Interview with Alexander Asadov
In the last 15 years, the Russian housing construction business has completed the change from a state-owned industry to a free market. To what extent has this resulted in the adoption of new architectural values as well? DAYLIGHT&ARCHITECTURE talked to Alexander Asadov, one of the leading architects in Russia, about state regulation, ecology and the weakness of many Russians for historicising styles of architecture.
24
Mr. Asadov, in your essay ‘Alexander Asadov’s Credo’, which you publish on your homepage, you write that in your country independent creativity has existed since the mid-1990s. What design leeway did architects have before this, at the time of collective building in the UdSSR? There are two kinds of restrictions: on the one hand, restrictions relating to the specific historical, architectural, economic and social aspects of a project. If these restrictions exist as general parameters from the very beginning but the architect can still make free choices in order to achieve his particular goal, then they are understandable as such and are a form of self-restriction. During the Soviet period, unfortunately, the main restrictions concerned the way in which the architect’s goals were achieved. They related to materials and constructions, to planning activity or simply to compliance with fire protection regulations. The conditions that we had to cope with at that time are now difficult to imagine. I would therefore like to emphasise once again: there will always be restrictions.. For instance, the city in which we build imposes restrictions on us because neither in urban areas nor anywhere else is there absolute freedom. But on the other hand, if an architect wants to achieve his goal, he must not be restricted in his use of the instruments that are available.
concrete-block method of building. In a megapolis such as Moscow where private building projects account for a large proportion of the overall construction volume, success has been achieved in developing the concretepanel construction industry. This mainly relates to the building of statesupported home construction and, to a less extent, commercial home construction. Commercial developers are buying formerly state-owned production facilities and are successfully introducing progressive and flexible industrial methods of building. Is the construction of estates composed of detached houses increasing in the areas surrounding large cities in Russia? To what extent is this associated with dissolution, privatisation and individualisation of the community? There is a clearly recognisable dissolution effect. The lack of homogeneity in society is shown, for example, by the expensive buildings and housing complexes which are being created next to the very cheap and traditionally poor districts on the edges of large cities. In view of the social class difference, extensive security measures are being taken with barbed-wire fences and guards. This underlines the strong differentiation that is taking place. Those who in the West are designated as middle class are only a small percentage here in Russia and are among those who can afford to build cooperative and detached houses.
How has Russian housing construction changed since the end of the UdSSR?
How individual is the housing market in Russia in reality?
There is a rising demand for detached houses, especially in and around Moscow. In the area surrounding the capital, this trend was detectable at an even earlier stage. On the outskirts of Moscow, we have built a series of very large estates of detached houses for single families and the number of orders has made it clear to us just how strong the sector is moving at present. Unfortunately, detached houses are still very expensive and the costs of upkeep are higher than in many other countries. This is due to such factors as the climatic conditions, the heat loss and the still fairly modest possibilities of saving energy. Due to our continental situation, we also have a rougher climate and colder winter than northern Europe. In addition to this, there is a strong tendency to cling to the industrialised
The great progress in architecture is the result of individual orders. This is an area in which, above all, young architects can make a mark for themselves. It is also the area which is least regulated by regulations which require that approval is obtained before a project is implemented. One result of this development is the continually growing number of glossy magazines, which contain many illustrations of first-class buildings. The national prize of ARCHIP, one of the most prestigious national prizes in the area of architecture, is also awarded for private construction projects. Moreover, a large number of orders from cooperatives for multistorey buildings in cities are going to private planning offices. Each investment project is set up in such a way that the share of the city, which
D&A spring 2006 Issue 02
includes the land and the infrastructure for the builder, amounts to over 30 per cent of the overall costs. There is also a subsidy from the state, with the rest being generated from investments and private money. And this money is visible – in both the city and the architecture. Ten to fifteen years ago, when things began to change, one had the impression that the former statecontrolled project-planning institutes had simply ceased to exist as the flow of funds from state sources of finance slowed down considerably and the number of privately planned projects started to increase at a fast rate. Now that the amount of available finance has increased, a certain equilibrium has been established. Understandably, only the fittest survive in the private planning sector. The legislation, which has not sufficiently taken root, unfortunately allows some architects to occupy influential government positions and, as a sideline, to operate private planning offices. Things like this are possible in Russia. At the same time, really strong architects’ offices are able to win the struggle to survive and are developing themselves successfully whereas some projectplanning institutes have re-oriented themselves and have changed over from one-sided design-related work to a wider range of services. The institutes which have survived are above all those that have specialized in planning the technical side of projects belonging to other architects. The technical planning disciplines are currently in great demand on the market. In an ideal case, it is possible to set up small, flexible design offices which deal with the creative part of projects as well as structured large companies which elaborate and handle the details of such projects. This symbiosis is entirely possible in the current situation. How great is the influence of politics on the Russian building sector – either due to legal regulations or unofficial prescriptions? Nowadays, the influence of legal stipulations is no longer especially great. At the time of state-organised building, legislation exerted a powerful regulatory influence. There was an enormous state apparatus, the Gosstroj (a committee dealing with all questions of building in our country), as 80 to 90 per cent of building was financed from state funds. The pri-