Archi.ru:
What is the Yevgeny Gerasimov and Partners bureau now?
Evgeny Gerasimov:
- The bureau is architects, designers, general planners and the "bureaucratic layer". Today there are about 130 people. We hire engineers and other specialists from outside, because we are used to acting as a general designer. The company has been on the move for twenty five years. There is a lot of work, the company is growing numerically again.
The bureau is called Evgeny Gerasimov and Partners. Are the partners Zoya Petrova and Viktor Khivrich?
- Today there are two more partners: Karen Smirnov and Tatiana Komaldinova. Khivrich and Zoya Petrova were there from the very beginning. We worked with Petrova at Lenniiproekt. Relationships are built like partners: there is a senior partner, not by age, but by share in the company, respectively, and the right to vote is different. The final right to vote is mine.
How do you make decisions?
- We have absolute democracy in discussion and the most perfect dictatorship in execution. Regardless of rank, whether it is a young architect or an experienced chief executive officer, when we start working on a project, we consider all the ideas. Everyone is free to bring their own vision, and we discuss everything. A group is created for each project and a decision is made within it together with me. After the decision has been made, we can no longer afford to rush around and again turn to other options. There is a time to look for options, and there is a time to execute.
Are there groups of classics and modernists inside the bureau?
- No, there is no specialization. We go from the place and, of course, from the customer. And if he wants traditional architecture, then he must either agree or refuse. Of course, you can choose only one direction for yourself and stick to it, this is worthy of respect, but this approach is boring to me.
Do you have many young architects, do you recruit employees directly from universities? How do you like the new generation?
- Someone after universities, someone is recommended. We look in all directions. There are many young people in the company, and we are very happy about that. A normal new generation, they learned from good architects, and we try to invite the best to our place.
What would you call the main achievement of the workshop?
- First of all, the very existence of the company; since 1991 is the term. And of course, objects built according to our projects. Whether they like them or not is another question. It is important that there are a large number of buildings that have been brought to completion and built exactly according to our projects, where, in particular, it was we who made the working documentation.
Our company is focused on working from idea to final drawing. We do not shy away from rough work, and moreover, we are sure that only if you do the working documentation yourself, only then there is a chance to build the object the way you intended.
Do you regret the unrealized projects?
- You cannot sew regret to the matter: “I would have a customer, a budget, I would then show it how it should be”. An architect works in the conditions that exist today if he wants to build; and the constructed objects reflect time. If it lags behind, it is unlikely that anyone is interested, if it is ahead, then these are castles in the air. So architecture is the most modern of the arts, it can be used to judge the time, people, the possibilities of society, financial and technological.
Let's talk about history. How did you come to architecture?
- I graduated from art school and, on the one hand, did not see myself as a pure artist, and on the other, I wanted to have a profession somehow connected with drawing, with art. Then I still did not understand what it was … I was born in Siberia, my childhood, somewhere up to seven years old, passed in Leningrad. Then, due to family circumstances, we left. But I came back to Leningrad to study architecture.
Why not to Moscow?
- Because my childhood was spent in Leningrad. In 1983 I graduated from LISS, then worked at Lenniiproekt.
It would be extremely interesting to learn about the "Soviet period" of the work of Yevgeny Gerasimov …
- I came to Lenniiproekt right after the institute. He began with the lowest ranks. He drew what they said, went to demonstrations, went to the collective farm, went to the squad, ran for vodka for senior comrades … Then the workshop was directed by Nikolai Antoninovich Afoshin. At first, I drew endless bindings of shopping and household centers. Then, as an architect, as a co-author, I participated in the design of residential buildings in Zelenogorsk, which are located on Privokzalnaya Street. In the design of residential buildings for Petrodvorets, which, however, were not built. He took part in the development of an experimental residential complex in Shuvalovo-Ozerki, and practically nothing came of this either. Unfortunately, a lot went into the basket.
What can you say about your experience in the late Soviet architecture?
- I saw the entire Soviet system of design and construction, I have something to compare with. Of course, the efficiency of my work at that time was negligible. But those years were not lost, it was a school. I have worked with different architects …
Who would you call your teacher?
- I learned from many. At the institute - with Leonid Pavlovich Lavrov. For a long time I worked at Lenniiproekt under the leadership of Yuri Konstantinovich Mityurev, who later became the chief architect of the city. The head of the workshop was Oleg Andreevich Kharchenko, who was also the chief architect of the city for a long time. They don't just become the main architects of the city. These are people with a certain mentality, with certain architectural, organizational skills, so I am sure that I am very lucky to work under the supervision of these people. I saw how people can draw, think, how they can work; how the submissions were made - after all, then there were no computers and everything was done by hand - how people owned ink, pen, ruling pen, watercolors, gouache, how perspectives were drawn by hand.
So, you created your bureau in 1991. How did it happen?
- In 1990, together with Mityurev, we left Lenniiproekt, and he organized his own personal architectural workshop. I worked as his deputy for six months, but after a short time we decided that everyone would go their own way.
What were the nineties for your workshop?
