Maria Khrustaleva talks to Erick van Egeraat on his finished and ongoing projects in Russia, on the fights for his designs and for his architect rights, on his litigations and on how can you revitalize almost any building, old or new, just by acknowledging that it is in need of some form of support.

Maria Khrustaleva:

The Sberbank University was opened at the end of the last year and I know that it was a very long, but not very smoothly going project. You met certain obstacles here. How is it typical for working in Russia?

You can see that not many foreign architects are working in Russia these days. Actually almost none. This indicates that there are some serious obstacles in this country. Complications which apparently are not diminishing over time. Things are getting more difficult. I have been working here for more than fourteen years and not all, but many projects had problems.
On the other hand Russia is a great country and almost anything is possible here.
It pleases me that the Sberbank Corporate University has now finally been finished; the building was opened and meetings as well as trainings are held there. Mr. Gref, the chairman of Sberbank, is satisfied with the project and acknowledged that I did a good job.

Are you satisfied?

Of course, I am very content. There was a moment that I was less positive about the project’s management and progress – it is not enjoyable when the works were carried out with the usual lack of attention to details and that works progressed disappointingly slow. But the final result is really good. If you look at the master plan and the design of the entire campus, you can see that the outcome fully corresponds with my designs. We did the Author Supervision works and all that I have designed of the shell and core project, was properly built.

The interiors of this project are a different story. They were built without my involvement and supervision; definitely not the level of quality one would expect from the leading bank of Russia.
Some parts may have been built to Sberbank standards, clearly not to mine. It seems that the quality of the final building is not that important for most people in this humongous organization, as it is for me.

Many people in this country are very enthusiastic and ambitious when it comes to building, but an equal amount of people in Russia seem indifferent to the details. In the construction industry it has become the typical approach not pay too much attention to details; maybe because peoples do not really understand the importance of consistency and reliability, or they do not have patience to be convoluted in it. In my opinion, it is truly a pity that the leading bank of Russia did not put enough effort to make the interiors of the Institute worth their function. In this project the difference is really visible and that is a shame. Sberbank could do better; much better. Create a better image of a modern institution, future oriented and openly rejecting of all we know where the lesser sides of the Soviet times.

But this detail aside I am very proud. We did built a complete campus with a one-kilometer long connecting building. A great training facility. There are not so many countries in the world that are able to start such an ambitious project. Maybe even less countries who would actually be building it. The fact that we were able to overcome and accept our differences; and in the end have congratulated each other with the successful completion, yes, that is very important for me.

Have you discussed your issues with other foreign architects who have some experience working in Russia?

It’s is not a subject I speak about frequently. But I have not met foreign colleagues who are profoundly enthusiastic about working in the Russian Federation. And this is no just Norman Foster. Most of my colleagues, with whom I speak, simply do not want to spend massive amounts of their own time and effort, which you need when developing and realizing a project in Russia.

Speaking of our Sberbank Corporate University project, we had a team of 40 people who literally worked day and night during two and a half years. We developed the project in three months and started the construction really fast, but when the shell & core parts of the building were almost completed the actual finishing stopped, quite abrupt. In the end some of the contractors finished the works. They did so partially based on my ideas and drawings, but sometimes also by improvising. Some of my Russian colleague architects are more tolerant to such situations; I am not. Most of my Russian colleagues will rarely chose to fight for their rights. If the project does not go well, they will let it go. My colleagues have learned how to adapt and they have trained themselves how to manipulate these situations to their own advantage. Yes, you may criticize me for caring too much about the products and designs I am involved in; because I really do.

Why do you fight for your projects?

I believe that generally my teams work hard and we rely on that fact that I stand for what we develop as a company and as team of professionals. Of course it is not like this that I have an idea and then I expect it to be accepted by everyone.

