pioneers of soviet architecture small
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
1/614
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
2/614
on ten ts
Acknowledgments; Note on the translation 8
Preface
9
Introduction 11
M a i n stages in the developmen t o f socialist architectu re i n the
USSR 13
P a r t i
Aesthetic problems of
design 17
1 Clas sici sm, the Moderne (Art Nouvea u), engineer ing
structures and the new architecture
Petersburg
Renaissance
and Rational Architecture 19
Engineering
structures
and the artistic w o r l d in
Russia
f r o m
the 1860s to the Revo luti on 20
Classicism in the early post-Revolutionary
years
21
The early development of Zholtovsky's
Neo-Renaissance
School 21
Fomin 's Red Dor ic 23
The attempt to
estabhsh
a Centre for Architecture and Ar t at
tached to the
People's
Commissariat for Education - Lu na-
charsky and architectural tradition 23
2 Interaction between architecture and fine art
Leftist
paintin g and new architecture 61
Mayakovsky: the cu ltural focus
of the
new art 61
Kandinsky:
the concept of Monu ment al Art 62
Malevich:
the
search
for a path into architecture; Lissitzky's
Prouns
63
T a t l i n and Early Construct ivism: Gabo, Rodchenko, the Sten
berg brothers, Medunetsky , Klut sis and others 64
From Leftist art to the new archite cture 66
U n o v i s - 1919-22
67
Sinskulptarkh and Zhivsk ulpta rkh - 1919-20 67
In khu k- 1920-24 69
Vkhutemas and Vkhu tein - 1920-30 70
3
The search for a new artisticlanguage: the early p eri od
Symbolist Romanticis m 74
Archaicizing trends w i t h i n the new archi tectu ral concept 74
Dynamic compositions: the infiuence of Cubo-Fu turism 75
The symbolism
o f
artistic forms and
ofthe
architectu ral image 76
I l y a Golosov: theories
of the
structure of architectural orga
nisms and of visu al dynami cs 102
4 Rationalism
The pr oblem of new f o r m 106
Ladovsky, the leader of Rati onal ism 106
The psychoanalytical teaching method
107
Krinsky's evolution 108
Asnova 141
The two
centresof
Rationahsm arou nd Ladovsky
and
B a l i k h i n
143
Asnova
teams 144
5 Constructivism
Constructivi sm and the theory of Production Art 146
On
the term 'Constru ctivism' 149
Constructivist artists
150
Alexander Vesnin, leader
of the
Constructivists
151
Ginzburg's evolution towards Construc tivism
155
Constructiv ism embodied in architecture: the foundati on of
Osa, the Union of Contemporar y Architects 156
The Functio nal Meth od 194
Engineers
and the new architecture
194
6 Creati ve innovat ion in the
second
half of the
1920s:
teachers,
schools, groupings
Canonization:
a threat to the
formaltenetso f
the new trend
196
I l y a Golosov's Const ructi ve Style 196
Symbolist and Expressionist responses to engineeri ng stru c
tures-
Lyudvig
and Cher nikh ov 197
Zholtovsky's Harmoni zed Construct ivism 198
Fomi n's Proletar ian Classicism 199
A
new
stage
in design 200
Melnikov, a
master
ofexpressive compo sition 200
Leonidov, a poet of pure f o r m 233
Suprematist Constru ctivism -
Nikolsky
and Khide kel 234
Th e
graduates of
M V T U 235
Shchusev
and the adoption
o f
new archit ectur al principl es 236
A unified
new trend 236
Growing controversy w i t h i n the new trend 237
7 The problem of nationalism and internationalism
Changes
in the relationsh ip between the nati onal and the inter
national 239
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
3/614
Contents
The search for a 'nat iona l' style 239
Innovators and the problems raised by national and interna
tional considerat ions 240
'National '
style and new archite cture in Azer baidz han 240
The Cent ral Asia n Republics 257
Ukrainian Neo-Baroqu e and the new archit ectu re 257
The Neo-Ar menian style and the new architectural movement
in Armen ia 258
8 Innovation and tradition - debates of the early 1930s
Organizational reconstruction 260
Chan ging objectives 260
Innovation
and
tradition
261
The debates of 1933- 34 261
A return to tradition by way of 'inte rmedi ate' trends 262
Part
I I
Social tasks of architecture 269
1 The socialist pattern of
settlement
and town-pla nning
concepts
Problems of socialist settlement 271
The garden- city concept 271
The
first
debateabout
town
plan ning, 1922-23 274
The urban dwelling complex 275
First
regional planni ng projects - the workof Ivanitsky and
Sakuhn 276
Ne w urban communal
centres
277
Vertical
zoning-ideas
f r o m Lavinsky, Lissitzky
andMelnikov 279
Rodchenko's 'top elevat ion' concept 280
The cosmic
c i t y
proposal - Malevich 280
Khidekel's
experimental designs 281
Proposals f r o m Vkhuteinfo r thefuturec i t y :
designs
by Varent-
sov, Krasilnikov and Lavr ov 282
Krutikov's
proposal
for
mobile architecture and theFlying City 282
The second
debate
about town plan ning, 1929-3 0 283
Sabsovich's Sotsgorod conception 284
Disurbanization:
Okhitovich's 'new settlement' 335
I n search of
flexible
pla nning - Leonidov,
M i l i u t i n
336
Ladovsky 's conception of an expandi ng
c i t y
- ARU' s urban
planning
proposal 338
The pr oble m of the big
c i t y :
the competition for replanning
Moscow
339
2 Reconstru cti on of the way of life and development of
new forms of dwelling
The reconstruction of domestic
l i f e
and involvemento f women
in social productionprocesses 341
The
growth
o fcommunal l i v i n g :anew social
b r i e f
forhousi ng 341
Communal houses 343
The housing associations 345
Experiments in the use of
traditional dwelling
types 345
Osa'sint ernal competition for the design of communal d w e l l
ings 347
Transitional
housingdesigns
incorporating
newusesof
space
347
The
f a m i l y
and communal accommodation: the
debate
over
t ransforming
the way ofl i f e 389
Youth
collectives and communal dwellings
involving w h o l l y
shared l i v i n g 390
Individual personal requirements, coUective l i v i n g and the
economy: ideal projects and actua l circumsta nces 392
Manifestingthe new collective way of l i f ein the appearanceof
housing 394
Experiments
w i t h
curved forms 395
Equa l opportunit ies for the consumer: a new approach t o ra
tionalizing
accom modati on 396
Prefabric ated accom modati on and mobile dwelli ngs 397
3 Ne w
types
of buildings for social and administrative
purposes i n the Soviet Union
Special social requirements i n the immediate post-Revolution
ary period 399
Palaces of Labo ur 399
Houses
of Soviets 400
The searchfor an aestheticimage for the country' s 'Supreme
B u i l d i n g
401
The competition for the Palaceof Soviets, 1931-3 3 402
O f l i c i a l
and administrative buildings 403
4 Workers Clubs as centres of a new socialist culture
Types of Worke rs' Clubs 434
Melnikov's
clubs 434
The
search
for an
aesthetic
image ofth e Workers' Club 435
The large-scale club building programme and attendant de
bates 436
Leonidov' s clubs 457
The competition for the Proletarsky
Dist
Moscow,
1930 457
5
Desi gn of new public arenas: prol
A r t mass spectacle and scientific
dii
New
types ofmass spectacle 459
Meyerhold:
development of the
mass
ac
Compet ition s for new types of theatre d
The planetarium: a scientific display
-
Experimental cinema
designs
479
6 Development of communal supply
Problems and solutions
481
Mass bakeries 481
Mass kitchens 482
Department stores 483
Markets 484
Municipal bathsand swimmi ng pools
7 Educa tio n and sc ience
Designing
a new type of school 498
Workers'
Preparatory Faculties, highe
ments and technic al schools 498
Libraries
499
Scientific
establishments 500
8 Sport and leisure
Sports installations 513
Parks
of Cul tur e and Leisure 514
Resthomes 514
Part
I I I
Masters and trends: biographies, sta
manifestos 533
1 New architecture and its trends f
2 The leaders of the new direction
Ladovsky
(1881-1941 ) 543
Alexa nder Ves nin (1883-1 959) 547
Melnikov
(1890-1 974) 551
Leonidov (1902 -59) 553
Lissitzky (1890-1 941) 557
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
4/614
r a 'nat iona l' style 239
id
the problems raised by national and interna-
rations 240
le
and new archit ectur e in Azer baidz han 240
^sian Republics 257
