What has been your best and worst experience of working abroad?
My best was in Spain. After the death of Franco, the Spanish acquired an enthusiasm and appetite for development. They were interested in what they could take from others and use in Spain. The Spanish are very good at tennis; they have an abundance of champions and magnificent teams, but they don’t have a tennis stadium such as Roland Garros in Paris or Wimbledon in London. They want to host international tennis competitions and create new champions. Their first tennis tournament will take place in 2009.
That’s your best experience, but what about your worst?
To date, my worst has been in Russia. It turned out that it’s very difficult for a foreign architect working in Russia to get his work respected. It’s quite possible for people to say to him, “Everything you are proposing here is nonsense. It doesn’t meet the regulations for our country. And since this foreigner hasn’t a clue when it comes to the rules and regulations for our country, let him find his own way out of trouble.”
But aren’t these just the ordinary difficulties of translation?
Problems with comprehension occur everywhere. The question is how to deal with them successfully. My view is that it’s more important to make sure you get the right result rather than fending off an importunate foreigner who keeps on asking for things. If a client hires a foreign architect, this does not mean he’s making his life easier. No. Holding an international competition is in itself a headache. Then the client has to make an effort to host the foreigner. He must draw up a contract, monitor the project, and most importantly of all, help the architect work in a foreign country. The client must support the architect. This makes it more difficult, I think, to work, but then the result promises to be better. Because why else would one take the trouble of hiring a foreigner?
How were you invited to take part in the competition announced in November 2002? Were there talks and negotiations?
They rang each of us up to ask whether we wanted to take part – whether we would be interested in doing so. This is the way it’s always done, so as not to waste time. There were talks, as is the done thing in such cases. To begin with, there was a long list of 30. This was then reduced to 20, I suppose, and then in the final stage there were seven of us left. It all ended with the letter of invitation.
Were you paid for this competition work?
This was part of the rules. The programme set the amount of work to be done, the deadlines, and the compensation to be paid. We had three months to produce our design proposal. We visited St Petersburg during the winter. It was colder than I’d ever known it. We came back, sat down to work, and sent off our design proposal at the end of May. And at the end of June 2003, during the White Nights, we were back in St Petersburg again waiting for the jury to announce its decision. And we were unbelievably anxious. The thing is, you organized an amazing competition. There had never been anything like it. The main difference was that all the designs were exhibited at the Academy of Arts. This is not the way we do things. Usually, the jury meets to take its decision first and then the general public is invited in. But in this case there were immediately articles in the press and discussions in blogs. And yet at that stage we hadn’t even spoken about or explained our projects. And given that we all know each other, we would ring each other up to compare notes on whose design was in favour. And this went on for the duration of the exhibition – the whole three weeks. I was also rung up when I was at the hairdresser’s, the baker, and the dentist, until one day I said to myself, “Enough!” and came to St Petersburg without a thought or expectation in my head. But when I entered my hotel room, beside my bed I found a folder with stuff on the competition. So here too I was confronted by my rivals’ projects. Then there was the speech I made to the jury. I spoke for 30 minutes – everyone else spoke for just as long, and bear in mind that none of the jury fell sleep. This was followed by a tiring ceremony. To begin with, they gave out certificates and badges, then the Governor [of St Petersburg] spoke, and we kept on waiting and waiting. And then there was madness – flashbulbs and journalists. It was amazing! This is what I shall remember Russia by. It’s a country of strong feelings, which instantly switches from love to hate and back again.
What happened after the competition?
