Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences (RAASN). Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences All-Union Academy of Architecture

Federal State Budgetary Institution "Central Research and Design Institute for Urban Planning of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences"

Activities

Information from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities

• Unique purchase number 223/13-KM-01.11ok. Open competition for the right to conclude a state contract for the performance of research work under the subprogram "Development of the production of composite materials (composites) and products from them" of the state program Russian Federation"Development of industry and increasing its competitiveness" Competition No. 3
• Conducting scientific research in the field of acquisition, storage, accounting and use of archival documents. "Development guidelines on streamlining and preparation for transfer to the state (municipal) archives of documents of liquidated credit institutions (for bankruptcy trustees-liquidators)"

  Federal Archival Agency

Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation

• Conducting joint multilateral projects in the field of applied research focused on production. Conducting joint multilateral European-Russian projects aimed at creating innovative products and technological developments within the framework of the international program ERANET-Eurotransbio.

  Fund for Assistance to the Development of Small Forms of Enterprises in the Scientific and Technical Sphere

Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation

Ten days have passed in the new position. They are usually the most stressful: you get acquainted with the structure of the organization, with employees, deal with the implementation of previously given instructions in order to be in the know, to be ready for a report on any issue. Time is not allotted for this, life does not stand still, therefore, assignments go in the usual rhythm and, accumulating knowledge of background, at the same time you plunge headlong into current affairs.

Looking through the business mail, I came across a copy of the telegram addressed to “Comrade. Yeltsin B.S.” from the Union of Architects of the RSFSR. The architectural community, apparently, then did not know the real patronymic of the president of the country. This dispatch was sent to me from Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin's office for review. I still continued, without attaching importance to it, to accept thinning congratulations on the occasion of my appointment to a high position from those whom I knew and from those who wanted me to know about them, and this text was of a completely different content.

“The Eighth Plenum of the Board of the Union of Architects of the RSFSR protests against the decision of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR on the appointment of the chairman of the Committee for Architecture and Construction of an engineer dash builder for the education of a representative of the building complex Pursuing a strong social policy and spiritual revival of the peoples of the Russian Federation period Under the current conditions, the Union of Architects of the RSFSR considers it necessary to speed up the development and adoption by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR of laws on architecture and urban planning pt to strengthen the Goskomarchstroy of the RSFSR with cadres of architects pt to develop a new urban planning strategy for the Russian Federation period The Board of the Union of Architects of the RSFSR point Chairman of the Board A.G. Rochegov 23.10.90.

My last name was not mentioned in the telegram, which means it was not known, like the president's patronymic, but the position coincided. It also converged that an "engineer dash builder by education dash representative of the construction complex" was appointed. Of course, it was about me, of which there was no doubt.

Therefore, I had to carefully read the telegram more than once, overcoming the “dashes, spt and full stops” that interfered with the understanding of the content, before forming a final opinion about the appeal.

In my opinion, it turned out that not all the statements of the authors were correct. What is needed is not a state governing body for architecture, but the Academy of Architecture and Construction should be recreated. Without a doubt, a non-architect by education should head the Committee in charge of contracting, the construction industry, the building materials industry, and the country's housing and communal services. And, finally, for the head of such an organization, his architectural education is not so much important as a correct understanding of the role of architecture in the process of creation. Even though my analysis of the provisions contained in the telegram proved the wrong of its senders, it did not give me pleasure and did not get out of my head.

By an incredible coincidence, my first scheduled meeting with the chief architects of the subjects of the Federation, who were participants in the plenum, was to take place on October 23, 1990, that is, on the day the telegram was received. This event was planned in advance, no less than a month before my appointment to the post, but it was guessed right under the telegram.

Later I will learn: after the completion of the plenums, the architects always met with the head of the Committee. They accepted this appeal at the last meeting, sent it, and the next day they arrived in Moscow. This is where they met me. This time the planned program was overfulfilled, since they also got acquainted with the telegram, the contents of which they knew, but the form itself had not yet been seen.

In a cramped, uncomfortably elongated hall, not adapted for holding any meetings, this time filled to overflowing, I stood behind a peeling plywood podium on a small rise near the end wall. The longitudinal walls were blank, except for a doorway in the middle of one of them. The end wall opposite consisted of a large window and heating radiators under it, but the cast-iron units were covered with rows of chairs. Daylight from the street fell into my eyes, did not allow me to see clearly those who were in the hall, but those present at the meeting could, if they wished, see me well.

Naturally, I began my speech by reading the telegram. The architects were amazed at the operational work of the president's services with the appeals coming to him from labor collectives, even created on a voluntary basis. He did not comment on the provisions contained in it. Why dissuade specialists with words, if you want, then prove the case with deeds, no one interferes. Does this take time? Of course, and big, but it will be.

Then I told about the production school classes that I took, a little about myself, and, most importantly, truthfully about the attitude to architecture that has changed over the years. Outlined a plan for future joint work. I said that so far I can’t confirm my words regarding the assessment of the place and role of architecture. The work will show what position I will adhere to. The architects, I hope, will be convinced that my promises will not be at odds with deeds.

My speech was not drawn to the report, from the outside I could be perceived as a person offering myself as a colleague, and joint work - in peace and harmony.

There were many questions, and judging by them, not everyone liked the friendship offered in relations with the builders. I was not nervous, but tried to answer in my answers that the architect and the builder are one link in the process of creation, that it is necessary to look at the root of the disagreements between them. Then the chief architects of Vologda, Ryazan, Khabarovsk, Ulyanovsk, Lipetsk and other places spoke. We talked about painfully familiar problems, there were also business proposals that I took note of.

We parted, it seemed to me, with a sense of emerging mutual understanding. It seems that I did not fit the stereotypical idea of ​​a big construction boss who cuts orders and brushes aside the “heresy” that, according to many builders, architects usually carry. Although I really turned out to be a graduate of a professional construction environment, I had deviations from the “norm”, which allowed them to hope for something in their relationship with me in the future.

