Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences. Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences (RAASN) By-elections RAASN

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. Created in 1994, the RAASN Institute of Advisors includes more than 200 of the largest Russian experts in the field of science and architectural and construction practice.

History of creation

After its 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 joined the discussion about the need for such an academy, the principles of its organization and activities - 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 line ministries and the country's top leadership was the appearance of the decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 26, 1992 “On the organization of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences.”

The first meeting of the RAASN took place 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 create regional branches and an institute RAASN advisors, which made it possible to attract leading Russian and foreign architects, urban planners, builders, scientists and professional educators to the scientific activities of the academy.

Historical roots and succession

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

Thus, the creation of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences was aimed at solving pressing problems in 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, created in 1757, was an educational rather than an academic scientific institution, and embraced architecture as a branch of the fine arts - it was abolished in 1918, and its educational organizations, after numerous reorganizations, were later transferred to the USSR Academy of Arts.

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 USSR State Construction Committee, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the property of the USSR State Construction Committee was transferred to the Ministry of Architecture, Construction and Housing and Communal Services of the Russian Federation. (The latter submitted for consideration to the President of the Russian Federation a proposal to create in Russia a branch academy of sciences in the field of architecture and construction.) From the 18 research institutes that at one time belonged to the Academy of Construction and Architecture of the USSR, into the system of scientific organizations of the newly created Russian Academy only five were transferred.

Structure and governing bodies

The structure of the Academy is organized according to scientific, industrial and territorial principles. Scientific research and development are carried out in all areas of architecture and construction and are concentrated in 3 departments of the Academy:

Branches

• Architecture
• Urban planning
• Construction Sciences

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

Regional branches

• Far Eastern (Vladivostok)
• Privolzhskoe (Nizhny Novgorod)
• North-West (St. Petersburg)
• Sibirskoe (Novosibirsk)
• Uralskoe (Ekaterinburg)
• Central (Voronezh)
• Yuzhnoye (Krasnodar)

Research institutes

• Research Institute of Theory and History of Architecture and Urban Planning (NIITIAG)
• Central Research and Design Institute for Urban Planning (TsNIIP urban 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

By order of the Ministry of Construction of Russia dated June 17, 2014. No. 300/pr, on the basis of one of the academic institutes - TsNIIP urban planning RAASN, the Central Research and Design Institute of the Ministry of Construction and Housing and Communal Services of the Russian Federation (TsNIIP Ministry of Construction of Russia) was created, to which all 7 regional branches of 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
• North-West territorial branch
• Siberian territorial branch
• Ural territorial branch
• Central territorial office
• Southern territorial branch

Academy Presidents

Presidents of RAASN

• 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 Construction Sciences (RAACS)
2. Section: ch. p.(Russian) (undefined) (unavailable link). Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences: official. Internet resource. RAASN. Retrieved March 15, 2014.

Ten days have passed in my new position. They are usually the most intense: you get acquainted with the structure of the organization, with the employees, deal with the implementation of previously given instructions, in order to be informed, to be ready to report on any issue. There is no time allotted for this, life does not stand still, so assignments go on at a normal pace and, while accumulating a store of knowledge on background, at the same time you plunge headlong into current affairs.

While looking through business mail, I came across a copy of a telegram addressed to “Comrade. Yeltsin B.S.” from the Union of Architects of the RSFSR. The architectural community, apparently, did not know the real patronymic of the country's president at that time. This dispatch was sent to me from the office of Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin for review. I still continued, without attaching any importance to it, to accept dwindling congratulations on the occasion of my appointment to a high position from those I knew, and from those who wanted me to know about them, but this text had 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 a dash builder engineer as a chairman of the Committee on Architecture and Construction for the education of a representative of the construction complex. Today, more than ever, it is necessary to consolidate the priority of architecture as an integral part of public world culture, as a means carrying out a strong social policy and spiritual revival of the peoples of the Russian Federation period In 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. period Chairman of the Board A.G. Rochegov 10.23.90.”

My last name was not mentioned in the telegram, which means it was not known, just like the president’s patronymic, but the position was the same. It was also agreed that a “dash construction engineer with training as a representative of the construction complex” had been 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, dots and dots” that interfered with understanding the content, before forming a final opinion about the address.

