Contents

Acknowledgments; Note on the translation

I l y a Golosov: theories o f t h e structure o f architectural orga-

nisms and o f visual dynamics

Preface

102

9
4 Rationalism

Introduction

T h e p r o b l e m o f new f o r m

11

M a i n stages i n the development o f socialist architecture i n the

USSR

106

Ladovsky, the leader of Rationalism

13

K r i n s k y ' s evolution

Parti
Aesthetic problems of d e s i g n

Asnova

108

The two centres of Rationahsm around Ladovsky and Balikhin 143

17

1 C l a s s i c i s m , the M o d e r n e (Art N o u v e a u ) ,

144

engineering
5 Constructivism

structures a n d the new architecture

Petersburg Renaissance and Rational Architecture

Constructivism and the theory of Production A r t

19

Engineering structures and the artistic w o r l d i n Russia f r o m

O n the term ' C o n s t r u c t i v i s m '

the 1860s to the Revolution

Constructivist artists

20

Classicism i n the early post-Revolutionary years

T h e early development

146

149

150

Alexander V e s n i n , leader o f t h e Constructivists

21

o f Zholtovsky's Neo-Renaissance

Ginzburg's evolution towards Constructivism

151
155

Constructivism embodied i n architecture: the f o u n d a t i o n o f

21

Fomin's Red D o r i c

107

141

Asnova teams

School

106

T h e psychoanalytical teaching method

Osa, the U n i o n o f Contemporary Architects

23

T h e attempt to estabhsh a Centre for Architecture and A r t at-

The Functional Method

tached to the People's Commissariat for Education - L u n a -

Engineers and the new architecture

charsky and architectural t r a d i t i o n

156

194
194

23
6 C r e a t i v e i n n o v a t i o n i n the s e c o n d h a l f of the 1920s:

2 I n t e r a c t i o n between architecture a n d f i n e art

teachers, schools, g r o u p i n g s

Leftist p a i n t i n g and new architecture

Canonization: a threat to the f o r m a l tenets of the new trend

61

Mayakovsky: the c u l t u r a l focus o f t h e new art

K a n d i n s k y : the concept of M o n u m e n t a l A r t

I l y a Golosov's Constructive Style

61

Symbolist and Expressionist responses to engineering struc-

62

M a l e v i c h : the search for a p a t h i n t o architecture; Lissitzky's

Prouns

tures - L y u d v i g and C h e r n i k h o v
Fomin's Proletarian Classicism

berg brothers, Medunetsky, K l u t s i s and others

A new stage i n design

U n o v i s - 1919-22

64

200

233

Suprematist Constructivism - Nikolsky and K h i d e k e l

67

T h e graduates of M V T U

69

3 T h e s e a r c h f o r a new artistic language: the early p e r i o d

234

235

Shchusev and the adoption of new architectural principles

70

A unified new trend

Symbolist Romanticism

200

I Leonidov, a poet of pure f o r m

67

Vkhutemas and V k h u t e i n - 1920-30

198

199

M e l n i k o v , a master of expressive composition

66

Sinskulptarkh and Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h - 1919-20

I n k h u k - 1920-24

197

Zholtovsky's H a r m o n i z e d Constructivism

63

T a t l i n and Early C o n s t r u c t i v i s m : Gabo, Rodchenko, the StenF r o m Leftist art to the new architecture

196

196

236

236

' G r o w i n g controversy w i t h i n the new trend

237

74

Archaicizing trends w i t h i n the new architectural concept

D y n a m i c compositions: the infiuence of C u b o - F u t u r i s m
The symbolism of artistic forms and ofthe architectural image

74
75
76

7 T h e p r o b l e m of n a t i o n a l i s m a n d internationalism
Changes i n the relationship between the national and the international

239

Contents

T h e search for a ' n a t i o n a l ' style

239

2 R e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the way of l i f e a n d development of

Innovators and the problems raised by national and interna-

new f o r m s of d w e l l i n g

tional considerations

T h e reconstruction of domestic life and involvement of women

240

' N a t i o n a l ' style and new architecture i n Azerbaidzhan

T h e C e n t r a l A s i a n Republics

240

257

Moscow, 1930

i n social p r o d u c t i o n processes

341

257

C o m m u n a l houses

343

T h e housing associations

in Armenia

Experiments i n the use o f t r a d i t i o n a l d w e l l i n g types

345

Osa's i n t e r n a l competition for the design o f c o m m u n a l dwellings

Organizational reconstruction

Transitional housing designs incorporating new uses of space 347

C h a n g i n g objectives

260

I n n o v a t i o n and t r a d i t i o n
T h e debates o f 1933-34

261
261

347

Part I I
S o c i a l tasks of architecture

479

6 D e v e l o p m e n t of c o m m u n a l s u p p l y

transforming the way o f life

Problems and solutions

389

390

Mass bakeries

481

Mass kitchens

482

I n d i v i d u a l personal requirements, coUective l i v i n g and the

D e p a r t m e n t stores

economy: ideal projects and actual circumstances

Markets

392

M a n i f e s t i n g the new collective w a y of life i n the appearance o f

269

T h e p l a n e t a r i u m : a scientific display

T h e f a m i l y and c o m m u n a l accommodation: the debate over

shared l i v i n g
262

Competitions f o r new types o f theatre d

Experimental cinema designs

Y o u t h collectives and c o m m u n a l dwellings i n v o l v i n g w h o l l y

A r e t u r n to t r a d i t i o n by w a y o f 'intermediate' trends

459

M e y e r h o l d : development o f t h e mass ac
345

8 I n n o v a t i o n a n d tradition - debates of the e a r l y 1930s

260

A r t , m a s s spectacle a n d s c i e n t i f i c dii
New types o f mass spectacle

T h e N e o - A r m e n i a n style and the new architectural movement

258

457

5 D e s i g n o f new p u b l i c a r e n a s : prol

The growth of communal living: a new social brief for housing 341

U k r a i n i a n Neo-Baroque and the new architecture

T h e competition f o r the Proletarsky Dist

housing

481

483

484

M u n i c i p a l baths a n d s w i m m i n g pools

394

1 T h e socialist pattern of settlement a n d t o w n - p l a n n i n g

Experiments w i t h curved forms

concepts

E q u a l opportunities for the consumer: a new approach to ra-

Designing a new type of school

tionalizing accommodation

Workers' Preparatory Faculties, highe

Problems o f socialist settlement

T h e garden-city concept

271

271

396
397

274

ments and technical schools

Libraries

275

First regional p l a n n i n g projects - the w o r k o f I v a n i t s k y and

Sakuhn

7 Education and science

Prefabricated accommodation and mobile dwellings

T h e first debate about t o w n p l a n n i n g , 1922-23

T h e u r b a n dwelling complex

395

3 N e w types of b u i l d i n g s f o r s o c i a l a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

498

499

Scientific establishments

500

p u r p o s e s i n the Soviet U n i o n

276

N e w u r b a n c o m m u n a l centres

277

Vertical zoning-ideas f r o m Lavinsky, Lissitzky and Melnikov

Rodchenko's 'top elevation' concept
Khidekel's experimental designs

279

280

T h e cosmic city proposal - M a l e v i c h

280

sov, K r a s i l n i k o v and L a v r o v

8 Sport a n d l e i s u r e

ary period

Sports installations

399

Palaces o f L a b o u r

399

Houses o f Soviets

400

Krutikov's proposal for mobile architecture and the Flying City 282
T h e second debate about t o w n p l a n n i n g , 1929-30

Resthomes

Building'

514

514

Part I I I

401

O f l i c i a l and administrative buildings

Masters a n d t r e n d s : biographies, sta

402

manifestos

403

283

284

D i s u r b a n i z a t i o n : O k h i t o v i c h ' s 'new settlement'

513

Parks o f C u l t u r e and Leisure

T h e competition f o r the Palace o f Soviets, 1931-33

282

Sabsovich's Sotsgorod conception

Special social requirements i n the immediate post-Revolution-

T h e search for an aesthetic image f o r the country's 'Supreme

281

Proposals f r o m V k h u t e i n for the f u t u r e c i t y : designs by Varent-

533

1 N e w a r c h i t e c t u r e a n d its trends
4 W o r k e r s ' C l u b s as centres of a n e w socialist c u l t u r e

335

I n search o f flexible p l a n n i n g - Leonidov, M i l i u t i n

Types o f W o r k e r s ' Clubs

336

M e l n i k o v ' s clubs

434

2 T h e leaders of the new d i r e c t i o n

434

Ladovsky (1881-1941)

Ladovsky's conception o f an expanding city - A R U ' s u r b a n

T h e search f o r an aesthetic image o f t h e W o r k e r s ' C l u b

p l a n n i n g proposal

T h e large-scale club b u i l d i n g programme and attendant de-

M e l n i k o v (1890-1974)

T h e p r o b l e m o f the b i g city: the competition f o r replanning

bates

Leonidov (1902-59)

Moscow

Leonidov's clubs

339

498

338

436
457

435

543

Alexander V e s n i n (1883-1959)

Lissitzky (1890-1941)

551
553
557

547

Contents

r a 'national' style

239

2 R e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the w a y of l i f e a n d development of

T h e competition for the Proletarsky D i s t r i c t Palace of C u l t u r e ,

I l y a Golosov (1883-1945)

Moscow, 1930

G i n z b u r g (1892-1946)

561

id the problems raised by national and interna-

new f o r m s of d w e l l i n g

rations

T h e reconstruction of domestic life and involvement of w o m e n

Nikolsky (1884-1953)

i n social p r o d u c t i o n processes

5 D e s i g n of n e w p u b l i c a r e n a s : p r o b l e m s posed by A g i t

V i k t o r V e s n i n (1882-1950)

The growth of communal living: a new social brieffor housing 341

A r t , mass spectacle a n d s c i e n t i f i c d i s p l a y s

K r i n s k y (1890-1971)

C o m m u n a l houses

New types o f mass spectacle

240

le and new architecture i n Azerbaidzhan

^sian Republics

240

257

o-Baroque and the new architecture

257

341

343

enian style and the new architectural movement

T h e housing associations

258

Experiments i n the use o f t r a d i t i o n a l d w e l l i n g types

a n d tradition debates of the e a r l y 1930s

i l reconstruction

actives

260

f1933-34

261
261

i d i t i o n by way o f 'intermediate' trends

345

T h e p l a n e t a r i u m : a scientific display

ings

Experimental cinema designs

347

262

Problems and solutions

ty concept

271

271

elling complex

Mass kitchens

482

Publications i n Russian

Department stores

economy: ideal projects and actual circumstances

Markets

E q u a l opportunities for the consumer: a new approach to ra-

Designing a new type of school

tionalizing accommodation

Workers' Preparatory Faculties, higher education establish-

3 N e w types of b u i l d i n g s f o r s o c i a l a n d administrative

277

-ideas f r o m Lavinsky, Lissitzky and Melnikov

top elevation' concept
)erimental designs

279

280

ty proposal - M a l e v i c h

499

Scientific establishments

Special social requirements i n the immediate post-Revolution-

8 Sport a n d l e i s u r e

ary period

Sports instahations

399

500

Palaces o f L a b o u r

399

Houses o f Soviets

400

513

Parks o f C u l t u r e and Leisure

Resthomes

Building'

281

514

514

Part I I I

401

T h e competition for the Palace o f Soviets, 1931-33

ov and L a v r o v

O f f i c i a l and administrative buildings

282

)osal for mobile architecture and the Flying City

:bate about t o w n p l a n n i n g , 1929-30

Masters a n d t r e n d s : biographies, statements,

402

manifestos

403

282

283

284

1 N e w architecture a n d its trends

M e l n i k o v ' s clubs
336

nception o f an expanding city - A R U ' s u r b a n

338

af the b i g city: the competition f o r r e p l a n n i n g

533

4 W o r k e r s ' C l u b s as centres of a n e w socialist c u l t u r e

Types o f Workers' Clubs

335

;xible p l a n n i n g - Leonidov, M i l i u t i n
osal

498

T h e search for an aesthetic image for the country's 'Supreme

280

)n: O k h i t o v i c h ' s 'new settlement'

498

p u r p o s e s i n the Soviet U n i o n

1 V k h u t e i n for the f u t u r e city: designs by V a r e n t -

)tsgorod conception

ments and technical schools

Libraries

275

m m u n a l centres

484
Index o f names

397

434

2 T h e leaders of the n e w d i r e c t i o n

434

T h e search for an aesthetic image o f t h e Workers' C l u b

Ladovsky (1881-1941)
435

M e l n i k o v (1890-1974)

bates

Leonidov (1902-59)

Leonidov's clubs

457

543

Alexander V e s n i n (1883-1959)

T h e large-scale club b u i l d i n g programme and attendant de436

609

A d d i t i o n a l bibliography to the English edition

484

M u n i c i p a l baths and s w i m m i n g pools

7 E d u c a t i o n a n d science

396

602

Pubhcations i n other languages

483

394
395

594

598

481
Bibliography

I n d i v i d u a l personal requirements, collective h v i n g and the

592
592

V o p r a : A l l - U n i o n Proletarian Architects' Association

shared l i v i n g

274

p l a n n i n g projects - the w o r k o f I v a n i t s k y and

Asnova: Association o f N e w Architects

481

Prefabricated accommodation and mobile dwellings

te about t o w n p l a n n i n g , 1922-23

W o r k i n g G r o u p o f Architects i n I n k h u k

Mass bakeries

Experiments w i t h curved forms

ist pattern of settlement a n d t o w n - p l a n n i n g

3 A r c h i t e c t u r a l associations of the new d i r e c t i o n

Y o u t h collectives and c o m m u n a l dwelhngs i n v o l v i n g w h o l l y

392

588

A R U : U n i o n o f Architect-Planners
6 Development of c o m m u n a l s u p p l y a n d service systems

390

587

Osa: U n i o n o f Contemporary Architects

479

t r a n s f o r m i n g the way o f life

housing

269

)cialist settlement

477

479

T h e f a m i l y and c o m m u n a l accommodation: the debate over

389

584

'
459

Competitions for new types o f theatre design, 1930-33

Osa's i n t e r n a l competition f o r the design o f c o m m u n a l dwell-

M a n i f e s t i n g the new collective way o f life i n the appearance o f

>f architecture

459

M e y e r h o l d : development o f t h e mass action theatre

Transitional housing designs incorporating new uses of space 347

260

id t r a d i t i o n

345

457

564

Lissitzky (1890-1941)

551
553
557

547

535

611

610

600

Acknowledgments

M a n y architects whose o u t p u t was connected w i t h the period

two Fomins. For clear identification, given names continue to

under review, as well as relatives and friends of those w h o were

appear i n these cases.

no longer alive, and other historians, have assisted me w i t h

Where an a c r o n y m is not pronounceable to the English

documents, discussions and advice. I should like to thank a l l

tongue as a w o r d , as for example w i t h S G K h M or M V T U ,

those w h o have contributed to this book, and w o u l d like to

these are left to be read as capitalized initials ( K b being the

name a few o f them, i n c l u d i n g some w h o d i d not survive to see

rendering o f t h e Russian letter X ) . I n the interests of readabili-

i t published: A . E . A r k i n ,

M.O.Barshch,

ty a l l those w h i c h can be rendered pronounceable are rendered

Y u . P . B o c h a r o v , G.B.Borisovsky, A . B . B u n i n , A.S.Fisenko,

as a w o r d , thus Goelro, Asnova, M a o , V o p r a . T h i s also brings

I . A . Frantsuz, T . M . G i n z b u r g , V . M . G i n z b u r g , L . . L . Goloso-

them i n t o line w i t h Soviet practice i n speech. There are a very

va,

I . L . lozefovich,

few cases, most notably A R U , where the Soviet oral usage is A -

V . V . K a l i n e n , V . P. K a l m y k o v , A . I . K a p l u n , R . A . K a t s n e l -

R - U not A r u , and i t has seemed n a t u r a l to follow their practice.

A.P.Golubev,

N.N.Babicheva,

G. S. Gurev-Gurevich,

son, L . M . K h i d e k e l , I . N . K h l e b n i k o v , G . B . K o c h a r , L . K . K o marova,

B . D . K o r o l e v , M . P.Korzhev,

N . A. Krasilnikov,

V . G . Krinsky, K . V . Krutikova, N.S. Kuzmin, I.V.Lamtsov,

A.M.Lavinsky,
skaya,

V.A.Lavrov,

I . L . Lissitzky,

K . S . Melnikov,

A.I.Leonidov,

G . M . Lyudvig,

I . F . Milinis,

A.A.Lepor-

M . D . Mazmanyan,

D. M . Miliutina,

G. M o v c h a n ,

A . V . Pavelichina, V . A . Petrov, V . A . Rodchenko, N . A . Samoilova,

A.V.Semenova,

M.A.Shchusev,

O.A.Shvidkovsky,

A . A . Silchenkov, R. M . Smolenskaya, N . B . Sokolov, A . A . Strigalev, N . P . T r a v i n , M . A . T u r k u s , G . G . V e g m a n , A . Y . Y u g a nov, L.S.Zalesskaya. A . F. K r a s h e n i n n i k o v k i n d l y provided

dates for the Index o f names.

T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n corresponds to one we have also applied to

translation o f text. W e have sought to render K h a n - M a g o m e dov's account i n the most readable English we could achieve.
D o c u m e n t a r y materials, however, have quite different origins
and original intentions. W r i t e r s themselves used language
a w k w a r d l y as they groped for new ideas or sought to produce
effect, so we have tried to preserve that quahty where i t is germane.
I n the interests of f l o w and readabihty we have also adopted
the f o l l o w i n g practice i n the m a i n text: names of organizations
appear f o r the first time as acronym w i t h Enghsh meaning i n
brackets, and thereafter as a c r o n y m only, w i t h the f u l l Russian
title represented by that acronym appearing i n the Glossary

S. O . K h a n - M a g o m e d o v

preceding the Index o f names. T h u s Osa ( U n i o n o f Contemporary Architects), thereafter Osa, is identified i n the Glossary

Note on the translation

as Obedinenie Sovremennykh A r k h i t e k t o r o v .

I n general the B r i t i s h L i b r a r y system o f transliteration has

lowed by the Enghsh version i n brackets, thereafter i n the Eng-

been used, w i t h a l l endings o f t h e type - y i , - i i , rendered as -y.

lish version, thus Arkhitektura SSSR {Architecture of the USSR)

Periodicals and books appear first w i t h the Russian title f o l -

Where surnames are already well k n o w n i n the Enghsh-lan-

and

thereafter Architecture of the USSR. A small amount o f i n f o r m a -

guage literature i n a f o r m that does not correspond to this sys-

tion about certain periodicals appears i n the Glossary, b u t for

tem, we have used that estabhshed f o r m . Lissitzky is one exam-

f u r t h e r details readers are referred to the standard Enghsh-lan-

ple. W e have treated M i l i u t i n i n the same way, since the p u b l i -

guage w o r k on this aspect, Anatole Senkevitch Jr, Soviet Archi-

cation o f an English translation o f his book Sotsgorod by the

tecture 1917-62. A Bibliographical

M I T Press i n 1974 has estabhshed h i m i n bibliographies and

sity Press o f V i r g i n i a , Charlottesville, 1974).

catalogues under that L i b r a r y of Congress spelling (the B L system w o u l d have produced M i l y u t i n ) .

Guide to Source Material ( U n i v e r -

W e have done everything possible to b r i n g the I n d e x o f

names u p to date i n respect of deaths that have occurred since

W h e n they first appear individuals are mentioned w i t h giv-

K h a n - M a g o m e d o v compiled i t . Longevity is a characteristic o f

en names and surnames (or initials i f given name is not availa-

Soviet architects, but i n the nature o f things certain inaccura-

ble) . Thereafter they are mentioned only by surname, except i n

cies m a y be created here even as the book goes to press.

those cases where several people have the same surname, as for
example w i t h the Vesnin brothers, the Golosov brothers, or the

GC/AL

nents

Preface

itects whose o u t p u t was connected w i t h the period

two Fomins. For clear identification, given names continue to

appear i n these cases.

Research into the sources and development o f modern archi-

proach i n this connection, w i t h t w o apparently independent

tecture has been going on i n many countries d u r i n g the last fif-

processes r u n n i n g i n parallel. I n d i v i d u a l s have become i n -

ihve, and other historians, have assisted me w i t h

Where an acronym is not pronounceable to the Enghsh

teen or twenty years. I n n u m e r a b l e monographs, articles and

creasingly interested i n Soviet work of the 1920s, while i t has i n

, discussions and advice. I should like to thank a l l

w, as well as relatives and friends of those w h o were

tongue as a w o r d , as for example w i t h S G K h M or M V T U ,

special issues of journals have been published i n the process o f

tl;ie meantime been disappearing f r o m the standard histories.

have contributed to this book, and w o u l d like to

these are left to be read as capitalized initials ( K h being the

s u m m i n g up more t h a n a century of innovation. I n this connec-

I n the 1920s and 1930s, i t seemed clear that the post-Revolu-

of them, i n c l u d i n g some w h o d i d not survive to see

rendering o f t h e Russian letter X ) . I n the interests of readabili-

tion there has been very careful research i n t o those creative

tionary decade made the Soviet U n i o n a most i m p o r t a n t centre

M.O.Barshch,

ty a l l those w h i c h can be rendered pronounceable are rendered

currents and schools whose contributions were most significant

of development o f t h e new architecture, yet b y the 1950s and

arov, G.B.Borisovsky, A . B . B u n i n , A . S . F i s e n k o ,

as a w o r d , thus Goelro, Asnova, M a o , V o p r a . T h i s also brings

d u r i n g the period w h e n the f u n d a m e n t a l principles of this new

1960s everybody, for some reason, preferred to forget about i t .

liz, T . M . G i n z b u r g , V . M . G i n z b u r g , L . . L . Goloso-

t h e m into line w i t h Soviet practice i n speech. There are a very

architecture were being f o r m u l a t e d , that is to say, i n the 1920s.

A n d so Soviet architecture o f t h e 1920s is b o t h highly valued i n

rolubev,

I . L . lozefovich,

few cases, most notably A R U , where the Soviet oral usage is A -

I n the Europe o f those years we can distinguish f o u r m a i n cen-

the West, and, at the same time, deprived o f i t s proper place i n

en, V . P . K a l m y k o v , A . I . K a p l u n , R . A . K a t s n e l -

R - U not A r u , and i t has seemed n a t u r a l to follow their practice.

tres whose influence u p o n that development was outstanding,

the general development o f twentieth-century architecture.

T h i s distinction corresponds to one we have also apphed to

namely France, Germany, the Netherlands and the Soviet U n -

T h e history of w o r l d architecture presents a complex picture

translation o f text. W e have sought to render K h a n - M a g o m e -

ion. However, whilst the first three o f these have been studied

of interaction and influence i n the process b y w h i c h regional

dov's account i n the most readable Enghsh we could achieve.

i n depth for several decades, so that i n practical terms a l l the

styles and wider creative trends emerge. T h u s every nation's

Documentary materials, however, have quite different origins

significant facts and developments concerning them have be-

architectural traditions are a compound o f local pecuharities

and original intentions. W r i t e r s themselves used

language

come established elements of our historical currency, Soviet ar-

and features rooted i n the architecture o f other cultures. N a -

a w k w a r d l y as they groped f o r new ideas or sought to produce

chitectural developments of the 1920s have received far less at-

tional traditions f o r m the m a i n source and stream o f architec-

effect, so we have tried to preserve that quahty where i t is ger-

tention.

t u r a l culture i n a given country, b u t innumerable tributaries o f

d: A . E . A r k i n ,

N.N.Babicheva,

G.S. Gurev-Gurevich,

Lhidekel, I . N . K h l e b n i k o v , G. B . K o c h a r , L . K . K o i.D.Korolev,

M . P.Korzhev,

N . A. Krasilnikov,

ley, K . V . K r u t i k o v a , N . S . K u z m i n , I . V . L a m t s o v ,
sky,

V . A. Lavrov,

Lissitzky,
iov,

A . I . Leonidov,

G . M . Lyudvig,

A.A.Lepor-

M . D . Mazmanyan,

I . E . Milinis, D . M . Miliutina,

G. M o v c h a n ,

china, V . A . Petrov, V . A . Rodchenko, N . A . SamoiSemenova,

M.A.Shchusev,

O.A.Shvidkovsky,

ikov, R. M . Smolenskaya, N . B . Sokolov, A . A . StriTravin, M . A . T u r k u s , G.G.Vegman, A . Y . Y u g a alesskaya. A . F. K r a s h e n i n n i k o v k i n d l y provided

; Index o f names.

S. O . K h a n - M a g o m e d o v
nslation

mane.

T h i s has generally led to an u n d e r r a t i n g o f t h e Soviet role i n

external influence flow i n t o i t . I n each stretch o f this river, i n

I n the interests o f flow and readability we have also adopted

twentieth-century architecture. Worse stih, i t prevents us f r o m

each historical period, established elements intermingle w i t h

the f o l l o w i n g practice i n the m a i n text: names of organizations

achieving an objective view o f a whole series o f complex and

others, newly borrowed, w h i c h have entered the flow at a point

appear f o r the first time as a c r o n y m w i t h English meaning i n

conflicting processes w i t h i n that new architecture's develop-

historically 'upstream'. A n objective examination o f architec-

brackets, and thereafter as a c r o n y m only, w i t h the f u l l Russian

ment. One cannot deny the t r u t h of w h a t V i t t o r i o de Feo wrote

t u r a l processes i n any given period therefore demands a study

title represented by that a c r o n y m appearing i n the Glossary

in the f o r e w o r d to his book pubhshed i n Rome, i n 1963, about

of the origins and sources o f such upstream tributaries, as well

preceding the I n d e x o f names. T h u s Osa ( U n i o n o f C o n t e m -

Soviet architecture o f t h e years 1917-36: ' A significant gap is

as conditions i n the river itself.

porary Architects), thereafter Osa, is identified i n the Glossary

revealed here i n the history o f contemporary architecture, and

I t is v i t a l for the historian to discover the p r i m a r y sources o f

as Obedinenie Sovremennykh A r k h i t e k t o r o v .

many essential questions must remain unanswered u n t i l this

any particular architectural phenomenon. Even w i t h the slow-

gap has been

er stylistic interactions and relatively l i m i t e d geographical

Periodicals and books appear first w i t h the Russian title f o l -

filled.''

:he B r i t i s h L i b r a r y system o f transliteration has

lowed by the English version i n brackets, thereafter i n the Eng-

T h i s goes a long way to explaining the increased interest i n

vith a l l endings o f the type - y i , - i i , rendered as -y.

lish version, thus Arkhitektura SSSR {Architecture of the USSR) and

early Soviet architecture i n many countries d u r i n g the last ten

still more d i f h c u l t i n the twentieth century, w h e n the processes

rnames are already well k n o w n i n the English-lan-

thereafter Architecture of the USSR. A small a m o u n t o f i n f o r m a -

to fifteen years. M a n y articles have appeared i n architectural

of design and stylistic evolution operate globally, and the me-

;ure i n a f o r m that does not correspond to this sys

t i o n about certain periodicals appears i n the Glossary, b u t for

journals, as well as a number o f monographs, among w h i c h

dia of communication in this case the architectural j o u r n a l s

; used that established f o r m . Lissitzky is one exam

f u r t h e r details readers are referred to the standard English-lan-

Anatole K o p p ' s Ville et revolution, published i n Paris i n 1967,

p e r m i t a continuous sharing of achievements among architects

; treated M i h u t i n i n the same way, since the p u b l i -

guage w o r k on this aspect, Anatole Senkevitch J r , Soviet Archi-

and V i e r i Q u i l i c i ' s L'architettura

across the w o r l d .

tecture 1917-62. A Bibliographical

peared i n B a r i t w o years later, deserve special mention.

English translation o f his book Sotsgorod by the

n 1974 has established h i m i n bibliographies and
tider that L i b r a r y of Congress spelling (the B L sys-

Guide to Source Material ( U n i v e r -

sity Press o f V i r g i n i a , Charlottesville, 1974).

del costruttivismo,

w h i c h ap-

Despite ah this, the creative forays conducted by .Soviet ar-

spread o f t r a d i t i o n a l architectures this is often impossible. I t is

T h u s , by now, professional design work i n every country

embodies elements derived f r o m work i n the centres o f 'the new

W e have done everything possible to b r i n g the I n d e x o f

chitects i n the 1920s and early 1930s have still not f o u n d their

architecture' w h i c h dominated i n the 1920s. T h i s is yet another

names up to date i n respect of deaths that have occurred since

r i g h t f u l place i n foreign writings on the history o f contempo-

reason f o r the current renewal o f w o r l d w i d e interest i n those

y first appear individuals are mentioned w i t h giv-

K h a n - M a g o m e d o v compiled it. Longevity is a characteristic o f

rary architecture. Indeed, year after year, i n articles and gener-

countries and movements the work o f w h i c h was seminal dur-

d surnames (or initials i f given name is not availa-

Soviet architects, b u t i n the nature o f things certain inaccura-

al histories ahke, a succession o f authors has assigned an ever-

i n g the 1920s, because i t is impossible to understajid modern

t e r they are mentioned only by surname, except i n

cies may be created here even as the book goes to press.

diminishing role i n the development of contemporary architec-

architecture i n any country at a deeper level w i t h o u t that es-

ture to this early Soviet w o r k .

sential knowledge o f i t s sources.

ave produced M i l y u t i n ) .

'here several people have the same surname, as for

1 the Vesnin brothers, the Golosov brothers, or the

CG/AL

T h e post-War decades have displayed a strangely split ap-

Soviet architecture o f t h e 1920s occupies a special place both

10
Preface

i n the w o r l d architecture of this century, and i n the long histori-

ally being pubhshed i n the Soviet U n i o n i n a series of works on

cal development o f architecture w i t h i n the constituent nations

architecture o f t h e years 1917-32. A m o n g these, pride of place

and cultures o f t h e Soviet U n i o n . I t is universally recognized

goes to t w o volumes of documents and source materials, Iz isto-

that m u c h o f w h a t later became the c o m m o n stock o f m o d e r n

rii sovetskoi arkhitektury

{From the History of Soviet

Architecture),

design sprang f r o m the Soviet architecture o f that period, and

compiled a n d presented by V i g d a r i a K h a z a n o v a under the ed-

that this collective o u t p u t has left a considerable legacy of origi-

itorship o f K i r i l l Afanasev. V o l u m e one, covering the years

nal and f u n d a m e n t a l achievements.

There is however yet another reason for the currently i n -

1917-25, appeared i n 1963; volume t w o , f o r 1926-32, followed

i n 1970. I n the same class are Khazanova's Sovetskaya

arkhitektu-

creasing interest i n such early Soviet work. As a rule, i n the other

ra pervykh let Oktyabrya 1917-1925 gg {Soviet Architecture of the First

countries w h i c h gave b i r t h to m o d e r n architecture, i t con-

Post-Revolutionary

tinued to develop u n t i l its f u l l creative potential had been deve-

Ghinyakov's Bratya

loped. I n the Soviet U n i o n , on the other h a n d , o w i n g to a sub-

year, and numerous scholarly articles by such authors as M a r -

stantial change o f aesthetic direction i n the early 1930s, those

garita Astafeva, A n a t o l y Strigalev, and m a n y more.

Years 1917-25),

also published i n 1970, Alexei

Vesniny {The Vesnin Brothers) o f the same

same i n i t i a l trends and impulses were never exhausted. A t

Despite this, Soviet architecture o f the 1920s continues to

present, therefore, when a certain stage i n twentieth-century

suffer f r o m insufficient research, w i t h many f a c t u a l areas still

architectural development has reached its n a t u r a l t e r m , and

not subjected to scholarly examination. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the

complex reassessments are taking place i n the spheres of f o r m -

r i c h w o r k o f this period wa:s never analysed i n detail or sur-

generation and style, Soviet architecture o f t h e 1920s is being

veyed coherently i n its o w n time. D u r i n g the 1920s themselves,

w i d e l y seen abroad not only as a matter of history, b u t as a pos-

such review w o u l d have been premature, while i n the next t w o

sible source o f creative s t i m u l i .

decades the emphasis was on assimilation o f the historical

Western pubhcations on this early period of Soviet architec-

heritage; attitudes to the 1920s were intensely negative, and

ture use m a i n l y material published i n the 1920s and 1930s i n

detailed examination o f the work was considered inappro-

European j o u r n a l s , together w i t h certain o f the most widely

priate. As a result, w h e n interest i n this material started to

k n o w n hterature i n Russian. I n fact, the same relatively few

revive, f r o m the late 1950s onwards, i t had been w h o l l y ob-

projects and buildings o f t h e 1920s have reappeared again and

scured f r o m memory, the works were v i r t u a l l y u n k n o w n and to

again on the pages o f Western architectural pubhcations dur-

a significant extent irretrievably lost. Those years of negation

i n g the last few decades. T h i s foreign literature has generally

saw the neglect o f surviving material even w i t h i n the archives

taken quite inadequate account o f the great diversity o f ideas

and museums themselves. M a n y projects, models and w r i t t e n

and approaches that are i n fact the characteristic feature of this

materials that could afford evidence are lost, or at least have

period. O f t h e t w o m a i n architectural trends of those years, for

not been located. B y now, therefore, a great deal has to be

example, the Rationahsm o f the Asnova group and the C o n -

pieced together hterally f r o m fragments, by examining large

structivism o f Osa, the latter is far better k n o w n , and such or-

numbers of private archives i n famihes where a few documents

ganizations as Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h and I n k h u k , w h i c h are central

may have been preserved, a few drawings and, most often of all,

to an understanding o f Soviet architectural developments o f

faded, bad-quahty photographs o f projects and models long

those years, are v i r t u a l l y u n k n o w n . E q u a l l y underrepresented

lost.

are the activities o f Unovis, V k h u t e m a s , and many more.