- There was romance. We started in the attic on the Fontanka, where there were artists and homeless people before us. We ourselves poisoned the rats, we put everything in order ourselves, did the wiring. Then the first computers appeared there … We started on drawing boards: paint, watercolors, washes.
Nobody knew anything. What will happen in the future, how will it be. A new class of customers was formed, a new typology of housing, new building materials, new technologies came. It was all on the move. We learned to live and work in a new country.
Tell us about early projects: a neoclassical house on Suvorovsky Prospekt, a residential complex on Bukharestskaya and "Green Island" on Krestovsky
- In May 1992, Oleg Andreevich Kharchenko called and asked if I wanted to come and meet new, curious clients. I came and he introduced me to Vasily Sopromadze. And actually with him, we began to design the first townhouses in St. Petersburg, and with them the "Green Island".
The complex on Bukharestskaya is located on a busy highway, along which trams still run. And we came up with such a townhouse scheme, where only gates of garages, windows of stairs and bathrooms overlook Bukharestskaya. And all living rooms with terraces, bedrooms, offices open onto courtyards. This was the new typology. The image “my home is my fortress” was undoubtedly included in this project.
How did the idea for another well-known early project come about - a neoclassical and at the same time very postmodern house on Kamennoostrovsky Prospekt?
- This is our first project for LSR. Yes, pure postmodernism, because then we had not yet gorged on it. When freedom began in 1991, postmodernism was still an undeveloped field for Soviet architects; we eagerly began to partake of the fruits of postmodern aesthetics. But on the other hand, it is also true that the neoclassical orientation of the project was obvious to us, since it is a part of Kamennoostrovsky Prospekt - opposite the masterpieces of Shchuko and Lancere. It was necessary to finish the even side of Kamennoostrovsky Prospect. Therefore, the idea of a rotunda was proposed. From the point of view of construction, everything is simple and correct in it: two projections, a middle and a rotunda as an ending. And the style, yes, is neoclassical postmodernism with crude details.
In 2002, you met your constant co-author Sergei Tchoban, who spoke about your Berlin meeting at the opening of the anniversary exhibition. How did she look to you?
- I went to Berlin to see architecture, icons of postmodernism: Rob Krieu, Mario Botta and others. On this architecture and in general on the modern architecture of Berlin, when they began to build the embassies of the Nordic countries and much more … Before that, I had not been to Berlin. Kharchenko gave me the phone number of Sergei Tchoban and said that it would be interesting for us to get to know each other and derive some benefit from this. I saw Sergei's works, and he saw some of mine, but we did not know each other personally. I called, Sergei invited me to the bureau, we talked briefly and agreed to have dinner together. This is what grew out of this meeting.
Did you quickly start working together?
- Yes, we agreed quickly. And that was already 2002, our bureau was already working in different styles. We agreed with Sergey to work together, and in the winter of 2002 we worked on a joint project for LSR - “
House by the Sea.
How did you come to the decision of this building?
- Sergei and I work according to the same scheme. Everyone makes different options, then we select the most promising ones and begin to reduce them to one option. We take something from one, something from another. Then we check our thought on working models: here you can see both the plan and the volume - I would even call working modeling the "sacred" basis of the process, it is at this moment that much is formed. So on the recent
we deliberately paid a lot of attention to the exhibition.
So, in the final version of "House by the Sea" we visually continued the axis of space of the Rowing Canal, "pulled" it inward and continued. Water is visible from all apartments, greenery on the other side. We used the principle of a city villa: there are three apartments for each staircase, which do not merge with each other, and all apartments have a three-sided orientation. The style is deliberately restrained: stone, profiles, dancing windows …
What other works of the mid-2000s would you mention?
- Of course, the Jewish House YESOD, for which we received all possible awards, and a house called Stella Maris. I feel cramped within the framework of one style: I want to look for myself in neoclassical, traditional and modernist architecture. Both of these projects are definitely modernist. You can't remember everything. "New Star" on Pesochnaya Embankment is also built on a combination of glass and stone …
Does the reconstruction of historical buildings occupy a lot of space in your work?
- Not at all, for us it is more an exception than a rule. The 2000 reconstruction on Stremyannaya was an exception that we made for our traditional customers; this is a unique case, a building built in three stages, three floors and all different. There were ruins, in fact, we “collected” everything from the photographs from scratch.
– AND Four Seasons?
–
Four Seasons is our concept. It was interesting for us to work with such an operator, to make a luxurious hotel out of the building. In the history of the "House with Lions" of the Lobanov-Rostovskys there were different periods: they lived and rented in it, there were shops and a theater in it. Today it is the best hotel in the city. But for our portfolio it is also the exception rather than the rule.
Which customers do you prefer, private or public?
- Very rarely we work with the state.
And what about the projects of the Olympic Committee, the building of the government of the Russian Federation?
- These are competitive projects. Unfortunately, we have lost these contests. In our practice, there was only one state order - the project of the Ushakovsky junction. The Judicial District is the second project in its 25-year history. We prefer not to work with the state budget.
What is it connected with?