o-Baroque and the new archit ectur e 257
enian style and the new architectural movement
258
an d
tradition
debates of the early 1930s
i l recons truct ion 260
ctives 260
id
tradition
261
19 3 3 - 3 4
261
i d i t i o n by way of 'inte rmedi ate' trends 262
>f architect ure 269
st pattern of
settlement
and town-planning
)cialist
settlement 271
ty
concept 271
te about
town
plan ning, 1922-23 274
elling complex 275
planning
projects - the
work
of Ivanitsky and
mmunal
centres 277
-ideas
f r o m Lavinsky, Lissitzky
and
Melnikov
279
top elevat ion' concept 280
ty
proposal - Malevich 280
)erimental
designs 281
1Vkhutein
for the
futurec i t y :
designsby Varent-
vand Lavr ov 282
)osalformobile architecture and theFlying City 282
:bate
about
town
plan ning, 1929-30 283
)tsgorod concepti on 284
)n : Okhitovich's 'new settlement' 335
;xible planning - Leonidov, M i l i u t i n 336
nception of an expandi ng
c i t y
- ARU' s urban
osal 338
f
the big
c i t y :
the c ompetition for replanning
2 Reconstr ucti on of the way of life and development of
new forms of dwelling
The reconstruction o f domestic
l i f e
and involvemento f women
in social productionprocesses 341
The
growth
o fcommunal l i v i n g :anew social
brieffor
housi ng 341
Communal
houses 343
The housing associations 345
Experi ments in the use of
traditional dwelling
types 345
Osa'sinte rnal competition for the design of communal d w e l l
ings 347
Transitional
housingdesignsincorporating newusesof
space
347
The
f a m i l y
and communal accommodation: the
debate
over
t ransforming
the way ofl i f e 389
Youth
collectives and communal dwelhngs
involving w h o l l y
shared l i v i n g 390
Individual personal requirements, collective
hving
and the
economy: ideal projects and actua l circumstanc es 392
Manifestingthe new collective way of l i f e in theappearanceof
housing 394
Experiments w i t h curve d forms 395
Equa l opportunit ies for the consumer: a new approach to ra
tionalizing
acco mmodat ion 396
Prefabric ated acco mmodat ion and mobile dwellin gs 397
3 Ne w
types
of buildings for social and administrative
purposes i n the Soviet Unio n
Special social requirements in the immediate
post-Revolution
ary perio d 399
Palacesof Labou r 399
Houses
of Soviets 400
The searchfor anaesthetic image for the country's 'Supreme
B u i l d i n g
401
The competition for the Palaceof Soviets, 1931-3 3 402
O f f i c i a l
and administrative buildings 403
4 Workers Clubs as centres of a new socialist culture
Types of Worke rs' Clubs 434
Melnikov's
clubs 434
The
search
for an
aesthetic
image ofthe Workers' Club 435
The large-scale club building programme and attendant de
bates 436
Leonidov' s clubs 457
The competition for the Proletarsky
District
Palaceo f
Culture,
Moscow,
1930 457
5
Desi gn of new public arenas: problems posed by Agit
A r t mass spectacle and scientific displays
New types ofmass
spectacle
459
Meyerhold:
development ofthe
mass
actio n theatre 459
Competit ions for new types of theatre design, 1 930-33 477
The planetariu m: a scientific display 479
Experimental cinema designs 479
6 Development of communa l supply and servic e syst ems
Problems and solutions 481
Mass bakeries 481
Mass kitchens 482
Department stores 483
Markets 484
Municipal baths and swimmi ng pools 484
7 Education and science
Designing
a new type of school 498
Workers'
Preparatory Faculties, higher education establish
ments and technic al schools 498
Libraries
499
Scientificestablishments 500
8 Sport and leisure
Sports instahations
513
Parks of Cult ure and Leisure 514
Resthomes 514
Part
I I I
Masters and trends: biographies, statements,
manifestos 533
1 New architecture and its trends 535
2 The leaders of the new dir ecti on
Ladovsky (1881-1941) 543
Alexander Vesn in (1883-19 59) 547
Melnikov
(1890-1974) 551
Leonidov (1902- 59) 553
Lissitzky
(1890-19 41) 557
Contents
I l y a
Golosov (1883-1 945) 561
Ginzburg
(1892-1946) 564
Nikolsky (1884-1 953) 584
V i k t o r Vesn in (1882-1950) 587
Krinsky (1890-1971 ) 588
3 Archi tec tur al associati ons of the new directi on
Working Group of Architects in Inkhu k 592
Asnova:
Associ ation of New Archi tect s 592
Osa: Union of Contemporary Architects 594
A R U : Union
of Archit ect- Planners 598
Vopra: A l l - U n i o n Proletarian Architects' Association 600
Bibliography
Publicat ions in Russian 602
Pubhcations in other languages 609
Additional
bibliography to the English edition
610
Index ofnames 611
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
5/614
cknowledgments
Many
architects whose output was connected
w i t h
the period
under review, as
w e l l
as relatives and friendso fthosewho were
no longer alive, and other historians, have
assisted
me w i t h
documents, discussions and advice. I should
l i k e
to thank all
those who
have
contributed to this book, and would
l i k e
to
namea few of them, inclu dingsomewho did not survive to see
it published: A . E . A r k i n ,
N.N.Babicheva, M.O.Barshch,
Yu.P.Bocharov,
G.B.Borisovsky, A . B . B u n i n ,
A.S.Fisenko,
I .
A. Frantsuz, T. M . Ginzburg, V. M. Ginzburg, L..L .Goloso-
va, A.P.Golu bev, G. S. Gurev-Gurevich,
I .
L.
lozefovich,
V.V.Kal inen , V. P.Kalmykov, A.I.Ka plun , R.A.Katsnel -
son,
L . M .
Khidekel, I.N.Khlebnikov, G.B.Kochar, L . K . K o
marova, B.D.Korole v, M . P.Korzhev,
N .
A .
Krasilnikov,
V . G . Krinsky, K. V.Krutikova, N.S. Kuzmin, I .V.Lamtsov ,
A.M.Lavinsky,
V .A . L av rov ,
A.I.Leonidov, A.A.Lepor-
skaya, I . L.
Lissitzky, G . M . L y u d v i g ,
M . D . Mazmanyan,
K.S. Melnikov, I . F . M i l i n i s ,
D. M.
M i l i u t i n a ,
G. Movchan,
A .V . Pavelichina, V . A .Petrov, V. A. Rodchenko, N . A . Samoi-
lova,
A.V.Semenova, M.A.Shchusev,
O.A.Shvidkovsky,
A . A .Silchenkov, R. M .
Smolenskaya,
N . B. Sokolov, A. A.
S t r i -
galev,
N.P.Trav in ,
M.A.Turkus , G.G.
Vegman,
A.Y.Yuga-
nov,
L.S.Zalesskaya. A. F. Krasheninnikov
k i n d l y
provided
dates for the Index ofnames.
S. O. Kha n-Magomedov
Note on the
translation
I n general the
B r i t i s h
Library system of transl itera tion has
been used, w i t h
all endings of th e type - y i ,
- i i
rendered as -y.
Wheresurnames are already w e l lknown in the Enghsh-lan-
guageliterature in a
f o r m
thatdoesnot correspond to this
sys
tem,
we
have used
that estabhshed
f o r m . Lissitzky
is one exam
ple.We have treated M i l i u t i ni n thesameway, since the
p u b l i
cation
of an English tra nslat ion of his book Sotsgorod by the
M I T
Press
in 1974 has estabhshed him in bibliographies and
cataloguesunder that
Library
of Congress
spelling (the BLsys
tem would have produced M i l y u t i n ) .
When
they
f i r s t
appearindividual s are mentioned w i t h
g i v
ennamesa nd surnames (orinitials i f
given
nameis not availa
ble).
Thereafter they are mentioned only by
surname,
except in
thosecases
where several people have the samesurname, as for
example w i t hthe Vesnin brothers, the Golosov brothers, or the
two Fomins. For clear identification,givennames continue to
appear inthese cases.
Where an ac ronym is not pronounceable to the Englis h
tongue as a word, as for example w i t h S G K h M or M V T U ,
these are
l e f t
to be read as capitalized initials ( Kb being the
rendering ofthe Russian letter X ) . I n the interests of
readabili
ty
a ll
those
which
can be rendered pronounce able are rendered
as aword,thus Goelro, Asnova, Mao, Vopra. This
also
brings
them into line
w i t h
Soviet practice i nspeech. There are a very
fewcases,
most notably
A R U ,
where the Soviet oral
usage
is A-
R- Un ot A r u ,and it has seemednatural tof o l l o w their practice.
This
dist inct ion corres ponds to one we
have
also applied to
translation of text. We
have
sought to render K han-Mago me-
dov's account i n the most readable Englis h we could achieve.
Documentary materials, however, have quite different origins
and original intentions. Writers
themselves used language
awkwardly
as they grope d for new ideas or sought to produce
effect,
so we
have tried
topreserve that quahty where it is
ger
mane.
