City

Sergey Kuznetsov: One Needs to Adapt to Local Specifics

13 November 2017

The Chief Architect of Moscow, Sergey Kuznetsov, will again host the section Creative Environment and Urbanism at the St. Petersburg Cultural Forum in November this year. Izvestia’s corresppndent spoke with Sergey Kuznetsov about whether the city needs a single style and how to transfer Western architectural experience to Russian soil.

— You are presiding the section Creative Environment and Urbanism at the St. Petersburg Cultural Forum. What is the difference between the work of architects in Saint Petersburg and the city that you supervise as the Chief Architect, Moscow?

— St. Petersburg, as, for example, Venice, is a monumental city. Its center is a single architectural ensemble. Moscow in this regard is more diverse, mobile, it has more styles. The city’s pleasantness for residents is not only in its architectural uniformity or ensemble. I’m talking here about the pleasantness of art and creativity. The lack of a single style in architecture does not mean that the city is less valuable from an architectural point of view.

— Do you think that the main quality of Moscow architecture is eclecticism?

— The term «eclectic» is usually used with a negative connotation. But in the case of Moscow, we have a regular development of the urban environment with a multi-generation legacy. Moscow has the Kremlin built in the 15th century as well as examples of classicism of the 17th century ... In the 19th century, Moscow was rebuilt again after the fire of 1812, and so on. And all this is now combined in one space. Each generation left its mark in the style that was typical for it. This is what makes the city interesting. However, in St. Petersburg, not everything is so straightforward. We got used to associating the northern capital with its embankments on the Neva and Vasilievsky Island, with Nevsky Prospekt, but only the section up to the Moskovskiy Railway Station. However, if you drive from Pulkovo Airport to the city center, you will see different styles.

— You said that each generation of architects sets a certain style vector. How could you define the style in which today’s Moscow architects work?

— There are different terms: parametric architecture, deconstructivism, and many more... But the search for definitions is the lot of analysts and art historians. It’s not among my objectives. There is a worldwide trend demanding, on the one hand, the creation of mass structures, that are monotonous to a certain extent, and on the other hand «iconic objects», where it is necessary to achieve maximum individuality and catchiness. The answer to today’s architectural challenges is not work in any style, but the ability to adapt to the local specifics, beautifully and qualitatively implement the task. Park «Zaryadye» has one purpose, while residential areas have an absolutely different one. But today’s architecture is both. One can’t say that today’s architecture is only buildings made of glass or cubic structures.

— You have recently exhibited your watercolors depicting the cities of the world: Venice, Paris, New York, Shanghai... What can we learn from these cities in terms of the development of architecture in Moscow?

— Of course, there is a lot to see in these cities. However, as the chief architect of Moscow I have objectives that are very different than those of other architects. I do not look for something to copy for Moscow — this approach would be too simplistic and primitive. But there are town-planning ideas that have already proven themselves successful, therefore, when creating projects for Moscow, I keep these examples in my head. For example, in Venice there is a central square, San Marco. And Moscow also has the Red Square. The look of these areas is very different, but there is something that ties them together. If you look at the map, you will see that they are comparable in size. And both areas are on the main waterway of the city: San Marco on the Grand Canal, Red Square — on the Moskva-River. We feel the presence of the Grand Canal on San Marco very clearly. On the Red Square, we do not feel the presence of the Moskva-River at all. Therefore, when «Zaryadye» was projected, I remembered this example of contact of a city square with a water artery and actively promoted the concept of contact with the Moskva-River. So, there was an exit to the embankment and a floating bridge, which «opens» the river in a new way.

— How does this change the role of the river in the architectural ensemble?

— The emotional perception of the river is important here, the realization that we are on the river. The narrowness of the channel, the height of the embankments and no observation points used to make this contact impossible. Today it appeared in the broadest sense. For me it was a hundred percent transfer of the feeling that I had in Venice. There are many such examples, but what’s important is not the intention to copy and mimic something. You absorb diverse experiences unconsciously. When you work on a project, you go through a lot of things, you have some associations coming up. It’s like with literature: people read classical novels not in order to repeat after the characters. In their stories we are looking for answers to our own questions.


Images: .


 

E-mail:
Name:
Подписаться на рассылки: