Nikita Shilov, lead architect of the 3S Group, co-founder of the Urbanabanana label, curator of the NETIPOVOE. RF project. Graduate of Architects.rf - 2018. Ambassador of the Moscow State University of Civil Engineering without an architect diploma.
Before the developer, I worked at the Moscow architectural bureau Progress, where we dealt with concepts for development of territories and piece objects of high architecture, often working in collaboration with stars. A lot of time was spent on research and analysis of the context, justification of the chosen storytelling path, creating the atmosphere of the future place and branding. These concepts were very good, it's not a shame to post on Archdaily. The developer offers to think realistically, in numbers - to give preference to the cost of the project and the possibility of its implementation. As part of our work in the company, we try to do everything very simply and lay in the concept such principles that could not be spoiled at the stage of implementation. If an architectural bureau suggests: “Let's try what has not happened yet”, then the developer says: “Show me where it already works”. But times are changing, and now the largest players in the real estate market are gathering their dream teams in the form of an architectural bureau woven into the internal structure of the company. Previously, most of this work was done by invited architectural studios, now developers want their own architectural studio and now, from idea to implementation, the project is brewed within the walls of one organization.
Having your own architectural department is very convenient, the number of intermediaries in the chain is significantly reduced, which has a positive effect on the speed and quality of the work performed. Also, such close cooperation helps to diffuse the perception of the world of the developer and the architect. The architect begins to understand the world of numbers and workflow in which the developer lives, and the developer is imbued with the atmosphere of beauty and begins to see a competitive advantage where he previously saw only cost overruns. It seems that everyone is pushing each other. Someone came up with one, another thought that the idea was good, the next modernized - and so the idea spreads like a domino. And if an architectural bureau quickly catches trends and tries to implement them in its portfolio as soon as possible, the developer is very conservative and will use an outdated idea while it brings money. Fortunately, today trends are rapidly replacing each other, and, willy-nilly, the developer needs to keep up with them so as not to be left on the sidelines of the industry. So, in fact, thanks to the trend, architects can try themselves in development. Working in a development company, I see the future of my projects much more clearly. There are no ghostly legal entities ordering concepts to nowhere, only rational and balanced decisions that bring money and guarantee the life of projects are captivating.
Now we are working hard on the development of regional territories. In the regions, they rarely follow trends, probably, there is a lack of young personnel in the development sector - representatives of the new architectural school. On the other hand, there are exceptional examples in the areas of urban development, urbanism, urban communities, among opinion leaders and event organizers. It seems that people with money will not meet the creative class in any way, or one of the parties does not see the value of the other. It seems to me that the movement in the development of cities occurs in large cities from top to bottom at the expense of more funds and at the expense of more advanced buyers, who have not bought an apartment in a residential complex with a parking lot for five years already, and in smaller cities the movement and the vector of development goes from the bottom up, at the expense of the creative class, which by its example shows how it wants their city to develop. That is, at the moment, the appearance of modern developers in the regions is rather an exception, but it is precisely such successful examples as "Brusnika" that make people who have been building modifications of the P-44 in the fields for twenty years think about such basic things as a yard without cars with maybe a cheap but well-thought-out improvement, a retail front and a facade design code. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the regions, especially those in which there has been no mass construction for a long time, are meeting developers and architects halfway in modernizing the outdated regulatory framework and a well-formed request not just for square meters of housing, but also for a high-quality urban environment.
Why are we still building in the field? Because this conveyor has been established for a long time, it is difficult to enter already existing areas with buildings, because there was no such experience, and many are afraid to start. It turns out that we are simply pulling out, artificially pulling out of the context the pieces of the city that have already been formed, where social ties have developed, and the infrastructure has been established. Now the renovation program looks the most barbaric, like the apogee of Luzhkov's dot development, but behind the scenes, I can say, there are good beginnings. True, it will be possible to see the whole picture only by the end of the program, if everything goes as planned by many architects, city planners and officials on sleepless nights, then we will have oases of a comfortable urban environment, the request for which is now leading the rating of values of the next generation.
Cyberpunk has already arrived in Russia, the world is being changed by large corporations, which developers are striving to become. Its own concrete factories, its teams, its marketing specialists, its architects and its own brand with a product: this is today's developer at the forefront. For young architects, and even for not so young, a developer is a step worth climbing. Now, when the trend for full-cycle companies is gaining strength in our industry, it's time to try yourself in this. Whether it is a regional developer or the largest players in Moscow, the developer takes you down from the architectural skies into reality, into the world of money and politics, but you can bring a star from this sky to his office and make a small miracle every day. Design not square meters, but a lifestyle and urban comfort. Not on the table, but to show it tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow - to start building.
