Archi. ru:
How and when was the Gran workshop established?
Pavel Andreev:
- In different guises, my own workshop has existed since 1990. Immediately after returning from Spain, I began my private practice. Then there was a joint bureau with Alexei Vorontsov and Nikita Biryukov (ABV bureau was created as a joint one and named after the first letters of three names: Andreev, Biryukov, Vorontsov - Archi.ru note). Then Leonid Vasilyevich Vavakin and Mikhail Mikhailovich Posokhin invited me to Mosproekt-2, where I almost immediately led quite large projects, starting with the branch of the Bolshoi Theater (the new stage of the Bolshoi Theater is located on Teatralnaya Square, behind the Theater for Young Spectators - ed.). I came in 1996, at the moment when I was already signing a contract for the reconstruction of the small building of GUM. Vavakin said: if you want to do GUM, go to Mosproekt.
But Mosproekt-2 itself is a huge design machine, in which one workshop could consist of one hundred people and sign up to 11 closing acts for completed objects in a year; not every Soviet institution did this. This colossus had its advantages. For example, one could very quickly assemble a high-quality team for any project, being confident in the qualifications of specialists. Moreover, the institute worked not only for the city or state order. Up to 75% of our portfolio was made up of commercial projects. To receive such orders, it was necessary to participate in tenders and prepare proposals. To develop such blitz concepts, conduct research, a completely different team was needed, more mobile, with different priorities, which could quickly respond to a request from a customer, prepare proposals, lead to the conclusion of a contract and then, if necessary, transfer the project for a more detailed development in Mosproject-2, where the resource, human and financial, was completely unique and made it possible to cope with absolutely any task. So about ten years ago my workshop "Gran" was created - as a laboratory that combines ideological, conceptual design and research.
What happened next?
We developed gradually with the entire structure of the Moscow City Architecture Committee, doing quite large works. Together with my classmate Sergei Busin, they made two large projects: the reconstruction of the Lukoil building on Turgenevskaya Square and turned the building on Pushkinskaya Square after the Moscow News fire into a hotel, which is now called StandArt. In "Gran" we made the concept of interiors for "Children's World" and began to work on revising some provisions of the project of the Polytechnic Museum, which has now been transferred to Mosproekt-2, where working documentation is being made. We have always had a huge amount of work related to reconstruction and, mainly, in the city center, and restoration. We worked in several federal monuments,
Manege and GUM. It's administratively divided, but it's very difficult for me to split myself in half. The tenth anniversary of "Gran" in many respects ensured the twenty years of my work in Mosproekt-2. Because one is the production line and conveyor, the other is the laboratory in which the concept is made.
But at some point, the situation on the project market began to dictate other requirements and "Gran" turned into a fairly independent education, which began to carry out from start to finish the entire range of design work. I came to another rebuilding, before we worked with very noticeable, iconic projects, and now we are designing individual houses. But I cannot say that I am not satisfied. We carry out quite important work, we work in the city center.
What principles do you adhere to when working in the city center? Perhaps your approach has undergone some changes over these ten years?
- I always stick to the formula that I learned twenty-five years ago. What is the purpose of an architect's work? In order to professionally and competently fulfill the conditions set by both the customer and the environment in which you work. In this regard, nothing has changed.
What has changed?
- In particular, professional specialization has narrowed. If earlier we spent a lot of energy to formulate the task, to bring it to the definition of the parameters of the GPZU, on the basis of which the project was developed, then today part of this work takes place at the level of the city administration, which sets us clear restrictions, within which we must exercise their professional literacy. We were striving for this, but we were not fully ready to accept the limits lowered from above. The attitude of customers and all market players has changed.
On the other hand, the architect begins to take part in the development of solutions at the early stages of the project's development in order to help the customer clarify the business concept, formulate the task more correctly, and determine the unique qualities of the future project to improve its image and profitability. For example, for one of our hotel projects we are making a special album in which her “design code” is presented: a style format that can somehow be manifested on the facade, in the interior design, and in the uniform of the staff. Remember the play "Ten Days That Shook the World" on Taganka? A guy with a rifle stood at the entrance to the theater and pricked tickets with a bayonet. This immediately set a certain mood and perception of the whole action. And people were already beginning to believe in it, to be embedded in this concept.
Now these functions are also the responsibility of the architect?
- Apparently, yes. And it seems to me that this is correct. The best architectural objects were created within some canons with clear logic. This logic, the system of restrictions, must be determined by oneself. Previously, it consisted of physical parameters. Today we create it within the framework of emotional, psychological, literary or formal characteristics that would make us believe in the correctness of the chosen idea and follow it. This is a prerequisite for the organization of any system.
How do you formulate for yourself the idea that guides you in your professional activities?
- For me, probably, the meaning is some kind of natural organization of space and the search for an individual answer to the requirements of a particular place. When I manage to understand this and find the right solution, I am happy. Most of all I am glad when his own inner self is manifested in the project more than my “I” as an architect.
When we were making Detsky Mir, we used a solution suggested by the building itself to solve a very complex problem. In the atrium that we opened, two floors were painted by Alexei Nikolayevich Dushkin, and there were five more floors above. How to level the difference between them? And then we thought that all this could be done the way Dushkin himself would have done - developing the theme of arches. The project was very complex and, as you know, was hotly discussed by the public, but we managed to reconcile everyone with this decision. And in the same correct way, we approached the design of a house on Tverskaya Street and the reconstruction of GUM, where we made transition bridges and escalators.
