The letter was published on facebook in the account of Maria Elkina. The text exists in Google Doc format, where it can be signed. The authors urge to postpone the adoption of the law and initiate a new discussion by "the best experts in the field of architecture and law."
In the message of Maria Elkina and in the text of the letter, the main issues and claims to the law are summarized:
1. Long experience - 10 years - to obtain the status of a GAP / little chances for a career for young architects
“According to the new law, in order to become a GAP or open his own practice, an architect must work out under the leadership of the Russian GAP for 10 years … For comparison, in the Netherlands - 2 years, in Germany - 3. That is, we will have a young architect under 40,”- Maria Elkina.
« Richard Rogers and Norman Foster opened a joint office in the UK the next year after graduating from Yale University in the USA, they were both in their early 30s. Jean Nouvel opened his first office before graduation, and at 31 he became the founder of the trade union movement. Bjarke Ingels became famous at 35 … Those young architectural offices that have made themselves felt in recent years in Russia, and which have already brought a fresher view of things and openness to innovations into architecture, simply could not exist under the proposed law.
Even more discriminatory such a rule would be for women architects, which today already largely determine the creative face of the profession. Is it possible, after graduating from a university at 24, having worked for 10 years under someone's guidance, with interruptions for the birth of children, to make an independent career?”- a letter from the architects.
2. Unclear qualifications / path to possible abuse
“Without exception, all architects will undergo an unknown“qualification certification”, and at the same time refresher courses. It is not said who, how and with what criteria will take exams, that is, in practice, it can turn into an instrument of unfair competition in some (or in all) regions,”- Maria Elkina.
« Neither its order, nor its goals, nor the range of those who will be authorized to take exams have been determined. Such ambiguity of the rules will make it possible to turn the process, which should be routine and eliminate any bias, into a cumbersome bureaucratic procedure,”- a letter from the architects.
3. Isolationism / closure of self-employment opportunities for foreign bureaus
“Foreign bureaus cannot operate independently in Russia. This means that the chaos that occurs with the implementation of foreign projects will become even louder, and we will finally turn out to be a marginal country for the global professional community,”- Maria Elkina.
“The law does not at all provide for the possibility of architects from countries with which Russia does not have an agreement on the mutual recognition of diplomas, which means that architectural bureaus from these states will not be able to legally work in Russia. notice, that these countries include those whose architectural schools are considered the most powerful in the world … Thus, the bill proposes restrict competition in architecture, and, hence, the possibilities of its natural development”, - a letter from the architects.
4. There are no real mechanisms to protect the rights of an architect / and this is why the law was created
“And yes, the law does not create any potentially effective mechanisms for protecting the rights of an architect, that is, such norms of relations with customers that would allow working on their own project to the end and without a headache are not spelled out there,” - Maria Elkina.
“In many countries, recommendations on how to protect the market from customer abuse and unfair competition are minimum fees for the work of an architectusually constituting from 6 to 10 percent of the construction cost … Probably, in Russia, one should take a closer look at this practice,”- a letter from the architects.
5. Vague wording and contradictions with existing legislation
Law on Architectural Activity is in conflict with the laws on the contractual system in the field of procurement, # 44 and # 223, which directly limit the ability of the author of the draft concept to participate in the subsequent stages of the design.
[The law] rightly indicates the responsibility of the architect for the results of his activities, but does not define any boundaries or measures of this responsibility … Indicates the need for architectural competitions for socially significant objects, however does not clearly indicate the purpose of such competitions and principleson which their organization should be built”, - a letter from the architects.
Commentary by Sergei Kuznetsov from the discussion in the same thread: “But his [law] has absolutely rightly not been adopted for many years, I hope it will not. He's very bad, of course."
You can get acquainted with the draft law to which all these questions are posed on the website of the Union of Architects of Russia.
The authors of the letter ask for maximum distribution and, we repeat, urge to sign it.
So, we discussed and discussed the law in the fall of 2019, wrote amendments and proposals, then brought together two versions - NOPRIZ and the Union of Architects, in the spring and summer many supporters of the law complained that it was lying in the corridors of power, and here you are - there are many questions to the law, and essential, not in detail, in its most basic provisions.
It is surprising, of course, that these questions have emerged now, and not in the process of discussion. Some kind of one-sided, apparently, then there was a discussion … I wonder if it makes sense to once again discuss the law and change it? To protest against him? One way or another, we urge you to familiarize yourself - the questions are serious, and then proceed at your own discretion. We also propose to discuss issues to the law here in the comments.
Below we publish the text of the letter in full, reminding once again that you must sign it, if you deem it necessary, here.
Full text of the letter from architects on the "Law on Architectural Activities" [letter cited above at key points]
“Russia is preparing to adopt the Law on Architectural Activity. Having carefully read the text of the bill, we, architects and people whose activities are directly related to architecture, consider it necessary to draw attention to the fact that the proposed version of the law will not be able to contribute to the development of architecture in Russia, it needs further clarification and refinement.
