I would not like to speculate on a sensitive topic and the possible beneficial consequences of the virus for wooden architecture, but it is also impossible not to think about whether nature is giving us a signal for a new deurbanization. However, we will not find out about this even after a year: construction projects have come to a standstill, projects have been postponed. Therefore, this year, of course, we were very worried whether we would collect at least some kind of wood harvest. But the results have exceeded concerns. The award once again set its own record with 207 applications! There are new names and new addresses (Bugulma, Cheboksary, Bilyarsk, Kamchatka and even Nicaragua), but it is especially pleasant that the word "village" flashed among the addresses (and this is not in the Country House nomination), but recent recruits (especially participants of the festival "Drevolyutsiya") make independent and more and more serious objects.
But, pronouncing this joyful text for the 11th year in a row, it is time to think whether it is worth so much to rejoice in the quantitative growth, is the quality of wooden architecture increasing? And how adequately does ARCHIWOOD reflect the process? Therefore, instead of bragging, we decided to honestly talk about the problems of the award, which were exposed at the last meeting of the Expert Council, but which at the same time say something about the wooden architecture itself.
11 years ago, when formulating the principles of the award, we believed that the composition of the nominations would change every year to reflect the current state of affairs. But then he still stabilized in 9 nominations. However, this year between the nominations "Country House" and "Small Object" a new phenomenon flickered, clearly requiring a special approach. The fact is that for the past 7 years, Russian architects have been actively experimenting with very small houses that are manufactured at a factory (which allows achieving good quality), then transported to any place and quickly installed on the site (and their size is related precisely to the maximum dimensions of the cargo) … The trend's enthusiasts were Maxim Kurennoy, Fedor Dubinnikov, Vladimir Yuzbashev, and this story culminated in Ivan Ovchinnikov's "Double House" project. But it turned out that there is room to move on: this year, 4 such applications were received at once for the prize, after which the Expert Council categorically refused to put them on the same level with large capital buildings and moved them all to the Small Object nomination.
If in all the above projects the idea of transformability and mobility remained a derivative of the business process, then the authors of Brette20 (Anton Khripko and Gennady Bakunin) took it by the horns and came up with such a simple and attractive transformation mechanism that it seems to provoke itself to leave the place and rush with your home towards adventure. True, the design of the house is extremely ascetic, or rather, software. It implies a complete detachment from everyday life, comfort, things - and concentration on the surrounding world. And these are not so much large windows, but the ability to move your home, acquiring more and more new views.
If the Brette area is 22 m2, then the area Modom X Vladimir Zholubov - 16.8 (+ 10 meters of the terrace). He is more concerned with the form, gaining it due to the dynamic layout of volumes: one module enters the other along an oblique path, passes through it, and also exits at an angle. This, of course, creates additional difficulties, but at the same time it is cleverly resolved in the internal layout: an acute angle turns into a shoe box, a dull one - into a podium. Two other mini-houses were not shortlisted: Artyom Stepanishchev's Freedom Naturi, all so streamlined, including furniture, embarrassed the Council with a huge, non-opening window and air conditioners, and Sergei Nasedkin's D. O. M. + 25M2 - with a submission: it was impossible to see the architecture itself behind the spectacular photographs.
However, having solved one problem (having collected all the mini-houses in one nomination), the Council immediately provoked another: now residential objects will compete here with non-residential ones. Although earlier we tried to select only baths, sheds, gazebos, pavilions for this nomination - that is, to strengthen the shaky parameter of dimensions with a functional aspect. Today, among the latter, there is an elegant grill pavilion in Gatchina (Sozonych bureau) and a rotunda with a bridge in Vyksa (Anton Kochurkin): both are designed with vertical white ribs, which makes the volumes translucent, and each has a graceful bend: the pavilion has a wavy roof, the gazebo has an entablature. Due to this, it looks almost baroque, while
Kharms gazebo in Khvalynsk (Alexey Komov) is already an homage to the Russian avant-garde. It is curious that it was Kochurkin and Komov who made the largest contribution to the development of wooden architecture during the reporting period: the former put up 6 objects for the prize, the latter - 5.
