CULTURE

City of the future?

By Katya Madrid

Special to The St. Petersburg Times

Sophia Korobkova / The St. Petersburg Times Displays of proposed new buildings formed the basis of the recently-held exhibition but some consideration was given to St. Petersburg’s architectural heritage.

For four days until last Sunday, the Museum of Anthropology hosted “Architecture in St. Petersburg 2007,” a special exhibit put on by the Union of Architectural Firms or OAM (a self-described “symbol of enterprise, quality of services and security of success”), and the Pro Arte Institute, an organization founded in 1999 to promote contemporary culture in the fields of visual art, music and dance in St Petersburg.

On its web site, OAM calls Pro Arte a “potentially very useful ally” — apparently because its “activity within St. Petersburg’s cultural life has risen in profile.”

Certainly, holding this show in a museum — by definition a place of culture — and presenting it together with a well-known arts organization, lent it credibility in the eyes of the public. This, however, did little to transform the show from a piece of shameless self-promotion into an art exhibit. The show was a typical professional expo with uniform glossy panels showing colorful pictures of products. But in this case, they happened to be buildings. The marble pillars of the hall were in perfect concert with the many ritzy designs for the nouveaux riche presented at the show.

To its credit, OAM invited several noted architects to give lectures as part of the event (none of them from St. Petersburg). These included Manfred Ortner from Austria, Sergey Choban from Germany, Alexander Skokan, Sergei Skuratov and Irina Korobyina from Moscow, Jose Acebillo from Spain, and Ulef Reinhagen from Sweden.

In an interview Acebillo surprisingly admitted that the projects, some already built, some that will never be built, were quite ordinary.

“The exhibit is generic,” said Acebillo. “One should recognize a city by its buildings, like the Empire State building in New York. [The designs at this exhibit have] no identifiable character. These buildings could be built anywhere in Europe. [There is] no relationship to the native environment. No relationship to the soul of St. Petersburg.”

Alexander, a young architect living and working in St. Petersburg was visiting the exhibit, had a more generous outlook. When asked whether the client dictates style, he shifted focus to say architects shouldn’t “copy the old style. If it’s a copy, it shows, and in a poor light. It must be in ‘modern’ style, but in concert with its environment… An architect must have culture and will. An architect must be a dictator.”

The exhibition featured a well put together display about the now-demolished Kirov stadium, a large photo of the architect, hand made schematic drawings, and an historic photograph of the stadium, all artfully printed in sepia tone. The “historic” portion of the exhibit, included to lend credibility to the “new” architecture by way of positioning it as the legitimate heir of the work of the old masters, did not seem to impress the up and coming architect. Alexander thought that the old stadium was presented simply out of courtesy and respect.

The few genuinely interesting design ideas at the exhibit were difficult to spot in a sea of standard-issue glass constructions of fashionable office buildings and residential complexes. A lack of clear boundaries between one display and the next meant they flowed together like a bad dream, forming a new city that might even work in a place that does not have St. Petersburg’s historical context to contend with, such as Australia.

Had any attempt been made to present the work in 3-D, it would have made it easier for the average person not working in the field to get a taste for how these buildings would function in reality and, in turn, in its surrounding environment. Since the buildings do not exist in isolation from the city, this is a key point in understanding the development trend in St. Petersburg, which the name of the exhibit suggests as a goal.

“The exhibit is necessary,” said Acebillo. “Citizens must know the architectural projects in the works so that they can participate [in the development of the city].” But while the show might have sparked some reflection from the city’s inhabitants there was not even a guest book available for public comment.

In answer to the question of legitimacy, Acebillo said: “The story of relationships between clients and architects is the story of architecture.”

Perhaps he is right.

More stories by this section:

Alive and kicking | Chernov’s choice | Floral tribute | Despairing looks | Gotta dance! | In the spotlight | Good presse | Double bill

Or take part in the discussion below.