Archi.ru:
- Giovanna, you headed the Mies van der Rohe Foundation, what is its goal? Tell us in a few words about the award of the same name
Giovanna Carnevali:
- The main goal of the foundation is to improve the quality of modern European architecture. Every two years, the Mies van der Rohe Foundation awards a prize of the same name in the field of architectural innovation, which is open to architects from 32 countries of the European Union. Since its inception, the foundation has worked very closely with the European Commission, and various institutions and architectural associations in Europe are involved in the assessment process. The selection criteria are quite high and do not depend in any way on the fame of the architect, and this was the case from the very beginning. The winning project can be anything, the choice does not depend on the typology, format or scale. Most importantly, it must have an architectural quality. In my opinion, such awards and strategies allow young bureaus to come out.
At what point did you become interested in each other as a representative of the Mies van der Rohe Foundation and Strelka? How did your collaboration develop?
- It all started in 2013, when Strelka asked me to take part in the jury of the competition for the new building of the NCCA. Earlier, when I headed the foundation, I already had to judge architectural competitions in Europe, so the question “why me” did not arise for me. This was the first visit to Russia, the first acquaintance with the activities of Strelka, based on its results, I can say that it was an interesting and successful experience of cooperation. Therefore, a year later, in 2014, a summer program was launched at the Strelka site in cooperation with the Mies van der Rohe Foundation. We raised the issue of "identity", tried to figure out what is the uniqueness of such cities as Barcelona, Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris, London - provided that there are plenty of similarities between them. In the process, we tried to prove that this identity is determined by everyday life. An ordinary "hard worker", an employee of a department, a sociologist, an ordinary architect, etc. can tell about it. And there is no need to call a "star" architect who will tell about his building, because the simplest residential complex or office center influences its formation.
What factors contributed to the fact that you agreed to become an employee of KB Strelka? Are there, and if so, what are the fundamental differences in your work in the foundation and in the competition bureau?
- I would like to think that this factor is love. But seriously, my contract with the fund came to an end back in June this year. The Foundation is a non-profit organization that is directly associated with the government, calling for radical changes in the urban environment. My decision to leave was due to a mismatch in political views.
When I left my post, many doors opened in front of me, but considering everything I knew and saw, I chose Strelka. Firstly, this is a logical continuation of what I was doing at the foundation, where we selected the best objects from the best, but at Strelka KB everything is a little different. I took over as the head of the competition department, where we do our best so that the client gets exactly what he wants in the person of the winner, or even more - we put aspects related to the urban and cultural context into this victory. Secondly, Strelka is known all over the world … How can I explain to you, I am Italian, who lived in Spain for 15 years, and now I live in two countries, Spain and Russia. You can only appreciate the scale of what is happening outside of it. So, there are organizations that set trends in world architecture, and Strelka is one of them. In just a few years, the Design Bureau has successfully organized many international competitions in Russia: the NCCA, Skolkovo, Zaryadye, the Polytechnic Museum. And all these projects are now in the process of construction and implementation.
For about half a year you have been leading the process of the Tel Aviv competition for the Nanotechnology Center. How did this project end up at Strelka, who is the customer? In my opinion, it is rather strange that an institution from Russia has become a "link" between the West and the East. After all, each of these contexts has its own characteristics, wasn't it easier to find a local, Israeli organizer? What are your goals? Or is it another confirmation of the global nature, cosmopolitanism of architecture in general and Strelka in particular?
- As I said, Strelka has established itself as a top-class organizer of competitions. Carrying out such events is a rather complicated matter, since it is necessary to work with the client directly, in this case it is the Tel Aviv University - a huge institution with a worldwide reputation, to draw up a brief that can satisfy all the needs of the customer, but at the same time it is necessary to take into account the specifics of the typology, after all, it is a nanotechnological center with a rather complex program that must fit into the planning solution, not devoid of aesthetic appeal. Everything must be at the highest level, each stage must be well planned. And our goal is to find the only right solution, to make sure that all the components are balanced, and all for the moderate money initially included in the project: no one needs a “star” that will be knocked out of the budget. The only reason why the choice fell on Strelka is that we are good at what we do. And let's think more broadly: now it doesn't matter where you come from and where you build, architecture is global. No one should be embarrassed by the fact that Strelka is based in Russia.