Nikita Evdokimov, Development Director at Insolver. He worked in large private and state-owned companies, such as the Research and Development Institute of the General Plan of the city of Moscow, PSN Group, Capital Group
Education: Master of Architecture with a degree in urban planning, Moscow Architectural Institute
At the beginning of my work with a developer, when I saw that the contractor was doing everything wrong, and it could all be done differently, I rushed to design myself. The biggest problem was to change your thinking: to understand that now you are the customer and you need to set the tasks. When this happened, I realized that the competencies, the knowledge that I received in the process of education and previous work, are useful in this structure: you do not just hire a contractor and wait for him to bring the result of his work for assessment, but at first consciously and you carry out the analytics meaningfully yourself, you have the opportunity to more accurately set a task for this contractor and more correctly control the result that you get at the exit. Then I formed the following position: a developer should not completely assume the role of an architect-designer, but for better management, decision-making and product formation, it is worth having these competencies within the company. As my practice has always shown and shows, no one can give a third-party architectural company so much input that it could fully implement it.
The paradigm that existed and probably still exists in many companies sounds like this: we started the project, hired an external architect, continue to do our own thing - build a financial model, draw graphs, convince the investor, and then we try to link everything to the concept which the architect came up with. Our approach is different. In any case, contacting specialized architectural companies is necessary, but from a certain point. We do not engage a contractor who is involved in the design, not at the very first stages, but with a completely thought-out product. Further, his task is reduced to the fact that it is technically formalized in accordance with the norms, check the regulatory framework and release project documentation. When a project is at a serious stage of implementation, a large number of adjustments are made to it, which are more effective to first think through within the team, and then introduce into the work of the contractor.
We can argue for a long time which product we need to launch on the market, but until we touch it with our hands, until we draw 3-4 layouts and run them through the economic model, until we answer all the requests of our potential target audience, this is will be useless. Prechistenka just convinced us that the team needs an architect right away. We went this way, and, I believe, it brought a certain effect: the developed planning solutions turned out to be of high quality and linked to the existing architecture of this house. Our strategy for working on a project is precisely in a versatile expert assessment: we work out different ideas in the format of workshops. For example, we used the same approach with regard to design: all the interiors of Prechistenka are an internal product, we did not turn to anyone. The next project, which we are now embarking on, is a multifunctional center, the approach is the same there. We have not yet resorted to the help of external architectural bureaus - we twist everything with our own hands.
Gleb Shurpik, Financial Director, Head of the Organizational Development Project of the Stone Hedge Group of Companies
Education: specialist in anti-crisis management - State University of Management
About 7 years ago, we created our own design and research department within the company, where, among other things, very talented and strong architects work. Initially, the goal was purely applied: we were very scrupulous about the design documentation that was prepared for us by external design bureaus - our internal engineers, design engineers, architects checked the design documentation. Architects who work within our company carry out architectural supervision of all projects. To be honest, we do this out of greed, because we are sorry to pay money to architectural bureaus for architectural supervision, so it is carried out by the guys inside the company. But this is a very complex, interesting and actually necessary function, which, in our opinion, needs to be implemented within the development company.
In the future, it was precisely those young men and women who were architects who worked for us who began to seriously influence the product that we are developing. First of all, it concerns the balance between aesthetics, functionality and, oddly enough, money. Often, cool architectural firms offer truly absolutely incredible, phenomenal concepts, but already on the shore, our internal architects can conclude that such a concept will require implementation in a much longer time frame or for much more money than we can afford or expected at the beginning of the project. In addition, the level of architectural development and the quality of the product that we are now delivering to the market, including with their help, have become much better, more interesting and in demand.
An important thing for an architect in a development company is to try yourself on a construction site. Try how it all happens in reality, how the concepts are implemented, as they say, with pens and on the land. This gives a huge impetus, but you need to come to development after at least a little work experience in a professional architectural bureau. To work a little under some talented GAP, gain experience, then the transition will be very organic. Where can an architect grow within a development structure? In my opinion, the most vivid, understandable and realized example on the market is the product director, provided that the guys-architects improve the economic and marketing component. Such a specialist oversees the entire process of developing a development product from the moment of acquiring a particular site. The earlier we start working on a product, the more beautiful, functional and elaborate it will be. I don’t know how much such a trajectory corresponds to architectural idealism in the spirit of Howard Roarke, but this is a very understandable scenario that can take life to a qualitatively different level.
