Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small

7/26/2019 Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small

1/614


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


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


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


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


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


7/614

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 -


8/614


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.


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


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


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-


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).


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.


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


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.


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


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

Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small

Documents

Transcript of Pioneers of Soviet Architecture Small