Figures, facts, names
The World Architecture Festival held its anniversary in Berlin under the metal arches of the former factory, and now a popular venue for various events, the Berlin Arena, located next to Treptower Park and practically on the banks of the Spree.
Of the three days, from 15 to 17 November 2017, the first two were reserved for public presentations of the projects included in the shortlist of the competition. From Russia in the final
eight projects participated, unfortunately, none of them reached the next round. The status of "building of the year" went to the project of reconstruction of the Chinese village of Guangming after the earthquake, but there are more than thirty winners, including projects.
The Berlin Arena complex was attended by more than three thousand people in three days, approximately four times more than at the first festival in 2008 in Barcelona. The festival is changing its location, which affects the composition of the participants: in Singapore there were more participants from Asia, North and South America. After moving to Europe, the number of contestants from Africa and the Middle East increased. There is a possibility that the festival will take place in the USA in a couple of years, and Amsterdam is planned for next year.
Challenges and trends
A few months before the festival, the organizers invited all its participants to go online
interview, dedicated to problems and trends; several thousand architects responded.
Climate change is in the first place in the final list. In second place are social justice, ethics, responsibility and housing for the poor. At the end of the short list are technical issues: artificial intelligence.
Based on the results of the survey, the WAF Manifesto 10 was formulated, it lists the trends that will determine the direction of future festivals, as well as special studies of the WAF.
“In a time of dramatic change around the world, architects will play an important role in creating buildings, cities, public spaces and landscapes that meet the key challenges of our time,” said Paul Finch, director of WAF. “We hope that we will be able to attract the attention of the largest research institutions to them, which will allow us to find the most effective solutions. We are committed to ensuring that WAF is involved in promoting initiatives to improve lives.”
The conduct of such polls within the framework of the World Architecture Festival and the publication of this manifesto are not accidental. Both in the competition program and in the composition of the laureates of the competition over the past few years, there has been a clear tendency to abandon the ideas and formats inherent in the "star" architecture of the early and mid-2000s. In the foreground are projects and themes that demonstrate the most responsible attitude of architects to society, the environment and create real benefits or benefits for the region where the object is being built and its population.
In the trend are projects of cultural and social centers that change the life of the local community, projects aimed at overcoming the consequences of natural disasters or military disasters, environmental or resource-saving projects, and so on. Bright, author's and non-budgetary architecture begins to raise more questions about the feasibility of creating such complex shapes and using expensive technologies and materials. The fight in the nominations for the WAF award is quite tough and often social orientation starts to work with b about more effective than the purely architectural, professional aspects of the project. Perhaps this is a temporary phenomenon, an ordinary "pendulum" of addictions. Although it is possible that the situation is global, and we are witnessing a change in architectural paradigms, and the WAF competition is a clear confirmation of it.
Nikita Yavein, Studio 44:
“WAF is following the global situation. There are no bright trends. The mainstream has spilled into a delta with a weak current. There are no general criteria and priorities. On the contrary, all over the world such an architectural inferiority complex is starting to work, obliging to atone for recent excesses. We must live more modestly. We must atone for sins. The result is uncertainty, a lack of understanding of what is good and what is bad, which has only been growing over the past years. In this situation, the originality or even eccentricity of the project works against it. It is these qualities that have worked against our projects last and this year."
Commercial fairy tale
It is difficult to say exactly what tasks Paul Finch, at that time editor-in-chief of The Architectural Review, set himself when he came up with the World Architecture Festival in the mid-2000s. Globalization, which swept the whole world, demanded from the architectural community some kind of adequate response, either uniting national professional schools, or, conversely, focused on emphasizing differences. In any case, in the absence of the Organization of United Architects or the Union of World Architects - whoever likes it best - a platform was needed that would allow one to see and assess the state of the architectural process and the most current trends at once. There was no point in repeating the format of the Venice Biennale, which focused primarily on the artistic and theoretical aspects of architecture, and Finch relied on a competitive format. And I must say, he did not lose. Not only do architects compete with pleasure and excitement, but also very effective mechanisms for the commercialization of this “holiday of architectural life” were “sewn up” in it. The organizers used every opportunity to make a profit, making participation in the competition paid: submitting a project to the competition costs about 900 euros; as well as visiting the festival itself - here the price reaches one and a half thousand euros even for the authors of projects that have reached the final and come to the festival to give their presentation. And of course, realizing 100% advertising and partnership opportunities, attracting the world's largest manufacturers of materials and technologies.
