Postscript on rose-colored glasses: a different perspective on architecture. An opinion piece.

This year has been marked in Tashkent by a series of high-profile architectural events ─ festivals, forums, and even international congresses, involving a wide range of architectural professionals from both nearby and far-off countries.

At the major exhibition pavilions in the capital, exemplary projects were showcased, scientific reports and presentations were made, winners of various competitions were announced, prestigious diplomas and awards were handed out, all reflecting the scale and significance of these events.

One could only be pleased that such large-scale activities were organized for architects in Uzbekistan, providing opportunities for creative interaction with colleagues, representatives from different schools and directions, comparing their achievements with others, and discovering new possibilities and prospects for the development of architecture globally, among other things.

All of this could indeed be the case, were it not for one unfortunate "HOWEVER," which prevents a complete belief that this public activity is a precursor to any dialogue or willingness to discuss the solutions to the myriad problems that have accumulated in our profession beyond all expectations.

At the Roots of the Problems

For those who are not deeply familiar with the subject, let me remind you. Since the mid-90s, architecture and urban planning in Uzbekistan have been undergoing a profound and devastating crisis, resulting in architects being absent from any positions of power and structures, replaced by builders, economists, lawyers, and other professionals who are more convenient in an administrative rather than a creative sense. It is they who now decide what, where, and how to design and build, relegating architects to the role of illustrators and decorators, often only when a foreign firm does not come along in time.

The opinions of local architects in leading institutions have long ceased to matter, whether it concerns the development of iconic projects, the protection of architectural monuments, the reconstruction of urban environments, or the drafting of master plans for the republic's cities, among others.

The main body of architects ─ the State Committee for Architecture and Construction has been restructured into the Ministry of Construction and Communal Services, where the term architecture has been completely excluded.

The crucial consolidating and developing body for the profession ─ the Union of Architects of the Republic exists only on paper and has not had a new address, specific members, or any activities prescribed by its Charter and Regulations since it was evicted in 2005 from its building on Mustaqillik Avenue, 6.

The two architectural universities in the republic, in Tashkent and Samarkand, have long transformed from engineering institutes into something akin to craft schools, where the main and only specialization for future architects has become facade design and speculative form-making. Now, and in reality for about 20 years, an architect is merely a producer of computer images, lacking the necessary theoretical knowledge and analytical skills.

The design and survey complex is in disarray, and its three main institutes ─ O’zShaharsozlikLiti (UzNIIPUrban Planning), ToshkentBoshplanLiti (TashNIIPMaster Planning), TashGiproGor (Giprogor) ─ after all the upheavals and reforms of recent years, having "shrunk" by more than two-thirds, have lost their previous functionality and are now awaiting either selective closure and disbandment, privatization, or merging into some unclear design center with an ambiguous specialization, or something else entirely.

While all these issues continue to exist and worsen, all the aforementioned festivals, forums, and congresses with their ideas and the pomp of the importance of developing architectural creativity appear as rose-colored glasses, as a shiny dust in the eyes, as seeds thrown onto dry soil, where, under conditions of such a large-scale and deep crisis of the profession, its drained institutions and establishments, nothing can be born or grow. Today, this is evident and clear even to non-specialists.

Reforms First – Then Festivals

So what needs to change in the attitude towards architects and their activities for the profession to regain its lost content, significance, and importance, so that our historical cities do not turn into a testing ground for various foreign developers, unconnected with us by historical past, nor by a common mentality and culture, who care little about what, where, and how to build, as long as they satisfy their commercial interests and ultimately lead the national architectural school to complete assimilation under the standards of global universality, devoid of any distinction, belonging to place, culture, and traditions?

What needs to be done to change the perception of preservation, renovation, and integration projects of architectural heritage into the modern life of a high-tech city, as is done in the civilized world, but which in our conditions are perceived by city authorities as ineffective, costly, and unrequested by society ─ projects that underpin the very concept of originality, development, and the same tourist attractiveness of the urban environment.

This is a significant, complex, and, of course, systemic problem that cannot be expressed in just a few words, but it is necessary to at least outline it. It is important to state that it exists and has not disappeared behind the facade of colorful architectural gatherings, festivals, and congresses. It continues to grow and escalate, concealed under the camouflage of lobbying interests.

Reforms are needed. A well-thought-out and coordinated action program in a unified systemic approach across all layers of professional activity – administrative, project-survey, educational, creative, and other layers, interlinked under a single ideology and targeted objectives. All that was mentioned earlier, with links at the end of the article.

It is essential to change the attitude towards the architectural profession from the existing industry administrative bodies, where the priority of architects' opinions has long been firmly established at the bottom of the list rather than the top. Where architects are viewed not as serious engineers and constructors of spatial forms, but as a kind of artists and illustrators, whose professional skills are only required for creating facade beauty.

Architecture of the 21st century is no longer an art or a decorative facade as it was during the Renaissance, classicism, and other distant times. It is not even the profession that was known 50 years ago, when architects were considered those who designed individual buildings as well as those who developed master plans for cities and agglomerations. Now urban planners, or as we are also called in foreign terms, urbanists, represent a separate profession, which is only loosely related to architecture through the most general foundations.

Both of these specialties are serious sciences that allow for forecasting and modeling the future development of urbanized landscapes, permitting far fewer mistakes than currently occur in choosing specific strategies for transforming urban environments and their building typologies.

Unfortunately, in our profession, all these mistakes in development and project ideology, organization of the creative process, and selection of various planning solutions are not so obvious and clear-cut, making it difficult to address, revise, or correct them in time.

Mistakes in architecture and urban planning accumulate with more severe consequences, with realization only occurring when a critical mass of the problem is reached, making it either too expensive or simply impossible to rectify these mistakes.

This is something to consider right now, as the removal of architects and urban planners from their crucial work has opened the door wide for these errors to occur.

In response to the question of what the primary directions for reforming the profession could be, I would name two:

• the restoration of a collegial body for the architectural community similar to the former Union of Architects;

• the restoration of university education based on the example of one of the authoritative foreign universities, without which we can no longer rely solely on our own human resources.

Both are not quick fixes, obviously requiring years to restore the profession. The assumption that time and circumstances will self-regulate and set everything right seems even more erroneous and regressive.

Architectural festivals, congresses, forums, and other platforms for the profession are extremely necessary, and doubly so, if they do not become fixated solely on positivity and do not ignore or overlook the problematic and painful issues within the profession.

Previous articles on the topic include:

1. The Development of Tashkent's Master Plan – a task that can only be accomplished by local specialists. Opinion

https://podrobno.uz/cat/obchestvo/razrabotka-genplana-tashkenta-eto-zadacha-kotoraya-ne-mozhet-byt-sdelana-nikem-drugim-kak-tolko-mest/?sphrase_id=8928106

https://podrobno.uz/cat/obchestvo/arkhitektura-uzbekistana-na-myertvoy-tochke-ravshan-salimov/?sphrase_id=8928106