T h i s situation is readily explained by the fact that a signifi-

I myself have been engaged i n studying this period for more

t h a n t h i r t y years, and published i n the early 1970s the first mo-

cant p a r t o f the relevant material is inaccessible to foreign

nographs o n such leaders as I v a n Leonidov, w r i t t e n w i t h Pavel

authors or d i f f i c u l t for t h e m to obtain. M a n y projects and

A l e x a n d r o v and published i n 1971, and Moisei G i n z b u r g , p u b -

buildings were only recorded i n local and regional publications,

hshed i n 1972. W o r k s on N i k o l a i M i l i u t i n , w r i t t e n w i t h Y u r y

and a vast amount o f entirely unpubhshed material resides i n

Bocharov, on I l y a Golosov, Alexander V e s n i n and Alexander

State or private archives.

Rodchenko, are a l l i n process o f p u b l i c a t i o n . Monographs on

I n recent years, however, more and more material is gradu-

the w o r k o f N i k o l a i Ladovsky, K o n s t a n t i n M e l n i k o v and V i a -

li
Introduction

architecture of this century, and i n the long histori-

ally being published i n the Soviet U n i o n i n a series of works on

d i m i r K r i n s k y are i n preparation. Besides these, I have pub-

the Gonstructivism o f Osa; about I n k h u k , Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h ,

l e n t o f architecture w i t h i n the constituent nations

architecture of the years 1917-32. A m o n g these, pride of place

lished innumerable articles about theoretical and factual as-

V k h u t e m a s ; about the pioneers of Soviet product

I of the Soviet U n i o n . I t is universally recognized

goes to two volumes of documents and source materials, Iz isto-

pects o f this r i c h period, i n research j o u r n a l s , architectural

about c o m m u n a l housing and the problems of a new way of life.

f what later became the c o m m o n stock of modern

rii sovetskoi arkhitektury

I see this w o r k , w h i c h I began i n 1970, as the second stage of m y

{From the History of Soviet

design;

Architecture),

magazines, and so on. T h e present book is essentially a sum-

ig f r o m the Soviet architecture o f that period, and

compiled and presented by V i g d a r i a K h a z a n o v a under the ed-

mary o f these first stages of research i n t o this period. A certain

research, f o l l o w i n g the monographs that cover the w o r k of i n d i -

ective o u t p u t has left a considerable legacy of origi-

itorship o f K i r i l l Afanasev. V o l u m e one, covering the years

amount of what appears here is widely k n o w n by now, but the

v i d u a l architects and the present volume. T h i s enterprise is to

lamental achievements.

1917-25, appeared i n 1963; volume t w o , f o r 1926-32, followed

greater part o f i t derives directly f r o m contemporary journals

be completed d u r i n g the course o f t h e 1980s.

Iiowever yet another reason for the currently i n -

i n 1970. I n the same class are Khazanova's Sovetskaya

and local periodicals w h o l l y u n k n o w n abroad, and f r o m State

arkhitektu-

pest i n such early Soviet work. As a rule, i n the other

ra pervykh let Oktyabrya 1917-1925 gg {Soviet Architecture of the First

and private archives where they have remained entirely u n -

iiich gave b i r t h to modern architecture, i t con-

Post-Revolutionary

also published i n 1970, Alexei

published and u n k n o w n , even w i t h i n the Soviet U n i o n . T h u s ,

'elop u n t i l its f u h creative potential had been deve-

Ghinyakov's Bratya

Vesniny {The Vesnin Brothers) o f the same

for instance, I have used documents i n the A . V . Shchusev State

; Soviet U n i o n , on the other hand, o w i n g to a sub-

year, and numerous scholarly articles by such authors as M a r -

Research M u s e u m o f Architecture ( G N I M A ) , the T r e t y a k o v

T h e present volume sets out to i d e n t i f y the c o n t r i b u t i o n w h i c h

ige o f aesthetic direction i n the early 1930s, those

garita Astafeva, A n a t o l y Strigalev, and many more.

State Gaffery ( G T G ) , the Central State A r c h i v e for L i t e r a t u r e

each of the artists and architects concerned made to the most

i m p o r t a n t creative problems of their day, and thus to outline
b o t h the genesis of Soviet architecture and the trends that char-

Years 1917-25),

Introduction

trends and impulses were never exhausted. A t

Despite this, Soviet architecture o f the 1920s continues to

and A r t ( T s G A L I ) , the A r c h i t e c t u r a l L i b r a r y o f t h e C e n t r a l

-efore, when a certain stage i n twentieth-century

suffer f r o m insufficient research, w i t h many factual areas still

Architects' House, the B a k h r u s h i n State M u s e u m of Theatre

I development has reached its n a t u r a l t e r m , and

not subjected to scholarly examination. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the

A r t i n Moscow, and other places. I n preparing this particular

acterize it. T h e arrangement and interpretation o f t h e material

ssessments are taking place i n the spheres of f o r m -

r i c h w o r k o f this period was never analysed i n detail or sur-

book I have been privileged to use the personal archives o f

is intended to provide the reader w i t h a comprehensive account

n d style, Soviet architecture of the 1920s is being

veyed coherently i n its o w n time. D u r i n g the 1920s themselves,

many architects and artists whose conversations, n o w pre-

of the factors w h i c h gave such w o r l d w i d e and lasting i m p o r -

ibroad not only as a matter of history, but as a pos-

such review w o u l d have been premature, w h i l e i n the next t w o

served i n m y possession on tape, also provided me w i t h m u c h

tance to the Soviet architecture o f t h e 1920s and 1930s. N e w

decades the emphasis was on assimilation of the historical

i n f o r m a t i o n . Amongst

M . Barshch,

g r o u n d was broken then to an unprecedented extent, and this

heritage; attitudes to the 1920s were intensely negative, and

A . B u n i n , G. V e g m a n , A . Golubev, G. Gurev-Gurevich, L . Za-

achieved unique practical results. I t resulted both i n epoch-

nly material pubhshed i n the 1920s and 1930s i n

detailed examination o f the w o r k was considered

inappro-

lesskaya, V . Kalmykov, L . Komarova, M . K o r z h e v , G. Kochar,

m a k i n g innovations, significant for architecture and art every-

urnals, together w i t h certain o f the most w i d e l y

priate. As a result, when interest i n this material started to

N . K r a s i l n i k o v , V . K r i n s k y , N . K u z m i n , A . Lavinsky,' V . L a v -

where, and i n social transformations inspired by the October

ture i n Russian. I n fact, the same relatively few

revive, f r o m the late 1950s onwards, i t had been w h o l l y ob-

rov, I . L a m t s o v , G . L y u d v i g , K . M e l n i k o v , I . M i l i n i s , G. M o v -

Revolution. T h i s conjunction of factors was exclusively con-

buildings o f t h e 1920s have reappeared again and

scured f r o m memory, the works were v i r t u a l l y u n k n o w n and to

chan, V . Petrov, E. Semenova, A . Silchenkov, R. Smolenskaya,

fined to the Soviet U n i o n , and projected Soviet architecture -

pages of Western architectural pubhcations dur-

a significant extent irretrievably lost. Those years of negation

of creative s t i m u l i .
ubhcations on this early period o f Soviet architec-

them

were

A.Arkin,

N . Sokolov, V . Stenberg, M . T u r k u s , I . Frantsuz, L . K h i d e k e l ,

and Soviet art as a whole - far ahead of trends elsewhere, mak-

T . Shapiro and others. I was also able to consult documenta-

i n g i t a p o w e r f u l source of seminal ideas.

ew decades. T h i s foreign hterature has generally

saw the neglect of surviving material even w i t h i n the archives

nadequate account of the great diversity o f ideas

and museums themselves. M a n y projects, models and w r i t t e n

les that are i n fact the characteristic feature of this

materials that could a f f o r d evidence are lost, or at least have

A . Babichev, V . B a l i k h i n , I . G i l t e r , M . G i n z b u r g , I . Golosov,

artistic innovations. Practice and theory interacted w i t h each

e two m a i n architectural trends of those years, f o r

not been located. By now, therefore, a great deal has to be

B. Korolev, G. K r u t i k o v , I . Leonidov, E l Lissitzky, M . M a z m a -

other under extremely complex and contradictory conditions

Rationalism o f the Asnova group and the Gon-

pieced together literally f r o m fragments, by examining large

nyan, K . M a l e v i c h , N . M i l i u t i n , A . Nikolsky, A . Rodchenko,

w i t h i n the development of the arts, i n c l u d i n g architecture.

f Osa, the latter is far better k n o w n , and such or-

numbers of private archives i n families where a few documents

V.Stepanova, N . S u e t i n , I . F o m i n , A . S h v i d k o v s k y , A . S h c h u -

E t h i c a l standards crumbled, aesthetic ideals shattered, new ar-

may have been preserved, a few drawings and, most often of all,

sev and others. Some o f t h e private archives and collections I

chitecture and design saw the light, the role of tangible objects

faded, bad-quahty photographs o f projects and models long;

used cover a wide range o f personalities and

developments;

as the currency of h u m a n relationships was changing. M u c h

those o f Babichev, containing the I n k h u k archive, and o f K o r -

remained unclear. T h e area of exploration was very extensive,

zhev, deserve special mention.

as is n o r m a l l y the case i n periods o f transition.

is Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h and I n k h u k , w h i c h are central

l a n d i n g of Soviet architectural developments o f
ire v i r t u a l l y u n k n o w n . E q u a l l y underrepresented
ties o f U n o v i s , Vkhutemas, and m a n y more,
tion is readily explained by the fact that a signififhe relevant material is inaccessible to foreign
i f f i c u l t for t h e m to obtain. M a n y projects and
e only recorded i n local and regional publications,
nount of entirely unpubhshed material resides i n
Ite archives.
ears, however, more and more material is gradu-

lost.
I myself have been engaged i n studying this period for more
t h a n t h i r t y years, and published i n the early 1970s the first mo-

tion, owned by relatives, friends or heirs, relating tO the w o r k o f

Even though I have been able to d r a w u p o n

unpubhshed

Theoretical concepts came to be generated i n step w i t h new

D u r i n g transitional periods i n art, such as the 1920s, new

nographs on such leaders as I v a n Leonidov, w r i t t e n w i t h Pavel

material and documents, the scope o f t h e subject and l i m i t a -

trends develop, fresh forms are evolved and the role o f factors

A l e x a n d r o v and published i n 1971, and Moisei G i n z b u r g , pub-

tions of space have prevented me f r o m dealing w i t h a number

governing the evolution of style changes i n different ways. T h e

lished i n 1972. W o r k s on N i k o l a i M i l i u t i n , w r i t t e n w i t h Y u r y

of questions i n greater detail, and publishing all the rediscov-

processes at w o r k w i t h i n such periods therefore require a fresh

Bocharov, on I l y a Golosov, Alexander Vesnin and Alexander

ered documents and projects. I therefore intend to r e t u r n to

analytical approach. A n objective understanding of them is

Rodchenko, are all i n process of p u b l i c a t i o n . Monographs on

much of this material i n a series of monographs. I a m now pre-

only possible by taking account of the tasks that history sets f o r

the w o r k o f N i k o l a i Ladovsky, K o n s t a n t i n M e l n i k o v and V i a -

paring volumes on the Rationalism of Asnova and A R U , and

art at that moment.

12
Introduction

A n y analysis o f t h e complex processes w h i c h shaped Soviet

throughout the w o r l d . I t led the field i n b o t h aesthetic and so-

art i n the 1920s, for instance, requires, ah else apart, awareness

cial terms. T h i s was the basis o f i t s greatness and its inexhausti-

that this art developed a m i d the interaction o f t h e most varied

ble attraction, and explains the close and g r o w i n g study devot-

factors. I t was propelled i n t o j o i n i n g the larger group of artistic

ed to Soviet art o f that period i n m a n y countries.

movements w h i c h was d i c t a t i n g regional, and even global, sty-

A l l this applies equally to Soviet architecture at that time,

listic change, and w h i c h sharply rejected accepted visual and

when aesthetic development went h a n d i n hand w i t h an inten-

other stereotypes; i t served a new, socially different and u n -

sive search for types o f d w e l l i n g and settlement that w o u l d be

precedentedly vast art p u b h c ; and i t was subjected to a thor-

genuinely new i n a social sense. T h i s is also w h y the present

ough and f u n d a m e n t a l change i n the social and ethical criteria

book lays its p r i n c i p a l stress on these artistic and social prob-

applied to i t .

lems, as they are the t w o m a i n factors w h i c h governed the

T w o o f these factors new forms o f art and a new p u b l i c

experiments o f Soviet architects i n the 1920s.

proved extremely h a r d to reconcile. As a rule, experiment and

T h e book is divided into three parts, of w h i c h the t h i r d com-

the rejection o f existing f o r m a l stereotypes require the support

prises documentary material on the m a i n architects and move-

of an educated public. A sudden swelling i n the ranks o f those

ments. T h e first o f the m a i n sections. Part I , discusses the d i -

interested i n art, on the other h a n d , often brings about a f a l l i n

verse approaches to design as they emerge i n the i n d i v i d u a l ar-

standards. I t tends to slow d o w n the process of generating new

chitectural trends o f the period, always relating them to the

forms and even to reverse i t to some extent, emphasizing t r a d i -

m a i n lines o f wider artistic experiment i n art at that time. T h e

t i o n and certainly p r o c l u d i n g any leap f o r w a r d .

second m a i n section. Part I I , is arranged by categories of archi-

I t looked as though the choice lay between falhng i n w i t h the

tectural p r o b l e m : t o w n p l a n n i n g , housing, the various kinds o f

consumer's still undeveloped tastes i n matters o f art, thus

pubhc and c o m m u n i t y b u i l d i n g . T h e evolution of entirely new

abandoning any role i n the f o r m u l a t i o n o f new trends, and, at

b u i l d i n g types is dealt w i t h here i n historical sequence.

the opposite extreme, resorting to experimentation regardless

Even though the book is entitled Pioneers of Soviet Architecture,

o f t h e actual needs and receptivity of the masses. I t was widely

I have deliberately not confined myself to a series o f chapters

thought at the t i m e that these positions could not be recon-

dealing w i t h the o u t p u t of i n d i v i d u a l masters. T h e w o r k of sin-

ciled.

gle architects is examined w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k o f the general

Yet many of those involved w i t h Soviet art, i n c l u d i n g archi-

artistic and social questions w h i c h confronted them. T h i s

tecture, embarked at that time on a bold attempt to combine

treatment makes i t possible to provide a more rounded view o f

the seemingly incompatible. Despite every sort of practical dif-

each architect's person'al c o n t r i b u t i o n to the establishment of

f i c u l t y , artists resolutely sought to create a revolutionary new

Soviet architecture, and o f t h e p a r t he or she played i n the solu-

art w h i c h w o u l d preserve b o t h the aesthetic innovations that

tion o f t h e various problems concerned. T h e pattern adopted

had been achieved, and the social demands o f the new mass

for this study necessitates constant reference to the w o r k o f

public. A synthesis such as this, pushed through i n these excep-

each person's numerous contemporaries, b u t the discussion of

tionally d i f f i c u l t circumstances, is v i r t u a l l y unparaheled i n the

the i n d i v i d u a l beliefs of leading architects has been segregated

history o f art: hence the tremendous impact o f early Soviet art

i n separate sections.

13
Main stages in tlie development of
socialist architecture in the USSR
:

t h r o u g h o u t the w o r l d . I t led the f i e l d i n b o t h aesthetic and so-

A headlong drive i n t o the f u t u r e marked Soviet architecture

West. B y 'image', i n Russian obraz, we mean that synthesis o f

!0s, f o r instance, requires, all else apart, awareness

cial terms. T h i s was the basis o f i t s greatness and its inexhausti-

f r o m its very earliest years. T h e radical social changes t a k i n g

specific forms and specific ideological meanings w h i c h consti-

developed a m i d the interaction o f t h e most varied

ble attraction, and explains the close and g r o w i n g study devot-

place i n the country made this inevitable: the splendid pros-

tute the elements of a new artistic, or i n this case architectural,

IS propelled i n t o j o i n i n g the larger group o f artistic

ed to Soviet art o f that period i n many countries.

pect of a new, developing socialist society and the i n s p i r a t i o n i t

'language'.

rsis o f t h e complex processes w h i c h shaped Soviet

A^hich was d i c t a t i n g regional, and even global, sty

A l l this apphes equally to Soviet architecture at that time,

drew f r o m the revolutionary upsurge o f t h e w o r k i n g masses i m -

I n the early twenties, the c o n j u n c t i o n o f Revolutionary fer-

, and w h i c h sharply rejected accepted visual and

w h e n aesthetic development went h a n d i n hand w i t h an inten-

parted a d y n a m i s m a l l o f its o w n to the architecture o f the

v o u r amongst the masses w i t h a v i r t u a l absence of actual con-

types; i t served a new, socially diflFerent and u n -

sive search f o r types o f d w e l l i n g and settlement that w o u l d be

1920s and early 1930s.

struction w o r k , i m p a r t e d certain special characteristics to the

ly vast art p u b l i c ; and i t was subjected to a thor-

genuinely new i n a social sense. T h i s is also w h y the present

T h e period d u r i n g w h i c h socialist architecture estabhshed

w o r k o f t h e architects. Competitions d i d m u c h to revive archi-

book lays its p r i n c i p a l stress on these artistic and social prob-

itself i n the Soviet U n i o n is p r o b a b l y unequalled i n our century

tectural life, w i t h projects often aimed as m u c h at this p r o b l e m

lems, as they are the two m a i n factors w h i c h governed the

for the intensity o f i t s experimentation. T h e r a p i d change i n so-

o f devising the new architectural language as they were at solu-

experiments of Soviet architects i n the 1920s.

cial and economic conditions - i n fact, a complete social trans-

t i o n o f specific problems o f the brief i n question. T h e results

f o r m a t i o n forced architects to concentrate on the f u t u r e . I n -

were often sumptuous 'palaces' that reflected the workers'

deed, some o f those w h o were p u t t i n g f o r w a r d new ideas i n the

longings f o r a happier f u t u r e , i n designs as majestic as the architectural monuments o f the past.

i d a m e n t a l change i n the social and ethical criteria

ese factors - new forms o f art and a new p u b h c mely h a r d to reconcile. As a rule, experiment and

T h e book is d i v i d e d i n t o three parts, of w h i c h the t h i r d com-

of existing f o r m a l stereotypes require the support

prises documentary m a t e r i a l on the m a i n architects and move-

ed public. A sudden swelling i n the ranks o f those

ments. T h e first o f t h e m a i n sections. Part I , discusses the d i -

1920s looked so far ahead that their experimental projects and

art, on the other h a n d , often brings about a f a l l i n

verse approaches to design as they emerge i n the i n d i v i d u a l ar-

proposals were to secure recognition and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n only

t tends to slow d o w n the process o f generating new

chitectural trends o f the period, always relating them to the

t h i r t y or fifty years later.

'en to reverse i t to some extent, emphasizing t r a d i -

m a i n lines of wider artistic experiment i n art at that time. T h e

The history o f t h e Soviet U n i o n f r o m 1917 to 1934 is f u l l o f

pite a l l the s u r r o u n d i n g complexities. T h e nationalization o f

tainly p r o c l u d i n g any leap f o r w a r d ,

second m a i n section. Part I I , is arranged by categories of archi-

complexities. T h e C i v i l W a r , the N e w Economic Policy ( N E P ) ,

l a n d , the transfer to p u b l i c ownership o f large buildings, an

is though the choice lay between f a l l i n g i n w i t h the

tectural p r o b l e m : t o w n p l a n n i n g , housing, the various kinds o f

the reconstruction o f a r u i n e d economy, each influenced every

economy based on p l a n n i n g , a new attitude to the use o f b u i l d -

still undeveloped tastes i n matters o f art, thus

p u b l i c and c o m m u n i t y b u i l d i n g . T h e evolution of entirely new

aspect o f t h e country's hfe, i n c l u d i n g architecture. For ease o f

ings n o w no longer treated as merchandise f o r the procure-

any role i n the f o r m u l a t i o n o f new trends, and, at

b u i l d i n g types is dealt w i t h here i n historical sequence.

reference, this period may be d i v i d e d architecturally into a

ment o f p r o f i t - created entirely new conditions for b u f l d i n g

Architecture,

number o f stages, paralleling the general social, economic and

w o r k . T h e latter derived a sense o f direction f r o m being part o f

I have deliberately not confined myself to a series o f chapters

political processes at w o r k i n the genesis o f the first socialist

a larger operation of economic p l a n n i n g , and f r o m being forced

dealing w i t h the o u t p u t of i n d i v i d u a l masters. T h e w o r k of sin-

state i n the w o r l d ; though n a t u r a l l y each stage merges imper-

to see itself i n the context o f t o w n - p l a n n i n g factors.

gle architects is examined w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k o f t h e general

ceptibly into the next.

extreme, resorting to experimentation regardless

needs and receptivity o f t h e masses. I t was w i d e l y
he time that these positions could not be recon-

Even though the book is entitled Pioneers of Soviet

Y e t the features that w o u l d characterize the architecture o f

this embryonic society were already becoming apparent des-

A t the outset o f the post-Revolutionary period i t was clear

that architecture's basic tasks were to be the exploration of new

of those involved w i t h Soviet art, i n c l u d i n g archi-

artistic and social questions w h i c h confronted them. T h i s

The years 1917-20 define the first post-Revolutionary period

arked at that time on a bold attempt to combine

treatment makes i t possible to provide a more rounded view o f

d u r i n g w h i c h very little actual construction took place, o w i n g

types o f social dwellings and settlements, i m p r o v e d sanitation,

y incompatible. Despite every sort of practical d i f -

each architect's person'al c o n t r i b u t i o n to the establishment o f

to the difficulties resulting f r o m the C i v i l W a r , W a r C o m m u -

w o r k i n g conditions and leisure f o r the workers, and the crea-

ts resolutely sought to create a revolutionary new

Soviet architecture, and o f t h e part he or she played i n the solu-

nism, and general economic d i s r u p t i o n . Socialist architecture

tion o f new social patterns.

ould preserve b o t h the aesthetic innovations that

t i o n o f t h e various problems concerned. T h e pattern adopted

was taking shape a m i d f u n d a m e n t a l social changes, a marked

T h e f u n d a m e n t a l social, economic and political changes

:hieved, and the social demands o f the new mass

f o r this study necessitates constant reference to the w o r k o f

deterioration i n class relations, the struggle against counter-

taking place i n the country could not, of course, be immediately

ithesis such as this, pushed t h r o u g h i n these excep-

each person's numerous contemporaries, b u t the discussion o f

revolution and the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the country into an armed

reflected i n new buildings. T h e way of Hfe was changing as one

cult circumstances, is v i r t u a l l y unparalleled i n the

the i n d i v i d u a l behefs o f leading architects has been segregated

camp to expel W h i t e G u a r d and interventionist armies. T h e

watched i t , b u t the towns i n w h i c h this wholesale and historical

t: hence the tremendous i m p a c t o f early Soviet art

i n separate sections.

working masses were experiencing a tremendous upsurge: a

b i r t h of a new society was t a k i n g place remained as they had al-

collectivist mood prevailed among them, together w i t h m a x i -

ways been, unaltered.

mahst demands f o r a rushed rearrangement o f t h e entire w a y o f

Thousands of workers moved into the houses o f t h e bourgeoi-

life, a new social order and a rapturous search for new artistic

sie. Communes seeking a new way o f life sprang up spontane-

expression.

ously. Palaces o f L a b o u r , W o r k e r s ' Clubs and rest homes were

D u r i n g the first years after the Revolution, when socially

set up i n the f o r m e r mansions and country estates o f t h e aristo-

new types of b u i l d i n g were only beginning to reach the d r a w i n g

cracy, b u t these buildings remained o u t w a r d l y

boards, architects devoted m u c h attention to the search f o r a

T h e resulting clash between the new content and the architec-

new image. I n Soviet terminology this w o r d has a specific

t u r a l l y outdated forms was acutely obvious. Every attempt was

nieaning, quite different f r o m its superficial connotations i n the

made to ameliorate the situation t h r o u g h use o f t h e decorative

unchanged.

M a i n stages i n the d e v e l o p m e n t o f socialist a r c h i t e c t u r e i n t h e U S S R

and m o n u m e n t a l arts w h i c h flourished so vigorously at this

H i g h e r State A r t i s t i c Technical Studios (Vkhutemas) were set

time. Hoardings, agitational slogans, inscriptions, banners

means o f cheap materials, and f u l f i l l e d a n

up towards the end o f 1920, i n w h i c h departments o f architec-

and posters covered the wahs o f buildings. A r t literally spilled

b u i l d i n g functions u n t i l the m i d d l e o f t h e 1

ture, i n d u s t r i a l design and fine art were combined w i t h i n a sin-

over i n t o the street i n its attempt to bridge the gap between the

public buildings began to be erected.

gle

environment and the way o f life being lived w i t h i n i t .

estabhshment.

T h e period between 1920 and 1924witnes

C i v i l W a r delayed for years the restoration and development

an innovative movement that conflicted sharp

I n 1918, L e n i n p u t f o r w a r d a p l a n f o r m o n u m e n t a l propa-

of Soviet industry. However, a start was made w i t h the b u i l d -

al concepts. T h e m o o d of experimentation anc

ganda: art was to be used for agitational purposes, c^nd m o n u -

ing o f power stations and i n d u s t r i a l enterprises. A decree o f

flicting

ments were to be erected to p r o m i n e n t revolutionaries and cul-

1918 gave the go-ahead f o r the V o l k o v hydro-electric plant,

lace o f L a b o u r c o m p e t i t i o n and the A g r i c u l t r

trends were v i v i d l y illustrated at tha

t u r a l figures i n accord w i t h the demands o f the revolutionary

and by 1920 the first stage of the Shatura power station was on

1923. T h e i n i t i a l debate about sociahst housir

masses. L e n i n proposed to involve the creative intelligentsia i n

stream. R u r a l power stations were b u i l t and so were numerous

garden city, u r b a n conglomerations, vertica

p r o d u c i n g an agitational art w i t h a new content. ' T h e streets

factories.

types o f workers' dwelhngs (single houses, c

are our brushes. T h e squares, our palettes,' declared M a y a -

T h e years between 1921 and 1924 are identified w i t h a sharp

kovsky at that time. M a n y painters, architects, sculptors and

reversal i n the economic pohcy o f the new State, adopted

B y 1925-27, reconstruction was already iJ

poets involved themselves enthusiastically i n designing deco-

t h r o u g h the need to switch f r o m conquest of pohtical power to

i n d u s t r i a l enterprises were being built, t o w i

ings or apartment blocks etc), also arose d u r

rations f o r p u b h c festivals, streets and squares, mass theatrical

creation o f a material and technical f o u n d a t i o n f o r the new so-

u r b a n dwelling complexes, i n c l u d i n g comi

performances, propaganda trains etc. T h e decorations i n M o s -

cial order. T h e Plan f o r the Electrification o f Russia (Goelro),

ments, set u p f o r workers, and the first large

cow's Red Square f r o m designs by Alexander and V i k t o r Ves-

adopted at the E i g h t h All-Russian Congress o f Soviets and de-

erected - Houses o f Soviets, Workers' Clubs

n i n , the Palace Square i n Petrograd by A l t m a n , and the streets

scribed by L e n i n as the Party's Second Programme, was the

and hospitals. I n n o v a t i o n came to p r e d o m i r

and squares o f V i t e b s k by Chagall and M a l e v i c h were highly

first f o r w a r d - l o o k i n g p l a n i n history for the phased develop-

chitecture and its proper forms were the ob

effective.

ment of a national economy. T h e N e w Economic Policy ( N E P )

study. A constant succession o f competitions

was decreed at the T e n t h Congress o f the Russian C o m m u n i s t

iijs; year out, and attracted numerous entries, j

(Bolshevik) Party i n M a r c h 1921.

coherent professional organizations were fin

A g i t A r t also i n c l u d e d m i n o r architectural items, of a k i n d to

w h i c h m u c h importance was a t t r i b u t e d i n the early days of Soviet power. I n the absence o f large-scale b u i l d i n g w o r k , these

T h e Goelro p l a n and N E P not only stimulated construction,

m i n o r structures made i t possible to reflect characteristic

but also governed the character of b u i l d i n g w o r k undertaken i n

and the p u b l i c a t i o n o f architectural books an

came properly organized.

trends i n architecture quickly and clearly. A m o n g such de-

1921-24, w i t h a corresponding efiect on architecture. T h e ac-

T r a d i t i o n a l i s t concepts receded, and man;

signs, some of w h i c h were executed at least i n p a r t , were kiosks

tual situation - economic chaos, a drastic shortage o f b u i l d i n g

adherents j o i n e d the innovators, who concc

by L a v i n s k y and Rodchenko, rostrums by K r i n s k y and Lis-

materials, a lack of funds, an acute'lack o f h o u s i n g , the collapse

materials and structures, the application o f sc

sitzky, and various kinds of show cases and temporary structures

of the u r b a n m u n i c i p a l economy - made i t necessary to deal

i n p l a n n i n g , the rejection of purely decorative

i n streets and squares p a r t i c u l a r l y associated w i t h the name o f

first w i t h p r i m a r y problems.

the rational solution of f u n c t i o n a l requiremen

K l u t s i s . Architects were involved i n the p r o d u c t i o n o f m o n u ments. Rudnev, for example, d i d a M o n u m e n t to the V i c t i m s o f

the R e v o l u t i o n i n Petrograd, i n 1917-19; Osipov d i d the Obehsk c o m m e m o r a t i n g the Soviet C o n s t i t u t i o n i n Moscow i n
1918, and there were m a n y others.

T h e m a i n emphasis was on i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f the Goelro

h i b i t i o n o f C o n t e m p o r a r y Architecture was or

p l a n - to extract the country f r o m its economic underdevelop-

i n connection w i t h the tenth anniversary o f t h

ment - and the i m p r o v e m e n t o f workers' l i v i n g conditions.

l u t i o n , and i t summed up the novel achievemt

Construction d u r i n g this period was directed m a i n l y at the es-

chitecture. M a n y progressive foreign architec

tabhshment of power stations and the creation of workers' set-

Germany, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia anc:

A network o f State construction and design organizations

dements. These areas thus became the chief recipients o f any

part. T h e Soviet U n i o n was becoming one o f

began to take shape very soon after the Revolution. A r c h i t e c t u -

available resources, opened a field for i n n o v a t i o n and p r o v i d e d

tant centres for the elaboration o f pioneering

architecture w i t h its most substantial o p p o r t u n i t y .

architecture.

ral studios were set up i n conjunction w i t h the local Soviets i n

Moscow and Petrograd, w i t h i n the People's Commissariats f o r

Architecture also came i n t o its o w n as part o f t h e propagan-

T h e years 1928-31 saw the first flowering ol

E d u c a t i o n and f o r H e a l t h , and w i t h i n the large construction

da p l a n w i t h the creation o f memorials and monuments, the

ture. T h e tremendous tasks set by the First

organizations such as the Committee for State Buildings

decoration o f cities for festivals and other forms o f agitational

called for a vast creative effort. T h e accelerate

(Komgosoor) under the Supreme Soviet for the N a t i o n a l Econ-

art. A r c h i t e c t u r a l - rather than sculptural - monuments prolif-

triahzation, aimed at remedying the perennia

omy o f t h e U S S R (Vesenkha). T h e teaching o f art and archi-

erated, and architects concentrated on t h e m because they

ment o f erstwhile Tsarist Russia, converted th

could be quickly - though mostly t e m p o r a r i l y - r u n up by

into a huge i n d u s t r i a l b u i l d i n g site. T h e First

tecture was also completely reorganized: i n Moscow the

15
M a i n stages i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f socialist a r c h i t e c t u r e i n the U S S R

d e v e l o p m e n t o f socialist a r c h i t e c t u r e i n the U S S R

ntal arts which flourished so vigorously at this

ngs, agitational slogans, inscriptions, banners
Dvered the walls of bmldings. A r t literally spilled
street in its attempt to bridge the gap between the
and the way of life being hved within it.
enin put forward a plan for monumental propais to be used for agitational purposes, ^nd monu) be erected to prominent revolutionaries and cul
m accord with the demands of the revolutionary
1 proposed to involve the creative intelligentsia i n
agitational art with a new content. 'The streets
les. The squares, our palettes,' declared Maya,t time. Many painters, architects, sculptors and
d themselves enthusiastically in designing decobhc festivals, streets and squares, mass theatrical
i, propaganda trains etc. The decorations in Mosuare from designs by Alexander and Viktor Ves:e Square in Petrograd by Altman, and the streets
Df Vitebsk by Chagah and Malevich were highly

so included minor architectural items, of a kind to

importance was attributed in the early days of So
n the absence of large-scale building work, these
ures made it possible to reflect characteristic
;hitecture quickly and clearly. Among such def which were executed at least i n part, were kiosks
and Rodchenko, rostrums by Krinsky and Lisirious kinds of show cases and temporary structures
I squares particularly associated with the name of
utects were involved in the production of monuev, for example, did a Monument to the Victims of
)n in Petrograd, in 1917-19; Osipov did the Obefiorating the Soviet Constitution in Moscow in
ere were many others.
c of State construction and design organizations
; shape very soon after the Revolution. Architectuere set up in conjunction with the local Soviets in
Petrograd, within the People's Commissariats for
nd for Health, and within the large construction
s such as the Committee for State Buildings
) under the Supreme Soviet for the National EconJSSR (Vesenkha). The teaching of art and archialso completely reorganized: in Moscow the

Higher State Artistic Technical Studios (Vkhutemas) were set

up towards the end of 1920, in which departments of architecture, industrial design and .fine art were combined within a single establishment.
Civil War delayed for years the restoration and development
of Soviet industry. However, a start was made with the building of power stations and industrial enterprises. A decree of
1918 gave the go-ahead for the Volkov hydro-electric plant,
and by 1920 the first stage ofthe Shatura power station was on
stream. Rural power stations were built and so were numerous
factories.
The years between 1921 and 1924 are identified with a sharp
reversal in the economic pohcy of the new State, adopted
through the need to switch from conquest of pohtical power to
creation of a material and technical foundation for the new social order. The Plan for the Electrification of Russia (Goelro),
adopted at the Eighth Afl-Russian Congress of Soviets and described by Lenin as the Party's Second Programme, was the
first forward-looking plan in history for the phased development of a national economy. The New Economic Pohcy (NEP)
was decreed at the Tenth Congress ofthe Russian Communist
(Bolshevik) Party in March 1921.
The Goelro plan and NEP not only stimulated construction,
but also governed the character of buflding work undertaken in
1921-24, with a corresponding effect on architecture. The actual situation - economic chaos, a drastic shortage of building
materials, a lack of funds, an acute'lack ofhousing, the collapse
of the urban municipal economy - made it necessary to deal
first with primary problems.
The main emphasis was on implementation of the Goelro
plan - to extract the country from its economic underdevelopment - and the improvement of workers' living conditions.
Construction during this period was directed mainly at the establishment of power stations and the creation of workers' settlements. These areas thus became the chief recipients of any
available resources, opened a field for innovation and provided
architecture with its most substantial opportunity.
Architecture also came into its own as part ofthe propaganda plan with the creation of memorials and monuments, the
decoration of cities for festivals and other forms of agitational
art. Architectural - rather than sculptural - monuments proliferated, and architects concentrated on them because they
could be quickly - though mostly temporarily - run up by

means of cheap materials, and fulfflled a number of imagebuilding functions until the middle of the 1920s when large
public buildings began to be erected.
The period between 1920 and 1924 witnessed the growth of
an innovative movement that conflicted sharply with traditional concepts. The mood of experimentation and the clash of conflicting trends were vividly illustrated at that time by the Palace of Labour competition and the Agricultural Exhibition in
1923. The initial debate about sociahst housing, bearing on the
garden city, urban conglomerations, vertical zoning, various
types of workers' dwellings (single houses, communal dwellings or apartment blocks etc), also arose during this period.
By 1925-27, reconstruction was already in full swing. New
industrial enterprises were being built, towns were planned,
urban dwelling complexes, including communal establishments, set up for workers, and the first large public buildings
erected Houses of Soviets, Workers' Clubs, schools, arenas
and hospitals. Innovation came to predominate in Soviet architecture and its proper forms were the object of intensive
study. A constant succession of competitions took place, year
inf, year out, and attracted numerous entries. A t this time, too,
coherent professional organizations were fmally established,
and the publication of architectural books and periodicals became 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
in planning, the rejection of purely decorative components and
the rational solution of functional requirements. The First Exhibition of Contemporary Architecture was organized in 1927,
in connection with the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution, and it summed up the novel achievements of Soviet architecture. Many progressive foreign architects, from France,
Germany, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia and Hofland, took
part. The Soviet Union was becoming one of the most important centres for the elaboration of pioneering trends in world
architecture.
The years 1928-31 saw the first flowering of Soviet architecture. The tremendous tasks set by the First Five Year Plan
called for a vast creative effort. The accelerated rate of industrialization, aimed at remedying the perennial underdevelopment of erstwhile Tsarist Russia, converted the entire country
into a huge industrial building site. The First Five Year Plan

was essentially a matter of construction: gigantic heavy industrial works and power stations were set up, new railways were
laid and new towns, such as Magnitorgorsk, Kuznetsk and
Chardzhui, were built in what had been sparsely inhabited
areas, near the sources of raw materials.
The launching of industrialization involved wholesale mobilization ofthe country's entire material, technical and human
reserves. Strict economy measures released considerable resources for the creation of new branches of industry. Building
materials in short supply, such as cement and metals, were directed to industrial construction work as a matter of priority.
Foreign experience was in great demand. Foreign firms and
highly quahfied specialists were called upon for consultation,
planning and the building of industrial works, towns, dwellings
and public buildings.
Soviet architects were mainly involved at that time in practical building work, the volume of which increased year by year.
But the creative impetus earlier imparted to them by competitions 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
First Five Year Plan. I t was precisely then that the basic patterns of new dwelling complexes, complete with essential services, the types of Workers' Clubs and Palaces of Culture,
Houses of Soviets, massed performance theatres, mass kitchens, vocational schools, public baths and many other kinds
of establishment were developed.
The main emphasis of creative and theoretical studies now
shifted to town planning and the construction of mass housing.
A debate developed again concerning socialist residential planning and the transformation of the people's way of life, and
opinions differed widely.
I n the late 1920s and early 1930s, the influence of Soviet architecture on the development and elaboration of progressive
architecture elsewhere in the world constantly increased.
Leading architects in many countries watched with great interest the tremendous experiment in progress during the First
Five Year Plan. The town-planning ideas involved, and the
elaboration of new building types within a new social context,
attracted particular attention.
During these years the Soviet Union became a focus of i^iterest for many prominent architects in capitalist countries, and
many of them entered open Soviet competitions. Some execut-

16
M a i n stages i n the d e v e l o p m e n t o f sociahst a r c h i t e c t u r e i n t h e U S S R

ed commissions there, or worked there professionally for ex-

prime requirement was considered to be the architectural f u l -

tended periods, among them Le Corbusier, E r i c h Mendelsohn,

filment

of social tasks.

W a l t e r Gropius, B r u n o T a u t , Ernst M a y , Hannes M e y e r and

D u r i n g the early years o f industrialization, when essential

Hans Schmidt. For their part, Soviet architects contributed to

resources and materials were being allocated to industry, a pol-

international competitions and exhibitions. Several dozen So-

icy o f t h e strictest economy was enforced i n the country, i n c l u d -

viet projects were submitted for the Christopher Columbus

ing the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f r a t i o n i n g i n 1928, the construction o f

M o n u m e n t i n Santo D o m i n g o i n 1929, for example.

barrack blocks and curtailment o f the construction o f p u b l i c

I n 1932-34, the conflict between innovative and t r a d i t i o n a l

buildings. T h e w o r k i n g class deliberately opted for material

trends was greatly intensified and brought about substantial

privations and a restricted consumption i n order to achieve f u l l

changes i n the direction o f architectural w o r k as a whole. T h e

mobilization o f ah the country's resources and a concentration

rate o f industrialization and collectivization, aimed at p r o v i d -

of financial means on i n d u s t r i a l construction, so as to lay the

ing solid foundations for socialism, was speeded u p and this

economic f o u n d a t i o n of socialism i n a State beset by enemies.

aroused a massive surge o f enthusiasm among the workers,

I n these circumstances, the successes o f the First Five Year

comparable to that o f the early Revolutionary days. A r t , i n -

Plan, w h i c h had already made themselves felt at the start o f t h e

cluding architecture, was swept u p i n this nationwide re-

1930s, set o f f a new wave o f popular support throughout the

sponse, thereby i n t r o d u c i n g f u r t h e r changes i n the f o r m u l a t i o n

country. T h e economic victory o f the w o r k i n g class required a

of an artistic image.

w o r t h y reflection i n the architectural field. T h e concept o f

I n the early years of Soviet power the revolutionary upsurge,

grandiose 'palaces' dedicated to the Great Economic Revival

combined w i t h an almost total absence of actual b u i l d i n g work,

came to the fore again. Prestige now became one o f t h e more

d i d m u c h to promote designs for a variety of'palaces', prestige

i m p o r t a n t elements i n the creation o f an architectural image.

buildings regarded as the symbols and memorials o f the Great

T h e vast dimensions o f buildings, the m o n u m e n t a l i t y o f their

Revolution. D u r i n g the period o f reconstruction, when the ac-

conception, the opulence o f their decoration, were a l l intended

t u a l tasks o f erecting dwehings, hospitals, schools, clubs, and

to m i r r o r the popular mood.

so on, became the first p r i o r i t y , restraint i n the o u t w a r d appearance o f such buildings became an ethical issue, since the

V i t t o r i o de Feo, USSR

architettura

1917-1936

( R o m e , 1963).

Aesthetic
Droblems
of design

e v e l o p m e n t o f socialist a r c h i t e c t u r e i n the U S S R

s there, or worked there professionally for ex

p r i m e requirement was considered to be the architectural f u l -

, among them L e Corbusier, E r i c h Mendelsohn,

filment

of social tasks.

s, B r u n o T a u t , Ernst M a y , Hannes M e y e r and

D u r i n g the early years o f industrialization, when essential

For their part, Soviet architects contributed to

resources and materials were being allocated to industry, a pol-

ompetitions and exhibitions. Several dozen So-

icy of the strictest economy was enforced i n the country, i n c l u d -

ere submitted for the Christopher Columbus

ing the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f r a t i o n i n g i n 1928, the construction o f

5anto D o m i n g o i n 1929, for example,

barrack blocks and curtailment o f the construction o f pubhc

the conflict between innovative and t r a d i t i o n a l

buildings. T h e w o r k i n g class deliberately opted for material

atly intensified and brought about substantial

privations and a restricted consumption i n order to achieve f u l l

direction o f architectural w o r k as a whole. T h e

m o b i l i z a t i o n o f all the country's resources and a concentration

alization and collectivization, aimed at p r o v i d -

of financial means on i n d u s t r i a l construction, so as to lay the

lations for socialism, was speeded u p and this

economic f o u n d a t i o n o f socialism i n a State beset by enemies.

sive surge o f enthusiasm among the workers,

I n these circumstances, the successes o f the First Five Year

that o f the early Revolutionary days. A r t , i n -

Plan, w h i c h had already made themselves felt at the start o f t h e

icture, was swept up i n this nationwide re

1930s, set o f f a new wave o f popular support throughout the

' i n t r o d u c i n g f u r t h e r changes i n the f o r m u l a t i o n

country. T h e economic victory o f t h e w o r k i n g class required a

lage.

w o r t h y reflection i n the architectural field. T h e concept o f

^ears of Soviet power the revolutionary upsurge,

grandiose 'palaces' dedicated to the Great Economic Revival

an almost total absence of actual b u i l d i n g w o r k ,

came to the fore again. Prestige now became one o f the more

3mote designs for a variety of'palaces', prestige

i m p o r t a n t elements i n the creation o f an architectural image.

ded as the symbols and memorials o f t h e Great

T h e vast dimensions o f buildings, the m o n u m e n t a l i t y o f their

iring the period o f reconstruction, when the ac-

conception, the opulence o f their decoration, were a l l intended

ecting dwelhngs, hospitals, schools, clubs, and

to m i r r o r the popular mood.

the first p r i o r i t y , restraint i n the o u t w a r d ap:h buildings became an ethical issue, since the

V i t t o r i o de Feo, USSR

architettura

1917-1936

( R o m e , 1963).

Aesthetic
problems
of design

e v e l o p m e n t o f socialist a r c h i t e c t u r e i n the U S S R

s there, or worked there professionally for ex

prime requirement was considered to be the architectural f u l -

, among them Le Corbusier, E r i c h Mendelsohn,

f i l m e n t o f social tasks.
D u r i n g the early years o f industrialization, when essential

s, B r u n o T a u t , Ernst M a y , Hannes M e y e r and

For their part, Soviet architects contributed to

resources and materials were being allocated to industry, a pol-

ompetitions and exhibitions. Several dozen So-

icy o f t h e strictest economy was enforced i n the country, i n c l u d -

ere submitted for the Christopher Columbus

ing the i n t r o d u c d o n o f r a d o n i n g i n 1928, the construcdon o f

Santo D o m i n g o i n 1929, for example.

barrack blocks and curtailment o f the construction o f p u b l i c

the conflict between innovative and t r a d i t i o n a l

buildings. T h e w o r k i n g class deliberately opted for material

atly intensified and brought about substantial

privations and a restricted consumpdon i n order to achieve f u l l

direction o f architectural w o r k as a whole. T h e

m o b i l i z a t i o n o f all the country's resources and a concentradon

alization and collectivization, aimed at p r o v i d -

of financial means on i n d u s t r i a l construction, so as to lay the

iadons for socialism, was speeded up and this

economic f o u n d a t i o n o f socialism i n a State beset by enemies.

sive surge o f enthusiasm among the workers,

I n these circumstances, the successes o f t h e First Five Year

that o f the early Revolutionary days. A r t , i n -

Plan, w h i c h had already made themselves felt at the start o f t h e

ecture, was swept up i n this nationwide re-

1930s, set o f f a new wave o f popular support throughout the

f i n t r o d u c i n g f u r t h e r changes i n the f o r m u l a d o n

country. T h e economic victory o f t h e w o r k i n g class required a

nage.

w o r t h y reflection i n the architectural field. T h e concept o f

y'ears of Soviet power the revolutionary upsurge,

grandiose 'palaces' dedicated to the Great Economic Revival

an almost total absence of actual b u i l d i n g w o r k ,

came to the fore again. Presdge now became one o f t h e more

omote designs for a variety of'palaces', prestige

i m p o r t a n t elements i n the creation o f an architectural image.

ded as the symbols and memorials o f t h e Great

T h e vast dimensions o f buildings, the m o n u m e n t a h t y o f their

i r i n g the period o f reconstruction, when the ac-

conception, the opulence o f their decoration, were a l l intended

ecting dwellings, hospitals, schools, clubs, and

to m i r r o r the popular mood.

the first p r i o r i t y , restraint i n the o u t w a r d apch buildings became an ethical issue, since the

V i t t o r i o de Feo, VSSR

architettura

1917-1936

( R o m e , 1963).

19

Classicism, tlie Moderne (Art Nouveau),

engineering structures and the new architecture

Architecturally, the new Soviet State took over a complex i n -

the new f u n c t i o n a l and structural elements o f b u i l d i n g w o r k .

heritance f r o m Tsarist Russia. Pre-Revolutionary Russia's

T h e determined pursuit of a new architectural style lost its i m -

m a i n architectural trends died h a r d , and to some extent h a m -

portance, and attention m a i n l y focused instead on a thorough-

pered experimentation by innovators d u r i n g the early years o f

going study o f t h e principles at work i n earlier periods o f out-

Soviet power. W e shall examine them i n t u r n .

standing architectural achievement.

W h e n he summed up the lines i n art followed by contemporary Russian architects, Alexander Benois wrote early i n 1917
that 'the r e b i r t h o f Classicism is now clearly to be seen every-

Petersburg Renaissance and

Rational Arcliitecture

where and is g r o w i n g into a relentless passion'.'

W h i l e this Classicizing trend got i n t o its swing, however,
certain other architects, among t h e m V i k t o r V e s n i n , R o m a n

I t so happened that before the Revolution the most talented

K l e i n , Alexander Kuznetsov, M a r i a n Lyalevich and Fedor

and i n f l u e n t i a l architects first underwent a b r i e f i n f a t u a t i o n

Shekhtel, asserted - even i n these pre-Revolutionary times -

w i t h the M o d e r n e , that composite o f styles w h i c h embraced

their concern f o r an accurate organization o f the f u n c t i o n a l

A r t Nouveau, the Neo-Russian and modern technology. T h i s

process, for an attempt to plan buildings rationally and to use

i n f a t u a t i o n was followed by an equally quick disenchantment

new structural resources efficiently. T h e i r designs and b u i l d -

before they set out to revive architecture as a m a j o r art by f o l -

ings usually conformed to a M o d e r n e or eclectic style, b u t a

l o w i n g traditions handed d o w n f r o m the past.

new, constructively f u n c t i o n a l conception - f o r instance, i n the

A l t h o u g h the M o d e r n e was i n i t i a l l y regarded by many as

armature

and

large glazed

areas increasingly showed

the forerunner o f t h e architecture o f t h e f u t u r e , i t came to be re-

t h r o u g h the outer decorative appearances, even though the ar-

jected by the m a j o r i t y of pre-Revolutionary architects. Its total

chitects themselves were often unaware o f this and d i d not

rejection, i n fact, became a matter of fashion, and those archi-

grasp its aesthetic imphcations.

tects w h o had been foremost i n p r o m o t i n g i t d i d their best to r i d

T h e representatives o f this so-called Rational Architecture

themselves of all traces of its influence. T h e y saw the solution i n

d i d a great deal before the Revolution to evolve new types o f

g r a f t i n g the 'pure' styles o f the past on to contemporary archi-

buildings such as department stores, factories, r a i l w a y stations

tecture. I n their fight against eclecticism and the M o d e r n e a

and offices, and to employ new structural elements and mate-

number o f architects such as Shchuko, Zholtovsky, I v a n Fo-

rials and offer f u n c t i o n a l lay-outs. B u t although a modernizing

m i n and many others, turned to the Renaissance, Classicism,

approach was perceptible i n some of the buildings i t produced.

the Style E m p i r e and o l d Russian forms. Classicism was adopt-

Rational Architecture failed to establish itself as a creative

ed by a p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t group o f architects centred on

trend w i t h an artistic doctrine o f its o w n .

Petersburg. Headed by F o m i n , they based themselves on the

T o some extent this school resisted the blatantly styhzing

Russian Neo-Classical style o f the late eighteenth and early

tendencies of the period and prepared the w a y i n certain p r a c t i -

nineteenth centuries and considered i t imperative to carry on

cal respects for the creative work to come. B u t i t grew f r o m a

its traditions. T h i s movement for Classical revival became

f o u n d a t i o n of M o d e r n e and eclecticism, preserving the aesthet-

k n o w n as the Petersburg Renaissance.

ic system o f b o t h , and thus failed to offer a point o f departure

A somewhat paradoxical situation arose i n pre-Revolution-

for the new line of art w h i c h developed after the October Revo-

ary Russian architecture: new forms of materials and construc-

l u t i o n . Indeed, the supporters o f Rational Architecture, such

t i o n , new types of buildings and f u n c t i o n a l methods came to be

as Shekhtel, were seldom among those w h o promoted innova-

ever more widely integrated into design and b u i l d i n g work, yet

tion after 1917, and many of them, i n fact, t u r n e d up i n the op-

the tastes o f t h e architects increasingly inchned to the past. T h e

posite camp.

M o d e r n e , on the other hand, had not only been rejected by a

T h e innovative trends o f t h e 1920s developed by contrasting

m a j o r i t y o f architects, b u t had also brought i n t o disrepute

their conceptions w i t h those o f the M o d e r n e and eclecticism,

many attempts to discover the aesthetic potential inherent i n

rather t h a n d r a w i n g u p o n these systems w h i c h culminated i n

Part I / A e s t h e t i c problems o f design

Rational Architecture. T h e y were the outcome o f a confronta-

to the development of structural techniques i n this area. As ear-

tion w i t h M o d e r n e and the rejection o f its aesthetic concepts.

ly as 1907, Loleit designed a set of shallow, ribless f a n vaults for

the Bogorodskaya m i l l . A great variety of metal and ferro-concrete structures were erected i n the years before the Revolu-

Engineering structures

don, such as bridges, piers, water towers, lighthouses, l i g h t i n g

and tlie artistic world in Russia

standards, warehouses. Reticulated metal structures appeared

from the 1860s to the Revolution.

inside buildings, i m p a r t e d a new look to towns and introduced

T h e School o f Engineering and Construction w h i c h came i n t o

He gradually came to accept the u n f a m i h a r latdced shapes, so

unaccustomed elements i n t o the existing landscape. T h e p u b being i n Russia after the reforms o f t h e 1860s, and i n connec-

strikingly different f r o m a l l the 'substantial' elements used i n

d o n w i t h large-scale r a i l w a y construcdon towards the end o f

the past. These new shapes were becoming part o f t h e environ-

the nineteenth century, soon acquired a w o r l d w i d e reputadon.

ment and also exerted a s u b l i m i n a l influence on the develop-

I t produced distinguished theorists and practitioners w h o i n -

ment of taste at large. W r i t e r s and poets described the new en-

cluded Belelyubsky, Loleit, Proskuryakov, Shukhov and Y a -

gineering structures, took pleasure i n the r a t i o n a l i t y o f their

sinsky. T h e engineering w o r k incorporated i n the most diverse

approach and extolled the spirit of engineering, while m a n y ar-

kinds of buildings i n Russia d u r i n g the last quarter-century be-

tists incorporated the engineering structures i n their pictorial

fore the Revolution show that this country not only kept pace

or graphic compositions.

w i t h the more developed parts of Europe and the U S A , b u t outstripped them i n certain fields, i n terms o f engineering design,
as w e l l as the use o f m o d e r n construction techniques and new
materials. Thus Shukhov produced many original designs
unparalleled i n work done abroad. A t the N i z h n y - N o v g o r o d
E x h i b i d o n i n 1896, for instance,

several original designs

by Shukhov appeared, the most i m p o r t a n t o f w h i c h were

latticed: suspended latticed roofs f o r e x h i b i d o n halls w i t h a
circular, elhptical and rectangular g r o u n d p l a n , latdced roof
vaults and hyperboHc latticed towers. T h i s category o f structure also included the dual curvature roof designed by Shukhov
i n 1897-98 to cover a workshop at the Vykhsunsk factory.

T h e m a j o r i t y o f architects, however, still failed to acknowledge these new forms. I n a sense, latticed engineering structures and buildings represented a distinct ingredient i n the
physical environment: they coexisted w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l architect u r a l forms, but failed to become integrated w i t h them and
made no claim to aesthetic significance. I n the nineteenth century, every effort was usually made to conceal and decorate u n f a m i l i a r latticed metal structures and elements such as girders,
but by the beginning o f the twentieth century they were often
left undisguised. T h i s d i d not mean, however, that architects
had grasped the aesthetic potential of such structures: they had
merely become accustomed to them and simply d i d not notice

Forms of spanning w h i c h have come i n t o use i n recent years

them any more. W h e n designing a b u i l d i n g , an architect w o u l d

were foreshadowed i n various forms o f latticed structures de-

solve all the compositional problems by relying on t r a d i t i o n a l

signed by Shukhov before the end o f the last century - guyed

architectural forms. O p e n w o r k structures were j u s t p a r t o f t h e

structures, the spanning o f d u a l curves by structures o f stand-

background - they had no part i n the architectural solution

ardized rods, the provision o f curved 'hyperbolic' profiles by

and d i d not figure i n the artistic compositional system i n -

means o f a straight component, using straight rods i n Shu-

volved.

khov's case.

A t the end o f t h e nineteenth and beginning o f t h e twentieth

Russian engineers made m a n y new and s t i m u l a t i n g contri-

century, architectural education instilled i n its pupils the prac-

budons to the design and construction o f multiple-span lat-

tice of using i n their projects a given t r a d i t i o n a l style. Structure

ticed metal bridges, a great number o f w h i c h were needed i n

as such was treated as no more than a technical means o f

r a i l w a y w o r k because o f t h e m u l d t u d e of large rivers i n Russia.

achieving a particular f o r m o f spatial organization. Even

Ferro-concrete was first used i n buildings there at the begin-

though architects m i g h t have complete c o m m a n d over the

n i n g o f t h e twentieth century. Russian engineers d i d not merely

technical opportunities offered by the new methods o f con-

d r a w on foreign experience, but made their o w n c o n t r i b u d o n

struction, and f u l l y appreciate the r a t i o n a l nature o f their use,

21
b l e m s o f design

C h a p t e r 1/Classicism, the M o d e r n e ( A r t N o u v e a u ) , e n g i n e e r i n g s t r u c t u r e s a n d t h e n e w a r c h i t e c t u r e

tecture. T h e y were the outcome o f a confronta-

to the development of structural techniques i n this area. As ear-

they w o u l d nevertheless be dominated by an aesthetic ap-

T h i s is not always taken i n t o account i n studying the crea-

srne and the rejection o f its aesthetic concepts.

ly as 1907, Loleit designed a set of shallow, ribless f a n vaults for

proach w h i c h p r o m p t e d them to distinguish 'architecture as

tive experiments o f the first post-Revolutionary years, yet is o f

the Bogorodskaya miU. A great variety of metal and ferro-con-

such' the o u t w a r d appearance o f a b u i l d i n g f r o m the struc-

the utmost importance i f a number of features peculiar to these

crete structures were erected i n the years before the Revolu-

t u r a l armature. T h i s selective appreciation of a building's visu-

experiments are to be understood.

tures

tion, such as bridges, piers, water towers, lighthouses, l i g h t i n g

al quality represented a sort of essential defence mechanism for

rid in Russia

standards, warehouses. Reticulated metal structures appeared

architects w h o had been set the task of reviving past styles, and

tres where the new architecture evolved, Classicism may be

the Revolution.

inside buildings, i m p a r t e d a new look to towns and introduced

Classicism i n particular..

said to have intervened i n Soviet architecture between the M o -

As distinct f r o m w h a t happened i n the other European cen-

unaccustomed elements i n t o the existing landscape. T h e pub-

W h a t these architects failed to grasp was that such a selec-

derne and the explorations o f t h e 1920s, thereby severing any

Engineering and Construction w h i c h came i n t o

hc gradually came to accept the u n f a m i h a r latticed shapes, so

tive aesthetic approach needed to be specially n u r t u r e d and

organic connection between the latter and the earlier style.

L after the reforms o f t h e 1860s, and i n connec-

strikingly different f r o m a l l the 'substantial' elements used i n

could only be kept up w i t h i n a n a r r o w professional circle. T h e

M a n y o f t h e young architects who were later to become active

-scale r a i l w a y construction towards the end of

the past. These new shapes were becoming part o f t h e environ-

history of art shows throughout its course that new factors can-

supporters o f t h e new trends had passed t h r o u g h this Classical

:entury, soon acquired a w o r l d w i d e reputation,

ment and also exerted a s u b h m i n a l influence on the develop-

not be a r b i t r a r i l y excluded f r o m the c u l t u r a l environment once

phase before the Revolution, and m a n y others d i d so after i t .

jtinguished theorists and practitioners w h o i n -

ment o f taste at large. W r i t e r s and poets described the new en-

they have been absorbed, by whatever chance, i n t o the cur-

T h e first State A r c h i t e c t u r a l Offices set up i n Moscow under

bsky, Loleit, Proskuryakov, Shukhov and Y a -

gineering structures, took pleasure i n the r a t i o n a l i t y o f their

rently d o m i n a n t aesthetic system. I n terms o f art, every i n d i -

the direction o f Zholtovsky and Shchusev, and i n L e n i n g r a d

;ineering work incorporated i n the most diverse

approach and extolled the spirit of engineering, while m a n y ar-

v i d u a l evolves his or her o w n set o f criteria, w h i c h produce dif-

under that o f I v a n F o m i n , as well as the Moscow A r c h i t e c t u r a l

gs i n Russia d u r i n g the last quarter-century be

tists incorporated the engineering structures i n their pictorial

fering reactions to, for instance, contemporary art, the art o f

Society ( M a o ) , chaired by Shchusev, the Petrograd Society o f

tion show that this country not only kept pace

or graphic compositions.

another nation, the works of a distant past and p a r t i c u l a r l y to

Architects (Poa, later Loa) chaired by E v a l d and the Society o f

eveloped parts of Europe and the U S A , b u t out-

T h e m a j o r i t y o f architects, however, still failed to acknowl-

the style o f t h e immediately preceding period, where a sense o f

Artist-Architects ( O a k h ) chaired by Leonty Benois, included

n certain fields, i n terms o f engineering design,

edge these new forms. I n a sense, latticed engineering struc-

revulsion tends to set i n , triggered by a more acutely critical at-

m a n y distinguished and experienced professionals. I n their ac-

se o f modern construction techniques and new

tures and buildings represented a distinct ingredient i n the

titude. I d e n t i c a l events do not always generate similar assess-

t u a l o u t p u t and their theoretical pronouncements these m a i n l y

is Shukhov produced many original designs

physical environment: they coexisted w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l architec-

ments because so m u c h depends on the context i n each case. I f

concentrated on the revival o f past architectural traditions.

work done abroad. A t the N i z h n y - N o v g o r o d

t u r a l forms, b u t failed to become integrated w i t h t h e m and

a strictly f u n c t i o n a l object, for instance, is incorporated i n t o an

T h e Classicists' efforts to purge the influence o f M o d e r n e f r o m

1896, for instance,

several original designs

made no claim to aesthetic significance. I n the nineteenth cen-

artistic system, the criteria applicable to i t change even i f the

architecture were most active before the Revolution, b u t car-

Dpeared, the most i m p o r t a n t o f w h i c h were

tury, every effort was usually made to conceal and decorate un-

artist d i d not i n t e n d this to happen, as was often the case w i t h

ried on beyond i t t h r o u g h sheer impetus. T h e y d i d i n fact suc-

ided latticed roofs for exhibition halls w i t h a

f a m i l i a r latticed metal structures and elements such as girders,

objects o f everyday use designed by the Constructivists. W h e n

ceed i n preventing any M o d e r n e influence u p o n the f o r m u l a -

:al and rectangular ground plan, latticed roof

but by the beginning o f the twentieth century they were often

metal latticed structures had become integrated i n t o the gener-

t i o n of new aesthetic principles for Soviet architecture. T h e y al-

r b o l i c latticed towers. T h i s category o f struc-

left undisguised. T h i s d i d not mean, however, that architects

al appearance o f cities or the f r a m e w o r k o f buildings, they

so d i d m u c h to inspire respect for architecture as an art i n a t a l -

sd the dual curvature roof designed by Shukhov

had grasped the aesthetic potential of such structures: they had

gradually came to be regarded by a g r o w i n g number o f people

ented younger generation and interest i n the solution of f o r m a l

over a workshop at the Vykhsunsk factory,

merely become accustomed to them and simply d i d not notice

as integral elements of contemporary applied art, quite regard-

problems. Zholtovsky played the leading p a r t i n Moscow i n

this respect, while I v a n F o m i n d i d so i n Petrograd.

nning w h i c h have come into use i n recent years

t h e m any more. W h e n designing a b u i l d i n g , an architect w o u l d

less of whether the architects had consciously intended t h e m to

wed i n various forms o f latticed structures de-

solve all the compositional problems by relying on t r a d i t i o n a l

f o r m p a r t o f the composition or not. I n fact, painters were the

hov before the end o f the last century - guyed

architectural forms. O p e n w o r k structures were j u s t p a r t o f t h e

first to pick out the expressive power inherent i n the new lat-

ipanning o f d u a l curves by structures o f stand-

background - they had no part i n the architectural solution

ticed metal structures.

le provision o f curved 'hyperbolic' profiles by

and d i d not figure i n the artistic compositional system i n -

light component, using straight rods i n Shu-

volved.

neers made m a n y new and s t i m u l a t i n g contri-

century, architectural education instilled i n its pupils the prac-

iesign and construction o f multiple-span lat-

tice of using i n their projects a given t r a d i t i o n a l style. Structure

T h e Classicism characteristic o f pre-Revolutionary architec-

d u r i n g the first years f o l l o w i n g the Revolution. T h e principles

[ges, a great number o f w h i c h were needed i n

as such was treated as no more than a technical means o f

ture i n Russia continued to flourish after October 1917. M a n y

w h i c h he upheld f o r m e d a solid system of theoretical considera-

cause of the m u l t i t u d e of large rivers i n Russia,

achieving a particular f o r m o f spatial organization. Even

Soviet architects sought a new aesthetic image w i t h i n the op-

tions and compositional methods that very positively and

te was first used i n buildings there at the begin-

though architects m i g h t have complete c o m m a n d over the

portunities offered by the Classical order. A l m o s t a l l o f t h e m

clearly reflected his o w n aesthetic sympathies. H e was remark-

deth century. Russian engineers d i d not merely

technical opportunities offered by the new methods o f con-

passed t h r o u g h this Classical phase before launching into the

ably consistent i n p u t t i n g his beliefs into practice, and this con-

experience, but made their o w n c o n t r i b u t i o n

struction, and f u l l y appreciate the rational nature o f their use.

innovative experiments o f t h e 1920s.

sistency was undoubtedly one o f the most attractive aspects o f

A t the end o f the nineteenth and beginning o f the twentieth

The early development of Zholtovsky's

Neo-Renaissance School

Classicism in the early post-Revolutionary years

Zholtovsky, a great expert on the I t a l i a n Renaissance and a

dedicated Classicist, was extremely active i n architectural life

wmfllnlwlwl^^
22

Chap

Part I/Aesthetic problems o f design

his whole activity. A b o r n teacher w h o put f o r w a r d his behefs

w i t h tremendous conviction and illustrated them by examples
d r a w n f r o m the history o f Russian and w o r l d architecture, he
preferred discussions w i t h small groups o f young architects or

parts. He thought that the overall composition o f an architec-

lied to achieving harmonious proportions w i t h i n a comp

t u r a l w o r k , the means o f i m p a r t i n g proportions and h a r m o n y

tion, rather t h a n elaborating novel f o r m a l solutions.

to i t , derived f r o m three elementary processes for developing

I t was Zholtovsky as a member o f the j u r y w h o ensu

such an entity: a small and novel w o r k developed t h r o u g h ra-

that the first prize i n the Palace o f L a b o u r competitioi

p i d l y changing, sweeping articulations; a large and mature

1922-23 d i d not go to what was undoubtedly the best innova

students to f o r m a l lectures and addresses. A large n u m b e r o f

architects - Ladovsky, M e l n i k o v , Dokuchaev,

Chernyshev,

w o r k developed slowly and i n a detailed way; and a senescent

design, submitted by the Vesnin brothers, because he idend

I l y a and Panteleimon Golosov, N o r v e r t , N i k o l a i K o U i , K o k o -

one, when g r o w t h could no longer overcome gravity, by grow-

i n i t new ideas w h i c h clashed f u n d a m e n t a l l y w i t h his (

V l a d i m i r o v , Golts, K o z h i n , Parusnikov and F i d m a n

rin.
among the best k n o w n - attended cycles of talks by Zholtovsky

ing rather t h a n w a n i n g a r t i c u l a t i o n . H e regarded these propo-

views.

at the College of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, and later

in the Svomas (Free A r t Studios) and V k h u t e m a s ( H i g h e r State
A r t i s t i c T e c h n i c a l Studios) i n 1918-22.
I n his t u t o r i a l discussions Zholtovsky provided an insight
i n t o the artisdc mastery o f earlier architects; discussed composition, proportions, and the importance o f attention to d e t a i l ;
instilled i n his listeners the i n c l i n a t i o n and means to discern the
rules inherent i n the development o f architectural f o r m s ; and

sitions as universally applicable and believed, on the strength

T h u s f r o m the very first stages of its existence, Zholtovs!

of them, that one o f t h e architect's m a i n tasks was the elabora-

school already claimed a well-defined aesthetic programm

t i o n and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a system o f harmonious propor-

method o f composition, as well as a canonical model of its <

tions.

in the bridge design o f 1 9 2 0 - 2 1 . A first attempt had thus

A t the very start o f Soviet power, when the drive for innova-

ready been made at that early stage to subordinate the plani

t i o n was only i n its embryonic stage, Zholtovsky believed that

of new types o f b u i l d i n g , new structures and new architect

his chief responsibihties were to breed a sense o f artistic mastery among architects; to struggle against eclecticism and the
M o d e r n e ; to promote Classicism; and to become a sort o f co-

warned them against allowing f o r m merely to serve f u n c t i o n a l

ordinator responsible for the aesthetic quahty o f architec-

and constructional purposes. M a n y of those w h o had attended

ture.

