With one of its founders, Stanislav Belykh, we talked about the relationship between the typical and the individual in modern residential development, the desire of architecture to subjugate a person and the ability for an architect to transform into end users of his own “product”.
Archi.ru:
The inevitable question: why is the bureau called "OSA"? Is it somehow connected with a strong constructivist line in the architecture of Yekaterinburg?
Stanislav Belykh:
– You will be surprised, but at first we came up with a name - we liked the word "wasp" for its harshness, causticity, sonorous sound, - and the very next day we remembered the existence of the Association of Modern Architects in the 1920s. On our part, of course, there is some audacity to take this abbreviation as a name, but the justification is the desire to create, following the example of their predecessors, an association of independent architects, each of whom has the right to follow his own path, constantly proving that his path is correct. To rely on one, even a very bright personality, on one talent means exposing the bureau to a certain risk, and our goal was to create a strong, stable company. But of course, all participants must share some common values, not stylistic ones, this is not necessary, but at least the principles of shaping.
– And what, then, is the structure of the bureau? Is there some kind of pronounced internal hierarchy?
– Now there are 30 of us. The established backbone of partners is 5 people. But it is already obvious that another 5-6 employees are also able to rise up when they accumulate knowledge and show stability in their work. Our task is not to form and maintain a caste of two, five or six chosen ones - the number does not matter, the question is precisely the quality. It takes a certain time for a person to "grow" into the profession and already on a subconscious level use the design algorithms, then he will fit into the orchestra.
We started with small entrances, and now we are designing microdistricts, neighborhoods and huge complexes practically all over Russia. We deliberately try not to go into a narrow specialization and when hiring new employees, we focus on the fact that an architect should be a multi-worker, only in this case he will be able to feel all the diversity of everyday life. At first, this task seemed completely idealistic, but the example of the guys who came to the bureau during this time (we call them associate partners), it becomes obvious that it is quite achievable. After about five years of active practice, an architect can become such a versatile person and successfully respond to absolutely any task.
And yet, how close are the ideas of constructivism and functionalism to you? Do you consider yourself to be the successors of traditions?
- Only partly. Of course, you can't call us “New Constructivists” - we try to understand and feel different styles. But we try to borrow from our predecessors the meaningfulness in decision-making and the constant search for something new. When you have been working for a very long time, negative emotions and fatigue inevitably accumulate, and it is important to maintain some kind of positive attitude, not to lose the expectation of something absolutely beautiful with which we come to architecture. Constructivists, by the way, were populists in a good sense of the word: they felt the social demand of society and responded to it. In those maximalist years, this was quite easy to do. Now, when society simultaneously feels the desire for order and the desire for destruction, the search for the new and attention to traditions, the task becomes much more difficult and interesting. We always try to intuitively determine the direction the customer needs. And by the customer, in this case, I mean not the developer, but the final buyer of the apartment or the tenant of the office. We are largely forced to become actors, to imagine ourselves as a grandmother, a child, an old man, or a young man who bought the first car, a young family who took out a mortgage for their own apartment. When you pass everything through yourself, create an environment for yourself, but through the prism of various social roles, the likelihood of success increases incredibly.
We have really conditionally “constructivist” projects, for example, RC “Malevich”, where we brought modularity to the level of the basic aesthetic principle, completely depriving the architecture of any “decorations”. This is pretty scary for an architect. And there is, for example, an apart-hotel on Gorky, 79 and a residential building on Pervomayskaya, 60 in Yekaterinburg, in which we turned to a completely different, most strict style and tried to feel the power of architecture's influence on a person. This, of course, is not the Stalinist Empire style with small-print capitals, but architecture that makes a person obey it unconditionally. Now this style is not at all popular, but it has a certain historical honesty, or something … Architecture has had this power for thousands of years and has not lost it. Yes, the ideas of constructivism and the social approach are more relevant, but it was important for us to remember this feeling, to feel the boundaries of influence. It's kind of a contrast shower, if you will.
Well, how important is the identity of the city to you, how much are you the Yekaterinburg Bureau?
