For the history of the issue, see: in more detail about the letter signed by Sergei Tchoban, Oleg Shapiro and Maria Elkina. Signatures are collected under the letter.
Below is the full text of Nikolai Shumakov's letter; here is a signed PDF version of the letter.
« Reply to the letter of architects Sergei Tchoban, Oleg Shapiro and critic Maria Elkina about the law "On architectural activity"
Dear colleagues!
Your open letter, having roused the "blogosphere", prompted calls to go to bed, but not to allow the adoption of the new edition of the "Law on Architectural Activity in the Russian Federation" submitted in February this year for consideration by the RF Ministry of Construction. And this fact speaks volumes about at least two things.
First, there is a lack of deep knowledge of Russian laws and the procedure for passing draft laws in Russia.
Secondly, about the lack of understanding that the suspension of consideration of the bill can finally bury any hope for the adoption of the new law.
There is a third aspect of this position, which I would least like to consider, since this aspect indicates a deliberate step in order to leave everything in architecture as it is - that is, in controlled chaos. This chaos is very beneficial to the powerful lobby of large developers, which for decades has been hindering the adoption of a new law under the sore pretext: "Well, you see, the architects again did not agree, they themselves do not know what they want."
For the information of all those who are ready to understand the essence. There is no official "edition of the law"! And it can't be! This is not even a "zero" edition, which is usually conceptually considered in separate committees of the State Duma before introducing a bill into it. What was transferred to the Ministry of Construction of the Russian Federation is expanded conceptual proposals, the result of the work of three professional organizations, very authoritative and respected in the national architectural community: the Union of Architects of Russia, the Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences and the National Association of Designers and Surveyors. And the main thing in this document is a consensus or, if you like, a compromise on the most fundamental issues of the structure of the architectural profession in our country, which will allow us to move on, improving the bill in difficult modern conditions. A compromise is necessary, since “politics is the art of the possible”, and it is simply impossible not to reckon with the prevailing realities, including the procedure for passing bills in the existing legal field.
The text submitted to the Ministry of Construction of the Russian Federation will have to go through an agreement with the concerned departments and with the Government of Russia. Only after that the edition will become “zero” and will be submitted to the State Duma of the Russian Federation, having passed “seven circles of compromises” in it, including three readings in the lower chamber, approval in the upper chamber and verification of three legal departments. What will remain of the current text, proposed by three professional associations, in the final version, which will be signed by the President of Russia, is known only to the Lord God.
Of course, for some, the collective authors of the bill are respected organizations on a national scale, for others - "sucks and freak show". But there are simply no other professional associations with thousands of members in Russia, despite the attempts of some small groups to portray themselves as a large professional association under loud and empty names. It is impossible to call it otherwise than profanation.
So what did the SA of Russia, RAASN and NOPRIZ agree to? What are the priorities put forward in the proposals to the law?
First: strengthening the status of the profession by returning it the right to conduct architectural supervision over construction and the right to participate in the acceptance of constructed objects.
Second: strengthening the status of the chief architect of the city and the subject of the federation by appointing him to the position of the head of the body of architecture and urban planning with direct subordination to the head of the city or subject.
Third: expanding the development of a competitive design system by holding architectural competitions before tenders for design contracts (in accordance with Federal Law No. 44FZ), that is, with the choice of the best architectural solutions, and not the lowest price and design time.
Fourth: the restoration of the "draft architectural design" as a subject of copyright of architects and an architectural competition.
Fifth: determination of the composition of professional work and services, as close as possible to the one accepted in world practice.
Sixth: restoration of the right to create architectural projects on the basis of copyright agreements (with a fee payment system).
Seventh: fixing the specifics of architectural education as a technical education, but with a social and artistic content. In addition, all the procedures for creating works of architecture are streamlined in the proposals and definitions adopted in world practice are introduced into the legal field.