Not to say that having freed itself from the "petty", the main nomination sighed more freely. There are 9 country houses in it - and one is more interesting than the other. The stylish gray house of Denis Dementyev, which was built around and for the sake of the views overlooking the Moskva River, spread over only 3 acres (and even on a hill with a slope of 40 degrees). Fascinating with strange proportions, the house-tower of Vladimir Kuzmin and Nikolai Kaloshin: cut from a familiar log, it has such unaccustomed plots for a log house as three equal floors, a balcony-gulbische in the entire length of the house, and under it - the same huge covered, but open space the first household floor.
Attention is drawn to the reconstruction of a summer house in Kratovo - a joint project of Evgenia Mikulina and Nikolai Lyzlov. Such an approach is rare today to tears: more often Soviet dachas are broken down and something five times larger is erected in their place - here the new extensions are modest, and the old house has been lovingly renovated. And this is an invaluable experience, giving a chance to all those who cannot give up their beloved dacha, which passed from generation to generation and retained the aromas of history, but at the same time cannot live in it either … True, this cozy house will have to compete with powerful (and already purely modern) buildings - and this is another hint to the organizers: to think about introducing a new nomination - "reconstruction". That is, when we are not talking about an architectural monument, which is only allowed to be restored, but still about something old and beautiful, whose image can be preserved only by slightly changing, as Lyzlov and Mikulina did so subtly.
Among the "purely modern" - Roman Leonidov's manor in Antonovka (a set of one-story volumes gathered around the courtyard under roofs soaring in different directions) or Sergey Nasedkin's DOM + 125M2: a branded plywood case with an all-glazed living room that occupies the entire facade, light holes cut in the roof and minimalist interiors. Both Nasedkin and Leonidov long ago developed their own corporate styles, which are both unmistakably recognizable and bring commercial success to the authors, but it seems that only Totan Kuzembaev is still setting himself the task of surprising every time. His new home on the Oka River is again something that has never happened before. The house-square hovers on high pillars, looking at the river with all its terraces, but at the same time it clearly tilts back. And this is not an optical illusion: the timber does not really lie parallel to the ground, but at the same time the floors are even, just the spaces inside are often chopped up and in full accordance with the functions.
The presence of an object in the shortlist, whose author is a member of the Expert Council of the Prize, provokes, of course, the usual whisper: "They sit and distribute medals to themselves."And we really haven't figured out how to resolve this collision in 11 years. The council should be composed of the most seasoned woodworkers, whose authority is impeccable and whose opinion is unquestioning, but if the competition is deprived of their own works, then the picture of wooden architecture will be annoyingly incomplete. Perhaps the desire to show such completeness is overly ambitious, but we have always believed that ARCHIWOOD is not so much a distribution of elephants as research and education. And in this sense, it's a shame that some stars skimp on the prize. It is clear that they have no one to compete with and there is no need for them, but young architects really need the bar! Therefore, we are very pleased that the great Russian architect Yuri Avvakumov is participating in the award for the first time. His design for the Atlas of Moscow Creative Studios exhibition is, as always, a bright, strong and witty move. Ordinary warehouse pallets transcend their simple nature and transform into 12 round dungeons, each of which becomes a separate exhibition space in the echoing emptiness of the Manege. After the exhibition, all pallets returned to their direct duties.
No less witty is the revolving Arc de Triomphe in St. Petersburg by the KATARSIS bureau: the name completely exhausts its meaning, but it is precisely this simplicity and sharpness of movement that make the arch a serious event in the history of Russian triumphal arches. But the authors of the arch - Pyotr Sovetnikov and Vera Stepanskaya - did not rest on this and built a bridge growing out of the field (and leaving in the field) in Nikola-Lenivets. Filled with the same pallets, hay and construction waste, the bridge was crowned with two towers, clearly recalling the architecture of the All-Russian Agricultural Exhibition of 1923, the main event in Russian wooden architecture of the 20th century, by combining classical and avant-garde principles. And just as that bright attempt to marry two intentions crumbled to dust, so this bridge was solemnly burned at Shrovetide.