Zholtovsky's early tutorials later abandoned his principles and

By the beginning o f t h e 1920s, however, b o t h Zholtovsky's

followed their o w n lines o f experiment, b u t almost a l l o f them

theories and his activities came to exert a restraining influence

continued to regard architecture as an art f o r m , even at the

on experiment i n architecture, and then to apply a brake to i t ,

height o f enthusiasm for u t i l i t a r i a n concepts, and tended to

since his i n c l i n a t i o n lay w i t h Classicism and its t r a d i t i o n a l

give weight to the inherent laws o f architectural f o r m i n their

orders. T h i s predilection was plainly manifest i n his 1920-21

experiments.

competition design for a bridge i n Moscow, a theatrically de-

One o f Zholtovsky's f u n d a m e n t a l theoretical principles required the architect's eye to be accurate. H e claimed that the
visual i m p a c t of architectural f o r m depended u p o n fine adjustments i n the relation between load-bearing and

supported

members, between u p w a r d thrust and gravity, and u p o n considerations o f perspective.

A n o t i o n o f reciprocal interaction between architecture and
nature was central to Zholtovsky's theoretical behefs. H e
looked for balance between the forces o f g r o w t h and those o f
gravity, and compared architecture w i t h n a t u r a l organisms
w h i c h , as he saw i t , n o r m a l l y grew f r o m infinite earthly gravity
to the i n f i n i t e levity of air. H e believed that the vertical and horizontal a r t i c u l a t i o n o f architectural compositions should be
subject to this law.
Zholtovsky set special store by h a r m o n y - w h i c h , as he
wrote, lay at the very basis o f all forms o f art - by the aesthetic
u n i t y o f every architectural conception, and by its coherence,
resulting f r o m the integration o f t h e whole w i t h its constituent

corative composition i n the Renaissance style.

I n 1922, Zhohovsky submitted a project for the lay-out and
three-dimensional planning o f t h e All-Russian Agricultural and
H a n d i c r a f t E x h i b i t i o n to be held i n Moscow i n 1923. Together
w i t h a group of students, he subsequently designed and b u i l t its
m a i n pavilions. These designs were notable for their exquisite
proportions, their elaborate detail and the h a r m o n y between
their component elements - elegant set-pieces w h i c h offered an
assortment of aspects and insights. Y e t the conservativism i n herent i n Zholtovsky's outlook was equally obvious. T h e designs were inspired by an elementary Classicism, and new
structural elements, such as semicircular trusses b u i l t up out o f
bolted or stapled boards, triple-hinged bolted trusses, new fretted panelling i n place o f t h e usual grilles, were merely used to
i m p o r t a 'contemporary' appearance to t r a d i t i o n a l types o f
structure, rather t h a n to offer radically new solutions. T h i s i l lustrated one o f the features of Zholtovsky's approach to design: he thought that an architect's artistic talent must be app-

forms to this school's methods o f composition. T h i s prov

the key to the assessment o f t h e 1923 E x h i b i t i o n pavihon!
w h i c h new structures and forms were translated i n t o the i d
o f t h e Classical orders and steeped i n a homogeneous systej^
harmonious proportions.

Fomin's Red Doric

T r a d i t i o n a l i s t architectural positions \yere more solidly

trenched i n Petrograd, w i t h its Academy of A r t s , than i n INi

cow,

and I v a n F o m i n was undoubtedly the most i n f l u e n t i

Petrograd Classicists. U n l i k e Zholtovsky, he regarded

Classical orders as sets o f interrelated architectural fc|

w h i c h , taken i n conjunction, provided a k i n d o f architect
language, rather than as a system o f methods o f composi
and means o f h a r m o n i z i n g architectural f o r m . H e laid
stress than Zholtovsky, however, on the relative proportioi
i n d i v i d u a l components and o f a b u i l d i n g as a whole, sine
regarded harmonious composition as the prodiict o f an ai,
tect's creative i n t u i t i o n , rather t h a n the result o f applying
cific rules.
F o m i n used Classical patterns i n the early post-Revolu
ary period, but selected those forms w h i c h i n his view
suited the spirit o f t h e times and the requirements o f t h e
cHents - the w o r k i n g class. H e rehed m a i n l y on the D o r i c o
to create solemn and singularly p o w e r f u l compositions, su(
the competition designs for the Worker's Palace and the C:
a t o r i u m i n Petrograd, b o t h dating f r o m 1919.

C h a p t e r 1/Classicism, tlie M o d e r n e ( A r t N o u v e a u ) , engineering structures a n d the new architecture

oblems o f design

vity. A b o r n teacher who p u t f o r w a r d his beliefs

parts. H e thought that the overall composidon o f an architec-

lied to achieving harmonious proportions w i t h i n a composi-

)us conviction and i l l u s t r a t e d them by examples

t u r a l w o r k , the means o f i m p a r d n g proportions and h a r m o n y

tion, rather than elaborating novel f o r m a l solutions.

I n 191820, he gathered around h i m a group of young architects and students intent on p u t t i n g the Russian Classical tra-

le history o f Russian and w o r l d architecture, he

to i t , derived f r o m three elementary processes f o r developing

I t was Zholtovsky as a member o f the j u r y w h o ensured

d i t i o n o f the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries to

ussions w i t h small groups of young architects or

such an entity: a smafi and novel w o r k developed t h r o u g h ra-

that the first prize i n the Palace o f L a b o u r competition o f

new use. Fomin's 'school' comprised Gegello, Simonov, T v e r -

rmal lectures and addresses. A large number o f

p i d l y changing, sweeping articuladons; a large and mature

1922-23 d i d not go to what was undoubtedly the best innovative

skoy, T r o t s k y , Levinson, I g o r F o m i n and others. D u r i n g the

^adovsky, M e l n i k o v , Dokuchaev,

Chernyshev,

w o r k developed slowly and i n a detailed w a y ; and a senescent

design, submitted by the Vesnin brothers, because he identified

first h a l f o f the 1920s, he selected among the m a n y well-estab-

eleimon Golosov, N o r v e r t , N i k o l a i K o l l i , K o k o -

one, w h e n g r o w t h could no longer overcome gravity, by grow-

i n i t new ideas w h i c h clashed f u n d a m e n t a l l y w i t h his o w n

lished forms elaborated d u r i n g the long evolution of the Classi-

ov,

views.

Fidman

ing rather t h a n w a n i n g a r t i c u l a t i o n . H e regarded these propo-

It k n o w n - attended cycles of talks by Zholtovsky

sitions as universally appficable and befieved, on the strength

T h u s f r o m the very first stages of its existence, Zholtovsky's

new proletarian style - the Red D o r i c . H e made widespread

of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, and later

of t h e m , that one o f t h e architect's m a i n tasks was the elabora-

school already claimed a well-defined aesthetic programme, a

use o f D o r i c columns, e.g. i n the K o r s h Theatre o f 1923, and

(Free A r t Studios) and Vkhutemas ( H i g h e r State

t i o n and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a system o f harmonious propor-

method o f composition, as well as a canonical model of its o w n

the Tuscan order, i n the Arkos b u i l d i n g o f 1924, and d u r i n g the

deal Studios) i n 1918-22.

tions.

i n the bridge design o f 1 9 2 0 - 2 1 . A first attempt had thus al-

years 1921-24 he also became interested i n the use o f simple

ready been made at that early stage to subordinate the planning

geometric shapes i n the design o f memorials and monuments.

Golts, K o z h i n , Parusnikov and

rial discussions Zholtovsky provided an insight

A t the very start o f Soviet power, when the drive for innova-

cal orders the simplest and most 'heroic' on w h i c h to base a

c mastery of earlier architects; discussed compo-

t i o n was only i n its embryonic stage, Zholtovsky beheved that

of new types of b u i l d i n g , new structures and new architectural

tions, and the importance o f attention to detail;

his chief responsibilities were to breed a sense o f artistic mas-

forms to this school's methods o f composition. T h i s provides

listeners the i n c h n a d o n and means to discern the

tery among architects; to struggle against eclecticism and the

the key to the assessment o f t h e 1923 E x h i b i t i o n pavilions, i n

The attempt to establish a Centre for Architecture and Art

i n the development o f architectural f o r m s ; and

M o d e r n e ; to promote Classicism; and to become a sort o f co-

w h i c h new structures and forms were translated i n t o the i d i o m

attached to the People's Commissariat for Education -

against allowing f o r m merely to serve f u n c t i o n a l

ordinator responsible for the aesthetic quahty o f architec-

o f t h e Classical orders and steeped i n a homogeneous system o f

Lunacharsky and architectural tradition

ional purposes. M a n y of those w h o had attended

ture.

harmonious proportions.

;arly tutorials later abandoned his principles and

By the beginning o f t h e 1920s, however, b o t h Zholtovsky's

I m m e d i a t e l y after the Revolution, the People's Commissariat

own lines o f experiment, but almost a l l o f them

theories and his activities came to exert a restraining influence

regard architecture as an art f o r m , even at the

on experiment i n architecture, and then to apply a brake to i t ,

lusiasm for u t i h t a r i a n concepts, and tended to

since his i n c l i n a t i o n lay w i t h Classicism and its t r a d i t i o n a l

I the inherent laws o f architectural f o r m i n their

orders. T h i s predilection was plainly manifest i n his 1920-21

T r a d i t i o n a l i s t architectural positions were more solidly en-

ple's Commissariat directed by D a v i d Shterenberg, subsec-

competition design for a bridge i n Moscow, a theatrically de-

trenched i n Petrograd, w i t h its Academy of A r t s , than i n M o s -

tions for architecture were created i n 1918 i n M o s c o w under

corative composition i n the Renaissance style.

cow, and I v a n F o m i n was undoubtedly the most i n f l u e n t i a l o f

Zholtovsky,

Petrograd Classicists. U n l i k e Zholtovsky, he regarded

members, and i n Petrograd, first under Lev I l i n and then u n -

)ltovsky's f u n d a m e n t a l theoretical principles re-

for Education under A n a t o l y Lunacharsky took charge o f the

Fomin's Red Doric

artistic hfe o f the country, and Leftist painters set its policies.
W i t h i n Izo, w h i c h was the Fine A r t s D e p a r t m e n t o f the Peo-

the.

with

Noakovsky,

Shchusev

and

others

as

:hitect's eye to be accurate. H e claimed that the

I n 1922, Zholtovsky submitted a project for the lay-out and

of architectural f o r m depended u p o n fme adjust-

three-dimensional planning o f t h e All-Russian Agricultural and

Classical orders as sets o f interrelated architectural forms

der

relation between load-bearing and supported

H a n d i c r a f t E x h i b i t i o n to be held i n Moscow i n 1923. Together

w h i c h , taken i n conjunction, provided a k i n d o f architectural

members.

ween u p w a r d thrust and gravity, and u p o n con-

w i t h a group of students, he subsequently designed and b u i l t its

language, rather t h a n as a system o f methods o f composition

Conflicts began to arise between the Leftist painters and ar-

perspective.

m a i n pavihons. These designs were notable for their exquisite

and means o f h a r m o n i z i n g architectural f o r m . H e laid less

chitects, w h o directed Izo, and the traditionalist Classicist ar-

"reciprocal interaction between architecture and

proportions, their elaborate detail and the h a r m o n y between

stress than Zholtovsky, however, on the relative proportions o f

chitects i n the subsections. Lunacharsky therefore decided to

;entral to Zholtovsky's theoretical beliefs. H e

their component elements - elegant set-pieces w h i c h offered an

i n d i v i d u a l components and o f a b u i l d i n g as a whole, since he

transfer responsibility f o r architecture to an independent A r -

lance between the forces o f g r o w t h and those o f

assortment o f aspects and insights. Yet the conservativism i n -

regarded harmonious composition as the product o f an archi-

chitectural A r t Department headed by Zholtovsky. A n archi-

compared architecture w i t h n a t u r a l organisms

herent i n Zholtovsky's outlook was equally obvious. T h e de-

tect's creative i n t u i t i o n , rather than the result o f applying spe-

tectural workshop was set u p w i t h i n i t , w h i c h Zholtovsky re-

aw i t , n o r m a l l y grew f r o m infinite earthly gravity

signs were inspired by an elementary Classicism, and new

cific rules.

garded as an i m p o r t a n t instrument for f o r m u l a t i n g policy at

levity of air. H e believed that the vertical and ho-

structural elements, such as semicircular trusses b u i l t up out o f

F o m i n used Classical patterns i n the early post-Revolution-

alation o f architectural compositions should be

bolted or stapled boards, triple-hinged bolted trusses, new fret-

ary period, b u t selected those forms w h i c h i n his view best

the People's Commissariat i n artistic matters was shaped i n

5 law.

ted panelling i n place o f the usual grilles, were merely used to

suited the spirit o f the times and the requirements o f t h e new

different fields o f its activity by people h o l d i n g diametrically

i m p o r t a 'contemporary' appearance to t r a d i t i o n a l types o f

clients - the w o r k i n g class. H e relied m a i n l y on the D o r i c order

opposite views.

structure, rather t h a n to offer radically new solutions. T h i s i l -

to create solemn and singularly p o w e r f u l compositions, such as

Lunacharsky had deliberately handed over the direction o f

lustrated one o f the features o f Zholtovsky's approach to de-

the competition designs for the Worker's Palace and the C r e m -

the architectural centre to the Classicists because he believed

sign: he thought that an architect's artistic talent must be app-

a t o r i u m i n Petrograd, both dating f r o m 1919.

that the f u t u r e of architecture lay i n that direction. W h e n he set

set special store by harmony - w h i c h , as he

he very basis o f all forms o f art - by the aesthetic
' architectural conception, and by its coherence,
1 the integration o f t h e whole w i t h its constituent

Belogrud, w i t h

Shchuko,

Rudnev

and

Shtalberg

as

State level. A n odd situation thus arose whereby the policy o f

24
Part I/Aesthetic problems o f design

out to explain his ideas on this subject i n 1920, he wrote that he

one o f the supporters o f t h e new architecture had undertaken a

had spht off the architectural development f r o m Izo, 'where a

thorough study o f t h e latter trend, i f only d u r i n g the years i m -

keen mood o f experimentadon and Leftist art tendencies pre-

mediately f o l l o w i n g the Revolution.

vailed', because, as he saw i t , 'architecture does not tolerate

Purely as a matter of chronology, the brief Classicist pre-

such bold ventures. I t is our first p r i o r i t y , i n so f a r as architec-

dominance d u r i n g those early years was followed w i t h no ap-

ture is concerned, to f i n d a f i r m base i n Classical traditions cor-

parent break by the f o r m a l and f u n d a m e n t a l p r o b i n g o f the

rectly understood. I thought i t essential that the People's C o m -

new architecture. Seen merely f r o m the outside, i t seemed as

missariat should have its o w n qualified architectural art staff

though i n n o v a t i o n had sprung directly f r o m Classicism around

capable of laying the foundations o f a great C o m m u n i s t con-

the start o f the decade. Yet, despite the evolution w h i c h these

struction drive, by the t i m e this becomes a practical possibility,

innovations underwent as time went by, they already embo-

and to give i t aesthetic direction.'^

died clearly defined aesthetic concepts at the very start of their

As a result, d u r i n g the early years o f Soviet power, the Clas-

development, and these differed quite substantially f r o m the

sicists were responsible for the direction taken by architecture,

pre-Revolutionary Classicism, M o d e r n e and Rational A r c h i -

and even attempted to steer experimentation i n this field. T w o

tecture.

flourished

T h e p r o b l e m o f t h e original source of inspiration for these i n -

under the People's Commissariat i n terms of art poficy - that o f

novative trends is i m p o r t a n t because i t accounts for the second

the Leftists i n the figurative arts and o f t h e Rightists i n archi-

characteristic feature o f the new trends i n Soviet architecture

tecture.

d u r i n g the 1920s.

distinct forms o f dictatorship may be said to have

T h e outstanding feature o f t h e new developments i n Soviet architecture d u r i n g the 1920s was an explicit negation o f t h e pre-

A l e x a n d e r B e n o i s , Aleksandr

Revolutionary M o d e r n e . T h i s rejection was even more cate-

( M o s c o w , 1968), p . 115f.

gorical than the rejection o f Classicism, since almost every

Benua razmjshliaet

Nooyi mir, N o . 9 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , p . 239.

(Alexander

Benois

reflects)

25
i r o b l e m s o f design

I v a n F o m i n . Design for die development o f Golodai

I s l a n d , P e t e r s b u r g , 1912.
2

I his ideas on this subject i n 1920, he wrote that he

one of the supporters o f t h e new architecture had undertaken a

he architectural development f r o m Izo, 'where a

thorough study o f t h e latter trend, i f only d u r i n g the years i m -

r experimentation and Leftist art tendencies pre-

mediately f o l l o w i n g the Revolution.

ase, as he saw i t , 'architecture does not tolerate

Purely as a matter of chronology, the b r i e f Classicist pre-

itures. I t is our first p r i o r i t y , i n so f a r as architec-

dominance d u r i n g those early years was followed w i t h no ap-

ned, to f i n d a f i r m base i n Classical traditions cor-

parent break by the f o r m a l and f u n d a m e n t a l p r o b i n g of the

tood. I thought i t essential that the People's C o m -

new architecture. Seen merely f r o m the outside, i t seemed as

u l d have its o w n qualified architectural art staff

though innovation had sprung directly f r o m Classicism around

ying the foundations of a great C o m m u n i s t con

the start of the decade. Yet, despite the evolution w h i c h these

e, by the time this becomes a practical possibility,

innovations underwent as time went by, they already embo-

aesthetic direction.'^

died clearly deflned aesthetic concepts at the very start of their

, d u r i n g the early years of Soviet power, the Clas-

development, and these differed quite substantially f r o m the

isponsible for the direction taken by architecture,

pre-Revolutionary Classicism, Moderne and Rational A r c h i -

mpted to steer experimentation i n this field. T w o

s of dictatorship may be said to have

flourished

tecture.
T h e problem o f t h e o r i g i n a l source of inspiration for these i n novative trends is i m p o r t a n t because i t accounts for the second

)ple's Commissariat i n terms of art policy that of

characteristic feature of the new trends i n Soviet architecture

1 the figurative arts and of the Rightists i n archi

d u r i n g the 1920s.

l i n g feature of the new developments i n Soviet ar

r i n g the 1920s was an explicit negation o f t h e pre
y Moderne. T h i s rejection was even more cate-

A l e x a n d e r B e n o i s , Aleksandr

Benua razmyshliaet

( M o s c o w , 1968), p . 1 1 5 f

the r e j e c t i o n ' o f Classicism, since almost every

Novyi mir, N o . 9 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , p . 239.

(Alexander

Benois

reflects)

Perspective.

Zholtovsky. Tarasov House, Moscow,

1909-10.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

26
3-5

Shchusev. K a z a n Station, M o s c o w , 1913-26.

S h c h u k o . R u s s i a n p a v i l i o n at t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Section o f p l a t f o r m halls. I n t e r i o r . D e t a i l o f f r o n t

E x h i b i t i o n , R o m e , 1911. D e t a i l o f t h e f r o n t e l e v a t i o n .

elevation.

Shekhtel. T h e M o s c o w T r a d i n g C o m p a n y building,

1910-11.

Shekhtel. Ryabushinsky House, M o s c o w , 1900-02.

Garden elevation.

27
6

S h c h u k o . R u s s i a n p a v i l i o n at the I n t e r n a t i o n a l

E x h i b i t i o n , Rorfie, 1911. D e t a i l o f the f r o n t elevation.

7

Shekhtel. T h e M o s c o w T r a d i n g C o m p a n y b u i l d i n g ,

1910-11.

Shekhtel. Ryabushinsky House, M o s c o w , 1900-02.

C a r d e n elevation.

9-10

Shukhov. W a t e r towers, 1904-15.

11

R o o f o f P e t r o v k a Passage, M o s c o w .

12 S h u k h o v . L i g h t h o u s e , K h e r s o n , 1911.

13

Shukov. H a n g i n g roof of pavilion built on elliptical

ground plan, All-Russian Exhibition, NizhnyN o v g o r o d , 1896. I n t e r i o r i n course o f c o n s t r u c t i o n .

28
14-15

Zholtovsky. All-Russian Agricultural and

H a n d i c r a f t E x h i b i t i o n , M o s c o w , 1923. G e n e r a l p l a n
M a i n entrance.

16

Zholtovsky. C o m p e t i t i o n design for a bridge i r

M o s c o w , 1 9 2 0 - 2 1 . Perspecdve.

1718

I v a n F o m i n . C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r a

W o r k e r s ' Palace, P e t r o g r a d , 1919. P e r s p e c t i v e . F i r s t floor plan.

17-18

I v a n F o m i n . C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r a

VVorlcers' Palace, P e t r o g r a d ,
floor plan.

1919. Perspective. F i r s t -

19

I v a n F o m i n . C o m p e d t i o n d e s i g n f o r the A r k o s

b u i l d i n g , M o s c o w , 1924. P e r s p e c d v e .
20

I v a n F o m i n . C o m p e t i t i o n design for a

crematorium, Petrograd,

1919. F r o n t e l e v a t i o n .

Sir
30
21

Kandinsky.

22

M a l e v i c h . Supiemalist

Compositwn.
Composilion.

23

M a l e v i c h . Supremalist

Composition.

24

L i s s i t z k y . Proun (PIA)

'Bridge',

25

L i s s i t z k y . Proun (PIE)

'City'

square),
26

1920-21.

(System f o r a p u b l i c

1920-21.

L i s s i t z k y . D e s i g n f o r a b r i d g e l i n k i n g the h i g h a n d

l o w river banks, Central Park for C u l t u r e and Leisure,

Moscow,

1926.

31
24

L i s s i t z k y . Proi/n ( P / y l ) 'Bridge',

25

L i s s i t z k y . Proun (PIE)

'Cily'

1920-21.

(System for a p u b l i c

square), 1920-21.
26

L i s s i t z k y . D e s i g n f o r a b r i d g e l i n k i n g the h i g h a n d

low river banks. Central Park for Culture and Leisure,

Moscow,

1926.

27

L i s s i t z k y . Proun,

28

L i s s i t z k y . Proun {P2D),

1920-21.
1920-21.

42-44

Malevich.

Hoiizoiilal

Arkileclons,

1923.

45-48

M a l e v i c h . Vertical Arkilectons,

mid-l920s.

35

42-44

M a l e v i c h . Horiionlal

Arkilectons,

1923.

ilH"

imi
.j.iiiiiiiB

.1 i i i H i i ' S i ,
II Mil"

mi

45_48

M a l e v i c h . Vertical Arkilectons,

miA-\920a.

49

S u e t i n . Arkitecton,

50

K h i d e k e l . Spatial

51

C h a s h n i k . Arkitecton,

1926.
Composition
Sketch.

'A Building',

1926.

52-54

Malevich. Cups (Lomonossov Factory),

1923.

55-56

Suetin. Chinaware w i t h Suprematist patt

(Lomonossov Factory).

64-65

T a t l i n . Counter-Reliefs,

1914-17.

66
67

T a t l i n , Corner Relief,
Miturich.

Spatial

68-70

1915.

Painting,

1918.

D i p l o m a designs f o r a m a u s o l e u m as a

m o n u m e n t to the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the R e v o l u t i o n ,

1927,

b y f o r m e r c o l l a b o r a t o r s o f T a t l i n o n the Monument

to the

nird

International

pmjecV.

M e e r z o n . Perspective ( 6 8 ) .

Shapiro. Section, p l a n (69). I n t e r i o r perspective (70).

)14-17.

66

T a t l i n . Corner Relief,

67

Mitmich.

Spatial

68-70

1915.

Painting,

1918.

D i p l o m a designs f o r a m a u s o l e u m as a

m o n u m e n t t o the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the R e v o l u d o n , 1927,

b y f o r m e r c o l l a b o r a t o r s o f T a t l i n o n the Monument
Tftird International

to tile

p r o j e c t : M e e r z o n . Perspective ( 6 8 ) .

Shapiro. Section, plan (69). I n t e r i o r perspective (70).

41
rd

Iierimiional,

73

T a t l i n , Monumenl

lo the Third

International,

C o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e m o d e l ( f r o m l e f t to r i g h t : M e e r z o n ,
Shapiro, T a t l i n ) .

74

T a t l i n . Monument

lo tlie Third International,

1919- 20,

A c o n t e m p o r a r y w o o d c u t done f r o m photos o f the

model, by Louis Lozowick,

75

Tain,

A'lonumenl

M o d e l on display.

to t/te T/iirdInternational,

1919-20.

43
79

Gabo. Design for a Leningrad monument.

Model.
80

Gabo. Design for a radio transmitter, 1919-20.

81

G e o r g y S t e n b e r g . C'ouiitei-Relief

82-83

Construction.

V l a d i m i r and Georgy Stenberg.

Constructions.

Colour

84

V l a d i m i r S t e n b e r g . Construction,

1920.

1 0 4 - 0 5 Rodchenko. Spatial Compositions, 'on the

principle of identical forms', 1920-21.
106 Rodchenko. S/ralial Conslructions, with
standardized elements, 1920-21.

1 0 7 - 0 8 Rodchenko. Spatial Compositions, 'on the

principle of identical forms', 1920-21.

48
109-10 Views o f t h e room at a Moscow exhibition of
1921 with works by Medunetsky, Rodchenko,
loganson, Vladimir and Georgy Stenberg.

111-13 Klutsis.
Agitational loudspeaker
stands for public holidays,
1922.

111-13 Klutsis.
Agitational loudspeaker
stands for public holidays,
1922.

114 Klutsis. Construction, 1922.

115 Klutsis. Structural components for use on public
holidays and for agitational purposes, 1922.
(1) Rotating stand for display of photographs.
(2) Hoarding for 'News from the Whole W o r l d ' .
(3) Speaker's platform. (4) Combined hoarding,
platform and kiosk.

50
116 Exter. Constructivist decorative Counter-Relief on
tlie pediments o f a pavilion at tiie All-Russian
Agricultural and Handicraft Exhibition, Moscow,
1923.

117-18 Exter and Gladkov. Izvestiya pavilion at the

All-Russian Agricultural and Handicraft Exhibition,
Moscow, 1923. Front elevation (design and
photograph).

119-20

Lavinsky. Bookselling kiosk, 1925-27.

jgi

Agricul
1923.
122 SI
123 B
Monun

117-18 Exter and Gladlcov. Izvestiya pavilion at tire

All-Russian Agricultural and Handicraft Exhibition,
Moscow, 1923. Front elevation (design and
photograph).

119-20

Lavinsky. Bookselling kiosk, 1925-27.

121 Lavinsky. Bookselling kiosk at the All-Russian

Agricultural and Handicraft Exhibition, Moscow,
1923.
122 Semenova. Speaker's platform, 1926.
123 Babichev. Competition design for a Sverdlov
Monument, Moscow, 1924. Model.

52
124-25 Khidekel. Abstract compositions i n tlie form
of ground plans for single buildings, Vitebsk A r t
School, 1921-22.

126-27 Speaker's platform, Vitebsk A r t School,

1920.
128 Chashnik. Speaker's platform, Lissitzky's studio,
Vitebsk A r t School, 1920. Elevation.

129

Lissitzky. Lenin Tribune, 1920-24. Perspective.

130

Korolev. Cubist sculpture.

131-32 Korolev. Cubist compositions for the

display of agitational slogans, 1919. Drawings.

133 Korolev.
Moscow 1919
134 Korolev

126-27

Speaker's platform, Vitebsk A r t School,

1920.
128 Chashnik. Speaker's platform, Lissitzky's studio,
Vitebsk A r t School, 1920. Elevation.

129

Lissitzky. Lenin Tribune, 1920-24. Perspective.

130 Korolev. Cubist sculpture.

13132 Korolev. Cubist compositions for the
display of agitational slogans, 1919. Drawings.

133 Korolev. Design for a K a r l M a r x Monument,

Moscow, 1919. Model.
134 Korolev. Drawing, 1920.

135 Korolev. Sculpture incorporating various

materials (metal, plaster of Paris etc).
136 Korolev. Bakunin Monument, Moseow,
1918-19.

137 Korolev. Experimental architectural design

Zhivskulptarkh, 1919. Elevation and plan.
138 Korolev. Experimental architectural design
Zhivskulptarkh, 1919. Elevation and plan.

1 3 9 - 4 0 Korolev. Experimental design for a public

building, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919-20. Plan and
elevation.

141-42 Istselenov. Design (variant) for a Temple of

Communion Between Nations ( K h r a m obshcheniya
narodov), Zhivskulptarkh, 1919. Plan. Perspective.
Interior.

143 Ladovsky. Design (variant) for a Temple of

Communion Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919.
Elevation. Plan.
144 Ladovsky. Design (variant) for a Temple ot
Communion Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919.
Plan. Elevation.

145 Ladovsky
Communion Be
Perspective.
146 Ladovsky
Communion B<
Elevation.

1^

/ I

55

iral design,
lan.
iial design,
lan.

13940 Korolev. Experimental design tbr a public

building, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919-20. Plan and
elevation.

141-42 Istselenov. Design (variant) for a Temple of

Communion Between Nations ( K h r a m obshcheniya
narodov), Zhivskulptarkh, 1919. Plan. Perspective.
Interior.

143 Ladovsky. Design (variant) for a Temple of

Communion Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919.
Elevation. Plan.
144

Ladovsky. Design (variant) for a Temple ol

Communion Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919.

Plan. Elevation.

145 Ladovsky. Design (variant) for a Temple of

Communion Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919.
Perspective.
146 Ladovsky. Design (variant) for a Temple of
Communion Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919.
Elevation.

147 Krinsky. Design (variant) for a Temple of

Communion Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919.
Elevation. Plan.
148 Krinsky. Design (variant) for a Temple of
Communion Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919.
Elevation. Plan.

149 Fidman. Design (variant) for a Temple of

Communion Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919.
Perspective.
150 Dombrovsky. Design for a Temple of
Communion Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919.
Perspective.

151 Fidman. Design for a Temple of Communion

Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919. Plan. Two
perspectives.
152 Fidman. Design (variant) for a Temple of
Communion Between Nations, Zhiv.skulptarkh, 1919.
Plan. Details.

1 5 3 - 5 4 Korolev. Graphie demonstration ol

difference between Composition (153) and
Construction (154), Inkhuk, 1921.

57
149 Fidman. Design (variant) for a Temple of
Communion Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919.
Perspective.
150 Dombrovsky. Design for a Temple of
Communion Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919.
Perspective.

151 Fidman. Design for a 1'emplc of Communion

Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919. Plan. Two
perspectives.
152 Fidman. Design (variant) for a Temple of
Communion Between Nations, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919.
Plan. Details.

153 54 Korolev. Graphie demonstration o f t h e

difference between Composition (153) and
Construction (154), Inkhuk, 1921.

1 5 5 - 5 6 Vladimir Stenberg. Graphic demonstration

o f t h e difference between Composition (155) and
Construction (156), Inkhuk, 1920-21.

59

1 5 9 - 6 0 Krinsky. Grapliic demonstration of tlie

difference between Construction (159) and
Composition (160).

161-62 Ladovsky. Graphic demonstration o f t h e

difference between Construction (161) and
Composition (162), Inkhuk, 1921.

1 6 3 - 6 4 Medunetsky. Graphic demonstration o f t h e

difference between Composition (163) and
Construction (164), Inkhuk, 1920-21.

60
1 6 5 - 6 6 Vkhutemas, Basie Course,
'Space' discipline. Works from
Babichev's studio, early 1920s.

167-68 Vkhutemas, Basic Course,

'Space' discipline. Works from
Korolcv's studio, early 1920s.

169-70 Vkhutemas, Basic Course,

'Space' discipHne. Works from
Lavinsky's studio, early 1920s.

171-72 Vkhutemas, Basic Course,

'Colour' discipHne. Works from
Klutsis' studio, mid-1920s.

Interaction between architecture

as-idl ffifffi ml

Leftist painting and new architecture

A n i m p o r t a n t feature o f the evolution o f Soviet architecture

centuries needed to be swept away, so that the objective requirements Of the 'new style', already integrated i n m a n y ways
i n the architecture o f t h e early twentieth century, m i g h t receive

d u r i n g the first post-Revolutionary years was the extent to

artistic recognition f r o m the architects themselves. Leftist

which new structural methods and materials exerted an i n f l u -

p a i n t i n g supplied the requisite catalyst by accelerating the for-

ence on the o u t p u t o f painters, w h o sensed vast new aesthetic

m u l a t i o n of fresh aesthetic concepts i n contemporary architec-

opportunities and the basis f o r a new style i n simple geometric

ture.

shapes devoid o f decorative effects. I t was f r o m them, rather

N e w trends, .such as C u b i s m , Suprematism, Purism, Neo-

than f r o m the adherents o f R a t i o n a l Architecture, that the

Plasticism and C u b o - F u t u r i s m , appeared f r o m the t u r n o f t h e

Modernist architects absorbed these ideas. D u r i n g the very

century onwards, connected not so m u c h w i t h technical inno-

earhest years o f Soviet power, the new creative trend, w h i c h

vations i n v o l v i n g only the figurative arts, b u t w i t h the elabora-

was being f o r m u l a t e d as p a r t o f t h e fight against stylization, ec-

t i o n o f new methods apphcable to a l l spatial art. T h i s trend i n

lecticism and the M o d e r n e style, took shape t h r o u g h close co-

f o r m a l aesthetic experimentation continued to diverge more

operation between architects and artists involved i n the Leftist

a n d more f r o m the m a i n hne o f Leftist p a i n t i n g . I t also dis-

trends w h i c h had arisen before the First W o r l d W a r i n opposi-

pensed w i t h certain basic features o f figurative art and, as i t

tion to official academic art.

were, prepared a 'new deal' for architecture and design, the ar-

A new style was crystalhzing i n European art as a result of a

tistic development o f w h i c h had been retarded.

complex process w h i c h f o u n d its most intense expression at the

I n the history o f a r t as a whole, the last five years or so i n

frontier between figurative art and architecture. I n the past, ar-

Russian p a i n t i n g before the outbreak o f the First W o r l d W a r

chitecture had always been the determinant of stylistic change,

stood out by the intensity, depth and diversity of the innovation

but i t lost this position d u r i n g the nineteenth and early twen-

involved. Soviet architecture could h a r d l y have achieved such

tieth centuries. T h i s leading role was then for many years taken

b r i l h a n t artistic results so quickly had i t not been for this leap

over by p a i n t i n g , w h i c h established tastes i n art and aesthetic

f o r w a r d in' Russian p a i n t i n g .

standards.
When the objective circumstances for the development o f a
new style materialized i n the 1910s and 1920s, a discrepancy

Mayakovslty: the cultural focus of the new art

came to light between the state of fine art, on the one hand, and
of architecture together w i t h applied art on the other. Architec-

V l a d i m i r Mayakovsky was certainly the most significant figure

ture, industrial design and apphed art were clearly lagging be-

of the new art i n the early years o f Soviet power. H e left his

hind. Eclecticism and stylization prevailed, while i n n o v a t i o n

m a r k on v i r t u a l l y aU aspects o f contemporary artistic activity,

hardly ventured into the open. Yet, on a w o r l d scale, architec-

i n c l u d i n g architecture. H e first j o i n e d the intellectually quite

ture was on the verge o f an inevitable and radical break w i t h

accessible Russian F u t u r i s t movement. W h e n this split into a

accepted aesthetic values.

number of different groupings, such as C u b o - F u t u r i s m i n M o s -

The attempt o f the M o d e r n e style to replace tectonic orna-

cow and E g o - F u t u r i s m i n Petersburg, he became one o f the

ment by overtly decorative elements failed to satisfy architects.

leaders o f C u b o - F u t u r i s m , the supporters o f w h i c h gathered

The Moderne approach helped many architects to grasp the

about the Pervy zhurnal msskikhfuturistov

futihty of eclecticism and styhzation. I t promoted the integra-

Futurists)

tion of many technological achievements and methods of inter-

B u r l y u k brothers, Sergei T r e t y a k o v , K r u c h e n y k h and others.

ior spafial organization, but failed to provide an aesthetic f o u n -

F u t u r i s m was widely regarded as being largely for show,

{First Journal of Russian

i n 1914, among t h e m K h l e b n i k o v , Kamensky, the '

dation for a new architecture and was never more t h a n a transi-

a matter o f shocking the public, a destructive and negative

tional style.

trend. T h e Futurists themselves, on the other hand, believed

A more radical revision o f aesthetic principles was necessary. Xhe stereotypes w h i c h had become established over the

that the rejection o f the o l d order was no more than a stage

i n their artistic progress. As early as

1915, Mayakovsky

Part I/Aesthetic problems o f design

wrote: ' W e regard the first part o f our programme - destruc-

savour the p r o f o u n d t h i n k i n g of his great contemporaries, con-

t i o n - as completed. A n d so do not be surprised i f y o u next see

template the colourful brflhance o f today's j o y f u l beauty and

i n our hands a builder's sketch rather than a jester's r a t t l e . ' '

hsten everywhere to the music - melodious, thunderous or

Poets such as Mayakovsky, K h l e b n i k o v , K r u c h e n y k h , and

noisy o f superb composers.'

K a n d i n s k y continued to develop his concept o f M o n u r

tal A r t throughout the period i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g the R
l u t i o n . H i s interest i n the special features and rules affec
the impact of works o f art and i n the application of new scie

others, indirectly influenced the solution of f o r m a l problems i n

T w o m a i n lines o f development may be identified i n Leftist

the figurative arts and architecture by their approach to linguis-

p a i n t i n g at the start o f the century, one proceeding f r o m M a -

cal and physiological perception of various art forms indire

tic potential and an unprecedented freedom i n the treatment

tisse, the other f r o m Cezanne and C u b i s m . T h e divergences be-

inffuenced the development o f f o r m a l architectural inm

of language. T h e Futurists d i d not merely regard language as

tween the aesthetic principles u n d e r l y i n g each o f these ap-

tions, especially those i n v o l v i n g objective visual criteria.

an established system of communication, b u t i n t r u d e d u p o n its

peared most clearly when figurative composition came to be re-

ostensibly invulnerable foundations - syntax, for instance, and

jected.

even the w o r d itself W h e n they set out to reshape a l l the ele-

T h e followers o f the other m a i n new trend sought t

means of expression i n the w o r l d about them, rather than M

i n man's inner reahty. T w o approaches, f u n d a m e n t a l l y and

ments of poetic f o r m , they considered i t equally essential to ref o r m the language itself, and rejected every suggestion that the

ic and technological methods to the exploration of psycho!

plicitly opposed to each other, emerged f r o m this, b u t botll

Kandinsky: tlie concept of Monumental Art

erted a deep influence on twentieth-century architecture

d o m i n the h a n d l i n g o f language, and their experiments i n the

V a s i l y K a n d i n s k y , a distinguished representative o f t h e first of

prematism, the other w i t h the explorations of V l a d i m i r T a '

generation o f new words i n particular, the Futurists may be

these trends i n Russia, sought to elucidate particular states of

said to have removed a l l inhibitions restraining the creation o f

emotion t h r o u g h art and investigate the role o f the subcon-

new forms i n general. I f poetry, w o r k i n g i n a language that

scious i n the artistic process. H e set out to discover definite ob-

Malevich: the search for a path into architecture;

served the purposes of b o t h literature and everyday c o m m u n i -

jective rules for d e r i v i n g pictorial compositions f r o m inner per-

Lissitzky's Prouns

latter was not susceptible to structural changes. By their free-

design. One o f these was l i n k e d w i t h K a z i m i r Malevich's

cation, could successfully survive such change, then other

sonal reahty and subjective experience. K a n d i n s k y studied the

forms o f art w i t h idioms o f their o w n should afl the more easily

psychological perception o f the means employed i n various j

I n his Suprematist compositions M a l e v i c h had tried ever si

achieve such a transformation. T h i s does m u c h to explain the

forms of art, i n an attempt to synthesize a new and ' M o n u m e n -

1913 to free p a i n t i n g f r o m a n y t h i n g that interfered w i t h th(

great influence of Cubo-Futurism on the new trends i n the figur-

t a l ' or total art by b r i n g i n g such effects i n t o play, so as to pro-

rect effect o f colour on the eye. H e considered that colour

ative arts i n the pre-Revolutionary period, and on the Symbo-

duce k i n d r e d reactions among a widely varied pubhc. Particu-

shape were closely related and set about enclosing patche

hst Romanticist experiments d u r i n g the early Soviet era.

lar attention was p a i d to the l i n k between p a i n t i n g and forms of

colour i n simple and well-defined geometric figures on a w

Mayakovsky's influence on Soviet art, i n c l u d i n g architec-

expression p r i m a r i l y intended to convey i n d i v i d u a l emotional

background. H e beheved not only that colour emphasi

ture, was not confined to purely aesthetic problems o f f o r m .

states, such as music, dancing and lyric poetry. K a n d i n s k y was

clear geometric shapes, b u t that f o r m itself influenced the ef

Even before the onset of the Revolution, he was already l i n k i n g

moved to combine p a i n t i n g w i t h these other art forms i n order

of colour, so that, for instance, certain geometric shapes s

a r e f o r m o f t h e means of expression w i t h the need to relate these

to create m u t u a l l y interchangeable means o f expression capa-

jected a particular colour to m a x i m u m tension.

to the new content of art. Thereafter, he shifted his emphasis to

ble o f conveying a variety o f moods w i t h i n a single individual.

the subject matter and equated innovations i n f o r m w i t h the

H e referred, for instance, tO the movement o f colour through

representation i n t o depth, w h i l e integrating i t i n t o surround

changed role o f art i n the new social order.

space, the musical q u a l i t y o f colour, t h e interaction between

space. T h e geometric shapes on the picture surface seen

T h e Futurists were probably first among Leftist artists i n at-

non-representational f o r m and colour.

By the use of w h i t e backgrounds M a l e v i c h visually extem

float m infinite space; d y n a m i c tension is achieved b y inteii

As early as 1913, he w r o t e : ' T h e u n d e r l y i n g identity o f t h e

latmg plane and colour. Suprematist p a i n t i n g w i t h its chai

{Futurists' Gazette) p u b -

means used by different forms o f art u l t i m a t e l y becomes ob-

teristic relationships between colour and geometry promo

hshed 'Decree N o . 1 concerning the Democratization o f A r t

vious and provides a basis for different attempts to stress and

the development o f a distinctive style i n apphed, decorai

( W r i t i n g s on Hoardings and Painting i n Public Places)' signed

a m p l i f y the resonance o f t h e special sound generated i n a given

and monumental art, i n c l u d i n g textfles, posters and m u r a

by Mayakovsky, K a m e n s k y and B u r l y u k . T h e y proclaimed

art f o r m by means o f the identical sound available i n another

The f u r t h e r development o f Malevich's Suprematism a

the slogan ' A f l art f o r a f l the people!' and called on artists and

branch o f art, thereby securing an extraordinarily powerful ef-

the Revolution made geometric planes even more i m p o r t a n

writers to 'seize their paintpots and use the brushes o f their

fect. . . . Every art tends to p l u m b its o w n depths and may be j

elements of pictorial composition, and colour was relegatec

trade to i f l u m i n a t e and bedeck a f l the flanks, foreheads and

said to become specialized. Nevertheless, i t also opens a door

a secondary role. Colour-free d y n a m i c Suprematist comp(

breasts o f cities and stations, and the endlessly r u n n i n g flock o f

into a new w o r l d , the w o r l d w h i c h combines i n d i v i d u a l art

tions began to appear i n w h i c h tfie organization o f space ^

railroad trucks. F r o m now on, the citizen w f l l at every m o m e n t

forms w i t h i n a single work, the world of Monumental Art.'"^

based on geometric figures. B y this stage Suprematism had ^

t e m p t i n g an approach to art based on its new social f u n c t i o n .

O n 15 M a r c h 1918, the Gazetafuturistov

63
C h a p t e r 2 / I n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n a r c h i t e c t u r e a n d fine a r t

:ms o f d e s i g n

rd the first part o f our programme - destruc-

savour the p r o f o u n d t h i n k i n g of his great contemporaries, con-

K a n d i n s k y continued to develop his concept o f M o n u m e n -

tually lost all connection w i t h p a i n t i n g , as a result o f i t s rejec-

ted. A n d so do not be surprised i f y o u next see

template the colourful brilhance o f today's j o y f u l beauty and

tal A r t throughout the period immediately f o l l o w i n g the Revo-

t i o n o f colour and its reduction to black and w h i t e planimetrie

milder's sketch rather than a jester's r a t t l e . ' '

listen everywhere to the music - melodious, thunderous or

lution. H i s interest i n the special features and rules affecting

figures. I n the next stage, volumes and stereometric composi-

Mayakovsky, K h l e b n i k o v , K r u c h e n y k h , and

noisy - o f superb composers.'

the impact of works of art and i n the application of new scientif-

tions pointed the way to Suprematist architecture. V o l u m e t r i c

I influenced the solution of f o r m a l problems i n

T w o m a i n hnes o f development may be identified i n Leftist

ic and technological methods to the exploration o f psychologi-

Suprematism introduced novel architectonic relationships into

s and architecture by their approach to linguis-

p a i n t i n g at the start o f the century, one proceeding f r o m M a -

cal and physiological perception of various art forms indirectly

f o r m a l aesthetic experiments, a field to w h i c h Lissitzky made

1 an unprecedented freedom i n the treatment

tisse, the other f r o m Cezanne and C u b i s m . T h e divergences be-

influenced the development o f f o r m a l architectural innova-

an i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n .

; Futurists d i d not merely regard language as

tween the aesthetic principles u n d e r l y i n g each o f these ap-

dons, especially those i n v o l v i n g objective visual criteria.

'Stem of communication, b u t i n t r u d e d u p o n its

peared most clearly w h e n figurative composition came to be re

lerable foundations - syntax, f o r instance, and

jected.

self W h e n they set o u t to reshape a l l the elebrm, they considered i t equally essential to reTc itself, and rejected every suggestion that the

Kandinsky: tlie concept of Monumental Art

isceptible to structural changes. By their free-

Lissitzky was a trained architect, and was among the first to

The followers o f the other m a i n new trend sought their

grasp the significance o f Malevich's experiments for the devel-

means of expression i n the w o r l d about them, rather than w i t h -

opment of modern architecture. H i s o u t p u t straddled architec-

in man's inner reahty. T w o approaches, f u n d a m e n t a l l y and ex-

ture and the fine arts, and he was therefore able to apply to the

plicitly opposed to each other, emerged f r o m this, b u t b o t h ex-

new architecture those f o r m a l and aesthetic discoveries o f the

erted a deep influence on twentieth-century architecture and

L e f t i s t painters w h i c h could contribute to the f o r m u l a t i o n of a

design. One o f these was linked w i t h K a z i m i r Malevich's Su-

contemporary style. I n 1 9 1 9 - 2 1 , Lissitzky created his Prouns

prematism, the other w i t h the explorations of V l a d i m i r T a t l i n .

{Proekty utverzdeniya novogo [Projectsfor the Affirmation

[hng of language, and their experiments i n the

V a s i l y K a n d i n s k y , a distinguished representative o f the first of

;w words i n particular, the Futurists m a y be

these trends i n Russia, sought to elucidate p a r t i c u l a r states of

lOved all inhibitions restraining the creation o f

emotion t h r o u g h art and investigate the role o f the subcon-

geometrical solids i n a state o f e q u i l i b r i u m , some standing out

meral. I f poetry, w o r k i n g i n a language that

scious i n the artistic process. H e set out to discover definite ob-

Malevich: the search for a path into architecture;

f r o m a firm background, others seeming to soar i n t o space. Lis-

)ses o f b o t h literature and everyday c o m m u n i -

jective rules for deriving p i c t o r i a l compositions f r o m inner per-

Lissitzky's Prouns

sitzky's Prouns were original models f o r a new architecture,

accessfully survive such change, then other

sonal reality and subjective experience. K a n d i n s k y studied the

L idioms o f their o w n should a l l the more easily

psychological perception o f the means employed i n various

I n his Suprematist compositions M a l e v i c h had tried ever since

at new three-dimensional representations, a k i n d o f composi-

ransformation. T h i s does m u c h to explain the

forms of art, i n an attempt to synthesize a new and ' M o n u m e n -

1913 to free p a i n t i n g f r o m a n y t h i n g that interfered w i t h the d i -

t i o n a l stock-piling for later use. Lissitzky deliberately stressed

f Cubo-Futurism on the new trends i n the figur-

t a l ' or total art by b r i n g i n g such effects i n t o play, so as to pro-

rect effect o f colour on the eye. H e considered that colour and

the architectural aspect of his projects. H e saw Prouns as 'a staging-post on the j o u r n e y f r o m p a i n t i n g to architecture' and the

of the Newl),

w h i c h were axonometric representations o f variously shaped

experiments i n the generation o f architectonic forms, attempts

pre-Revolutionary period, and on the Symbo-

duce k i n d r e d reactions among a widely varied pubhc. Particu-

shape were closely related and set about enclosing patches o f

experiments d u r i n g the early Soviet era.

lar attention was p a i d to the h n k between p a i n t i n g and forms of

colour i n simple and well-defined geometric figures on a white

names he gave t h e m such as 'the city' or 'the bridge' were not

fortuitous.

s influence on Soviet art, i n c l u d i n g architec-

expression p r i m a r i l y intended to convey i n d i v i d u a l emotional

background. H e believed not only that colour emphasized

m f i n e d to purely aesthetic problems o f f o r m ,

states, such as music, dancing and lyric poetry. K a n d i n s k y was

clear geometric shapes, b u t that f o r m itself influenced the effect

onset o f t h e Revolution, he was already l i n k i n g

L a t e r on, Lissitzky applied some o f his Prouns to specific ar-

moved to combine p a i n t i n g w i t h these other art forms i n order

of colour, so that, for instance, certain geometric shapes sub-

chitectural tasks such as a p u m p i n g station, a 'horizontal sky-

to create m u t u a l l y interchangeable means o f expression capa-

jected a particular colour to m a x i m u m tension.

scraper', a dwelhng, and to exhibition displays.

leans of expression w i t h the need to relate these

nt of art. Thereafter, he shifted his emphasis to
ter and equated innovations i n f o r m w i t h the
art i n the new social order.
; were probably first among Leftist artists i n atDroach to art based on its new social f u n c t i o n .
)18, the Gazetafuturistov

{Futurists' Gazette) p u b -

No. 1 concerning the Democratization o f A r t

)ardings and P a i n t i n g i n Public Places)' signed
r, K a m e n s k y and B u r l y u k . T h e y proclaimed
irt for a l l the people!' and called on artists and
; their paintpots and use the brushes o f their
late and bedeck a l l the flanks, foreheads and
and stations, and the endlessly r u n n i n g flock o f
F r o m n o w on, the citizen w i l l at every moment

ble o f conveying a variety o f moods w i t h i n a single individual.

By the use of white backgrounds M a l e v i c h visually extended

T h e Arkitectons created by M a l e v i c h early i n the 1920s her-

"He referred, f o r instance, to the movement o f colour through

representation into depth, while integrating i t into surrounding

alded a new step i n Suprematism's advance i n t o architecture.

space, the musical quality o f colour, the interaction between

space. The geometric shapes on the picture surface seem to

These were by now real three-dimensional

non-representational f o r m and colour.

float i n infinite space; dynamic tension is achieved by interre-

rough models o f original architectural compositions i n w h i c h

As early as 1913, he w r o t e : ' T h e u n d e r l y i n g identity o f t h e

lating plane and colour. Suprematist p a i n t i n g w i t h its charac-

horizontal and vertical parallelepipeds o f different shapes and

means used by different forms o f art u l t i m a t e l y becomes ob-

teristic relationships between colour and geometry promoted

sizes coalesced or interpenetrated at right angles. T h r o u g h

vious and provides a basis for different attempts to stress and

the development of a distinctive style i n applied, decorative

three-dimensional Suprematism and the Arkitectons,

a m p l i f y the resonance o f t h e special sound generated i n a given

and monumental art, i n c l u d i n g textiles, posters and murals.

compositions,

Malevich

actually came to behave as an architect i n p u t t i n g f o r w a r d his

art f o r m by means o f the identical sound available i n another

The further development o f Malevich's Suprematism after

branch o f art, thereby securing an e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y powerful ef-

the Revolution made geometric planes even more i m p o r t a n t as

Malevich's formal Suprematist experiments w i t h geometrical

fect. . . . Every art tends to p l u m b its o w n depths and may be

elements of pictorial composition, and colour was relegated to

figures and volumes, i n c l u d i n g colour as a means o f achieving

said to become specialized. Nevertheless, i t also opens a door

a secondary role. Colour-free d y n a m i c Suprematist composi-

r h y t h m i c plastic organization, strongly influenced the develop-

into a new w o r l d , the w o r l d w h i c h combines i n d i v i d u a l art

tions began to appear i n w h i c h the organization o f space was

ment o f stylistic methods and forms i n contemporary architec-

forms w i t h i n a single work, the world of Monumental Art.'"^

based on geometric figures. B y this stage Suprematism had vir-

ture and design. B y the geometric p u r i t y o f their abstraction

Planits - the dwehings o f the f u t u r e .

64
Part I/Aesthetic problems o f design

Malevich's Suprematist compositions, his Planits and Arkitec-

sional compositions, while T a t l i n looked for aesthetic effect i n

as V l a d i m i r and Georgy Stenberg, Medunetsky and ot

tons, acted m u c h as a crystal does w h e n immersed i n a supersat-

the contrasting j u x t a p o s i t i o n of different materials and new

F r o m 1919, he directed the workshop i n the reconstructei

u r a t e d solution. T h e y precipitated the latent abstract tenden-

constructional shapes. I n other words, both were concerned

trograd Academy o f A r t s under the slogan 'Construe

cies i n the D u t c h De S t i j l group, the G e r m a n Bauhaus, and

w i t h aesthetic problems o f f o r m , b u t while M a l e v i c h aimed at

V o l u m e and M a t e r i a l ' . A bench, vice, anvil and assorted

m a n y Soviet architects, Ladovsky, Leonidov, M e l n i k o v , Lis-

the styhstic transformation o f man's actual environment, T a -

replaced palette, brushes and paints, and composition!

sitzky, G i n z b u r g , Nikolsky, I l y a Golosov, Rudnev, K h i d e k e l

t h n attempted to express an object's inner essence, i m p l i c i t - as

sembled f r o m metal, w o o d , mica and other materials were

and I v a n F o m i n among t h e m .

he thought - i n the substance o f i t s elementary f o r m .

duced under T a t h n ' s guidance.

As a painter, M a l e v i c h helped architects to see p l a i n geo-

F r o m T a t h n ' s point o f view, these experiments w i t h

metric shapes afresh and revealed the v i r t u a l l y inexhaustible

materials and constructions were no mere f o r m a l inves

opportunities f o r their c o m b i n a t i o n i n effective and complex

Tatlin and Early Constructivism -

tions. T o h i m . C o n s t r u c t i v i s m was an organizational anc]

spatial compositions. T h e j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f volumes i n M a l e -

Gabo, Rodchenlto, the Stenberg brothers,

madve principle, a fresh way of looking at the w o r l d and its

vich's architectonic compositions and Lissitzky's Prouns gener-

Medunetsky, Klutsis and others.

ception i n three dimensions. T a t h n saw the creation o f a

objective environment - a new perceptual w o r l d - as the

ated relationships and devices seldom or never before used for

architectural purposes: the horizontal and vertical displace-

T a t h n was concerned w i t h the properties o f materials, such as

mate object o f his experiments. T h e method He called 'ar

ment o f volumes relative to each other; overhangs o f one vol-

their grain and their texture. H e stressed the opportunities

production' w o u l d be extended to the design o f all object

ume over another; the siting o f a large and b u l k y inchoate

provided by a variety of materials i n order to achieve a particu-

shape over smaUer scattered ones; the soaring i n t o space o f a

lar aesthetic effect.

I n 1919, T a t l i n designed his Monument to the Third Im

tional, k n o w n as T a t l i n ' s T o w e r , and i n the a u t u m n o f 19^

large volume supported only on a small area o f its lower sur-

H i s work moved beyond the bounds o f painting. T h e saw,

produced a model for i t . T w o y o u n g painters, V i n o g r

face, and so on. A negation o f symmetry, a fresh approach to

hammer, chisel and axe became his w o r k i n g implements

and Meerzon, and a sculptor, Shapiro, helped w i t h th(

gravity - w i t h the visually 'weighty' above the apparently

alongside the brush. A p p h e d colour increasingly gave way to

t a e d work involved. B o t h the latter eventually becami

' l i g h t ' - the r i c h opportunities offered by light and shade, con-

the n a t u r a l colours of metals and woods, and the ' p i c t u r e ' dealt

chitects.

trasting differences o f scale, the constantly changing general

w i t h three-dimensional constructional problems rather than

Tatlin's T o w e r was planned as a vast,

400-metre-

framed structure i n spiral f o r m , housing three units o f ac(

spatial composition as an object is viewed i n the r o u n d f r o m

pictorial tasks. T a d i n ' s quest for the aesthedc potendal of actu-

every angle - a l l this gave an architect new means o f achieving

al materials led h i m to search out new paths whereby Leftist

modation one above the other, w h i c h revolved at diffc

p a i n d n g m i g h t move towards architecture.

speeds. T h e lowest o f these, cube-shaped and t u r n i n g a

effects substantially different f r o m those of t r a d i t i o n a l architec-

O t h e r artists were pursuing such a p a t h simultaneously,

rate of one revolution a year, was to house the Internatio:

t h o u g h not always consciously. M i t u r i c h produced Spatial

conferences, congresses and legislative meetings. T h e m i

M a l e v i c h regarded his experiments as part o f t h e search for

Painting as part o f his experiments w i t h Cubist compositions,

unit, shaped as a p y r a m i d , w o u l d revolve once a m o n t h

a new language o f art and saw his Arkitectons, for instance, as

Popova and K l y u n produced pictorial composidons compris-

contained administrative and executive offices. T h e upperi

'the Suprematist art of spatial construction'; as a species o f ' S u -

i n g three-dimensional elements, B r u n y engaged i n 'the picto-

prematist order'. H e beheved that after i t had created new

r i a l treatment o f materials'.

ture w i t h its symmetry, its clearly defined facades, its u p w a r d

lightening o f t h e composition, its 'tectonic' decoration.

forms and new relations between them, Suprematism w o u l d

T a t h n ' s experiments not only taught artists to w o r k i n real

unit, a cylinder, w o u l d complete one revolution every twc

four hours and act as an i n f o r m a d o n centre.
The significance o f this project i n terms of innovation ir

break f o r t h f r o m the canvas and provide a new architecture. H e

space w i t h materials quite u n k n o w n to p a i n t i n g , b u t also made

viet architecture becomes obvious when i t is compared

wrote i n 1928 that 'the whole p a t h retraced by the new art i n ah

them aware o f t h e artistic potential o f engineering structures.

competition entries o f the same year f o r the design o f crerr

aspects of culture has emerged i n t o the one t r u l y contemporary

They became attracted to technology by the accuracy and effi-

r i u m bufldings i n Moscow and Petrograd. These reflected

art, w h i c h is archftecture'.* M a l e v i c h stressed that the pro-

ciency o f these structures, the u n f a m i l i a r spatial reladonships

cesses o f form-generation were connected w i t h the aesthetic

rules of art, and that even a f u n c t i o n a l f o r m could not be created ' w i t h o u t an aesthetic effect'.

involved and their r a t i o n a l u t i l i z a t i o n o f materials.

T a t l i n was among the first to make a deliberate transidon
f r o m p a i n d n g to the creation of a h u m a n environment. A tend-

V l a d i m i r T a t l i n , like "Malevich, carried out f o r m a l aesthetic

ency to switch f r o m depiction of the w o r l d to construction ofthe

experiments on the borderline between p a i n t i n g and architec-

environment had been evident i n his w o r k since post-Revolu-

ture. Malevich-was p r i m a r i l y interested i n the opportunities

tionary years.

provided b y simple geometric forms and complex three-dimen-

Svomas, where his experiments influenced young ardsts, such

I n 1918-19, he taught i n Moscow at the

transitional stage i n the emergence o f new architectui

which the m a j o r i t y o f architects still clung to their Clas
heritage. T a d i n ' s project, on the other hand, enabled m a n
chitects to overcome the psychological barriers i n d e t e r m i
the role w h i c h new constructional methods should pia
shaping the styhstic characterisdcs o f a modern bmlding

this respect, T a t l i n ' s T o w e r was as significant for its pericj

the Eiffel T o w e r had been f o r the end o f t h e nineteenth cent

65
C h a p t e r 2 / I n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n a r c h i t e c t u r e a n d fine a r t
on

compositions, his Planits and Arkitec-

sional compositions, w h i l e T a t l i n looked for aesthetic effect i n

as V l a d i m i r and Georgy Stenberg, Medunetsky and others.

A large n u m b e r o f young painters set about experimenting i n

;tal does w h e n immersed i n a supersat-

the contrasting j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f different materials and new

F r o m 1919, he directed the workshop i n the reconstructed Pe-

this field under T a t l i n ' s influence.

recipitated the latent abstract tenden-

constructional shapes. I n other words, b o t h were concerned

trograd Academy o f A r t s under the slogan 'Construction,

i j l group, the G e r m a n Bauhaus, and

w i t h aesthetic problems o f f o r m , b u t while M a l e v i c h aimed at

V o l u m e and M a t e r i a l ' . A bench, vice, anvil and assorted tools

constructions, and he and his brother, A n t o n Pevsner, an-

Ladovsky, Leonidov, M e l n i k o v , L i s -

the stylistic t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of man's actual environment, T a -

replaced palette, brushes and paints, and compositions as-

nounced i n 1920, i n their Realistic Manifesto, that they proposed

sky, I l y a Golosov, Rudnev, K h i d e k e l

t l i n attempted to express an object's inner essence, i m p h c i t - a s

sembled f r o m metal, wood, mica and other materials were pro-

to liberate volume f r o m mass and that depth was the only pic-

he thought - i n the substance o f i t s elementary f o r m .

duced under T a t h n ' s guidance.

torial and plastic f o r m o f space.

them.
ch helped architects to see p l a i n geo-

F r o m T a t l i n ' s point o f view, these experiments w i t h new

d revealed the v i r t u a l l y inexhaustible

;ombination i n effective and complex

Tatlin and Early Constructivism -

he j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f volumes i n M a l e -

Gabo, Rodchenko, the Stenberg brothers,

ipositions and Lissitzky's Prouns gener-

Medunetsky, Klutsis and others.

levices seldom or never before used for

the horizontal and vertical displace-

T a t h n was concerned w i t h the properties o f materials, such as

e to each other; overhangs of one v o l -

their g r a i n and their texture. H e stressed the opportunities

siting o f a large and b u l k y inchoate

provided by a variety of materials i n order to achieve a particu-

tered ones; the soaring i n t o space o f a

[ only on a smah area o f its lower sur-

lar aesthetic effect.

H i s w o r k moved beyond the bounds o f p a i n t i n g . T h e saw,

T h e Stenbergs and Medunetsky began their laboratory

materials and constructions were no mere f o r m a l investiga-

experiments at about the same time. T h e y first produced co-

tions. T o h i m . Constructivism was an organizational and for-

lour constructions, derived f r o m T a t l i n ' s Counter-Reliefs,

and

mative principle, a fresh way of looking at the w o r l d and its per-

then d u r i n g 1919-20, volumetric constructions. These were

ception i n three dimensions. T a t l i n saw the creation o f a new

openwork spatial compositions using metal angle brackets, T - ,

objective environment a new perceptual w o r l d as the u l t i -

double-T- and U-section bars that included elements o f glass,

mate object o f his experiments. T h e method He called 'artistic

sheet i r o n , enamelled metal, brass pipes, d r a w n wire compo-

production' w o u l d be extended to the design o f all objects.

nents and w o o d , the latter usually serving as a pedestal. T h e

I n 1919, T a t l i n designed his Monument to the Third

Interna-

artists regarded this work as laboratory research i n different

tional, k n o w n as T a t h n ' s T o w e r , and i n the a u t u m n o f 1920 he

forms o f construction: as the process o f i n v e n t i n g technically

produced a model for i t . T w o young painters, V i n o g r a d o v

'literate' and appropriate elements for constructive design.

and Meerzon, and a sculptor, Shapiro, helped w i t h the de-

T h i s n o t i o n o f 'laboratory w o r k ' was characteristic o f those

t i o n o f symmetry, a fresh approach to

hammer,

nally 'weighty' above the apparently

alongside the brush. A p p h e d colour increasingly gave way to

unities offered by light and shade, con-

the n a t u r a l colours of metals and woods, and the 'picture' dealt

icale, the constantly changing general

w i t h three-dimensional constructional problems rather than

Tatlin's T o w e r was planned as a vast, 400-metre-high

tained that ' i t is the engineer w h o produces new f o r m ' , whereas

an object is viewed i n the r o u n d f r o m

p i c t o r i a l tasks. T a t h n ' s quest for the aesthetic potential of actu-

framed structure i n spiral f o r m , housing three units o f accom-

to Spatial Suprematists, f o r m was created t h r o u g h art. Con-

ve an architect new means o f achieving

al materials led h i m to search out new paths whereby Leftist

modation one above the other, w h i c h revolved at different

structivists contrasted their o w n spatial constructions w i t h the

erent f r o m those of t r a d i t i o n a l architec-

p a i n t i n g m i g h t move towards architecture.

speeds. T h e lowest o f these, cube-shaped and t u r n i n g at the

hermetic Prouns and Arkitectons,

rate of one revolution a year, was to house the International's

sential expression o f modern technological civilization.

its clearly defined facades, its u p w a r d

chisel and axe became his w o r k i n g implements

N a u m Gabo set out to produce volumetric, and then spatial

O t h e r artists were pursuing such a p a t h simultaneously,

)sition, its 'tectonic' decoration,

t h o u g h not always consciously. M i t u r i c h produced Spatial

lis experiments as p a r t o f t h e search for

Painting as p a r t o f his experiments w i t h Cubist compositions,

i n d saw his Arkitectons, for instance, as

Popova and K l y u n produced pictorial compositions compris-

ipatial construction'; as a species o f ' S u -

i n g three-dimensional elements, B r u n y engaged i n 'the picto-

)eheved that after i t had created new

r i a l treatment o f materials'.

tailed work involved. B o t h the latter eventually became ar-

w h o supported the f o r m a l aesthetic experiments

chitects.

w i t h T a t l i n and the early Constructivists. A U o f them m a i n -

conferences, congresses and legislative meetings. T h e middle

connected

and saw them as the quintes-

E a r l y Constructivist theory was reflected i n a number of

unit, shaped as a p y r a m i d , w o u l d revolve once a m o n t h and

statements b y the Stenberg brothers. I t involved a f o r m that

contained administrative and executive offices. T h e uppermost

was technicafly efficient i n engineering terms, rather t h a n an

unit, a cylinder, w o u l d complete one r e v o l u t i o n every twenty-

artist's i n v e n t i o n . I t meant space organized by means o f an

four hours and act as an i n f o r m a t i o n centre.

open structure, be i t the linear sequence of rods i n a girder or a

rs between them, Suprematism w o u l d

T a t h n ' s experiments not only taught artists to w o r k i n real

The significance o f this project i n terms of i n n o v a t i o n i n So-

ivas and provide a new architecture. H e

space w i t h materials quite u n k n o w n to p a i n t i n g , b u t also made

viet architecture becomes obvious w h e n i t is compared w i t h

of f r a m e and glazing rather t h a n sohd wafls, a l l these devices

whole p a t h retraced by the new art i n ah

t h e m aware o f t h e artistic potential o f engineering structures.

competition entries o f t h e same year for the design o f cremato-

being aimed at, preserving the visual impression o f u n d i v i d e d

merged i n t o the one t r u l y contemporary

T h e y became attracted to technology by the accuracy and effi-

rium bufldings i n Moscow and Petrograd. These reflected that

space.

ure'.* M a l e v i c h stressed that the pro-

ciency o f these structures, the u n f a m i h a r spatial relationships

ion were connected w i t h the aesthetic

involved and their rational u t i h z a t i o n o f materials.

en a f u n c t i o n a l f o r m could not be creat-

T a t l i n was among the first to make a dehberate transition

ie effect'.

f r o m p a i n t i n g to the creation of a h u m a n environment. A tend-

; "Malevich, carried out f o r m a l aesthetic

ency to switch f r o m depiction o f t h e w o r l d to construction ofthe I

rderline between p a i n t i n g and architec-

environment had been evident i n his w o r k since post-Revolu-

i m a r i l y interested i n the opportunities

tionary years. I n 1918-19, he taught i n Moscow at the

m e t r i c forms and complex three-dimen-

Svomas, where his experiments influenced young artists, such

lattice, rather t h a n enclosed volumes. I t meant a c o m b i n a t i o n

transitional stage i n the emergence o f new architecture i n

loganson and Rodchenko experimented w i t h spatial con-

which the m a j o r i t y o f architects still clung to their Classical

structions at the same time as the Stenbergs and Medunetsky.

heritage. T a t l i n ' s project, on the other hand, enabled many ar-

loganson i m p a r t e d a syrnbohc significance to his spatial com-

chitects to overcome the psychological barriers i n determining

positions by basing all his constructional designs on a three-

the role w h i c h new constructional methods should play i n

dimensional cross. Rodchenko came to three-dimensional

shaping the styhstic characteristics o f a modern b u i l d i n g . I n

compositions by way o f t h e N o n - O b j e c t i v i s m - closely related

this respect, Tathn's T o w e r was as significant for its period as

to Suprematism w h i c h he had proclaimed before the Revolu-

^the Eiffel Tower had been for the end o f t h e nineteenth century.

tion. I n 1918, he produced a series o f spatial constructions

66
Part I / A e s t h e t i c problems o f design

made o f paper, w o o d and metal representing basically symmetrical compositions set on pedestals or a f l a t surface; these
could be coUapsed and reassembled and were described by
Rodchenko as 'non-objective' sculpture.
I n 1 9 2 0 - 2 1 , Rodchenko produced a second series of original
spatial compositions, w i t h o u t a specific upper or lower side,
w h i c h m i g h t be seen as floating i n space i n a state of suspense.
I n these compositions, w h i c h Rodchenko described as conf o r m i n g to 'the principle o f identical f o r m s ' , i t was no longer a
matter of a painter enthralled by the interaction of open spatial
compositions, b u t o f a constructor i n search of new methods o f
design and the opportunities made avaflable by the s t r u c t u r i n g
of space. T h i s second series contained the embryo o f that new
conception o f 'transformable' f u r n i t u r e w h i c h was later apphed to domestic equipment and exhibition stands under R o d chenko's direction at the M e t a l w o r k i n g Faculty of V k h u t e m a s .
T h e theoretical importance o f this second series o f Rodchen-

and his designs for various street decorations i n 1922 for the

tre w i t h p a i n t i n g ; or simply by dissolving all existing forms o f

fifth anniversary o f t h e October Revolution and f o r the F o u r t h

art into one synthetic art o f t h e f u t u r e .

Congress o f t h e C o m i n t e r n , among them amplifier stands, ci-

For purposes o f architecture, however, w h a t mattered after

nema screen frames, rostrums w i t h screens, and kiosks. Klutsis

the First W o r l d W a r and the October R e v o l u t i o n was the pro-

was among the first to use extendable, u n f o l d i n g , sectional and

cess whereby i t took over the lead i n f o r m u l a t i n g contemporary

movable structural elements i n these designs, and he devised a

aesthetic ideas. T h i s change took place i n circumstances o f

n u m b e r of novel methods for v a r y i n g the arrangement and dy-

close co-operation between painters and those architects who

n a m i c i m p a c t o f such spatial compositions.

were able to assimflate the vast f u n d o f artistic experience ac-

O p e n w o r k metal constructions became increasingly popular among painters and sculptors for their artistic, as w e f l as
their technological, potential. T w o designs by the sculptor Babichev early i n the 1920s should be noted i n this context. The
first, a mobile sectional theatre, exploited the technical possibilities o f a latticed structure, whfle the second incorporated
t w o arched girders to i m p a r t a contemporary flavour to a city
m o n u m e n t i n a competition design f o r a m e m o r i a l to Sverdlov
i n Moscow.

cumulated by Leftist p a i n t i n g d u r i n g earlier decades.

The interaction that occurred between different art forms at
that time affected not only experimentation, b u t the actual
character o f artistic associations. Collaborative groups o f architects and Leftist painters arose i n France (Esprit Nouveau),
i n H o f l a n d (De Stijl) and i n Germany (Bauhaus). Innovative
architects co-operated j u s t as actively w i t h Leftist painters i n
the Soviet U n i o n and this led to the creation o f such unusual
and multi-disciphnary organizations and institutions as Unovis,
Zhivskulptarkh, I n k h u k and V k h u t e m a s .

ko's spatial constructions lay i n the method he used to escape

f r o m the picture surface i n t o space. M a l e v i c h first depicted v o l umes i n a plane and then transferred t h e m i n t o space. T a t l i n
may be said to have translated the iflusion of plasticity i n a C u bist picture i n t o a three-dimensional object. T h e Stenbergs and
Medunetsky first sketched out their constructions i n a plane
and then carried t h e m out i n space. Rodchenko, however, hterally converted the picture surface i n t o a three-dimensional
composition w i t h o u t adding a n y t h i n g to i t . T h e ease w i t h
w h i c h the volumes o f this second series can be t u r n e d back i n t o
a plane stresses this. H e took a plane of p l y w o o d or sheet metal
w i t h a specific geometrical shape such as a square, circle, hexagon, elhpse or triangle, and drew on i t a series o f regularly
d i m i n i s h i n g concentric figures, i n accordance w i t h 'the p r i n c i ple o f identical f o r m s ' . H e then cut or sawed the surface along
these lines and rotated the resulting figures i n space to create
three-dimensional compositions. These were shown, together
w i t h many spatial constructions by the Stenbergs, Medunetsky
and loganson, i n a separate r o o m at a Moscow art exhibition
i n 1921.

From Leftist art to the new architecture

Unovis-1919-22

T h u s the influence o f experiments by M a l e v i c h , T a t l i n and

thefr foflowers reached out wefl beyond the realm o f painting.
T h e features i d e n t i f y i n g a new style c o m m o n to p a i n t i n g , architecture and design probably first took clear shape i n Malevich's and T a t h n ' s work, and they were the channels through
w h i c h the f o r m a l achievements o f Leftist art reached the architects. T h e explorations of these innovators decisively crossed
the borderhne between p a i n t i n g and architecture.
Suprematist compositions, Prouns, Arkitectons,

Counter-Reliefs

and spatial constructions - together w i t h M o n d r i a n ' s NeoPlasticism and Le Corbusier's P u r i s m - f o r m e d part of the
mechanism whereby the baton o f i n n o v a t i o n passed from

Unovis, meaning A f f i r m e r s o f t h e N e w A r t , was an association

of artists based on the Vitebsk A r t School directed by M a l e vich, and i t operated d u r i n g the years 1919-22. A m o n g its
members were Lissitzky, Ermolaeva, Chashnik, Suetin, K h i dekel, and Y u d i n . Suprematism was the U n o v i s creed, and the
movement o f Suprematism towards architecture was i n its
most intensive stage d u r i n g this Vitebsk period, thanks chiefly
to coflaboration between M a l e v i c h as a painter and Lissitzky
who, as an architect, taught b u i l d i n g design there and was simultaneously producing his Prouns.
The students produced architectural compositions under

p a i n t i n g to architecture. T h e y played a significant role i n that

Lissitzky's supervision, a notable one being the speaker's plat-

interaction between art forms w h i c h was a characteristic fea-

f o r m w h i c h Chashnik designed i n 1920, on w h i c h Lissitzky

ture o f t h e early post-Revolutionary period. W i t h i n this inter-

based his Lenin Tribune o f 1924. T h e interaction between Leftist

action new forms o f art, such as product design, came into be-

painting and architecture, and the emergence o f Suprematism

i n g ; f o r m a l methods were developed i n previously unexplored

into b u i l d i n g and design, are v i v i d l y illustrated by the o u t p u t of

D u r i n g v i r t u a l l y the same period, i n 1 9 2 0 - 2 1 , Rodchenko

arts such as the cinema and photography; existing art forms

Unovis members. As an architect, Lissitzky radically altered

produced yet another, t h i r d series of spatial compositions using

were enriched. A t t e m p t s were made to create fresh synthetic

his artistic approach under the influence o f Malevich's Su-

wooden rods as standard components.

arts by a fusion o f either purely spatial considerations (such as

prematism but, reciprocally, he also influenced the f o r m a l

those u n d e r l y i n g architecture, p a i n t i n g and sculpture), or by a

experiments of M a l e v i c h and U n o v i s as a whole. T h e short pe-

fusion o f time-regulated media such as music, dance and thea- .

riod - 1919-20 - spent by Lissitzky at Vitebsk undoubtedly

Gustav K l u t s i s produced a number of constructive compositions at the start o f t h e 1920s, the most interesting being his dynamic spatial constructions intended for agitational purposes

67
C h a p t e r 2 / I n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n a r c h i t e c t u r e a n d fine a r t

tal representing basically sym-

and his designs for various street decorations i n 1922 for the

tre w i t h p a i n t i n g ; or simply by dissolving a l l existing forms o f

edestals or a flat surface; these

fifth anniversary o f t h e October Revolution and for the F o u r t h

art into one synthetic art o f the f u t u r e .

gave M a l e v i c h a better understanding o f t h e architectonic i m plications o f his Suprematist works, as well as s t i m u l a t i n g his

m b l e d and were described by

Congress o f t h e C o m i n t e r n , among them amplifier stands, ci-

For purposes o f architecture, however, w h a t mattered after

sculpture.

nema screen frames, rostrums w i t h screens, and kiosks. Klutsis

the First W o r l d W a r and the October Revolution was the pro-

dekel, Chashnik and others, i n architecture and design. Su-

duced a second series of original

was among the first to use extendable, u n f o l d i n g , sectional and

cess whereby i t took over the lead i n f o r m u l a t i n g contemporary

prematism's shift towards architecture and design was already

a specific upper or lower side,

movable structural elements i n these designs, and he devised a

aesthetic ideas. T h i s change took place i n circumstances o f

obvious i n w o r k o f U n o v i s members before they left Vitebsk. I t

n u m b e r of novel methods for v a r y i n g the arrangement and dy-

close co-operation between painters and those architects w h o

became even more marked when Malevich's group moved to

namic i m p a c t o f such spatial compositions.

were able to assimilate the vast f u n d o f artistic experience ac-

Petrograd i n the a u t u m n o f 1922 and went to work i n the labor-

cumulated by Leftist p a i n t i n g d u r i n g earlier decades.

atory he directed at the local G i n k h u k , where he and his pupils

r i n space i n a state o f suspense.

Rodchenko described as con-

interest and that o f the U n o v i s students, such as Suetin, K h i -

ntical f o r m s ' , i t was no longer a

O p e n w o r k metal constructions became increasingly popu-

)y the interaction of open spatial

lar among painters and sculptors for their artistic, as well as

The interaction that occurred between different art forms at

produced the Planit and Arkitecton projects i n the mid-1920s.

;tor i n search o f new methods o f

their technological, potential. T w o designs by the sculptor Ba-

that time affected not only experimentation, b u t the actual

Chashnik and Suetin immersed themselves i n decorative and

ade avaflable by the s t r u c t u r i n g

bichev early i n the 1920s should be noted i n this context. The

character o f artistic associations. Collaborative groups o f ar-

applied art, such as designing textiles and ceramics, and d i d

ntained the embryo o f that new

first, a mobfle sectional theatre, exploited the technical possi-

chitects and Leftist painters arose i n France (Esprit Nouveau),

exhibition design, whfle K h i d e k e l continued his architectural

f u r n i t u r e w h i c h was later ap-

bhities o f a latticed structure, whfle the second incorporated

in H o f l a n d (De Stijl) and i n Germany (Bauhaus). I n n o v a t i v e

t r a i n i n g and made great use of Suprematist methods i n his pro-

i d exhibition stands under Rod-

two arched girders to i m p a r t a contemporary flavour to a city

architects co-operated j u s t as actively w i t h Leftist painters i n

jects.

Iworking Faculty of V k h u t e m a s .

m o n u m e n t i n a competition design for a m e m o r i a l to Sverdlov

the Soviet U n i o n and this led to the creation o f such unusual

" this second series o f Rodchen-

i n Moscow.

and multi-disciplinary organizations and institutions as Unovis,

Zhivskulptarkh, I n k h u k and Vkhutemas.

n the method he used to escape

Sinskulptarl<h and Zhivskulptarkh - 1919-20

lace. M a l e v i c h first depicted v o l isferred them i n t o space. T a t l i n

T h e Commission f o r the Resolution o f Questions Bearing on

From Leftist art to tlie new architecture

Unovis-1919-22

the illusion of plasticity i n a C u -

the Synthesis o f Sculpture and Architecture, k n o w n as Sinskulptarkh, was created i n M a y 1919 and attached, i n i t i a l l y , to

sional object. T h e Stenbergs and

T h u s the influence o f experiments by M a l e v i c h , T a t l i n and

t their constructions i n a plane

their followers reached out wefl beyond the realm o f painting.

Unovis, meaning A f f i r m e r s o f t h e N e w A r t , was an association

)ace. Rodchenko, however, liter-

T h e features i d e n t i f y i n g a new style c o m m o n to p a i n t i n g , ar-

of artists based on the Vitebsk A r t School directed by M a l e -

the Fine A r t s D e p a r t m e n t (Izo) o f the People's Commissariat

irface i n t o a three-dimensional

chitecture and design probably first took clear shape i n Male-

vich, and i t operated d u r i n g the years 1919-22. A m o n g its

for Education. T h e Commission consisted o f a sculptor, K o r o -

a n y t h i n g to i t . T h e ease w i t h

vich's and T a t l i n ' s work, and they were the channels through

members were Lissitzky, Ermolaeva, Chashnik, Suetin, K h i -

lev, who chaired i t , and seven architects: D o m b r o v s k y , Istse-

ad series can be t u r n e d back i n t o

w h i c h the f o r m a l achievements of Leftist art reached the archi-

dekel, and Y u d i n . Suprematism was the U n o v i s creed, and the

lenov, K r i n s k y , Ladovsky, R a i k h , Rukhlyadev and F i d m a n .

plane of p l y w o o d or sheet metal

tects. T h e explorations o f these innovators decisively crossed

movement o f Suprematism towards architecture was i n its

T h i s was to be the first new association of avant-garde archi-

ipe such as a square, circle, hex-

the borderline between p a i n t i n g and architecture.

most intensive stage d u r i n g this Vitebsk period, thanks chiefly

tects. Significantly, i t d i d not arise under the aegis o f t h e A r c h i -

drew on i t a series o f regularly

Suprematist compositions, Prouns, Arkitectons,

Counter-Reliefs

to collaboration between M a l e v i c h as a painter and Lissitzky

tectural A r t Department o f t h e People's Commissariat, because

and spatial constructions - together w i t h M o n d r i a n ' s Neo-

who, as an architect, taught b u i l d i n g design there and was si-

that D e p a r t m e n t was headed by a dedicated Classicist, Z h o l -

Plasticism and Le Corbusier's Purism - f o r m e d part of the

multaneously p r o d u c i n g his Prouns.

;, i n accordance w i t h 'the p r i n c i n cut or sawed the surface along

the Subsection for Sculpture, then to that for A r t i s t i c W o r k , o f

tovsky. T h e y o u n g architects w h o disliked the general line then

m l t i n g figures i n space to create

mechanism whereby the baton o f i n n o v a t i o n passed from

ns. These were shown, together

p a i n t i n g to archkecture. T h e y played a significant role i n that

Lissitzky's supervision, a notable one being the speaker's plat-

rs by the Stenbergs, Medunetsky

interaction between art forms w h i c h was a characteristic fea-

form which Chashnik designed i n 1920, on w h i c h Lissitzky

I t was shared dislikes i n the field of art, rather than c o m m o n

oom at a Moscow art exhibition

ture o f t h e early post-Revolutionary period. W i t h i n this inter-

based his Lenin Tribune o f 1924. T h e interaction between Leftist

aims, w h i c h u n i t e d the members o f Sinskulptarkh f r o m the

action new forms o f art, such as product design, came into be-

painting and architecture, and the emergence o f Suprematism

start. T h e y still d i d not see their way to a new architecture at all

i n g ; f o r m a l methods were developed i n previously unexplored

into b u f l d i n g and design, are v i v i d l y illustrated by the o u t p u t o f

clearly, yet were convinced that the revival of Classicism could

arts such as the cinema and photography; existing art fornis

Unovis members. As an architect, Lissitzky radically altered

not provide a starting point for new departures, w h i c h they

were enriched. A t t e m p t s were made to create fresh synthetic

his artistic approach under the influence o f Malevich's Su-

sought, instead, i n the study o f t h e f o r m a l achievements o f Lef-

arts by a fusion o f either purely spatial considerations (such as

prematism but, reciprocally, he also influenced the f o r m a l

tist art.

those u n d e r l y i n g architecture, p a i n t i n g and sculpture), or by a

experiments o f M a l e v i c h and Unovis as a whole. T h e short pe-

T h e Commission set itself the u l t i m a t e a i m o f synthesizing

fusion o f time-regulated media such as music, dance and thea-

riod - 1919-20 - spent by Lissitzky at Vitebsk undoubtedly

all spatial arts p a i n t i n g , sculpture and architecture b u t con-

period, i n 1 9 2 0 - 2 1 , Rodchenko
ries of spatial compositions using

iponents.
number of constructive composi-

the most interesting being his dyrtended for agitational purposes

The students produced architectural compositions under

enforced by Zholtovsky set out to look for new ways of generati n g f o r m and rejected Classicism.

68
Part I / A e s t h e t i c problems o f design

f i n e d itself at the start to the resolution o f problems arising

operative, and under his direction the architects and students

compositions i n t o object design, and later i n t o architecture -

read an

f r o m a fusion of sculpture w i t h architecture. T h e actual experi-

learned to apply the methods o f plastic composition then cur-

this latter stage i n v o l v i n g a process o f cross-fertilization w i t h

ular po

rent among Cubists.

t h e work o f t h e architects i n the group.

ments o f t h e Commission were first directed towards the design

er dept

and p r o d u c t i o n o f plans for a T e m p l e o f the N e w C u l t - 'a

Korolev's o w n work w i t h i n Sinskulptarkh may also be

T h e members of Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h showed their w o r k at an ex-

b u i l d i n g f o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n among nations' - w h i c h was to be

regarded as an attempt to introduce sculptural methods into

hibition i n Moscow during the summer o f 1920; the Commission

short e:

a new type o f edifice intended for the performance o f mass

architecture, and even to i m p a r t to a b u i l d i n g some distant

then dissolved and m a n y o f i t s members j o i n e d I n k h u k i n the

ions ga

events.

association w i t h sculpture o f a generalized, usually Cubist

same year.

the Ins

khuk V

A t this stage the sculptor K o r o l e v greatly influenced the

k i n d , together w i t h dynamic composition. There was a marked

These interactions between fine art and architecture con-

tasks c

experiments o f t h e architects w h o made up the Commission.

t o u c h o f a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m about these architectural designs,

tributed to the emergence of new aesthetic concepts. B u t

thods a

Korolev's o w n works were Cubist - the best k n o w n being the

b u t a series o f projects evidently d a t i n g f r o m 1920 already

another and no less i m p o r t a n t aspect o f this interaction i n -

One

B a k u n i n m o n u m e n t i n 1918 and the design for a m o n u m e n t to

p o i n t to a more clear-cut break by K o r o l e v w i t h a sculptural

volved the theory and practice o f so-called Production A r t . I n -

khuk's

M a r x i n 1919 - and his experimental w o r k was notable for its

approach.

dustrial design activity was now emerging at the j u n c t i o n of ar-

was COI

chitecture and fine art i n order to create new consumer p r o d -

umenti

ucts.

a synth

m i x t u r e o f materials, such as metal w i t h plaster o f Paris.

T h e influence of Cubist sculpture is obvious i n the designs of

Soon after the Revolution, K o r o l e v also shifted his interests

the Sinskulptarkh architects d u r i n g the Commission's early,

towards the boundaries o f sculpture w i t h architecture, and

'plastic' period i n 1919. I n their search for new means o f ex-

A p a r t f r o m their combined w o r k on decorations for towns

w i t h the new field of design. H e produced projects such as pos-

pression they drew u p o n the past; on the ways i n w h i c h various

and public hohdays, innovative architects and Production ar-

ter pillars and platforms for a variety of agitational purposes as

geometric solids combine, and on visual associations w i t h nat-

tists were also united by their Rationahst approach to the pro-

Kan

psycho

sion pr:

well as domestic items hke table lamps and ornamental combs.

u r a l objects, such as rocks and plants. I t was assumed that one

vision o f an appropriate environment for the labour, leisure

questic

I n his sculpture Korolev clearly displayed architectonic inchna-

of the distinguishing features of the, new architecture should be

and everyday hfe o f t h e w o r k i n g p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s activity was

tests f r

tions and a strong sense o f t h e interaction o f sculpture w i t h its

pronounced d y n a m i s m i n the composition.

already reflected i n Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h and U n o v i s , b u t its t w o

come I

architectural setting. H e i n v a r i a b l y designed the pedestals for

T w o painters, Rodchenko and Shevchenko, and then an ar-

main and complementary centres were I n k h u k and Vkhutemas,

headec

his monuments himself i n order to estabhsh an organic link

chitect, M a p u , were co-opted at the end o f 1919, and the organ-

both of w h i c h combined innovative architects and Constructi-

Group

w i t h their environment, as for instance i n his M o n u m e n t to the

ization changed its name to Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h (Commission for

vist painters. F r o m these circles emerged the first designers,

self, B;*

Fighters o f t h e Revolution i n Saratov, o f 1924-25, and the L e -

the Synthesis o f Painting, Sculpture and A r c h i t e c t u r e ) . The

such as T a t h n , Rodchenko, G a n , Stepanova, the Stenbergs

Noverr

n i n M o n u m e n t i n Tashkent, o f 1933.

m a i n emphasis d u r i n g this second stage o f the Commission's

and Popova. I t was there that the theory and principles o f t h e

orienta

w o r k , occupying the first h a l f of the 1920s, was upon experi-

two most i n f l u e n t i a l movements i n Soviet architecture o f the

Disr

and the architects at that early stage and made h i m a central

mental designs for bufldings w i t h a new social f u n c t i o n , such as

1920s - Rationalism and C o n s t r u c t i v i s m - were elaborated

the fini

figure i n 'passing the t o r c h ' to t h e m f r o m the arts. H i s influence

the H o u s i n g C o m m u n e ( K o m m u n a l y dom) or the House of

amid arguments, experiments and debates.

would

on these architects bore first and foremost on such men as L a -

Soviets (Sovdep). T h e strongest influence f r o m p a i n t i n g at this

1920 o

dovsky, the leader o f Rationalism, and I l y a Golosov, the lead-

stage was that o f Rodchenko.

ferent'

A l l this p r o m p t e d a convergence o f views between K o r o l e v

Inkhuk (1920-24)

al art a

i n g exponent o f Symbohst R o m a n t i c i s m . Leftist art exerted its

W h e n Rodchenko worked on the decoration o f t h e C a f Pito-

influence on these t w o men's w o r k m a i n l y t h r o u g h the interme-

resk i n 1917, he was already a t t e m p t i n g to apply Leftist paint-

diary o f Cubist sculpture, as their artistic credos o f the early

i n g methods to the design o f a l a m p . T h i s w o u l d produce a

T h e acronym I n k h u k stood for Moscow I n s t i t u t e o f A r t i s t i c

non-re

1920s clearly showed. T h i s apphes p a r t i c u l a r l y to I l y a Golo-

transitional series o f abstract compositions, w h i c h became the

Culture. T h i s was a unique association o f creative individuals

synthe

sov. H e had not been a member of Sinskulptarkh, but was closely

basis o f sketches for the G a f ' s lamps. I n Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h he

in Soviet art, b r i n g i n g together painters, sculptors, architects,

as invc

connected w i t h the architects belonging to the Commission,

was effectively repeating this process o f escaping f r o m Leftist

art historians and theoreticians o f Production A r t . I t provided

related

shared their inclinations and enthusiastically identified h i m -

p a i n t i n g by way o f intermediary compositions, b u t now shift-

an i m p o r t a n t centre i n w h i c h the concepts u n d e r l y i n g Leftist

namic

i n g i n t o architecture rather t h a n p r o d u c t design. Rodchenko

tendencies i n art were f o r m u l a t e d .

and sp

self, as they d i d , w i t h the experiences and methods o f Cubist

sculpture. I n December 1919, a group o f sculptors, architects

first produced a whole series of abstract architectonic composi-

I n k h u k had several dozen active members and was headed

and students belonging to the Second Free State A r t Studios

tions, then based actual architectural projects upon them, t i l

by an elected Presidium successively chaired by K a n d i n s k y ,

create a kiosk, a Sovdep, and so on. H i s o u t p u t and that of Ko-

Rodchenko, B r i k , A r v a t o v and then B r i k again, w h i l e Babi-

arts (s

rolev v i v i d l y illustrate the w a y i n w h i c h artists belonging to the

chev, a member o f t h e Presidium v i r t u a l l y throughout its exist-

group

L e f t i s t trend sought their way out o f Cubist and non-objective

ence, provided continuity. Lectures on general topics were

becam

founded a sculptural co-operative, w h i c h I l y a Golosov j o i n e d ,

together w i t h the active members o f Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h (see bel o w ) , K o r o l e v , Ladovsky and Istselenov. K o r o l e v led this co-

as a w

lieved
objecti

C h a p t e r 2 / I n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n a r c h i t e c t u r e a n d fine a r t

compositions i n t o object design, and later i n t o architecture -

read and discussed at plenary meetings o f t h e Institute. Partic-

)lution o f problems arising

operative, and under his direction the architects and students

litecture. T h e actual experi-

learned to apply the methods o f plastic composition then cur-

this latter stage i n v o l v i n g a process o f cross-fertilization w i t h

ular points of theory and creative w o r k were discussed i n great-

directed towards the design

rent among Cubists.

the work o f t h e architects i n the group.

er depth w i t h i n i n d i v i d u a l sections and w o r k i n g parties. I n -

Korolev's o w n w o r k w i t h i n Sinskulptarkh may also be

T h e members of Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h showed their w o r k at an ex-

k h u k went t h r o u g h several stages o f development d u r i n g its

r nations' w h i c h was to be

regarded as an attempt to introduce sculptural methods i n t o

hibition i n Moscow d u r i n g the summer of 1920; the Commission

short existence. E m b i t t e r e d arguments took place; some opin-

r the performance o f mass

architecture, and even to i m p a r t to a b u i l d i n g some distant

then dissolved and m a n y o f i t s members j o i n e d I n k h u k i n the

ions gained the upper hand, while the supporters o f others left

association w i t h sculpture o f a generalized, usually Cubist

same year.

the I n s t i t u t e ; the general orientation o f I n k h u k ' s work and its

naple o f the N e w C u l t - 'a

tasks changed; so d i d its membership; its structure and me-

olev greatly influenced the

k i n d , together w i t h d y n a m i c composition. There was a marked

These interactions between fine art and architecture con-

made up the Commission.

touch o f a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m about these architectural designs,

tributed to the emergence o f new aesthetic concepts. B u t

- the best k n o w n being the

but a series o f projects evidently d a t i n g f r o m 1920 already

another and no less i m p o r t a n t aspect o f this interaction i n -

Once past the organizational stage, the first period o f I n -

le design for a m o n u m e n t to

p o i n t to a more clear-cut break by K o r o l e v w i t h a sculptural

volved the theory and practice of so-called Production A r t . I n -

khuk's activity - f r o m M a y 1920 u n t i l the a u t u m n of that y e a r -

t a l w o r k was notable for its

approach.

dustrial design activity was n o w emerging at the j u n c t i o n of ar-

was concerned w i t h the w o r k o f i t s then unique Section of M o n -

chitecture and fine art i n order to create new consumer p r o d -

umental A r t , devoted to the pursuit o f K a n d i n s k y ' s concept o f

il w i t h plaster o f Paris,
lev also shifted his interests

T h e influence of Cubist sculpture is obvious i n the designs of

the Sinskulptarkh architects d u r i n g the Commission's early,

ucts.

thods altered; and new people came to the top.

a synthetic M o n u m e n t a l A r t . A t t e n t i o n focused on perceptual

psychology and the m u t u a l relation between means o f expres-

ure w i t h architecture, and

'plastic' period i n 1919. I n their search for new means o f ex-

A p a r t f r o m their combined work on decorations for towns

)duced projects such as pos-

pression they drew u p o n the past; on the ways i n w h i c h various

and public holidays, innovative architects and Production ar-

ty of agitational purposes as

geometric sohds combine, and on visual associations w i t h nat-

tists were also u n i t e d by their Rationalist'approach to the pro-

K a n d i n s k y ' s approach to problems o f form-generation and

nps and ornamental combs,

u r a l objects, such as rocks and plants. I t was assumed that one

vision o f an appropriate environment for the labour, leisure

questions concerning relations between the arts provoked pro-

played architectonic inclina-

o f t h e distinguishing features o f t h e new architecture should be

and everyday life o f the w o r k i n g p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s activity was

tests f r o m a n u m b e r o f I n k h u k members, most o f w h o m had

raction o f sculpture w i t h its

pronounced d y n a m i s m i n the composition.