There was a period of calm, and then came the first meeting in Moscow, where I had to stand alone in front of three dozen people at the Ministry of Culture. I was introduced to Mr Shvidkoy, and we discussed the contract in detail. It was at this point that it became clear that they didn’t really know what kind of contract to sign with me and what to talk to me about. But they explained to me that Russia is a country of precise and detailed contracts and we should immediately agree on everything. And we ended up by signing an unbelievably fat contract – the size of War and Peace – which specified all the details in advance, even though we still knew almost nothing about the project. Then we began working in a group which included the Chief Architect of St Petersburg, who sympathized with the project and felt responsible for it, as well as the Director of the North-Western Office, and the Director of the Mariinsky. And I realized that Russia is a country in which it is possible to work. Because I saw before me people who were deeply involved and interested in the project and who were prepared to fight hard for it. This work did not continue for long, as far as I remember.
I don’t know why, but the state decided to break up this trio and replace it with a single person. Mr Kruzhilin decided to change the way we worked. Evidently, Moscow had already taken a decision that a French architect was no longer needed and that, following his departure, his work could be taken over and finished by Russians. And from this moment forwards, everything became much more bureaucratic and difficult. In my view, this was when the competition was betraye and the client lost interest in the project. Andrey Kruzhilin, Director of the North-Western Office of the Ministry of Culture, proposed holding a new competition for the contract to develop your design.
This was a fairly unexpected initiative on the part of the Petersburg Office of the Ministry of Culture; it was parallel to the work that we had been doing at the end of the last year. I was sure that everything was going fine. I had plenty to keep me busy. It was necessary to coordinate work done by consultants from the Metropolitan Opera, German engineers, technical specialists from Moscow, Japanese acoustics specialists, and engineers specializing in the construction of foundations from Petersburg. And to discuss all this with Maestro Gergiev. Once he, the team at the theatre, and I talked for seven hours in succession. In December 2004 we presented another stage of our work. And it was at this point that the Petersburg Office told us that there was a competition being held and maybe we would like to take part. “What competition?” we asked. I am not familiar with Russian procedures and so thought this must be a matter of choosing a builder or general contractor. We are foreigners, we don’t know the rules, it’s easy to manipulate us. But when it turned out that the competition was to for the job of doing my work, I was very surprised.
And you refused to take part…
Naturally, I refused. For a very simple reason: I had already won the international competition. Back in 2003.
You didn’t feel a desire to slam the door?
That would have been the easiest thing in the world to do. But the only reason that could have forced me to leave the project was if there had been a threat to the architecture, the quality of the project and construction. You can negotiate about price and conditions, deadlines and procedures, but quality of architecture is non-negotiable. For me this is a matter on which there can be no compromise. So I turned down the invitation to take part and informed Mr Shvidkoy of this. On that occasion the justice of my case was recognized, the competition was cancelled in March 2005, and subsequently Mr Kruzhilin was replaced by Valery Gutovsky as Director of the North-Western Office.
To have the opportunity to work in Russia, at the end of 2004 you were advised to open an office in this country.
I was required to move to Russia and set up an office. The registration process got underway, and this was very timeconsuming. I was not working with projects but making trips to the tax inspectorate and other places to sign 20–30 pieces of paper. And at the same time I had to put together a team and distribute commissions between the Russian sub-contractors because we were working not with one, but with 20 Russian organizations. And we were working not on the project itself, but to get the documents properly in order and to put together a dossier to be submitted for the official state assessment. Later, we did begin to understand the rules of the game that had been imposed on us, but, to begin with, we were in shock. After the initial competition, whose organization had been ideal, nothing was organized in a way that would allow us to work to greatest effect. The official state assessment turned down our design. Mikhail Shvidkoy, the Minister of Culture at the time, says you were greedy and wanted to work on your own with a small team so that the entire fee would be yours.
Yes, we had a lack of trust in the Russians. Because we were disappointed; we needed advice from Russian specialists, but none was forthcoming. We could not understand why our design had been rejected by the official assessment. We were unable to work with anyone there. They told us off as if were schoolchildren and said, “That won’t do! Come back next year.” In the end I started working with Europeans, since on top of everything else we were faced with some very tight deadlines. If you don’t understand what’s happening and how to get the right result, you go to people whom you know and in whom you have confidence. I was ready to work with a large Russian office if we could share both the fees and responsibility – with me being paid as a French architect and they as Russian ones. We modified the design, and did so free of charge. In the course of three months we worked for no fee so that the project might survive.