Pallets have become a trend this season: on Olkhon Island, Vladimir Kuzmin is assembling a Museum Wall from them, which will gradually fill with unnecessary things and turn into a museum of a past life. The move, borrowed from natural science museums, takes on a completely new sound here. Firstly, this is the scale: the boxes, tea, not matchboxes, and the wall itself is huge. Secondly, the boxes are very whimsical, in Mondrian style: the general outline of the Wall is a rectangle, but inside it the honeycombs slide as they want. Thirdly, this is the context: this is not just an "open-air museum", the wall is adjacent to the real wall of the former fish factory, and Baikal is spread out a step behind it. And this, of course, is the filling of the honeycomb: not with priceless museum exhibits, not with butterflies or precious stones, but with “former things” - purely Andrei Platonov.
The work from a completely different nomination is interesting with this art object. The chapel of the 17th century was discovered in the deep forests of the Kola Peninsula, mothballed and carefully covered with a geodesic dome with a film (architect Ivan Vdovin). Everything is clear, honest and pragmatic, but the effect turned out to be amazing: a modest museum exhibit sparkled, being immersed in a glass ball. However, it is this effect that is the main problem of the "Restoration" nomination: comparing the gray weathered ruin with that fresh and sleek object that appears as a result of the work of the restorers, any normal person will say that "it was better before." This is partly why the outbuilding of Druzhinin's house did not make it to the shortlist - the excellent professional work of Vladimir Lukin and Vladimir Novoselov, an invariably important precedent for Vologda, where the fate of the wooden heritage hangs by a thread all the time and can only be inspired by such stories. But, on the other hand, this is already the third object, which was acquired and restored by the Vologda enthusiast German Yakimov, and the very first - Chernoglazov's house - won the prize in 2017.
The House with a Lion in the village of Popovka near Khvalynsk also risked not getting to the finals - neatly sorted over a log and also looking too cheerful and blissful today. It is no coincidence that the authors chose a photograph not “after” the restoration, but “before” as a starting picture. But thanks to his new owner Yulia Terekhova, he has long become an Internet star, and thanks to the skill of Anton Maltsev's team, he has now found a new life. So, in spite of the absence of the award of professional restorers in the Expert Council, he was able to discern high-quality work here, but he still has time to gray the house.
Another sensation in this nomination is the reconstruction of the 1953 bridge across the Tikhmanga River in the Kargopol region. In the strict sense of the word, this, of course, is not a restoration: the original bridge was no longer there. It is all the more curious that not a new bridge was built. That is, the perception of a 70-year-old object as a monument worthy of attention and renewal becomes normal, and this is wonderful. It is also interesting that the bridge was restored in the context of modern ideas about public space - that is, not only from nostalgic, but also from completely pragmatic considerations. “In addition to its main purpose, the bridge was used as a platform for various celebrations,” explain the authors, Vladimir Titov, Sergei Romanov and Vladimir Lukin. “After the completion of the work, the residents expressed a desire to renew the established tradition”.
The super-conceptual residential building in Suzdal from FORM BUREAU (nomination Wood in Finish) also conducts a dialogue with tradition: a light concrete volume on which volumetric fragments of traditional wooden facades with carvings and platbands are superimposed. Of course, such treatment of tradition as with appliqué will legitimately outrage someone. However, few other solutions could so shade and emphasize the beauty of the carved decor, as a strict comparison of it with the smooth surface of a white concrete wall. Considering that all the window frames are white (and these are, of course, not double-glazed windows), a surreal (albeit quite harmonious) spectacle of the “white new” sprouting through the “dark old” (brought to complete ecstasy by a rough concrete casing that broke through a wooden wall). And for the Russian realities, let's be honest, this is far from the worst option for interacting with the context - meaningful and invented, albeit artistically radical. No wonder the local residents were deeply offended by the fact that the house stood on a hill exactly opposite the Kremlin, intruding into the usual panoramas and destroying the desolation dear to the heart.
