We continue to ask the chief architect of Moscow questions that interest our readers. In this interview, we discussed with Sergei Kuznetsov the results of the competition for Zaryadye Park, as well as the topics proposed by Evgeny Drozhzhin, Ivan Lebedev and Vitaly Ananchenko.
Archi.ru:
Sergei Olegovich, the most discussed topic of this week, of course, was the results of the international competition for the project of the Zaryadye park, the jury of which you headed. Please tell us how unanimous was the jury's decision to award the victory to the Diller Scofidio + Renfro team?
Sergey Kuznetsov:
- American architects won by a very small majority of votes. I can say that they immediately became one of the favorites of the competition, but they had very serious rivals - the consortium TPO Reserve + Maxwan + Latz Partners. These two teams were significantly ahead of their other rivals in the final - this became clear even on the first day of the jury's work, when we just started selecting the three best concepts out of six presented. Here the third place caused a very long debate among us. We re-voted several times - in addition to MVRDV, the Turenspace team seriously claimed the bronze. As a result of two re-votes, these teams gained the same number of votes, and in fact the fate of the third place was decided only after the rule came into force that in case of several unsuccessful re-votes, the chairman of the jury could personally give one of the teams the decisive vote. I decided that it would be MVRDV, also because, I will not deny, that it is a Dutch-Russian team, in which our colleagues from the Atrium bureau took an active part.
What, in your opinion, is the main advantage of the project proposed by Diller Scofidio + Renfro?
- We chose this concept because it is packed as tightly as possible so-called. “Urban wonders” - the project provides for very interesting experiments with an artificial climate and the creation of the most diverse scenarios for spending leisure time in this generally not very large park. In addition, American architects thought about how to use not only the Moskvoretskaya embankment, but also the Moskvoretsky bridge - the latter, by the way, was not provided for in the competition task, but it turned out to be a very interesting proposal.
Many of the "urban wonders" seem to be very risky and, to put it mildly, expensive to operate …
- Yes, in terms of the sum of risks assessed by experts, the Diller Scofidio + Renfro project was clearly the leader. But the risks illustrate the innovativeness of the project, and we thought that the best park in Moscow, designed to crown the pyramid of all public spaces in the Russian capital, should be very bright. This is a bigger challenge that we are ready to face. For this, a serious project team will be formed, in which we plan to invite other finalists of the competition, and some of the members of its jury. I hope that Vladimir Plotkin, the author of a very high-quality and truly elegant concept, will continue to work on the project to create the Zaryadye park in this "team". I must admit that I am very proud that the team led by the Russian bureau was able to compete in the international competition at such a high level.
It's no secret that the jury highly appreciated how the connection between the park and the embankment was solved in the TPO "Reserve" project. Is it possible to use some elements of the Russian project in the final concept of the park?
- There is a certain risk in this proposal, becausethe embankment is a historical place, but the jury really recommended to carefully study this section of the TPO "Reserve" project and, as they say, take note of it. But, I repeat, first it needs to be checked for possible regulation of security issues and the technical aspect of the solution itself. That is why we would like to see Vladimir Plotkin in the team working on the project.
After the competition for the project of a shopping complex on Khoroshevskoe highway, our readers accused of plagiarism your colleague Alexei Vorontsov, who proposed for this shopping center a facade that incredibly resembles the facade of the museum in Alesia by Bernard Chumi, recently built in eastern France. Do you think that in this case we have just a case of plagiarism? If so, what is your opinion on this topic?
- I know for sure that Aleksey Rostislavovich personally has not been involved in architecture for a long time, and although the workshop is named after him, it is designed by completely different people, so if you ask about borrowings, then from them. But since the project of Alexei Vorontsov's workshop did not win the competition and did not even become one of the conditional finalists, that is, it did not become one of those projects that the jury considered most closely, I would not at all retrospectively focus on its architectural qualities. They are on the conscience of the authors.
And yet, do you think the topic of plagiarism is relevant for modern Russian architecture? How, in your opinion, can one distinguish plagiarism from the development of an existing artistic device by an author?
- Architecture is the sphere of creativity in which certain techniques and motives are constantly repeated, reproduced and compiled. If you like, architecture began with a compilation, when a person first tried to reproduce plant leaves, a drawing of a stone, the plastic of a tree trunk, etc. as decor. Over time, this "base", of course, has grown significantly, and each generation of architects continues to supplement it with their contributions, but their creativity is based primarily on broad knowledge, on what is now commonly called "observation".
The line between rethinking a well-known trick and plagiarism is really very thin, and, to be honest, I try, in principle, not to participate in such discussions, because there will always be a person who will remind you that “ideas are in the air” and another one, which in many historical examples will prove that all the techniques will sooner or later go out into circulation - and each of them will be right. This is the essence of the development of architecture, and each of us invests in this process in accordance with what his professional conscience and creative credo tell him to. I believe that life is fair and will judge for itself how valuable these contributions are from the point of view of the present and the future.
In early October, the head of the Moscow construction complex, Marat Khusnullin, said that in his opinion “it is strategically wrong to build affordable housing in Moscow”, explaining that it is the high cost of housing that is “a limiting factor in migration to the capital”. Can you comment on this statement? Do you think the city needs an affordable housing program and will it be implemented?
