The concept of the World Architecture Festival, or WAF for short, is the main success of its organizers. In 2008, the first festival took place, which quite radically differed from traditional architectural events in its frank commercialization, organically complementing its claims to globality and general accessibility. Each architect could submit his project or construction to the competition for money, and also had to come and defend it in front of the jury for money, if the project was shortlisted. The winners of various nominations in the finals competed among themselves for the status of the best building and the best project in the world. The organizers' reckoning on the healthy ambition inherent in all architects and the desire for recognition among their own colleagues was accurate. From the very first festivals, the number of participants only grew, which was greatly facilitated by the change of venues for the festival.
For Russians, WAF has opened the door to a global architectural space. This award is one of the few whose format did not imply any restrictions or filters on the input. The format of paid viewing contests was well known to our architects, and the price of the "admission ticket" at that time could not yet be a stumbling block on the way to the shining heights of world recognition, which, to be honest, was counting on almost all Russian applicants, among whom were many of the country's best architects. Success in the domestic market gave the right to expect no less tangible results in the international arena. But in seven years, none of the 20 Russian projects that were shortlisted won their nomination. This could not but affect the enthusiasm of our compatriots. A stable idea has emerged that the same tacit "sanctions" are in force against Russian architecture in the international arena as in the economic and political spheres. The situation was radically changed by last year's festival, which ended with an unprecedented triumph of our architectural school - the victory of Studio 44 in two nominations at once returned the intrigue to the competitive procedure and inflated the sails of the ambitions of Russian architects. The "mythical conspiracy" turned out to be not so comprehensive and there was a renewed hope to break through to the international Olympus, following the example of St. Petersburg colleagues. In 2016, a record 12 Russian projects, more precisely 11, were shortlisted, since Blank architects presented a private country house under the Polish flag.
Such confidence in the competitiveness of Russian architecture and the desire to win recognition in the international arena against the background of an increasingly obvious architectural crisis in the country cannot but surprise. Why is this so important for Russian architects? Why is this important now, in the context of the deteriorating quality of architecture in mass construction? How can one compete in the virtuosity of volumetric-spatial, structural and engineering solutions, when one has to design taking into account, to put it mildly, the limited capabilities of the construction industry and the catastrophic level of professionalism of builders gathered in cities and towns. How can you compete in the originality and lack of engagement of design solutions, if the institute of architectural and creative competitions is not well-functioning and does not function in an operational mode? Where will new names and fresh ideas come from, if the crisis of architectural education is stated at the official level? How can you compete in the social significance of projects if there is, in principle, no customer in the country who shares the understanding of the importance of social aspects in any, even a commercial project?
All these and many other questions arise in your mind when you look at a selection of WAF shortlisted projects. Russian buildings and projects stand out among them, but not because they are worse in themselves, there are just no problems with this, and everything that we render at the festival is very good architecture, absolutely not inferior to foreign projects. But in it one can feel the isolation from the general architectural level in the country. Western projects are perceived as the best among equals, as one of the many created according to similar principles and in similar conditions, when it is possible to appreciate the very originality of the author's idea, and not the titanic efforts required to preserve it. Russian projects at WAF - like peaks on a cardiogram - are unique, isolated examples that categorically stand out from the general mass of architecture and design practice of a completely different quality level. The uniqueness of a successful architecture, the ability to create it not thanks to the current system in the country, but in spite of it - this is what distinguishes Russian projects and, paradoxically, makes them more vulnerable to criticism. It is not surprising that during several presentations this year, the Russian finalists directly spoke to the jury members about the difficulties in the work, explaining some inconsistencies or overlaps in the project by opposition: in some cases to the customer, in some - to the deadlines set for development.
This contradiction between the ambitions of architects and the reality of our market has a serious impact on the style of submitting and defending projects, which for WAF is one of the most important elements of the competitive procedure. And every Russian WAF participant must be ready for this test, and not 100%, but 200%, including both the 10-minute report itself and visual support.
Defense in English is one of the main stumbling blocks of the competition, and it must be said right away that it is not only for Russians. The festival's global status means that almost half of the participants come from countries where English is not widely spoken. And it is enough to look at the presentations of at least one nomination to understand: only a few participants can brilliantly show and talk about their project. Someone is let down by the knowledge of the language, someone does not calculate the duration of the presentation, someone because of stress cannot answer the questions of the jury.