already reflected i n Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h and Unovis, b u t its t w o

come f r o m Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h . O p p o s i t i o n to K a n d i n s k y was

T w o painters, Rodchenko and Shevchenko, and then an ar-

main and complementary centres were I n k h u k and Vkhutemas,

headed by Rodchenko, whose supporters created the W o r k i n g

:o establish an organic l i n k

chitect, M a p u , were co-opted at the end o f 1919, and the organ-

both of w h i c h combined innovative architects and Constructi-

G r o u p for Objective Analysis, consisting o f Rodchenko h i m -

mce i n his M o n u m e n t to the

ization changed its name to Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h (Commission for

vist painters. F r o m these circles emerged the first designers,

self, Babichev, Stepanova, Popova, Ladovsky and others, i n

y designed the pedestals for

sion proper to p a i n t i n g , poetry, dance and music.

ov, o f 1924-25, and the L e -

the Synthesis o f Painting, Sculpture and A r c h i t e c t u r e ) . The

such as T a t l i n , Rodchenko, Gan, Stepanova, the Stenbergs

November 1920, and tabled a proposal for a change i n the

33.

m a i n emphasis d u r i n g this second stage o f the Commission's

and Popova. I t was there that the theory and principles o f t h e

orientation o f the Institute's w o r k .

e o f views between K o r o l e v

w o r k , occupying the first h a l f o f the 1920s, was u p o n experi-

two most i n f l u e n t i a l movements i n Soviet architecture o f the

Disregarding the more intricate contradictions involved and

Lge and made h i m a central

mental designs for buildings w i t h a new social f u n c t i o n , such as

1920s - Rationahsm and Constructivism - were elaborated

the finer shades o f difference between a variety o f opinions, i t

I f r o m the arts. H i s influence

the H o u s i n g C o m m u n e ( K o m m u n a l y dom) or the House of

amid arguments, experiments and debates.

w o u l d be f a i r to say that the split i n I n k h u k towards the end o f

)remost on such men as L a -

Soviets (Sovdep). T h e strongest influence f r o m p a i n t i n g at this

and I l y a Golosov, the lead-

stage was that o f Rodchenko.

i c i s m . Leftist art exerted its

W h e n Rodchenko w o r k e d on the decoration o f t h e C a f Pito-

n a i n l y t h r o u g h the interme-

resk i n 1917, he was already a t t e m p t i n g to apply Leftist paint-

1920 occurred between t w o groups o f Leftist painters w i t h different views about the f u r t h e r evolution of non-representationInkhuk (1920-24)

al art and the part i t should play, both i n the development of art

The acronym I n k h u k stood f o r Moscow I n s t i t u t e o f A r t i s t i c

non-representational art should provide the basis for a new

as a whole and w i t h i n o r d i n a r y hfe. B o t h .sides believed that

artistic credos o f the early

i n g methods to the design o f a l a m p . T h i s w o u l d produce a

s p a r t i c u l a r l y to I l y a Golo-

transitional series o f abstract compositions, w h i c h became the

Culture. T h i s was a unique association o f creative individuals

synthetic art. K a n d i n s k y , however, saw the f u t u r e o f p a i n t i n g

inskulptarkh, but was closely

basis o f sketches for the G a f ' s lamps. I n Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h he

in Soviet art, b r i n g i n g together painters, sculptors, architects,

as i n v o l v i n g its t r a n s f o r m a t i o n t h r o u g h interaction w i t h t i m e -

onging to the Commission,

was effectively repeating this process o f escaping f r o m Leftist

art historians and theoreticians o f Production A r t . I t provided

related arts (music, dance and poetry) i n t o a specifically dy-

lusiastically identified h i m -

p a i n t i n g by way o f intermediary compositions, b u t now shift-

an important centre i n w h i c h the concepts u n d e r l y i n g Leftist

namic f o r m o f expression i n w h i c h colour, music, movement

ices and methods o f Cubist

i n g i n t o architecture rather than product design. Rodchenko

tendencies i n art were f o r m u l a t e d .

and speech w o u l d combine. Rodchenko, on the other hand, be-

"oup o f sculptors, architects

first produced a whole series of abstract architectonic composi-

I n k h u k had several dozen active members and was headed

:ond Free State A r t Studios

tions, then based actual architectural projects u p o n them, to

by an elected Presidium successively chaired by K a n d i n s k y ,

w h i c h I l y a Golosov j o i n e d ,

create a kiosk, a Sovdep, and so on. H i s o u t p u t and that of Ko-

Rodchenko, B r i k , A r v a t o v and then B r i k again, whfle B a b i -

arts (sculpture and architecture). W h e n K a n d i n s k y and a

lieved that p a i n t i n g w o u l d contribute to the creation o f a new

objective environment by interacting w i t h the

space-related

of Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h (see be-

rolev v i v i d l y iflustrate the way i n w h i c h artists belonging to the

chev, a member o f t h e Presidium v i r t u a l l y throughout its exist-

group of his followers left I n k h u k i n J a n u a r y 1921, Rodchenko

elenov. K o r o l e v led this co-

Leftist trend sought their way out o f Cubist and non-objective

ence, provided c o n t i n u i t y . Lectures on general topics were

became its c h a i r m a n .

70
Part I/Aesthetic problems o f design

T h e w o r k o f the G r o u p f o r Objective Analysis followed a

was created by I n k h u k i n February 1924, w i t h B r i k , Alexander

T h e student body, stifl open-minded and lacking any set

programme d r a w n up by Babichev. T h e Group's most i m p o r -

V e s n i n and Lavinsky representing I n k h u k while Barshch,

models, became a target for anyone w i s h i n g to launch a new

t a n t event was a discussion held i n J a n u a r y - A p r i l 1921 on ' T h e

Simbirtsev, K r a s i l n i k o v , Lavinskaya, K o m a r o v a and Seme-

trend or f o u n d a school. T h a t is w h y Zholtovsky, Ladovsky,

analysis o f the concepts o f construction and composition and

nova were among the students.

I v a n F o m i n , I l y a Golosov, Alexander V e s n i n and other archi-

the d i v i d i n g line between t h e m ' . Each p a r t i c i p a n t was expect-

T h r o u g h o u t its activity I n k h u k was closely connected w i t h a

tects w i t h a clear system o f aesthetic views devoted so m u c h

ed to contribute a thesis supporting his or her p o i n t of view, and

large n u m b e r o f artistic, educational and scientific organiza-

time and trouble d u r i n g this first period o f development to

t w o graphic works i l l u s t r a t i n g the differences between compo-

tions, such as Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , O b m o k h u , U n o v i s , Lef, the

teaching and regarded i t as crucial i n d e t e r m i n i n g the f u t u r e

direction o f Soviet architecture.

sition and construction as he or she saw t h e m . T h i s debate re-

M u s e u m o f Painterly C u l t u r e , the Workers' Preparatory Fac-

vealed f u n d a m e n t a l disagreements between Rationalist archi-

u l t y (Rabfak) o f t h e A r t s , and others, some o f whose members

tects and Gonstructivist painters concerning the approach to

and contributors also belonged to I n k h u k . T h e latter thus be-

ized i n the a u t u m n o f 1918. T h e variety of schools and colleges

the generation o f f o r m . T h e first stressed the role o f composi-

came d u r i n g the early 1920s a sort o f d o c t r i n a l centre and de-

was replaced by Free State A r t Studios, offering either a broad

tion, the latter based form-generation on the manifesting o f

b a t i n g club for like-minded creative artists and promoters of

general c u r r i c u l u m or a specialized one i n w h i c h the students

constructive r a t i o n a l i t y .

new trends i n the figurative arts, architecture and the newly

were aflowed to pick their tutors i n the various subjects. Paint-

These d i f f e r i n g approaches resulted, among other things, i n

emerged field o f product design. T h e aesthetic outlook o f both

ers, architects and other types o f artists a f l h a d the right to

the creation at the very start o f 1921 o f t w o new w o r k i n g

leaders o f t h e t w o most i n f l u e n t i a l trends i n Soviet architecture

claim a studio o f their o w n . T h e Stroganov I n d u s t r i a l A r t Col-

groups. T h e first consisted o f architects - Ladovsky, D o k u -

d u r i n g the 1920s - Ladovsky for R a t i o n a l i s m and Alexander

lege and the Coflege of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture i n

chaev, K r i n s k y , E f i m o v , Petrov, and others - the second o f

V e s n i n for Gonstructivism - was i n fact shaped i n I n k h u k . I t

Moscow were accordingly reorganized as the First and Second

Constructivists - Gan, loganson, Medunetsky, Rodchenko,

was also there that the first organizations representing these

Free State A r t Studios ( S G K h M ) . I n d i v i d u a l studios i n the

the Stenbergs and Stepanova.

trends took shape - the W o r k i n g G r o u p o f Architects i n 1921

Second S G K h M were supervised by Zholtovsky, Shchusev

Alexander V e s n i n , the f u t u r e leader o f architectural Gon-

and the Vkhutemas A r c h i t e c t u r a l Students' G r o u p i n 1 9 2 4 -

and Rylsky. Methods o f teaching were similar i n a f l three stu-

structivism, at that time himself a member o f I n k h u k , j o i n e d

on the basis o f w h i c h the m a i n associations o f creative archi-

dios and were l a i d d o w n f o r each faculty by a single C u r r i c u -

neither group, b u t i n M a y 1921, entered the W o r k i n g G r o u p o f

tects, Asnova and Osa, were established i n 1923 and 1925 re-

l u m Commission. T r a i n i n g began w i t h study o f t h e architectu-

Objectivists f o r m e d i n A p r i l and comprising D r e v i n , Popova

spectively. I n k h u k acted first and foremost as a centre for the

ral orders and exercises on Classical subjects.

and Udaltsova.

f o r m u l a t i o n o f new theoretical concepts, m a n y o f w h i c h were

U n t the summer o f 1921, these f o u r w o r k i n g groups broad-

subsequently embodied i n experimental work at Vkhutemas.

T h e first academic year i n the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Faculty o f the

Second S G K h M , 1918-19, passed reasonably peacefully, coinciding as i t d i d w i t h the Classicist period among Soviet archi-

ly covered the w o r k done at I n k h u k . T h a t a u t u m n , f u r t h e r de-

tects. By the end o f t h e second year, however, student ferment

velopments once more changed the Institute's orientation.

M i h t a n t members o f L e f and Production A r t theorists headed

A r t education throughout the country was totally reorgan-

Vkhutemas and Vkhutein - 1920-30

broke out i n earnest. T h e Classical bias o f the teaching now

faffed to satisfy many students, and an exhibition of designs by

by B r i k j o i n e d I n k h u k , and sharply criticized the direction the

I n the first years after the Revolution a l l m a j o r architects with

members o f Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h greatly contributed to this. L a -

( T h i n g - i s m , or the C u l t u r e of T h i n g s ) , and regarded Construc-

any c l a i m to originahty devoted a good deal o f attention to

dovsky's and K r i n s k y ' s projects attracted the y o u n g as excep-

t i v i s m as an intermediary stage between Veshchizm and Produc-

higher educational estabhshments, where v i r t u a l l y a f l the new

fionally

t i o n A r t . T h e proponents o f Production A r t summoned the

trends and schools were b o r n i n the 1920s. T h i s was not a mat-

breaking w i t h t r a d i t i o n and p o i n t i n g the way to an architecture

painters to work i n real p r o d u c t i o n , effectively abolished I n -

ter o f chance. W h e n the professional associations i n Moscow

o f t h e f u t u r e . B a l i k h i n , M o c h a l o v , K r a s i l n i k o v , and others, or-

khuk's division into separate working groups, and concentrated

and Petrograd renewed their activity after the Revolution, the

ganized an action group w i t h i n the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Faculty and

all its activity on the plenary meetings. T h e m a i n emphasis o f

prevalence w i t h i n them o f t r a d i t i o n a l l y m i n d e d architects

called upon feflow students to reject Classicism. Leftist studios

I n k h u k ' s w o r k on professional problems concerning form-gen-

forced the innovators to t u r n to the young. T h e i r leaders were

were set up i n the a u t u m n o f 1920 as a combined venture by

eration shifted to sociological questions propounded i n lectures

afl aware that the outcome o f the struggle between them and

students both w i t h i n V k h u t e m a s and outside i t , i n Zhivskulp-

by A r v a t o v , B r i k , Kushner, T a r a b u k i n and other Production

the traditionalists w o u l d m a i n l y depend u p o n the way i n which

tarkh and elsewhere, i n w h i c h t w o separate streams of protest

A r t theorists. F r o m then on, w o r k i n g groups were set up m a i n -

the rising generation of architects had been trained. T h e batfle

against the imposition of Classicism were united. T h e develop-

ly i n order to promote Production A r t and Constructivism

for control over higher architectural education became an issue

ment coincided w i t h the fusion o f the First and

beyond the confines of I n k h u k . I t was precisely for this purpose

of principle on w h i c h architecture's orientation i n the imme-

S G K h M into a single educational establishment - the H i g h e r

diate f u t u r e w o u l d largely depend.

State Artistic

Institute's w o r k was taking. T h e y branded i t as

Veshchizm

that a student group for the architectural faculty of Vkhutemas

dynamic compositions, and as forms completely

Technical

Studios

(Vkhutemas),

Second
renamed

71
C h a p t e r 2 / I n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n a r c h i t e c t u r e a n d fine a r t

ive Analysis followed a

was created by I n k h u k i n February 1924, w i t h B r i k , Alexander

T h e student body, stifl open-minded and lacking any set

le Group's most i m p o r -

V e s n i n and L a v i n s k y representing I n k h u k w h i l e Barshch,

fnodels, became a target f o r anyone w i s h i n g to launch a new

l a r y - A p r i l 192 I o n ' T h e

Simbirtsev, K r a s i l n i k o v , Lavinskaya, K o m a r o v a and Seme-

trend or f o u n d a school. T h a t is w h y Zholtovsky, Ladovsky,

Vkhutemas was a novel type of educational establishment i n

n and composition and

nova were among the students.

I v a n F o m i n , I l y a Golosov, Alexander V e s n i n and other archi-

w h i c h faculties o f architecture, p r o d u c t i o n (wood processing,

Higher

State A r t i s t i c T e c h n i c a l I n s t i t u t e

(Vkhutein)

in

1927-30.

participant was expect-

T h r o u g h o u t its activity I n k h u k was closely connected w i t h a

tects w i t h a clear system o f aesthetic views devoted so m u c h

metalwork, textfles, ceramics, polygraphy) and art - p a i n t i n g

or her p o i n t of view, and

large number o f artistic, educational and scientific organiza-

time and trouble d u r i n g this first period o f development to

and sculpture - were combined.

rences between compo-

tions, such as Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , O b m o k h u , U n o v i s , Lef, the

teaching and regarded i t as crucial i n determining the f u t u r e

them. T h i s debate re-

M u s e u m o f Painterly C u l t u r e , the Workers' Preparatory Fac-

direction o f Soviet architecture.

ween Rationahst archi-

u l t y (Rabfak) o f t h e A r t s , and others, some of whose members

A r t education throughout the country was totally reorgan-

between the traditionalists and the innovators. Three centres

erning the approach to

and contributors also belonged to I n k h u k . T h e latter thus be-

ized i n the a u t u m n o f 1918. T h e variety of schools and colleges

gradually f o r m e d w i t h i n i t between 1920 and 1923, each w i t h

ied the role o f composi-

came d u r i n g the early 1920s a sort o f doctrinal centre and de-

was replaced by Free State A r t Studios, offering either a broad

its o w n set of artistic and educational principles: the academic

1 on the manifesting o f

bating club f o r like-minded creative artists and promoters of

general c u r r i c u l u m or a specialized one i n w h i c h the students

studios, w i t h Zholtovsky as c h a i r m a n o f t h e C u r r i c u l u m C o m -

new trends i n the figurative arts, architecture and the newly

were aflowed to pick their tutors i n the various subjects. Paint-

mission, and Shchusev, N o r v e r t , K o k o r i n , Rylsky, L e o n i d

, among other things, i n

emerged field o f p r o d u c t design. T h e aesthetic outlook o f both

ers, architects and other types o f artists afl had the r i g h t to

V e s n i n among the teaching staff; the U n i t e d Leftist Studios

: 1 o f t w o new w o r k i n g

leaders o f t h e t w o most i n f l u e n t i a l trends i n Soviet architecture

claim a studio o f their o w n . T h e Stroganov I n d u s t r i a l A r t C o l -

( O b m a s ) , w i t h Ladovsky, K r i n s k y and Dokuchaev; and the i n -

cts - Ladovsky, D o k u -

d u r i n g the 1920s - Ladovsky for Rationalism and Alexander

lege and the College of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture i n

dependent Studio o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Architecture, w i t h I l y a Go-

others - the second o f

V e s n i n for C o n s t r u c t i v i s m - was i n fact shaped i n I n k h u k . I t

Moscow were accordingly reorganized as the First and Second

losov and M e l n i k o v . M a n y students switched f r o m the o l d stu-

edunetsky, Rodchenko,

was also there that the first organizations representing these

Free State A r t Studios ( S G K h M ) . I n d i v i d u a l studios i n the

dios to the newly estabhshed Leftist ones.

trends took shape - the W o r k i n g G r o u p o f Architects i n 1921

Second S G K h M were supervised by Zholtovsky, Shchusev

;r o f architectural C o n -

and the V k h u t e m a s A r c h i t e c t u r a l Students' G r o u p i n 1 9 2 4 -

and Rylsky. Methods o f teaching were simflar i n ah three stu-

mber o f I n k h u k , j o i n e d

on the basis o f w h i c h the m a i n associations o f creative archi-

dios and were l a i d d o w n for each faculty by a single C u r r i c u -

d the W o r k i n g G r o u p o f

tects, Asnova and Osa, were established i n 1923 and 1925 re-

lum Commission. T r a i n i n g began w i t h study o f t h e architectu-

prising D r e v i n , Popova

spectively. I n k h u k acted first and foremost as a centre for the

ral orders and exercises on Classical subjects.

T h e composition o f the teaching staff i n the A r c h i t e c t u r a l

Faculty o f Vkhutemas reflected the intricacies o f the struggle

T h e two new centres estabhshed i n the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Faculty d u r i n g the academic year 1 9 2 0 - 2 1 , w i t h teaching methods
of their o w n , signalled substantial changes i n the creative m o o d
w i t h i n Vkhutemas.
These new, f o r w a r d - l o o k i n g workshops each required a

f o r m u l a t i o n o f new theoretical concepts, m a n y o f w h i c h were

The first academic year i n the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Faculty o f the

C u r r i c u l u m Commission o f i t s o w n to lay d o w n teaching me-

subsequently embodied i n experimental w o r k at Vkhutemas.

Second S G K h M , 1918-19, passed reasonably peacefully, coin-

thods and, consequently, the orientation o f the work as a

hat a u t u m n , f u r t h e r de-

ciding as i t d i d w i t h the Classicist period among Soviet archi-

whole. I n Obmas, Ladovsky's psychoanalytical method pro-

Institute's orientation,

tects. By the end o f the second year, however, student ferment

vided the basis for the course, w i t h K r i n s k y and Dokuchaev

broke out i n earnest. T h e Classical bias o f the teaching n o w

acting as lecturers. T h e Studio o f Experimental A r c h i t e c t u r e

fafled to satisfy m a n y students, and an exhibition of designs by

relied on I l y a Golosov's theory o f t h e construction o f architec-

r w o r k i n g groups broad-

ion A r t theorists headed

Vkhutemas and Vkhutein - 1920-30

iticized the direction the

Veshchizm

I n the first years after the R e v o l u t i o n a l l m a j o r architects with

members o f Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h greatly contributed to this. L a -

t u r a l organisms, since M e l n i k o v had only j u s t completed his

and regarded Construc-

any claim to originality devoted a good deal o f attention to

dovsky's and K r i n s k y ' s projects attracted the young as excep-

studies and started out as an independent architect.

n Veshchizm and Produc-

higher educational estabhshments, where v i r t u a l l y a f l the new

tionally dynamic compositions, and as forms completely

i o n A r t summoned the

trends and schools were b o r n i n the 1920s. T h i s was not a mat-

breaking w i t h t r a d i t i o n and p o i n t i n g the way to an architecture

A r c h i t e c t u r a l Faculty was thus split into two sections, each

effectively abolished I n -

ter o f chance. W h e n the professional associations i n Moscow

ofthe future. B a h k h i n , M o c h a l o v , K r a s f l n i k o v , and others, or-

w i t h its o w n C u r r i c u l u m Commission. T h e n , i n November

,roups, and concentrated

and Petrograd renewed their activity after the Revolution, the

ganized an action group w i t h i n the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Faculty and

i. T h e m a i n emphasis o f

prevalence w i t h i n t h e m o f traditionally m i n d e d architects

called upon fellow students to reject Classicism. Leftist studios

ns concerning form-gen

forced the innovators to t u r n to the young. T h e i r leaders were

were set up i n the a u t u m n o f 1920 as a combined venture by

s propounded i n lectures

all aware that the outcome o f the struggle between them and

students both w i t h i n V k h u t e m a s and outside i t , i n Z h i v s k u l p -

n and other Production

the traditionahsts w o u l d m a i n l y depend upon the way i n which

tarkh and elsewhere, i n w h i c h t w o separate streams of protest

;roups were set u p m a i n -

the rising generation of architects had been trained. T h e battle

against the imposition of Classicism were united. T h e develop-

^rt and Gonstructivism

for control over higher architectural education became an issue

jrecisely for this purpose

of principle on w h i c h architecture's orientation i n the imme-

ral faculty of Vkhutemas

diate f u t u r e w o u l d largely depend.

)randed i t as

ment coincided w i t h the fusion o f the First and

Second

S G K h M into a single educational estabhshment - the H i g h e r

State Artistic

Technical

Studios

(Vkhutemas),

renamed

Obmas achieved independence first, and the Vkhutemas

1922, the Golosov and M e l n i k o v workshop gained recognition

(and a C u r r i c u l u m Commission) as a t h i r d independent group
w i t h i n the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Faculty. B o t h these workshops rejected t r a d i t i o n a l architectural forms, and the Classical orders i n
particular, b u t Ladovsky's approach differed sharply f r o m that
of Golosov i n terms o f t h e development of f o r m . Ladovsky regarded space as the basic m a t e r i a l of architecture and subordinated
questions o f volume to the organization o f space. Golosov, on
the other hand, gave p r i o r i t y i n form-generation to elements o f

Part I / A e s t h e t i c problems o f design

volume. These differences i n approach between Ladovsky and

Golosov also extended i n t o their views on architectural composition, and therefore i n t o their teaching methods.
Despite all the differences between them, however, Ladovsky
and Golosov were united i n their attitude to the basic rules governing design i n architecture. B o t h o f t h e m gave precedence to
aesthetic issues, so that abstract f o r m a l tasks predominated m
the i n i t i a l stages of t u i t i o n i n order to induce a deeper study of
the possible rules and methods o f architectural composition.
N e w architecture gradually consolidated its position m
V k h u t e m a s f r o m the start o f the 1920s onwards. T h e new
trends even began to affect the academic studios. A n independent F o u n d a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t was created i n V k h u t e m a s for
i n t r o d u c t o r y courses i n w h i c h architects taught space, painters

architecture, and the intensive g r o w t h o f t h e new Constructivist trend, Alexander Vesnin's studio emerged as a new focus o f
ideas i n the V k h u t e m a s A r c h i t e c t u r a l Faculty d u r m g the
school year 1924-25. Groups of students transferred to h i m
f r o m the academic studios as weh as f r o m those o f Ladovsky

Gonstructivism, t w o m a i n centres w i t h programmes clearly

supporting the new architecture held their g r o u n d i n V k h u t e m a s - V k h u t e i n : Ladovsky's and Alexander Vesnin's studios.
There was a sort o f silent competition between the course and
d i p l o m a projects of these t w o studios r u n by the leaders o f t h e
m a i n current trends i n Soviet architecture - respectively, of
R a t i o n a l i s m and Constructivism.
V k h u t e m a s was not j u s t an educational estabhshment. I t

choanalytical method became the basis o f the 'Space' disci-

provided one o f t h e most important centres for the development

pline, w h i l e i n Obmas students supervised studies under the

of a new orientation i n Soviet architecture. T h e Vkhutemas

direction o f K r i n s k y , even t h o u g h most o f t h e m ( i n c l u d i n g Ba-

students' course and d i p l o m a projects received m u c h pubhcity

h k h i n , K o r z h e v , T u r k u s and Lamtsov) had still not graduated.

i n the contemporary Soviet and foreign press, w i t h the most m -

1923-24, reflecting developments throughout the modernist

architectural movement. T h e Rationahsts had

strengthened

their position and c o n f i r m e d i t by estabhshing Asnova - the

Association of N e w Architects - b u t i n the meantime another
innovative t r e n d was emerging i n the f o r m o f Gonstructivism.
T h e c o m m o n f r o n t against t r a d i t i o n a h s m was breaking d o w n ,
and divisions began to appear w i t h i n the new architecture i t self C o n s t r u c t i v i s m and Production A r t secured m u c h support
among V k h u t e m a s architectural students. I n V k h u t e m a s , as
weU as i n the Rabfak o f t h e A r t s , where the I z o section under
Babichev was preparing students for entry i n t o V k h u t e m a s ,
the f i g h t was on, w i t h the support o f I n k h u k and Lef, f o r the i n -

teresting projects coming f r o m the students o f t h e Vesmns and

Ladovsky. T h e y contributed significantly to shaping the new
architectural ideas, and i t can safely be said that the role of
V k h u t e m a s i n shaping twentieth-century architecture equalled that o f the Bauhaus i n Germany.
B y contrast w i t h the organizations i n existence before the Revo l u t i o n and revived early i n the 1920s, such as M a o , Poa,
O a k h , etc, the new groups and organizations that came m t o bei n g i n higher educational estabhshments and other institutions
were not n a r r o w l y vocational i n character. T h e senior architects w h o j o i n e d t h e m were hnked by a c o m m o n creative aspir a t i o n and a single set of aesthetic principles, rather than by

clusion o f Production A r t concepts i n t o the c u r r i c u l u m , i n the

n a r r o w l y professional interests. T h i s was as true o f t h e first es-

I n d u s t r i a l and A r c h i t e c t u r a l Faculties i n particular.

sentially artistic associations f o r m e d i n 1919-20, as i t was of

T h i s struggle for new ideas was at its peak i n the innovative

studios o f t h e A r c h i t e c t u r a l Faculty, where i t t u r n e d i n t o an attack on abstract f o r m a l classroom tasks. T h e adherents of Gonstructivism and Production A r t demanded that the study o f
f o r m a l problems should be replaced by w o r k on practical ones,
w i t h a real purpose i n view. T h e L e f group organized by I n k h u k i n the V k h u t e m a s A r c h i t e c t u r a l Faculty was j o i n e d by
some o f Ladovsky's and I l y a Golosov's students.
As a result of these sharpening demarcations w i t h i n the new

taneously. T h e m u l t i - m e d i a character o f their o u t p u t was not

simply a reflection of their m u l t i p l e talents. I t was the consequence o f an era i n w h i c h the features o f a contemporary style
were emerging t h r o u g h the interaction between various types
of art. Arkitectons,

and I l y a Golosov.
F r o m the mid-1920s onwards, w h e n Golosov went over to

taught colour and sculptors taught volume. Ladovsky's psy-

N e w student ferment broke out i n Vkhutemas d u r i n g

p a i n t i n g , architecture, graphics, design and theatre art simul-

the purely architectural groupings w h i c h grew from the former

d u r i n g the first half of the decade.
T h e direction then taken by art as a whole was the m a i n reason w h y these m i x e d organizations and groupings emerged at
all, and i t also influenced the entire character o f t h e w o r k done
by the leaders o f the period.
Regardless o f thefr original t r a i n i n g , M a l e v i c h , T a t h n , Lissitzky, Alexander V e s n i n , Rodchenko, L a v i n s k y , the Stenbergs, Exter, K l u t s i s , Gan, K r i n s k y and many others practised

Counter-Reliefs,

Prouns and

experimental

three-dimensional constructions helped architects to assimilate and make creative use o f t h e f o r m a l and aesthetic discover-

73
C h a p t e r 2 / I n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n a r c h i t e c t u r e a n d fine a r t

Lch between Ladovsky and

vvs on architectural compohing methods.
a them, however, Ladovsky
itude to the basic rules gov-

architecture, and the intensive g r o w t h o f t h e new Constructivist trend, Alexander Vesnin's studio emerged as a new focus ol
ideas i n the V k h u t e m a s A r c h i t e c t u r a l Faculty d u r i n g the
school year 1924-25. Groups o f students transferred to h i m
f r o m the academic studios as well as f r o m those o f Ladovsky

mal tasks predominated i n

and I l y a Golosov.
F r o m the mid-1920s onwards, w h e n Golosov went over to

to induce a deeper study of

Constructivism, t w o m a i n centres w i t h programmes clearly

architectural composition.

supporting the new architecture held their g r o u n d i n V k h u t e -

)nsohdated its position i n

m a s - V k h u t e i n : Ladovsky's and Alexander Vesnin's studios.

1920s onwards. T h e new

There was a sort o f silent competition between the course and

demic studios. A n indepen

d i p l o m a projects o f these t w o studios r u n by the leaders o f t h e

; created i n V k h u t e m a s f o r

m a i n current trends i n Soviet architecture - respectively, of

itects taught space, painters

Rationahsm and C o n s t r u c t i v i s m .

of t h e m gave precedence to

I t volume. Ladovsky's psy-

V k h u t e m a s was not j u s t an educational establishment. I t

; basis o f the 'Space' disci-

provided one o f t h e most important centres for the development

apervised studies under the

of a new orientation i n Soviet architecture. T h e Vkhutemas

most o f them (including Ba-

students' course and d i p l o m a projects received m u c h pubhcity

;sov) had still not graduated,

i n the contemporary Soviet and foreign press, w i t h the most i n -

out i n Vkhutemas d u r i n g

teresting projects coming f r o m the students o f t h e Vesnins and

3 throughout the modernist

Ladovsky. T h e y contributed significantly to shaping the new

itionalists had strengthened

architectural ideas, and i t can safely be said that the role of

y estabhshing Asnova - the

)ut i n the meantime another

V k h u t e m a s i n shaping twentieth-century architecture equalled that o f the Bauhaus i n Germany.

the f o r m o f Constructivism,
onahsm was breaking d o w n ,

By contrast w i t h the organizations i n existence before the Rev-

t h i n the new architecture i t -

o l u t i o n and revived early i n the 1920s, such as M a o , Poa,

on A r t secured m u c h support

O a k h etc, the new groups and organizations that came m t o be-

students. I n V k h u t e m a s , as

i n g i n higher educational establishments and other mstitutions

where the I z o section under

were not n a r r o w l y vocational i n character. T h e senior archi-

;s for entry i n t o V k h u t e m a s ,

tects w h o j o i n e d t h e m were linked by a c o m m o n creative aspi-

: of I n k h u k and Lef, for the i n -

r a t i o n and a single set of aesthetic principles, rather than by

its i n t o the c u r r i c u l u m , i n the

n a r r o w l y professional interests. T h i s was as true o f t h e first es-

;ulties i n particular.

sentially artistic associations f o r m e d i n 1919-20, as i t was ot

IS at its peak i n the innovative

the purely architectural groupings w h i c h grew f r o m the former

Ity, where i t t u r n e d i n t o an at-

d u r i n g the first h a l f of the decade.

1 tasks. T h e adherents of C o n -

T h e direction then taken by art as a whole was the m a i n rea-

demanded that the study o f

son w h y these m i x e d organizations and groupings emerged a

ced by w o r k on practical ones,

a l l , and i t also influenced the entire character o f t h e work done

e L e f group organized by I n -

by the leaders o f t h e period.

;ctural Faculty was j o i n e d by

T is

Regardless o f their original t r a i n i n g , M a l e v i c h , T a t h n i . i

)losov's students.

sitzky, Alexander V e s n i n , Rodchenko, L a v i n s k y , the Sten-

y demarcations w i t h i n the new

bergs, Exter, K l u t s i s , G a n , K r i n s k y and many others practise

painting, architecture, graphics, design and theatre art simultaneously. T h e m u l t i - m e d i a character o f their o u t p u t was not
simply a reflection o f their m u l t i p l e talents. I t was the conse-

ies o f Leftist p a i n t i n g . I t could be said that i n these experimental creations p a i n t i n g was m o v i n g from the representation o f
objects to the shaping o f them.

quence of an era i n w h i c h the features of a contemporary style

were emerging t h r o u g h the interaction between various types
of art. Arkitectons,

Counter-Reliefs,

Prouns and

experimental

three-dimensional constructions helped architects to assimilate and make creative use o f t h e f o r m a l and aesthetic discover^

Vladimir

Mayakovsky,

Polnoe sobranie socliinnemi

v XIII

tomax (Complete

Collected

Works

Z / / / B O ^ i . J ( M o s c o w , 1959), v o l . 1 , p . 3 5 1 .
2

V . K a n d i n s k y , ' O s t s e n i c h e s k o i k o m p o z i t s i i ' ( ' O n t h e a t r i c a l c o m p o s i t i o n ) , Izo-

brazitelnoe iskusslvo {Fine Art), N o . 1 ( 1 9 1 9 ) , p p . 4 0 , 46, 48.

