PROJECT RUSSIA ¹55 - housing

Construction of ‘affordable and comfortable housing’ is a theme that’s on everyone’s lips. But the only result so far has been hot air. The government’s hopes that ‘the invisible hand of the market’ would take effect have come to nothing, and no other mechanisms for bolstering construction of housing have been invented. But their invention is very necessary. Developments in Russia prior to the crisis furnish clear proof that the market can drive quantitative, but not qualitative growth. The surge in Russia’s economy produced no more than a handful of new residential buildings with an appearance capable of fitting into the global architectural context – as one can easily confirm by looking through a selection of international publications. Note that what we’re talking about here is visual appearance. With regard to every other aspect there is nothing to say: these buildings contain no solutions of any interest from the point of view of layout, technology, or concept. Our architects have evidently failed. However, architects do not work in a vacuum. Of course, there are always exceptions who manage to create something of good quality. But it is not they who determine ‘the average temperature on the ward’, that which in the present case reflects the quality of the housing. For the ‘temperature’ to be healthy, what is needed is harmonization of relations between the main participants in the construction process. Let us try to sketch the principal conditions for attaining such a harmony: 1. The histories of countries which have proved successful builders of housing teaches us that the creation of high-quality architecture and a highquality environment can be stimulated by the state much more effectively than by private developers. But for this it is necessary that civil servants should be capable of disinterested creativity. And in a variety of fields – from urban planning to technical regulations. 2. The capacity for disinterested creativity should, of course, be reinforced by competence – the ability to construct complex and conceptual projects. To begin with, it is not even mandatory that these projects should be in the field of housing. As in Mitterand’s France, say, technologies and organizational methods can be tried out during the process of erecting iconic public buildings. The success of such projects not only produces new experience, but also instills in society a taste for quality architecture in the same way as high fashion acts as an engine for prêt-a-porter. It is sad that Dominique Perrault’s Mariinsky II ended in a fiasco. The state tried to create a complex iconic building, but failed equally as client, giver of planning permissions, and assessor. The failure of Perrault’s project – even if this project was not unequivocal – is a blow for the architectural community. A project that could have boosted the status of the profession came to nothing... 3. A state that is capable of creating things must expect creative solutions from its ‘counteragents’. Such solutions are more easily produced by an environment that is open to exchange of opinions and professional rivalry. For this to happen, protectionism must be overcome. In this country, where the ruling party is United Russia, the dominating force in architecture is… a smalltown mentality reminiscent of the times of feudal atomism. Buildings in Moscow are designed by Muscovites; buildings in St Petersburg, by Petersburgers; buildings in Nizhny Novgorod, by citizens of Nizhny Novgorod; and so on. This is completely unacceptable. The necessity of holding architectural competitions must be set down in law – either with regard to all buildings whose construction is financed by the state or with regard to all buildings with a floor area or budget above certain levels. And there should be no discrimination with regard to nationality, age, or place of registration! 4. Creativity requires a proper set of instruments, and these will not appear until we have a large number of small and mid-sized businesses. Diversity of contractors and suppliers results not just in diversity of realized projects, but also in more effective control over price and quality. (1) Clearly, these conditions cannot be achieved in an instant. However, an instant is likewise insufficient to ensure the formation of an architectural culture capable of designing comfortable, inventive, low-cost, and aesthetically pleasing housing. Everyone must work together to harmonize the ‘external’ and ‘internal’ – and that includes organizers of the architectural process, teachers at architecture schools, celebrity architects and tyros, theoreticians and practicians, and us, the architectural press. 1) See Bart Goldhoorn, 'How to build,' in PR48 (No. 2, 2008), p. 28. Alexei Muratov, editor-in-chief CONTENTS NEWS In memory of Nikolay Ullas Dmitry Shvidkovsky. Catherine the Great's dream and modernization of a modern Russian city In brief Anatoly Belov. What is good for a Russian, good for a German, too Gennady Vasilchenko, Elena Petukhova. World architecture on show Alexander Lozhkin. The taste of Nizhny Novgorod architecture Elena Petukhova. Emergency meeting Anna Kirikova. Path of Eugeny Levinson OBJECT OF THE ISSUE ABD architects, APA Wojciechowski Sp. z o.o. 'White Square’ complex in Moscow HOUSING Alexei Muratov. Editorial Anna Bokov. New Housing: Global Trends + Russian Context BLOCK CITY Bart Goldhoorn. Block city. Toward a standard for plot sizes Bart Goldhoorn. Standards, classes, formats… Andrey Ivanov. The standard street block: a return to ‘the city of the grid’? HOUSKEEPING Elena Gonzalez. Unsteady real estate Evgeny Gerasimov and Partners. Stella Maris Apartments on Prospekt Dinamo, St Petersburg Velichkin and Golovanov Studios of Architecture and Arts. Residential building on ulitsa Gogolya, Kazan Project Meganom. Apartment house on Korobeynikov pereulok, Moscow Mikhail Filippov's Studio, ZAO 'LenPolproekt'. ‘Marshal’ residential complex on ulitsa Marshala Rybalko, Moscow TPO 'Rezerv'. Fusion Park multifunctional complex on Malaya Trubetskaya ulitsa, Moscow ABV Group. Apartments on Khilkov pereulok in Moscow '5+5' architectural bureau. MAXIMA residential complex on ulitsa Lopatina in Verkhnie Pechory, Nizhny Novgorod Mytishchi city design studio (MGP), A. Asadov Architects (AMA). ‘Gulliver’ housing complex in Mytishchi, Moscow Region Ostozhenka Architects. Residential development in the 5th mikrorayon, Vidnoe, Moscow Region THE NEW PREFAB Dmitry Zadorin. A field waiting for the ploughmen Technologies for constructing multi-storey residential buildings in Russia Dmitry Zadorin. Faith in prefabricated housing, or ‘Light in the tunnel’ BUROMOSCOW. Apartments on ulitsa Generala Glagoleva, Moscow KROST, BUROMOSCOW. Residential complex in ‘Kommunarka’ settlement, Moscow Region MONITOR Ivan Shalmin. Private house near Moscow Boris Shabunin, Olga Khaydurova, Natalia Anakhina. Private house in Lipki, near Moscow Yury Konik. Private house in Sokol settlement TEXTS Dirk van der Heuvel. Le Plus grand nombre. Some notes on mass housing and our public spaces today Vladimir Kagansky. Postmodern. Cultural landscape. Russia DESIGN / TECHNOLOGY PROJECT RUSSIA CATALOGUE