Sergey Choban, head of the SPEECH architectural bureau
The theme of quality in architecture has always been of particular importance for the work of Sergei Tchoban. Only the focus of the effort and the scope of the problem analysis changed. In the very first projects on the Russian market, Choban tried to prove that the world quality of architecture in working with form, in using the best materials and technologies, is possible in Russia as well. First he showed in projects, then he proved how it can be implemented. But instead of stopping at what has been accomplished, Choban declares a new task - achieving quality in details. In the materials, textures, shell, elements of the building, the same author's idea, the same image, the same level of thoughtfulness and perfection should be traced, as at the macro-level of perception of architectural objects. The next step and the next level in assessing current professional tasks brings Sergei Tchoban to a conversation about the global problems of disharmony in the urban environment, generated by modernist aesthetics and the desire to create icon buildings at any cost. The focus is on the quality of the city, the quality of the urban environment created by the quality of its constituent buildings. Moreover, in this context, the quality of architecture can mean not only its originality, but also "neutrality", which turns from a disadvantage into a virtue. Sergei Tchoban talks about how to combine all these principles in design practice and how to create high-quality architecture, despite any obstacles.
Video filming and editing: Sergey Kuzmin.
Sergey Choban
head of the SPEECH architectural bureau:
“For me, the answer to the question of high-quality architecture is very simple: I always focus on how the city around me is perceived. Some state of affairs suits me, some not. And depending on this, I determine which architecture is the standard of quality for me. After all, on an intuitive level, this is immediately clear: you look at some details, forms, at how the building interacts with the surrounding space, and you understand whether it is pleasant to you or not.
For me, the quality criterion is very about 1st degree is a criterion of interaction of architecture with time. The interaction of the materials from which the architecture is made, over time - how the surface ages, as well as the presence or absence of some aggressive, active volumes in a particular space.
The concept of "environmental architecture" does not exist for me; rather, it is a speech turnover. Architecture is always individual buildings that form the environment within themselves, around themselves. And here the prototype of the environment that every architect has is very important: what character of the city he himself likes, what he strives for. Much here depends very much on the environment in which the architect himself grew up and which he himself perceives as harmonious.
Modernist architecture, which often does not possess the fineness of the surface and the particular hierarchy of details and compositional techniques possessed by buildings built more than a hundred years ago, sets completely different standards of harmony than those that existed throughout previous history. Gesture buildings, for example, have become an integral part of the urban planning situation. And to the question of what should be the interaction between buildings-gestures and buildings-surroundings, buildings-background, each, based on his own experience, from his own picture of the city, answers differently. At the same time, it seems to me that for the most part we, the architects of the European space, have learned to perceive architecture on the example of European cities, which were finally formed in the 19th century. These cities seem to us the most beautiful. If we stop lying to ourselves and to each other, we will understand that these are completely definite cities and completely definite urban planning structures. If we understand that they can be studied and understand what schemes, matrices lie at their basis and at the basis of their perception, then we can easily understand how today it is possible to create a city that would be close in quality and structure to the cities that we like.
It is with this that the huge number of discussions that take place in the urban space about the loss of one or another - perhaps insignificant - but, nevertheless, a monument of a bygone era, is connected. In my opinion, it is necessary to understand why these discussions arise, why there is a colossal dissatisfaction with modern architecture in society. Only by honestly answering these questions, you can come closer to quality standards.
Quality architecture is architecture that, at the very least, does not collapse. In other words, a building that does not fall is already of high quality - in terms of its construction, for example. But the quality of the architectural environment is something completely different. And, as I said above, everyone defines it for himself in his own way.
Of course, there is a traditional European city with its analogous harmony, as I call it, when a small building and a large building are lined up according to the same harmonizing, proportional principle, which happened throughout the history of architecture until the beginning of the 20th century. If we take this city as a standard, then, of course, the question arises, what forms of harmony and harmonization can be applied to the modern architectural situation, and from what moment you cannot perceive this situation for yourself as harmonious. Although I admit that someone perceives it as an absolutely harmonious situation when one screaming skyscraper stands next to another screaming skyscraper, and next to them there is a small building. I personally proceed from the fact that the European city is a form, a prototype, which for none of us is an empty sound. These cities are big, small, but they all have the same structure. For example, I was recently in San Sebastian - this is a typical example of an ordinary European city. There is an embankment, on this embankment there are houses built at the beginning of the 20th century, they have a certain density of details; there are houses built later, they do not possess this density, but they do not possess other artistic merits either, and therefore they clearly fall out of the building, obviously they seem less worthy in architectural terms than buildings erected half a century earlier. And there are separate buildings-icons. It is in this case the Rafael Moneo Concert Hall. During the day it looks like a large gray block, in the evening, illuminated, it looks very beautiful and festive. This is the mise-en-scène that you see in any European city today - and you are free to call this mise-en-scène beautiful or ugly.
You should always be aware of the house with how many floors, with what facade, with what entrance hall, behind what door with what doorknob you yourself would like to live. And I can say that I ask myself about this every day. When I discuss this or that project with my colleagues, I ask myself the question: is this the house you want to enter, is this the house you want to touch the door knob? Is this the façade that seems detailed enough to you? Or insufficiently detailed, or, conversely, too constricted in terms of details, in terms of the taste characteristics of these details. Every day you ask yourself these questions, and by answering them, you form the level that seems to you worthy of the given place. I know very well that if I did everything the way I wanted, then in 10 and in 15 years I walk through this building and feel a sense of satisfaction.
High quality is very difficult to achieve. In Russia, this is primarily due to the quality of construction work, as well as the shortness of the warm period and the need to complete construction in any weather. In addition, there are not enough construction companies in Russia that are able to ensure this quality.
The pursuit of quality in architecture is a complex, multi-part process. It takes patience and understanding that the pursuit of high quality requires additional costs and the use of very specific solutions. Very often, the desire for quality is declared at the initial stage of the project implementation, but when you start to paint step by step what is needed for this, most of the participants in the process are almost overwhelmed. They say: we didn't think it would be so expensive and for so long, we just can't afford it.
It depends on each of us, on everyday work and on the everyday desire to go over and over again to this - often quite impartial - dialogue, including with the customer, who does many things not the way it should be done in order to arrive at desired quality. Sometimes it’s because he doesn’t know what he’s doing, sometimes because he’s frustrated that it’s costing too much or taking too long to build. Or maybe it’s not a customer, but a construction company, or maybe it’s a coincidence, or maybe you didn’t keep track of it yourself: this often happens. Here I do not want to criticize others without criticizing myself. We must move on. There is no other task but to move on”.
