– I walked to meet you along the embankment and once again came across the fact that it looked more like an obstacle course, and not a valuable resource - space by the water. Now this city-wide problem has finally attracted the attention of the capital's authorities: competition on the concept of development of the coastal areas of the Moscow River, in which you also participated. What ideas formed the basis of your project?
- The role of rivers in the city today is very secondary, and they are more likely a factor of separation of the city tissue than a connecting link. Among other things, a large territorial resource is concentrated around the rivers, which can potentially affect the further development of the city as a whole. These territories are unique both from an ecological and geographic point of view, because the coastal zone is incredibly interesting, people have always wanted to live by the water, this is their natural need. The main problem that hinders the development of these territories is the lack of normal access to them - both pedestrian and transport: for a long time they were in the status of closed industrial zones, and public transport did not "affect" them in any way. In order to attract investors, or rather consumers of what developers can create there, it is necessary to ensure the availability of these spaces. Because building them up is not a problem, but it is necessary that this territory be competitive not only because of its specific connection with the river: it is necessary to establish some kind of communication with the city.
If we talk about ordinary street transport, such as buses, trolleybuses and fixed-route taxis, they do not solve this problem well because of the negative transport situation in the city as a whole, they suffer from a number of disadvantages - low speed and irregularity of movement. If we talk about off-street transport, such as a tram or metro, then there are also a number of problems. We perfectly understand the complexity of the implementation of another metro line along the river - these are also hydrological problems, in addition to very high financial costs. It is rather possible to talk about a tram, but we thought that an ordinary city tram would not solve many problems either: it does not have sufficient speed, and if you make it high-speed, then it will need a wide dedicated lane. And if he goes along the coast, he will cut off the water from the city. In addition, it is difficult to build such a line along the coast: you need to block traffic. In addition, there are also bridges, and under some of them the tram simply does not pass. There is water transport, which pleases us only as a tourist attraction, but not as a regular transport. This is quite understandable, because we have a long winter, and there is only a short period when we can use water transport, and the speed of such transport is also low.
At the same time, the river is historically a transport artery. This has been a key factor in the creation of cities - always and throughout the world. And so we came up with a rather extravagant idea: to create a new type of Moscow transport, its working name - "river tram". We proposed to launch it along the overpass along the water, below the shore level. This tram can be high-speed, because it automatically has a dedicated lane, and it has the necessary performance indicators for passenger transportation. Its stops can serve as transport hubs connecting the tram with other modes of transport: in this way it will join the general transport system of the city, relieve a number of metro lines and connect territories that cannot otherwise be connected. In addition, he will not visually interfere with the existing panorama of the embankments: it was very important for us to keep the “iconic” views intact. It is environmentally friendly, its organization in a technical sense is much simpler and significantly cheaper than the creation of any other public transport system. We have calculated this with a variety of specialists.
Today, large investors are interested in the implementation of this program. In addition, we were invited to exhibit this project in Milan at EXPO 2015: in the section dedicated to public transport. There were only three Russian stands there - we, a company from St. Petersburg that deals with the ticket control system, and there was also a Mosgortrans stand, which only advertised the Expotrans exhibition at VDNKh in the fall. There were no other Russian participants there. And our project aroused unexpectedly great interest from the leading tram manufacturers - Siemens and Bombardier, consulting companies from Switzerland, England, Saudi Arabia. We have received quite a few offers, established contacts, which are developing after the exhibition. We are now busy forming the technical basis for the implementation of the project, selecting the appropriate transport, components, etc.
“However, the water space in Moscow is under the jurisdiction of the federal authorities, and the city has no power over it
- Yes, this is a serious problem in Moscow, which can make our project unrealizable. On the other hand, such problems are solved when creating transport hubs, where federal and municipal property also intersect, but mechanisms of cooperation have been developed, because there is a desire, a will to create better living conditions in the city. I look at this question philosophically and, of course, I understand that it is not as simple as it seems at first glance.