- To be honest, I myself have not heard this phrase and I don’t know the context in which it was pronounced, so I would not want to comment on it. Moreover, Marat Shakirzyanovich himself later told me that he was misunderstood by journalists. I can say one thing: in the tasks that he gives us as his subordinates, the interests of the city and people always come first. And the interest of the city and those who live and work in it is, first of all, a comfortable living environment. The cost, and hence the availability of this environment, is still somehow regulated by the market and, by and large, does not depend on anyone's statements. There is a market, there is the cost of work, networks and land, and with all these introductory construction it is impossible to make construction free of charge. We already had communism, and, I hope, everyone still remembers what it led to.
At the same time, the segment of budget housing in the structure of new buildings in Moscow is quite large, and the city continues to fulfill its obligations on its implementation. The question that worries me more, as a chief architect, in this regard, lies in the plane of quality, and not the availability or inaccessibility of this housing. I am deeply convinced that unattractive housing, although affordable, is more harmful for the city and its inhabitants than vice versa. Actually, our main efforts are now directed to ensure that the architectural quality of social housing is high - typical should not be synonymous with "dull".
In connection with the recent riots in Biryulyovo, our readers ask whether it is possible to use architectural and urban planning methods to reduce social tension in disadvantaged areas of Moscow?
- Of course you can. It is not for nothing that there is an expression that “architecture is the management of life”. In no area of the city should any one function be allowed to prevail - the creation of a huge market in a vacant lot, for example, or the endless dominance of only residential buildings, in which apartments are located even on the first floors. A person, by nature, cannot sit in one place all the time and do only one thing, and this is perhaps the main task of city planners - to offer a city dweller within the same district the maximum variety of functions. Otherwise, a vacuum arises, and it is inevitably filled with negative phenomena from a social point of view. Multifunctionality is the guarantee of comfort and safety, and this is what we, Moskomarkhitektura, are fighting for. Of course, this is easier to do when designing new districts, since, strictly speaking, what has already been built is not within our competence. But we do what we can: for example, we add local cultural centers, cafes, childcare facilities, etc., gradually transforming sleeping areas into a full-fledged city. Alas, this process is by definition not fast.
Readers are also interested in your opinion on the current development of Moscow City. To what extent do you think the current result is successful? Can you, as the chief architect of the city, influence the course of this construction?
- Those sites in MIBC "Moscow City", the construction of which has not yet been completed, are in my sphere of influence, and I do not relieve myself of responsibility for them. On the contrary, we are doing our best to help give this area a human face. So, under our close control, the 11th, 17-18th and 20th sections are being completed today. The objects proposed for them seem to us quite adequate in terms of their architectural design and their functions. And in the case when the declared function and area raised questions, in the end a competition was held, regardless of the already developed project. I mean the 4th section of the MIBC and the project of the UNK Project team found for it as a result of the competition.
How do I feel about Moscow City in general? You know, I try to use comparative judgments, not value judgments. Compared to the quality of high-rise construction in New York or Singapore, this area of the Russian capital looks very pale and controversial. And this, by and large, cannot be changed. As the chief architect of Moscow, I consider it my duty to complete its improvement, first of all, at the level of the road transport network and in terms of public spaces. When this can be done, it will become a completely normal urban area, not the worst and certainly has a memorable appearance. The question is how long it will take to complete it. After all, it has already been under construction for over twenty years.
And what is the fate of other Moscow long-term construction projects - such as, for example, a water park on the Aminevskoye highway, "Crystal" on the South-West, Khovrinskaya hospital? Will the situation of the emergence of new long-term construction be regulated in the future?
- And from the urban planning, and from the social point of view, long-term construction is an absolutely disgusting phenomenon. Now the authorities are trying to work with this legacy, but you need to understand that the objects that you name will most likely neither be completed nor rebuilt - they have been in abandonment for too long, but you cannot simply take and dismantle them, this is a whole tangle of legal problems, which is only now beginning to unravel. Incidentally, we and Moscow City are now so actively engaged precisely because we do not allow such hopelessly abandoned objects to appear there. Another such example is the complex at the Armory. A lot can be said about its gigantic volume or stylistic solution, but now a situation has emerged when the most important thing is not to allow this structure to be forever frozen in concrete.
Are there plans for the development of railway tracks that are no longer used for their intended purpose and are isolated from the city wastelands?
- This is undoubtedly one of the sore points for our city, but you need to understand that its solution depends not only on Moscow, but, first of all, on the federal user - Russian Railways and the Moscow Railway. At the moment we are negotiating with them and together we are looking for a compromise that would suit both these structures and the city. In parallel, for many years, work has been underway to find optimal planning solutions that would allow these territories to be included in the urban fabric, a whole bank of concepts has been accumulated, and we plan to use them.
Do you need a comprehensive citywide program for such spaces?
- I do not exclude that such a program will be developed. And, by the way, its prototype can be considered the already adopted program for the reconstruction of existing and construction of a whole complex of new transport hubs. The very concept of TPU is, among other things, an answer to the question of how the territories of railway tracks can be used. Of course, this is just one of the typologies, there must be and will certainly be more, but it is important that, in fact, the work on the development of "railway" lands has already begun.