The profession of an architect and urban planner is as important to society as the profession of a doctor, lawyer and teacher. Historical and modern experience has repeatedly proved that it is an architect who can and should be responsible for the aesthetic and ethical value of our environment, for the development of territories, taking into account the strategic interests of society.
The Law on Architectural Activities should simultaneously solve two problems. On the one hand, to increase the influence of the architect on how our living environment develops. On the other hand, to create conditions for the fruitful development of the architectural profession itself. The latter include ample opportunities for cultural exchange, the influx of new talented people into the profession, and the protection of the architect's copyright. The current version of the law does not fully solve any of these tasks, and in some aspects creates a situation even less favorable than it is now.
It seems reasonable that the law gives the architect a special status, just as, for example, lawyers are endowed with a special status. However, the proposed criteria for awarding this status seem redundant. In order to be able to open his own practice, a young person who has received an education must work in an architectural office under the guidance of the Russian chief architect of projects for 10 years. In fact, this means that the opportunity to deal with their projects, the architect can, with a good coincidence, get closer to forty years. At this age, many well-known modern architects have already gained a lot of independent work experience. Richard Rogers and Norman Foster opened a joint office in the UK the following year after graduating from Yale University in the United States, both in their early 30s. Jean Nouvel opened his first office before graduation, and at 31 he became the founder of the trade union movement. Bjarke Ingels became famous at 35. Those young architectural offices that have made themselves felt in recent years in Russia, and which have already brought a fresher view of things to architecture and openness to innovations, under the proposed law simply could not exist. Such a rule will be even more discriminatory for women architects, who today already largely determine the creative face of the profession. Is it possible, after graduating from a university at 24, having worked for 10 years under someone's guidance, with interruptions for the birth of children, to make an independent career? The generation of young people who now seems to be its main chance for renewal will drop out of the profession.
Indeed, professionalism in architecture is acquired primarily through experience working on projects, but practice shows that a young person needs a few years to master the most important skills. In addition to unreasonable requirements for length of service, the law provides for the need to pass a certain “qualification attestation” at each professional level. Neither its order, nor its goals, nor the range of those who will be authorized to take exams have been determined. This uncertainty in the rules will make it possible to turn the process, which should be routine and eliminate any bias, into a cumbersome bureaucratic procedure.
The law does not at all provide for the possibility of architects from countries with which Russia does not have an agreement on the mutual recognition of diplomas, which means that architectural bureaus from these states will not be able to legally work in Russia. Note that these countries include those whose architectural schools are considered the most powerful in the world. The openness of the market for the best specialists from abroad not only allows you to often get the best quality of the project and introduce innovative technologies, but also to develop your own vocational school faster.
Thus, the bill proposes to limit competition in architecture, and, therefore, the possibilities of its natural development.
At the same time, the law does not solve the main stated task either. It declares the author's rights to the work of architecture and to participate in the project at all stages, but does not create truly effective mechanisms for protecting these rights. The law only proclaims that the architect, when concluding a contract with the customer, has “exclusive rights to the results of his activities,” but here much more precise formulations are needed that would regulate the real relationship between the customer of the project and the architect, the rights and obligations of both, the procedure for permission controversial situations. In many countries, guidelines for minimum architectural fees, typically 6 to 10 percent of the cost of construction, serve as a mechanism to protect the market from abuse by the client and unfair competition. It is likely that in Russia it would be worthwhile to take a closer look at this practice.
We also note that the law on architectural activities is in conflict with the laws on the contractual system in the field of procurement, # 44 and # 223, which directly restrict the author of the draft concept to participate in the subsequent stages of design. The mechanism proposed in the bill to eliminate this contradiction does not seem to be effective, which means that the participation of an architect in the construction of objects at the state expense will continue to cause considerable difficulties.
The proposed text of the bill contains vague and vague wording in other parts. He rightly indicates the responsibility of the architect for the results of his activities, but does not define either the boundaries or measures of this responsibility. Indicates the need for architectural competitions for socially significant objects, but does not clearly indicate the objectives of such competitions and the principles on which their organization should be built.
The adoption of the "Law on Architectural Activity" is a crucial step that can define the face of Russia for decades to come. Such a law should support the principles of openness, fair professional competition, and also contain extremely specific formulations that can be easily correlated with the real practice of work in the field of architecture.
We consider it necessary to postpone the adoption of the law and organize its broad professional discussion by the best specialists in the field of architecture and law”.
Sergey Choban, architect, honorary member of the Russian Academy of Arts
Oleg Shapiro, Ph. D. in architecture, co-founder of the Wowhaus bureau
Maria Elkina, architecture critic
The original version of the letter
