Sergey Skuratov: how society can influence urban space
Sergey Skuratov, a well–known architect, president of Sergey Skuratov Architects, member of the Board of the Union of Moscow Architects, academician of the International Academy of Architecture (IAA), and a professional with 38 years of experience, became the speaker of the 100+ Forum for High-rise and Unique construction in Yekaterinburg. Sergey and I talked right at the forum, during a break in the meetings, about whether a citizen can somehow participate in creating the architectural appearance of his city.
- By definition, the city belongs to the citizens. But in order for them to exercise their rights, society must form special communication algorithms and mechanisms for implementing certain ideas. In civil society, there is this bundle that builds relationships between the interested part of the community and the authorities or other structures that make and implement significant decisions for the city. In some cases, we need a valid law that allows us to comply with certain public approval procedures, in others, not formally, but essentially, to build a constructive dialogue at the early stages of analyzing the existing situation and right up to the moment of decision-making. But without understanding the necessity and inevitability of developing and adopting such procedures and mechanisms for their implementation, nothing will work. We need a victory of common sense over routine and the habit of solving everything "from above".
In order to take an active part in shaping the urban environment, one must be able to formulate one's ideas, understand values and priorities, and structure one's desires and needs. It is important to understand that the city is everywhere – in any country with any social structure – a place of intersection, collision and unification of various interests. Any legal interests in the city, private, group, or public, must be represented and heard. We need to help the city formulate its wishes, turn these wishes into theses, combine theses and take them into account when developing a social and urban policy.
People everywhere often express their opinions in extremely contradictory and extremely emotional ways. As a rule, they are in a hurry to express a negative opinion and are rarely ready to unite for serious work on a new solution. Today I watched the Yeltsin Center, and I remember perfectly well the year 91, when a huge part of the country was like a single whole, it wanted to free itself from the yoke of Bolshevism. This desire to live in a new democratic country united interests. But it is easier to unite in denial, positive creative work raises a lot of questions, identifies problems and points of confrontation. There is a lot of internal confrontation in society now, a sense of injustice, and too much difference between the strata. These are social conflicts based on the principle of "them and us," no matter who "they" are - rich or poor, old-timers or newcomers, liberals or conservatives, government officials or ordinary citizens. The city concentrates and spills out these problems, it is a complex and sensitive organism, it does not respond well to rough and forceful adjustment.
Architects are necessary participants in the fine, complex and professional adjustment of urban life. In order for the architects to have a dialogue with the townspeople, it is necessary to develop a common language. Starting from school, educated teachers, books, textbooks, and the media should talk about the goals and objectives that representatives of our workshop face. Architecture is a rather complex profession that requires a lot of skills, knowledge and experience. It requires reflection and consideration of a huge number of opinions and interests of all participants in the project preparation process. And sometimes absolutely contradictory! Not only the population, but also all interested parties. Starting from the city's leadership and ending with representatives of a specific group of people for whom something is being built.
In order to talk about the expediency of certain changes, we must speak the same language with people, they must understand us. When people have a huge number of problems in the present, it is very difficult to have a discussion about their future. This is one of the problems of communication between professionals and non–professionals - professionals try to explain to people that a transition period is needed and that in the future it may be a little better. A good architecture can solve some of the problems, but only the part that it professionally deals with and for which it can be responsible. But often such a tangle of problems and unresolved tasks accumulates in the minds of citizens that dialogue does not work by definition. Many problems of communication, environmental development, and the humanization of urban space can be solved only through long and painstaking research, in the context of interprofessional discourse.
Often, when citizens oppose the construction of a building, it doesn't matter if it's a house, a skyscraper, a church in a park or a casino, they just express a familiar feeling. As a rule, it is a personal disagreement to change something around yourself. This is a common story associated with habitual conservative thinking. On some Parisian street, for example, a cheese shop that has existed for 100 years is closing and people come out to protest because they are used to buying cheese here every morning.
This is a normal human reaction. A person gets used to it and it's already difficult to get used to it. Even when you've been wearing your favorite jacket for years and it's finally worn and torn, it's still difficult to go to the store and buy a new one. Whatever you try on, you don't like – you're so used to this thing. Everything new seems to you somehow incomplete, not good enough. The force of habit on a city scale is an important factor in urban reality, which an architect must also consider and work with.
My entire professional life is focused on solving urban problems, and the continuous process of improving and treating the urban body is fundamentally important to me. Fortunately, we have a positive profession, creation is the basis of architectural activity. But every profession has a certain range of possibilities. An architect cannot decide many things for a sociologist or an urbanist, and it can be too late and useless to say no to a developer or city government when the purpose and scope of construction have already been determined. Citizens need to start participating in the process at the stage of discussing the appointment of an urban site. Having discovered a new finished building in the neighborhood, it's too late and pointless to scold the architect.
In order to build a dialogue, we need a constructive and constructive platform. It is necessary to understand the contradictory nature of the city – both conservative and radical. The city is both a familiar environment that has been developing for centuries and an open platform for constant innovative changes. The search for balance is a common difficult task that can be successfully and harmoniously solved only in the course of joint painstaking interprofessional work.
- Are there any steps towards improving the architectural culture?
- Everything will definitely get better. Humanity is fantastically talented!