Marina Khrustaleva:
Sberbank University was opened at the end of last year, and I know that it was a long project, and it did not go very smoothly, you encountered certain difficulties along the way. How typical is this for work in Russia?
- We see that there are not so many foreign architects working in Russia today. Virtually no one. This means that there is some serious factor that makes it difficult to work in this country. Difficulties that do not diminish over time. I have been working here for over ten years, and not all, but many projects were fraught with difficulties. On the other hand, Russia is a great country, and everything is possible here. I am glad that the Sberbank Corporate University has been completed, the building is open, and classes have begun there. Mr. Gref, the head of Sberbank, is pleased with the project, he admitted that I did a good job.
Are you satisfied?
- Oh, of course I'm satisfied. There was a time when my attitude to the project management process and work progress was less positive: it is not pleasant that the project is moving very slowly, and even with the usual disregard for details. But the end result is good. If you look at the general layout of the campus and its project, you can see that the result is fully consistent with them. We performed field supervision, so that all the structures of the building that I designed were built properly.
Interiors are a separate issue. They were carried out without my participation and supervision. They clearly do not correspond to the level of quality that one would expect from a leading Russian bank. Some of the interiors may have been made according to Sberbank standards, but not mine. Apparently, the final quality of the building is not so important for most people in such a huge company as it is for me.
Many in this country are very enthusiastic and enthusiastic about the idea of the building, but the same number of people are completely indifferent to the details. In construction, it has become the norm not to pay much attention to detail. Perhaps people underestimate the importance of consistency and reliability in their actions, or they simply do not have the patience for it. I wish the country's leading bank made an effort to make the university's interiors worthy of this feature. In this project, the difference is really striking, Sberbank could achieve more, much more, create an image of a much more modern and future-oriented institution that openly abandoned the shortcomings of the Soviet style.
Except for this moment, I am proud of the result. We have built a full-fledged one kilometer campus in an absolutely beautiful location. An excellent educational complex. There are few countries in the world that could even start such an ambitious project, not what to build. And the fact that we managed to overcome our contradictions, and, in the end, congratulate each other on success is very important for me.
Have you talked to other foreign architects who had experience of working in Russia? Have you discussed your problems?
- I rarely discuss such topics. But I have not met my foreign colleagues who would speak with great enthusiasm about working in Russia. And I don't just mean Norman Foster. Most of the colleagues with whom I spoke simply do not want to spend the incredible amount of their own time and effort that is needed to develop and implement a project in Russia.
If we talk about our Sberbank project, we worked as a team of 40 people for two and a half years, literally day and night. We completed the project in three months and started construction very quickly, but then suddenly everything stopped and, in the end, a number of contractors finished everything themselves, partly according to our drawings, partly - improvising. Some of my Russian colleagues-architects are more accustomed to this kind of contradiction, while I am absolutely not. However, most of them rarely fight for their rights. If the project doesn't go well, they won't fight. But they know how to adapt and even manipulate such situations to their advantage much better than we do. Yes, I can be criticized for worrying too much about the outcome of the projects in which I am involved. But it really is.
Why are you fighting for your projects?
- I believe that my employees work hard and hard. We usually assume that I strongly support what we design as a company and as a team of professionals. Of course, I am fighting not only for my idea, which everyone must accept. Typically, a project begins with the customer asking the question: "What do you think this building should look like?" I give them my opinion, and they answer: "Great, we like it, let's build." I get all the approvals and permits, both from the customer's representatives and from the authorities. And then, in my opinion, both sides should follow what they agreed on. Knowing what to build is the most important thing. Sir Ove Arup, a renowned British engineer, said with good reason: "The question is not how to build, but what to build." It is necessary to find a commonality of views on what will be built. There is no other way to get the project done properly.
If the customer decides not to build a building, if he does not like my project - I can understand that, no one obliged him to build what I designed. But what I am not ready to accept is when I do the project, get approvals, finish the work, and they suddenly say to me: "Well, we can do everything for half the price, we don't need your working drawings." This is some kind of stupidity. This is partly due to the Russian do-it-yourself culture, which greatly helps people with limited incomes, but also stands in the way of quality progress. If you want to achieve some outstanding result, you have to come to terms with the fact that there are professionals who know what they are doing. They just need to be allowed to do their job, and their work should be respected. But many in Russia do not fully (sometimes justifiably) trust others, and as a result, everyone becomes his own banker, his own doctor and his own architect. This is also the reason for the dominance of grayness around. Of course, I'm not saying very nice things, but I think most will agree with them.