The coastline is replete with a number of technical features that need to be studied in detail. But we have a flyover structure that can “step” over any obstacles, and from the point of view of ecology and hydrology, this structure is quite “loyal” to real conditions. And, if Moscow does not need this unique type of transport, there is the interest of other states that are ready to make this type of transport their own. I don’t think that we will be too hard if we are the first to be offered to implement it elsewhere - for example, in Saudi Arabia.
Such a tram looks very attractive, because the long distances between transport hubs, even in the center of Moscow, make life difficult. But your project was not limited to the new transport system
- Of course. This was one of the factors that would allow further development of coastal areas. We drew tram stops where there are already mooring slopes to the water: we kept the structure of the embankments and used the existing potential. The stopping systems were supposed to become points of growth of public space, "go out" to the shore and influence the coastal zones. As part of this competitive project, we proposed the development of some territories - opposite Moscow City, ZiLa, Strogino.
We proposed to develop the Filevskaya metro line, which runs along the river bank opposite the City, and, among other things, changed the traffic interchange, remaking the northern backup of Kutuzovsky Prospekt. This work turned out to be extremely useful for us, because now we are participating in the development of the project for the northern understudy of Kutuzovsky, and this denouement, indeed, has now been changed. We removed the flyovers that cut off water from residential areas in the original version of the project. In general, our competition project provided a good foundation for the future, which has come in handy now.
On the territory of ZiL, it was very interesting for us to work with the industrial facilities existing there. It seemed to us that some objects still need to be left: they are iconic, and they must be somehow rehabilitated, saturated with a new function. This part of the work is dear to me and seems useful, within its framework we have come up with new ways of working with promotional objects. And it seems to me that this is useful for the city too.
If we develop the theme of industrial objects and heritage in a broad sense, especially those structures that do not have a protected status, then I often hear from foreign experts about the "natural selection" of historical buildings. That is: let life decide the fate of those structures that do not have a uniquely high value. If a building cannot be adapted for new use, it may not be worth saving. On the one hand, it seems unethical to discuss this in Russia, because “unconditional” protected monuments are also being demolished here. But does such an approach have a right to exist in principle, as you think?
- Every architect and every citizen has his own system of cultural values, which he is guided by in his work. I cannot say that everything and everyone should be preserved, nothing should be touched. On the other hand, when working with heritage, I always try to examine everything carefully from different points of view first. It is clear that the legal side of the issue is important. If we are dealing with a cultural monument, then we work within the legal framework set by this. If a building does not have such a status, then, on the one hand, there is much more responsibility in this, on the other hand, there is much more choice. I am always interested in studying the existing context. Over time, I understand that inside aesthetically unattractive buildings or seemingly garbage buildings there are certain factors that are more important than appearance, and I do not want to lose them. And we first check for the presence of such factors and only then decide whether to demolish or not to demolish.
Let's move on to your recent project for a heritage site - the Ruin wing at the Museum of Architecture named after A. V. Shchuseva. As I understand it, it has already been approved by the Ministry of Culture
- Yes it is. This is a completely different story. Several years ago we were offered to make in "Ruin"
an exhibition dedicated to the 20th anniversary of our bureau, and we decided not to exhibit our works, but to make an artistic gesture, a statement that would characterize us and at the same time be interesting to the public. We spoke about the "Ruins" in the sense that, in our opinion, it is a completely self-sufficient object. We just put things in order there a little, and she played in a completely different way. I'm very interested.
Returning to the previous question, if we talk about the method, it seems to me that architecture is not only a form, walls that need to be erected. This is, first of all, the atmosphere, meaning, metaphysics of the space in which you feel yourself in one way or another. There is some magic in this. I am interested in this side of architectural practice. Why in this space we feel ourselves so, and in another - differently, at the level of emotions. And how are these emotions created? And what you need to do? If it is enough to just wash the floor or plant one tree, then this is also the work of an architect. The main thing is for him to understand this. If for this you need to demolish everything and create something new, this is also the work of an architect. And here, of course, there is a great distance. And the choice is always up to the author.
