TATLIN NEWS #45 PERMMUSEUMXXI

директор Ц:СА / Центра современной архитектуры Ирина Коробьина во время пресс-конференции по итогам конкурса, Москва, Россия | director of the Center of Contemporary Architecture Irina Korobina during the press conference after competition finishing, Moscow, russia

профессионального уровня в глазах между- народной культурной общественности, и пе- тер ноевер, известный своей бескомпромис- сностью, привлекли к конкурсу внимание все- го мира. о своем намерении принять в нем участие заявили 350 команд из 50 стран. про- цедура соревнования в два этапа отличалась корректностью, лояльностью, демократиз- мом. первый этап – открытый конкурс порт- фолио, привычный для европейской практики, в России был осуществлен впервые. в резуль- тате работы отборочной комиссии к участию во втором, анонимном, туре были приглашены 25 команд. для них администрация пермского края и ц:са провели трехдневный семинар в перми, что послужило доказательством серь- езности намерений заказчика. участники по- лучили уникальную возможность непосредс- твенно ознакомиться с коллекцией пермской художественной галереи, которая переместит- ся в будущий музей, встретиться с музейными сотрудниками, задать свои вопросы заказчику, администрации пермского края во главе в гу- бернатором олегом чиркуновым, а также поз- накомиться с городом и, что особенно важно, всесторонне изучить будущую строительную площадку. выбор места для строительства нового му- зейного центра представляется стратегически точным. особенность планировки перми за- ключается в том, что город фактически отрезан от реки старыми заводами и промышленными зонами. выход на нее сохранился на коротком участке напротив исторического центра. од- нако он отчужден от реки железной дорогой, проходящей вдоль берега. в этой зоне плани- руется строительство нового административ- но-общественного центра, по обе стороны из- ножья камского моста. Будущий музей пред- лагается возвести в полукилометре от него, в парке, на высоком берегу реки, где сейчас стоит дворец культуры «телта» – пример со- ветского железобетонного модернизма эпохи застоя. несмотря на то, что многие участники предпочли бы его сохранить как документаль- ное свидетельство советского времени и даже сделать частью своего проекта, пермские влас- ти все-таки приняли решение о сносе. возве- дение на его месте новой достопримечатель-

the old city centre; however even this is separated from the riv- er by railway lines on the embankment. In this zone there are plans to build a new administrative and public centre, on both sides of the foot of Kamsky Bridge. The new museum building is to be built 500 metres from the bridge, in a park on the high riv- erbank, a site currently occupied by the Telta palace of Culture, an example of soviet reinforced-concrete modernism from the so-called age of ‘stagnation’ [the age of Brezhnev]. In spite of the fact that many participants would prefer to preserve this building as documentary evidence of soviet times and even in- corporate it in their designs for the new museum, the perm au- thorities have taken the decision to demolish it. The new land- mark to be erected in its place will mark the beginning of a kilometre-long pedestrian esplanade leading to the present-day symbol of perm, the spaso-preobrazhensky Cathedral, which currently houses the perm Art Gallery collection. In this way, the new museum building is to play an important strategic role in developing perm’s new public and business centre, in inte- grating the embankment with the city, and in forming a public space between perm’s old and new symbols. In the end, 19 designs were submitted to the competition. In evaluating them, the jury was guided by three main criteria: the role played by the projected building in the urban structure; the building’s architectural and functional qualities; and the ex- pressiveness of its artistic image. The jury proceeded by means of democratic professional discussion. Each project acquired its own ‘advocates and accusers’. selection of the eventual winners from the short list was decided by voting. The results were ex- tremely unexpected and, for many, shocking: the first and sec- ond places were shared by Boris Bernaskoni (Moscow) and Vale- rio olgiati (Zurich). Third place went to a project by interna- tional star Zaha Hadid (London). These results are a true reflection of current reality and a sign of important processes taking place in russian architectural life. In the first place, this means disappointment in ‘star ar- chitecture’, which after starting out as avant-garde and mar- ginal has become international big business. Losing its revo- lutionary quality, it is now seen as glamorous, a collection of brands, a luxury sector. In the eyes of western intellectuals, the desire of the rapidly developing eastern world to possess its own brand architecture at whatever cost is a sign of provinciality. However, the russian architectural world too – which until re- cently was rapturous in its reception of the profession’s super- stars – is likewise increasingly sceptical and disappointed. This is the result equally of the way in which the stars, busy design- ing dozens, even hundreds of buildings, tend to neglect rus- sian commissions; of the relative indifference with which such architects treat our urban-planning problems; and of attempts by these architects to recycle designs that they have previously used elsewhere. russian clients find themselves in the position of rich uncles who in their eagerness to get their hands on lux- ury labels end up buying mass-produced products at the price of tailor-made. Typically, the recognizability of the language of brand architecture is widely exploited. Before the envelopes containing architects’ names were opened in the perm competi- tion, at least three designs were ascribed to Zaha Hadid. The jury considered it its duty to support projects that are a quest for new directions in architecture. The perm competi- tion could have played an historic role in pointing to the most promising direction for further development of contemporary architecture. However, it was here that the competition met a pitfall that split the jury – irreconcilable differences in opinion