The telegram received at that time did not contribute to the formation of my attitude to architecture, but it turned out to be the impetus that helped me to speak aloud about the leading place of the architect in the construction process, I was already ready for this.

Working in the Sverdlovsk region, at different levels of the corporate ladder, I had to deal with technical issues, project documentation, changes to it and the coordination of various proposals to simplify solutions, which builders never skimped on. It was impossible to do without the participation of architects in these matters, since they were the last authority that gave the go-ahead for the manifestation of independence. Other work colleagues did not want to contact people who are out of touch with life and want the incomprehensible. I had to enter into negotiations.

You may be surprised at this, but the main architects perceived me normally. Our relationship developed easily, sometimes becoming friendly. The architectural specialty left an imprint on its graduates, and, apparently, already at the time of admission to study, there was a selection of those who could eventually become the bearer of such a “seal”. Therefore, architects turned out to be people, as a rule, so interesting and unusual that they were perceived as coming from another world.

It was a pleasure to listen to them, not because they liked to complain about life and their bitter fate, about the builders who prevented them from carrying out interesting plans. What pleasure can it bring? They were easily vulnerable and at the same time stubborn fighters, excellent knowledgeable storytellers, able to present a building familiar to you in appearance in such a way that you froze in surprise and mentally reproached yourself for inattention and inability to see what is open to perception, but you did not notice before. .

In response, I complained about the conditions in which construction sites are located, about the authorities tearing three skins from obedient builders, about innovations in the construction business that have appeared, but do not find a place in the documentation. We also reached specific issues related to work, defended our points of view during the discussion and agreed on mutually acceptable options. Of course, this always led to some simplifications that did not add beauty to buildings and structures. It was clear to everyone that it turned out no better than originally planned, but in a hopeless situation there was nothing left but to make concessions.

I happened to be closely acquainted with the chief architect of Nizhny Tagil, Vladimir Ivanovich Soltys, my soul was resting in his office, and he was short, roundish, with curly hair that almost reached his shoulders, sedately shared his ideas. Then he sighed mournfully, making it clear that it was my turn to lay out the request that led to him and will no doubt be aimed at infringing on the expressiveness of the project.

Sometimes he confidentially said:

I did not really hope for the implementation of this idea, I felt difficulties in execution. We all have limited opportunities, but, believe me, I did not expect that it would be you who would be the first to destroy my plan.

After an exchange of light friendly barbs, we found a way out, taking into account the opinion of the builders. Dear Vladimir Ivanovich still stood firmly on the ground, understanding the problems of the day, but in those cases when my desires crossed the possible, he took root in this very ground so firmly that it was not worth trying to budge him.

Relations with the chief architect of Sverdlovsk Gennady Ivanovich Belyankin were good, his independence, independence from the authorities bribed. The abilities of Gennady Ivanovich in that troublesome work acted as his defenders, and much was forgiven him in a manner of bold behavior.

Mazaev Grigory Vasilyevich - the chief architect of the Sverdlovsk region - was not so tough. He was younger than me, but this did not interfere with communication. The chief architect of the region was even in relations, delicate, deeply knowledgeable in his field and able to realistically assess the state of affairs, restrained when discussing topics.

With all this, he superbly defended the position of the architectural project, and defended himself from the unfair attacks of representatives of the construction environment. I was proud of his location and the painting he gave me. He once suggested that I choose to my taste one of those that were drawn by him with his own hand.

I myself was not completely satisfied with the role in which I found myself when I had to act on behalf of construction organizations, it ultimately caused damage to the architectural attractiveness of the objects being built, depersonalized them, deprived them of their individuality. Perhaps I exaggerate the degree of my guilt, I say too much, because it was not force, but arguments that pushed the architects to make concessions, but the positions I held forced me to do so.

My position in the State Committee for Architecture and Construction did not allow for such an attitude; I was no longer a technical service worker, responsible primarily for the growth of labor productivity in construction. Architecture can and should be given its due, and in view of compensation for the past underestimation of its role. This is what I was going to do, and here is another telegram.

After a memorable meeting with the architects, on the very first Saturday day, I met Alexander Grigoryevich Rochegov, who signed the telegram to the President of the country. The Union of Architects of the RSFSR had its branches in all subjects of the Federation. Despite the reduction by that time of the role of the architect to the lowest possible level, the architectural community held firm. In the building complex, only architects had a professional Union, whose members were the most famous local specialists. This gave them the opportunity during the period of unification and typification of everything under construction, to declare themselves to the authorities, to defend their views and beliefs.

The effect of their efforts was not great, but without joining the Union, without holding meetings, without making demands on the executive authorities, it would have been much worse. At least in the decisions of the party and the government, at the prompt and at the suggestion public organization, there was always a place to include the right words about the meaning of architecture in the life of society.

Alexander Grigoryevich was a talented architect, the most intelligent, decent and sincere person, his diplomatic tact was admirable. Work and communication with him, in addition to pleasant moments, also gave knowledge.

He knew how, without offending the interlocutor, to suggest ways out of the situation, to remain principled in the main thing, knowing that he expressed not only his own interests, but also the views of his colleagues. Rochegov was of advanced age - twenty years older than me, but his soul remained young, his thoughts fresh and life-affirming, full of hope for future improvements. Where did he get his optimism from?

He spoke brightly, figuratively, captivatingly, beautifully and did not lose the goal that he planned before the start of the speech. His memory remained bright until the last days. Between us, after the first personal meeting, a business understanding was established. At work, we communicated with him often, he always found kind words of greeting and support addressed to me.

Rochegov A.G. was the People's Architect of the USSR, Honored Architect of Russia, Academician of the Russian Academy of Architecture, laureate of the USSR State Prizes and the Prize of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, the author of more than 60 projects and many publications in the professional press.