This nomination has its own problem. Not a very good name makes you think that it is about the same platbands and other carved ruffles. In fact, it was introduced only in order to separate objects that are structurally wooden and decorated with wood. The authors are regularly offended that the Council is shifting their in no way decorative structures to this nomination, nevertheless, this breeding seems to us of principle. Moreover, it is the combination of wood with reinforced concrete or metal that seems to be the main road of wooden architecture in the future. And such objects as, for example, the Sarykum Barkhany Visitor Center in Dagestan, with a wooden supporting frame, but lined with iron, or the Brusnika pavilion in Tyumen, already finished with fiber cement panels, appeared on the long list of this year's prize. True, they did not make it to the shortlist of the award, which suggests that the experiment has just begun, and the charming Gorka-house of Nikita Kapiturov with a real green roof, a hotel of 15 mini-houses "Point on the map" from bureau Rhizome, VILLAE in Kamchatka by Alexander Kuptsov and Sergey Gikalo (a spectacular collage made of wood and copper), the arched public center MEGA FRIENDS in the village of Fedyakovo, Nizhny Novgorod Region (PTMA Timofeeva S. A.).
The Urban Environment Design category experienced rapid growth in the early 2010s - first in Moscow, then in Vologda, Kazan, then - not everywhere, but in a lot of places. Gradually, “benches with coffee and wifa” turned into a common device, then into a meme, and by the end of the decade - into a sad symbol of how sincere impulses for renewal are easily profaned and commercialized. And although the improvement of Russian settlements by means of wood continues, and in some cities it even has a pronounced style (for example, military-patriotic in Kaluga - thanks to its new chief architect Alexei Komov), in order to get into the shortlist of this nomination today, architects you have to be extremely attentive to a specific place and extremely inventive. The landscape park on Sokolskaya Gora in Bugulma was made by a consortium of two young but very strong teams - Project Group 8 and PARK. And here there are not just benches, but also a long romantic staircase to the top of the mountain, and there is a large observation deck in the form of a bridge and a small "knee" thrown over the cliff.
The Quiet Zone embankment in Cheboksary (Chuvashgrazhdanproekt in cooperation with MARSH Lab) was also solved as a set of various structures, and the Orlandia playground of the Chekhard bureau (which won this nomination for three years in a row) is already a whole heap of logs and logs depicting animals or nests, and all this was built in the village of Bolshoye Kuzemkino, Leningrad Region. (By the way, the word "village" is repeated in this text, as well as in the addresses of the award quite often - and this is also a completely new and very gratifying trend).
Continuing to explain the main ethical problem of the award, we note that Totan Kuzembaev and Nikolai Belousov became its winners in aggregate only 3 times - despite the fact that there were 140 laureates over the past 10 years. So you can only worry about Alexei Rosenberg, who became the absolute champion of the award. having won 8 times, then he was invited to the Expert Council, and today he again exhibited two bright objects at once, which, however, are versions of one "Interior Designer". The idea is that two different apartments are assembled from almost identical elements, in combination of which the main thing is Rosenberg's proprietary “podium principle”. Key elements have two sides: on the outside they create overhangs, seating, loungers, and on the inside they create storage space.
In this nomination, which received a huge number of applications this year (40), the main problem for the Expert Council is the variety of objects: private and public spaces, huge and miniature, expensive and for three kopecks - and all this is "Interior". So this time. Duplex apartment? You are welcome! Skandiapartment by Dmitry Kondrashov, where the cupboards support the mezzanine, and the cabinet is built into it. Office? Please: Co-working in St. Petersburg from AMD architects, where hundreds of witty rooms are not offices, but, on the contrary, a meeting room. Cafe? Please: the St. Petersburg sushi bar Under The Sea (DA architects), designed in just two colors (white + wood), whose ceiling is stratified and falls downstairs. House in the country? There is also: a superbly tinted interior somewhere in the Russian North (Ekaterina Borisova-Shiyan). Apartment in the city? Please: the interior of Totan Kuzembaev, solved in one thick line. And even an old sea container trimmed with plywood (Evgeny Makarenko) is also present.
