Begging for revolution: will Moscow break free from the imposed taste of Mayor Yuri Luzhkov?

After more than ten years of rapid growth in the construction service market, Moscow is ready to welcome contemporary architecture. Local professionals have already produced several good quality buildings, but more than 90 per cent of contracts go to architects 'at the helm'--mostly employees of former state-owned design institutes ruled by Soviet-type bosses connected with mayor Yuri Luzhkov. After two big international competitions in 2003 (Mariinsky-II in Saint Petersburg and Moscow Marie), the local architectural community believed for a short time in creative freedom. The last (9 April) meeting of the so-called Public Council, the most important architectural committee of Moscow chaired by Luzhkov, proved the opposite: the mixed-use estate project called Russian Avant-Garde on Yakimansky Alleyway by Erick van Egeraat was rejected.

The background to this decision is quite interesting. In 2001, Capital Group, one of the biggest Moscow development companies, took the risk of being the first to invite a foreign architect to design a contemporary building in the historic part of Moscow. The location near CDH, the famous museum of modern art with the biggest collection of Russian avant-garde paintings, inspired the idea of five towers with common stylobates as interpretations of canvases by prominent masters of the 1920s--Wassily Kandinsky, Kazimir Malevich, Alexander Rodchenko, Alexandra Ekster and Liubov Popova. The architect's goal was to use these works of art not as facade decoration motifs, but rather as the basis for an architectural and functional solution.

Despite its sophistication, richness and complex interaction with the surrounding urban environment, the new work of Erick van Egeraat is accessible to all. Its message is easily read by any passer-by. In an interview for Souremenny Dom magazine, Egeraat said: 'You have to be earnest doing such a project--this is not a place for irony, or it may turn into a jest. We thoroughly studied possible ways of translating canvas elements into structural ones with the emphasis on interaction between exterior and interior. Throughout the twentieth century, Modernism based on primitive architectural forms took the lead. Now it is time to switch from plain to complex, multilevel and multifarious volumes, which make Russian avant-garde so dynamic and saturated. Instead of seeking simplicity, avant-garde artists experimented with new forms. The five painters I chose were famous for their exceptionally rich colour palette and a multitude of artistic techniques. They were capable of creating vivid images, a source of our inspiration'.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

This choice had a symbolic meaning revolutionary Russian art and architecture of the early twentieth century had a tremendous impact on the works of several generations of architects, and a lot of international stars, like Hadid, Isozaki and Prix who have collections of albums with paintings and designs of those times. On the other hand, the project reminded the public that a lot of prominent works of architecture of the 1920s and '30s, like Narkomfin house by Moisei Ginzburg, several clubs for workers and the private house of Konstantin Melnikov, are in terrible condition and need urgent restoration.

The work by Erick van Egeraat caused hot debates both in professional circles and in the media. Some members of the architectural community criticized the project for unwarranted decorativeness and for the fact that it was not chosen on a competitive basis. There also was a discussion about changes, which were inevitable for the project to be harmonized with the heritage estate in the vicinity of John the Warrior Church. Other professionals expressed their positive opinion about the influence of the project on the surrounding cityscape and ground-floor promenade open to all citizens--a new development for Moscow.

The project passed through the ordeal of getting approval at numerous committees and was backed by practically all members of the Public Council, save for several conservation experts. However, the closing address of the Moscow mayor shocked everybody. 'The project is good', he declared, 'but not for this particular place. Let's move it to another location--for example. "Moscow City" business district'. By this his decision was not particular to this case, but can be applied to nearly all future contemporary architectural proposals for the centre of Moscow. Egeraat, of course, is quite negative about moving out or implementing radical changes to the project. We will no doubt discuss this project for a long time. Its different aspects may be criticized, but nobody can call its sincerity into question--it is this kind of project that Moscow city architecture has desperately lacked in past years. And the problem is not in architectural talent or ambition--there is a multitude of talented professionals. They have experience, wealthy investors and advancing building technologies at their disposal, but they fear creative freedom and experimentation.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

While Moscow authorities continue to hamper international and local competitions, the remaining empty plots in the historical part of Moscow were being built up with unsatisfactory Post-Modern contextual architecture. But most tragic is the fact that the mayor assumes the role of sole arbiter, dictating the future of the huge megalopolis, assigning contemporary architecture a humble place in the ghetto of a new business district.

PETR KUDRYAVTSEV, Editor in Chief, Sovremenny Dom magazine