In this case, I caught this metaphysics of space, and it seems to me that I am not the only one: everyone has always enjoyed going to exhibitions at the Ruin. And its atmosphere - such things cannot be measured, characterized. Although, maybe someday someone will be seriously puzzled by this, and we will receive clear methodological instructions on how to create this or that atmosphere. But now we do not plunge into such a jungle and are guided only by intuition, our own feelings, and we trust ourselves.
It seemed to us that it was important to preserve this atmosphere in the "Ruin". On the other hand, we understand that the monument is now in an unsafe situation. Therefore, when we won the competition for the design of the exhibition space for this wing, we proposed as a basis the concept of conservation - conservation of the "Ruins" with the possibility of using it as an exhibition space. We faced a very complex methodological and technological problem and found out that in Russia in recent decades, no one has been engaged in the restoration art conservation of any ruin with the possibility of its subsequent use. So we tried to invent a new technique. We have divided this building into small squares and issued a study for each square that takes a very close look at every brick, every crack, every detail. For each brick and crack, we have prescribed recipes together with the restoration technologists. How we repair, strengthen, replace, by what solution, by what method, etc. This made up about 400 sheets of the album, which says a lot. This is 95% of the project, its main part is completely invisible, but extremely important and time consuming.
The second part of the project is adaptation. This is what we propose to introduce new, so that this organism would work, would be safe for visitors and suitable for exhibiting. On the other hand, whenever you work with an object of cultural heritage, you must understand that it was not you who created it and that you were not the last to introduce something new into it, that your role here is not the first and not the last. With this attitude, it is much easier to make decisions. From the point of view of adaptation, we make entrances and engineering systems, replace the roof, and arrange floors. Everything that we, except for the roof, propose to make non-constructive, designed so that over time it can be withdrawn without damage to the building and replaced with something else. Habits change quickly, museum exhibits do too, so we don't plan to create something that will be there forever. We tried to make the "Ruin" itself a constant, and everything else - changeable parameters.
The output will be an exhibition space of the standard of a state museum, where you can maintain the mode of humidity, temperature, or?
- Not. Since this is not a permanent exhibition, but a place for temporary exhibitions, we, among other things, abandon supply ventilation and resume natural ventilation. In principle, the parameters of this building, taking into account the thickness of the walls and their permeability, make it possible to create a fairly comfortable natural climate there. Nonetheless, this is all in line with the standard for temporary exposures. It will be warm there, with normal parameters of humidity and temperature, but our task was not to make the space of the standard storage facility.
I remember the "Ruin" 10 years ago best of all, when I worked at the Museum of Architecture during the reign of David Sargsyan: the everlasting cold was a very striking feature …
- We will have heating: we are closing the circuit, making a heating system. From an architectural point of view, it will be a full-fledged object. We must pay tribute to David Sargsyan and remember him with a kind word, because it was he who took the risk of opening this outbuilding for people. We remember this, and his memorial office in the "Ruin" will remain intact.
We just talked about your work in the current context - the city and the monument. In contrast, the Lesnoy Ugolok residential complex in Khimki is about creating an environment from scratch
- This is a debut for us, and a record one. Let's start with the fact that only three years passed from the moment of the sketch to the sale of the first apartment. I believe that this is an absolutely record time for implementation for any project. This amusing story began when, during the 2008 crisis, a customer, Clover Group, contacted us with a request to make a layout project with reference to typical panel houses at this place. We looked at this site, which is fantastic by nature, and I said that it was completely stupid to deal with the binding of typical houses here. To which they objected to me that there was no money, and it was impossible for individual project houses to compete with panel houses in terms of cost and speed of their implementation. And then I decided to argue with the investor: we said that we are ready, within the budget indicated by him, to design something that will give a similar economic effect, but of a completely different quality. Actually, we succeeded.
But how did you do it?
- It is necessary to consider several parameters at once. First of all, it was necessary to invent the type of house itself. Panel houses have one very significant drawback (I am now leaving out the architectural and aesthetic possibilities) - the economic one. We used it. The housing economy is based, among other things, on the ratio of the total and usable area. And not a single typical panel house allows you to create a section where one staircase will be about 500 m2 living space. Already in this case, panel houses lose to "individual" ones, because they have an increase in the number of staircase and elevator nodes, and corridors are added to them, and so on. First of all, we have won economically in this very aspect. We created a section that made it possible to make a completely comfortable floor without long corridors, which gave the maximum output of living space to one staircase and elevator node.