Usually you start a project with a question from the Client: “How this building should look? What do you think?” Then I share my opinion and usually the reply is: “Ok, we like that, let’s build it.” After this, I work to receive all required approvals and agreements, both with my Client’s team and with the authorities. Then, in my point of view, both parties should follow the agreement.
Knowing what to build is essential. Sir Ove Arup, the famous English engineer, did not say without reason “the question is not how to build, but what to build!” You need to agree on what you are building. There is simply no other way to get something properly realized.
If the client decides not to build the building, or if someone does not like my design, I can understand this; nobody is forced to build what I have designed. But when I do the design, receive all the approvals, finalize my job, and then someone tells me: “You know, we can do everything half price, we don’t need your working drawings.” This is simply silly. It is partly due to the “do-it-yourself culture” in this country. This do-it yourself culture is of great value for any individual with limited means, but it also stands in the way of qualified progress. When you want to achieve something worthwhile, you might be willing to accept that there are professionals who know what they are doing; they should be allowed to do their work and that work should respected. But many people in this country have a tendency to (sometimes rightfully) mistrust others and as a consequence everyone becomes his own banker, his own doctor and architect. It is to my opinion the main reason for the certified mediocracy you see so much around here. It may not be a nice thing to say, but I am sure most people will agree.

You even have to protect yourself in court.

Yes, in case of commercial disputes, when all the contracts have been concluded properly, it makes sense to go directly to the court. I am happy that I was able to prove that I was right in case of Capital Group, when several courts including the Russian courts confirmed that the foreign architect was right and the Russian developer was in the wrong. I am not proud of that episode in my career, but I think it should be done. If it is a clean commercial/financial dispute, it is a part of civilized culture to ask a judge to settle this dispute. And that works well in Russia. Sometimes, I even have the feeling that when it concerns financial disputes, the Russian courts work better than the European ones.
It maybe because in many countries there are so many cases for the judges to rule on.

Might be, your status of international star helped you? Probably, if a Russian architect had sued Capital Group, it would have not been that easy?

Do you think so? Maybe it really did play its role in the courts. But in all other situations being a foreigner does not help. After all these years in Russia anyway, I still am a foreigner; I am also expected to act like a foreigner. So I feel like a foreigner and I keep on being treated like a foreigner. I think this will never change and I happily accept that. I like to be who I am.

What do you think about architectural competitions here in Russia?

Are there any real open unbiased competitions? It is already a sensitive subject in Europe and of course a subject of continued discussion throughout the world. But almost every architectural competition in Russia is not really what it seems to be. The last completion I did, was a really nice project for the reconstruction of the Udarnik Cinema. A fantastic landmark of a building, with a great history. I really deem this competition very well-organized and well-executed. There were five foreign architects participating in the competitions. The client had huge ambitions and wanted to make a statement that this project would both be commercially successful and an example of how to revitalize a dysfunctional building from the past into a glorious future. Truly great ambitions, if you ask me.

The project of the Belgian architect won, but he proposed to do almost nothing. That seemed like a magical formula, but logically it never worked. In this country, as in most other places, there is no easy fix; we know this by now. You might find an easy solution in well-balanced economies and settled cultural societies. Definitely not here. Here you need to battle for your success. Whether you are striving for a cultural achievement or when you are just interested in the money. For this at least I have to credit those who oppose my views and focus on making money instead of making things better; they too have to be aggressive and work hard to get to achieve or to get the cash they are after.

But Udarnik is a cultural heritage site; most likely, you cannot do anything big there.

I understand this, but is it not the professional’s challenge to, either painstakingly restore and bring back the original function to the monument or if that is impossible, to propose respectful and interesting modifications which bring new live to the same monument. That is something else than to say “look we do not need to do anything and it works”! To bring back the original geometry, paint everything white and call it a day!? In my proposal for Udarnik we took indeed a bolder step.
I proposed to place a construction tower crane permanently next to the building, to make a profoundly new point of gravity. The tower crane symbolizes the ongoing construction in the mega polis Moscow and is a tribute to constructivist architecture to which the Udarnik Cinema building belongs. At the same time I also proposed to meticulously restore the entire building and its transformable roof and make it opening again. Something that, in the history of Udarnik never happened. It was very disappointing that among so many talented architectural solutions from different countries, to see that a poor, lazy, and actually very average project was chosen. The Belgian architects were naïve and I am afraid the Client as well!

