A chat with Moscow’s Chief Architect

Following from our look at the future of Moscow’s architecture, we talked to the man responsible for making it happen — Sergey Kuznetsov, chairman of the Architectural Council of Moscow and, since 2012, the Chief Architect of the capital.

In an exclusive interview with WorldBuild365, Mr Kuznetsov talks about the architectural environment in Moscow at the moment, the capital’s ambitious regeneration projects, and how international firms are getting involved.

Moscow is known for its great variety of buildings and architectural styles dated back to almost every period of Russian history. Do you think Moscow is attractive to architects?

I believe in the practice of engaging good architects — both Russian and foreign ones — through contests or by direct order. Apparently, there should be some sort of cooperation between schools at the very beginning, as it is the western architectural school that sets the tone today. In order to help our school to catch up with the rest, it would be nice to learn from the best. And we should study not only stylistics, but also engineering techniques. Unfortunately, quite often we have no idea about the techniques — the way the building is constructed, which materials are used, what makes the building ‘breathe’, how engineering systems of the building are lashed to its external appearance. And this is significant. It leads to the fact that there is no global demand for our product, that it is only for internal use.

At the same time, I don’t think that foreigners are better or cooler. I have worked with them, and I understand that, unfortunately, they treat the Russian market as the territory of a third world country where they can sell their technologies and know-how, make money and not even bring their work to the end. In short, we have no choice other than to learn to build well ourselves. That’s why I am all for cooperation with foreign stars. But only on condition that next time we do everything ourselves, that we bring up a generation capable of competing not only in our country, but also abroad. Sadly, architecture is not like cars when we can buy foreign parts and assemble them here. In architecture we must bring up our own masters.

Palace of Water Sports, Kazan (Image — speech.su)

What are the challenges faced by architects working in Moscow? What is the best way that they can overcome them?

The main task of the modern architect, in my opinion, is to combine the cost-effective architecture of, let’s say, an office block with its unique appearance. By cost-effective I mean not the costs of design, the paper printed and the concrete poured. By this term I mean the economy of the life cycle in which the initial costs may later be easily repaid, in full and with interest. From my own personal experience, I can say that success came to those buildings which combined these two factors. The compromise like this came up when it was decided to use stainless steel and glass — to build the fronts of the office block in Kulnev street, wood — in the design of the Palace of Water Sports in Kazan, natural stone — for the wavy bay windows of the NOVATEK building on Lenin Avenue.

Office block, Kulnev Street (Image — speech.su)

And if we talk in general about the architectural appearance of the city today, there is no simple solution here. It is the product of collective creative work, the piece produced by the whole system, rather than one person. If it were so, we would have been building only aesthetically, technically and economically perfect buildings.

What positive aspects of working in Moscow are there for architects?

At present, Moscow has made some good progress. The property market is currently rising, and, naturally, architects get a good opportunity for self-fulfillment.

While our capital is developing, it has a lot of unsatisfied demand. And it is not only the demand for square metres, but for the infrastructure on the whole. Public places are being actively modernized; the city is interested in creating new points of attraction — entertainment centres, sports facilities, cultural and leisure-time infrastructure. One good example is the Skolkovo Innovation Centre. The experience gained during the realization of this project, the very principle of transition from master-planning to building, the clearly phased design and adherence to procedures — all these factors guarantee the highest quality results.

The Moscow-City business district. Image: Flickr.com (Dmytro)

Other points of growth in Moscow are the area of the former giant automobile plant AMO ZiL and the business cluster Moscow City (above). Actually, the Moskva River is now becoming, in the true sense of the word, the centre of the city, although for a long time it was on the periphery. I think that it is great when there are several centres of growth in the city, as they can be completely different in style and social orientation, and at the same time form the overall city environment.

Please tell us about the Architectural Council of Moscow. Do you consider working with foreign architects and designers? Do you support foreign companies or would you rather prefer only local architects to work in Moscow?

We appreciate public discussion of projects between colleagues. It is important for us that people should understand that there is feedback from the city government and experts, and that the market is responding to their opinion. We are trying to turn the Architectural Council into a platform for dialogue such as this. In fact, the activities of the Architectural Council are aimed at the practical realisation of the single town-planning and architectural policy, and an open public coverage of decisions on the key urban design objects.

There are quite many reasons for the council to reject a project. These can include low quality of the building, non-compliance with current legislation, there can be issues with integration of the building into the context of the city environment. Failures may be suffered both by young companies and big old bureaus. But in the end all projects are finalized and submitted for endorsement. Sometimes the site is taken to the meeting two or three times, sometimes we meet separately to work further on the project, at times we have to search for a new architect.

