David Chipperfield belongs to the generation of British architects who entered the profession in the 1980s, during the reign of postmodernism. Not wanting to keep up with the times, they worked where there was more stylistic diversity than in England. Chipperfield then found recognition in Japan, where he enriched his neo-modernist language with the experience of delicate work with architectural concrete and with materials in general. Attention to all aspects of context and detail also became part of his creative method.
However, this architect, unlike many compatriots of the same age, experiments a lot with form, composition, material, acts with restraint, now energetically, now in the spirit of "classical" modernism, now with references to history. Suffice it to recall such different buildings as the pavilion of the America's Cup regatta in Valencia, social housing in Madrid, the river and rowing museum in Oxfordshire, and the art museum in Iowa.
At least, so it could rightfully be said about fifteen years ago. Since then, Chipperfield's orders have increased significantly, he finally joined the architects of the first echelon, but his work as a whole became "equal" - large volumes, most often - with a homogeneous or even monolithic surface, or variants of a neorationalistic facade "lattice".
This is not to say that David Chipperfield has betrayed himself, but it is difficult to imagine that one of his recent works was awarded the main EU award, the Mies van der Rohe Prize, as his New Museum in Berlin (2009), or became the “building of the year” in Great Britain, receiving the Sterling Prize - how
literary museum in Marbach (2006).
Considering that in Moscow he will be working on the most important landmark, the building of the Central Telegraph of Ivan Rerberg on Tverskaya, it is interesting to look again at David Chipperfield's experience with context and heritage. He is the author of perhaps the most important (to date) reconstruction of the 21st century -
Of the New Museum in Berlin. His task then was to "revive" the military ruin on the Museum Island for full use. He did not turn it into a remake, but carefully preserved the traces of bombings and fires, decades of rains and winds on the facades and interiors, only replacing the completely lost parts of the building with new, laconic ones. As a result, the museum itself has become a monument to the complex, difficult history of the 20th century.
The work, which was rare in terms of its impact, caused fierce controversy even at the design stage - many in Germany did not like this “trauma fixation” where it was planned to exhibit “the most beautiful Berliner” - Nefertiti - and other treasures of ancient art. But Chipperfield's bold, pain-point approach seems especially valuable when you consider that a few hundred meters away is being recreated from scratch.
The City Palace: a huge structure meaningless in form and function with replicas of historical facades, challenging - what an irony! - even more debate. In this context, Chipperfield can be forgiven for the unrestrained power of the interiors, which cannot but distract the visitor from the exhibits, which is a great sin for a museum.
And very close by is his own new building, the James Simon Gallery (2018), a common lobby for Museum Island, which strikes in its lack of scale and inappropriateness among old and new - including the authorship of Chipperfield himself - buildings. Its ambiguity, apparently, is obvious by David Chipperfield Architects themselves, who distribute to the media photos without pictures in the most important angle, through the channel, since it is also the most unfortunate one.
Or there is a reconstruction of the New Museum with its shades of meaning - and there is an almost contemporary one
a project for the historic Rockbund in Shanghai (2011) with a commercial and cultural program, where buildings were completely "decontaminated".
Chipperfield can sensitively grasp the context, speak in a muffled voice: it was not for nothing that he was invited to the seaside Margaret to make a new project of the Turner Contemporary gallery. On this coast, the most important was and remains the view that Turner wrote - and the new building does not disturb it, avoiding "gesture", but remaining interesting.
At the same time, on the other side, the Nobel Center in Stockholm (2013) drew vigorous opposition from all sides, from local residents and heritage guardians to political parties and rarely commenting on sensitive issues from the Swedish king. A large and notable project in the heart of the historic city was eventually stopped by a court. Since there is also solid support for the building for the presentation of four of the five Nobel Prizes (among the patrons - the Wallenberg family and the owners of H&M), a new location has been chosen for it, and negotiations are underway with Chipperfield again.
David Chipperfield, since 2007 Fellow of the Royal Academy of Arts, for which he recently completed
the careful renovation of her complex in London (2018), highly praised by critics. He is also a Gold Medal laureate of the Royal Institute of British Architects, curated the 2012 Venice Biennale of Architecture, and has been editor-in-chief of Domus magazine throughout 2020.
In Russia, the architect has repeatedly participated in competitions - for the project of the complex "Embankment of Europe", for the reconstruction of the factory "Red Banner" (a victory that ended in nothing) and "New Holland" in St. Petersburg, as well as the Perm Opera and Ballet Theater (victory in 2010 of the year, which then did not bear fruit, although in 2017 Chipperfield was offered to take up a new version of the project - again to no avail), the Moscow Polytechnic Museum. The architect was, along with other foreign "stars", a member of the town planning council of the Skolkovo innovation city. The bottom line is quite a bit, but judging by this interview, Chipperfield's illusions about Russian prospects, if they did exist, dried up pretty quickly. Time will show how the story with the Central Telegraph will end, but if we rely on the domestic and world episodes described above, neither the architect nor the townspeople should have any particular grounds for optimism.