But the state assessment conducted in 2006 again rejected your project.
I hoped that the state officials conducting the assessment would understand that this was a project of an utterly non-standard type. It is no school, hotel, or shed. Each opera house has its own character and each is a unique element in its own country. We tried to explain this, but in vain. It wasn’t just that we could never get any explanations out of them; we also had no opportunity to give our own. We were told that foreigners were not welcome at their state assessments! A foreigner might sometimes secretly slip through to sessions, but this was very rare. We invited the state experts to Paris so as to try to explain to them what we had done, but the door was closed. They made no effort, never took a step to meet us halfway, and among the hundreds of comments they made there were only three or four of any significance. The answers to many of the comments made by the experts had already been given in our project. So had they not opened the dossier? Had they not looked at the plans? And it was then, in January 2007, that your contract was cancelled?
There was a meeting at Smolny [in St Petersburg]. Those present included Mrs Matvienko and Mr Shvidkoy. I wasn’t there myself, unfortunately: I was told of the meeting too late. And they said, “We like Perrault’s project, but the work isn’t going well. We’ll cancel our contract with Perrault and give it to the Russian side, but we still want to build the opera house designed by Dominique Perrault.” It was then you issued a communiqué describing what had happened. A scandal on an international scale blew up. Did you want to influence what was happening in some way?
No. My communiqué was addressed to my European colleagues, who had started hearing strange rumours from Russia. Rumours to the effect that the design for the new opera house was ‘mediocre’, contained ‘crude mistakes worthy of a third-year student’, and so on. I had to explain to them everything from my point of view. Because it was wrong simply to say, “We want to execute your design, Monsieur architect, but at the same time we intend to tear up your contract, Monsieur architect.”
At the press conference in St Petersburg Mikhail Shvidkoy asserted that your staff are ‘honed’ to win competitions, but are not very good at actually getting buildings built.
Today I’m building buildings that have a value of more than one billion euros in the most important cities of the world, and I could wish Mr Shvidkoy were better informed. But if your client repeats that your design is mediocre and badly done, then you should tear up your contract with him. There’s only one thing I don’t understand: why try so hard to become the owner of a project done by a schoolboy? The split happened relatively peacefully?
What could I do? Yes, we concluded yet another non-aggression pact. I felt relief. Although, of course, I also felt disappointment. Theoretically, everything was as it should be, because it doesn’t matter who you are – even if you’re the greatest architect or mightiest design office, – you’ll find it impossible to produce working drawings for a foreign country. In all eight countries where I have had experience of building, the working drawings have been developed by local architects –in conjunction with myself, of course. Maybe, this is what you should have started with?
This was hinted to me in 2004, but I had no wish to walk away any earlier because work on the design was not finished. When the contract was cancelled, it would have been possible to use the design that we had given the client in order to build an opera house in any country that has a similar climate to Russia’s – in Finland, for example. This is quite normal: a foreign architect presents a finished design – I repeat, a finished design – and local architects do the working drawings, get the project passed by the state assessors, and supervise the building work. A logical order, don’t you think? Why was this logical procedure, as you call it, not stipulated from the very beginning?
Because nothing – nothing at all – was stipulated from the very beginning, and this is why the situation was so stupid. The state client took no steps at all so as to work with a foreign architect. The competition was held in a very competent fashion; its results were challenged by no one. Everything was open, transparent, reasonable. Then everything began to go wrong. There were accusations made by both sides. But still there was much that was successful: you can’t say the work wasn’t done. It was done in a reasonable length of time – if not instantly – but rapid progress was impossible as a result of the bureaucratic procedures. I suppose I made a mistake. I should have had a powerful office based in St Petersburg as my partner, so that it could shoulder the task of promoting and lobbying for the project. Perhaps. But when I proposed this, I was told, “No. Set up your own small office.” For our clients this was simpler. It is easier, I think, to apply pressure to small firms. When the project was taken from you, it was given to your former employees under the leadership of your former deputy, Aleksey Shashkin.