It would seem that such overt commercialization does not fit well with the ideal image of an annual professional holiday, a platform for the exchange of ideas. You can often hear criticism of this approach to working with the architectural community. But, even if this aspect does not please the architects, it does not prevent them from submitting applications for participation in the competition and coming to the festival again and again. The number of applications submitted is growing from festival to festival. He actually fulfills his task, which seemed unmanageable from an organizational point of view - to collect and compare projects from all over the world into one system. Most likely, like a magic key, it is the competitive format that works, which gives an opportunity to any (!) Architect of the world to exhibit his building or project in one competition with world stars, check the level and quality of his work and, theoretically, get a chance to win.
And here, taking into account the increasingly active preferences towards socially responsible, sustainable and budgetary architecture in comparison with the apparently receding "star" architecture, a curious trend is noticeable. The organizers of the competition use the well-known names of the "stars" of architecture as a "trump card" to attract more and more participants. But if, in the heat of the struggle against "star architecture", the competition will start to consistently reward not so much for architectural quality as for compliance with not fully formulated and generally accepted criteria (see the list above in the manifesto), to put it simply, for general humanism, social responsibility and ingenuity in the absence of funding, then "star architects" can stop participating in the WAF.
Lukasz Kaczmarczyk, Blank Architects:
“Most of the winning projects are projects from the social sphere, made for developing countries, associated with some kind of natural disasters and so on. And there is a certain problem in this, since the author of the winning project becomes a member of the jury next year. A kind of pyramid of priorities arises, guaranteeing that it is social projects that will win more often than "star" ones, since the jury judges by itself."
What may seem absurd, discouraging architects from participating in the WAF and depriving the competition of the future - in fact, a subtly calculated trick, working on the idea of "everyone can win". You don't need to have multi-million dollar budgets or "star status" or create something that defies the laws of physics to become a WAF winner. It is possible that this is a kind of fairy tale about Cinderella, only for architects. And the meaning of the festival is also to give everyone confidence that he can defeat the most eminent, promoted and highly paid architects by submitting a cultural center built according to traditional technology to the competition, as happened in 2009 with the South African
Mapungubwe Interpretation Center, or apartment building, most of all reminiscent of a simple barn like this year.
Anton Nadtochy, ATRIUM
“They are probably really trying to form their own policy. But the fact that they gave the main prize this year to some shed, of course, outrages me as a professional architect. It just devalues the professional discussion. Why discuss professional issues if the grand prix is given to a barn. It can and should be assessed for some other qualities. For example, give him a prize for sociality, for anything, but it should be a different prize, this is not about architecture. ***
Competition rules and tricks
The WAF Prize, with all its specificity: scale, commercialization, “searching for oneself” and an answer to global world problems, remains a competition, understanding the laws and rules of the game of which allows, if not to win, then at least to play well and have fun.
Each competition is a game, the prize goes to the one who most accurately determined the latent expectations of the customer and the jury and answered them most accurately without losing their individuality. These rules are easily applicable to the competition for the WAF awards, with the amendment that the criteria are not always clearly defined and can vary from nomination to nomination and from festival to festival.
Lukasz Kaczmarczyk, Blank Architects:
“We have been observing the development of the festival over the past six years. Only in the first year we were unable to enter the shortlist. And since then we have been trying to track trends and prepare for each festival. This year, the organizers published a manifesto, which identified a number of points that will determine the mission of architects over the next ten years. This manifesto is a mixture of architectural, global and social issues. We tried to correlate the content of the manifesto and the comments and questions that the jury members expressed to us. And I must say that the evaluation criteria go beyond the boundaries of the manifesto. With a high degree of probability, the jury will evaluate not so much the object itself, but how it affects the environment. This part of the project always raises a lot of questions. It doesn't have to be a feature expanded. There are different projects, and not all the customer can agree on some kind of socially responsible gesture - but you can always find a form for one or another compensation. In the form of a niche in the body of a building located in a crowded environment, or a small recreation area with a bench and a flower bed. But, unfortunately, architects rarely think about such things."