In how many architectural competitions have you taken part in Russia?

In general, I do not participate in the competitions too often. Not here, but also not in the rest of the world. The competitions for Sberbank Corporate University was ordered by Mr Gref, who wanted a new type of trainings-facility, preferably not in the center of Moscow. It was actually a closed competition; a selection procedure to appoint an architect.
Generally, there are not many truly open competitions. The Moscow Dynamo Stadium was one of them. Mariinsky II and New Holland in St Petersburg were two other ones; speaking about complicated projects! Most these “open” competition projects ended up becoming victims of non-transparent decision making. At least very unclear for its participants, which unfortunately also included me.

We first met each other when there were discussions of the Dynamo contest projects.

Yes, it was rather painful experience for me. From the very beginning I always assumed that considering the various stakeholders, this project would not be easy one to accomplish; there could be some difficulties. But I definitely did not expected it to become such a lurid experience. I have no idea what will be built now.

Recently it has been announced that the construction works will start very soon; the project should be finished by the World Cup in 2018. In total all over the Russia it is planned to build about 20 stadiums for the World Cup. They have two more years left, but almost nothing is done.

I did not know this. Well in effect, in two and а half years you can complete almost every construction project, but in case of Dynamo you have to deal with the remaining historic walls and operate in already existing city environment…that will be a challenge.

Almost no walls are left there. It is really painful for all of us.

Of course it is, I cannot disagree. You may remember that we have discussed this issue. Right after I had won the competition, you questioned if my competition design was the right thing to do.
My idea was to preserve the historic stadium and build a futuristic structure on top of it. I tried to unite two worlds: the past and the future. And then you asked me: “Erick, do you truly believe that this is going to be built this way?” You were actually right; most of the old stadium has been demolished. Such an embarrassment. That such unnecessary demolishing would happen, I never expected.
In hindsight you could say that my design may have helped to legitimize the demolition, even though my objective was the opposite. It is shameful to realize when your ideas are being used for opposite goals. I was too optimistic, that is easy to see now.

May be your experience with Dynamo is the reason why you advised to the owners of the Red October to use the adaptive reuse technique, thus, not to demolish the historical buildings, but to adapt them to new functions?

Adaptive reuse is not new. Do not forget that my professional career started in the late nineteen seventies when we were intensely debating the need for rehabilitation of old city centers in the Netherlands. I have spent more than two decades designing and building inexpensive housing both new and renovated ones in these inner city districts. It was Lushkov’s Moscow that was an entirely new world to me. Step by step transforming of urban districts was familiar territory.
So when my involvement in Moscow City stopped in 2004, I started looking at Moscow differently.
It was in that time that I became good friends with Artem Kuznetsov. We started discussing what to do with the city as early as in 2005. What we could learn from others. What to do with the Red October factory. What we saw at that time were absolutely insane plans for development of the area: giant buildings for the city authorities, colossal hotels and other outdated projects. With Artem I visited cities in Europe and later in America. I showed him a couple of projects of mine, large reconstruction projects in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Lyon and Hamburg. We endlessly discussed the idea of transformation and transition from old into new. We discussed urban renewal experiences in Europa, but also the Temporary Contemporary Museum in Los Angeles and other projects were the “temporary” solution had become more relevant and sometimes even more successful than the ‘final” one. During the crisis of 2008 he and his partners came to the idea that it is better to slow down, first think over the process of transformation of functions and then check what was really required in the area. Maybe the old buildings would suit better for the new needs than the new ones. They were right.

Now after six or seven years we see that the idea of transition in Red October has proven itself; it works perfectly well. You can see that area’s like this need new functions, more than they need new architecture. And if you at the end would decide to build new, than these new buildings could be integrated more delicately and precisely in an already transformed context.

What plans do you have now?