Our team will fly to Tel Aviv next Tuesday. Undoubtedly, there are a number of local peculiarities, but this is by no means a problem. Even if our Israeli colleagues do not work on Fridays and Saturdays, we either work on these days, or also arrange weekends, and then continue together on Sunday. The most important thing is the result achieved through compromises and the search for balanced decisions. As my experience shows, the most important rule of business is not to make any exceptions, any client from any country requires a proper, respectful attitude towards himself.
How do you assess the appearance of Strelka on the world market as an organizer of competitions? Is it an accident or a planned action, a kind of evolution from the local to the global?
- Strelka's reputation as an institute of media, design and architecture has already developed, and Strelka KB appeared suddenly, but it has already taken place. Indeed, for work and judging, world-renowned practitioners from various fields were and are involved.
When I came to Moscow as a member of the jury for the NCCA competition, I had already heard about the nano-center in Tel Aviv, and now I am working on it, which in itself imposes certain obligations. We were able to organize an open international competition. And in just 19 days of registration, many applications were received from all over the world, which can already be regarded as a sign of trust and recognition of our activities. In this connection, I can assure you that this is not an isolated case, it is a consistent growth. Strelka is already known in Moscow, in Russia, now we are doing a competition in Tel Aviv, the next step is to enter the world arena. Strelka has the potential to become a benchmark for competitions. And I want to believe that we, our team, are doing our best for this.
Could you tell us in more detail what kind of typology is this - nano-center, what is the specificity of drawing up the terms of reference?
- There are a number of specific features associated with the typology: a monolithic foundation, stable, capable of withstanding any vibrations, the first floor, high loads, etc. Engineering must be thought out inside and out. This is why the collaboration of an architect and an engineer is so important at any stage of construction. In this kind of building, innovation is a matter of course. Here you just need to think ahead, because the declared service life of the nano-center is 25 years, this period is determined by the relevance of this building in the future and is inextricably linked with the development of technology.
Even at the time of accepting applications, we had a condition that all participants must send the program and their CV. On the basis of these data, only those were selected who would be able to implement such a complex object: we are talking about nanotechnology, this is not a high school.
What are the evaluation criteria? After all, it is impossible to compare a novice architect without experience with a "seasoned", with a well-known name?
- We divided all received applications into three categories: eminent architects who have already established themselves, young, beginners, for whom this competition can serve as a career springboard, and "technicians", that is, bureaus specializing in the construction of laboratories, research centers, etc. … Each category has its own assessment criteria, its own points, because it is simply impossible to compare experience, novelty, technical or aesthetic components. The object should have all of the above, but proportion and balance are important. As you rightly noted, this object is directly related to nanotechnology, therefore, for young, novice bureaus, the fundamental requirement is the experience in working with engineers, which, of course, the “experienced” ones have. And technicians may have problems with the aesthetics of the structure, but this is not a given. That is, the entire assessment system is formed in such a way that each group of specialists has the opportunity to present their skills in a favorable light. And this is exactly what I like about working at KB Strelka: quality is given priority here, and who provides it is another matter.
What, in your opinion, is the phenomenon of competition in our time?
- To be honest, I think that the time when large companies turned to mature architects in search of their identity is long gone. Of course, at that time it was important and certainly influenced the current state of affairs in architecture. In the early 1990s, the European Union invested significant capital in cities to create their identity, and for this purpose, "star" architects were the best fit, but the times and society's attitude towards them have changed since then, the world is tired of big names like like Koolhaas, Hadid, Nouvelle, Chipperfield. The tendency of recent years has been reduced to the desire to be honest, impartial, open to everything new, to be truly democratic, this intention is observed at all competition venues in Europe. And the competition is the only format at the moment that provides an opportunity for young, but at the same time, talented architects to realize themselves.
You were on the jury of the competition for the new building of the NCCA, where the Mel bureau was included in the top three in a completely unexpected way. The feeling of surprise was caused not by the quality of the work, but rather by the fact that we are used to ignoring the level of Russian architecture against the background of foreign architecture, which, it seems to me, is fundamentally wrong: young architects all over the world have equal potential. However, there is one "but": it is difficult for local architects to integrate into the world community. Can Strelka contribute to the process of Russian architects entering the world arena?
- Of course, but only if they demonstrate projects that have a certain quality. Quality due to many factors - in addition to design: taking into account the expectations of potential users, whether the object fits into the environment, how it affects it, whether it meets environmental and economic requirements. As organizers, we expect this from all participants, without exception. Quality is a true value, regardless of the functional content or the citizenship of the architect. So, if the best proposal comes from a Russian bureau, then, of course, we, for our part, will try to do everything possible to implement it. The fact that the Mel bureau was in the top three in the competition at the NCCA is a vivid confirmation of this.