In my opinion, it turned out that not all of the authors’ statements 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 person who is not an architect by training should head the Committee in charge of contracting activities, 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 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 its senders wrong, it did not give me pleasure and could not get out of my head.

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

Later I learned: 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 arrived in Moscow the next day. Here they were expected to meet me. This time the planned program was exceeded, since they also became acquainted with a telegram, the contents of which they knew, but had not yet seen the form itself.

In a cramped, uncomfortably elongated hall, not suitable for holding any meetings, this time filled to capacity, I stood behind a peeling plywood podium on a small dais 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 underneath, but the cast-iron units were covered with rows of chairs. The daylight from the street fell into my eyes and did not allow me to clearly see those who were in the hall, but those present at the meeting could see me clearly if they wanted.

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

Then I talked about the industrial school classes I took, a little about myself, and, most importantly, truthfully about my attitude towards architecture, which has changed over the years. Outlined the plan for upcoming joint work. I said that so far I can’t confirm my words regarding the assessment of the place and the role of architecture. The work will show what position I will adhere to. Architects, I hope, will be convinced that my promises will not diverge from deeds.

My presentation did not amount to a report; from the outside I could be perceived as a person offering himself as a colleague, and working together in peace and harmony.

There were many questions and, judging by them, not everyone liked the friendship offered in relations with builders. I was not nervous, but tried in my answers to stand on the fact that in the process of creation the architect and the builder are one link, that we need 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, and there were business proposals that I took note of.

We parted, it seemed to me, with a feeling of emerging mutual understanding. It seems that I did not correspond to the stereotypical image of a large construction boss, chopping commanding phrases and brushing off the “heresy” that, in the opinion of many builders, architects usually carry. Although I really turned out to be a product of a professional construction environment, I had deviations from the “norm”, which allowed them to hope for something in the future in their relationship with me.

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

Working in the Sverdlovsk region, at different levels of the career ladder, I had to deal a lot with technical issues, design documentation, changes in it and 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 to the lower classes to exercise independence. Other work colleagues did not want to contact people who were cut off from life and wanted the unknown. It was up to me to enter into negotiations.

You may be surprised by this, but the main architects perceived me normally. Our relationship was easy and sometimes became friendly. The architectural specialty left its mark on its graduates, and, apparently, already upon admission to study, a selection took place of those who, over time, could become the bearer of such a “stamp.” Therefore, architects turned out to be people who, as a rule, were so interesting and unusual that they were perceived as coming from another world.

It was a pleasure to listen to them, not because they loved to complain about life and their bitter lot, about the builders who prevented them from realizing interesting plans. What pleasure can this bring? They were easily vulnerable and at the same time stubborn fighters, excellent, knowledgeable storytellers, able to present a building familiar to you by its appearance in such a way that you froze in surprise and mentally reproached yourself for inattention and inability to see what was open to perception, but had not been noticed by you before .

In response, I complained about the conditions in which construction sites were located, about the authorities, tearing three skins from obedient builders, about innovations in the construction business that had appeared, but did not find a place in the documentation. We even got to 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 what was originally planned, but in a hopeless situation there was nothing else to do but make concessions.

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

Sometimes he would say confidentially:

I did not really hope for the implementation of this idea; I felt difficulties in its implementation. We all have limited capabilities, but believe me, I didn’t expect that you would be the first to ruin my plan.

After exchanging light, friendly barbs, we found a way out of the situation, 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 exceeded the possible, he took root in this very ground so firmly that it was not worth trying to move him from his place.

The relationship with the chief architect of Sverdlovsk, Gennady Ivanovich Belyankin, was good; his independence and independence from the authorities was captivating. Gennady Ivanovich’s abilities in that troublesome work acted as his protectors, and he was forgiven a lot in his manner of courageous behavior.

Mazaev Grigory Vasilyevich - the chief architect of the Sverdlovsk region - did not have such a tough character. He was younger than me, but this did not interfere with communication. The chief architect of the region was smooth in his relationships, delicate, deeply knowledgeable about his work and able to realistically assess the state of things, restrained when discussing topics.

With all this, he excellently defended the position of the architectural project, and defended himself from unfair attacks by representatives of the building environment. I was proud of his disposition and the painting he gave me. He once invited me to choose to my taste one of those that he had drawn with his own hand.