I share Artem’s point of view on this project; working slowly has advantages. Working attentively and doing small steps at a time or only after careful consideration allows for a transition to take place, whilst public takes ownership of the buildings and the site. It is a unique way to develop. Because it allows you to react properly to the changing conditions. The Red October and Strelka Institute have become a real Moscow phenomenon, everyone knows about them. This site is full of vital spirit, it is energetic and alive. Every year new functions in buildings are opened, the reconstruction is on the go and its functions are in constant flux. It has become a very dynamic part of Moscow’s centre. Many people like it even more than any new construction from the scratch. It is fair to say that it also has become part of the latest trend. Retro styling. It happened in the alternative scenes in cities around the world, throughout the seventies and eighties. In the same way as it happens now, with many people focusing on low budget solutions, again.

But this approach does not exclude new buildings. New constructions will be needed too. For some time we are discussing a new pedestrian bridge from the Monument of Peter the Great to the Museon Park. There are two projects for this bridge, one of them is mine and the other one is of a German architect.

Sooner or later also new buildings will appear at the Red October. It will happen, even though I am not sure if it is going to happen in the nearest future. The crisis is not the only issue here. This is a perfectly working part of the city and there is no drastic need for new constructions. If the possibilities are there, then you could start building. I developed a small fashion hotel to be located at one of the parking lots. We will see, may be it will be realized at some point. Artem is not the kind of person who would say: “This will be built, no matter what!” His approach is more cautious and actually more in consistent with Moscow’s development.

Does the city insist for something to be built at the Red October?

As I understand, the city does no longer promote any new construction here. Nobody in the Moscow government, including City Architect Mr. Kuznetsov, seems to advocate substantial or big new construction projects in this area. They are more likely to insist to build as less as possible. This may also not be the way forward; but a step by step development makes the transformation of the area unquestionably more natural and probably more sustainable.

I am very fascinated by this adaptive reuse idea and the Dutch experience in this area. There are plenty of works on economic aspects of heritage preservation, but there are not many articles on environmental issues connected to it. For instance, the concepts like embedded labor are hardly can be translated into Russian.

You may go even further. We need to learn that quality of life and the quality of our cities are undoubtedly connected with the achievements of past generations. We all are creative and we all add value; but a lot of what we have, we simply got for free from our ancestors. The Red October project, for instance, is a very nice example of this inherited value. The present day value of Red October derives mainly from the energy and work people in the past have been willing to bring to that site. Many people worked hard to create this island in the Moskva River and its factory. The result is a very particular and distinctive value that is difficult to duplicate today. In any of Red October’s new bars or restaurants you can feel this unique vibe of the old building; it is an energy that cannot be artificially duplicated in new buildings. That is the reason why people like old cities and the buildings which are part of it. These old buildings can be adapted and made ready to embrace new realities and create a contemporary animated environment. The intrinsic value of what is already there and which forms a base for what is new, becomes more and more obvious, now that we seem to become more sensitive to it. It may be one of the main advantages of the present economic crisis; it makes us more aware of the value of what is around us, aware of what we already have.

To some extent this embedded value also relates to new buildings. New buildings need quite some energy and effort before they are completed, but even then it does not mean that they will immediately be embraced by all of us. It all needs time.
At this moment for example I am participating in finalizing the Mercury Tower project in Moscow City. This tower is actually designed ten years ago by Frank Williams, who unfortunately passed away; then I was asked to finish the building. The really strange thing here is that despite the huge amount of labor, energy and money that was spent in general, Moscow City as a whole still misses a soul, it misses a heart. We know now that despite all investments, it takes time to make the buildings in Moscow City really liked. And I am not speaking about the time it takes to get these buildings properly occupied, but I speak about these buildings to become fully used, accepted and if needed to be altered and modified. Only after this, these same buildings we consider now aliens in our perception of the city of Moscow, will slowly deserve the place they actually already have claimed. It will take time, but I am convinced that it will happen.

In Amsterdam I have built the so-called Erick van Egeraat Tower in the Zuid-As business district, which is going through a similar process now. Started more than ten years ago the district is changing from being separate from the city, getting more mixed program and more differentiated activities, slowly being accepted and becoming an integral new part of Amsterdam.