I n the interests o f f l o w and readabihty we have also adopted
the
f o l l o w i n g
practice in the main text:names of organizations
appear
for the
first
tim e as acronym
w i t h
Enghsh meaning in
brackets, and thereafter as acronym only,
w i t h
the
f u l l
Russian
t i t l e
represent ed by that acro nym appearing i n the Glossary
preceding the Index ofnames. Thus Osa (Union of Contem
porary
Architects),
thereafter Osa, is
identified
in the Glossary
as Obedinenie Sovremennykh Arkhitektorov.
Periodicals and books appear
f irs t with
the Russian
t i t l e
f o l
lowedby the Enghsh version in brackets, thereaft er in the Eng
l i s h
version, thus Arkhitektura SSSR {Architecture of the USSR) and
thereafter Architecture of the USSR.
small amount of
informa
t i o n about certain periodicals appears in the Glossary, bu t for
further
detailsreaders are referre d to the standard Enghsh-l an-
guage
work
on this aspect, Anatole Senkevitch Jr, Soviet Archi
tecture 1917-62.
Bibliographical Guide to Source Material (Univer
sityPresso fV i r g i n i a , Charlottesville, 1974).
We have done everything possible to bring the Index of
names up todatei nrespect of deaths that
have
occurred since
Khan-Magomedov compiled
i t.
Longevity is a characteristic of
Soviet architects, but in the nature of things certain inaccur a
cies may be created here even as the book goest opress.
G C / A L
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
6/614
nents
itects whose output was connected
w i t h
the period
w,as w e l las relatives and friendso f
those
who were
ihve, and other historians,
have
assisted me w i t h
,
discussions and advice. I shoul d
l i k e
to thank all
have
contributed to this book, and
would l i k e
to
of them, including
some
who did not sur vive to see
d: A . E . A r k i n , N.N.Babicheva, M.O.Bar shch,
arov,
G.B.Borisovsky, A . B . B u n i n ,
A.S.Fisenko,
l iz ,T .M . Ginzburg, V.M .Ginzburg, L..L . Goloso-
rolubev,
G.S. Gurev-Gurevic h, I .L .lozefovich,
en,
V.P.Kalmykov,
A. I .Kaplun , R.A.Katsnel -
Lhidekel, I . N . Khlebnikov,
G. B. Kochar, L . K. Ko -
i .D.Korolev, M .P.Korzhev, N . A . Krasilnikov,
ley,
K . V . K r u t i k o v a ,
N.S.Kuzmin, I .V.Lamtsov ,
sky, V . A .
Lavrov,
A. I . Leonidov,
A.A.Lepor-
Lissitzky, G . M . L y u d v i g , M . D .
Mazmanyan,
iov, I . E .M i l i n i s , D. M.M i l i u t i n a , G.Movchan,
china, V . A .Petrov, V . A . Rodchenko, N .A . Samoi-
Semenova, M.A.Shchusev,
O.A.Shvidkovsky,
i k o v ,R .M . Smolenskaya, N .B . Sokolov, A.A . S t r i -
Travin, M.A.Turkus, G.G.Vegman, A.Y.Yuga-
alesskaya. A. F. Krasheninni kov
k i n d l y
provided
;
Index ofnames.
S. O. Khan- Magomed ov
nslation
:he
B r i t i s h Library
system of tran slite rati on has
vith all endings of the type - y i , - i i rendered as -y.
rnames are already w e l lkn own in the
English-lan-
;ure in a
f o r m
thatdoesnot correspond to this sys
;
used that established
f o r m . Lissitzky
is one exam
;treated M i h u t i nin thesameway, since the
p u b l i -
English
tr ansla tion of his book Sotsgorod by the
n
1974 has established hi m in bibliographie s and
tiderthatLibrary of
Congress
spelli ng (the BL sys-
ave produced
M i l y u t i n ) .
first
appearindividual s are mentioned w i t h giv-
surnames (or
initials
i f
given
name is not availa-
ter they are mentionedonlyby surname, except in
hereseveral people have thesamesurname, as for
1the Vesnin brothers, the Golosov brothers, or the
two
Fomins. For clear
identification,
givennames continue to
appear in these
cases.
Where an acr onym is not pronounceable to the Enghsh
tongue as a
word,
as for example
w i t h S G K h M
or M V T U ,
these are l e f t to be read as capitalized initials ( Kh being the
rendering ofthe Russian letterX ) . I n the interests o f
readabili
ty
al lthose
which
can be rendered pronounceable are rendered
as a
word,
thus Goelro, Asnova, Mao, Vopr a. This also brings
them intoline w i t h Soviet practice in
speech.
There are a very
few
cases,most notablyA R U ,where the Soviet oralusageis A-
R- Un ot
A r u ,
and it has seemednatural to
f o l l o w
their practice.
This
dist inct ion corresponds to one we
have
also apphed to
translation of text. We have sought to render K han-Mag ome-
dov's account in the most readable Enghsh we could achieve.
Documentary materials, however,
have
quite different origins
and
original
intentions. Writer s themselves used langua ge
awkwardlyas they grope d for new ideas or sought to produce
effect,
so we
have
tried to preserve that quahty where it is ger
mane.
I n the interests of
flow
and re adability we
have
also adopted
the f o l l o w i n gpractice in the main text:
names
o f organizations
appear for the
first
time as acronym w i t h English meaning in
brackets, and thereafter as acronym
only,
w i t h
the f u l l Russian
t i t l e
represented by that acrony m appearing in the Glossary
preceding the Index of
names.
Thus Osa (Union of Contem
porary
Architects),
thereafter Osa, isidentifiedin the Glossary
as Obedinenie Sovremennykh
Arkhitektorov.
Periodicals and books appear
first
w i t h the Russian
t i t l e
f o l
lowed
by the English version in brackets, the reafter i n the Eng
l i s hversion, thusArkhitektura SSSR {Architecture of the USSR) and
thereafter Architecture of the USSR.
small amount ofinforma
t i o n
about certain periodicals appears in the Glossary, but for
further
detailsreadersare referred to the standard English-lan
guage
work on this aspect,Anatol e Senkevitch Jr, Soviet Archi
tecture 1917-62.
Bibliographical Guide to Source Material (Univer
sity
Presso f
V i r g i n i a ,
Charlottesville, 1974).
We
have
done everything possible to
bring
the Index of
names up todatei nrespect of deaths that
have
occurred since
Khan-Magomedov compiledit . Longevityis a characteristic of
Soviet architects, but in the natur e of things certain i naccur a
cies may be created here even as the book goest opress.
C G / A L
Preface
Research into the sources and development of moder n archi
tecture has
been
going on in many countries during the last
fif
teen or twen ty years. Innum era ble monographs, arti cles and
specialissueso fjournals
have been
published in theprocessof
summing up more than a centuryo f
innovation.
In this connec
t i o n there has been very careful
research
into
those
creative
currents a nd schools whose contribut ions were mostsignificant
during
the period when the fundamenta l principles
o f
this new
architecture were being
formulated,
that is to say, in the 1920s.
I n the Europe of
those years
we can distinguish four main cen
tres whose influence upon that development was outs tanding ,
namely France, Germ any, the Netherlands a nd the Soviet Un
i o n .
However,
whilst
the
first
three ofthese
have been
studied
in depth for several decades, so that i n pract ical terms al l the
significant
facts and developments concerni ng them
have
be
come established elements of our
historical
currency, Soviet ar
chitectural developments of the 1920s have received fa rlessa t
tention.
Thishas generally led to an underrating ofthe Soviet role in
twentieth-century architecture. Worsestih,it prevents us
f r o m
achieving an objective
view
of a wholeseries of complex and
conflictingprocesses w i t h i n
that new architec ture's develop
ment. One cannot deny the
truth
of
what
V i t t o r i o
de Feo wrote
in the fore word to his book pubhshed in Rome, in 1963, about
Soviet architecture oftheyears 1917-36: ' A significant gap is
revealed
here
in the history of contemporary architecture, and
many essential questions must remain unanswered u n t i l this
gap has
been
filled.
This
goes a long way to explain ing the increased int erest i n
early Soviet archite cture i n many countri es dur ing the last ten
to fifteen years. Many articles have
appeared
in architectural
journals, as
w e l l
as a numbe r of monographs , amon g which
Anatole
Kopp's Ville
et
revolution, published in Paris in 1967,
and V i e r i Quilici's L architettura
del
costruttivismo, which ap
peared in Bari twoyears later, deserve special mention.
Despite ah thi s, the creative forays conducted by .Soviet ar
chitect s in the 1920s and ear ly 1930s
have
s t i l l not found their
r i g h t f u l
place in foreign
writings
on the history of contempo
rary
architecture. Indeed, year after year, in articles and
gener
alhistories ahke, a succession of authors has assigned an ever-
diminishing
role in the development of contemporary architec
ture to this early Soviet work.