From the first days of work, I made it a rule to participate in meetings of the plenums of the Union of Architects. There was not enough time for a permanent presence, but closer to the end of the event, usually in the country residence of the Union, we agreed on a specific hour for communication.

The previous years not only accumulated questions from the architects, they brought a persistent dissatisfaction with the results of work in the previous living conditions, and from here came irritability and aggressiveness. Now that it was possible to bare thoughts without worrying about the consequences, few held back. The architects, without saying a word, saw the main culprit of all the troubles in the builders.

I did not agree with the simplification of this approach, and endlessly argued that it was not about the builders, but about the existing system government controlled leaving no room for architecture. The directive slogans were correct in meaning, they oriented contractors to take important qualitative milestones, and real conditions allowed them to apply standard projects using unified designs.

The authorities skillfully pushed architects against builders, remaining beyond criticism. Instead of squabbling and reproaches, architects and builders need to unite and act as a united front, then you can count on the desired result. However, the previous years deeply traumatized the consciousness of the warring parties, and recovery was delayed.

Being on business trips in the cities of Russia, he always met with members of the local branches of the Union of Architects. In a narrow circle, over evening cups of tea, before which a bottle of vodka appeared, there was a conversation with original and original people about the latest news, about changes in the country, in the industry, and then they happened daily.

It was not necessary to have a special gift to predict the situation and imagine in advance the peculiarities of the work of architects in the conditions of the new time. I warned at every opportunity about the unwillingness of most specialists to take on new functions.

The architect in Soviet times was released from many of the duties associated with construction, and had no idea about them. When the time came to prove themselves, only a few were able to move away from the usual standard design, to take over the leadership of the process - the idea, the project, the implementation.

The revival of the academy was a great dream not only of Rochegov A.G. and members of the Union. The proposal expressed by them captivated both me and the workers representing the construction part of the Committee. However, the views of the parties on the future academic center diverged greatly.

The architectural community could not stand the builders and advocated the creation of a "pure" Academy of Architecture. The Construction Brotherhood no less unanimously insisted on the Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture. At the worst, it agreed to swap the words construction and architecture.

We discussed the problem with the involvement of a wide range of participants, met repeatedly, but could not agree on a result that would suit the parties. They began to reduce the number of people invited to the conversation in order to be able to maintain order, to prevent local verbal fights containing unflattering assessments. Discipline ceased to limp, but they could not come to a common opinion. We switched to training camps with a very small staff: Rochegov A.G., Bulgakov S.N., Khikhlukha L.V., Alekseev V.A. and I. They also met one on one. The negotiations yielded nothing.

Everyone had enough arguments in defense of their point of view, only they were not perceived by opponents. There were mutual reproaches. I also received them: representatives of the architectural and construction trends at the same time reprimanded me for the concessions made. And what was left for me but to look for a conciliatory way out of the impasse?

I think that the proposal to name the created body the Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences was such a step. In this case, the word "construction", which the architects did not want to allow, was absent altogether. Although an architectural masterpiece, unlike an artistic picture, is created to be realized in kind, and not to be hung on the wall in an expensive frame.

However, the new name included "construction sciences". Without knowledge scientific achievements in terms of the same building materials and structures, methods of work, no architect can do without. Thus, the builders could be represented at the academy by the advanced detachment of the industry - scientific personnel. This made it possible to jointly develop urban planning and construction sciences in the future academy.

There are no proposals without flaws, and one can see flaws in this name, but no other compromise options have been received. In truth, the parties did not seek to reach an agreement, each of them fought for a clear victory over the "enemy" and counted on the strong-willed support of the chairman. The discussion reached an impasse, the intransigence of positions made it impossible to move on.

Finally, in what is to be the last conference call, I make a statement:

Either the Committee and the Union of Architects will continue to work together on the creation of the Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences, or the Committee refuses to support the idea of ​​reviving the Academy. Let the architectural community independently go to the Russian government with their proposal.

We parted. Everyone was offended because they did not want to understand. I was also doubly offended, since none of the opposing sides supported me.

A week passed, thoughts about the academy were shifted into the background by other concerns and ceased to excite. We lived without an academy for so many decades, we can endure more, wait until we are ripe for such a responsible step. But not everyone talked like that. Rochegov A.G. finds me on the phone. and on behalf of the Union of Architects agrees to the proposed compromise. It was easier for me to negotiate with the builders. The disengagement, which I constantly opposed, did not happen.

After reaching an agreement in principle, the conflict was no longer remembered, everyone seemed to have been replaced, and the work on preparing and submitting documents to the government of the country began to boil. Creating an academy from scratch, I will use this building term, turned out to be troublesome, but the enthusiasm was great.

For the sake of objectivity, it must be said that many colleagues were personally interested in the creation of the academy. Their creative achievements scientific activity allowed them to hope for the opportunity to become academicians, corresponding members, to take an honorary elective position. I didn't see anything wrong with that.

As for myself, while dealing with the “academic” problem, I did not make plans for the future, since degree didn't have. By the way, this circumstance also allowed me to be completely independent of groups and parties. When I defended my point of view on the unity of architects and builders, I was sure that no one reproached me for bias, for personal interest. It was very important for me in any business.

An appeal is being prepared to the President of the Russian Federation with the necessary visas from the Ministry of Economy, the State Property Committee, the Ministry of Science, the Ministry of Justice and even the City Hall of Moscow, and the draft Decree is attached to the documents. Everyone had plenty to stay, especially Rochegov and Bulgakov. Great support was provided by O. I. Lobov, who worked as Deputy Prime Minister of Russia

And so, on the evening of March 26, 1992, Yeltsin B.N. signs the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation "On the organization of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences". Just at that hour, the third congress of the Union of Architects of Russia was finishing its work, and just before its closing, I announced the content of the Decree from the rostrum. Participants of the congress, I beg your pardon for the cliche, with great satisfaction, I will still say a little differently, with genuine joy that happens when a old dream, meet the words:

“In order to further develop architecture and construction sciences, develop new approaches to the human environment, revive the traditions of Russian architectural and construction schools, and taking into account the proposals of the Ministry of Architecture, Construction, Housing and Communal Services of the Russian Federation, the Union of Architects of the Russian Federation, the Russian Union of Builders, the Association of Higher educational institutions Decide: Create the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences. Establish that the academy is a self-governing scientific and creative organization ... and brings together leading craftsmen, scientists, creative associations and research organizations in the field of architecture and building sciences.

