Archi.ru:
Your letter on the law quickly polarized the architectural community, there were statements, including quite emotional ones, “for” and “against”. One of the arguments of the opposite side in the ensuing discussion - why did you speak only now, and not earlier, say, in October-November, when the latest, somewhat hasty, but stormy discussion of the law was initiated?
Sergey Choban:
I believe that until the law is adopted, it can and should be discussed. This process, in my opinion, cannot have any narrow time frame, outside of which the discussion no longer makes sense. At any time before the adoption of the bill, it is not too late to formulate and bring into the discussion field comments on certain of its provisions.
But answering your question, I should also note that this letter is by no means my first reaction to this bill. Back in the fall of last year, I expressed my comments on some of the provisions, but I think that the bill is so important for our profession that a thorough examination of all its provisions fully justifies itself. That is why I consider it obligatory and legitimate my current activity related to the draft law as part of the working group, which also included Maria Elkina, Oleg Shapiro and the lawyer we invited.
In your letter, the length of service required to obtain a status that allows you to open your own practice is not named, but in the commentary of Maria Elkina there are numbers: "in the Netherlands - 2 years, in Germany - 3". In the letter it sounded: "the opportunity to deal with their projects, the architect can, with a successful coincidence of circumstances, get closer to forty years." This gave rise to a numerical controversy: many began to count when an architect can and should start working, from the first year or from the second, at what age he finishes studying (23, 24, 25 …) how old he will be when he can work independently, 35 or 40
Let's get back to the arithmetic and the origins of the question. When I was in school, the secondary school consisted of 10 classes, and the special art school, which I graduated from, eleven. I went to school at the age of 6 and thus graduated from it at 17. The institute then did not have a division into bachelors and masters, there was a single six-year education with a single rather strict entrance exam and a large competition (I'm talking about the architectural faculty of the Repin Institute). And thus, having entered in 1980, I graduated from the institute in March 1986, that is, at the age of almost 24 years. And then I was looking for a job for quite a long time, since I did not want to go according to the distribution (at that moment, fortunately, it was already permissible), and began to work only in the fall of 1986, i.e. in the full 24 years. In other words, as you understand, in my case, the beginning of an independent professional activity would be possible only at the age of 34-35 after the expiry of the experience and after passing the qualification exam, as required by the bill under discussion today. Whereas in reality I began to engage in independent projects at the age of 28 and considered it important and right for myself.
Today, things have not changed in the direction of simplification! In a regular school, they now study for 11 years, then you need to unlearn for 5 years to get a bachelor's degree, and then, in the next two years, you can get a master's degree. In other words, in the most optimistic scenario, by the age of 25, the young architect finally gets a higher education comparable to that which I received; and on average, even later, by the age of 27. At the same time, I want to draw your attention to the fact that this period does not include either the time of service in the army (which is plus 1 year), or academic leave for childcare (which is at least 1-2 years). Plus, of course, one cannot discount the fact that many people take an academic leave of at least 1 year because of the need to secure earnings - including for the maintenance of a young family - or because of the desire to do an internship in leading European offices, to improve their knowledge. foreign languages. The new bill, as far as we understand, does not take into account the periods of internship in any way, which automatically means: for development in the profession, it makes no sense to intern in the best architectural offices, both Russian and foreign, since this period will not be counted as an internship and only lengthens the path to independent activity.
And, returning to arithmetic: thus, only by the age of 27, most of the young architects finish their studies. And if we add the mandatory 10 years of work in the specialty dictated by the bill, we will understand that only at the age of 37 will specialists receive the right to pass the qualification exam and, possibly, receive the status of a chief executive officer and open their own office. And here I would like to specifically stipulate that I am not considering the option “to open an office by inviting a more experienced GAP to the staff, who will sign the drawings and be responsible for their correctness”. Yes, such a loophole will remain, but I am sure that it is disastrous for the development of the profession and for the formation of personal reputation.
Only the owner or head of the office, who has all the rights and responsibilities, can and should be perceived by customers and authorities as a person who formulates ideas and at the same time knows how to implement them, and is responsible for their implementation.
If the bill is adopted, we will inevitably face a complication of the process of professional formation and development of architects. In particular, with the deterioration of career chances for women, although, in my opinion, it is quite obvious that in a profession that has been male for a long time, and today is replenished with a noticeable number of very expressive works of women architects, the right of a woman to develop herself in the profession should, on the contrary, be fully supported! But even if we leave aside all gender issues: an architect who only by the age of 37-38 gets the opportunity to work independently is no longer the youngest person. And let's be frank: at this age, having worked for ten years under the leadership of a dominant leader, he may no longer have his own original ideas, which we count on when we talk about the younger generation in architecture, but, on the contrary, has every chance of becoming overgrown with fears and the desire for compromise.