Most of the Russian participants were well prepared and performed at a high level. I especially want to note
UNK project, SPEECH and Wowhaus, whose presentations were brilliant. All three projects raised a lot of questions from the jury. Some of which were quite tricky. For example, the architects of the Wowhaus bureau Alena Zaitseva and Anastasia Izmakova, who represented the City Farm at VDNKh, were asked why they believed that this project should be shown in the landscape nomination. Olga Poletkina, who headed the work on the competition concept, and Yulia Borisova, who presented the Rosatom pavilion together, were asked to explain why the two rear facades had not been solved in any way.
Best of all, those who came to WAF not for the first time and thoroughly knew about all the pitfalls were ready and presented themselves. In this regard, the submission and presentation of Studio 44 projects were at the level of the world's top bureaus. Nikita Yavein has built a very competent tactics, delegating the right to present projects to leading architects, young guys with excellent English and ready to answer any question. The tactic of joint defense was no less successful, when the main presentation was told by one of the English-speaking employees of the bureau, and the head was connected at the question stage, giving more detailed or specialized information. Perhaps less effective have to be recognized as presentations, which were made by the leaders themselves, who do not know the language sufficiently. This was reflected in the dynamics of presentation and detail of the story about the project. And in combination with a visual range that was more suitable for our traditional city councils, this approach did not give the opportunity to make the right impression on the jury.
As for the quality of visual materials, suffice it to say that in this aspect, the "star" architects, who received this status not at all for their modesty and desire to remain in the shadows, demonstrated at WAF-2016 heights worthy of being adopted and our finalists. Some "star" presentations, as if at concerts of rock stars, were packed with so many people that it was scary for the inflatable pavilions. And the reason for this was not only the cool architecture and the famous names of the speakers. Colleagues gladly went to see the full-fledged architectural show. Associations with show business are more than appropriate here, since many of the presentations were beautifully directed and included as special effects - for example, a bureau presentation
The BIG at 57 West in New York consisted of half a gorgeous mini-movie about the construction of a building with complex drone footage and plug-in numbers, set as a benchmark by Wolf Pryx of Coop Himmelb (l) au. The maestro, right during the presentation of the fantastic Museum of Modern Art in Shenzhen, found that an old file was uploaded and refused to continue the story until a new version with additional photos was uploaded.
The jury is quite loyal to all inconsistencies and overlays, and the only harm that a bad presentation or an unconvincing story can cause is that the architect will not be able to convey to the judges any nuances that could be decisive. To guess what will shoot this year and under what "banner" the World Festival will be held - this is the task that each finalist had to solve at home and include in his presentation several, albeit speculative, but no less winning "beacons". Ideally, it is necessary to prove that the building qualitatively changes the state of affairs in the settlement or community. Emphasis on the development of culture and the fight against social inequality are very appropriate. The themes of the revival of cultural traditions and a return to historical roots are suitable. There is no need to warn anyone especially about ecology and sustainable construction, without them nowhere.
If you try to analyze
the projects that won in each of the nominations, it is possible to calculate with a certain degree of accuracy which factors were decisive and in accordance with which aspects dictated by the conjuncture of architectural fashion or some new trend in the global information space, the jury made its decision. This kind of guessing game is very useful for everyone who plans to participate in the next WAF - and not just participate, but win.
For example, here is how the chairman of the jury of the Grand Prix of the competition comments David Chipperfield selected the Przełomy Dialogue Center, a branch of the National Museum in the Polish city of Szczecin, by KWK Promes as the Best Building of the Year:
“This project enriches the city and city life. It brings together three key historical periods for the city: before World War II, during the war, destruction and post-war development, which significantly distorted the development of the city center. The authors use the relief as part of the concept of the museum, thus visualizing a retreat into the depths of history to explore the memory and archeology of the city, while a small part of the building with a sawtooth roof remains visible above the ground, the image of which can be interpreted in a wide range. The architecture of the museum reveals the past, but does it in a poetic, optimistic and creative way."