The Decree further set out the tasks of the academy, and gave the order: "The Government of the Russian Federation to approve the composition of the organizing committee for carrying out activities related to the creation of the academy." The government, "responsive" to the instructions of the President, only after five months approves the composition of the organizing committee of 15 people - 7 representatives of the architectural and urban planning direction and construction sciences, who have high professional authority in the circles of architects and builders.

From the "imposter", which I was before the release of this decree, I become the "legitimate" chairman of the organizing committee. While waiting for the government's decision, our initiative group did not sit idly by, it consistently dealt with issues related to the creation of the academy. This allowed us already on December 17, exactly on the day of my birth according to my passport, to hold a constituent assembly for elections to the academy. For me, it was a wonderful gift for my 56th birthday. I presided and opened the constituent assembly with an opening speech.

In order to give an overview of the importance of the problem and the efforts made to solve it, I will cite excerpts from my introductory remarks. I wrote the text of the speech myself, as always there was not enough time, I completed it on the last night before the event. Please take this into account when evaluating.

“The first academy of architecture, it was called the Royal Academy of Architecture, arose in France in 1671, arose in connection with the state regulation of artistic life. This example, in terms of the creation of academies, was not contagious. The Academy of Painting and Architecture in Ireland was formed in 1823, the Academy of Architecture in the Netherlands - in 1908.

The Academy of Architecture in the Soviet Union was created in 1934 as the highest scientific institution in the field of architecture. True, its charter and the first composition of full members were approved only in 1939. State regulations, please note that after 250 years, state regulation, but on a completely different basis, determined the following tasks for the academy: generalization of creative practice, development of the theory of Soviet architecture, study of heritage (there was still a place), creation of personnel and, finally, promotion of socialist construction.

The last words about promoting socialist construction are naturally full of deep specific meaning with far-reaching consequences. The theme of promoting socialist construction so prevailed over time that in 1956 the Academy of Architecture was transformed into the Academy of Construction and Architecture. The new academy received four main areas of activity. This is the promotion of industrialization, reducing the time, reducing the cost and improving the quality of construction.

The initial incompatibility of these four directions led to the liquidation of the Academy in 1963, and then, although I am not convinced that it was then, rather, even before the liquidation of the Academy, led to the liquidation of architecture itself. As the experience of socialist construction showed, it did not need the assistance of the academy in general and architecture, in the high understanding of this word, in particular. Without both, the Union managed for more than a quarter of a century.

It is impossible not to sympathize with hundreds of thousands of creators - architects and builders, whose creative aspirations and souls were broken and trampled. It is impossible not to feel bitterness about the extent to which degradation has reached Russian cities and villages as a result of forceful planting of typification, unification and standardization. Individual exceptions to the rules that have taken place are not able to change the "charms" of barracks construction.

All this happened during our lifetime, happened before our eyes, with opposition by persuasion of some and with assistance by delusion of others. Unfortunately, the process of enlightenment of the erring is still at the very beginning. The separation of architects and builders, the open confrontation of these two areas of activity, attacks and mutual accusations of all sins have gone very far.

They have already led to a decline in the creative level, both architecture and engineering. And this decline will continue until the hostility, excuse me for such a word, turns into an understanding that the root cause of such relations was the system that pushed them head-on, the system of state regulation in its worst manifestation. It is no coincidence that already, when the new economic policy made it possible for the revival of architecture, the revival of the academy, we came to an agreement for a very long time and through difficult relations. We came to an agreement on the creation of the Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences. In other words, architectural creativity using the achievements of technical creativity.

And, if in the end we (the Ministry of Construction of Russia, the Union of Architects of Russia, the Union of Builders of Russia) were able to come to an agreement, now we can already talk about this in the past tense, then in the future such agreement can really be violated.

March 26 this year President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin signed the Decree "On the organization of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences." I will not retell the content, the decree was published and, moreover, is available in your materials.

I will not dwell on the problem of the place of the academy in the system of existing state bodies, in the main areas of activity and priority programs. The time will come and there will be another exchange of views with selected academicians, if high ranks won't turn their heads. One thing is clear that this cannot be just another isolated department. Another life now. Having saved a few minutes on this section, I want to read out excerpts from the “Book of Nominal Decrees” for 1724 concerning the establishment of the Academy of Sciences and Arts by Peter 1, which are very instructive and have not lost their significance”

I read excerpts about the management system, about the elections, about the structure, about the financing system. For example, about the election of members of the academy: “If his imperial majesty now or in time, deigns to grant this assembly such a privilege, so that they can give academicians to those who have happened in the sciences (postscript of Peter 1 - allower)”.

But about finances: “It is necessary that these incomes are sufficient, true and not arguable, so that these people are not forced to try more about their own and their family’s maintenance than about the return of sciences (postscript - to give money from the top starting). An amazing style, is it possible that in two or three centuries our current language will become just as obsolete for posterity?

But I will continue my speech. “A few words about the activities of the organizing committee. Over the past period, the following have been developed and approved: regulation on the procedure for electing the initial composition of the academy; the procedure for forming the composition of electors for the constituent assembly of the academy; composition of regional organizing committees and their chairmen; regulation on the procedure for voting during the election of the initial composition of the academy, a number of working documents regulating the convocation of the constituent assembly and the activities of the organizing committee.