The WAF project evaluation system is reasonably well developed. There is a preliminary assessment of the submitted applications, when experts and, apparently, members of the organizing committee, incognito select works for the shortlist. This is the "behind-the-scenes" part of the competition and its rules are not advertised. There are examples when wonderful projects that have received awards at other shows do not pass the initial selection, for example, this happened with a famous project
houses "Gorki" bureau ATRIUM, which is surprising. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, an interesting and well-made project or construction, with the availability of informative and professionally designed materials, is guaranteed to be included in the shortlist. And here a completely different assessment system begins to work. The authors of the project personally present their projects to a jury of three people. As a rule, these are architects who won in their nominations in previous festivals and authoritative experts who are selected for judging a particular nomination according to not always clear criteria. A subjective factor works here, both on the part of the presenters and on the part of the evaluators.
Vera Butko, ATRIUM:
“This year we visited the festival as spectators and could carefully listen to the presentations, analyze what questions and how the jury members ask the contestants. Even imagine yourself in the place of these jury members. After all, one of the key advantages of WAF and the most interesting thing about presentations is that professionals judge professionals here. And the questions they ask are dictated, in most cases, not by some complex criteria, but by elementary logic and pragmatism. It only seems that the question is provocative in relation to this project or this architect. In fact, everything is simple. They see the project for the first time and in a very short time must understand it and learn from the author some important points. While defending the project of Zaha Hadit's bureau, a member of the jury began to investigate why the windows were made triangular and how they could be washed. It seems wild to us, they ask, where are your public spaces? Why such an inhuman house? Another question is, I would like my project to be assessed in this way by judges randomly selected from a list of one and a half hundred people. I am not sure.
Probably theatricality, drama and unpredictability of copyright protection are the most interesting and extraordinary components of the WAF award. There are many non-programmable factors at work, in addition to those criteria that are officially declared by the organizers of the festival. Moreover, you always want to see a certain system in the assessment of your work - here the system is still only continuing to form, and there is no certainty that it will ever stabilize and it will be possible to predict with 100% probability the success or failure of this or that project. But this does not mean that it is pointless to analyze the experience already gained and try to derive from it a recipe for success at WAF.
Nikita Yavein, Studio 44:
“We need to treat the competition and our projects differently. When there are no clear criteria, the role of subjectivity in the assessment increases. Much depends on the composition of the jury, on whether you are able to convey your impulse, whether they will understand you, whether your idea will resonate in their minds. The main thing is not to think that you have the best project. This is absolutely the wrong approach. You start to get nervous, get excited and it gets in the way. You need to perceive everything as a game that gives you the opportunity to gain valuable experience of self-presentation, test your ideas on an international audience, and show yourself. ***
Formula of filing
From conversations with the participants of the competition, members of the jury and observations of the defense procedure, a formula emerges that makes it possible, with a certain degree of probability, to count, if not on victory, then on getting into the short list and the interest of the jury. If not in the project itself, then in its presentation and presentation there should be a clear relationship with the surrounding situation: the history of the place, the context, the specifics of the region, the needs of local residents. In the story about the project, there should be a clear relationship between the architectural solution and the environment. The second fundamental point is that it is necessary to concretize the real benefits that residents can derive from the emergence of a new building or complex. It is necessary to tell how people will interact with the object.
The third point - you need to show the process of birth, formation and defense of an idea - how the architect fought for the preservation and quality of his solution with objective or subjective factors in the person of the customer, the elements, in the face of imperfect technologies. Each position must be visualized and emphasized in the explanatory note and in the tablet layout at the first competitive stage, as well as in the presentation if the project passes the qualifying round and gets into the short list.
Magda Kmita, Blank Architects:
“Projects are evaluated by three people during the presentation. Of course, one of them takes a leading position and his conviction in the advantages of a particular project largely determines the final choice. The main point that always works and is most effective is a clean, bright and original idea, exhaustively accentuated and reasoned. In this case, the project starts to differ from everyone else. And usually, in one nomination there is only one such work, which differs from all. She, as a rule, wins. If there is no such work in the nomination, and the leaders differ from each other in nuances, then disputes begin in which the one who can convince b wins. aboutmost of the jury.