As you can see, these priorities are infinitely far from the invented 40 years, supposedly required to reach the level of GAP, and other equally ridiculous "horrors". But, by voting "against the introduced edition", you definitely vote against the listed principles on which the architectural practice in the world is based. So what is really the case with the arguments put forward "against" the law in general?
Perhaps you shouldn't focus on arithmetic errors. But still! Today's university student studies mainly for five years, from 17 to 21 years of age. Add to this 10 years of experience - it turns out not 40 years, but the same age (31 years) as that of Jean Nouvel and other Western stars, but with one significant difference. In the United States, for example, a multi-level system of preparation for independent work is developed - an internship with the keeping of reports on practice and the most severe exams, which sometimes pass for many years. In Russia, there is nothing of the kind, and most students start working while still studying at a university, thereby reducing the ten-year period for gaining work experience established by law.
Northern Europe has the most liberal certification procedures. But to our question to our German, Swedish, Dutch colleagues: “Are they not afraid to issue licenses after 2-3 years of practice and interviews“for sanity?”, They answered very simply. A license is the right to open a bureau, but in order to exercise this right and receive the first order, in some European countries it is necessary to participate in competitions and win for another 10-15 years. And here neither kickbacks, nor dumping, nor the most vulgar cronyism will help. Another culture, to which Russia is still far away.
The Russian system is no more cruel towards young architects than the Western one. It's just different, and, admittedly, more formal than in the West. In this regard - information for the attention of those who do not know how to read laws.
"Qualification certification" of architects, as well as certification of representatives of all other professions, was introduced not by the law "On architectural activity", but by a number of Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law "On independent assessment of qualifications" No. 238-FZ, adopted on 03.07.2016. Our law only refers to this earlier law, which, by the way, prohibits “inventing” any other procedure for conducting qualification attestation. So in this law you can find answers to all questions about the certification procedure. Read, gentlemen, it's useful.
“The openness of the market for the best specialists from abroad” is a good thing, but what to do if different specialists freely come to us, including not the best and sometimes not licensed in their countries? But even the best seldom know our history, culture and design organization. What if, demanding "openness", our Western partners have tightly closed their markets for architectural services from Russian architects? In this case, not by us, but by the International Union of Architects, it was recommended to conclude bilateral and multilateral agreements on the mutual recognition of qualification documents. Our law only cites these fair "two-way" rules.
We do not "restrict competition", but the West. What kind of honesty is there? In international relations, the main thing is equality. And imagine, what would be the benefit of recognition of qualifications and the opportunity for our architects to practice in the West in “developing our own professional school”? However, there are doubts that our Western partners need such "honesty and equality." Many of them are quite satisfied with the role of missionaries bringing the light of culture to the “wild natives” of Russia. And you, dear opponents of fair laws in international relations, involuntarily become the mouthpiece of this policy.
At the same time, one cannot but agree with the thesis of the authors of the letter that the law in this form, declaring the rights of authors to work of architecture (by the way, already given in Part 4 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) “does not create truly effective mechanisms for protecting these rights ". But this question, together with the question of the "minimum size of the fee" and the removal of contradictions with Federal Laws No. 44 and No. 223, provokes fierce resistance from the very lobby of developers, which has already been mentioned.
In order to "cut" the knot of these contradictions, the forces of all the official professional associations of architects are clearly not enough. What is needed is not confrontation over individual "shortcomings" and endless postponement of the law, but a broad consolidation of all architects of the country, including young and veterans, with Western and domestic education, with work experience in Russia and abroad.
I repeat: no one is going to pass the law in this form tomorrow. There is still at least a year (or many decades if its submission to the Duma is postponed). As for the discussion, it can and should be continued after its submission to the State Duma, although it was already held a year ago on a variety of platforms, and is very active. Now we are talking about something else. It is possible to expect any positive result and achievement of the goals proclaimed in your letter only on condition of a constructive dialogue, devoid of any guile and manipulation of facts and based on an impeccable knowledge of the laws of the country in which we all live and work."