In this sense, your knowledge as an architect, managing large architectural companies in two countries, in Russia and in Germany, is more than interesting: is it possible to intern in Germany while studying in parallel?
It is possible to study and work in parallel, but in reality it is rather difficult to combine it. Typically, students take a free semester in order to do internships and earn money for their studies by working in the office. Another thing is important: in Germany, the term for obtaining the right to independent work is much shorter. As an example, I can describe my own experience. I moved to Germany in 1991 when I was 29 years old. In Germany, for three years, I acquired the work experience necessary to obtain a license in the Architectural Chamber, and at the same time I confirmed my Russian diploma, which was not a problem. Thus, at the age of 32, I was able to obtain a license for independent architectural activity, and at the age of 33, I became a partner in the company that I still represent.
And then a more general question: when, in your opinion, an architect becomes a mature master who can open his own practice - does it completely depend on the individual, or is there any time frame for growing up?
I am absolutely sure that the age of up to 35 is a key period of creative development for any architect, a time when, let's say, he has not yet overgrown with the consequences of a huge number of compromises he accepts. And it was during this period that I would justly expect new ideas from architects. In many ways, by the way, it was this circumstance in 2017 that was the reason for the initiation of the Russian Youth Architecture Biennale, one of the key criteria for participation in which was determined to be no older than 35 years old. The Biennale, the curator of which I had the honor to act twice, was organized by Natalia Fishman-Bekmambetova with the support of the President of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov and the Ministry of Construction of the Russian Federation and took place in Innopolis twice already, revealing, in my opinion, a whole galaxy of young and very talented architects. Suffice it to name just a few of them: Mikhail Beilin and Daniil Nikishin, Nadezhda Koreneva, Oleg Manov, Andrey Adamovich, Kirill Pernatkin, Alexander Alyaev, Azat Akhmadullin, bureau "Khvoya", "Megabudka", "Leto", "KB 11" by Yulia Fedyaeva and Anna Sazonova - after all, it is they and many of their other peers today who determine the face of the Russian architecture of the future. Returning to your question: I am convinced that the age of up to 35 years is the most important for the formation of an architect as a person and the first independent work, which may turn out to be the most successful in his career.
Even from my modest experience, I can say that my first large-scale project, implemented in Germany, was developed when I was not yet 35. Later, this particular project was awarded the German Town Planning Prize.
How is the certification of architects organized in Germany? Is there a recertification, and if so, how often? Are the managers of their own practice recertified?
I received certification from the Architectural Chamber of the Federal State of Hamburg. The Architectural Chamber is a licensing organization. And here it should be noted that each of the federal states has its own chamber, but the licenses issued by any of them are automatically valid throughout the country. In order to obtain a license in the state of Hamburg, it was necessary to work for 3 years, provide a diploma of higher education (including a diploma of another country, confirmed in Germany), a portfolio with work performed as an author or co-author (including in the territory another country, in my case - back in the USSR) and a letter from the head of the company, who confirmed the applicant's participation in the main stages of design (draft, design and working documentation, field supervision). Obtaining an architect license in Germany is a one-time procedure and does not require re-confirmation.
The only thing that each Chamber of Architecture prescribes is that its members must attend qualifying workshops and recruit relevant items. But there are no subsequent attestations, let alone qualification exams, in Germany. And in this sense, I am especially puzzled by the mechanism of qualification exams proposed by the bill, the first of which is provided two years after graduation. Is there really no confidence in Russian higher education? Perhaps, after all, give the right to examine professors and further give architects the opportunity to learn by doing? As you know, practice is the main criterion of truth, and one should not be constantly afraid that young people will make some mistakes. Young people need to be trusted, this is the only way each next generation of professionals is formed.
During the period when the law on self-regulating organizations was adopted in Russia, representatives of the Union of Architects talked about the need for personal certification as opposed to certification of organizations. Now it turns out that the certification of the bureau is supplemented by the certification of personal. Do you think that personal attestation should replace the SRO? What scheme of interaction between bureau certification and personal certification of professionals would you call optimal?