All these documents were regularly considered at meetings of the organizing committee, which took place once a month in an atmosphere of mutual understanding. The Organizing Committee has developed drafts of the Charter of the Academy and activities. The task of our constituent assembly is to elect the initial composition of the academy with 26 full members and 52 corresponding members, which is 52 percent of the total membership ...

The determination of the initial composition of the academy will be a notable event. And, therefore, it is not necessary to underestimate the importance of the work ahead and the responsibility assumed for the decisions being made, because we will not only name the birthday of the academy as a result of voting, but it will also inherit our personal qualities. That's why it's so important that they be best qualities each of the electors. If this happens, then we will have the opportunity to be proud of our involvement in the successes and achievements of the Academy. Thank you for attention".

Events continued to develop with the same rapidity, and on January 28, 1993, the first meeting of the academy was held. The governing bodies of the academy have not yet been elected, so the organizing committee itself holds a meeting and I, with a reporting and welcoming speech on the podium:

“From the time of the last meeting of the members of the Academy of Construction and Architecture of the USSR to the first meeting of the members of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences, exactly 30 years have passed, which can be attributed to interesting coincidences. Such a protracted vacation between regular meetings of the members of the academy is the result of a well-known reason. During this period, the academy simply did not exist.

The main goal set before the last academy by the party and the government was to promote socialist construction through industrialization, shortening the time, reducing the cost and improving the quality of construction, naturally, could not be realized, because it was in conflict with common sense. The unattainability of the goal led to a radical change in ideas about the role and place of architecture and the architect, to breaking the fate of many architects, to dramatic clashes of characters and worldviews of the creators, to the emergence of opposition groups and discord.

In this situation, it was found, one must think, not the most ideal way out - the academy was liquidated. What happened in itself, perhaps, was not yet a tragedy. A lot of countries do not have such a body at all either at the state or at the self-governing levels. But the liquidation of the academy marked something more, namely, the liquidation of architecture in the highest sense of understanding.

In the years that followed, the successes of the construction industry proved that socialist construction was possible without an academic body and without architecture. And indeed it is possible, but it is unacceptable for a normal human society...

The concept of an architect in this difficult era was, as it were, divided into “pure” architects and “pure” builders. Some, however, in this division want to see "clean" and "impure." Delusion never has a limit. And yet, time has always sought to achieve sharpness of the image, and in its focus now, it seems to me, is the combination of the concepts of "architect" and "builder" into one exceptionally lofty concept of "architect". It is only necessary to consolidate this position and, as they say, walk with God in the possibilities of the new time for the glory of the Russian state and its peoples.

Here the word is up to the academy, to you, dear academicians and corresponding members. And now the fate of architects in Russia is in your hands. It can be safely assumed that you are overwhelmed with the desire to become the arbiters of the fate of architecture, since you participated in the elective company to the academy all voluntarily, as evidenced by your statements. But until this moment we must observe one formality, which for the time being prevents us from moving on to the present case.

This formality is not an invention of the organizing committee in order to somehow delay the resignation of, on the whole, pleasant powers. Moreover, the feeling of pleasantness intensified as the issues related to the creation of the academy were successfully resolved. And now, when it has reached decent heights, suddenly everything ends, and the organizing committee must give way both to the presidium and to the podium. It's still sad, if you don't hide your feelings. The regulatory formality is that you have to be patient and still listen to the report-information of the organizing committee.”

Next, I introduce the members of the organizing committee, list the work done, and then continue: “As a result of many discussions, new and new returns to the topic, a proposal was made to name the academy as the Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences. Academy, which should unite the activities of architects and scientists of construction specialties, restore their commonwealth, and create a single scientific and creative center.

The report of the organizing committee will not be complete without information about the constituent assembly of electors and the results of the elections themselves. In total, 335 candidates ran for the initial composition of the academy for 78 seats. The competition in the departments of architecture, urban planning, building sciences was from three to five people per place. The territorial representation in the directions turned out to be quite even: about 60 percent from Moscow, 20 percent from St. Petersburg and other regions of Russia. The Organizing Committee thanks the electors, as, I think, you, whom they preferred over others.

Finishing the report of the organizing committee, I would like to give one example from the history of the creation of the Academy of Architecture. The decision on education was made in 1934. If we do not take into account the academies of ideological orientation that already existed before, then the Academy of Architecture was one of the top three. But this is by the way. The main reason why I mention the year of the formation of the academy is to say that the composition of the academy and its charter were approved five years later, only in 1939.

In modern democratic times, exactly nine months have passed from the decision to form the academy to the determination of the personnel, which can also be attributed to interesting coincidences. And the result is your birth.

According to the rules of the meeting of members of the academy, you elect the governing bodies, including the president. No, more correctly, the president and the governing bodies. This event is responsible. History remembers the names of the presidents. I will name them: Vesnin V.A., Mordvinov A.G., Vlasov A.V., Bekhtin N.V., Kucherenko V.A. History will also remember the name of the sixth president in total and the first in a row of the Russian Academy. You will name his name.

Allow me to hand over the further conduct of your meeting to the co-chairs of the preparatory committee, Alexander Grigorievich Rochegov and Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov.”

After the organizing committee surrendered its powers, the full members of the academy elected the president and governing bodies. A.G. becomes the first president. Rochegov, and Bulgakov S.N. They deserve such honorary positions.

Instead of A.G. Rochegov, who had to leave his job in the Union of Architects of Russia, Gnedovsky Yuri Petrovich will soon be elected its president. He is a Candidate of Architecture, Honored Architect of the Russian Federation, laureate of the USSR State Prize. In life, Yuri Petrovich is a charming, intelligent and principled person. We have known him for a good ten years.

I want to make one more small but important addition. For the entire period of the creation of the Academy and the full staffing of the academic staff, not a single complaint was received, not a single claim was made against the organizing committee and the leadership of the academy.

This incredible circumstance testified that the organizers of the work, who were dozens of specialists, followed the established procedure for going through all the procedures and did not allow deviations.