You had to defend yourself even in court
- Yes, in the case of commercial contradictions, if all contracts are concluded correctly, it makes sense to go to court. And I am glad that I was able to defend my innocence in the case of Capital Group, when the Russian court nevertheless recognized that the foreign architect was right and the Russian developer was not. This episode in my career is not something to be proud of, but all these things had to be done. If we are talking about a purely commercial or financial dispute, it should be resolved in a civilized manner by a judge. It even seems to me that at the level of financial disputes, the Russian court works better than the European one. Perhaps because in many countries the workload of judges is very high.
Maybe the status of a foreign star helped you? Perhaps, if the Russian architect had sued Capital Group, it would not have been so easy for him?
- You think? Maybe it really played a role in court. But in all other situations, the status of a foreigner does not help at all. After all these years in Russia, I still feel like a foreigner, they expect me to behave like a foreigner. I remain a foreigner and continue to treat me as a foreigner. I think this will never change, you just have to accept it. I love being who I am.
What can you say about architectural competitions in Russia?
- Are there really open and unbiased contests? In Europe, this is also a very sensitive topic, of course, there are disputes about it all over the world. Almost any competition in Russia is completely different from what it seems. The last time I made a wonderful competition project for the reconstruction and adaptation of the Udarnik Cinema, a fantastic landmark building with a rich history. I really think the competition was very well organized. It was attended by five foreigners. The client had huge ambitions, wanted to make a statement and show how to return a dysfunctional building to its former glory. Indeed, an ambitious aspiration, in my opinion.
The winner was the project of the Belgian architect, who proposed to do practically nothing. Looks like a magic formula, but logically it won't work. In Russia, as in most other places, there are no easy decisions. We have already seen this. Easy solutions can arise in economically and culturally balanced countries. Definitely not here. Here you have to fight for success. As in the case if you strive for cultural achievement, and with a simple interest in making money. Here I should pay tribute to those people who oppose my views and only seek to make money, instead of doing something better: they have to behave aggressively and work hard to get results or money.
“But Udarnik is an object of cultural heritage, and most likely nothing special can be done there
- I understand, but this is not a professional challenge: either painlessly restore and return to life the original function of the monument building, or offer a respectful, but interesting modification that will breathe life into the old building. You can do something else, and not just say: "We don't need to do anything, and everything will work." Go back to the original geometry, paint everything white and be done ?! My proposal for Drummer has taken a bold step forward. I suggested placing a construction tower crane next to the building, which could serve as an interesting accent, a symbol of the endless Moscow construction site and a tribute to the constructivist architecture, to which Udarnik belongs. I also suggested rebuilding the legendary convertible roof that could be reopened, which has never happened in the history of the Drummer. I was disappointed that a medium, almost invisible project was chosen from such a range of talented proposals from around the world. Belgian architects, and the customer himself, were too naive.
How many competitions have you participated in in Russia?
- In general, I do not participate in competitions that much. Not here, not in the rest of the world. The competition for the Sberbank Corporate University was commissioned by German Gref, who wanted to build a new educational center, preferably outside Moscow. It was a closed competition for the selection of architects. In general, there are not so many real open competitions - Dynamo was one of them. There were also competitions for the second stage of the Mariinsky Theater and New Holland in St. Petersburg - very complex projects. Most "open" tenders fall prey to opaque decision-making processes. At least for their members, including me.
We met for the first time at the discussion of the competition project for the Dynamo stadium
- Yes, it was a very painful experience for me. From the very beginning, I assumed that the project might not go smoothly, I assumed that there might be difficulties. But that he would turn into such a nightmare - I certainly did not expect. I have no idea what will be built there.
It was recently announced that construction work will begin soon - the project should be completed by 2018, in time for the FIFA World Cup. About 20 stadiums are to be built throughout Russia for the Championship, but there are only two and a half years left, and there is nothing yet
- I did not know that. Any construction can be completed in two and a half years, but in the case of Dynamo, we are talking about working with the remaining historical walls in an established city … this can be a test of strength.
There are virtually no historical walls left. For all of us, this is also a very painful story
- Yes, I cannot disagree with you. Do you remember when we once discussed whether I was right when speaking with my competition project. My idea was to preserve the historic stadium, but a new futuristic design had to be built into it. Thus, I united two worlds - the past and the future. And then you asked me: Eric, do you really believe that this will be built? And you turned out to be right - it is a pity that most of the building was demolished, which I never had in mind and did not expect.
It turned out that with my project I legitimized this demolition, although its purpose was completely different. It is very sad to realize that your good intentions can be used for opposite purposes. I was too optimistic as I see it now.