I myself was not entirely satisfied with the role in which I found myself, when I had to speak on behalf of construction organizations; it ultimately caused damage to the architectural attractiveness of the objects being built, depersonalized them, and deprived them of individuality. Perhaps I am exaggerating the degree of my guilt, saying unnecessary things, 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 such an attitude; I was no longer a technical service worker responsible primarily for increasing labor productivity in construction. Architecture could and should have been given its due, taking into account compensation for the past underestimation of its role. I was going to do this, and then there was a telegram.

After a memorable meeting with the architects, on the very first Saturday I met Alexander Grigorievich Rochegov, who signed a 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 remained steadfast. In the construction complex, only architects had a professional union, the members of which were the most famous local specialists. This gave them the opportunity, during the period of unification and typification of everything being built, to declare themselves to the authorities, to defend their views and beliefs.

The effect of their efforts was small, but without uniting into the Union, without holding meetings, without submitting demands to the executive authorities, it would have been much worse. At least in the decisions of the party and government, with the prompting and input of a public organization, there was always room to include the correct words about the importance of architecture in the life of society.

Alexander Grigorievich was a talented architect, a smart, decent and sincere person, his diplomatic tact was admired. Working and communicating with him, in addition to pleasant moments, also gave me knowledge.

He knew how, without offending his interlocutor, to suggest ways out of the situation, to remain principled in the main things, knowing that he was expressing 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 were fresh and life-affirming, full of hopes for future improvements. Where did he get his optimism from?

He spoke brightly, imaginatively, captivatingly, beautifully and did not lose sight of the goal he had outlined before the start of his speech. His memory remained bright until his last days. After the first personal meeting, a business understanding was established between us. We often communicated with him at work; he always found kind words of greeting and support addressed to me.

Rochegov A.G. was People's Architect of the USSR, Honored Architect of Russia, Academician of the Russian Academy of Architecture, laureate of the State Prizes of the USSR and the Prize of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, 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 constant presence, but closer to the end of the event, usually at the Union’s country residence, we agreed on a specific hour for communication.

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

I did not agree with the simplicity of this approach, and endlessly argued that the problem was not with the builders, but with the existing system of public administration, which left no place for architecture. The directive slogans were correct in meaning, they oriented contractors towards achieving important quality milestones, and real conditions allowed them to use only standard projects using standardized structures.

The authorities skillfully pitted architects against builders, remaining above criticism. Instead of bickering and reproaches, architects and builders need to unite and present a united front, then they can count on the desired result. However, the previous years deeply traumatized the minds of the warring parties, and recovery was delayed.

When on business trips to Russian cities, I always met with members of local branches of the Union of Architects. In a narrow circle, over evening cups of tea, in front of which a bottle of vodka appeared, there was a conversation with peculiar and original people about the latest news, about changes in the country, in the industry, and then they happened every day.

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

An architect in Soviet times was relieved of many responsibilities related to 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 and take charge of the process - idea, project, implementation.

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

The architectural community hated builders and advocated the creation of a “pure” Academy of Architecture. The construction fraternity was no less unanimous in insisting on an Academy of Construction and Architecture. At worst, it agreed to swap the words construction and architecture.

We discussed the problem with the involvement of a wide range of participants, met several times, but could not reach an agreement to a result that suited the parties. They began to reduce the number of people invited to the conversation in order to maintain order and prevent local verbal battles containing impartial assessments. Discipline stopped faltering, but they could not come to a common opinion. We started training with a very small team: Rochegov A.G., Bulgakov S.N., Khikhlukha L.V., Alekseev V.A. and I. We also met one on one. The negotiations yielded nothing.

Everyone had enough arguments to support their point of view, but they were not perceived by their opponents. Mutual reproaches rained down. I received them too: representatives of the architectural and construction areas simultaneously reprimanded me for the concessions they made. What could I do but look for a conciliatory way out of the deadlock?

I believe that such a step was the proposal to name the body being created the Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences. In this case, the word “construction,” which the architects did not want to allow, was completely absent. Although an architectural masterpiece, unlike an artistic painting, is created to be realized in kind, and not to hang on the wall in an expensive frame.

However, the new name included “building sciences.” Not a single architect can do without knowledge of scientific achievements in terms of the same building materials and structures, methods of work production. Thus, builders could be represented at the academy by the vanguard 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 flaws can be seen in this name, but no other compromise options have been submitted. In truth, the parties did not strive 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 a dead end; the irreconcilability of positions made it impossible to move forward.