If the jury sees that initially a great idea was laid in the project, but the authors could not save and implement it, then this project can hardly claim to win. The most important thing is the idea and its purity, how it was embodied in the project”.
Valery Lukomsky, City-Arch:
“We have been to international architecture festivals in Japan, South Korea, but this is the first time we participated in WAF. The organization of the festival made a good impression. Well-organized information makes it easy to navigate what events are worth attending, what lectures to listen to.
I liked the project presentation system, during which the jury members ask the speaker questions. It is difficult to prepare for them, it is difficult to predict what you will be asked. However, this makes it possible to correct the impression of the jury. This is important, especially given the overall high level of projects.
In our opinion, a balanced architecture is very important for the jury. The presented project should take into account not only aesthetic and technical parameters, but also natural and ethnographic factors. It should be organically combined with the location and be socially in demand. The project must have individuality and recognition.
It is important to prepare a clear and effective presentation. The visual aspect of the presentation is critical here. The text attracts attention if a non-trivial story is connected with the project, which is interestingly told.
We were shortlisted for the first time in the WAF and now we plan to take part in this festival with new projects. This is a very interesting and rewarding experience."
Sergey Choban, SPEECH
“The World Architecture Festival is a review, a distinctive feature of which is a huge number of projects competing for the title of the best in each of the nominations. This is a truly global competition - projects are submitted for it from many countries, which, for example, hardly take part in European competitions. And in order for the Russian architecture to be visible at the VAF, there should be more high-level projects there. The consequence of such a gigantic competition is that only projects that are distinguished by a clear philosophy and uncompromising quality of implementation will win. Let's be objective: it is difficult to find many such projects in modern Russian architecture”.
Perspectives
Russia has been participating in the WAF since the very first festival. And the dynamics of filing applications and entering the shortlists clearly demonstrates the fluctuations in the level of ambition and skepticism. After the first festival cycles, when Russian participants, including the most eminent ones, could not break through the boundaries of the short list, there was a decline, which changed to positive dynamics after 2015, when two Russian projects of "Studio 44"
won in their nominations. But the optimistic period was short-lived and this year the number of projects submitted and reached the final decreased again (12 projects in 2016 and 8 in 2017). Those who see in participation in the festival continue to apply not only in receiving awards and satisfying ambitions, but, first of all, an opportunity for professional development and establishing contacts at the international level. With a high degree of probability, they will continue to participate in the festival further, but it is possible that the composition of the Russian representation will change in the near future. If earlier among the participants appeared the most successful Russian bureaus, demonstrating their status projects and buildings, already awarded with awards, both in Russia and in the world, then, taking into account the latest trends and focus on budget, socially responsible and sustainable architecture, domestic "stars" risk falling out of the trend. Most likely, young teams, experimenting, implementing bright projects with minimal budgets, with sufficiently deep semantic argumentation, outside the market mainstream, have more chances of success.
Expensive, large-scale projects, on which now only "star" architecture in Russia is possible, categorically do not meet the challenges declared in the Manifesto. What the world architectural community considers to be the number one task for the next ten years is absolutely not correlated with the situation in the Russian architectural and construction market. In the West, the system for distributing budget and commercial orders on a competitive basis and taking care of the reputation of the company and the facility it creates create the basis for the design and construction of numerous facilities that meet the ten principles declared in the WAF manifesto. We have completely different "passions" simmering, and completely different tasks are on our agenda. The demand for commercial real estate is declining, while the state is initiating programs for the construction of social housing. At the same time, in both commercial and social projects, the quality of architectural solutions is the last thing a customer (developer or city) worries about and what he is ready to invest in. As Anton Nadtochiy said in an interview: "In our country, there is less architecture than real estate."
How to compete in this situation? What projects to submit to the international competition? And is it necessary to adapt to the trend set for “today and ten years to come” or go our own way and develop architecture in the conditions in which it really exists in our country? And defend your right to individuality and originality outside of alien trends?
These questions will have to be answered by those Russian architects who plan to take part in WAF 2018, which will be held in Amsterdam. Registration is already open on the official WAF website and ticket sales for the festival have begun at a discounted price.