Maybe this case with Dynamo was the reason that you advised the owners of the Krasny Oktyabr factory to use the method adaptive reuse - not to demolish historical buildings, but to adapt them in a new life?
- Adaptive reuse is not new. Don't forget, my professional career began in the late 1970s, when the need to “rehabilitate” the old centers of Dutch cities was actively discussed. I have spent nearly two decades designing and building low-cost housing, both new and refurbishment, for urban downtown areas. Luzhkovskaya Moscow became a completely new world for me. And the gradual transformation of the districts was a familiar environment for me.
When my participation in the Moscow City project ended in 2004, I looked at Moscow differently. Then I became friends with Artyom Kuznetsov. We started discussing what can be done with the city back in 2005. What can we learn from others, what to do with Krasny Oktyabr. There were absolutely crazy plans for a large-scale development of this territory: giant buildings for the city administration, a colossal hotel, and other projects. Artyom and I traveled to Europe, and later to the USA: I showed him several of my projects (reconstruction projects in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Lyon and Hamburg), and we endlessly discussed the idea of transformation, the transition of the old into the new. We discussed the experience of renovating the urban environment in Europe, as well as the Temporary Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles and other projects where the “temporary” solution was more expedient and successful than the “final” one. During the 2008 crisis, this led him and his partners to the idea that it was worth slowing down, first thinking through the process of transforming functions, seeing what is actually required in this place. Maybe old buildings are better suited to new needs than new ones. They were right.
Six or seven years have passed, and we see that "Red October" works great, and it does not need so much new architecture. And those new buildings that are still needed can now be much more accurately integrated into the old context.
And what plans are there today?
- I like the philosophy of Artyom and his team in this project: he prefers to work slowly, this has its advantages. Attention to what is happening and changes, taking small steps or only after careful consideration of all factors, allow transformation to occur while the public is actively exploring the buildings on the territory. This allows you to adequately respond to a changing situation. Krasny Oktyabr and Strelka have become a phenomenon in Moscow, everyone knows about them. This territory has come to life, it is working, new places are opening every year, reconstruction is underway, functions are changing. This is a very dynamic part of the city center. Many people like it even more than buildings built from scratch. In addition, we can say that this is one of the latest trends - retro style. This trend was in favor in the world in the seventies and eighties, now it also happens when trying to apply budget solutions.
Eventually, new buildings will also be needed. For some time now we have been discussing a new pedestrian bridge, from the monument to Peter the Great to the Muzeon park. There are two projects for the bridge: one is mine, the other is by a German architect.
Sooner or later, some new buildings will appear at Krasny Oktyabr, but I'm not sure that this will happen in the near future. And it's not just the crisis. This is a perfectly working part of the city, and there is no urgent need for new construction. If there is a need for a new useful function, then you can build. I made a project for a small boutique hotel on the site of one of the parking lots. Let's see if it will be implemented. Artyom is not one of those people who say: "It will be built, whatever the cost." And this is a more realistic approach, more correct in relation to the city.
And the city does not insist that something was built on the "Red October"?
- As I understand it, the city does not even allow it. No one in the Moscow government, including the chief architect Kuznetsov, is in favor of serious construction on this site. They would rather insist that as little as possible be built. And this makes the transformation of this area much more natural and more sustainable.
I am very passionate about the idea adaptive reuse and using the Dutch experience. Quite a lot has already been written about the economic aspects of heritage conservation, but not much has yet been written about the environmental ones. For example, concepts such as embedded labor (invested labor), in general, it is very difficult to translate into Russian
- You can go even further. We need to realize that the quality of our lives and the quality of our cities are undoubtedly linked to the achievements of previous generations. Of course, we are creative and create added value, but most of what we have comes from our ancestors for free. The example of "Krasny Oktyabr" perfectly shows what "inherited value" is. The value of the modern "Red October" has arisen mainly due to the energy and labor of the people that they brought to this place. A lot of people worked hard to create an island and a factory on the Moskva River. And, as a result, there was a special, unique value of the place that can hardly be copied. In any of the restaurants and bars of "Red October" you can feel a special vibration, the atmosphere of an old building, which cannot be created in any new one. That is why people like old cities, like buildings that are part of them. They can be adapted, they can be made alive again. And this true value is becoming more and more evident, especially now that people have begun to feel it more strongly. One of the benefits of the economic crisis is that it gives us time to become aware of what is around us and what we already have.