Finally, at the negotiation meeting, which became the last, I make a statement:

Either the Committee and the Union of Architects will continue to work together to create the Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences, or the Committee refuses to support the idea of ​​reviving the academy. Let the architectural community independently come to the Russian government with its proposal.

We parted. Everyone remained offended because they were not understood. I was doubly offended, since I was not supported by any of the warring parties.

A week passed, thoughts about the academy and other concerns shifted to the background and ceased to excite me. We have lived without an academy for so many decades, we can be patient a little longer, wait until we are ready for such an important step. But not everyone thought this way. Rochegov A.G. finds me by phone. and on behalf of the Union of Architects agrees to the proposed compromise option. 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 mentioned, it was as if everyone had been replaced, and the work of preparing and submitting documents to the government of the country began to boil. Creating an academy from scratch, I will use this construction term, turned out to be a troublesome task, but the enthusiasm was great.

For the sake of objectivity, it must be said that many colleagues were personally interested in creating the academy. Their creative achievements in scientific activities allowed them to hope for the opportunity to become academicians, corresponding members, and occupy an honorary elected position. I didn't see anything bad in this.

As for myself, while dealing with the “academic” problem, I did not make plans for the future, since I did not have an academic degree. By the way, this circumstance allowed me to remain completely independent of groups and parties. When I defended my point of view on the unification of architects and builders, I was sure that no one would accuse me of bias or personal interest. This 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 Moscow City Hall, and the draft Decree is attached to the documents. Everyone had plenty of time, especially Rochegov and Bulgakov. O.I. Lobov, who worked as Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, provided enormous support

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 Construction Sciences.” Just at these hours, the third congress of the Union of Architects of Russia was finishing its work, and just before it closed, I announced the contents of the Decree from the rostrum. Participants of the congress, please forgive the cliche, with great satisfaction, but I will say it a little differently, with genuine joy, which happens when an old dream comes true, they greet the words:

“In order to further develop architecture and construction sciences, develop new approaches to the human living environment, revive the traditions of Russian architectural and construction schools and taking into account the proposals of the Ministry of Architecture, Construction and 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 I decree: To create the Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences. To establish that the Academy is a self-governing scientific and creative organization... and unites leading masters, scientists, creative associations and research organizations in the field of architecture and construction sciences.”

The Decree further outlined the tasks of the academy and gave the following instructions: “The Government of the Russian Federation to approve the composition of the organizing committee for carrying out events related to the creation of the academy.” The government, “responsive” to the President’s instructions, only five months later approves the composition of the organizing committee of 15 people - 7 representatives of architectural and urban planning and construction sciences each, who have high professional authority in the circles of architects and builders.

From the “impostor” that I was before the release of this resolution, 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 pursued issues related to the creation of the academy. This allowed us to hold a constituent meeting on elections to the academy on December 17, precisely my birthday according to my passport. This was a wonderful 56th birthday gift for me. I chaired and opened the constituent assembly with an opening speech.

To give a general idea of ​​the importance of the problem and the efforts made to solve it, I will provide excerpts from my opening remarks. I wrote the text of the speech myself; as always, there was not enough time, so I completed it on the last night before the event. I ask you to take this circumstance into account when assessing.

“The first academy of architecture, it was called the Royal Academy of Architecture, arose in France in 1671, arose in connection with state regulation of artistic life. This example, in terms of creating academies, did not turn out to be 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 a higher 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 even 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 the heritage (there was still a place), creation of personnel and, finally, promoting 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 prevailed so much 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 to promote industrialization, reduce time, reduce costs and improve 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, that led to the liquidation of architecture itself. As the experience of socialist construction has shown, it did not need the assistance of the academy in general and architecture, in the high sense of the word, in particular. The Union managed without both for more than a quarter of a century.

One cannot help but sympathize with hundreds of thousands of creators - architects and builders, whose creative aspirations and souls were broken and trampled. One cannot help but feel bitterness about the degree of degradation to which Russian cities and villages have reached as a result of the forceful imposition of typification, unification and standardization. Individual exceptions to the rules are not able to change the “charms” of barracks construction.