Yes, there was no logic at all in this – except perhaps for a desire to preserve continuity. Especially, if you believe that “my employees are honed only to win competitions.” This is something I would have been able to understand. Then, until autumn 2007, I had no news. I heard that the project was being assessed by the state experts, that it had passed the assessment back in June, but I hadn’t seen the project. It was only in the autumn that they sent it to me.
And is it your design? Or is it a Prada bag made by Chinese cottage craftsmen?
Partly, it’s imitation Dominique Perrault. But when I first saw this project, it seemed to me to be possible to return to the true path – to work together to produce architecture and design of true quality. I expected them to get in touch with me and at least ask for my opinion. I hoped they would ask me to perfect the project at least from the point of view of design. But this did not happen. I expected a continuation, but it never came. The management of the North-Western Office, your former clients, say they made you some offers, but the fee you requested was incredibly high and they had to turn down your services.
This is not true. There was no official approach made to me. Moreover, to this date I still do not have the full materials for the project. I merely analysed what they had sent me. This included some fragmentary pieces, a small number of sheets which had in fact been signed by me. I have no intention of whining pitifully and begging to be invited to take part in my own design. They know my telephone number and my address in Paris.
But in May 2008 Aleksey Shaskin was also dismissed from the project, and they’re now talking about making serious changes to the design. Have you been invited to take part in negotiations?
No, because although I’m author of the project – and this is something they emphasize in Moscow and St Petersburg – I have no contract. So the only opportunity I have to influence events is to say whether the theatre can be attributed to me. The situation is senselessly dramatic. My own opinion is that everything is straightforward. If the client wishes to build, as he has publicly said, the design by Dominique Perrault, then he must give Dominique Perrault the opportunity to remain close to the project – in the position of author, consultant, and chief supervisor. Moreover, as far as I know, the role played by architectural supervision in Russia is not as strong as in Europe, where supervision by the architect essentially means managing the building work. When we were building the National Library in Paris, we had 60 architects monitoring the construction process and the quality of the architecture. Sixty! And what’s happening here? Just how does the client think this should be done? I still don’t know. Is the Mariinsky now a turned page for you? Or not yet?
Yes and no. This represents three years of work by my office. We were very fond of this project and tried to have it finished. The competition was well organized, but then I found myself on my own with the client, who was unable to organize the work efficiently. The desire was not lacking, but the bureaucratic system did not allow us to do what was expected of us.
Do you know what is going to happen with the project next?
I still have no official news. All that I have is incidental documentation, which, on top of everything else, is out of date. I cannot influence this project. I don’t know what’s going to happen to it.
Your client says that your dome cannot be built; there’s no one prepared to do it.
This cannot be true. There are many firms in England, Germany, and Spain that were ready to work with me on building this dome. The roof for the Olympic courts in Madrid is of much more complex design than the dome of the Mariinsky, but it has been designed, engineered, and is now being built. A year from now, it will be functioning.
At the same time as the Mariinsky Theatre, you designed Seoul University, which has already been built.
Yes, this is another example of organizing work with a Western architect. The latter project is ten times larger than the Mariinsky, just as complex in terms of function, and has already been built. That’s the way they work in Korea, France, Spain, but it’s clearly not the way they work in Russia.
Does this mean that the promise to build the theatre designed by Perrault without Perrault himself was simply hot air.
I don’t know what my former Russian partners are counting on. But I feel neither resentment nor any joy at the misfortune of others.
In Three Voices
The high-rise – 41 stories high – housing complex HIDE is being built on the bank of the Setun River, near the Poklonnaya Mountain. It consists of three towers of equal height, yet interpreted in three different ways. One of the towers, the most conspicuous one looks as if it was twisted in a spiral, composed of a multitude of golden bay windows.
