On October 24-26, 2019, the Second Russian Youth Architecture Biennale took place. See the projects of the winners here.
Archi.ru:
Please compare the level of projects at the first and second biennials
Sergey Choban:
The level has remained the same high. But given that the task itself set for the finalists this year was more difficult, I think it would be fair to say that the overall level of participants in 2019 is even higher than at the First Biennale. This year we received not only interesting projects, but fully developed strategies for the development of two specific areas.
If we see a resource for Russian cities in industrial zones, is it possible to single out some models for the development of industrial zones based on the results of the Biennale?
We have identified two main models. The first is a framework master plan for the development of the territory, which implies the further involvement of a variety of architects in this process. That is why in these projects the stake was not placed on extraordinary architecture, but rather on the strategy of revitalization, its stages, basic planning and, let's say, genre principles. In my opinion, this approach is entirely justified: industrial zones are, as a rule, large territories, and the city invariably benefits from the fact that people with different approaches and different artistic visions work within the same scenario. Our first places in both nominations - Alexander Alyaev in the Santekhpribor nomination and the Summer Service in the Elevator nomination - are just such pragmatic scenarios for the development of territories that give a clear strategy and allow us to rely on the polyphony of architectural languages.
And our second prizes, KB11 and Megabudka, on the contrary, proposed a strategy of passive development - and this is the second model of a possible revitalization of the industrial zone. By passive development, I mean that not the entire territory is transformed immediately, on the contrary, some of its parts turn into recreational ones, but this does not mean that they will always be so. For example, in the case of the KB 11 bureau project for the Santekhpribor plant, we had certain questions about the fact that another one arises next to one park space. But we read it not as a park forever, and Philip Yuan spoke very convincingly at the jury on this topic, but as a chance for further development.
Many drew attention to the bright project of the Khvoya bureau, but it was noted only with a special mention by the jury. How would you comment on the choice of the first site for the Santekhpribor plant site?
In my opinion, the approach of the Khvoya bureau to a lesser extent responded to the jury's expectations related to the contextual and resource-saving philosophy of construction. "Needle" has developed a very poetic project with a strong spiritual component and a pronounced Pyranesian mood. But this approach very one-sided sheds light on the problem of the revitalization of industrial territories. Our goal is not to monumentalize what is already on the site, but to breathe new life into the former prom. The position when everything historical is preserved as a ruin, and everything new is done outside of this, according to the international jury, does not meet the requirements of sustainable development. If you leave a ruin a ruin, it starts to require a very sensitive and, as a result, costly maintenance. On the other hand, the formation of all yards using one module is a technique that speaks of a one-step development scenario. The project "Needles" is a very beautiful, individual, but economically difficult to implement author's gesture.
As I said, we were looking for flexible scenarios that would allow the revitalization to be carried out in stages, changing, if necessary, both the size of individual elements and their functional purpose. The project of the winner, Alexander Alyaev, responded to the task in a more pragmatic way: perhaps not so poetic, but at the same time facing the future. It seems to me that this architecture has a future. Not a baroque monument on the site of a monument, but healthy pragmatism with a high standard of taste and an absolute sense of proportion. This is the future - a prudent attitude towards resources, not the creation of a work of architecture for the sake of a work of architecture.
What were the key points for the jury in the Leto bureau project, which won gold in the Port Elevator nomination?
This is the only project in the nomination that paid close attention to the problem of the ratio of the scale of the elevator and its surroundings. The elevator is a powerful monumental structure, but this does not mean that there should be an open field around. There should be an environment around that does not try to outshout the elevator, but creates interesting spaces around. The Leto bureau has turned out to be a low-rise European city with a beautiful potential for the development of the neighboring territory. In addition, we were convinced by the idea of creating a public space on the roof of the elevator.
We even advised the contestants not to touch the elevator, but to use its structure as a podium for the building being developed above the public space. In fact, this is the only one of 15 works in the nomination in which the elevator did not change its appearance as drastically as possible, but was used as a given, serving as the basis for creating something fundamentally new. This is a city-planning scenario that convinced everyone.
In general, I must admit that the elevator turned out to be a difficult challenge for the finalists. For some reason, 90% of the participants understood their task in such a way that it was necessary to modify the elevator. But the revitalization of this territory is not about doing something like that with a concrete colossus, but about creating a convincing scenario for the development of the space around the elevator, relatively speaking, the city around the cathedral. I kept asking myself: why did no one come up with the idea of not touching the elevator at all? Leave it as it is? Use as an existing monument rather than carve these rings? After all, cutting is the same as doing again. All these radical transformations are newly made buildings in the shape of an elevator. Triple effort and triple cost, not sustainable.
What are the prospects for industrial zones in Russia?
In my opinion, it is most important for investors and architects to understand the opportunities and chances that such territories give our cities. They have a historical memory, and it is very important not to try to build them up at once, but to start from the context, to be attentive to the traces of time preserved there. We do not have the resources and opportunities to create today in a short period of time an environment that would be so complex and, in a good sense, contradictory, to intrigue and delight us for a long time in the future. That is why careful preservation of historical traces is a chance for us. I think that now investors are already realizing that the one-step development of the territory with monotonous boxes - and the boxes remain monotonous, even if they have a different pattern, and there are many such examples in Moscow - is not the way. The way is to create a contrasting environment that reveals and respects absolutely all historical layers. And, I repeat, you need to do this consistently, in time, using the languages of different architects. Then a polyphonic city emerges that has a future.
