeable places that are significant for the city, but bright, modern life-forming objects - museums, media libraries, concert and exhibition complexes. Such projects should be in demand and ordered by society and the government, their specific tasks, functions and budgets should be carefully thought out on the basis of a comprehensive urban analysis and inscribed in strategic plans for the development of territories.
- You speak so positively about the coexistence of commercial and social projects. To be honest, I don't really believe this in modern Moscow.
- The same “House on Mosfilmovskaya” was supposed to solve a number of social problems, instead of an office center, for example, a cultural center could appear in it, and a luxurious park was originally conceived around the house … This, by the way, to your recent question about all whether I am satisfied in terms of the implementation of the project. Do not misunderstand me: I have no complaints about the developer - one investor, especially in a crisis situation, is unlikely to be able to resolve all these issues. But it is indisputable that high-quality socially responsible architecture can emerge only where the interests of a private developer intersect with the interests of society and the state. I repeat: the efforts of private development alone are not possible for qualitative transformations of the urban environment.
- Now, when a new urban planning policy is being actively implemented, professionally organized architectural competitions are being held, do you think that this situation is beginning to change for the better?
- I think it is very important that very professional people have started to resolve these issues. I mean not only the team of the chief architect, but also the new composition of the Institute for the General Plan of Moscow. It seems that the cleaning of plots and the imposition of their own ideas about beauty on the professional community has ceased to be a priority for the architectural authorities. A serious systematic analysis of the complex urban situation has begun, and some strategic decisions are being prepared. Although there are some concerns that bike paths and pedestrian embankments are decorative measures, so far there is more PR than a real qualitative transformation of the environment.
I can say the same about competitions: their holding is the most important step towards creating a healthy competitive environment in the professional architectural community, but what will happen next? If Project Meganom won the competition for the concept of reorganization of the ZiL territory - how will the project be implemented? When? Is there a well-thought-out assignment for this territory? Each new competition still gives more questions than answers.
- Do you consider it important for yourself to participate in those high-profile contests that are being held today in Moscow?
- It's not about the loudness of this or that competition, but about the site and the object that should appear on it. So, for example, I admit that in principle I did not participate in the competition for the new building of the State Statistics Service, because I absolutely do not like the place where it is planned to be built. Even if you draw a very beautiful thing, its shape and configuration in relation to the existing shopping center on Khodynka will not give the city anything good - this is my opinion. Unfortunately, because, in principle, I really want to build a social and cultural building. For similar reasons, I decided for myself not to participate in the competition at Zaryadye: I did not see either in the society or in the task of the competition a clear understanding of what should appear there.
But for the competition for the reorganization of the territory of the "Serp and Molot" plant, we are submitting an application and we hope that the jury will consider our experience in "Garden Quarters" sufficient to work on such a site. Indeed, for such a large-scale territory it is not enough to offer an effective planning scheme, the reconstruction of this territory is a very bold and interesting challenge. Will it be possible to make one of the most prestigious and disadvantaged directions of Moscow - the east - attractive and comfortable for life? This is a difficult task, but extremely interesting for me as an architect. Faced with such territories as Hammer and Sickle, once again you are convinced that living in a small patriarchal city, of course, is easier and prettier, but in an industrial city it is much more interesting.