- Of course, studying in a city with a rich cultural background and a strong school in the 1980s helped a lot. But now a significant part of our work is analytics, accumulation of information, analysis of international experience, and I would say that we … I don’t want to say that we have grown, this will somehow belittle Yekaterinburg, which is completely wrong. Rather, our interests have become broader, it is interesting to “taste” different cities, including those outside of Russia. We are already actively working in Tyumen, there are projects for Novosibirsk, Sredneuralsk, Vologda, Perm, Odintsov near Moscow, but hunger always exists and we really want to “eat” a new dish. This is a little consumer approach: we really like to eat well and deliciously.
How do you assess the overall urban planning situation in Yekaterinburg?
- The situation is difficult and it is difficult throughout Russia. It is not sad, but we, I consciously say now "we", are not yet able to offer our society, our cities urban planning, compositional and aesthetic solutions that we could be proud of. Moreover, this degradation, in many respects, paradoxically, was provoked by the maximum freedom. We, the architects, were told - do what you want, say what you want, but it turned out that there was almost nothing to say.
– To what extent is the improvement program developed by Strelka KB together with AHML for 40 Russian cities, in which, by the way, you are taking part, can change everything for the better?
- It is certainly capable of moving everything in the right direction, despite the fact that the ideology of Strelka itself - let it sound rude, but in my opinion it is somewhat offensive for Russia: it turns out that a huge country with 150 million inhabitants cannot create megacities, who are able to organize the process of developing their own territories. It turns out that 25 years of freedom have not formed people who are ready to make decisions and be responsible for them. We all sit and wait, hoping that Strelka or foreign authorities will come and explain what to do with our cities.
To its credit, Strelka should note that it is trying to get the maximum possible feedback from residents, at least somehow give an opinion to those who are ready and want feedback. In particular, significant amendments were made to our project for the improvement of the Iset River embankment following public discussion. And let these remarks and wishes often look unprofessional, difficult to implement or contradict the requirements of the majority society. An important mechanism, which is a constant for Europe and for the whole world, still looks unnatural in our country, but it is already good that people are being listened to and, perhaps, at the next stages they will more actively and more clearly broadcast their position.
– The solutions offered by Strelka KB are basically the same for all locations. Will the cities, in particular Yekaterinburg, lose their unique face even despite the active participation of local bureaus in the development of projects?
- I do not see anything wrong with the introduction of the conditional "Strelka aesthetics", this is just the spirit of the times. The embankment improvement project, in which we participate, was actually discussed back in the 1970s. Even then, there was a desire to make the central green artery of the city from the Verkhneisetsky to the Nizhneisetsky ponds. In Soviet times, they tried to solve the problem by urban planning principles, with the help of classical embankments and buildings around, which is long and expensive. And now it turned out that at the first stages it is enough just to bring a person here, to provide him with a comfortable rest by the water and this does not require large expenses. And the loss of the city's identity, it seems to me, is not worth fearing, the local character will certainly manifest itself somehow. In Soviet times, even the images of Lenin in different republics differed under the influence of different cultural traditions, and Strelka's projects will not lose their local flavor, even though all architects start from the same aesthetic line.
Your desire to try yourself in a variety of projects is quite understandable, but still - which typology are you most interested in?
- We are most interested in working with housing, not even with housing, but with the human habitat, let's say it better. It doesn't even have to be architecture, but any abstract reasoning about how a person can live well, where a person can live well … In the end, it all comes down to material embodiment, but philosophical understanding is very important for us.
And right now this topic has come to the fore. For example, we are very interested in the problem of housing standardization, including corporate housing. Large developers are trying to figure out how to structure a product, how to make it more typological and, accordingly, affordable. And from our side there is an opportunity to think - and what are they, people who are buying housing now, how to combine their tomorrow's requests with the necessary standardization? By the way, this topic usually comes up during serious cultural breakdowns. We are gradually, step by step trying to convince the developers with whom we work in the need for a quarterly approach, in the need to develop a line of residential units. The housing market is extremely conservative in Russia.
And how is it possible to combine standardization and a very clear request of a modern person for individualization?
- There is really no contradiction here. Talking with clients, we came to a somewhat unexpected conclusion: creative people understand individuality as the possibility of self-expression, but most people, if you look at it, rather interpret this concept as a kind of security, minimal influence of others on their lives. If you feel calm, if your requests are satisfied, then you feel bold, you feel like an individual. This is important.
