52 A10 # 40 Eurovision

T
he political, economic and social changes that have
occurred since the collapse of the USSR in 1991 are
immense. The transition from a communist to a no-
tionally democratic state has not been easy. The Soviet legacy
is still very much present and not always easy to deal with. The
growing economy did produce a huge construction boom but
architecture lost its way in the process. Its role today is not at
all well defned.
Good architecture can be regarded as a commodity within
the reach of developed and wealthy societies. It is a fact that
todays Russia, considered as a whole, is neither of those and so
contemporary Russian architecture fnds itself in an uncertain
position. The problems are obvious. There is a complete lack
of long-term thinking in the form of strategic planning docu-
ments. There is outdated, bureaucratic legislation that slows
down architectural developments and leaves disciplines like
urbanism, heritage restoration and landscape architecture
underdeveloped. On top of this, while rules exist, they can
easily be circumvented. Political struggles and corruption
Under communism, architecture was
an arm of the state. Its mission was
clearly dened: to serve the nation
and its people by delivering completely
new cities lled with endless low-cost
concrete-slab housing, interspersed
with a few public buildings represent-
ing the power of the state. But the
Soviet Union is no more. Now we have
Russia instead.
RUSSIA TEXT: ANTON EGUEREV SILVA
In search of a new identity
Focusing on
European
countries,
cities and
regions
1
2
3
4
A10 # 40 Eurovision 53
can halt any project any time, irrespective of its social signif-
cance. Construction is more important than architecture and
proft is the keyword; quality is something architects only talk
about among themselves. Clearly, a new defnition of values is
needed. And yet, the architectural past, even if currently out of
favour, may still be worth another look, as some of its values
could well inform the future.
Moscow and St Petersburg are, or course, the epicentres of
architectural activity. But in these cities, even the apparently
simple task of buying an architecture book is problematical.
Only a few bookshops stock them, and even then the number of
titles available is distressingly low, while prices are high. This
particular situation stands for the general one: the demand
for and/or availability of architecture is low. Having said that,
one should understand that this particular situation is exactly
why architectural expectations are high in Russia. The sheer
amount of work that needs to be done in order to modernize
Russia is immense and the possibilities for architects and all
related professionals therefore correspondingly substantial.
But change will take time. Right now Russia is still a so-
cially and economically unbalanced country, where the rem-
nants of the Soviet past generate contrasting situations. Just
300 kilometres north of Moscow is Ivanovo, a former industrial
city that saw its textile factories close one after the other fol-
lowing the Soviet collapse. Its proximity to the capital and the
good road and rail infrastructure should stimulate the city to
refashion itself. Instead, the city is simply dying and its popula-
tion rapidly shrinking. By contrast, there is Perm, an industrial
city located 1200 kilometres east of Moscow, which recently
commissioned Dutch frm KCAP to masterplan a total urban
makeover. This commission is unique for Russia. It entails a
deep analysis and complete re-thinking of the whole city, with
an assessment of its current characteristics and a search for
solutions for change, growth and leadership. Perm is using
KCAPs work to help it update and adapt its offcial planning
documents to create a real city development strategy, aimed
at making the city attractive and functional once again.
The fact that KCAP, and not a Russian frm, is involved in
In search of a new identity
this huge project is telling. During Soviet times urban design
was an important discipline, able to create entire cities on
greenfeld sites. But during the last 20 years it has been seri-
ously neglected, resulting in the dispersal of a whole genera-
tion of professionals a generation that has not been replaced
by a younger one either, as there just hasnt been enough work
to support them. Now that urbanism is experiencing a come-
back, the lack of local professionals is giving Western frms an
opportunity to offer their services. The case of Perm is the most
signifcant example to date [fg. 1].
Suburbs show the way
Many other cities could well follow this example and re-
strain uncontrolled development and re-imagine themselves.
But without a frm political will, changing the status quo in
cities like Moscow or St Petersburg is fraught with diffculties.
A good example is the recent approval of planning documents
for Moscows development over the next ten years. The pro-
cess was embroiled in scandal and left the public complaining
about authorities giving in into developers greedy ambitions
instead of protecting the urban environment. So the city is now
braced for more demolition and new high-rise construction
that will further degrade its already spoiled historical centre.
Given this situation, the new suburbs could perhaps be-
come the new role models. In order to achieve a higher quality
in urban design, more and more property developers are plan-
ning completely new developments on the outskirts of major
cities. Examples of such projects on the Moscow periphery are
A101, a large housing development masterplanned by EDDEA
[fg. 2], the Skolkovo technological hub by AREP [fg. 3] and
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 13
14
15 12
54 A10 # 40 Eurovision
the Ivanovskoe housing development by Reserve [fg. 4]. Hope-
fully some of these plans will become reality, as they are crucial
to a much-needed change in Russian urban design standards.