The
post-War
decades
have
displayed a strangely
split
ap
proach in this connection, w i t h two appar ently independent
processes running in parallel. Individuals
have
become in
creasingly interested in Sovietwork of the 1920s,whileit has in
tl;ie
meantime
been
disappearing
f r o m
the standa rd historie s.
I n the 1920s and 1930s, itseemed clear that the post-Revolu
tionary
decade
made
the SovietUnion a most important centre
o f development of th e new archit ectur e, yet by the 1950s and
1960s everybody, for
some
reason, preferred to forget about it.
A n d
so Soviet architecture ofthe 1920s is bothhighlyvalued in
the West, and, at the sametime, deprived
ofi ts
proper place in
the general development of twentieth-century architecture.
The historyo f
w o r l d
architecturepresentsa complex picture
o f interaction and influence in the process by
which
regional
styles and wider creative trends emerge. Thus every nation's
architectural traditions are a compound of
local
pecuharities
and features roote d in the archit ectur e of other culture s. Na
tional traditions
f o r m
the main
source
and stream of architec
tural
culture in a given country, but innumerable tributaries of
external influence flow into it. In
each
stretch of this river, in
eachhistoric al period, established elements intermingle w i t h
others, newly borrowed,
whichhave
entered the
flow
at a point
historically 'upstream'. An objective examination of architec
tural
processes
in any given period therefore
demands
a study
of the origins and sourcesof such upstream tributaries, as
w e l l
as conditions in the riveritself.
I t is
v i t a l
for the historian to discover the primar ysourcesof
any particular architectural phenomenon. Even
w i t h
the slow
er stylistic interactions and re latively
l i m i t e d
geographical
spread of
traditional
architec tures this is often impossible. It is
s t i l l more difhcultin the twentieth century, when theprocesses
of design and stylistic evolutionoperateglobally, and the me
dia
of
communication
in thiscasethe architectural journals
permit a continuous sharing of achievements am ong architects
acrosst he
w o r l d .
Thus, by now, professional design
work
in every country
embodies elements derived
f r o m
workin the
centres
of 'the new
architecture'whichdomi nate d in the 1920s. This is yet a nother
reason for the current renewal of
worldwide
interest in those
countries and movements the work ofwhich was seminal dur
ing the 1920s, because it is impossible to understajid modern
architecture in any country at a
deeper
level without that es
sential knowledge ofi t s sources.
Soviet architecture ofthe 1920s occupies a special place both
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
7/614
10
Preface
in t he
w o r l d
architectureo fthis century, and in the long histori
cal
development o f architecture
w i t h i n
the constituent nations
and cultures
of the
Soviet Union. It is universally recognized
that mu ch of what later becamethe common stock of modern
design sprang
f r o m
the Soviet archi tectu re of that per iod, and
that thiscollectiveoutpu t has l e f ta considerable legacyo f o r i g i
nal
and fundamental achievements.
Ther e is however yet another reason for the curren tly in
creasing interest in such early Sovietwork.As a rul e, in the other
countries which gave
b i r t h
to modern architecture, it con
tinuedto develop u n t i lit sf u l lcreative potent ial had been deve
loped.
I n the SovietUnion, on the other hand, owing to a sub
stantial change of aesthetic d irec tion in the early 1930s, those
same i n i t i a l trends and impulses were never exhausted. A t
present, the refore, when a certain stage in twentieth-century
architectural development has reached its natural term, and
complex reassessmentsare taking place in the spheres of f o r m -
genera tion and style, Soviet archit ectur e oft he 1920s is being
widely
seen
abroad notonlyas a matter
of
history,but as a pos
sible source of creative
s t i m u l i .
Western pubhcations on this early periodo f Soviet architec
ture use
mainly
ma ter ial publis hed in the 1920s and 1930s in
European journals, together w i t h ce rtain of the most widely
known
hterat ure i n Russian. I n fact, the same
relatively
few
projects and buildings
ofthe
1920s have reappeared a gain and
again on the pagesof Western architec tural pubhcations dur
ing the last fewdecades. This
foreign
literat ure has generally
taken quit e inadequate account of the great diversi ty of
ideas
andapproachesthat are in fact the characteristic featureo fthis
period. Ofthetwo main architec tural trends
of those
years, for
example, the Rationahsm of the Asnova group and the Con
structivism
of Osa, the latter is far better
known,
and such or
ganizations as Zhivskulptarkh and Inkhuk, which are central
to an unders tanding of Soviet architectural developments of
those years, are
v i r t u a l l y
unknow n. Equall y underrepresented
are the activiti es ofUnovis, Vkhutemas, and many more.
This
situation is readily explained by the fact that a s i g n i f i
cant par t of the relevant ma teri al is inaccessible to
foreign
authors or d i f f i c u l t for them to obtain. Many projects and
buildings
were only recorded inlocaland regional publications,
and a vast amount ofentirely unpubhshed material
resides
i n
Stateor private archives.
I n recent years, however, more and more material is gradu
a l l y
being pubhshed in the SovietUnioni n aserieso f
works
o n
architecture oftheyears 1917-32.
Among
these,prideo f place
goesto two volumes of documents and source materials,Iz isto
rii sovetskoi arkhitektury {From theHistory of Soviet Architecture),
compiled
and presented by
Vigdaria
Khazanova under the ed
itorship of K i r i l l Afanasev. Volume one, covering the
years
1917-25, appear ed i n 1963; volu me two, for 1926-32 ,
followed
in
1970. I n the
same class
are Khazanova's
Sovetskaya arkhitektu
ra pervykh letOktyabrya 1917-1925 gg {Soviet Architecture of the First
Post-Revolutionary Years 1917-25), also publi shed in 1970,Alexei
Ghinyakov's Bratya Vesniny
{The
Vesnin Brothers)
of the
same
year, and numerous scholarly articles by such authors as Mar
garita Astafeva,
Anatoly
Strigalev, and many more.
Despit e this, Soviet archit ectur e of the 1920s continues to
suffer
f r o m
insufficient research, w i t h many factualareas s t i l l
not
subjected to scholarly examination. Unfortu natel y, the
r i c h
work o f this peri od wa:s never analys ed i n detail or sur
veyed coherent ly in its own
time.
During the 1920s themselves,
such reviewwouldhave been premature, whilein the next two
decades the emphasis was on assi milat ion of the hist oric al
heritage; attitudes to the 1920s were intensely negative, and
detailed examination of the
work
was considered inappro
priate. As a result, when interest in this materia l started to
revive, f r o m
the late 1950s onwards, i t had been
w h o l l y
ob
scured f r o m memor y, the works were
v i r t u a l l y
un known and to
a significant extent
irretrievably
lost. Those years of negation
saw the neglect ofsurvivingmaterial even w i t h i n the archives
and museums t hemselves. Ma ny projects , models and written
materials that
could
afford evidence are lost, or at least have
not
been located. By now, therefore, a great deal has to be
pieced together hterally
f r o m
fragments, by examining large
numbers of private archives in famihes where a few documents
may have been preserved, afewdrawings and, mostoften of a l l ,
faded, bad-qua hty photogra phs of projects and models long
lost.
myselfhave been engaged i n studyin g this peri od for more
than
t h i r t y
years, and pu blishe d in the early 1970s the
f i r s t
mo
nographs on such
leaders
as Ivan Leonidov, written w i t h Pavel
Alexandrovand published in 1971,an d Moisei Ginzburg, pub
hshed i n 1972. Works on
N i k o l a i
M i l i u t i n , writ ten
w i t h Y u r y
Bocharov,
on I l y a Golosov, Alexander Vesnin and Alexa nder
Rodchenko, are all inprocesso fpublication. Monographs on
the
work
of
N i k o l a i
Ladovsky, KonstantinMelnikov and
V i a -
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
8/614
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
9/614
12
In t r odu ct ion
A n y analysis
of the
complexprocesseswhich shaped Soviet
art in the 1920s, for instance , requi res, ahelseapart, awareness
that this art developed ami d the interaction ofthe most varied
factors.
It was propelledintojoiningthe larger group
o f
artistic
movements which was dicta ting regional, and evenglobal, sty
listic change, and which sharply rejected accepted visual and
other stereotypes; it served a new, socially different and un -
precede ntedly vast ar t pubhc; an d it was subjected to a thor
ough and fundamental
change
in the social and ethical criteria
applied
to it.
Tw o
ofthesefactors
new forms of art and a new publi c
proved
extremely har d to reconcile. As a rule, experiment and
the rejection of
existing
formal stereotypes req uire the support
o f an educated
public.
A sudden
swelling
in the ranks ofthose
interest ed in art, on the other hand, of ten brings about a
f a l l
in
standards. It
tends
to slow down the
process
o f generating new
forms
and even to reverse i t tosomeextent, emphasizing tradi
t i o n
and certainly procludi ng any leap
forward.