Let me note by the way that during the first meeting of the members of the academy, I no longer worked not only as a minister, but even in general in the construction complex. However, I was not released from the duties of chairman of the organizing committee. I had the opportunity to complete them.

With the choice of governing bodies, the academy began a difficult life, since, unlike the Petrine period, it received little financial support from the state. My ties with architectural organizations gradually weakened, new people come to replace you, with whom you are not familiar, and at best they have only heard something about you.

It was all the more pleasant to know that two years after the establishment of the academy, its members at the annual meeting elect me an honorary member. Naturally, the request did not come from me, which means that my contribution was not forgotten. I am very proud of the title of an honorary member, because it did not happen during the years of my work as the head of the construction complex, then there would be no sincerity in such a step.

The diploma issued to me states the following: “The diploma of an honorary member of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences, created by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation in continuation of the tradition dating back to the Imperial Academy of the Three Most Noble Arts, approved by Decree of Empress Elizabeth II of November 11, 1764, was awarded to Furmanov Boris Alexandrovich for outstanding achievements in scientific and creative activity. President Rochegov. April 22, 1994 No. 040.

The wording in the diploma is standard and does not fully apply to me - I did not have outstanding success in scientific activity, since I did not engage in it. But for his contribution to the creation of the academy, he probably deserved something.

At the beginning of this section, I cited the text of the telegram signed by Rochegov A.G. in the name of the President of the country, and in the case just described, he swaggerly signed his diploma. I keep both documents, they make it possible, when they are nearby, to reflect on the case in which Alexander Grigorievich was right. We met with him several times after April 1994 at various events, we talked, he praised the book of my poems that was presented to him, but I did not dare to ask the question of when he would be right when signing documents.

Most likely, he was right in both cases. The telegram expressed the position of the "architect" in relation to the "builder", whom he did not know. Nevertheless, he was a rare person in terms of talent, generosity of soul and decency.

I arrived late for the civil memorial service on the occasion of his death. In the capital's house of architects on Shchusev Street, there were many people who spoke with farewell words: friends, associates, students, colleagues who had known him for ages. I did not say words to him at parting, I was nothing to him. We were brought together for a short time by work, common tasks and goals. We managed to solve them together, fulfilling the duty, as we understood it, and at the same time maintain respect for each other.

In 1998, Kudryavtsev A.P., who previously headed the Moscow Institute of Architecture, became the president of the academy. We met with him several times and, as a minister, I had to visit the institute twice at his invitation. Kudryavtsev is an active, businesslike, enterprising leader, he managed to save the institute, save it from collapse.

The list of his merits is long and at the congress the academicians gave him preference: he had a Ph.D., 15 years of teaching experience, was a laureate of the Union of Architects of the USSR Prize, the author of many projects and works.

In the fall of 1999, I was invited to a congress of architects and was warned in advance that they would be handing out an academic gown. At the end of the event, the decision of the academy to issue gowns to all full and honorary members is announced.

Apparently, the financial situation of the organization with the new leader has improved. In front of all those present, only a few members of the academy were given robes, and I was the first to be invited to the vesting procedure, which was a surprise. I went out.

In the aisle between the rows in front of the stage, the mantle was placed on my shoulders, and on my head - a quadrangular cap, which fit. This surprised me more than the invitation to go first. Kudryavtsev shook my hand, we hugged, and he gave the floor. I was greeted warmly and, realizing that now certainly nothing like this would happen again in the future, I spoke.

I had to remember the architects’ long-standing telegram to President Yeltsin, about our joint work with Rochegov and other colleagues, to thank him for being elected an honorary member of the academy and for the “dressing” that took place, and to say that I was truly touched by the attention. I spoke for a long time, as those present did not lose interest in my words.

I would have talked longer, the elation was great, but I was disturbed by the tassel on the cap, dangling from the side, and appearance in a robe, which could be awkward. When the performance ended to applause, the first thing I hurried to do was take off my hat and cape.

Already at home, having dressed in front of a mirror, I was surprised at how very simple cut clothes can present a person so solemnly and majestically. It turns out that it was possible not to rush to take off the mantle.

Soon the son Sasha came home with his wife Olya. I dressed up in a robe, although I remained in my socks. He warned them in advance so that they would not be afraid that there would be something unusual. When I appeared at the door, their faces turned to stone for a while, and they did not immediately come to their senses. Then they perked up, taking turns trying on outlandish clothes, and it suited everyone. He continued the experiment on his grandchildren Romashka and Katenka. The effect was deafening. Will this incident remain in their memory?

In 2002, the Academy celebrated its first decade of existence. I was among those invited to the solemn meeting. The organizers have prepared a surprise. President of the Academy A.P. Kudryavtsev presented certificates to a large group of comrades. Not all of the awarded persons were in the line of life. Diploma, which was awarded to A.G. Rochegov, received his daughter, the hall stood up and with long applause paid tribute to the first president of the Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences for his services to the architectural and construction community in Russia.

I also received a diploma. It was written in beautiful handwriting: "To the Founder of the Academy Furmanov Boris Alexandrovich." Then came the printed text: "For a great contribution to the formation and development of the RAASN and in connection with the 10th anniversary of the Academy." The same certificates were received by other awardees who deserved the right to be called founders.

When the five-volume Russian Encyclopedia of Architecture and Construction was published, the questionnaire filled out by persons admitted to its pages contained the following question: “What is the most important, in your opinion, the case to which you are directly related.” Answering it, I wrote: "I was involved in the creation of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences, as well as the Russian Union of Builders."

Relationships with architects that fell out on my life path gradually changed me. Once upon a time, I looked at structures with the X-ray eye of a designer and saw only structural elements behind the facade of buildings, trying to understand their interconnection, the scheme for transferring loads, the solution of nodes, and the general appearance did not hold my attention. I admired engineering solutions, trying to mentally bring something of my own to them at the same time.