The effects of the chaotic period immediately follow-
ing the Soviet collapse, which resulted in the stagnation and
downgrading of urbanist and architectural development, are
slowly fading. Once again, some major public works are being
planned. Probably the most ambitious is the expansion of the
Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg into the neighbouring
General Staff building, a project being managed by Studio 44
with OMA/AMO as consultants [fg. 5]. In Moscow there is the
refurbishment of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts by Foster
and Partners and of the Bolshoi Theatre by M. Xazanov, M. Be-
lov, N. Shangin and Pavel Andreev Architectural Studio. If built,
projects like UN Studios Dance Palace in St Petersburg [fg. 6],
could help to change attitudes to foreign architects, with an
architectural approach that is seldom seen in Russia. Previ-
ous attempts to implement projects by foreign architects have
failed to convince the Russian public.
Furthermore, a number of international sporting events
will contribute their share of new architecture. An architectur-
al euphoria to equal that surrounding the Beijing Olympics or
next years London Olympics is not expected, but work is well
under way in Sochi for the 2014 Winter Olympics. The new
railway station by Studio 44 and all the main sporting venues,
including a stadium by Populous, are already under construc-
tion [fgs. 7 & 8]. Later on, the 2018 football World Cup should
foster a burst of architectural activity around the country.
Here, too, some work is already under way, with St Petersburg
Gazprom Arena by Kisho Kurokawa under construction [fg. 9],
and the architectural competition for Moscows VTB Arena al-
ready decided in favour of the proposal from Erick van Egeraat /
Mikhail Posokhin [fg. 10].
The increase in government-funded construction is import-
ant as a counterbalance to the aggressive developer culture
that has become omnipresent in recent years. Construction
is an active sector in Russia, which is in a way good for ar-
chitects, but the pursuit of huge proft margins and the easy
circumvention of regulations has lowered the quality of the
urban environment and of architecture itself. Legally required
but unproftable elements like schools, kindergartens, parking,
urban landscaping and the refurbishment of old buildings, are
largely ignored by corrupt developers and complaisant city
authorities.
Housing, a mixed bag
The result is that architects have little else to do apart
from designing housing projects. Lower-end housing is still
designed the Soviet way, by former Soviet institutes, which
today have a mixed state/private status. And they continue to
deliver the same low-quality concrete-slab buildings. At the
other end of the market, exclusive housing is still in demand in
spite of the current economic recession. Leading private prac-
tices design for the elite in the centre of Moscow and St Peters-
burg. Recent projects by Reserve [fg. 11], Sergey Skuratov Ar-
chitects [fg. 12], Sergey Kisselev & Partners [fg. 13] or Speech
[fg. 14] in Moscow, or work by Evgeny Gerasimov & Partners
in St Petersburg [fg. 15] are exemplary for this sector. Unfor-
tunately, parts of these buildings remain permanently empty
as the apartments are bought purely as a capital investment.
Middle-class housing is a different matter. Due to the short-
age of such housing and the developers interference with the
process, more often than not the projects assume mass hous-
ing proportions, which brings social problems with it. Proft
margins are regularly achieved by adding extra volume, some-
times even after construction has started. These late changes
to the original designs result in out-of-scale proportions and
absurd shapes [fg. 16]. In most cases, the buildings are just
big, like the ones designed by Reserve [fg. 17] or the Asadov Ar-
chitectural Studio [fg. 18]. Buromoscow [fg. 19] is delivering
some of the most interesting work at this scale, through their
colourful reinterpretation of the typical Soviet concrete-slab
construction.
Private housing is a feld of its own, not least because of
the Russian tradition of having a second house (dacha) out-
side town. One can fnd all sorts of aesthetic approaches and
budgets in this feld, but especially interesting is the work of
some young architects working to a low budget and delivering
simple wooden houses. Recent projects by Petr Kostelov, Fe-
dor Dubinnikov or Boris Bernaskoni are good examples of this
trend [fgs. 20, 21 & 22].
The sheer amount of work
that needs to be done in
order to modernize Russia is
immense and the possibilities
for architects and all related
professionals therefore
correspondingly substantial.
( In search of a new identity )
16
17
18
19
21
20
22
23
A10 # 40 Eurovision 55
Though housing is the main source of work, other projects
do of course exist. The refurbishment of the Stanislavsky Fac-
tory in Moscow [fg. 23] by John McAslan & Partners deserves
mention, as refurbishment projects with a contemporary ap-
proach are not easy to fnd in Russia. Other noteworthy pro-
jects in Moscow are the Tsvetnoy Central Market [fg. 24] and
the Barviha Theatre [fg. 25], both by Project Meganom.