I tlooked as though the choice lay between
falhng
in
w i t h
the
consumer's
s t i l l
undeveloped tastes in matters of art, thus
abandoning any role in theformulationof new trends, and, at
the opposite extreme, resor ting to exper imen tati on regardless
ofthe actualneeds and receptivityo fthemasses.It was widely
thought
at the time that
these
positions could not be recon
ciled.
Yet many of
those
involved w i t h Soviet art, includingarchi
tecture, embarked at that time on a bold attempt to combine
the seemingly
incompatible.
Despite every sort of
practical d i f
f i c u l t y , artists resolutely sought to
create
a revolu tionary new
art which would preserve both the aesthetic innovations that
had been achieved, and the social demands of the new mass
public.
A synthesis such as this, pushed through intheseexcep
tionally d i f f i c u l tcircumstances, isv i r t u a l l y unparaheled i n the
history
of art:hence the tremendous impa ct of early Soviet art
throughout the
w o r l d .
I t led the field in both aesthetic and so
cialterms. This was thebasis
ofits
greatnessand its inexhausti
ble
attraction, and explains the close and growing study devot
ed to Soviet art of that per iod in many countr ies.
A ll
this applies equally to Soviet architecture at that time,
when aesthetic develo pment went hand in hand w i t h an inten
sive search for types of
dwelling
and settlement that
would
be
genuinely new in a socialsense. This is also why the present
book
lays its principal stresson
these
artistic and social prob
lems, as they are the two main factors which governed the
experiment s of Soviet architects i n the 1920s.
The book isdivided intothree parts, of which the
t h i r d
com
prises docum entary mat erial on the main architects and move
ments. The first of the main sections. Part I ,
discusses
the di
verse
approachesto design as they emerge in the individual ar
chitectural
trends of the peri od, always relat ing them to the
main
lines of wider artistic experiment i n art at that
time.
The
second main section. Part I I is arranged by categories of archi
tectural problem:town planning , housing, the various kinds of
pubhc and communitybuilding. The
evolution
of
entirely
new
building types is dealt w i t h
here
in historical
sequence.
Even
though the book is entitled
Pioneers of Soviet Architecture,
have deliberately not confinedmyself to aseries of chapters
dealing w i t h the outputo f individual masters. The work of
sin
gle architects is examined
w i t h i n
the
framework
of the general
artistic and social questions which confronted them. This
treatment makes it possible to provide a more rounded viewof
each architect's person'al
contribution
to the establishment of
Soviet
architecture, and
ofthe
part he or she played in the solu
t i o n ofthe various problems concerned. The pattern adopted
for this study necessitates constant reference to the work of
eachperson's numerous contemporaries, but the discussion of
the individualbeliefs
o fleading
architects has been segregated
in separate sections.
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
10/614
rsis ofth e complex
processes
whichshaped Soviet
0s, for instance, requires, allelse apart, awareness
developed am id the interaction ofthe most varied
I S
propelled in tojoining the larger group
of
artistic
A^hich was dictating regional, and even global, sty
, and whi ch sharply rejected
accepted
visual and
types; it served a new, socially diflFerent and un-
ly
vast
art publi c; and it was subjected to a thor-
idamental
change
in the social and ethical criteria
ese factors - new fo rms of art and a new pub hc -
mely hard to reconcile. As a rule, experiment and
of
existing formalstereotypes require the support
ed public. A suddenswelling in the rankso fthose
art, on the other hand, o ften brings about a
f a l l
i n
t
tends to slow down the process
o f
generati ng new
'en
t o
reverse
it to
some
extent, emphasizing tradi -
tainly procluding any leap forward,
is though the choice lay between fallinginw i t h the
s t i l l
undeveloped
tastes
in
matters
of art,
thus
any role in the formula tion of new trends, and, at
extreme, resorting to experimentation regardless
needs
and receptivity ofthe
masses.
I t was widely
he time that
these
positions could not be recon-
of
those involved
w i t h
Soviet art, includin g archi-
arked at that time on a bold attempt to combine
y
incompatible. Despite every sort
of practical
dif-
ts resolutely sought to create a revolutionary new
ould
preserve both the aesthetic innovations that
:hieved, and the social
demands
of the new
mass
ithesis
such as this,pushedthrough in
these
excep-
cult
circumstanc es, is
virtually
unparalleled in the
t:henceth e
tremendous
impac t of early Soviet ar t
throughout the
world.
I t led the f i e l d in both aesthetic and so
cial terms. This was the basisofits
greatness
and its inexhausti
ble attraction, and explains thecloseand growing study devot
ed to Soviet art of that per iod in many countries .
A l l this
apphes
equally to Soviet architecture at that time,
when aestheticdevelopment went hand in hand w i t h an inten
sive
search
f or
types
o fdwelling and settlement that would be
genuinely new in a social
sense.
This is
also
why the
present
book lays its principalstresso n
these
artistic and social prob
lems, as they are the two main factors whic h governed the
experime nts o f Soviet architects i n the 1920s.
The book is divided intothreeparts,
of
which
t he third com
prises
documentary material on the main architects and move
ments. The first oft he mainsections. Part I ,
discusses
the di
verse approaches to design as they emergein the
individual
ar
chitectural
trends
of the perio d, always rela ting them to the
main lines
of
wider artistic experiment in art at that time. The
second
main section.
Part I I
is arrange d by
categorieso farchi
tectural problem: town planning, housing, the various kinds of
public and community
building.
The evolution
o f
entirely new
building
types
is dealt
w i t h
here in historicalsequence.
Even though the book is entitled Pioneers of Soviet Architecture,
have deliberatel y not confi ned myself to a serieso fchapters
dealing
w i t h
the output
of
individual masters. The work
o f sin
gle architects is examined within the framework ofthe general
artistic and social questions which confronted them. This
treatment makes it possible to provide a more roun ded vi ew of
each architect's person'al contr ibu tion to the establishment of
Soviet architectu re, an d oft he part he or she played in the solu
tion oft he various problems concerned. The pattern adopted
for
this study necessitates constant reference to the work of
each
person's
numerous
contemporaries, but the discussion of
the individual behefs of leadin g architects has been segregated
in separate sections.
13
Main
stages
in
tlie
development
of
socialist
architecture
intheUSSR
:
A
headlong drive into the future marked Soviet architecture
from its very earliest years. The radical socialchanges taking
place in the country made this inevitable: the splendid pros
pecto f
a new, devel oping socialist society and the insp irat ion it
drew from the revolutionaryupsurgeofthe working
masses
im
parte d a dyna mism all of its own to the architec ture of the
1920s
and ear ly 1930s.
The period during which socialist architecture
estabhshed
itself
i n the Soviet Unio n is probably unequalled i n our century
forthe intensityofits experimentation. The rapidchangein so
cial and economic cond itions - in fact, a complete social trans
formation
forced architects to
concentrate
on the future. In
deed, someofthosewho were puttin g forward newideas in the
1920slooked so farahead that their experimental projects and
proposals
were tosecure recognition and implementation only
thirty or fifty years later.
The history ofthe Soviet Union
f rom
1917 to 1934 is f u l lo f
complexities. The C i v i lWar, the New Economic Policy (NEP),
the reconstruction of a ruined economy, eachinfluenced every
aspect oft he country's hfe, including architecture. Fore seof
reference, this perio d may be divide d archi tectu rally into a
number of
stages,
para lleli ng the general social, economic and
political
processes
at work in the
genesis
of the
first
socialist
state
in the world; though naturally each
stage
merges imper
ceptibly into the next.
The
years 1917-20
define the first post-Revolutionary period
during which very l i t t l e actual construction took place, owing
to the
difficulties
resulting
f rom
the C i v i l War, War Commu
nism,
and general economic disru ption. Socialist architecture
was taking
shape
amid fundamental socialchanges, a marked
deterioration in class relations, the struggle against counter
revolution
and the transformation
o f
the coun try into an armed
camp to expel White Guard and interventionist armies. Th e
working
masses
were experiencing a
tremendous upsurge:
a
collectivist
mood prevailed among them, together
w i t h
maxi-
mahst demandsfor a rushed rearrangementof the entire way of
l i f e ,
a new social order and a rapturous
search
for new art istic
expression.
During
the
first
years after the Revo lution, when socially
new
typeso f
buildingwere only beginning to
reach
the drawing
boards, architects devoted much attention to the search for a
new image. I n Soviet termino logy this
word
has a specific
nieaning, quite differentfrom its super ficial connotations i n the
West. By 'image', in Russian obraz, we mean that synthesiso f
specific forms and specific ideolog ical
meanings
which consti
tute theelements
of
a new artistic , or in thiscase architectural,
'language'.