Secondly, we regulated the height, because in a building with up to 10 floors, you can get by with one staircase and elevator node. Oddly enough, this parameter has a very significant effect on the "economy", and here we immediately received a bonus. And then, since it was originally supposed to build tall houses, and we cut them down to 8-9 floors, keeping the same density per hectare that was allowed here in the master plan, we created a few more bonuses. The project made it possible to provide the necessary insolation in each apartment and arrange a window to the south. And the most important thing is that this window looks at the river: there is a good view. That is, each apartment, regardless of its size, has a window with a view and the southern sun. In addition, the monolithic frame made it possible to flexibly vary the layout when selling an apartment. In a panel house, it is almost impossible to combine apartments, but with a reinforced concrete frame, this is easy to do. The market has changed, which we warned the investor about: it was clear that at the start of the project the buyer had no money, but when the sales began, the buyer would already have new opportunities and the apartments would be sold differently. And so it happened, and everyone turned out to be in the black, and we even received a letter from the governor of the Moscow region.
This residential complex is also visually interesting. It turns out that the often enviable European housing, for example, Scandinavian residential areas, is not so unrealizable in our conditions as it seems
- This is a matter of goodwill and the ability to pick up serious arguments.
– That is, do you think that a real dialogue between the architect and the client is possible? Wherein refrain in interviews with domestic and foreign architects - that often an architect is almost a slave of a customer, especially a large developer, and cannot explain anything to him.
- If an architect cannot explain anything, then he really is a slave. I can't say that I managed to conquer all customers in the world, this is not true. There were situations when I understood that dialogue was impossible. But in this case, I just stopped working with them: the implementation of any project is a decent piece of life, and I am not interested in dedicating it to some painful process. If I get a “contact” dialogue with a customer, I cannot say that this is a novel, but this is a jointly experienced stage, in which there are both positive and negative situations. But it is very important to understand that the customer is the same person as you are. He, too, usually graduated from the Soviet school. You can always find a common language. The customer must be respected, then he will respect you. If you build a mutually respectful relationship, it usually works. At least my experience speaks about it. I have maintained good relations with all the customers with whom I have worked. They come again and again, even if there were heated discussions. The relationship with only one customer did not continue - this is our customer at the "Red Rose". Until now, when it comes to inviting us to participate in the KR Properties tender, it sounds "no", because Narine is "terribly intractable."
Have you worked with the state, or will it be the first time in the case of the Museum of Architecture?
- We worked. We did, but still have not finished, the restoration of the historic building of the polyclinic on Staropansky lane in Moscow. We did stage “P” of reconstruction and restoration of buildings and a large park of the Sochi sanatorium. These are large budget projects. There are others.
That is, it is possible to conduct a dialogue with both a commercial customer and a government one?
- I like to talk to commercial people more, because they have a personal face. And the state has only a plan and a goal, and the face is not visible. In this case, our virtual interlocutor is society. And here we are guided by our civil and professional position, but the dialogue is proceeding in a completely different way.
– It turns out that an architect can influence the situation on the scale of one building and even a city, if you take your experience. That is, the idea of the important social role of the architect is not as naive as they often try to show it?
- This question is constantly raised at the MARCH school when we discuss what kind of architect we are educating there. Are we educating an architect who can meet the demands of the market? Or someone else? My position is this: we educate a professional who is able to influence this market and do it convincingly.
That is, to offer solutions that can be an innovation not only from the point of view of architecture, but also from the point of view of development?
- I think yes. For example, we have been trying for 15 years to explain to customers that it is not always necessary to demolish a building, sometimes it is enough just to put it in order - and now this has become one of the main trends, which I am very pleased with. And our experience is rather positive: we often managed to persuade the customer to make a non-standard decision, and not enter into confrontation with him. Precisely to convince, and not to compromise, because, as you know, "a compromise is a decision that does not suit both parties."