- The state is a rather impersonal customer, the people who are assigned to implement the project do not have a personal, heightened feeling; they are cool about architecture. And we feel bad when the client is personally not interested in good architecture. It is better to deal with the end user who is interested in making the building beautiful and confident that beauty is selling well.
You won the "Gray Belt" competition, how is this project developing now?
- From the very beginning, we treated this competition as an ephemeral event, which the KGA, in fact, did not hide: they said that this competition had no practical significance. Its meaning is to show the picture that the city could strive for, to outline a dream: a dream house, a dream quarter, a “gray belt” of dreams. We gave our proposal, our idea, and then let the city think what it likes and dislikes and how to translate what it likes into life.
Surely you have your own understanding of the post-Soviet architectural and urban planning situation. Where is it going? How do you rate it?
- Not much time has passed in order to make assessments: only 25 years of economic freedom. We are learning, we are taking leaps and bounds away from total government regulation. Imagine how suddenly a cage opens in a Soviet zoo and the tigers are set free, the hares run to the side, the jungle is around. Yesterday there was life in the zoo, fed by the clock, washed by the clock, walked by the clock, and now the cages have been opened, everyone can do what he wants. This is a fantastic situation, so yes, there are process costs, how can they not be?
And the infrastructure? After all, it was largely laid down in Soviet times. Is there no understanding of her exhaustion?
- Of course have. It's crazy, but this is not a question for architects. Architects work within the framework that exists today. It is foolish from an architect or a customer to demand that a house be 15 meters high, if 100 is allowed. The ultimate goal of a capitalist is to make a profit. Nothing new, in Soviet times, residential areas were already built, where there was no metro, no kindergartens, no shops, no roads. People drove from the Elizarovskaya metro station to Kupchino, choking on the buses. They landed in the mud in the dark and walked along the walkways to their newly built house, and then, after a few years, shopping centers, schools, and gardens appeared. That is - all the same diseases as now. This is a question for the authorities, how can it be allowed to build housing in such volumes, if the construction is not supported by infrastructure, there is no metro, no roads, or social and cultural life. It seems to me that on the one hand, the authorities let go of all the reins, and on the other, they regulate what, it would seem, can be given to the will of the market. Anything that is not prohibited should be allowed. If you want to build offices here - build, if you think that offices will be in demand here. If you want to build housing - build, if you want to build a hotel - build. But why should a developer build a kindergarten for their money ?! The tax authorities should build a kindergarten. The question is for the people in power. They must synchronize all these processes. First, roads, electricity, water, sewage must be brought in, and then the developer must be allowed to build what he wants, if, of course, this does not bother anyone there.
How do you feel about criticism?
- I am fine with criticism, that's why the pike is in the pond, so that the crucian carp does not doze. But criticism must be professional. In our country, as a rule, journalism graduates write, who don't care what to write about. Therefore, I do not want to pay attention especially. There are people I listen to, professionals. But I think this is also a matter of time; over time, architectural criticism will also mature.
How would you define your credo?
- I would say this: "good architecture for good money - and in this sequence." To get to work, we need three things: architectural interest, financial interest, and so that communication with the client does not cause "heartburn". Because if we simply do not coincide, then neither architecture nor money is needed, all the more so. There must be an architectural interest first; if it is common, then we are ready to earn nothing. Still, it is better to earn something, but, again, without turning the process into flour, since it is not fast - as a rule, the project is being implemented for three years. Three years of anguish, nerves, breakdowns - nothing can compensate.
What projects is the bureau currently implementing?
- Now we are working with several complexes for the Legenda company: Legend on the Commandant and Legend on the Far East. The project of the Judicial Quarter has been withdrawn from the examination. Several complexes are under construction for the LSR company. Completion of the "Russian House", a house called "Verona" on Krestovsky Island. We are also designing a complex of buildings on Petrovsky Island. Several construction projects are underway in Moscow: we are finishing ZIL, the Tsarev Garden complex is being built opposite the Kremlin on Sofiyskaya Embankment. A tower is being designed on Leningradsky Prospekt. The construction of the Europa City complex on Medikov Avenue is coming to an end - a very large project with ceramic facades.
How do you see yourself and the bureau on the Russian architectural scene in recent years?
- Of course, you evaluate yourself in comparison with something. We have no complexes about this. We understand that, apparently, we are one of the best in St. Petersburg. Apparently, one of the best in the country, since we are invited to important competitions both here and in Moscow. "One of the best" - we are quite satisfied. We do not rush to the main ones. We are interested in Moscow, where we have three projects. We are interested in Petersburg. The provinces are not ready to pay adequately, and the tasks are less interesting.
We work with a small circle of customers from year to year: for decades we have been working with LSR, LenspetsSMU. We work with Setl City, RBI, Legend, we work with other companies with which we do 1-2 projects. I think that a well-established circle of customers is good.
And in five, ten years?
- In ten I don’t know, but in five - the same. We do not want to grow extensively, we do not have the task of embracing the immensity. It would be possible to put twice as many people under arms and find twice as much work, but I'm not very interested in that. In terms of the numerical strength of the bureau, it is what is needed to solve the problems that are of interest to me today. Accordingly, what tasks will be interesting tomorrow, so it will be tomorrow.