I n
the early twenties, the conju nction of Revolution ary fer
vour amongst the masses w i t h a
virtual
absence
of actual con
struc tion work, impa rte d certain special characteristics to the
work
of the architects. Competitions did muc h to revive archi
tectural
l i f e ,
w i t h projects often aimed as much at this proble m
of
devising the new architectural
language
as they were at solu
tion of specific problems of the brief in question. The results
were often sumptuous 'palaces' that reflected the workers'
longings for a happier f uture, in designs as majest ic as the ar
chitectural monuments of the past.
Yet
the
features
that would
characterize
the architecture of
this embryonic society were already becoming apparent
des
pite all the surrou nding complexities. The nation alization of
land,
the transfer to public ownershi p of large build ings, an
economy based on planning, a new attitude to the use
of
build
ings
now no longer treated as merchandise for the procure
ment of profit -
created
entirely new conditions forbuflding
work.
The latter derived asense
o f
direction f rom being part of
a larger operation
of
economic planning, and
f rom
being forced
to see itself in the context of town-planni ng factors.
A t
the outset of the post-Re volu tiona ry perio d it was clear
that architecture's
basic
tasks were to be the exploration
o f
new
typesof social dwellin gs and settlements, improved sanitation,
working
conditi ons and leisure for the worker s, and the crea
tion of new social
patterns.
The fundamental social, economic and political changes
takingplacein the country could not, of course,be immediately
reflected in new buildi ngs. The way
of Hfe
was chang ing as one
watched it, but the towns i n which this wholesale and historical
birth
of
a new society was taking
place
remained as they had al
ways been, unaltered.
Thousands
of
workers moved into the
houses
ofth e bourgeoi
sie. Commu nes seeking a new way of
l i f e sprang
up
spontane
ously.
Palaces
of Labour, Wo rkers' Clubs andrest homes were
set up in the formermansions and country estatesofthe aristo
cracy, but
these
buildings remained outward ly u nchanged.
The resu lting clash between the new content and the architec
turallyoutdated forms was acutely obvious. Every attempt was
made to ameliorate the situation through use ofthe decorative
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
11/614
M a i n stages
in the developm ent of socialist architecture in the US SR
and monumental
arts
which flourished so vigorously at this
time. Hoar dings, agitational slogans, inscriptions,
banners
andposters covered the wahs of
buildings.
A rt
l i t e r a l l y
spilled
over
into
the street in its attempt to bridge the gap between the
environment
and the way ofl i f ebeing l i v e d w i t h i n it.
I n 1918, Lenin put
forward
a plan for monumen tal propa
ganda: art was to be used for agit atio nal purposes,
c^nd
monu
ments were to be erected to prominent revolutionaries and c u l
turalfigures in accord w i t h the demandsof the revolutionary
masses.
Lenin
proposed to
involve
the creative
intelligentsia
i n
producing an agitat ional art w i t h a new content. 'The
streets
are our brushes. The squares, our palettes,' declared Maya
kovsky
at that
time.
Many painters, architects, sculptors and
poets
involved
themselves enthusi astic ally in designing deco
rations for pubhcfestivals,
streets
an d
squares,
masstheatrical
performances, propaganda trains etc. The decorations in Mos
cow's RedSquare
f r o m
designs by Alexa nder and
V i k t o r
Ves
n i n ,
the
Palace Square
in Petrograd byAltman, and the
streets
and squaresof Vitebsk by Chagall and Malevich were highly
effective.
A g i tA rt also included minor architectur al items,
o f
ak i n d to
which
mu ch importance was attri buted in the early days
of
So
viet
power. In the absenceof large-scale building
work,
these
minor structures made it possible to reflect characteristic
trends in architecture quickly and clearly. Among such de
signs,someo fwhich were executed
at
least in part , were kiosks
by
Lavinsky
and Rodchenko, rostrums by
Krinsky
and
L i s
sitzky,and various kinds
o f
show
cases
and temporary structures
in streetsan dsquaresparticularly associated w i t h the name of
Klutsis. Architects were involved in the production of monu
ments. Rudnev, for example, did a Monumen t to the Victimsof
the Revoluti on in Petrograd, in 1917-19; Osipov did the Obe-
hsk commemor ating the Soviet Constitut ion in Moscow in
1918, and there were many others.
A
net work of
State
construction and design organizations
began to takeshapevery soon after the
Revolution.
Architectu
ra l studios were set up in conjunction
w i t h
the
local
Soviets in
Moscowand Petrograd, w i t h i nt he
People's
Commissariats for
Education and for Health, and w i t h i n the large construction
organizations such as the Committee for State
Buildings
(Komgosoor)
under the Supreme Soviet for the Nati onal Econ
om y of the
USSR (Vesenkha). The teaching of art and archi
tectur e was also completel y reorgan ized: in Moscow the
Higher
StateArtisticTechnica l Studios (Vkhutema s) were set
up towards the end of
1920,
i nwhichdepartments of architec
ture, industri al design and finear t were combinedw i t h i na sin
gle estabhshment.
C i v i lWar delayedf or
years
the restoration and development
of Soviet industry. However, a start was made w i t h the
b u i l d
in g
of power stations and indu strial enterprises. A
decree
of
1918 gave the go-ahead for the V o l k o v hydro-electric plant,
and by 1920 the
first
stageo f the Shatura power station was on
stream. Rur al power stations were
b u i l t
and so were numerous
factories.
The
years
between
1921
and 1924 areidentified w i t ha
sharp
reversal i n the economic pohcy of the new State, adopted
through
the need toswitch
f r o m
conquest of
pohtical
power to
creation of a materi al and technical founda tion for the new so
cial order. The Plan for theElectrificationof Russia (Goelro),
adopted at the Eighth All-RussianCongress o f Soviets and de
scribed by Lenin as the Party's Second Programme, was the
first forward-looking
plan in history for the phased develop
ment
of
a national economy. The New EconomicPolicy (NEP)
was decreed at the Ten th Congress of the Russian Com mun ist
(Bolshevik)
Party in
March 1921.
The Goelro plan and NE P notonlystimulated construction,
bu t
also governed the character
of
building workundertaken in
1921-24, w i t h a corresponding efiect on architecture. The ac
tual
situa tion - economic chaos, a drastic shortage ofbuilding
materials, a lack
o ffunds,
an acute'lackofhousing,the collapse
of the urban municipal economy - made it necessary to deal
first
w i t h primary problems.
The ma in emphasis was on implem entatio n of the Goelro
plan
- to extract the country
f r o m
its economic underdevelop
ment - and the improvem ent of workers' l i v i n g conditions.
Construction dur ing this period was directedmainly at the es
tabhshment of power stations and the creation of workers' set-
dements.
These
areas thus
became
t he chief recipients of any
available resources, opened a field for
innovation
and provided
architecture w i t h its most substantial opportunity.
Architecture
also
came
intoits own as part ofthe propagan
da plan
w i t h
the crea tion of memorials and monuments, the
decora tion of cities for festivals and other f orms of agit ation al
art.Architectural- rather than sculptura l - monuments
p r o l i f
erated, and architects concentrated on them because they
could be quickly - though mostly temporarily - r un up by
means of
cheap
materials, and f u l f i l l e d a n
building functions u n t i l the middle oft he 1
public
buildi ngs began to be erected.
The peri od between 1920 and 1924witne s
an innovative movement thatconflictedsharp
al concepts. The moodo f experimentation anc
flicting trends were v i v i d l y illus trated at tha
lace of Labour competi tion and the Agricultr
1923. The i n i t i a ldebate about sociahst housir
garden
c i t y ,
urban conglomerations, vertica
types of worke rs' dwelhngs ( single
houses,
c
ings or apar tmen t blocks etc), also arose dur
By 1925-27, reconstruction was already
iJ
industrial enterprises were being b u i l t , t o w i
urban dwelling complexes, including comi
ments, set up for workers, and the
first
large
erected - Houses of Soviets, Workers ' Clubs
and hospitals. Innovation
came
to predomir
chitecture and its proper forms were the ob
study. A constant succession of competitions
iijs;year out, and attracted numerous
entries,
j
coherent professional organizations were fin
and the pu blicati on of architectu ral books an
cameproperly organized.
Traditionalist concepts receded, and man;
adherents joined the innovators, who concc
materials and structures, the application ofsc
in
plan ning, the rejection
o f
purelydecorative
the rational solutiono f functional requiremen
h i b i t i o n
of Contempora ry Architectu re was or
in connection
w i t h
the tent h anniversary of th
l u t i o n , and it summed up the novel achievemt
chitecture. Ma ny progressive foreign architec
Germany,
Switzerland,
Czechoslovakia anc:
part. The Soviet Union was becoming one of
tant
centres
for the elaboration of pioneering
architecture.