regarding what kind of architecture is today relevant in russia and the West. The projects entered for the competition were, it should be said, executed to a high professional standard. However, only three showed a desire and consistent determination to go off the beaten track. Above all, this was the design by Vito Acconci, which won the jury’s admiration for its innovativeness, philoso- phy, and poetic treatment of architecture. This project was giv- en serious consideration as a possible winner. Here it is relevant to recall the design competition for the sydney opera House. Jorn Utzon’s winning design was regarded by all as an unrealiz- able utopia. The jury was reproached for taking an irresponsi- ble decision. nevertheless, the brilliant structural engineer ove Arup and the city’s readiness to shoulder inordinate expendi- ture of time and money made possible the realization of this fantastic image, which to this day remains one of the most fa- mous urban icons in the world. The realization of Acconci’s idea requires development of new-generation technologies, making it a task on an altogether different scale, one which clearly can- not be tackled by a single project, a single city, or even a single country. Furthermore, the architect failed to respond to a single one of the points in the competition programme. This was the reason why his project was dropped from the winning positions and given a consolation prize. The design by Valerio olgiati offers a clear and pure struc- tural scheme which may be interpreted as showing knowledge of the work of 1920s soviet avant-garde architects. olgiati con- centrated on looking for a new architectural language. In this Western intellectuals find allusions to the orient, authorial iro- ny, artistry, and sculptural plasticity. They are convinced that this project, in addition to suiting its context perfectly, brings to it a powerful charge of energy and sets a new standard for quality of the environment. International experience suggests that this direction in the development of architecture, an ap- proach which explores the border zone between modern art and sculpture, is the most promising. However, the selection of Valerio olgiati’s design shocked the russian architectural community, including art historians and critics. This project is too reminiscent of the architecture which until recently was built in large quantities all over the Ussr and is today associated with soviet totalitarianism of the age of Brezhnev. This is why, whether consciously or not, russians find olgiati’s work so off-putting today. It has to be said that the jury’s opinions regarding this project were likewise radical- ly divided. It was only prolonged discussion followed by voting that brought it to the top of the shortlist. Boris Bernaskoni’s project, which also took the lead as a re- sult of voting – given that the jury were unable to reach a con- sensus through discussion – tackles altogether different ob- jectives. It deals exclusively with problems of urban planning and overtly renounces any quest for a language, style, charac- ter, etc., i.e. all claim to creative self-expression. At the same time, it is extremely ambitious in its attempt to restructure the familiar world and turn the latter’s faults into advantages. At a stroke, Bernaskoni solves what might seem to be an impossi- ble problem: he uses the notoriously ‘difficult’ railway as a sup- plementary and highly convenient transport link, incorporating a passenger station into his museum complex. In this way, he integrates the embankment with the city’s new centre. He also extends the upper embankment to include the museum’s roof, turning the latter into a viewing platform and distinctive ur- ban feature. This stroke of genius enables Bernaskoni to cut

татLIN_NEWS №3(45)59_2008_PERMMUSEUMXXI 3