TATLIN Mono #3/21/87 Сергей Скуратов 2005–2010

– You said that a building should close bal- ance. That a building is an object. But how does this affect the environment? – This is what matters most: to design the object and the space at once. For instance, as I was designing the PermTheater, I though most about space-related parameters: the atmo- sphere of the park, the width of the alleys, air vistas, traditions of the previous theater… It is so important not to break old links and connec- tions. And if for any objective reason I still have to intrude, changes must be paid off with dis- coveries or acquisitions of some nature – pedes- trian, urban, human…The city must primarily get an advantage from any object that changes the environment. This is what really matters. This topic has been driven nearly beyond the scope of permissible in design nationwide in the recent years, but I’ve always gone for it. Even in the early 2000s, as I was designing the Butikovskiy and Copper House, I tried to build a relation between the building and the city. There is space under Copper House that you can enter, and there are throughout passages, but no fences or railings – it is yours to access. I do this in all units that have space capacity. For example, the entire Mosfilmovskaya concept was actually based on the point that the build- ing is inside a park, and a publicly open park too. The entire concept of Sadoviye Kvartali rests on the fact that the system of four closed quarters is penetrated by a structure of open public spaces with a pond at its center, and pedestrian boule- vards. The city’s territory must be open to public, this is highly important. – The obvious value of public space tends to be misconstrued in our society: when peo- ple speak of public space, they mean either lack of space, or shopping and entertainment areas for some reason. You said once that the Kremlin should be given back to the people... – I did, and I can say it again, because the government of Russia’s today need not hide in a medieval fortress behind castle walls. The archi- tecture of government buildings must be open and democratic. It seems to me that it would be best to create an agglomeration of sorts where

Москве так не хватает. Это был бы грандиоз- ный проект 21 века – реконструкция Кремля. Представляете, сколько возможностей полу- чил бы город. – Кстати, если перевести вопрос обще- ственного пространства в более информа- ционную плоскость, по вашему мнению, архитектор должен быть публичным чело- веком, говорить о проблемах? – Я всю жизнь работаю в Москве. Это очень сложная площадка, сложная для всего – для диспутов, для творчества, для стройки. Москва почти как наш парламент – «не место для дискуссий», а площадка для борьбы. Мы работаем в условиях недоверчивого и подо- зрительного отношения к современной архи- тектуре, среди бесконечных ностальгических томлений заказчиков, общества и даже кол- лег – томлений по усадьбам, по теремам, по былому величию сталинского ампира или, на- оборот, по конструктивистскому аскетизму. Я убежден в том, что архитектура должна, обязана быть современ- ной, как обязаны быть современ- ными медицина, наука, дороги, транспорт, энергетика, канали- зация, в конце концов, – все, что связано с основами человеческо- го существования. Длительность строительных процессов обязы- вает архитектуру опережать об- щественный запрос, быть функ- циональной и актуальной тогда, когда здание окажется завершено уже в новых, изменившихся об- стоятельствах. Российская архитектура в последние годы необратимо встала на эти современные рель- сы. У огромной страны и гигантской совре- менной столицы нет другого пути. Частный

it would not generate serious motor traffic con- gestion. And it must be modern and functional, while the Kremlin should be left for festivities and ceremonies. At other times, it should be mu- seums of which Moscow has real shortage. That would be a grand project worthy of 21 st century: to retrofit the Kremlin. Imagine the opportuni- ties for the city. – Incidentally, just if we translate the issue of public space into the sphere of informa- tion, do you think that an architect should be a public person and speak up of problems? – I have worked all my life in Moscow. This is a very complex site, it’s complex for everything, be it disputes, or creative design, or construc- tion. Moscow is just like our parliament: an arena rather than an assembly. We work in an environ- ment where attitude to architecture is distrust and suspicion, with endless nostalgic languor of clients, public and even colleagues – longing for manor houses, estates, the bygone grandeur of Stalin empire style or, on the opposite, for ascetic constructivism. I am convinced that architecture has to be modern, just as our medicine, science, roads, vehicles, power sup- plies, sewage at last – things that are the basis of human existence – have to be modern. The long time it takes to complete construction process- es requires that architecture should run ahead of public demands, that it be functional and actual even if the building is completed under entirely new and changed circumstances. In the recent years, Russian architecture irre- versibly took this track of modernity. This enor- mous nation and its colossal capital have no oth- er choice. A private house can afford any fancy oddity, any masquerades with historical disguis- es, but large-scale urban public architecture is

ТАТLIN news 3|21|87 2010

41

Texts