Th eyears1 928-31 saw the
first
flowering ol
ture. The tremendous tasks set by the
First
called for a vast creative effort.Th e
accelerate
triahzation, aimed at remedying the perennia
ment of erstw hile Tsarist Russia, co nverted th
into
a huge industrial
building
site. The First
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
12/614
development of socialist architecture in the USS R
ntal arts
which
flourished so vigorous ly at this
ngs, agitational slogans, inscriptions, banners
vered the walls ofbmldings.Ar t
l i t e ra l ly
spilled
streetin its attempt to bridge the gap between the
and the way ofl ifebeing hved w i t h i nit.
eninput for ward a plan for monumental propa-
is to beusedfor agitationalpurposes,^nd monu-
be erected to prominent revolutionaries and
cul
maccord w i th thedemandsof the revolutionary
1 proposed toinvolvethe creative intelligentsia in
agitational art
w i t h
a new content. 'Thestreets
les. The squares, our palettes,' declared Maya -
,t time. Many painters, architects, sculptors and
d themselves
enthusiastically in designing deco-
bhcfestivals,streetsandsquares, masstheatrical
i propagandatrains etc. The decorations in Mos-
uare
f r o m
designsby Alexander and V i k t o r Ves-
:eSquarein Petrograd by
Altman,
and thestreets
fVitebsk
by Chagah and Mal evich were
highly
so included minor architectural items,
o f
ak i n d to
importance was attributed in the earlydaysof So
n the absenceoflarge-scale
building
work,these
ures made it possible to reflect characteristic
;hitecture
quickly
and clearly. Among such de-
f
which
were executedat leastin part, were kiosks
and Rodchenko, rostrums by Krinskyand Lis-
rious
kindsof showcasesand temporary structures
squaresparticularlyassociatedw i t h thenameof
utects
were involved in the production of monu-
ev,
for
example, did a Monument to the
Victims
of
)n
in Petrograd, in 1917-19; Osi pov did the Obe-
fiorating
the Soviet Constitu tion in Moscow in
ere were many others.
cofState construction and design organizations
;shapevery soon after the
Revolution. Architectu-
ere set up in conjunctionw i t h the local Soviets in
Petrograd, w i t h i nthePeople'sCommissariats for
nd
for Health, and w i t h i n the large construction
s such as the Committee for State Buildings
)
under the
Supreme
Soviet
for
the National Econ-
JSSR(Vesenkha). The teaching of art and archi-
also completely reorganized: in Moscow the
HigherState
Artistic
Technical Studios (Vkhutemas) were set
up towards the end of 1920, inwhich departmentsof architec
ture, industrial design and
fine
art were combinedw i t h i na sin
gle establishment.
C i v i lWar delayed
for
yearsthe restoration and development
of
Soviet industry. However, a start wasmade w i ththe
b u i ld
ing
of power stations and indu stria l enterprises. Adecreeof
1918
gave
the
go-ahead
for the
Vo lkov
hydro-electric plant,
and by 1920 the
first
stageofthe Shatura power station was on
stream. Ru ral power stations were
b u i l t
and so were numerous
factories.
Theyearsbetween 1921 and 1924 are
identified
w i thasharp
reversal in the economic pohcy of the new State, adopted
through the
need
to switch
f r o m conquest
of
pohtical
power to
creation of a material and technical foundati on for the new so
cialorder. The Plan for the Electrificationof Russia (Goelro),
adopted at the Eighth
Afl-Russian
Congressof Soviets and de
scribed by
Lenin
as the Party's Second Programme, was the
first forward-lookingplan in history for the phased develop
mento fa nati onal economy. The New Economic Pohcy (NEP)
wasdecreedat the TenthCongressofthe Russian Communist
(Bolshevik)
Party in March
1921.
The Goelro plan and NEP not only stimulated construction,
butalsogoverned thecharacter
o f
buflding workundertaken in
1921-24,
w i t h
a corresponding effect on architecture. The ac
tualsituat ion - economic chaos,a drasticshortageof
building
materials, a lack
of
funds, an acute'lack ofh ousing, the collapse
of the urban municipal economy - madei tnecessary to deal
first
w i th primary problems.
The mainemphasiswas on implementati on of the Goelro
plan- to extract the country
f r o m
its economic underdevelop
ment - and the improvement of workers' l i v ing conditions.
Construction du ring this period was directed mainly at the es
tablishment of power stations and the creation of workers'set
tlements. Theseareasthus becamethe chiefrecipients of any
available
resources,
opened a
fieldfor
innovation and provided
architecture w i t h its most substantial opportunity.
Architecturealso cameinto its own as part of the propagan
da plan
w i th
the creat ion of memorials and monuments, the
decoration of cities for festivals and other forms of agitational
art.Architectural- rather than scu lptural - monuments
p r o l i f
erated, and architects concentrated on them because they
could be quickly - though mostly temporaril y - r un up by
15
M a i n
stages in the development of socialist architecture in the USSR
means ofcheap materials, and f u l f f l l e d a number of image-
building
functions
u n t i l
the middle of the
1920s
when large
publicbuildingsbegan to be erected.
The peri od between
1920
and
1924
witnessed the gr owth of
an innova tive movement tha t
conflicted
sharply
w i thtradition
al
concepts. The moodof experimentation and the clasho fcon
flicting trendswere v i v id ly illust rated at that time by the Pa
laceof Labour competition and theAgricultural Exhibitionin
1923. The
i n i t i a l
debateabout sociahst housing, bearing on the
garden
city ,
urban conglomerations, vertical zoning, various
types of workers' dwellings (singlehouses, communal
dwel l
ings or apartment blocks etc),also
arose
during this period.
By
1925-27, reconstruction was already in
f u l l
swing. New
industrial
enterprises were being
b u i l t ,
towns were planned,
urban
dwelling
complexes, incl uding communal establish
ments, set up for workers, and the
first
large public buildings
erected
Houses
of Soviets, Workers' Clubs, schools,
arenas
and hospitals. Innovationcame to predominate in Soviet ar
chitecture and its proper forms were the object of intensive
study. A constant successionof competitions took place, year
inf,year out, and attr acted numerous entries. A t this time, too,
coherent professional organizations were
fma l ly
established,
and the public ation of architec tural books and periodicals be
came
properly organized.
Traditionahst concepts receded,and many of their former
adherents joined the innovators, who concentrated on new
materials and structures, the application of
scientific
methods
inplanning, the rejectionof purel y decorative components and
the rational solutionof functionalrequirements. The Firs t Ex
h ib i t ion
of
Contemporary Architecture was organized in 1927,
in connection
w i th
the tent h anniversary of the October Revo
lu t ion ,
and it summed up the novel achievements o f Soviet ar
chitecture. M any progressive foreign architects,
f r o m
France,
Germany, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia and Hofl and, took
part. The Soviet
Union
was becoming one of the most impor
tant centresfor the elaboration of pioneering trendsi n
wo r ld
architecture.
The
years
1928-31 saw the
first
flowering
of
Soviet architec
ture. The tremendous tasks set by the First Five Year Plan
calledfor a vast creative effort.The accelerated rateof indus
trialization,
aimed at remedying the perennial underdevelop
ment of erstwhile Tsarist Russia, converted the entire cou ntry
intoahugeindustrial
building
site. The First Five Year Plan
was essentially a matter of construction: gigantic heavy indus
t r i a lworks and power stations were set up, new railway s were
l a id and new towns, such as Magnitorgorsk, Kuznetsk and
Chardzhui, were
b u i l t
in what had been sparsely inhabited
areas,
nearthe sourcesof raw materials.
The launching ofindustrializationinvolved wholesale mo
bilizationofth e country's entire material , technical and human
reserves.
Strict economy
measures released
considerable re
sourcesfor the cr eation of newbranchesof industry.
Building
materials i n short supply, such as cement and metals, were di
rected to industrial construction
work
as a matter of
p r io r i ty .
Foreign experience was in great demand. Foreign
firms
and
highlyquahfied specialists were called upon for consultation,
planning and the
building
of
industrial
works,towns, dwellings
and public buildings.
Soviet architects were mai nly
involved
at that time in practi
cal
building work,
the volumeof
which
increased year byyear.
Butthe creative impetus earlier imparted to them by competi
tions and experimentation was not wasted. I t enabled them to
solve many
highly
complex problems in the construction of
dwellings, public buildings and industrial plants during the
FirstFive Year Plan. It was precisely then that thebasicpat
ternso f
newdwellingcomplexes, complete
w i t h
essential servi
ces, the types of Worker s' Clubs and Palaces of Culture,
Houses of Soviets, massed performance theatres, mass
k i t
chens,vocational schools, publicbaths and many other kinds
ofestablishment were developed.
The mainemphasisof creative and theoreti calstudiesnow
shiftedto town planning and the construction
o fmass
housing.