The planned Serp i Molot regeneration project. Image: Stroi.mos.ru

As for working with foreign architects, we have resumed the practice of holding international architectural competitions. They are held for absolutely different objects — varying from town-planning projects and buildings at the key places of the city to tenders for facades and even separate building elements. For example, there were major competitions held on the development of the architectural concept of the ‘Serp i Molot’ (sickle and hammer) Moscow Metallurgical Plant (render shown above), the International Finance Centre in Rublevo-Arkhangelskoye, the landscape-architectural concept of Zaryadye Park, the project of the new building of the Centre for Contemporary Arts, the industrial park building of Sberbank in Skolkovo, etc. Foreign architects are actively involved in competitions as part of consortiums with the Russian bureaus.

What is the environment for architects in Moscow like? Are they competitive? Do they receive support from the local authorities?

Well, for example, we have a very convenient system of taxation for small businesses. It is not often discussed, but it is a very important thing. Simplified taxation for small companies is a really big plus, a competitive advantage over the big players. So, naturally, there is a difference in price. It is clear that young companies have risks — concerning quality and other things — but, on the other hand, we can start working with a young company which will soon get firmly established on good orders. The designing of more expensive buildings is usually given to more well-known architects. It is a matter of responsibility. High-class athletes compete in better outfits, drive premium cars, etc. The same goes with architecture.

I think that under the given circumstances many things are being done to improve the architectural and aesthetic image of Moscow. In particular, the area of mass industrial housing is being modernized — and it is a very large percentage of all current residential areas. Panel housing will be fundamentally different from those boxes which were built in our country for decades — without suitable courtyards, without local street-road networks, public zones, etc. Moreover, the Moscow government actively supports the initiative to improve the architectural level of community facilities, to create individual projects instead of typical ones. Developers start to work more closely with architects, as it is easier to sell a beautiful and well-designed building.

What’s new in architectural education? In what way does Moscow support young architects? What institutions or training centres are there in the city?

It is not the number of schools of architecture that is important. It is necessary to develop a competitive environment, to promote a variety of architects on the market. An architect is not just a person that has graduated from an institute. He must grow in his profession and be capable of not only drawing the building, but also reasoning its life activity. Well, I believe that today the profession of the architect has changed a lot. With the development of technologies and machines that can draw architecture, architects are left with the job of thinking about how to use these buildings and how to fill them, they just need to write requirement specifications, so to speak, for these machines.

When I was studying, more than half of my groupmates didn’t stay in the profession simply because they didn’t see clear career paths, chances to become known. And I talk about those students that defended their diplomas with excellence, were in the good books of all the lecturers who thought that they would become stars. But they made nothing. Some of them have moved abroad, others have chosen an adjacent profession — development, interior design, etc. It was a universal phenomenon.

The work on the improvement of architectural education is closely connected with the fact that today we are living in the era of publicity, public relations and promotion. The development of the profession of an architect is impossible without the development of public interest towards this profession; it will simply die as an unnecessary branch of the building industry if people start to believe that it is possible to build houses without architects. And it concerns not even the rules, but the souls of buildings. So we need to convey to people that architecture is an interesting sphere of activities, which deeply affects our environment.

What has changed in Moscow in the post-Soviet period? How is modern architecture getting along with the Soviet legacy?

There are two opposite opinions. One flank is conservative; it says that the city centre is a single historical ensemble. The second flank, in my view, is more progressive. The language of architecture is now quite different from how it was at the time when the historical centre was built. Moreover, we cannot name one period which is more typical for the centre than the rest. I like the way it is in London or New York where every epoch leaves its own architecture. I believe that this is the right approach for Moscow as it is similar in spirit with these cities. For example, the Russian avant-garde architecture would not interest anyone unless it were the invention of its time. An attempt to repeat it now would be unlikely to cause any excitement. And I do not agree that the construction of new buildings or skyscrapers and the preservation of heritage are in confrontation with each other.

What is the future of architects and architecture in Moscow as you see it? What initiatives or schemes do you plan to implement in the future?

It is impossible to predict the way Moscow will look in fifty years. We do not know what society will be like in ten, in fifty years. Look at VDNKh (an exhibition venue and amusement park), we presented its concept at the Venice Biennale this year. It is the story — the example of one structure which proves that it is impossible to predict what will happen to the architecture and the country. When VDNKh was being built, nobody could think that there would be skating rinks, museums or the Moskvarium (Moscow Aquarium, below). Life was different, and people thought about different things. The way Moscow will look in half a century depends on the public demand: if glass buildings are in fashion then, well, we’ll see Moscow in Glass.