Now everything is happening differently. First of all, I see the building, evaluate its impact on my condition and admire, if not always, the skill of the architect. It is not given to me to repeat this myself, I am only an engineer and nothing more. Thank you for this great art! Thanks from the viewer!

Russian Academy architecture and building sciences (RAASN) is a state scientific organization. RAASN plays the role of a federal scientific center that coordinates fundamental research in the field of architecture, urban planning and construction sciences.

In 2013-2016, the Academy included 60 full members and 115 corresponding members, 86 honorary and 90 foreign members of the Academy. Established in 1994, the institute of advisers of the RAASN has more than 200 major Russian specialists in the field of science and architectural and construction practice. Among the members of the RAASN are two employees NIC Stadio And REC KM MGSU - academician P.A. Akimov (since 2014 - Chief Scientific Secretary of the RAASN) and corresponding member A.M. Belostotsky (Member of the Academic Council of RAASN).

For the first time in a quarter of a century after the abolition of the Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture of the USSR in 1963, the proposal to create an Academy of Architecture and Urban Planning was voiced in 1989 by V. V. Vladimirov, a Soviet architect and theorist in the field of urban planning. Leading architects, urban planners, builders and teachers, V. M. Bondarenko, L. V. Vavakin, Yu. A. Dykhovichny, A. V. Ikonnikov, A. G Rochegov, A. V. Ryabushin, I. M. Smolyar, V. I. Travush, and many others. The result of many years of discussion among the scientific community with the participation of sectoral ministries and the top leadership of the country was the appearance on March 26, 1992 of the decree of the President of the Russian Federation "On the organization of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences".

As part of the RAASN, Scientific Councils are organized and function in a number of relevant areas. Among the most active"Software in construction and architecture" (Chairman - RAASN Advisor V.N. Sidorov (MGSU, MARCHI), scientific secretaries - academician RAASN P.A. Akimov, RAASN adviser T.B. Kaitukov ) . At the first meeting of the Scientific Council in October 2006 with a general report on the main activities and scientific problems spoke A.M. Belostotsky .

The tasks of this Scientific Council traditionally include the discussion and solution of problems, as well as the development of recommendations for topical issues research, scientific and technical, design, as well as educational activities in area computer simulation buildings and structures. Among the scientific issues considered by the Scientific Council, in particular, include the following:

• modeling of the interaction of structures with the soil base;
• accounting for physical, geometric and other non-linearities;
• taking into account the design and technological features of the structure;
• computer materials science;
• modeling of wind loads;
• calculation for seismic effects;
• calculation for vibration effects;
• calculation for progressive collapse;
• improvement and development of numerical and numerical-analytical methods for calculating structures and structures, etc.

The Scientific Council also considers issues of expertise of calculations of buildings and structures using software systems (qualifying verification and certification of specialists; examination and verification of software; examination of calculations of critical buildings and structures).

One of the main tasks almost immediately after its foundation in 2006 was to conduct verification of software systems used by Russian design, engineering and research organizations to perform calculations to assess the stress-strain state, strength and survivability of building structures and structures. C The purpose of verification of software systems in RAASN is:

• determination of the composition of their capabilities in terms of such aspects as the legitimacy and accuracy of mathematical models of structures, elements, nodes, etc., implemented in software systems (validation),
• accuracy of the numerical solution (in comparison with analytical solutions, experimental results, solutions using other software tools),
• the presence and sufficiency of the mathematical justification of the implemented finite elements and methods for solving various problems,
• representativeness of the finite element library,
• list of standards implemented in software systems,
• speed of programs, restrictions on the quantitative parameters of complexes (number of nodes, elements, determined natural frequencies and shapes, etc.),
• the ability to solve nonlinear problems (including those simulating friction, slippage, constructive and physical nonlinearity, nonlinear dynamic effects, etc.),
• the possibility of modeling special modes, for example, the process of building a structure, the possibility of calculating large-span, high-rise and other complex structures, etc.,
• to evaluate the weakly formalized characteristics of software tools in terms of such aspects as the convenience of the interface, the possibility and convenience of introducing modern scientific results into the PS.

At the same time, the tasks of verifying software systems include identifying the correspondence between the actual capabilities of software developers' declarations, determining the correctness of solving verification problems, identifying and evaluating the error in calculating parameters by comparing with experimental data, calculated data obtained from other software systems, the results of analytical tests, theoretical analysis and substantiation of the possibility of using software systems in the declared field of application.

Urban planning and building sciences. RAASN plays the role of a federal scientific center that coordinates fundamental research in the above areas.

In 2014, the academy included 60 full members and 115 corresponding members, 86 honorary and 90 foreign members of the academy. Established in 1994, the institute of advisers of the RAASN has more than 200 major Russian specialists in the field of science and architectural and construction practice.

History of creation

After the abolition in 1963, the proposal to recreate the branch academy of architecture and urban planning was first voiced in 1989 by V. V. Vladimirov, a Soviet architect and theorist in the field of urban planning. Leading architects, urban planners, builders and teachers - V. M. Bondarenko, L. V. Vavakin, Yu. A. Dykhovichny, A. V. Ikonnikov, A. G Rochegov, A. V. Ryabushin, I. M. Smolyar, V. I. Travush and many others. The result of many years of discussion among the scientific community with the participation of sectoral ministries and the country's top leadership was the appearance of a decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 26, 1992 "On the organization of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences" .

The first meeting of the RAASN was held in Moscow on January 28-29, 1993. The meeting approved the draft charter and elected A. G. Rochegov as the first president of the new academy. A year later, on April 21-22, 1994, at the general meeting of the academy, decisions were made to establish regional branches and the institute RAASN advisers, which made it possible to involve leading Russian and foreign architects, urban planners, builders, scientists and vocational education workers in the scientific activities of the academy.

