Back
Architecture becomes successful when it achieves results
Quality is a characteristic of execution: well designed, well built. But architecture as a phenomenon I would evaluate differently — through the category of success. After implementation, architectural projects always become either successful or unsuccessful. And the key question is: by what criteria do we measure this success?
Professor of the International Academy of Architecture, founder and head of the architectural studio Nani Zhgenti Project, Nani Zhgenti, shared this view in a conversation with an AZERTAC correspondent.
“We live in a capitalist economy, and therefore a successful architectural project is, first of all, a project that sells. Sometimes literally: apartments, hotels, offices, commercial spaces. Sometimes at the level of ideas and meanings, when a building conveys an ideology, values, or a cultural or political position,” she noted.
Nani Zhgenti reminded that architecture has historically been an instrument of ideology: medieval cathedrals shaped religious consciousness, palaces represented political hierarchy, and industrial architecture embodied the image of progress.
“Today, nothing has fundamentally changed. Even if a building is not commercial, it still has to successfully ‘sell’ the idea for which it was created,” she added.
Speaking about the familiar professional terms — “environment,” “life scenarios,” “user experience” — she emphasized that they ultimately work toward a measurable result:
“A well-designed shopping mall attracts more visitors. A hotel with a strong concept sells not just a room, but an experience. A residential development where infrastructure and life scenarios are thoughtfully planned becomes a desirable asset.”
According to the architect, from the client’s perspective, the key factor remains the maximum return on the project, and even an ordinary observer can easily recognize a sign of success:
“A successful residential building is one where the windows are lit. A successful hotel is one people want to return to.”
“So for me, successful architecture is architecture that works. Works for people, for the city, for the idea, and ultimately for the economic result,” Nani Zhgenti emphasized.
Addressing the issue of national identity in contemporary architecture, she noted that professional practice has long become global: architectural studios work in different countries, and architecture has turned into an international language.
Therefore, national identity is not always appropriate and should appear where it is defined by the task itself — ideologically and functionally.
According to her, this is especially important for museums, pavilions at international exhibitions, cultural institutions, and projects related to tourism — hotels, restaurants, and public spaces — where a person consciously seeks contact with a cultural context.
“In all other cases, demanding a mandatory ‘national code’ from architecture is artificial. Globalization is a reality, and architecture responds to it,” she stressed.
Speaking about the boundary between tradition and stylization, she noted that it is quite clear:
“Tradition is the direct reproduction of the past. Stylization is interpretation — a way to delicately convey the spirit of time without literally copying the form.”
Nani Zhgenti emphasized that blindly duplicating the past is not respect for history and often means refusing development: the living conditions and ways of life of past eras cannot be transferred into today’s reality without transformation.
Answering the question of what young architects lack, she highlighted two interconnected problems: insufficient understanding of business fundamentals and the inability to sell ideas.
According to her, an architectural model is often also a business model, and therefore must be economically viable.
“Architecture is not a set of beautiful images, but a system of decisions that must produce results,” she emphasized.
Nani Zhgenti also noted the importance of the ability to formulate and defend a concept, as this changes the entire approach to design — when the idea is born at the beginning of the process, rather than appearing at the end as an explanation of the form.
Speaking about the main quality an architect needs today, she named visual awareness and erudition — not only in current trends, but also in the heritage of past eras.
She also addressed the topic of preservation and careful reconstruction. In her opinion, the focus should be not so much on individual buildings, but on context and environment — scales, density, height, and the “ambience” of the city — which is why master plans, zoning, and regulations exist.
“Everything that carries historical information must be preserved. Even a modest building next to a richly decorated one is important precisely because of its modesty: it tells us about the social structure of its time,” she noted.
She emphasized that the true value of historical buildings often lies in the “readability of time,” when layers and details reveal how the structure has changed.
According to the architect, unification and superficial “decoration” lead to a loss of meaning. At the same time, a modern “second life” for heritage buildings is both possible and necessary. Around the world there are examples where historic structures are given contemporary functions and become lively, relevant spaces. However, interventions should not imitate the past.
“Imitation is falsification. Contrast, honesty, and functionality are the only possible path. The historic environment must be preserved, but it must also remain alive,” Nani Zhgenti concluded.