Daria Sukhova, urban planner, chief specialist for perspective development of the Moscow region in the structure of the developer
Education: design of architectural environment, UlSTU. Master's Degree - Managing the Spatial Development of Cities, Higher School of Economics
At the time of graduation from the Graduate School of Urbanism, I had been working in the field of urban planning for seven years and held the position of deputy head of the urban planning department in a well-known architectural company. Over time, it became clear that there are more creative people than me, and I felt cramped in designing, so I made a choice in the direction of project management. In the structure of the developer, it was necessary to draw up all sorts of technical specifications, collect analytical data for urban planning projects, communicate with authorities, hold public hearings, and also supervise architects who are engaged in design. The difference between a development company and a project company as an employer is always the level of wages and job titles. A person with the competencies of the Chief Project Architect (GAP) in the customer's structure may well occupy the position of Manager of Master Planning, and this will correspond to the modern structure of the company. If we consider the career ladder in its usual sense, then such a transition can be perceived as a step back, but sometimes you need a step back to take another 10 steps forward.
Based on my experience, I can say that it is impossible to be both an architect and a manager in one person. You are either a talented, creative and poorly organized architect, or a clear-cut executive. At some point, one thing will definitely outweigh. Architects are not the most organized people, they are creative people, this needs to be approached with understanding. Going to the side of the customer teaches you to reason from an economic point of view. Unfortunately, in Russia, the designer often plays the role of “what do you want?”, Or the project remains only on paper, and this does not always correlate with the realization of the architect's ambitions. For me, the work on the part of the customer is an opportunity to influence the final product, the opportunity to attract competent urban planners and other qualified contractors and consultants. The urban planning part of a development project begins long before its announcement in the media space and the launch of new sold areas on the market (often about two years). It is like an invisible front, without which further project implementation is impossible.
Specialists with architectural and urban planning education are more willing to engage in creativity. But project management work can also be interesting, since it is always a dialogue between a developer, a designer and the authorities with the further involvement of the city community, often with the formation of a local community. What kind of profession should a person be able to carry out an examination of urban planning documentation and be open to dialogue with authorities and residents? In my opinion, an architect / urban planner is very suitable for this role. The volume and comprehensiveness of knowledge and skills allows you to creatively solve complex problems, identify risks in time and look for opportunities. All of the above makes such specialists unique in the labor market, as well as job offers in this segment.
Vasily Bolshakov, chief architect of the master plan development company "Brusnika"
Education: specialty - Department of Urbanism and Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, South Ural State University. INGraduate of the Architects.rf program - 2019/20
At Strelka Week in Novosibirsk [the event was organized by the Strelka Institute as part of the Year of Germany in Russia 2020/21 with the support of Brusnika], together with Lilia Gizzyatova, we talked a lot about the new role of an architect. The profession of an architect is about the future: we create something that does not yet exist, and therefore we must be visionaries, understand, predict, and somewhere predict, thanks to our own intuition and experience, how the city will develop further. We must know almost everything, because we create a space for life, which includes not only work, housing, rest, but also a very, very many different aspects of human activity, we must understand and study them. It is important to be very greedy for knowledge, curious about everything precisely because this is a very multifaceted, multifaceted profession, there is no definite direction in it, you can be a practical architect, or you can be an organizer architect who understands how to improve this space, how to implement the architects' plans. Often in our profession there is a certain division of labor, which there are only those who conceptualize and invent. But in fact, if we do not implement our projects in the profession at all, then it will remain on paper, it will be studied, projects will be kept in museums, but we will not improve the space.
As an architect and urban planner, all my professional activities I have developed urban planning projects and have always worked in some kind of team. I went through all the circles of the hell of urban planning: master plans, master plans, I was quite actively involved in scientific activities. In the wake of the improvement of public spaces in small towns, we participated in several competitions, including for projects in Karabash, Chelyabinsk region, in Uchaly in Bashkortostan. Now I am not only creating urban planning solutions on paper, but also implementing them. This is interesting and rather unusual for most city planners, who generally do not see the fruit of their work so soon. I can say that I am happy because I can think, realize myself, engage in intellectual work related not only to design, but in general to the development of urban planning within a development company. This is very valuable to me, and I think this is a serious precedent in our practice.