Historical roots and succession

The Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences was recreated for the purpose of state support and development of architecture as an art and scientific discipline. In this regard, the RAASN is the historical heir to the traditions of the Imperial Academy of Arts (1757-1918) and the Academy of Construction and Architecture of the USSR (1933-1963). At the same time, from the point of view of the norms of civil law of the RAASN is not successor of these institutions:

Thus, the creation of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences was aimed at solving the urgent problems of the development of the architectural and construction industry in the new post-Soviet Russia - the creation of a national specialized academy of sciences.

Moreover, the Imperial Academy of Arts, established in 1757, was more of an educational than an academic scientific institution, and covered architecture as a branch of the fine arts - it was abolished in 1918, and its educational organizations after numerous reorganizations, they were later transferred to the Academy of Arts of the USSR.

There is also no precedent for succession between the RAASN and similar state academies of sciences that previously existed in the USSR, including the All-Union Academy of Architecture under the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR (1933-34), the Academy of Architecture of the USSR (1934-56) and the Academy of Construction and Architecture of the USSR (1956-63). After the abolition of the latter, its property and subordinate scientific organizations were transferred to the jurisdiction of the State Committee for Civil Engineering and Architecture under the Gosstroy of the USSR, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the property of the Gosstroy of the USSR was transferred to the Ministry of Architecture, Construction and Housing and Communal Services of the Russian Federation. (The latter submitted a proposal to the President of the Russian Federation for the creation in Russia of a branch academy of sciences in the field of architecture and construction.) Of the 18 research institutes that once belonged to the Academy of Construction and Architecture of the USSR, the system scientific organizations only five were transferred to the newly created Russian academy.

Structure and governing bodies

The structure of the Academy is organized according to the scientific-branch and territorial principle. Scientific research and developments are carried out in all areas of architecture and construction and are concentrated in 3 departments of the Academy:

Branches

• Architecture
• urban planning
• Building Sciences

Before the reorganization in 2014, the Academy included 7 regional departments, 5 research institutes and 15 scientific and creative centers. The Academy cooperates with 22 organizations that have the status of associate members. [ ]

Regional offices

• Far East (Vladivostok)
• Privolzhskoye (Nizhny Novgorod)
• Northwestern (St. Petersburg)
• Siberian (Novosibirsk)
• Ural (Yekaterinburg)
• Central (Voronezh)
• Southern (Krasnodar)

Research institutes

• Research Institute of Theory and History of Architecture and Urban Planning (NIITIAG)
• Central Research and Design Institute for Urban Planning (TsNIIPUrban Planning RAASN)
• Research Institute of Building Physics (NIISF RAASN)
• Ural Research and Design Institute (UralNIIproekt)
• Far Eastern Research Design and Technological Institute for Construction (DalNIIS)

Reorganization 2014

Order of the Ministry of Construction of Russia dated June 17, 2014 No. No. 300/pr, on the basis of one of the academic institutes - TsNIIP Urban Planning of the RAASN, the Central Research and Design Institute of the Ministry of Construction and Housing and Communal Services of the Russian Federation (TsNIIP of the Ministry of Construction of Russia) was created, to which all 7 regional branches of the RAASN and 3 institutes were attached - NIITIAG, DalNIIS and UralNIIproekt.

Instead of the lost 7 regional branches, 8 new structural divisions of the RAASN were created:

• Far Eastern Territorial Branch
• Crimean territorial branch
• Privolzhsky territorial branch
• Northwestern Territorial Branch
• Siberian territorial branch
• Ural territorial branch
• Central territorial branch
• Southern territorial branch

Academy presidents

RAASN Presidents

• Rochegov, Alexander Grigorievich (-)
• Kudryavtsev, Alexander Petrovich (-)
• Kuzmin, Alexander Viktorovich (-)

Presidents of the USSR Academies

• A. G. Mordvinov (-)
• A. V. Vlasov (-)

• Bekhtin, Nikolai Vasilievich (-?)

Membership

Criticism

see also

Notes

1. Alexander Kuzmin became President of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences (RAACS)
2. Section: chapters. page(Russian) (indefinite) (unavailable link). Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences: official. Internet resource. RAASN. Retrieved March 15, 2014.

Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences- 2. The Academy is a non-profit organization established in the form of the State Academy of Sciences. The Academy is guided in its activities by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the legislation of the Russian Federation and this Charter. 3.… … Official terminology

RAASN logo The Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences is one of the branch state academies of the Russian Federation, science Center, whose goal is to coordinate fundamental research in the field of architecture, ... ... Wikipedia

Corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences: List of corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences: Averyanov, Vladimir Konstantinovich Aidarov, Sayyar Sitdikovich Andreev, Vladimir Igorevich ... ... Wikipedia

This is a service list of articles created to coordinate work on the development of the topic. It needs to be converted into an information list or glossary, or transferred to one of the projects ... Wikipedia

Honorary members of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences: List of Honorary Members of the RAASN Abovsky, Naum Petrovich Agilin, Petr Ivanovich Aizenberg, Yakov Moiseevich Alexandrov, Evgeny Viktorovich Aleksashina, Victoria Vasilievna ... ... Wikipedia

The Russian Academy of Arts RAH ... Wikipedia

- (Russian Agricultural Academy) state academy Sciences, was created by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of January 30, 1992 No. 84 on the basis of the Russian Agricultural Academy and the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences operating at that time ... ... Wikipedia

For the term "Ran", see other meanings. Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) The building of the Kunstkamera as a symbol of the RAS ... Wikipedia

Coordinates: 55°42′38.86″ s. sh. 37°34′40.13″ E d. ... Wikipedia

Books

• Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences. Things and people. Volume 1. 1992-2002, . The Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences (RAASN) is a state branch Academy. It was created in 1992. The book presents the many-sided activities of the Academy,…
• Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences. Things and people. 1992-2002. Volume 1, Kudryavtsev A.P. The Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences (RAACS) is a state branch Academy. It was created in 1992. The book presents the many-sided activities of the Academy,…