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.

“Community involvement”

During the last few years it has become clear that the public can participate in urban development not only through protest actions, procedures of direct vote or public hearings – these forms of public involvement have happened before. For several years the topic of urban studies have firmly been established in the media, open discussion platforms, festivals and specialized international forums. Over the past five years, more than one million people have passed through the small Strelka Institute as panelists, visitors and students. Within a few years, a whole generation of urban activists, experts and people interested in urban development, have emerged.

In the context of international practice, these phenomena may seem commonplace or even belated, but right now, they are having an enormous impact on Russian land- and cityscapes. In any case, it seems so today.  Through a panel debate, we will be looking at how Russian cities are changing in the light of these trends. Is there an overall character that can be talked about in these processes? Are there any signs of the paradigmatic changes that are so essential for Russia? What is the role of civil society, experts and independent institutions in these processes? How do the interests of citizens, municipalities, federal authorities and developers relate today in Russia? And, finally, can we see anything specific in these phenomena – happening in several Russian cities – that could be of value to the international urban planning practice?

The Strelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design in Moscow represents a unique voice in Russian architecture and public debate. Strelka was founded in 2009 to change the cultural and physical landscapes of Russian cities.

This event will consist of two lectures in daytime, given by Anton Kalgaev and Ivan Kuryachiy, followed by a panel discussion with the curators, Varvara Melnikova, Andrei Golovin and Vasily Auzan, in the evening.

PROGRAM:

AHO – Maridalsveien 29

13.00 Fair Enough. An Expo of Ideas – Anton Kalgaev

14.30 The Battle for the Citizen – Ivan Kuryachiy

Larsens Leilighet – Gøteborggata 27 B

18.30 Borscht, vodka and mingle

19.00 Panel discussion

Fair Enough. An Expo of Ideas – developing “the smartest or the dumbest” exhibition at Venice architecture biennale.

Anton Kalgaev (Leningrad, 1984)

Fair Enough. An Expo of Ideas was the name of the exhibition in the Russian Pavilion at the 14^th Intl. Venice Biennale of Architecture. The history of Russian architecture of the last 100 years was presented as a fictional trade fair, where every architectural idea was introduced by imagined commercial companies. Every piece of the content, and the design of the exhibition, was based on a detailed study of the history of Russian architecture as well as the commercial language of contemporary architecture. “By far the most ingenious pavilion”, according to biennale’s director Rem Koolhaas, and awarded with the special prize of the International Jury, it was also described as “either the smartest or the dumbest, depending on who you talk to” by OII+ magazine. The exhibition was curated by Anton Kalgaev, Brendan McGetrick and Dasha Paramonova (Strelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design).

This lecture will explain how the exhibition was done, what the ideas behind it were, what curators can learn from trade fairs, and architects from commercial companies – brutally promoting themselves.

The Battle for the Citizen: Human Development and Urban Environment Russian cities analyzed from human perspective

Ivan Kuryachiy (Tomsk, 1981)

For one of the first times in international research practice, Russian cities have been analyzed using human development index (HDI) as a key indicator of their performance – based on an adapted UN methodology. Human development is the main resource and the driver of the modern city – it is determined by quality of education, level of health, and residents’ income. The “human development index” was calculated for 63 Russian regional centers – key nodes of settlement patterns within the country. The HDI values were reviewed in comparison with migration trends, social network geographic patterns and the development of urban infrastructure.

The results of the study have shown that not only Moscow – being the primary concentration point for financial, informational, human and transport flows – is winning “the battle for the citizen”. Despite their relatively disadvantageous positions – mostly regarding budget, investments attractiveness and economic dynamics – a number of Russian cities have managed to create effective models for developing and attracting human capital and creating competitive urban environments.

The research was completed by Novaya Zemlya, The Graduate School of Urban Studies and the Institute of Demography (IDEM) at the National Research University School of Higher Economics (HSE) for the Moscow Urban Forum in 2014. As the research curator, Ivan Kuryachiy will present the overall concept, methodology, key results and future perspectives of the study.