The economic crisis that started in 2008 has hit Russia
hard. Nearly all large projects were halted for an indefnite
period or simply abandoned. Central Moscow still has several
naked concrete structures on display today, but 2011 seems
to be a year of revival for some of these stalled projects. Many
of them, like Skuratovs top-end Garden Quartals housing
scheme [fg. 26], have seen their original design drastically re-
duced or split into separate construction stages.
In the West, a slow period is seized upon as an opportu-
nity to get busy with architectural competitions. But in Rus-
sia, unfortunately, there is no such culture. The state seldom
commissions work through competitions, preferring to tender
among the former Soviet institutes. And private developers
only participate in invited competitions with a limited number
of participants. But here, too, there are exceptions. The new
masterplan for Perm displays three competition-winning pub-
lic building projects which, if realized, would represent a step
forward in competition culture. They are the River Port Mu-
seum by Project Meganom [fg. 27], the extension of the Perm
Opera and Theatre House by David Chipperfeld Architects [fg.
28] and the new city Art Gallery by Boris Bernaskoni [fg. 29].
Thinking about the future of architecture entails thinking
about the next generation of architects. To be a young archi-
tect in Russia is about as diffcult as anywhere else. Without
hard work, a bit of luck and a push forward at the right mo-
ment, an architect might never get noticed. Opportunities to
show ones ideas never mind building are scarce. Recent
legislative changes making it more diffcult to get a licence to
practise architecture have made things even tougher. But un-
fagging efforts by people like Bart Goldhoorn (editorial direc-
tor of Project Russia and Moscow Biennale curator) or Evgeniy
Asse (architect and professor at MARHI) are bringing some of
the young people into the limelight. DNK Architecture Group
[fg. 32], Anton Kochurkin (Archstoyanie Festival curator, fg. 30
and 31], Fedor Dubinnikov [fg. 33] and Boris Bernaskoni are
surely some of the names to follow.
Maybe they will help to defne Russian architecture today.
Right now there are no visible tendencies that could stand for
a national product. Neither the leading practices nor the main
Russian architecture schools propound any new visions. And
there is not enough research and critique in Russia to estab-
lish a clear way ahead. Looking across the borders for a frame
of reference is not enough, as Western architecture is judged
solely on appearances, without any knowledge of its real con-
text. In fact, foreign practices working in Russia suffer from
similar drawbacks, as their knowledge of Russia is generally
superfcial as well. Nevertheless, their current role is import-
ant, as they can help to open minds. A reaction to new ideas is
needed in order to propel the debate and mutual development.
Even a ferce rejection of Western points of view, if properly ex-
plained and justifed, could help to defne what Russian archi-
tecture aims to be in the near future.
The further development of Russian architecture also
depends on a revamping of higher architectural education,
which did not happen after the end of the Soviet era. An age-
ing generation of Soviet-era teachers conservative and out of
touch with todays needs must be replaced by a younger and
more proactive generation. But teaching salaries are absurdly
low, a deterrent to almost all of the few practising architects
willing to teach.
In the absence of an active state, the emerging private sec-
tor is setting the pace. New private universities like the Skolkovo
Management School by Adjaye Associates (see A10 #39) or
the new Sberbank Corporate University building [by Erick van
Egeraat, fg. 34] will introduce a new concept of education,
in terms both of human resources and of the buildings them-
selves. For architectural education, the recently opened Strelka
School [designed by Oleg Shapiro, fg. 35] in central Moscow is a
real happening for architecture students, with its post-graduate
programme conducted by OMA/AMO and an active lecture pro-
gramme. But turning out 30 people a year in a city of 12 million
inhabitants is still just a drop in the ocean for the profession.
As the country stabilizes, opportunities to refect and pro-
duce will improve. Russia has a young and motivated genera-
tion of professionals who should use the experience of their old-
er colleagues to better understand the Soviet past. There is a lot
of rough material that can still be used in order to defne Rus-
sian architecture. To rethink the existing traditions and Soviet
know-how like concrete-slab construction or the use of wood
as a construction material could be a meaningful and reward-
ing exercise today. The interaction with foreign practices should
be used in the same way, with reference to context. A clever ap-
proach is needed, one that could blend local ideas and needs
with Western experience and advanced technologies. One thing
is clear: there is a long and diffcult, but surely interesting, road
ahead for contemporary Russian architecture.
24
26
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
27 28
25