Kuba Snopek, city explorer, author of Belyaevo Forever, Seventh Day Architecture, Urban Paradoxes telegram channel. Cuba spent the last year at the University of California at Berkeley researching Real Estate Art - how developers invest in public art
For me, the absence of a developer as a figure in the modern urban discourse is an omission. This situation has developed in Russia, in the United States, and in most of the EU countries. Private developers are the main developers of modern cities. This was not the case a few years ago: in the second half of the 20th century, there were different types of private and public developers, building communities and cooperatives. Gradually, all these players lost their importance, and the share of development investments increased. Of course, this is due to the development of a modern version of the market economy, in which the role of the state is greatly limited. Let the family that has led the United States for the past four years be the symbol of the tremendous value of developers.
What amazes me most about this story is that theorists are not very interested in developers - the practice of building cities. Yes, they are criticized. Developers have a special place in society: they have a terrible reputation, which has not changed since the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", where the main negative character is a developer, heartless and heartless. Over the past 10-15 years, the fashion for urbanism has greatly increased the number of people involved in the formation of urban processes, and shifted the perspective from which the city is described: we no longer look at it exclusively from the perspective of a bird's eye view, through the eyes of planners, we look at it in that from the perspective of ordinary townspeople who use it every day. The city is discussed mainly by academics, architects, urbanists, city activists and politicians, sometimes planners join them, and developers seem to stay behind the fence all the time. It turns out that those who do are not involved in the creation of the theory; and those who write city theory do not quite understand the inner mechanics of a developer's business. This is counterproductive: theory is too much separated from practice.
Nevertheless, researchers and critics have become interested in the developers themselves; not so long ago, the topic began to gain popularity in the academic environment. Several years ago, Alain Bertaud released Order Without Design (MIT, 2018), where he strongly criticized traditional urban planning for ignoring the economic development of cities. Rainier de Graaf, author of the famous book Four Walls and a Roof, last year curated the prestigious German magazine Baumeister. He devoted an entire issue to how the logic of development affects architecture. One of Strelka's graduates is now writing a research paper in the United States on how architectural form adds value to development products, and Columbia University professor Patrice Derrington is finishing a huge work on the ontology of real estate development. I will say immodestly that I myself am also writing now about public art, in which developers are investing. In a year or two we will see a wave of wonderful books analyzing the city from the point of view of the development craft. And it will be useful for everyone. Developers will be able to see the flaws in their approach; the rest are points of possible intersection of interests and cooperation with developers.
A particularly difficult relationship has developed between developers and architects. This is due to the fact that these two professions have very different goals. The mission of the modern architectural profession took shape in the first half of the 20th century, when left-wing political movements were in power. The most iconic and significant modern architecture was created just then and, most often, with public money: many projects of cheap housing for workers (Narkomfin House, Red Vienna, Le Corbusier Housing Unit, and others), public buildings (Sydney Opera House) or new ones, ideal capitals of countries that have freed themselves from colonialism (Brasilia, Chandigarh). In short: the architect served the community. In the 60s, postmodernism arose in the States - a completely different architecture, which is strongly associated with the figure of a private customer. It is much less versatile, less socially oriented, and more tailored to the private taste of the customer. Some architects perceived this process as a degradation of the profession, which they still cannot cope with; others, like the aforementioned de Graaf, as an interesting challenge. The second approach is closer to me, but it does not suit everyone.
Many receive an architectural education because they want to participate in the public mission of architecture. And then this inconsistency occurs: students in architecture schools want to create public projects or at least housing, thinking about the comfort and well-being of residents, but in reality it turns out that no one is building this, there are very few public facilities, and you need to work with a developer in a completely different one. plane. The conflict that exists between architects and developers is connected precisely with the fact that that initial mission is simply impossible, because the type of investor has changed.
But there is another process: many developers are tired of their terrible reputation, so they are increasingly trying to satisfy public opinion: they preserve their heritage, subsidize unprofitable but popular businesses, throw money into municipal budgets, invest in urban art, for example. Developers have noticed the challenges facing modern cities - climate change, huge stratification of society, migration - and many are ready to deal with these problems. What seems interesting to me now is to figure out whether in this situation there is an opportunity to realize at least partially the public mission with the help of a private investor?