All this happened during our lifetime, happened before our eyes, with opposition due to the conviction of some and with assistance due to the delusion of others. Unfortunately, the process of enlightenment for the deluded is still at the very beginning. The separation of architects and builders, open confrontation between 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 of both architecture and engineering. And this decline will continue until hostility, excuse the word, turns into an understanding that the root cause of such relations was the system that pitted them against each other, 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 Construction 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 talk about this in the past tense, then can such agreement really be violated in the future.

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 Construction Sciences.” I will not retell the contents; the decree was published and, moreover, is available in your materials.

I will not dwell on the problem of the academy’s place in the system of existing government bodies, on 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 titles do not turn their heads. One thing is clear: this cannot be another isolated department. Life is different now. Having saved a few minutes on this section, I would like to read excerpts from the “Book of Personal Decrees” for 1724 concerning the establishment by Peter I of the Academy of Sciences and Arts, which are very instructive and have not lost their significance.”

I read out excerpts about the management system, about elections, about structure, about the financing system. For example, about elections to members of the academy: “If His Imperial Majesty now or in the future, deigns to grant this meeting such a privilege, so that they can give the rank of academicians to those who have originated in the sciences (postscript from Peter 1 - allowance).”

But about finances: “It is necessary that these incomes be sufficient, reliable and not controversial, so that these people are not forced to strive more for their livelihood and their family than for the return of sciences (postscript - to give money from the top starting).” Amazing style, will our current language really become just as outdated for posterity in two or three centuries?

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: regulations 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; regulations on the voting procedure when electing the initial composition of the academy, a number of working documents regulating the convening of the constituent assembly and the activities of the organizing committee.

All these documents were regularly reviewed at meetings of the organizing committee, which took place once a month in an atmosphere of mutual understanding. The organizing committee developed drafts of the Academy's Charter and areas of activity. The task of our constituent assembly is to elect the initial composition of the academy, numbering 26 full members and 52 corresponding members, which is 52 percent of the total composition...

The determination of the initial composition of the Academy will be a significant event. And therefore, there is no need to underestimate the importance of the work ahead and the responsibility taken upon ourselves for the decisions made, because we will not only call the results of the voting the birthday of the Academy, but it will also inherit our personal qualities. That is why it is so important that these are the best qualities of each of the electors. If this happens, then we will have the opportunity to be proud of being involved in the successes and achievements of the Academy. Thank you for attention".

Events continued to develop with the same speed, 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 make a reporting and welcoming speech at the podium:

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

The main goal set for the last academy by the party and government to promote socialist construction through industrialization, reducing time, reducing costs and improving the quality of construction, naturally, could not be realized, because it contradicted 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 the breaking of the destinies of many architects, to dramatic clashes of the characters and worldviews of the creators, to the emergence of opposition groups and discord.

In this situation, a not-so-ideal solution was found - 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 level. But the liquidation of the academy meant 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 for a normal human society it is unacceptable...

The concept of an architect in this difficult era seemed to bifurcate into “pure” architects and “pure” builders. Some, however, want to see “pure” and “impure” in this division. Delusion never has a limit. And yet, time has always strived to achieve sharpness of the image, and in its focus now, it seems to me, there is a combination of the concepts of “architect” and “builder” into one exceptionally lofty concept of “architect”. We just need to consolidate this position and, as they say, step with God into the possibilities of a 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 the fate of architects in Russia is now in your hands. We can confidently assume that you are filled with the desire to become the arbiters of the fate of architecture, since you all participated in the election campaign for the academy voluntarily, as evidenced by your statements. But until this moment we must observe one formality, which for now prevents us from moving on to the real matter.

This formality is not an invention of the organizing committee in order to somehow delay the relinquishment of generally pleasant powers. Moreover, the feeling of pleasure intensified as the issues related to the creation of the academy were successfully resolved. And so, when it has reached decent heights, suddenly everything ends, and the organizing committee must give up both its place on the presidium and the podium. It’s still sad, if you don’t hide your feelings. The regulatory formality is that you still have to be patient and listen to the report and information from 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 developed to name the academy as the Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences. The Academy, which should unite the activities of architects and scientists of construction specialties, restore their community, 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. A total of 335 candidates ran for the academy's initial 78 seats. The competition for the departments of architecture, urban planning, and construction sciences was from three to five people per place. The territorial representation in the areas 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 do, for whom they preferred over others.

