Roundtable
19 November 2015, 6.30 pm
Place: Larsens Leilighet, Gøteborggata 27 B
Lectures
19 November 2015, 1 pm and 2.30 pm
Place: AHO, Maridalsveien 29
Curators and speakers: Anton Kalgaev and Ivan Kuryachiy
Panel: Varvara Melnikova, Vasily Auzan, Andrei Golovin, Anton Kalgaev and Ivan Kuryachiy
The last few years in Russia have been marked by an unprecedented interest in urban development. It has become fashionable to speculate about everything from the perspective of urban culture, to studying and dealing with urban practice, to attend public lectures and discussions of architects, to pay attention to urban design details, to read the classics and novelties of urban theory, and to know who Jan Gehl and Rem Koolhaas are.
from the series “the edge 2008-2010”, Alexander Gronsky
from the series “the edge 2008-2010”, Alexander Gronsky
from the series “the edge 2008-2010”, Alexander Gronsky
from the series “the edge 2008-2010”, Alexander Gronsky
from the series “pastoral 2008-2012”, Alexander Gronsky
from the series “pastoral 2008-2012”, Alexander Gronsky
from the series “pastoral 2008-2012”, Alexander Gronsky
from the series “pastoral 2008-2012”, Alexander Gronsky
from the series “pastoral 2008-2012”, Alexander Gronsky
from the Russian Pavilion, Venice Biennale, 2014 © Nikolai Zverkov / Strelka institute
from the Russian Pavilion, Venice Biennale, 2014, © Andrea Avezzù / la Biennale di Venezia
from the Russian Pavilion, Venice Biennale, 2014 © Nikolai Zverkov / Strelka institute
from the Russian Pavilion, Venice Biennale, 2014, © Andrea Avezzù / la Biennale di Venezia
from the Russian Pavilion, Venice Biennale, 2014, © Andrea Avezzù / la Biennale di Venezia
from the Russian Pavilion, Venice Biennale, 2014 © Nikolai Zverkov / Strelka institute
Besides new institutions, four new phenomena – that came from the professional architectural and urban planning sphere into officials’ rhetoric and public debate in recent years – may indicate an “urban turn” in Russia: the masterplan, the public space, competitions and community involvement. Each one of these phenomena have offered new paradigms, ideologies and decision-making practices, linking interests of different groups of citizens, municipal and federal authorities and commercial developers in new ways. However, since these initiatives haven’t yet been formulated as integrated concepts, they can still hardly help to achieve a better built environment.
“Masterplan”
It was the development of a masterplan for the city of Perm in 2008 that started the contemporary Russian discussion about urban environment as an important factor of the competitiveness of a city. Perm’s masterplan had a controversial and largely tragic outcome, but the project demonstrated a contemporary, integrated approach to urban planning, that has been radically different from Russian practice up until now. Moreover, foreign experts participated in urban projects in Russia for the first time since Stalin’s industrialization in the 1930’s. The largest planning companies participated in the international competition for the masterplan for the Skolkovo Innovation Center in 2010. The winning project – from the French company AREP – is currently being implemented, after thorough improvements. However, there are other examples. The International competition for the draft concept of Moscow city’s agglomeration development in 2012 was in vain, and its results are now largely forgotten.
“Public space”
A few years ago, Moscow – and then one after the other of major cities in Russia – became ill with a “fever” of “public spaces”. The concept of “public spaces” – which didn’t even have a clear equivalent in Russia at the time – migrated from the professional discourse of advanced urban planners into the public debate, and then into the rhetoric of the authorities. It was so new, that it seemed as though there was no “public”, neither “space”, to refer to before this all happened. Indeed – according to Soviet urban planning paradigms – broad avenues and squares were intended for large-scale parades and party demonstrations, and in post-Soviet time these spaces became the playground for commercial activities. Strelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design became the main promotor for a new type of urban space. Being a hybrid of a school, bar and public space itself, Strelka raised this issue at an unprecedented level. Starting as a modest research studio, Strelka Institute participated in the redevelopment of Gorky Park in Moscow – a former symbol of happy socialist rest – and then set up an international competition for the design of the Zaryadye Park next to the Kremlin. The winning project of the US architects Diller, Scofidio + Renfro is in its implementation stage.
“International architecture and urban planning competitions”
A number of competitions – which ended with contracting the winner – created a feeling that widespread adoption of open competitive procedures for the selection of architectural and urban solutions can become a driver of systemic changes in respective field. Competitions itself served as a marker of increasing public attention to architecture. Paradoxically, it has been the public attention that has returned architectural competitions into its usual status as the tool for irresponsible public relations. Even recent protagonists are suggesting abandoning the cult of public competitions in favor of more responsible treatment of the architect’s work.