Skyscrapers are a challenge. This is a huge challenge to human capabilities. It's like the Egyptian pyramids today
Philip Nikandrov is the chief architect of GORPROEKT CJSC, and among his largest projects are the Lakhta Center (Gazprom's 462-meter-tall headquarters, which is currently under construction and has already become Europe's tallest skyscraper) and the Evolution Tower in Moscow City.
At the 100+ Forum Russia, Philip Nikandrov participated in the round table "Innovative approaches to creating an ideal City" and gave an open lecture on the topic "Design and construction of environmentally friendly, energy-efficient and comfortable buildings".
- How do you assess the state of high-rise construction in Russia?
- Russia in Europe, after all, is the number one in high-rise construction. Leader. Russia entered this race back in the 18th century with the spire of the Peter and Paul Fortress in St. Petersburg. And she did not leave this competition any further. Already in the 20th century: in the 19th year – the concept of the Tatlin Tower, in the 30th – we held an international competition for the design of the Palace of Soviets - 400 meters! It is being designed and built, but the war begins. According to the general plan, seven skyscrapers are being built around it. And they were built and remained the tallest buildings in Europe for decades. We export high-rise architecture. Back in Soviet times, architect Rudnev built the Palace of Culture in Warsaw, which is still the tallest building in Poland. Ostankino TV Tower set a world height record in 1967. Russia is still present in this altitude race. And now, of the 10 tallest towers in Europe, seven are located in Russia.
- From the architect's point of view, what are skyscrapers?
- Skyscrapers are a challenge. This is a huge challenge to human capabilities. It's like the Egyptian pyramids today. But they must be safe, they must be easily constructed, economical, energy efficient, they must return the money invested, and not just be monuments to the pharaohs.
- Can high-rise buildings be economical?
- They can. The first rule for a developer is to build economically and sell expensively. Our Evolution tower project in 2014, despite the crisis, was sold to Transneft before the construction was completed, which bought this facility for its headquarters. It was the largest deal in the field of office real estate in Russia, and the profit from the sale was enough to build another such tower.
High-rise buildings up to 40 floors are quite economical, and they bring profit. As soon as you cross the 40-45 floor mark, your cost increases exponentially. You need other technologies, it's harder and longer for you to lift building materials, machinery, and workers. And the economy is more complicated. And such projects, yes, they are unprofitable. For example, the Burj Khalifa is not a separate project, it was conceived by the developer as part of a larger project. Yes, the tower itself is unprofitable. But the project included several dozen low-rise buildings that were built around the Burj Khalifa, and apartments were sold there with a view of the tower. And overall, the project paid off.
- Can the architect contribute to the economic success of the project in the future?
- An architect should think ten years ahead in order to ensure the relevance of the proposed architectural and planning solutions and engineering systems after the completion of the skyscraper for at least the first decade of its operation. After all, skyscrapers have a very long construction cycle, which can sometimes last up to 10 years. And you need to think ahead, otherwise your tower may become obsolete even before its completion.
- What is important for the development of high-rise construction? Only economic conditions or not?
- For a truly unique high-rise skyscraper construction, in addition to a solid budget, the ambitions of a private investor or the state are extremely important. This is an investment both in PR and in national interests in creating a point on the map of our planet. Skyscrapers have become a way for the "third world" countries to make themselves known. No one knew what Dubai was until the Burj Al Arab Hotel was built, and only then did the glory of the Burj Khalifa come. But everyone already knew about Dubai. Mega-skyscrapers are now beginning to incorporate certain meanings, sometimes a national cultural code or religious symbols, as in the plans for the Petronas towers in Kuala Lumpur. They are already treated like some kind of temples. But this is not necessary. There are skyscrapers, as a rule, international projects that can stand anywhere, since they are, in fact, glass "sculptures" in the status of art objects rather than buildings. You can move them to another location and nothing will change. Architecture stars (starchitects) tend to ignore the context. They are invited to declare their program manifesto. It's a cultural shock, it's a kind of injection, that's what they're called for. These people ignore the environment and culture where their buildings are built, and they, as a rule, do not change themselves, their style and design code. But the task of an architect is much more important to me. Do not force the purchase of some universal "sculpture". In my opinion, an architect is obliged to study, understand and respect the context of the place where he builds.