In the Space of Pobedy Park
In the project of a housing complex designed by Sergey Skuratov, which is now being built near the park of the Poklonnaya Hill, a multifunctional stylobate is turned into a compound city space with intriguing “access” slopes that also take on the role of mini-plazas. The architecture of the residential buildings responds to the proximity of the Pobedy Park, on the one hand, “dissolving in the air”, and, on the other hand, supporting the memorial complex rhythmically and color-wise.
Dynamics of the Avenue
On Leningrad Avenue, not far away from the Sokol metro station, the construction of the A-Class business center Alcon II has been completed. ADM architects designed the main façade as three volumetric ribbons, as if the busy traffic of the avenue “shook” the matter sending large waves through it.
Steamer at the Pier
An apartment hotel that looks like a ship with wide decks has been designed for a land plot on a lake shore in Moscow’s South Tushino. This “steamer” house, overlooking the lake and the river port, does indeed look as if it were ready to sail away.
The Magic of Rhythm or Ornament as a Theme
Designed by Sergey Tchoban, the housing complex Veren Place in St. Petersburg is the perfect example of inserting a new building into a historical city, and one the cases of implementing the strategy that the architect presented a few years ago in the book, which he coauthored with Vladimir Sedov, called “30:70. Architecture as a Balance of Forces”.
Walking on Water
In the nearest future, the Marc Chagall Embankment will be turned into Moscow’s largest riverside park with green promenades, cycling and jogging trails, a spa center on water, a water garden, and sculptural pavilions designed in the spirit of the Russian avant-garde artists of the 1920, and, first of all, Chagall himself. In this issue, we are covering the second-stage project.
A-Len has developed and patented the “Perfect Apartments” program, which totally eliminates “bad” apartment layouts. In this article, we are sharing how this program came around, what it is about, who can benefit from it, and how.
“Architectural Archaeology of the Narkomfin Building”: the Recap
One of the most important events of 2020 has been the completion of the long-awaited restoration of the monument of Soviet avant-garde architecture – the Narkomfin Building, the progenitor of the typology of social housing in this country. The house retained its residential function as the main one, alongside with a number of artifacts and restoration clearances turned into living museum exhibits.
LIFE on the Setun River
The area in the valley of the Setun River near the Vereiskaya Street got two new blocks of the “LIFE-Kutuzovsky” housing complex, designed by ADM architects. The two new blocks have a retail boulevard of their own, and a small riverside park.
Three towers on a podium over the Ramenka River are the new dominant elements on the edge of a Soviet “microdistrict”. Their scale is quite modern: the height is 176 m – almost a skyscraper; the facades are made of glass and steel. Their graceful proportions are emphasized by a strict white grid, and the volumetric composition picks up the diagonal “grid of coordinates” that was once outlined in the southwest of Moscow by the architects of the 1970’s and 1980’s.
Clouds over the Railroad
In the stead of former warehouses near “Lyubertsy-1” station, a new housing complex has been built, which peacefully coexists with the railroad, with the flyover bridge, and with the diverse surrounding scenery, not only dominating over the latter, but improving it.
Towers in a Forest
The authors of the housing complex “In the Heart of Pushkino” were faced with a difficult task: to preserve the already existing urban forest, at the same time building on it a compound of rather high density. This is how three towers at the edge of the forest appeared with highly developed public spaces in their podiums and graceful “tucks” in the crowning part of the 18-story volumes.
The Towers of “Sputnik”
Six towers, which make up a large housing complex standing on the bank of the Moskva River at the very start of the Novorizhskoe Highway, provide the answers to a whole number of marketing requirements and meets a whole number of restrictions, offering a simple rhythm and a laconic formula for the houses that the developer preferred to see as “flashy”.