A
debatedeveloped again concerning socialist residential plan
ning and the t ransformat ion of the people'sway of l i fe , and
opinionsdiffered widely.
I nthe late 1920sand early 1930s, the influence of Soviet ar
chitecture on the development and elaboration of progressive
architecture
elsewhere
in the
w o r l d
constantly increased.
Leading architects i n many countries watched w i th great inter
est the tremendous experi ment inprogress during the First
Five Year Plan. The town-planning
ideas
involved, and the
elaboration of new
building
types w i t h i n a new social context,
attracted particular attention.
During
these yearsthe Soviet
Union
becamea focusof
i^iter-
est for many prominent architects in capitalist countries, and
many of them entered open Soviet competi tions.Someexecut-
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
13/614
16
M a i n
stages in the development of sociahst architect ure in the US SR
ed commissions there, or worked there professi onally for ex
tended periods, among them Le Corbusier, Erich Mendelsohn,
Walter
Gropius, Bruno Taut, Ernst May,Hannes Meyer and
Hans Schmidt. For their part, Soviet architects contributed to
international
competitions and exhibitions. Several dozen So
viet
projects were submit ted for the Christophe r Col umbus
Monument in
Santo
Domingo in 1929, for example.
I n
1932-34, the
conflict
between innovative and traditiona l
trends was greatly intens ified and brought about substanti al
changesin the directi on of architectural work as a whole. The
rate
o f
industrialization
and
collectivization,
aimed at
provid
in g solid foundations for socialism, was speeded up and this
aroused
a
massive
surge of enthusiasm among the workers,
comparable to that of the early Revolut ionar y days. Art , in
cluding architecture, was swept up in this nationwide re
sponse,thereby introducing furtherchangesin the
formulation
of
an artistic image.
I n the earlyyearso fSoviet power the revolutionary upsurge,
combined
w i t h
an almost totalabsence
o f
actual
building
work,
di d m uch to promote
designs
for a variety of'palaces' , prestige
buildings
regarded as the symbols and memorials o f the Gre at
Revolution. During
the period of reconst ructi on, when the ac
tual tasks of erecting dwehings , hospitals, schools, clubs, and
so on, became the
f i r s t p r i o r i t y ,
restraint in the outward ap
pearance of such buil dings became an ethicalissue, since the
prime
requireme nt was considered to be the archite ctura l
f u l
filment of social
tasks.
During the early years of
industrialization,
when essential
resourcesand materials were being allocated to industry, a
p o l
ic yofthe strictest economy was enforced in the country, includ
in g
the intro duct ion of rati oning in 1928, the construction of
barrack blocks and cur tail ment of the constr uction of publi c
buildings.
The working class deliberately opted for material
privations
and a restricted consumption in order to achieve
f u l l
mobilizationof ah the count ry's
resources
and a concentration
of financial means on industrial construction, so as to lay the
economic foundation of socialism in aState besetby
enemies.
I n thesecircumstances, the successesof the First Five Year
Plan,
which
had already made
themselves f e l t
at the start ofthe
1930s, set off a new wave of popula r su pport throu ghout the
country.
The economic victoryo f the workingclass required a
worthy
reflection in the architectural
field.
The concept of
grandiose
'palaces'
dedicated to the Great Economic Revival
came to the fore again.
Prestige
n owbecame one ofthe more
important elements
in the creation of an archi tectu ral image .
The vast dimensions ofbuildings,the monumentality of their
conception, the opulence of their decorati on, were all intended
to mirror
the popular mood.
1 V i t t o r i o
de Feo,
USSR archite ttura 1917-19 36
(Rome, 1963).
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
14/614
evelopment of socialist architecture in the USSR
s there, or worked
there
professionally for ex
,among them Le Corbusier, ErichMendelsohn,
, Bruno Taut, Ernst May,Hannes Meyer and
For their part, Soviet architects contributed to
ompetitions and ex hibitions. Several dozen So-
ere submit ted for the Christopher Colum bus
5antoDomin go in 1929, for
example,
the
conflict
between innovative and traditional
atly
intensi fied and brought about s ubstantia l
directionof architectural work as a whole. The
alization
and collectivization, aimed at provid-
lations for socialism, was speeded up and this
sive
surge
of enthusias m a mong the workers,
that of the early Revolutionary days. Ar t, in-
icture,
was swept up in this nationwide re
introducing furtherchangesin the formulation
lage.
^earsof
Soviet power the revolutionary upsurge,
an almost totalabsenceo factual buildingwork,
3motedesignsfor a variety
of'palaces',
prestige
ded as the symbols and memorials ofthe Great
i r i n g
the period of reconst ructi on, when the ac-
ecting dwelhngs, hospitals, schools, clubs, and
the
f i r s t p r i o r i t y ,
restraint in the outward ap-
:h
buildingsbecame an ethical issue, since the
prime
requirement was considered to be the architectural
f u l
filment of social
tasks.
During the early years of
industrialization,
when essential
resourcesand materials were being allocated to industry, a
p o l
i cy ofthe strictest economy was enforced in the country, includ
in g
the intro duct ion of rati oning in 1928, the construction of
barrack blocks and curt ailme nt of the construc tion of pubhc
buildings.
The
working
class
deliberately opted for material
privations
and a restricted consumption in order to achieve
f u l l
mobilizationo fal l the country's
resources
and a concentration
of financial means on industrial construction, so as to lay the
economic foundation of socialism in aState besetby
enemies.
I n thesecircumstances, thesuccessesof the First Five Year
Plan,
which
had already made
themselves f e l t
at the start ofthe
1930s, set off a new wave of popula r suppor t t hrough out the
country.
The economic victory ofthe working class required a
worthy
reflection in the architectural
field.
The concept of
grandiose
'palaces'
dedicated to the Great Economic Revival
came to the fore again.
Prestige
now became one of the more
important elements
in the creation of an archit ectur al image.
The vast dimensions of buildi ngs, the monum enta lity of their
conception, the opulence of their decorati on, were all intended
to
mirror
the popular mood.
1 V i t t o r i o
de Feo,
USSR architettura 1917-1936
(Rome , 1963).
Aesthetic
Droblems
of
design
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
15/614
evelopment of socialist architecture i n the USSR
s there, or worked
there
professionally for ex
,
among them Le Corbusier,Erich Mendelsohn,
s, Bruno Taut, Ernst May,Hannes Meyer and
For their part, Soviet architects contributed to
ompetitions and exhibi tions. Several dozen So-
ere submitt ed for the Christopher Columbu s
SantoDomingo in 1929, for example.
the
conflict
between innovative and traditional
atly
intensified and brought about s ubstantial
direction of architecturalwork as a whole. The
alization
and collectivization, aimed at provid-
iadons
for socialism, was speeded up and this
sive
surge
of enthusiasm among the workers,
that of the early Revolutionar y days. Art, in-
ecture, was swept up in this nationwide re-
introducing furtherchangesin the formuladon
nage.
y'earso fSoviet power the revolutionary upsurge,
an almost totalabsenceo factual buildingwork,
omotedesignsfor a variety
of'palaces',
prestige
ded as the symbols and memorials ofthe Great
i r i n g the period of reconstruction, when the ac-
ecting dwellings, hospitals, schools, clubs, and
the f i r s t p r i o r i t y , restraint in the outward ap-
ch buildings became an ethical issue, since the
prime
requirement was considered to be the architectural
f u l -
filment
o f social tasks.
During the early years of
industrialization,
when essential
resourcesand materials were being allocated to industry, a p o l -
ic y
ofthe strictest economy was enforced in the country, includ
in g the intro ducdo n of radon ing in 1928, the construcdon of
barrack blocks and cur tailme nt of the construct ion of publi c
buildings.
The
working
class
deliberately opted for material
privations
and a restrict ed consumpdon in order to achieve f u l l
mobilization
o fa ll the country's resources and a concentradon
of
financial means on industrial construction, so as to lay the
economic foundation of socialism in aState besetb y
enemies.
I n
these
circumstances, the
successes
ofthe First Five Year
Plan,whichhad alreadymadethemselves f e l tat the start ofthe
1930s, set off a new wave of popular support throug hout the
country. The economicvictoryof theworking class required a
worthy
reflect ion in the architectural field. The concept of
grandiose 'palaces' dedicated to the Great Economic Revival
came
to the fore again. Presdge now became one oft he more
important elements
in the creation of an archite ctural image.
The vast dimensions of
buildings,
the
monumentahty
of their
conception, the opulence of their decoration, were all intended
to
mirror
the popular mood.
1 V i t t o r i o de Feo, VSSR architettura 1917-1936 (Rome, 1963).
Aesthetic
problems
o fdesign
-
7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small
16/614
19
1
C l a s s i c i s m ,tlie
Moderne ArtNouveau),
engineering
s t ructures
a nd thenew arch i
tecture
A