Concluding 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 formation was made in 1934. If we do not take into account the ideologically oriented academies that already existed before, the Academy of Architecture was one of the top three. But this is by the way. The main thing is why I mention the year the academy was founded to say that the composition of the academy and its charter were approved five years later, only in 1939.

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

According to the rules of the meeting of academy members, you elect governing bodies, including the president. No, more correctly, the president and governing bodies. This is a responsible event. History remembers the names of 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 overall president and the first of the Russian Academy. You will name his last name.

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

After the organizing committee handed over its powers, the full members of the academy elected the president and governing bodies. A.G. becomes the first president. Rochegov, and his deputy was S.N. Bulgakov. They deserve such honorable positions.

Instead of A.G. Rochegov, who had to leave his job at the Union of Architects of Russia, Yuri Petrovich Gnedovsky 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 would like to make one more small but important addition. During 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 management staff of the academy.

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

Let me note by the way that during the first meeting of the academy members, I was no longer working not only as a minister, but even in the construction complex in general. However, I was not relieved of my duties as chairman of the organizing committee. I had the opportunity to see them through to completion.

With the selection of governing bodies, the academy began a difficult life, since, unlike the Peter the Great period, it received insignificant financial support from the state. My connections with architectural organizations gradually weakened, new people come in who you don’t know, and at best they only heard something about you.

It was all the more pleasant to learn that two years after the creation of the academy, its members at the annual meeting elected me an honorary member. Naturally, the request did not come from me, which means my contribution was not forgotten. I am very proud of the title of honorary member, because this 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 Construction 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 the Decree of Empress Elizabeth II of November 11, 1764, was awarded to Boris Furmanov Alexandrovich for outstanding achievements in scientific and creative activities. 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 activities, since I was not involved 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 a telegram signed by A.G. Rochegov. addressed to the president of the country, and in the case just described, he swung his signature on the diploma. I keep both documents; they give me the opportunity, when they are nearby, to reflect on in which case Alexander Grigorievich was right. We met with him several times after April 1994 at various events, talked, he praised the book of my poems given to him, but I did not dare ask the question of when he would be right when signing the 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. He was still 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 and farewell speakers: friends, comrades-in-arms, students, colleagues who had known him for ages. I didn’t say any words to him when I said goodbye, 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 our duty as we understood it, and at the same time maintaining respect for each other.

In 1998, A.P. Kudryavtsev, who had previously headed the Moscow Architectural Institute, 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 preserve the institute and save it from collapse.

His list of merits is long and at the congress the academicians gave him preference: he had a Ph.D. degree, 15 years of teaching experience, was a laureate of the USSR Union of Architects award, and 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 presenting me with an academic robe. At the end of the event, the academy's decision to issue robes to all full and honorary members is announced.

Apparently, the financial situation of the organization has improved under the new leader. In front of everyone present, the robes were handed over to only a few members of the academy, and I was the first to be invited to the robing procedure, which came as a surprise. I went out.

In the aisle between the rows in front of the stage, a robe was placed on my shoulders, and a rectangular cap, which fit just right, took place on my head. 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 their joint work with Rochegov and other colleagues, to thank me for being elected an honorary member of the academy and for the “vestment” that took place, and to say that I was truly touched by the attention. I spoke for quite a long time, since those present did not lose interest in my words.

I would have talked longer, I was in a great mood, but I was worried about the tassel on the cap that was dangling at the side, and the appearance in the robe, which could turn out to be awkward. When the performance ended amid applause, the first thing I did was hasten to take off my cap and cape.

Already at home, having dressed myself in front of the mirror, I was surprised at how a very simple cut of clothing could present a person so solemnly and majestically. It turns out that there was no need to rush to take off the robe.

Soon, son Sasha and his wife Olya came home. I dressed up in a robe, although I kept my socks on. I warned them in advance so that they would not be afraid, that something unusual would happen. When I appeared at the door, their faces froze for a while, and they did not immediately come to their senses. Then they perked up, took turns trying on outlandish clothes, and they all suited them. 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 tenth anniversary. I was among those invited to the ceremonial 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 good health. The diploma that was awarded to A.G. Rochegov, received by his daughter, the audience 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 of Russia.