In the project for the reconstruction of the Bolshoi Theater, we tried to use the same principle, clearly dividing the new and the old through the development of underground space. The history of the reconstruction of the Bolshoi Theater is more than twenty years old. When I came to Mosproekt in 1996, Vavakin told me about the problem: the theater does not have a lobby. The wardrobe was historically very small, because only the parterre was undressed in it; the benoir was undressing in the benoir, the boxes in the boxes, and the gallery did not rent out their coats at all. Therefore, it was necessary to find a place in order to expand the wardrobe. It was not clear how to expand the lobby, not to move the same portico. In addition, there was an underground sewer right in front of the portico - and I suggested that it be moved closer to the square. And we offered to place a two-storey parking there with an extension of the wardrobe.
I had to dig a 25-meter hole and build 100,000 m2to form a new logic for using the renovated Bolshoi Theater, so that the old theater remains an old theater, and everything new goes underground. The division starts right at the entrance. Those people who go to the historical part of the theater do not see the new one. And vice versa. Many have told me that they never noticed the glass pavilions leading to the underground lobby on Theater Square. It was very important for us to achieve a symbiosis, in which two so different parts would not interfere with each other and, at the same time, the integrity of the city ensemble and the unity of the Theater Square would be preserved. There are very few full-fledged squares in Moscow, except for Red …
And the Triumphalnaya?
- Yes, the Triumphalnaya appeared - and immediately became in demand. The rest of the squares are more like crossroads. Pushkinskaya tried to become a square, a place where people of various convictions gathered, but did not. Now there is a series of courtyards nearby between Pushkinskaya and Kozitsky lane: there are several restaurants, the pedestrian path is very popular, a pleasant environment … What is happening on Malaya Bronnaya is also impressive. Although, unfortunately, today only the center of Moscow lives like this.
Now the socialization of the urban space is taking place, it has become an important criterion for evaluating projects. This is, in my opinion, the environmental approach. The environment is the environment for life and for humans. Previously, our whole life was centered inside our home. Today people have become much more open to the whole world, and they want to get the same level of social life, similar to what is happening all over the world. A person can get this personal space already inside the public space. In the city, on the boulevard, in Internet cafes, anywhere. And this standard of living is more social than individual. Therefore, it is necessary to form spaces for public life, the life of the first floors, the life of squares.
It was on these principles that we made the complex “
Legion on Ordynka, striving to form a contrasting and modern, but at the same time organic environment inside the old city, so that the scale of the new one does not spoil Ordynka and Pyatnitskaya. We laid a large number of open public spaces, passages, small squares. Unfortunately, tenants and owners have reshaped this structure, isolating many of the spaces.
So, you welcome new trends of interest in urban improvement?
- Of course, these are absolutely necessary things. But in my opinion, the improvement of the city is now too subject to PR. It looks like advertising magazines with a very nice cover and newsprint inside. This is, to some extent, a forced situation, because, probably, if there is no way to direct enormous forces and funds for cardinal renewal and reconstruction, then it is necessary to at least to some extent improve the lives of people. It is gradually improving, of course: I must say that I have visited the updated service centers for the population a couple of times - I was even shocked at how easy and simple everything works there now.
Still, we must not forget that the improvement of the city is not only tiles on the roads, but also the improvement of the social environment, ensuring its safety. And all that massive development that is underway today and largely supports the financial condition of our architectural companies - it is absolutely destructive from the point of view of social consciousness and the human psyche in general. All this is, unfortunately, formed by the order of commercial developers, but by the hands of architects. Massive residential development, all these mono-formations, which so successfully support the financial position of our architectural bureaus, are absolutely destructive from the point of view of social consciousness and the human psyche in general. Why are these houses being built? For commercial purposes only. This is false urbanism. This is bad for everyone: people who live 1.5–2 hours away from the city, people living in this city, for a country where a tenth of the total population lives in one city.
I do not know how and do not want to engage in projects that destroy the social environment. Once upon a time, the Finnish Charter proclaimed that architecture is an artificial environment for humans. So, I do not want to take part in the construction of such a life that people spend inside apartments and behind fences, and when they go outside, they get into a puddle.
And you have such an opportunity?
- We have no ambitions to increase the volume. I must say that some time ago we won a competition for a massive residential development with a volume of 600,000 m2, shared with Mosproekt-1 and only part of it was taken into detailed development - 150,000 m2… But even this is 40 houses in three types of facades. Then I realized that this was absolutely not my topic.
In addition, it is difficult for me to build in an open field, in an environment that does not give any signals. We have now made some objects in the new building - this is quite difficult, because the object must be within itself, you need to look for some internal elements that are not in organic connection with the environment. In general, I appreciate the architecture that I want to draw. And when, after returning, I want to draw something. But I was in Dubai, the Emirates - this economic miracle is striking, but somehow it doesn’t take my soul, let alone draw - I didn’t even want to take pictures. Once we got out of a taxi there at the roundabout and we had to cross to the other side of the shopping center: it was a clear risk to life, just horror.
Is Moscow better?
- I can't say that Moscow is a symbol of convenience for me. Of course, historical Moscow is a rather peculiar and rather humane city, although its feudal structure, which we inherited, because the city was almost not altered in the era of capitalism, creates many difficulties, not only in relation to transport. Huge quarters, gigantic allotments with vegetable gardens inside, which we got, are much less convenient than a finely cut city - the urban planning theory has been talking about this for many centuries. Small quarters provide the very necessary capillary system that allows the city to live at all levels. Today we have a main city, and it will take a lot of effort to organize a second level of life in it.
