Eugene, in short, what are the main problems and achievements of modern architecture?
- The main problem is that it is ugly. The main advantage is that it can be quickly assembled. In short, so.
You said ugly. The same problem is raised by Sergei Tchoban in his book “30:70. Architecture as a Balance of Power”, which he will also present at the Cultural Forum …
- We look at this issue a little differently, but in general - yes. I don’t want to consider modern architecture, I don’t want to live in it, it is too utilitarian.
Globalization of architecture occurs with world globalization. Do you consider this a disadvantage? Should architecture preserve national characteristics?
- Globalization is definitely a disadvantage. We were always different from each other, ambassadors came from distant countries with outlandish gifts and amazing stories about customs, art and, of course, architecture of other nations. But now we wear the same jeans and eat the same food. And our buildings are made for a carbon copy. Look, there was a Chinese style, there was South America, and, in fact, Europeans could not imagine that Portugal and Finland would have the same architecture. And now we see the disastrous consequences of unification. A tree without roots dries up. And the future lies in a return to these roots.
The traditions of architecture are always inextricably linked with the cultural and climatic characteristics of the region, its natural features, which determines the materials for construction and the shape of buildings. It is foolish to bring rebar to the tundra. Or where there is a lot of forest, deliver clay. I'm not against brick, but why bring it to Scandinavia, rich in natural wood, from the Mediterranean? Reinforced concrete is generally a dubious material, and from the point of view of architecture, it is still short-lived. The same can be said about the shape of the buildings. There is a lot of snow in Russia, hence the gable roofs. And in southern countries it is warm and scorching sun, so terraces are needed. The size of the windows in different regions is appropriate for the circumstances, and so on. Architecture has always met the urgent needs of people and the economy. And now she has stopped doing it. Because this is how the entire economy is built today - we throw away clothes that can be worn, we change cars every few years. This is waste; 30% of food is wasted in developed countries. And this despite the fact that there are millions of hungry people in the world. We all need a return to reasonable sufficiency, including in architecture. As in Japan, which after Fukushima came to her senses and realized that it was time to save.
Architecture and art: is contemporary art influencing architecture or is technology more influencing?
- Of course, it does, and it always did. Architecture is also art, like literature or music or video art. Architecture is becoming a video envelope of life, which increasingly resembles a computer game.
At the Cultural Forum you will take part in the plenary session “Architecture for the Masses: Overcoming Stereotypes”. What is mass architecture today? Is an elite house with 100 apartments mass architecture?
- Yes of course. Mass architecture is architecture for a large number of people. These can be elite projects, why not? It all depends on the number of final users. Any kind of building can be massive. Shopping malls - mass architecture. Despite the decorative solutions, they are all made according to the same pattern, they have the same structure, the same number of storeys, and so on. Stadiums are massive architecture. Standard bagels with minor differences. And in housing everything is the same.
Regardless of the country?
- There are, of course, features due, as I said, to the climate. For example, Spanish houses are characterized by terraces, while in Sweden you will see closed box houses.
And if you compare, for example, Sweden and Russia - the countries are different, but the climatic conditions are more similar?
- Sweden is a de-urbanizing country. In it, the migration of people from the village to the city, if not over, then certainly passed its peak long ago. In Russia, this process is still in full swing, and the scale is completely different. Therefore, the construction of a residential complex with an area of 100 thousand m2 would be a national event in Sweden, but in St. Petersburg it is a standard practice, not to mention Moscow. And the scale of the project, in turn, dictates the layout, the number of future tenants, their overcrowding, and so on.
Is the concept of "typical house" appropriate today? What is he? What should it include?
- What do you mean must? We don't owe anyone anything. The social function of architecture is a utopia. An architect cannot influence life, but life can influence an architect. All our new buildings are the same, just as wooden houses in Russia were the same. Some more, some less, but the principle is the same - the canopy and the stove. Modern apartments differ, at most, in ceiling heights and a small set of functions, but in general they are standard. And I cannot predict how our houses will look tomorrow, for the same reason - these rules will be dictated to us by life. What we are building today in Russia has been blown up in America for a long time. And in China, not only do they not blow up, but build even more, even higher and even faster. So everything is relative.
Can we create a sleeping area today, which will be the same attraction as the historic center? If so, why isn't this happening? If not, why not?
- We can't, because nobody needs it. Unless you have the only barrack of the 1930s for the whole city or a Khrushchev building preserved after renovation in your district. In this case, tourists will come to you.
Uniqueness is expensive. And if your "unique area" is not Potemkin villages, then no one will make those efforts (financial, time s e and so on) that are required to create uniqueness, for the sake of which people are not willing to pay. Maybe every individual resident of the city would like to live on Tverskaya and have a good view from the window, but the mass of people as a whole is ready to live in 25-storey anthills. Think, in St. Petersburg there are 5 million people, in Moscow, together with the suburbs, probably about 20 million, and Tverskaya is only one, just like Nevsky.
They say that the architect writes the scenario of the life of the city, is that so?
- Nonsense. Architecture is a service sector, and it fully corresponds to the public order that is relevant today. If an architect is ahead of or behind his time, he is doomed. He can build a chicken coop on his site, but not a serious project. Architecture is a cross-section of society, it reflects our moods, the level of technology development, economy and culture as if in a drop of water. But this is just a reflection of what is already there, not a scenario.
“But at the same time, an architect builds not only for his contemporaries, he builds 50-100 years in advance. How can he understand what people will need then?
- The architecture of the 19th century, built over 100 years ago, suits us, doesn't it? It fully complies with all the principles of Vitruvius "benefit, strength, beauty". It is durable and useful - we still use it perfectly today. It is beautiful - no one seems to complain about the appearance of the historical buildings. But the operational properties of the buildings of the 1920s - 1930s, despite their avant-garde nature, turned out to be poor. People just don't want to live in them. Likewise, in the "Stalinist" buildings - they want, but in the houses of the 1960s - they don't want to, and they will be renovated, that is, the demolition and construction of something new on this site.
Therefore, the society must decide what exactly it will build with the hands of builders according to the drawings of the architects. We must either agree that our architecture, like a mobile phone, is fashionable, but for 1-2 years, and then not to make repairs in the apartments, or understand that we want to build for a long time.
What is the specificity of Moscow and St. Petersburg for an architect?
- These are different cities, built on different principles. St. Petersburg is a European, abstract thinking - from emptiness to emptiness. Between the houses there is a street, or even better, a canal. You walk and see only facades that differ from each other in decor. The houses are all of the same height and only the bell tower, lighthouse or palace are allowed to stand out from the general row.
Moscow is an Asian consciousness, vain - from house to house. It's not bad, it just is. How Moscow was built: a manor, and around some kind of backyard space. Whoever has a bigger and higher house is a fine fellow, and the plot is as it goes. Hence the winding Moscow streets.
St. Petersburg is a table on which you can draw anything. Moscow stands on the hills, which also dictated certain conditions for development. Moscow is being built up differently now. In her courtyards, the houses stand separately, in St. Petersburg it is obviously not the case. Moscow is sculpture houses - 3D, and St. Petersburg - facades - 2D.
Soviet, and now Russian, construction standards level this difference. We should have an average temperature in the hospital from Vorkuta to Krasnodar. But a certain specificity of Moscow and St. Petersburg remains today.