I also received a certificate. It was written in beautiful handwriting: “To the founder of the Academy, Boris Aleksandrovich Furmanov.” Next came the printed text: “For his great contribution to the formation and development of the RAASN and in connection with the 10th anniversary of the creation of the Academy.” Other recipients who earned the right to be called founders received the same certificates

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

The relationships I had with architects throughout my life gradually changed me. Once upon a time I looked at buildings with the X-ray eye of a designer and saw only the structures behind the façade of buildings, trying to understand their interconnection, the load transfer scheme, the solution of nodes, but the overall appearance did not hold my attention. I admired the engineering solutions, while at the same time trying to mentally bring something of my own into them.

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

Federal State Budgetary Institution "Central Research and Design Institute for Urban Planning of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction 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 to carry out research work under the subprogram “Development of production of composite materials (composites) and products made from them” of the state program of the 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 of methodological recommendations for organizing and preparing for transfer to 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

• Carrying out joint multilateral projects in the field of applied research, production-oriented; carrying out joint multilateral European-Russian projects aimed at creating innovative products and technological developments within the framework of the international ERANET-Eurotransbio program.

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

Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation

Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction 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. Created in 1994, the RAASN Institute of Advisors includes more than 200 of the largest Russian specialists in the field of science and architectural and construction practice. Among the members of RAASN are two employees SIC 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 Scientific Council of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Science).

For the first time in a quarter of a century after the abolition of the USSR Academy of Construction and Architecture 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 - joined the discussion about the need for an industrial academy of sciences and the principles of its organization and activities 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 line ministries and the country's top leadership 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 Construction Sciences.”

As part of the RAASN, Scientific Councils have been organized and function in a number of current areas. Among the most active are"Software in construction and architecture" (Chairman - Advisor to RAASN V.N. Sidorov (MGSU, MARKHI), scientific secretaries - academician RAASN P.A. Akimov, Advisor to RAASN T.B. Kaytukov ) . At the first meeting of the Scientific Council in October 2006, a general report on the main areas of activity and scientific problems was made by .

The tasks of this Scientific Council traditionally include discussing and solving problems, as well as developing recommendations on current issues of research, scientific and technical, design, as well as educational activities in the field of computer modeling of buildings and structures. The scientific issues considered by the Scientific Council, in particular, include the following:

• modeling the interaction of structures with the soil foundation;
• taking into account physical, geometric and other nonlinearities;
• taking into account the design and technological features of the structure;
• computer materials science;
• modeling of wind loads;
• calculation for seismic impacts;
• calculation for vibration impacts;
• 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 examination of calculations of buildings and structures using software systems (qualification 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 founding in 2006 was to carry out 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:

• determining the composition of their capabilities in such aspects as the validity and accuracy of mathematical models of structures, elements, units, etc., implemented in software systems (validation),
• accuracy of the numerical solution (in comparison with analytical solutions, experimental results, solutions using other software),
• the presence and sufficiency of mathematical justification for the implemented finite elements and methods for solving various problems,
• representativeness of the finite element library,
• a list of standards implemented in software packages,
• performance 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, structural and physical nonlinearity, nonlinear dynamic effects, etc.),
• the ability to simulate special modes, for example, the construction process of a structure, the ability to calculate long-span, high-rise and other complex structures, etc.,
• evaluate the poorly formalized characteristics of software in such aspects as interface convenience, the possibility and ease of introducing modern scientific results into the software.

At the same time, the tasks of verifying software systems include identifying the compliance of the actual capabilities of the software with the declarations of the developers, determining the correctness of the solution of verification problems, identifying and assessing 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 justification for the possibility of using software systems in the stated field of application.

Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences- 2. The Academy is a non-profit organization created in the form of a 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

Logo of RAASN Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences is one of the branch state academies of the Russian Federation, a scientific center whose purpose is to coordinate fundamental research in the field of architecture, ... ... Wikipedia

Corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences: List of corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction 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 Construction Sciences: List of Honorary Members of the RAASN Abovsky, Naum Petrovich Agilin, Pyotr Ivanovich Aizenberg, Yakov Moiseevich Alexandrov, Evgeniy Viktorovich Aleksashina, Victoria Vasilievna... ... Wikipedia

The Russian Academy of Arts RAH ... Wikipedia

- (Russian Agricultural Academy) State Academy of 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 (RAN) The Kunstkamera building as a symbol of the RAS ... Wikipedia

Coordinates: 55°42′38.86″ N. w. 37°34′40.13″ E. d. ... Wikipedia

Books

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