The Moscow Aquarium. (Image — speech.su)

Life is becoming faster, houses live for less and less. In the future, people will sort of build more and break more. I think that the structures being built today will be taken down; buildings will live less. And the protection of monuments, as it is the global trend today, will only gain momentum.

There are good prospects for the development project of territories near the Moskva River. It may become a city highlight — well-serviced embankments, a water basin with sightseeing and passenger river transport. The project will last 20 years, but its first elements could be seen in 2018-2020. By this time the Zaryadye Park will have been built — it is a unique case for Moscow, and I was fortunate to lead a group of designers. The last half of the century hasn’t seen parks of this magnitude, and, besides, it will not be a traditional park, it will be a place which embodies the idea of “natural urbanism”, full of technologies and very complex.

It is planned to build the parliamentary centre in Mnevniki. In my mind, government buildings should be deliberately modest, not intentionally ambitious, but rather elegant, high-quality, space-convenient, and ergonomic. Creating this project, I would find it necessary to organize a public discussion, for a start, to invite experts, write down arguments that seem constructive. A wide range of experts can be attracted through crowdsourcing projects or public meetings to work on this issue. The architecture is interesting because it expresses the views of the people living in the city. These views need to be studied.

However, these are landmark projects, they are few in number, while the face of the city is determined by large-scale site development — dwelling houses, kindergartens, schools, hospitals. Yes, they are not intended to become icons and attract tourists, but they should raise the standard of architecture.

Over the past few years, Moscow has expanded thanks to the project of New Moscow. What are the prospects of its further development, in your opinion? And how will the suburbs develop?

The fact of joining of New Moscow causes heated discussions. Even the development of the territories adjacent to the Moskva River does not raise so many questions. Indeed, there are no examples that could be taken as the basis for the development of New Moscow. It is a new experience. It is unique for Moscow. And we are trying to explore this area wisely. Property is being built, industrial parks are being established, new jobs are being created. According to the plans that we are developing, residential buildings will have 8 to 10 floors. Separate buildings — in the areas of Kommunarka and Rublevo-Arkhangelskoye — will reach 14 floors.

Firmly we can tell that the only thing that has not yet been achieved is an active movement to new territories. But all other tasks announced in the Government of Moscow — new standards of building, engineering support — all of this is coming into use.

What are your favourite projects that have been implemented over the last five years?

I believe that if we talk about Moscow skyscrapers, the Moscow International Business Centre — Moscow City — has a chance to become the new architectural landmark of Moscow. Although some of its buildings can be questioned, Moscow City is definitely an architectural event.

Granatny 6. (Image — speech.su)

The Granatny 6 residential complex (above) is a unique example for modern Moscow of how ornaments can be used as the main means of creating architectural appearance. The decoration of this complex includes stone and metal, which will ensure that it lives long and ages ‘in style’.

The Triumfalnaya Square improvement project is, in my opinion, a good example of a public area born thanks to an architectural competition. We initiated this competition a couple of years ago.

I would also like to mention our everyday, maybe not as noticeable but very important, work with the appearance of schools, kindergartens, hospitals and industrial facilities, as it is these that form the look of the periphery.

What is your favourite house in Moscow, old or new?

I would also like to mention the houses by Ivan Zholtovsky. I really like his thorough approach to drawing buildings.

Which five buildings should be removed from Moscow, in your opinion?

I would not state the question this way. You know, the buildings of the beginning of the 2000s are now widely ridiculed, criticised and often perceived as a historical anecdote, but in fact it was a time of trial and error. This period started after a long dry era in architecture when there was nothing of interest, and people were hungry for ingenuity and creativity. Some weak and poor quality buildings appeared, but at the same time there was a recognisable style of the era, a cultural layer. We must learn from it, understand what was wrong in their experiment and do it better. And the injuries caused to the city by the buildings erected in that period will heal and disappear. Yes, the city was badly disfigured by faceless panel and reinforced concrete houses built in the centre in the 1960s and 70s. The city suffered a great deal from Soviet mass construction, and it is impossible to correct this mistake in the nearest future, as all the buildings are inhabited and it will be very tiresome to remove everyone in order to correct it.

To read more about the architectural scene in Moscow, with exclusive opinions from those involved, read our Moscow — the Making of a Modern Metropolis feature.

Original article