For me, the bureau is largely determined by those partner leaders, architects who organized and headed it. The system should create conditions under which the office leader has all the rights and responsibilities necessary for the implementation of the ideas developed by him. And in this regard, I would like to separately emphasize that I categorically do not accept the position: "Let's accept this law as a working document, and then we will improve it." It is necessary either to adopt a law that will improve rather than worsen the conditions for the activities of different groups of architects, create optimal conditions for them to implement their tasks, or continue to improve the draft law. The current situation with the issuance of SRO licenses is working in a transitional stage quite satisfactorily and has allowed very many bureaus, including young ones in the first place, to do interesting, significant work in recent years.
How does “market protection” work (if this concept is generally applicable to architectural practice) in Germany? Can you hire a graduate from the Russian Federation with a Russian diploma to work as an architect? Or an internship? And what about an architect, for example, who was educated in Holland?
In Germany, the basis for obtaining a residence and work permit is an employment contract with a company - therefore, yes, my office employs employees from Russia, Turkey and, of course, from many European countries. they have this permission a priori. And, by the way, architects living and working in the European Union can participate in all competitions held in Germany: for this it is not at all necessary to be a German citizen or a citizen of another European country, it is enough just to work independently in the European Union. It is clear that there is a certain protection of the market. An American office, for example, cannot participate in a competition without a European partner. But the American office can open its representative office in Germany by sending an employee or partner there as the head of the office, who will confirm, as I did in due time, his foreign diploma. Unfortunately, the draft law does not in any way reflect the need for the recognition of diplomas from leading foreign architecture universities, which, of course, is fundamentally important for the integration of Russian architecture into the global process.
And in my opinion, something else is very important: a specialist who does not have German citizenship, but has a work permit in the country and documents on higher education recognized in Germany, and has worked for 3 years in his specialty, has the right to organize his office. And unfortunately, I also did not see this transparency in relation to specialists who have all the opportunities to work in the territory of the Russian Federation, but who are not citizens of the Russian Federation or do not have a Russian diploma. On the contrary, I was frightened by the phrase that foreign specialists should work under the leadership of the Russian Chief Executive Officer. I will note again: not in cooperation, but under leadership!
As a rule, nevertheless, if the foreign office is the author of the architectural concept, cooperation with the local architect should be carried out on a partnership basis of mutual support, and not direct subordination to the accompanying party.
Your letter mentions “guidelines for minimum fees for architect work, typically 6 to 10 percent of construction costs” - please tell us more about this practice. From which organization do the recommendations come, how is the response to them ensured - after all, not the law, but the recommendations … How - for example in Germany - is the protection of the rights of the architect ensured, including as the author of the concept? How does it work at the level of public and private orders, respectively?
First of all, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in the draft law under discussion, in principle, there are no clearly defined rights and fixed opportunities for an architect to participate in the implementation of his project from the stage of sketching to completion of construction. After all, it is not enough to formulate the value of an architectural concept as an initial parameter for creating an architectural work, the most important thing is to clearly prescribe and provide conditions, including material ones, that would allow an architect to track its implementation at all subsequent stages of work on a project. Without this, any statements that the architect is the author of the project and can accompany its implementation, unfortunately, lose any practical meaning, since project support is a separate big work, which, among other things, should be adequately paid.
In Germany, the size and procedure for calculating the fees of architects are determined by a special book of fees, which clearly spells out the cost of all stages of design for both architects and engineers. The total cost of developing a draft design, project documentation, working documentation and then supervising construction only for an architect is about 8-10 percent of the cost of construction. This fee procedure applies to both public and private construction. Of course, there are cases when the parties have to deviate from this order, but it is important that there is a level of assessment of the work of architects accepted by all, which cannot lead to the fact that supervision of further design and construction is actually carried out free of charge, by the free will of the architect personally interested in the results of their labor. In Russia, today we are most often faced with exactly this - for conducting architectural supervision over several years, they often offer a total of no more than 300-600 thousand rubles for the entire time!
Is it possible to ensure the existence of the office with this money? Of course not. And it is important to understand: until this financial mechanism is spelled out in the law, the very right to “be an author” will automatically be reduced to zero.
If you manage to change the situation and initiate a new discussion of the law, are you ready to personally join some committee or working group that will deal with the discussion and revision?
A new discussion of the law is already taking place, this is evidenced by numerous publications on your portal, and our conversation. And, of course, having signed a letter with a proposal not to adopt the bill in its current form, I am ready to defend and argue my position at any level, participating in further discussion and concretization of comments and ways to eliminate them.