Alpbau undividedly dominates the long list of the "Public Building" nomination - and this is natural. It is logical to erect modern large wooden structures from glued timber (CDL), but here Alpbau has no equal in terms of power and interest in experiment. True, it is just as logical that it is difficult to make a masterpiece of architecture out of each of its objects (although it should be noted that it is for this that Alpbau regularly works with a variety of architects), so only one of their objects was shortlisted: a sports and entertainment center near Shopping center "MEGA" in Khimki. And, of course, it is difficult to compare it with a much more modest (both in terms of budget and technology) object of Sergei Krasnokutskiy - a pavilion at the football fields in the park. Malevich. However, the ingenuity of the author redeems all the shortcomings: individual boxes are not only painted in different bright colors, but have different shapes and different roof slopes.
Looks like nothing
the clinic of Elizabeth and Mikhail Shishin, but there is also a good reason: it is located in Nicaragua and exploits traditional methods of working with wood - while placing them in the space of modern architecture (three years ago, the couple already became an award winner - and also with a clinic, but in Guatemala). But for all the brightness of the above-described objects, the favorite in this nomination is the House-Workshop of Artem Nikiforov. It would seem that the classics have set the teeth on edge (columns, symmetry, rustic), but, firstly, this is not a Russian estate classic, but rather a “proletarian doric” in the spirit of Ivan Fomin: a simplified order, a portico without an entablature, a house without a plinth, the windows are in the floor, and the glazing is already intruding into the tympanum in a postmodern way. Considering that there are no original wooden samples of the "red Dorica" left, this is, of course, a unique thing. Secondly, there is some irony here, but very noble: a building has been hammered together from the cheapest boards, and a stone rustic imitates a board that is not edged. Thirdly, the gray color adds charm to the structure, bringing it closer to the ancient religious buildings of the Russian North.
Finally, we admit that it is no longer very clever to rejoice at the record number of applications annually, because the bulk of them (this year - 60) comes from the Subject Design nomination, which the Expert Council has been proposing to cancel for several years. This is due to the fact that we see that we are unable to collect under the banner of the award all the best in Russian wooden design (which, nevertheless, exists). This nomination arose in 2013 only due to the fact that the main Russian design critic Yulia Peshkova was its enthusiast. But then Yulia withdrew from social activities, without her the expert architects did not feel fully armed, the nomination did not just wither away, but did not please us too much. But this year, Peshkova returned to fulfilling her mission and helped the Council select the shortlist.
True, the disputes around the objects at the meeting of the Expert Council were serious. Although they boiled down, in fact, to two opposing theses. First: "The world is full of this!" Second: "But there is no such thing in Russia!" As a result, out of 60 applicants, only 7 objects leaked into the shortlist: Daria Litvak's tall wardrobe on thin legs, Anna Feoktistova's touching lamp, Anton Mukovnikov's folding lamp and others. Well, the most ingenious answer to the aforementioned dilemma was the hangers of the students of the Institute of Business and Design: each of them is dedicated to some great architect and corresponds to his spirit by choosing a specific material. So the AlvarAalto hanger is made of plywood, Luis Barragan is made of plywood, but already painted, Peter Zumthor is made of stained board, MVRDV is made of painted board, etc.
The general partner and organizer of the award is the permanent LLC Rossa Rakenne SPB (Honka). The professional jury of the award this year included architects Mikhail Khazanov, Sergey Malakhov and Evgenia Repina (Samara), Peter Kostelov (New York), architect of the Moscow office of HONKA Alexey Tarashevsky, chairman of the board of NP "Council for" green "construction" Alexander Remizov Marina Prozarovskaya, editor-in-chief of Project Russia magazine, Yulia Shishalova, member of the partnership council of ADD and chief engineer of VELUX.
The winners will be determined by the “popular” voting on the Internet, which takes place on the website of the award: www.premiya.arhiwood.com.