Sergei Choban, a member of the jury in the Culture nomination of the Realizations section, explains the victory of the museum in Szczecin this way: “I must say, there was a lot of competition in the Culture nomination. Especially if there is already a vivid statement nearby, as in this case. Together with the town-planning cacophony, the authors of the museum have created an interesting public space, which immediately became very popular among the residents of the city. And they managed to keep within a rather modest (in comparison with other nominees) budget. This architecture has a clear manifesto, which was supported by the decision of the grand jury, which awarded him the main prize at the WAF-2016 festival."
Outwardly, an extremely simple and low-expressive project was recognized as the best building in the world, thanks to what was put in it - and reported to the jury! - meanings. After the announcement of the results, some members of the Russian delegation were outraged by the strangeness of this decision. Although an interesting parallel should be noted here: in Russia, at the Zodchestvo festival, the best project of a museum, also partially buried in the ground, whose architectural solutions are dictated by inherent meanings and deep associative rows, was recognized as the best project. It is a pity that the Kulikovo Pole complex was not nominated for the WAF this year, it would be interesting to see the competition between two objects that are visually so different but conceptually close in concept. It is all the more a pity that most likely next year other priorities will work for the jury in the "Museums" nomination and for the entire WAF.
Do Russians need to participate in WAF? Does it make sense to play this game with strange rules that are not always clear and calculated? Yes, it is necessary and yes it does. This is what all the participants in our poll, published on the eve of the start of the festival, spoke about. You need to submit projects, you need to prepare tablets, you need to prepare presentations and prepare yourself, and do it with maximum self-criticism and understanding that no one there knows and does not have to know how cool you are here in Russia. At WAF, you need to prove your coolness anew. Although it is better not to prove, but to try to enjoy and enjoy the drive from participating in this grandiose and exciting marathon, consisting of hundreds of projects collected from all over the world. More drive, more pleasure from the process itself - and less ambitious expectations.
WAF brings together architects from all over the world and has an amazing atmosphere, which can best be described as a guild unity. There, everyone is doing the same thing and facing the same, plus or minus, problems. Surprisingly, there is no sense of division into "stars" and "non-stars", which suffers unlike the more ostentatious Venice Biennale of Architecture, for which the richness of the visual range and provocative statements often prevail over real professional issues and problems. At WAF, you can defend in the same block with BIG and after the announcement of the results, you find that the victory in your nomination was not given to them, and not to Zaha Hadid, but to a little-known bureau from Poland. At WAF you can have coffee or salad while sitting at the same table with Sir Peter Cook or David Chipperfield. And you begin to realize in a different way what architecture is, who are architects, how strongly this profession determines consciousness and perception of the world, that, by and large, it does not have a geographical or national division.
Remark: It may seem that WAF has no flaws and is almost the perfect architecture festival. Which, unfortunately, is not the case. There is one thing that is sorely lacking at the World Architecture Festival, and that is architecture. There are architects, there are presentations and stories about projects, there is communication, there are discussions, there are new technologies and research at the stands of sponsors and partners. But being inside the festival process, you do not immediately, but you understand that the main thing is missing here - what the festival was conceived as the final of the global architectural and interior competition, what its management worked for a whole year, collecting an unprecedented collection of the best projects and buildings in the world … How exactly is this collection presented? But in no way! Everything that is provided to the guests of the festival is a very democratic, let's say for reasons of political correctness, the exposition, which consists of tablets printed on sheets of paper, suspended on crocodiles from simple wooden frames placed along the outer perimeter of the main lecture hall.
And so I want to see all this architecture, collected from different parts of the world, created by different architects, famous and not so, with gigantic budgets and scanty funds, concentrated in one place in one huge hall. I want to be surrounded by it, see all its diversity, absorb visual richness, then return to the presentation halls and listen to the authors, changing the way of perception from visual to verbal. I would like to hope that WAF will overcome this shortcoming sooner or later by adopting a fraction of the expositional perfectionism of the Venice Biennale of Architecture.
It is difficult to refrain from comparing these major world events that record the main trends in modern architecture. They are so different and in this difference lies the paradox of professional architectural events. Architecture is at the same time a very pragmatic, customer-oriented thing, it is not for nothing that some call it the "second oldest" profession - but on the other hand, it has charm and chic, which architects are happy to emphasize. But if in Venice it is possible to create the image of a highly artistic event, relevant and conceptual at the cutting edge of modernity, then at WAF everything revolves around the commercial and guild component of the profession.