The Starting Point
In this article, we are reviewing two retro projects: one is 20 years old, the other is 25. One of them is Saint Petersburg’s first-ever townhouse complex; the other became the first example of a high-end residential complex on Krestovsky Island. Both were designed and built by Evgeny Gerasimov and Partners.
The Path to New Ornamentation
The high-end residential complex “Aristocrat” situated next to a pine park at the start of the Rublev Highway presents a new stage of development of Moscow’s decorative historicist architecture: expensively decorated, yet largely based on light-colored tones, and masterfully using the romantic veneer of majolica inserts.
Renovation: the Far East Style
The competition project of renovating two central city blocks of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, developed by UNK project, won the nomination “Architectural and planning solutions of city construction”.
The Istituto Centrale per la Grafica in Rome presents Sergei Tchoban’s exhibition “Imprint of the future. Destiny of Piranesi’s City”. The exhibition includes four etchings, based on Roman architectural views of the XVIII century complemented by futuristic insertions, as well as a lot of drawings that investigate the same topic, at times quite expressively. The exhibition poses questions, but does not seem to give any answers. Since going to Rome is pretty problematic now, let’s at least examine the pictures.
In Search of Visual Clarity
In this article, we are reviewing a discussion devoted to the question of designing city space elements, which is quite complicated for the Russian expanses of land. The discussion was organized by the Genplan Institute of Moscow at the ArchMoscow convention in Gostiny Dvor.
The City of the Sun
Jointly designed by Sergey Tchoban and Vladimir Plotkin, the VTB Arena Park complex can arguably be considered the perfect experiment on solving the centuries-old controversy between traditional architecture and modernism. The framework of the design code, combined with the creative character of the plastique-based dialogue between the buildings, formed an all-but-perfect fragment of the city fabric.
...The Other Was Just Railroad Gin*
In their project of the third stage of “Ligovsky City” housing complex, located in the industrial “gray” belt of Saint Petersburg, the KCAP & Orange Architects & A-Len consortium set before themselves a task of keeping up the genius loci by preserving the contours of the railroad and likening the volumes of residential buildings to railroad containers, stacked up at the goods unloading station.
Lions on Glass
While reconstructing the facades of Building 4 of Moscow Hospital #23, SPEECH architects applied a technique, already known from Saint Petersburg projects by Sergey Tchoban – cassettes with elements of classical architecture printed on glass. The project was developed gratis, as a help to the hospital.
Park of Sentiments
The project of “Romantic Park Tuchkov Buyan”, which was developed by the consortium of Studio 44 and WEST 8, and has won an international competition, combines sculptural landscape design and wooden structures, variety of spatial features and an eventful agenda, designed for diverse audience, with a beautiful and complex passeist idea of a palace park, meant to evoke thoughts and feelings.
Architecture as an Educational Tool
The concept of a charity school “Tochka Budushchego” (“Point of the Future”) in Irkutsk is based on cutting-edge educational programs, and is designed, among other things, for adapting orphaned children for independent life. An important role is played by the architecture of the building: its structure and different types of interconnected spaces.
The Gallery Approach
In this article, we are covering the concept of a Central District Clinic for 240 patients, designed by Ginzburg Architects, which won at a competition organized by the Architects Union and the Healthcare Ministry.
In this issue, we are publishing the concept of a standard clinic designed by UNK Project, which took second place in the competition organized by the Union of Architects of Russia in collaboration with the Healthcare Ministry.
From Foundation to Teaspoon
Based on the taste of their friendly clients, the architects Olga Budennaya and Roman Leonidov designed and built a house in the Moscow metropolitan area playing Art Nouveau. At the same time, they enriched the typology of a private house with modern functions of a garage loft and a children’s art studio.
Continuation and Development
The second “office” stage of Comcity, the most popular business park of the “New Moscow” area, continues the underground street of the already existing part of the complex, responding to its architectural identity.