I dare to ask you if you like its orange color.

No, this color I would never have chosen. But during the past years the golden, or orange color if you will, has become an intrinsic part of the Mercury Tower’s image and of Moscow’s skyline. It may now be considered one of the Mercury Tower’s most typical characteristics. I suppose the color was not selected by Frank Williams, but by Mosproekt, which was Frank Williams’s Russian partner. It is what it is and I never have felt an urge to modify or alter it. Also not when we were asked to modify the top of the Tower. I have always opted to keep all modifications in line with the existing design. It would obviously not be appropriate for me to alter or change any of the prominent characteristics of the building. And this color is definitely one of them.

At the same time the tower has become a new city landmark, very ambiguous landmark though.

Of course, this building has a very complicated history and so does the whole of the Moscow City complex. But even Moscow City can be treated or reviewed in the same way we do Red October. Just think about Moscow City: wrong place, wrong scale, and very complicated accessibility, no matter what transport you use. Not a good start for a new district. But at the same time a tremendous concentration of floor space, which will attract the biggest and most powerful companies in the city of Moscow. So yes, I am sure, this less attractive image will eventually change. Gradually, people will start to inhabit the district in full and people will take possession of the area; they will adapt and alter the buildings and the way they are used. Moscow City may never become the most beautiful part of Moscow, but it definitely become Moscow’s busiest and liveliest business district.

Several years ago I was invited to provide proposals for the interiors of Mercury Tower and think about possible new functions. We have suggested to make the mix of functions more visible. After all the tower is a mixed-use building: offices, apartments, public spaces, restaurants, Art Gallery and shops. This mix of activities is still what I think makes a building attractive these days.
Like a small city. The energy you experience of any old city is what keeps intriguing me. You can chose to treat a building not as a new, but as an old one. A building in need of adaptation to the contemporary life, like an old city does. This opens complete new horizons. Obvious unattractive spaces can be brought to live and animated; create liveliness. This energy is contagious, if you manage to do something like this in one place, you will be able to do it in another one as well. That is what will eventually happen in Moscow City. You cannot make Moscow city a sustainable part of Moscow any other way.

Don’t you think that the new crisis will impact Moscow City and the buildings will remain unoccupied for several more years?

Of course Moscow City suffers from the present economic situation. But the crisis will also help to shape the district into a more lively part of Moscow. But this is the reason why I propose to change the apartment layouts in Mercury Tower; suggest to reduce their size, in some cases as small as 50 square meters. People who can afford a luxurious apartment in the center of Moscow are not necessarily in need of a big one, but a very well equipped proper designed space. Some of them will chose for this option because they already have a country house and for others because they live a life in the city in which they need a small efficient but luxurious space. A kind of life style which is common in many world cities; whether this is New York, Singapore or London. Moscow City is not the place for huge apartments, but foremost a place to own a studio in the center where you can live luxuriously either alone or as a couple.

So of course, the crisis will affect the situation, but big cities have survived even worse misfortunes. The buildings can wait, in five years everything will be different. In time everything can be made better.

And that is where a part of the problem lies. In order to make thing better you need good ideas, grit and willingness to promote yourselves. And it is no news that in Russia people have never been eager to promote. There is always this tenacious idea that one believes that Russia is big and great enough and in no need to spend time on such trivial subject as public relations. That is a pity; international sentiments concerning Russia are worsening. This is not helpful when you want to make things better. It is regrettable, because at the same time Russia has a lot to offer. You can find amazing initiatives, artists and brilliant directors who do astonishing work.

What is your plan for the future? Are you going to spend much time in Russia or are you changing your strategy?

Momentarily I am very much interested in a topic which I describe as Galvanizing the City; Making the City better by protecting that what is good and improving what is less successful. A step by step process which I can do anywhere, anytime and with anyone. Whether it is for the government or for private clients. And there is enough to do. At the moment I spend almost half of my time here in Russia and, you know, I feel almost like home here.

Click here for the original article (in Russian)