Photo: El Lisickij the hope for the future is usually present whether the presumption that smrtnosti this can not be clarified, whether the will to clarify. The future has always sought to wholeness — perhaps we now for the first time are living in a time when it is not tkrings in deafness to the architecture of the 1970s. In strength training and personal disposition, I actually have some empathy to the architecture and can understand more than the average citizen. But 70 — no matter whether it is Brezhnev in Moscow, Alma-ATA, Tashkent or Defense Montparnasse in Paris, I feel an unconditional sense of rejection. These giant chests of coarse concrete, as required brutalism, or soapy glass, accepted in international modernism, we have regional and corporate offices, they seem strange to me that even amazing. The youth of the parents, I grew up with people who it was designed— as I understand them and feel much worse than grandfathers.By design it is large and simple formulas of the universe. Scattered Foundation stones as if peace and progress. And that’s amazing. This pathetic building they were published in hundreds of magazines were published gorgeous albums and wrote fashion articles. And now, when you look at the work of James Stirling, Paul Rudolph, William Pereira, firms COM — you certainly know these names? they rattled the whole world! — once you catch yourself thinking: I wonder if it’s still there? The most famous of these buildings were the world trade center in new York, and Minoru Yamasaki — but 9/11 — and his residential complex “Pruitt-IGO” in St. Louis — but due to the fact that it had to explode as the district social disaster. In Cleveland demolish the Ameritrust Tower, and the Atlanta library of the Marseille Breuer (!), architect of the first five pioneers of the Bauhaus in Boston — the Blue Cross Building Paul Rudolph. I think maybe everything else is…? As the hotel “Intourist” or “Russia” in Moscow. 50 years after construction, the remaining nesnesini look like untidy garbage. The question is not whether they are good or bad, and that cornerstones can not behave this way. It is a device used to build the city of the future. They thought “pyramids of copper higher and enduring”, they had to transform the world around them, they always did. But it turned out that the world transforms them, and it seems kind of symptom. It now somehow works.In the last hundred years, large cities and architects at all keen on the idea of something to carry to a greater extent than the previous century. When there is a desire to build something new, you realize it’s not where something is already, and in another, unoccupied location. Naturally, this concerns not only buildings of the 70’s, but in the demolition, just in relation to these the vanishing of the megaliths of modernism removed the argument about their unsuitability for use, dilapidation and accidents. This is not an apartment house 150 years ago with hardwood floors, they just ready to use and so strong that they endure a difficult and expensive task. This, incidentally, was a decisive argument in favour of keeping the books of the New Arbat in Moscow, the Luzhkov era — very clean wanted, but it came out a little expensive. The architecture of the 70s is the desire to carry in its pure form, that is not because they have to, but because you really want.This topic is usually viewed from the perspective of reproof predation developers, this is a very steady narrative, and diatribes, of course, there is a reason. But I think we can go a little further. If this process is predatory, then it obviously makes money, but they may indicate the presence of some social values. It’s quite a vivid manifestation of regularities in symbolic pricing. The price of goods on the market consists not only of the cost of its production and delivery, but also the symbolic connotations that are associated with it, that is not quite accurate, but still describes the concepts of “the prestige of owning”. The building, built in the open field, is just a building; building built on the site of the demolished, gets more or less all the symbolic capital that has accumulated preceding memory forms, events, relationships and people collected destroyed. It is something like eating the natives cook out of respect for his courage, nobility and intelligence.But it seems to me symptomatic of not the appropriation of symbolic capital, and less obvious process. In the discussion of the demolition we unconsciously result-oriented, we decide whether what is built is more valuable than the lost and in respect of the heritage of a hundred years ago a smaller value — a relatively consensual position, but when it comes to buildings from the 70s, the situation is different. But I suggest to think not about the result, but about me as such. If there’s any value in it?The city is not only a physical reality but also the consciousness of its inhabitants, and the thesis that consciousness is with us today, and the citizens of, say, the Petersburg of the XIX century, varies greatly— it is commonplace. But I mean not a collection of thoughts, and, so to speak, the architecture of spatial thinking. If the person lives permanently in one place in a sustainable community, then it is