The Flying One
Expected to become an analogue of Moscow’s Skolkovo, the project of the High Park campus at Saint Petersburg’s ITMO University, designed by Studio 44, mesmerizes us with its sheer scale and the passion that the architects poured into it. Its core – the academic center – is interpreted as an avant-garde composition inspired by Piazza del Campo with a bell tower; the park is reminiscent of the “rays” of the main streets of Saint Petersburg, and, if watched from a birds-eye view, the whole complex looks like a motherboard with at least four processors on it. The design of the academic building even displays a few features of a sports arena. The project has a lot of meanings and allusions about it; all of them are united by plastique energy that the hadron collider itself could be jealous of.
A Comfortable City in Itself
The project that we are about to cover is seemingly impossible amidst human anthills, chaotically interspersed with old semi-neglected dachas. Meanwhile, the housing complex built on the Comcity business part does offer a comfortable environment of decent city: not excessively high-rise and moderately private as a version of the perfect modern urbanist solution.
Moving on the Edge
The housing complex “Litsa” (“Faces”) on Moscow’s Khodynka Field is one of the new grand-scale buildings that complement the construction around it. This particular building skillfully tackles the scale, subjugating it to the silhouette and the pattern; it also makes the most of the combination of a challenging land site and formidable square footage requirements, packing a whole number of features within one volume, so the house becomes an analogue of a city. And, to cap it all, it looks like a family that securely protects the children playing in the yard from... well, from everything, really.
Visual Stability Agent
A comparatively small house standing on the border of the Bolshevik Factory combines two diametrically opposite features: expensive materials and decorative character of Art Deco, and a wide-spaced, even somewhat brutal, facade grid that highlights a laminated attic.
The Faraday Cage
The project of the boutique apartment complex in the 1st Truzhenikov Lane is the architects’ attempt to squeeze a considerable volume into a tiny spot of land, at the same time making it look graceful and respectable. What came to their rescue was metal, stone, and curvilinear glass.
The Union of Art and Technology
His interest for architecture of the 1930’s is pretty much the guiding star for Stepan Liphart. In his project of the “Amo” house on St. Petersburg’s Vasilyevsky Island, the architect based himself on Moscow Art Deco - aesthetically intricate and decorated in scratch-work technique. As a bonus, he developed the city block typology as an organic structure.
The project that Evgeniy Gerasimov and Partners developed for Moscow’s Leningrad Avenue: the tallest building in the company’s portfolio, continuing the tradition of Moscow’s Stalin architecture.
In the project that they developed for a southern region of Russia, OSA Architects use multilayered facades that create an image of seaside resort architecture, and, in the vein of the latest trends of today, mix up different social groups that the residents belong to.
Just a Mirror for the Sun
The house that Sergey Skuratov designed in Nikolovorobinsky Alley is thought out down to the last detail. It adapts three historical facades, interprets a feeling of a complex city, is composed of many layers, and catches plenty of sunlight, from sunrises to sunsets. The architect himself believes that the main role of this house is creating a background for another nearby project of his, Art House in the Tessinsky Alley.
Part of the Whole
On June 5, the winners of Moscow Architectural Award were announced. The winners list includes the project of a school in Troitsk for 2,100 students, with its own astronomy dome, IT testing ground, museum, and a greenhouse on the roof.
Yet another project of a private school, in which Archimatika realizes the concept of aesthetic education and introduces a new tradition: combining Scandinavian and Soviet experience, turning to works of art, and implementing sustainable technologies.
In the “Parallel House” residence that he designed in the Moscow metropolitan area, the architect Roman Leonidov created a dramatic sculptural composition from totally basic shapes – parallelepipeds, whose collision turned into an exciting show.
In the Istra district of Moscow metropolitan area, the tandem of 4izmerenie and ARS-ST designed a sports complex – a monovolume that has the shape of a chamfered parallelepiped with a pointed “nose” like a ship’s bow.