Your answer reminded me of Peggy Guggenheim, known for her patronage, how she looked for young talents and contributed to their development and promotion in art circles … Is this comparison appropriate?
“I don’t know if it is appropriate to compare our work with the activities of such a famous person as Peggy Guggenheim. But to answer your question, I will come from the other side. I am an architect, I headed my own bureau, I know how difficult it is to implement my plans. Architecture, even modern architecture, is a slow thing. During my tenure at the Mies van der Rohe Foundation, we examined buildings completed in 2013–2015: almost all of them were completed on average for about 10 years. The architect should be as structured as possible, which is not so easy: I know, believe me. I left the world of architectural practice and went into the field of management, project management. First, a foundation appeared - perhaps one of the most prestigious institutions in Europe. And then Strelka appeared - a high-class organization that has already established itself as an organizer of international competitions. Consequently, by the nature of my activity, one way or another, I had and still have to deal with the search and identification of new names in architecture. It is difficult to be an architect, and even more so to get recognition, but if you do your job well, sooner or later it will come.
On October 30, the 1st stage of the competition for the project of the Center for Nanotechnology of Tel Aviv University ended. Are there any systemic innovations here? How many works are considered at this stage? What will await the participants at the 2nd stage?
- This competition is open, you can follow the process of its holding on the Internet, at the end of each stage all available information will be posted: scores, names, etc. An institution of such a scale as Tel Aviv University is simply obliged to conduct an open competition, since a certain distrust always exists and will continue to exist around such a process. Trust is one of the main signs of success, and KB Strelka must justify its status, that is, confirm its level and scale. That is why in just the first two weeks we received about 800 applications, then 140 more - they came from all over the world. As you noticed, the deadline for accepting applications has passed, and now we are organizing them, putting down marks. This stage is purely technical, connected with working in Excel, but the next step is the work of a professional jury, which will select 21 teams in the three categories I have already mentioned. At this stage, we will closely interact with the customer. Since the best program must fit into the best architectural solution and simply must cost as much as it was originally intended, no more, no less - although less is possible (laughs) - but everything is within reason. So it is our responsibility to identify all possible evaluation criteria and then apply them.
What will be the result? The architect of the nano-center will be entrusted with a high level of responsibility, I mean the difficult urban planning situation and incredibly famous neighbors … Ideally, participation in the competition should bring the winner worldwide recognition. What do you think of it?
- The territory of the university campus is an ensemble of buildings of extraordinary beauty and significance by world architects and not only architects [meaning the installation "Context" by Ron Arad - approx. Yu. A.]. The winner will have an amazing opportunity to "coexist" with the buildings of Mario Botta, Luis Kahn, which in itself imposes obligations and responsibility. Of course, we hope that the finalist project will be a masterpiece of architecture. And our duty is to do everything possible for this, since the result is a joint work of KB Strelka, Tel Aviv University and a team of architects. The university has a number of rather specific requirements, and we must help in their implementation. I believe that you need to work at the limit of your capabilities, as if this is the last chance in life. Simply put, if the winning project meets all the requirements, is an example of high-quality architecture, then sooner or later it will become famous.
Organization of competitions, awards, funds, educational programs - all your activities are aimed at the architect. By education, you are an architect, was there any desire to do something yourself, because you know the process from the inside, the selection criteria, in the end - the members of the jury? Don't you miss designing?
- I can say for sure that I do not want to return to practice, but, of course, in this sense, I miss the physical act of “creation” that you are talking about (laughs). You see, when I was 25, in 2004, I, or rather my bureau, was invited to take part in the Venice Biennale. By that time, we had already won five competitions, but the funny thing is that none of our winning projects was implemented, and the biggest shock was the project in Genoa, where we won the competition, but due to our lack of experience, the project was given Renzo Piano. Therefore, even during my work in the foundation, I decided not to engage in architecture, directly construction, but what I am doing now is not devoid of “architecture” in its essence, this is a kind of “creation”, since writing an effective competition program is not so This is easy, because it is a combination of many factors. It is necessary to take into account the technical, structural, aesthetic and, of course, financial aspects, you are actually designing this building. And in order to write this balanced program that meets all the requirements, including everything up to implementation, you need to have significant experience both in conducting competitions for architectural objects and in architectural practice. It is impossible to base your decision on numbers alone: it is experience that allows us to judge competitions, and this one in particular.