more or less the absolute is the idea that the space is stable and unambiguous. From Nevsky Prospekt, the Admiralty should, although there are problems, because the eyes lead him to her, and his legs through the arch to the Palace square. But if his mind be thousands of images of different cities, the city stops razvorachivattsya as a sequence of streets, avenues and squares — it becomes a warehouse of images that are confused. Someone feels at the Palace square in St. Petersburg, worry that where-that left the marble lions, some get nervous at the Trafalgar in London that the Central column they were placed. We no longer perceive the city as a sequence of spaces, which we are moving, but as a sequence mounted frames. Moreover, this method of perception becomes unconditional due to the fact that almost a third of our adult life we spend in front of TV or monitor by internalizing the structure of the installation as a natural format of existence of reality. Some psychologists say that even our dreams have changed the structure and now takes place not as a space and not as a text that was typical for the era to telecommunications, but as mounted movie free transitions of spaces, scenes and events.This architecture of consciousness changes the structure of what can be called “our place”. A simple example leads Richard Layard in his book on happiness, he examines human motivation. People before the era of modernization has built his motivation from comparing themselves with neighbours, how much they earn, what the house looks like, street, square, what is the circle of life? Man era of telecommunications does the same thing, comparing myself to the characters and scenery of the series. From this stems many consequences, for example, a person believes that the world is many times more millionaires, beauties, athletes, intrigue and violence than actually occurs in reality, and it often turns out to be unhappy, finding that it is not the same as everyone else. On the other hand, when we begin to say that, say, skyscrapers or cafes on the streets are not in our traditions, the people, the question arises, who are these “we”— they have around lots of skyscrapers and people around them almost always eating in outdoor cafes. Mounted the virtual world with the real as naturally as in Soviet times, if someone else remembers, concrete Lenin the main square.I would like to refer to the brilliant book of Scott MacGuire “Media city”. He sees the same process of change of consciousness in parallel with the development of the fine arts. It’s hard not to see analogies between the mounting space and the art of the early avant-garde, cubism and futurism, Picasso and Marinetti connecting in one image the view of one object from different points of view. And this is happening simultaneously with the development of cinema. One can go further, and see how the same vision begins to penetrate into architecture. For example, in projects of the Russian architectural avant-garde — from El Lissitzky in the famous Sydney Opera Jorn Utzon or proizvedeniya deconstruction Daniel Libeskind, you can see the paradoxical phenomenon of different buildings, all available in one place, overlapping and contributing to each other, changing from one phase of motion to another.Whatever the city of the future, it will be a city clip-of consciousness. And this consciousness changes the physical world is a value in itself. Not in terms of “then and now”, it’s not what happened as a result, value is the man. The city where nothing changes, where nothing demolish and do not build on this place for something different, will be perceived as an anomaly, as the forest, which turned off the wind, and the light always comes from one point.This, of course, bad news for the protection of monuments. They are, however, I think, will continue its existence under another utopian narrative, but will always be under threat of demolition, because they will be perceived as an anomaly, like a black hole changeable urban space. But even more unfortunate, this news is for architecture as a profession.Bet on eternity, fixed on a form that is capable of incorporating any content, option if advanced classical compositions or spatial archetypes of Louis Kahn (one of the leading theorists of the 1970s), it turns out in this case, if not doomed, then heroically marginal. I even think that those modernist megaliths ‘ 70s, with which I started, and was a heroic attempt to defend the stability of the physics in the world clip-of consciousness, and it failed.They have transformed the world, but he blows and transformerait. REM Koolhaas in 2010 participated in the tender for the demolition of the dance Theatre in the Hague and the construction in its place of the culture forum, this dance Theatre was a building, made famous by REM Koolhaas in 1987, which published thousands of times and whom he admired immensely. He wanted to demolish it, but really lost that right. The architecture of the future ceases to be art is long, it will become something akin to theatrical performances, a traveling circus, which put and destroy again.The buildings that are being built now, there is little chance to stand up to the first morning of the new Sultan, may Allah prolong blessed days today.