To some extent, this “embedded value” applies to new buildings as well. The construction of a new building takes a lot of energy and effort, but all this does not guarantee its public acceptance. It takes time.
I am participating in the completion of the Mercury Tower project. This tower in the City was designed ten years ago by Frank Williams, but unfortunately he passed away. I was invited to finish this building. But the strange thing is that, despite the huge amount of energy, labor and money spent on the implementation of Moscow City, this project has no soul and heart. It is now clear that, in spite of all the investments, it takes time for a building in Moscow City to really fall in love. I am not talking about the time it takes to reach the fullness of the building, I mean its full use, public acceptance. If necessary, such buildings will have to be corrected and changed. Only after this, the alien buildings in our perception of Moscow will gradually take the place that they are already trying to appropriate for themselves. It will take time, but I am convinced that sooner or later this will happen.
In Amsterdam, I have a project for the so-called "Erik van Egeraat Towers" in the south of the city. This is a business district that is currently going through a similar process. Ten years ago, it seemed to be separated from the city, but now functions are more and more mixed in it, the level of its public acceptance is gradually increasing, and it is becoming an integral part of Amsterdam.
“I would venture to ask if you like the orange color of Mercury
- No, I would never choose this color. However, over the years, gold or orange color has become an increasingly natural part of the image of the Mercury Tower and the Moscow skyline. He can now be considered one of the distinguishing characteristics of "Mercury". I think it was not Frank Williams who chose him, but Mosproject, which was Frank Williams' Russian partner. I never wanted to change the color after he left. Even when I was asked to tackle the top of the tower. I have always advocated that all changes were in accordance with an existing project. It would be inappropriate for me to start changing the distinctive characteristics of the building, one of which is color.
And yet this tower has become a new landmark of the city, and very controversial
- Still, this is a building with a very complex history. Like the entire Moscow City ensemble. But even he can be treated as "Red October". Just think of the City: the wrong place, the wrong scale, the most difficult transport accessibility no matter what you are driving. Not a good start for a new area. But, at the same time, there is a significant concentration of office space, which attracts the strongest companies in Moscow. I am sure that gradually this unattractive image will change. People will gradually begin to inhabit these buildings and adapt them. The City will never become the most beautiful part of Moscow, but it will definitely become the largest and busiest business district.
Several years ago I was invited to work on the interiors of the Mercury Tower and think about possible new features. We proposed to make it multifunctional: offices, apartments, public spaces, restaurants, offices, art gallery, shops. This mixture makes the building attractive to this day. It becomes a small town. What interests me is the energy of the old city. If this building is treated not as a new one, but as an old one, which needs to be adapted to today's life, the project becomes very interesting. This idea opens up completely new horizons. You can see how life gradually penetrates into a dead, not very attractive space. Energy is contagious: if you can do something like this in one place, you can do it in another. In the end, this will happen in Moscow City, this area cannot be entered into the city in any other way.
“But don't you think that the new crisis will have an impact on the City, and these buildings will stand empty for several more years?
- Of course, Moscow City will suffer from the current economic situation. But the crisis will also help make the area livelier. That is why I suggested changing the layout of the apartments in "Mercury" and making them smaller, up to 50 m2… People who can afford a luxury apartment in the center of Moscow do not necessarily need a lot of space; rather, they need fully functional designer housing. Some may opt for such apartments, because they already have a country house, others - because they live such a life when they need a small but effective and luxurious space. This is a lifestyle common to New York, Singapore or London. Moscow City is not a place for large apartments, rather a studio where one person or a couple lives is appropriate.
Of course, the crisis will have an impact. But the cities experienced not such misfortunes. The buildings will wait out, and in five years everything will be different. In the meantime, you can start improving them.
This is where part of the problem is concentrated. Improving the situation requires good ideas, acumen and a desire to promote oneself. It is not news that Russia has never sought to promote its positive image abroad, as if believing that it is a big enough and great country that does not need to waste time on such a trivial thing as public relations. It is a pity, of course, that the attitude towards Russia is changing for the worse. It doesn't help you in any way if you decide to improve something. It's a pity, because Russia has something to offer. They have great artists, great directors, and they do amazing things.
And what is your plan? Are you going to continue to spend a lot of time in Russia, or are you changing your strategy?
- At the moment I am very interested in the topic that I describe as "Electrified City", that is, improving the city with the protection of all that is good in it, and changes to the less fortunate parts of it. It's a step-by-step process that I can do anywhere, with anyone, and at any time, for both government and private clients. There is a lot to do here. Now I spend about half of my time in Russia. And, you know, I almost feel at home here.