3 Somemennaya
arkhitektura
[Contemporary
Architecture),
N o . 5 ( 1 9 2 8 ) , p . 156.

74

The search for a new artistic language:

the early period

a view to creating a new system of aesthetics w h i c h w o u l d con-

ture where the power of its external features was

trast w i t h the 'effeminate' and 'pompous' architectural forms

represent the Revolutionary masses' firm resolve,

T h e lack o f any actual b u i l d i n g w o r k d u r i n g the first years of

o f t h e past; the inclusion i n the aesthetic vocabulary of features

ticated castle walls, crenellated towers and the ger

Soviet power led architects to concentrate on laboratory exper-

suggesting a symbolic meaning or even a story, i n other words,

an impregnable fortress, this o r i g i n a l and wefl-f

iments. A n evolution took place w i t h i n their t h i n k i n g that pro-

the incorporation of architecture into A g i t a t i o n a l A r t ; a gener-

spatial composition incorporates elements that e\

duced few o u t w a r d signs, but several f u n d a m e n t a l l y new ap-

ous use of i n d u s t r i a l and mechanical motifs as symbols of the

verse medieval buildings as the Castel Sant'Ang

proaches were fast t a k i n g shape at this stage.

i n d u s t r i a l proletariat's labour; the dehberate i n t r o d u c t i o n of

and the Palazzo Vecchio i n Florence.

Symbolist Romanticism

Symbohst R o m a n t i c i s m was not a homogeneous movement

w i t h a body of theory and a styhstically specific set of compositional methods and artistic forms. Instead, i t should be seen as
an early stage i n the search f o r a new image and fresh lines of
development for Soviet architecture i n opposition to the t r a d i tionalism of the Classicists. T h e revolutionary u p l i f t of those

quantitative factors i n t o the aesthetic canon so that squares, es-

Several other architects experimented w i t h the

planades, halls, monuments and structures, and so on, became

archaic r o m a n t i c i s m , B u r y s h k i n and L a n g b a r d a

physically vast; a clear bias i n favour o f t h e collective, non-in-

as wefl as some members o f Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h .

dividualized chent. I n its styhstic dimension, Symbohst Ro-

sketches display a determination to produce a

m a n t i c i s m ranged widely, d r a w i n g equally u p o n archaic forms

b u i l d i n g not dictated by t r a d i t i o n , but i t is equally

and on the compositions of Suprematism and C u b o - F u t u r i s m .

none could be f o u n d and that he was forced to tu

f r o m the past i n order to escape f r o m present ste

early years. W a r C o m m u n i s m and the C i v i l W a r , created u n -

experimented extensively w i t h Gothic shapes w h

usual conditions for artistic experimentation. T h e d y n a m i s m

h i m by their d y n a m i c u p w a r d m o t i o n , their com]

of p u b h c life increased intensely. T h e people became the mas-

Archaicizing trends

ters o f streets and squares. Demonstrations, meetings, assem-

within the new architectural concept

tricacy and the angularity and spikiness of their 1

T h e resulting compositions were Gothic i n p l a n ai

bhes and solemn Red Funerals required a new k i n d o f presentation. T h e intensity of the class war also affected attitudes to

A l t h o u g h Classicism continued to be seen by architects as the

objects, to fashion and to forms i n art. W h e n the workers reject-

embodiment of certain standards of professional proficiency, it

ed the previous way of life they often also d i d the same for its

was already w i d e l y regarded immediately after the Revolution

m a t e r i a l manifestations, w h i c h they perceived as the symbolic

as a styhstic system too obviously associated w i t h pre-Revolu-

embodiments of the past.

tionary ideals. However, t w o trends attempted to d r a w on the

T h e outlook o f the masses at the time favoured the promotion of ideas concerned w i t h art w h i c h rejected t r a d i t i o n a l aesthetic principles. T h e surge of feehng i n favour of disowning the
o l d order, its socio-economic relations, its ethics and the mercantile spirit, also embraced the arts. Buildings and objects
represented more than mere material assets w h i c h had to be
handed over to the w o r k i n g people. T h e y were seen as the embodiments o f aesthetic ideals inherent i n the dethroned classes

architectural heritage for forms and compositional methods to

Create a new 'heroic' image. One of these used Classicism as a
starting point, the other rejected i t . T h e t w o archaicizing
trends u l t i m a t e l y clashed i n the large competitions held i n

their stylistic i m p r i n t still shows t h r o u g h i n his s

H e was clearly aware of this and tried his b a n
h y b r i d structures, w h i c h fused Gothic and Class
or both styles - j o i n t l y or separately - either w i t h n
lattice structures, or w i t h elements inspired by e
cient models, vaguely reminiscent o f Egyptian pi
A Gothic origin is also perceptible i n m a n y of >

1919_20 for designs of a Workers' Palace and district pubhc

baths i n Petrograd, and crematoria there and i n Moscow. I n -

ingredients are simplified to the h m i t and transfor

teresting contributions were submitted f r o m m a n y styhstic d i -

bist forms, or even i n t o vegetative ones that dis

rections, w i t h Classicists such as I v a n F o m i n among them.

Those architects w h o preferred not to use Classical orders

times physically destroyed. Later on, when such associations

resorted i n their search o f the past to b u i l d i n g types hke for-

had lost their immediacy, another psychological factor came to

tresses and medieval castles, w h i c h had r o m a n t i c and heroic

the fore, and the aesthetic images offered by these buildings be-

associations. T h e new 'Workers' Palaces', be they Palaces of

came the subject o f reinterpretation.

L a b o u r or o f C u l t u r e , copied t r a d i t i o n a l palace forms i n order

and schools of Symbohst R o m a n t i c i s m : the rejection o f t r a d i -

selenov's efforts to transfigure and denude tradij

man's sketches at Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , even though

of exploiters, and were therefore p u t aside, rejected and some-

C e r t a i n basic features were c o m m o n to almost a l l shades

but to v a r y i n g degrees stripped of ornament. Yet d

to stress an inherently majestic q u a l i t y , while allusions to fortresses reflected the power and irreversibility o f t h e Revolution.

t i o n a l aesthetic principles prevailing before the R e v o l u t i o n ; the

T y p i c a l o f these projects were Belogrud's reinterpretations

determination to express the revolutionary surge o f t h e masses

of R o m a n architecture i n compositions for the 1919 Petrograd

and the d y n a m i s m of p u b l i c life i n the f u n c t i o n of buildings, i n

W o r k e r s ' Palace competition, and for the M o s c o w Palace of

their organization i n terms of volume and space, and i n their

Labour

architectural f o r m ; the recourse to severe or ascetic forms w i t h

' W o r k e r s ' Fortress', was particularly characteristic: a struc-

competition

in

1922-23.

The

former,

entitled

semble fantastic flowers. F i d m a n experimented

w i t h vaulted demi-ogival arcades incorporated i
ally

flattened

and multiple-storeyed compositie

sketched out new, intricately composed towers m;

taposed or intersecting cylinders and half-cylind
hnders cut back along an inscribed spiral, etc, W
tiers pierced by demi-ogives.
Sigismund Dombrovsky's sketches also displa
inspiration i n various medieval prototypes, such;
fortresses. U s u a l l y he drastically simplified suet
ever, and related them more closely to n a t u r a l
as mountains and crags.

C h a p t e r 3 / T h e search f o r a new artistic language

The search for a new artistic language:

the early period

inticism

ny actual building work during the first years of

led architects to concentrate on laboratory exper'olution took place within their thinking that proitward signs, but several fundamentally new ap
e fast taking shape at this stage.
Romanticism was not a homogeneous movement
if theory and a styhstically specific set of composiIs and artistic forms. Instead, it should be seen as
e in the search for a new image and fresh lines of
for Soviet architecture in opposition to the tradithe Classicists. The revolutionary uplift of those
Var Communism and the Civil War, created unons for artistic experimentation. The dynamism
increased intensely. The people became the mas1 and squares. Demonstrations, meetings, assem;mn Red Funerals required a new kind of presenQtensity of the class war also affected attitudes to
;hion and to forms in art. When the workers rejectlus way of life they often also did the same for its
lifestations, which they perceived as the symbohc
3 ofthe past.
3 k of the masses at the time favoured the promo:oncerned with art which rejected traditional aes)les. The surge of feeling in favour of disowning the
socio-economic relations, its ethics and the mer
, also embraced the arts. Buildings and objects
more than mere material assets which had to be
to the working people. They were seen as the em
"aesthetic ideals inherent in the dethroned classes
and were therefore put aside, rejected and someally destroyed. Later on, when such associations
immediacy, another psychological factor came to
the aesthetic images offered by these buildings be)ject of reinterpretation.
asic features were common to almost all shades
3f Symbolist Romanticism: the rejection of traditie principles prevailing before the Revolution; the
m to express the revolutionary surge ofthe masses
imism of public hfe in the function of buildings, i n
;ation i n terms of volume and space, and in their
. form; the recourse to severe or ascetic forms with

a view to creating a new system of aesthetics which would contrast with the 'effeminate' and 'pompous' architectural forms
of the past; the inclusion in the aesthetic vocabulary of features
suggesting a symbolic meaning or even a story, in other words,
the incorporation of architecture into Agitational Art; a generous use of industrial and mechanical motifs as symbols of the
industrial proletariat's labour; the dehberate introduction of
quantitative factors into the aesthetic canon so that squares, esplanades, haffs, monuments and structures, and so on, became
physically vast; a clear bias in favour ofthe collective, non-individualized chent. I n its styhstic dimension, Symbohst Romanticism ranged widely, drawing equally upon archaic forms
and on the compositions of Suprematism and Cubo-Futurism.

Archaicizing trends
within the new architecturai concept

Although Classicism continued to be seen by architects as the

embodiment of certain standards of professional proficiency, it
was already widely regarded immediately after the Revolution
as a styhstic system too obviously associated with pre-Revolutionary ideals. However, two trends attempted to draw on the
architectural heritage for forms and compositional methods to
create a new 'heroic' image. One of these used Classicism as a
starting point, the other rejected it. The two archaicizing
trends ultimately clashed in the large competitions held in
1919-20 for designs of a Workers' Palace and district public
baths in Petrograd, and crematoria there and in Moscow. Interesting contributions were submitted from many stylistic directions, with Classicists such as Ivan Fomin among them.
Those architects who preferred not to use Classical orders
resorted in their search of the past to bmlding types like fortresses and medieval casties, which had romantic and heroic
associations. The new 'Workers' Palaces', be they Palaces of
Labour or of Culture, copied traditional palace forms in order
to stress an inherently majestic quahty, while allusions to fortresses reflected the power and irreversibility ofthe Revolution.
Typical of these projects were Belogrud's reinterpretations
of Roman architecture in compositions for the 1919 Petrograd
Workers' Palace competition, and for the Moscow Palace of
Labour competition in 1922-23. The former, entitled
'Workers' Fortress', was particularly characteristic: a struc-

ture where the power of its external features was intended to

represent the Revolutionary masses' firm resolve. With its rusticated castle walls, crenellated towers and the general effect of
an impregnable fortress, this original and well-proportioned
spatial composition incorporates elements that evoke suh diverse medieval buildings as the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome
and the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence.
Several other architects experimented with the same kind of
archaic romanticism, Buryshkin and Langbard among them,
as well as some members of Zhivskulptarkh. Istselenov's
sketches display a determination to produce a new type of
buflding not dictated by tradition, but it is equally obvious that
none could be found and that he was forced to turn to images
from the past in order to escape from present stereotypes. He
experimented extensively with Gothic shapes which attracted
him by their dynamic upward motion, their compositional intricacy and the angularity and spikiness of their lancet forms.
The resulting compositions were Gothic in plan and elevation,
but to varying degrees stripped of ornament. Yet despite all Istselenov's efforts to transfigure and denude traditional forms,
their styhstic imprint still shows through in his sketches.
He was clearly aware of this and tried his hand at complex
hybrid structures, which fused Gothic and Classical features,
or both styles - jointly or separately - either with modern metal
lattice structures, or with elements inspired by even more ancient models, vaguely reminiscent of Egyptian pyramids.
A Gothic origin is also perceptible in many of Vladimir Fidman's sketches at Zhivskulptarkh, even though such stylistic
ingredients are simplified to the limit and transformed into Cubist forms, or even into vegetative ones that disturbingly re-semble fantastic flowers. Fidman experimented in particular
with vaulted demi-ogival arcades incorporated into horizontally flattened and multiple-storeyed compositions. He also
sketched out new, intricately composed towers made up of juxtaposed or intersecting cylinders and half-cylinders, or of cyhnders cut back along an inscribed spiral, etc, with overlying
tiers pierced by demi-ogives.
Sigismund Dombrovsky's sketches also display a search for
inspiration in various medieval prototypes, such as castles and
fortresses. Usually he drastically simphfied such forms, however, and related them more closely to natural shapes, such
as mountains and crags.

Dynamic compositions:
the Influence of Cubo-Futurism

The extreme Left wing of Symbolist Romanticism consisted of

painters and architects whose output was clearly influenced by
Cubism, and by Cubo-Futurism in particular. Their works
conveyed the visually volatile and unstable effect of restless
dynamism. They mostly worked on the decorative treatment of
urban spaces and saw it as their main task to achieve a maximum transformation of the 'bourgeois' urban scene through
monumental art and small, quasi-architectural structures. The
Cubo-Futurist commitment to a chaotic assemblage of random, dismembered and dynamic forms proved very much to
the point, when these artists were expected to break up the existing fagades of bourgeois buildings solely by decorative
means. When they decorated streets and squares for pubhc holidays they did their best not to stress the architectonic features
of existing structures and complexes, and to destroy them visually by superimposing a totally fresh artistic conception. Sharp
lines and bright spots of colour produced new and consciously
'destructive' compositions. I n his design for the decoration of a
viaduct in Moscow, for example, Vladimir Krinsky overlaid its
rectangular spans with a 'collapsing' arch.
The minor, quasi-architectural structures were designed to
contrast sharply with the former pattern of city building, so as
to disrupt the regularities, to inject Revolutionary dynamism
and passion into a tidy bourgeois conception. I n 1921, for instance, a project by Krinsky inserted a speaker's platform between houses so as to disturb the existing lay-out and bring
movement into the aspect of the street.
I n those early days, when existing architecture was still
linked with the past in many people's minds, painters and architects did their best with arts at their disposal to explode,
wreck and destroy earlier architectural forms and make the old
buildings unrecognizable. Natan Altman used 20,000 arshin
(more than 15,000 yards) of canvas to alter the Palace Square
for the celebration of the flrst anniversary ofthe October Revolution. I n his project, the Alexander Column was flanked by a
speaker's platform whose restless forms were calculated to 'destroy' this imperial monument, while other emperors' monuments were entirely hidden by decorations.
Cubist and Cubo-Futurist influences are obvious in the projects of Zhivskulptarkh members, even i n those based on older

76
173

Part I/Aesthetic problems o f design

Gegello. Design f o r a c r e m a t o r i u m , Petrograd,

1919. F r o n t e l e v a t i o n .

t74_76

B e l o g r u d . C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r the

W o r k e r s ' Palace, P e t r o g r a d , 1919. P e r s p e c t i v e . P l a n s .

The assertion of one ofthe fundamental features of the

new architecture - visible dynamism combined with the rejection of symmetry and right angles - led to the creation of complex and novel plans and spatial compositions. Dynamic designs incorporating shapes with destructively acute angles, diagonals, sheared surfaces, cantilevers, curved and fractured
forms, the contrasting utihzation of hght, all formed part ofthe
varied means of expression employed in projects such as the
competition designs for a kiosk by Rodchenko and Krinsky, the
experimental projects for the Temple of Communion Between
Nations by Ladovsky, Krinsky and Rukhlyadev among others,
for a communal house by Ladovsky and Krinsky, for a Sovdep
by Rodchenko and Shevchenko.

whose graphic compositions, sketches and projects of 1920-21

clearly show the strength of Rodchenko's influence at this
stage.
I n his early non-objective compositions Rodchenko had
made extensive use of the combination of straight lines with
planes rotated through different angles. I n his architectural designs of 1919-20 for a kiosk and a Sovdep, this vocabulary was
extended into dynamic compositions involving planes and volumes together, with a variety of lines acting as supports and
tension members.

Unhke Istselenov, Fidman and Dombrovsky, certain

Zhivskulptarkh members such as Ladovsky and Krinsky
consistently rejected traditional forms and methods. Every
one of them, however, independently contributed to the
common cause of creating dynamic compositions of unusual
form.

and of the architectural image

Styles.

Nikolai Ladovsky concentrated on experiments with a variety of geometric volumes - parallelepipeds, spheres, cylinders,
cones, pyramids, and so forth - which he linked in complex and
most unusual combinations. He was particularly attracted by a
dynamic, upward-surging movement, and experimented widely in this area: with solids overlapping by a cantilever elfect,
gradually tapering towards the top, surmounted by a cone, a
pyramid or a spire; or with intricate many-tiered compositions
which seem to spiral into the sky.
Vladimir Krinsky made no attempt to impart any particular
direction of movement to his dynamic compositions dating
from this period. Some of his building designs seem to be blown
apart by an inner force, as though seen just as an internal explosion was in progress: the foundations appear to be firmly set
on the ground, while the upper parts look hke debris projected
upwards and outwards, or like a chaotic conglomeration of
items. Even when using simple geometrical sohds, Krinsky invariably tried to irhpart apparent instability to the composition
as a whole: as, for example, with a cube-shaped building stood
on edge.
Ladovsky and Krinsky might have been expected to interact
mainly with Leftist sculpture through Korolev. Instead, the influence revealed in their projects and sketches of this period
comes from painting. This is particularly true of Krinsky,

The symbolism of artistic forms

I n its various manifestations and techniques art usually carries

some symbolic meaning. This may be consciously grasped, or
alternatively not perceived, so that it merely forms part of a
complex of associations and representational stereotypes. Every compositional system may be treated as a language, each
'letter' and 'word' of which has a symbohc as well as an aesthetic meaning. With the passage of time, however, the balance between symbolic content and artistic expression gradually alters, both within architectural forms themselves, and in the
perception of the beholder. The associations that caused a specific meaning to be linked to a given form become blurred and
fade, so that symbolic meaning increasingly yields in importance to the style's purely aesthetic properties. But if the forms
and methods of art built up during the course of centuries
should come to be swept away by a new era, attention once
again focuses sharply on the symbolic function of art. I t is as
though afl development reverts to fundamentals, so that fresh
images emerge which hark back to a primordial meaning of
form and its attendant system of symbols, as part ofthe struggle against outdated stereotypes.
Attempts were made in the early years of Soviet architecture
to give back to symbolism its commanding role in shaping the
concept of art. Architects tried to make the symbohc content of
their concepts more readily accessible by resorting to thematic
and quasi-representational elements, to purely external
associations and visual clichs.
Thus in 1919, in their joint competition entry for a crematorium in Moscow, Krinsky and Fidman based their design on a

173

blems o f d e s i g n

Gegello. Design for a c r e m a t o r i u m , Petrograd,

1919. F r o n t e l e v a t i o n .

j74_76

B e l o g r u d . G o m p e t i d o n design f o r t h e

W o r k e r s ' Palace, P e t r o g r a d , 1919. Perspective.

irtion of one of the fundamental features of the

re - visible dynamism combined with the rej eery and right angles - led to the creation of complans and spatial compositions. Dynamic deting shapes with destructively acute angles, di;d surfaces, cantilevers, curved and fractured
rasting utilization of light, all formed part ofthe
)f expression employed in projects such as the
signs for a kiosk by Rodchenko and Krinsky, the
rejects for the Temple of Communion Between
lovsky, Krinsky and Rukhlyadev among others,
1 house by Ladovsky and Krinsky, for a Sovdep
and Shevchenko.
elenov, Fidman and Dombrovsky, certain
I members such as Ladovsky and Krinsky
jected traditional forms and methods. Every
however, independently contributed to the
of creating dynamic compositions of unusual

)vsky concentrated on experiments with a varievolumes - paraUelepipeds, spheres, cylinders,

s, and so forth which he linked in complex and
D m b i n a t i o n s . He was particularly attracted by a
rd-surging movement, and experimented widewith solids overlapping by a cantilever effect,
-ing towards the top, surmounted by a cone, a
ire; or with intricate many-tiered compositions
spiral into the sky.
insky made no attempt to impart any particular
ovement to his dynamic compositions dating
1. Some of his building designs seem to be blown
ler force, as though seen just as an internal ex)rogress: the foundations appear to be firmly set
while the upper parts look like debris projected
)utwards, or like a chaotic conglomeration of
en using simple geometrical solids, Krinsky in3 irhpart apparent instability to the composition
for example, with a cube-shaped building stood
d Krinsky might have been expected to interact
ftist sculpture through Korolev. Instead, the inti in their projects and sketches of this period
tinting. This is particularly true of Krinsky,

whose graphic compositions, sketches and projects of 1920-21

clearly show the strength of Rodchenko's influence at this
stage.
I n his early non-objective compositions Rodchenko had
made extensive use of the combination of straight lines with
planes rotated through different angles. I n his architectural designs of 1919-20 for a kiosk and a Sovdep, this vocabulary was
extended into dynamic compositions involving planes and volumes together, with a variety of lines acting as supports and
tension members.

The symbolism of artistic forms

and of the architectural image

I n its various manifestations and techniques art usually carries

some symbolic meaning. This may be consciously grasped, or
alternatively not perceived, so that it merely forms part of a
complex of associations and representational stereotypes. Every compositional system may be treated as a language, each
'letter' and 'word' of which has a symbohc as weh as an aesthetic meaning. With the passage of time, however, the balance between symbohc content and artistic expression gradually alters, both within architectural forms themselves, and in the
perception ofthe beholder. The associations that caused a specific meaning to be linked to a given form become blurred and
fade, so that symbolic meaning increasingly yields in importance to the style's purely aesthetic properties. But if the forms
and methods of art built up during the course of centuries
should come to be swept away by a new era, attention once
again focuses sharply on the symbolic function of art. I t is as
though all development reverts to fundamentals, so that fresh
images emerge which hark back to a primordial meaning of
form and its attendant system of symbols, as part ofthe struggle against outdated stereotypes.
Attempts were made in the early years of Soviet architecture
to give back to symbolism its commanding role in shaping the
concept of art. Architects tried to make the symbohc content of
their concepts more readily accessible by resorting to thematic
and quasi-representational elements, to purely external
associations and visual clichs.
Thus in 1919, in their joint competition entry for a crematorium in Moscow, Krinsky and Fidman based their design on a

17779

B e l o g r u d . C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r the Palace

o f L a b o u r , M o s c o w , 1922-23. Perspecdve. Plan.

Interior.
Plans.

78

180-81

Istselenov. E x p e i i m e n t a l design (variant) f o r

a T e m p l e o f C o m m u n i o n Between Nations,
Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919. E l e v a t i o n . P l a n . P e r s p e c t i v e .

182-83

I s t s e l e n o v . E x p e r i m e n t a l design ( v a r i a n t ) f o r

a T e m p l e o f C o m m u n i o n Between Nadons,
Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919. P e r s p e c d v e . P l a n .

182-83

184
I s t s e l e n o v . E x p e i i m e n t a l design ( v a r i a n t )

a T e m p l e o f C o m m u n i o n Between Nations,
Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919. Perspective. P l a n .

Istselenov. A r c h i t e c t u r a l fantasy,

186

Istselenov. E x p e r i m e n t a l design ( v a r i a n t ) for a

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919.

T e m p l e of C o m m u n i o n Between Nations,

185

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919. P l a n . P e r s p e c d v e .

Istselenov. E x p e r i m e n t a l design ( v a r i a n t ) f o r a

Temple of C o m m u n i o n Between Nations,

187

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919. Perspective.

T e m p l e o f C o m m u n i o n Between Nations,

Istselenov. E x p e r i m e n t a l design ( v a r i a n t ) f o r a

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919.

192
190-91
188-89

F i d m a n . E x p e r i m e n t a l designs,

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919. Perspectives.

F i d m a n . E x p e r i m e n t a l designs,

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919. P e r s p e c t i v e ( 1 9 0 ) .

D o m b r o v s k y . E x p e r i m e n t a l design (variant) for

a T e m p l e of C o m m u n i o n Between Nations,
Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919.

200-02
199
197

195-96

K r i n s k y . D e s i g n f o r a n o p e n - a i r speaker's

A l t m a n . Speaker's p l a t f o r m o n Palace S q u a r e ,

Petrograd,

1918.

p l a t f o r m , 1921. E l e v a t i o n . M o d e l .
198

R o d c h e n k o . C o m p c r i t i o n d e s i g n f o r a k i o s k , 1919.

Elevation.

^11

K r i i r s k y . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r a k i o s k , 1919

L a d o v s k y . E x p e r i m e n t a l designs,

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919.

2u.,

.^aoovsky. E x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n ( v a r i a n t ) f o

T e m p l e o f C o m m u n i o n Between Nations,
Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919. Perspective. P l a n .

83

200-02
199 KrinsKy. cjump^i-"^'"" - o 197
1 f o r a n o p e n - a i r speaker'
. Model.

A l t m a n . Speaker's p l a t f o r m o n P a l a c e S q u a i e ,

Petrograd,
198

1918.

Rodchenko. C o m p e o n design f o r a kiosk,

Elevation.

IM.i.

2u..
L a d o v s k y . E x p e r i m e n t a l designs,

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919.

.^aoovsky. E x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n ( v a r i a n t ) f o r a

T e m p l e of C o m m u n i o n Between Nations,
Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919. Perspective.

Plan.

204-05

L a d o v s k y . E x p e r i m e n t a l designs,

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919.

208
206-07

K r i n s k y . E x p e r i m e n t a l designs ( v a r i a n t s ) f o r

K r i n s k y . Experimental design (variant) for a

T e m p l e o f C o m m u n i o n Between Nations,

a T e m p l e o f C o m m u n i o n Between Nations,

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919. P e r s p e c t i v e . S c h e m a t i c p l a n o f

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919. P e r s p e c d v e . .Schematic p l a n o f

upper art.

upper part.

209-10

L a d o v s k y (?) E x p e r i m e n t a l designs,

Zhivskulptarkh, 1919-20.

Zhi,

L a d o v s k y (?) E x p e r i m e n t a l desig
iUiptarkh, 1 9 1 9 - 2 0 .

l e r i r a e n t a l designs ( v a r i a n t s ) l o r
on Between Nations,
Perspective. Schematic plan o f

218
i t a l designs f o r a c o m m u n a l
0. Perspective. P l a n ,
tal d e s i g n f o r a c o m m u n a l
0.

M a p u (?) E x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n f o r a c o m m u n a l

^^^^^^^^^ Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1920.

226

R o d c h e n k o . G r a p h i c c o m p o s i d o n , 1919.

228-29

227

Rodchenko, Design o f a l a m p for the C a f

P i t o r e s k , 1917.

Pitoi-esk, 1917,

R o d c h e n k o , Designs o f l a m p s f o r t h e C a f

230-31

Rodchenko, A r c h i t e c t u r a l composidons,

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919.

232 R o d c h e n k o , A r c h i t e c t u r a l c o m p o s i t i o n ,

234 R o d c h e n k o , A r c h i t e c t u r a l c o m p o s i t i o n ,

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919,

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , 1919,

233

235

R o d c h e n k o , A r c h i t e c t u r a l c o m p o s i t i o n , 1919,

1919,

Rodchenko, Painterly and graphic composition,

236

238-39

N i k o l a i K o l l i . C o m p e t i t i o n design for a

237

L i s s i t z k y . Cleave Ihe Whiles with tlie Red

poster, 1919.

N i k o l a i K o l l i . T h e 'Red

Voskresenskaya Square, Moscow.

c r e m a t o r i u m , M o s c o w , 1919. E l e v a t i o n .
Wedge,

Design.

Wedge'

Monument,

Photograph.

240

I v a n F o m i n . C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r a Sverdlov

M o n u m e n t , M o s c o w , 1920. E l e v a t i o n .

241

I v a n F o m i n . T h e ' V i c t i m s o f t h e Revoli

M o n u m e n t , L e s n o e , 1923. E l e v a t i o n .
242

Y a k u l o v a n d S h c h u k o . D e s i g n f o r the M

the 26 Commissars

of Baku,

1923. M o d e l , w i t h ^

91

238-39

Nikolai K o l l i . The 'Red Wedge' M o n u m e n t ,

Voskresenskaya Square, Moscow. Photograph.

Design.

240

I v a n F o m i n . C o m p e t i t i o n design for a Sverdlov

M o i m m e n t , M o s c o w , 1920.

Elevadon.

241

Ivan Fomin. The 'Vicdms o f t h e Revolution'

M o n u m e n t , Lesnoe, 1923.
242

Y a k u l o v a n d S h c h u k o . D e s i g n f o r the Monument

the 26 Commissars

oJ Baku,

243

Elevadon.

Shchuko. Design for a L e n i n

Leningrad,
to

1923. M o d e l , w i t h Y a k u l o v .

1924.

Monument,

school three centuries

3
1. Ilofl
BDRioH Tpyn. 2. UmfleBH30MSBeajta.
. II9/^ j^esnaoH Caaa. 4. Dofl neBnao
[poeBTu naHHTHBBOB - HasaojieeB:

93
he A U - R u s s i a n

248 C o m p e t i t i o n designs f o r a M a u s o l e u m to L e n i n

ition, Moscow,

a n d the Heroes o f t h e R e v o l u d o n , Odessa, 1925.

L e n i n a n d t h e H e r o e s o f t h e R e v o l u t i o n , Odessa, 1925.

L a n g b a r d ' s design, b e l o w l e f t ; the r e m a i n d e r i d e n t i f i e d

Front elevation.

250

.Shchuko. C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r a M a u s o l e u m to

o n l y b y their c o m p e t i t i o n p s e u d o n y m s .
249 R u d n e v . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r the L e n i n
M a u s o l e u m , M o s c o w , 1925.

[poesTu nauHTHHBOB - Ha^onees; 1. Hon

BBHioM Tpya. 2. Um
Um

neBosoH

BoabraeBHK.

aeBHSoM aSBesj^a.

6. Um

CH.ia. 4. Hofl fleBHsoM

lAHirTHHK

HAB30AEM

6.

Hon

3Cbh30h

Mania;.

a;eBH30M ^ ! M ) T ^ p ^ .

256

I l y a G o l o s o v . D e s i g n f o r a f o r g e w i t h p u m p house,

258-60

I l y a Golosov. C o m p e r i t i o

1921 E l e v a t i o n . A x o n o m e t r i c v i e w . P l a n . S e c t i o n .

O s t a n k i n o s t u d , 1922. E l e v a t i o n s , G

257 I l y a G o l o s o v . D e s i g n f o r a l a d i o s t a t i o n , 1921.

Plans. A x o n o m e t r i c view.

9,^
253
i m p e t i t i o n design f o r a
19. F r o n t e l e v a t i o n . P l a n ,
iiariant).

I l y a Golosov. Design for a m u n i c i p a l bakery,

1920. E l e v a t i o n . P l a n .
254-55

I l y a G o l o s o v . D e s i g n f o r a n o b s e r v a t o r y (two

v a r i a n t s ) , 1 9 2 1 . T h e i n s c r i p t i o n s w e r e m a d e w i t h the
a i d o f a m i r r o r , hence the r e v e r s e d s c r i p t .

256 I l y a G o l o s o v . D e s i g n f o r a f o r g e w i t h p u m p hous

258-60

1921. E l e v a t i o n . / \ x o n o m e t r i c v i e w . P l a n . S e c t i o n .

O s t a n k i n o s t u d , 1922. E l e v a t i o n s , G e n e r a l l a y - o u t .

257 I l y a G o l o s o v . D e s i g n f o r a l a d i o s t a t i o n , 1921.

Plans. A x o n o m e t r i c view.

Axonometric view. Plan.

I l y a Golosov. C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r the

9b
261-62

I l y a G o l o s o v . C o m p e t i t i o n design for the

Palace o f L a b o u r , M o s c o w , 1 9 2 2 - 2 3 . E l e v a t i o n .
Interior.

97
263-64

I l y a G o l o s o v . C o m p e t i t i o n design for the

Palace o f L a b o u r , M o s c o w , 1 9 2 2 - 2 3 . E l e v a d o n . P l a n .

265-66

I l y a Golosov. Far Eastern pavilion, A l l -

Russian A g r i c u l t u r a l and H a n d i c r a f t E x h i b i t i o n ,
M o s c o w , 1923. E l e v a d o n . P l a n .

267

I l y a G o l o s o v . C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r t h e Soviet

p a v i h o n , Paris E x h i b i t i o n o f 1925, 1924. E l e v a t i o n .

268 69

I l y a G o l o s o v . C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r the

L e n i n H o u s e o f t h e People, I v a n o v o - V o z n e s e n s k , 1924.
Perspective. F i r s t - I f o o r p l a n .

e ^ ' ^ ^ ^ ^ i i S u r e school three centuries

98
27071 I l y a G o l o s o v . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r t h e

272-73

A r k o s b u i l d i n g , M o s c o w , 1924. E l e v a t i o n . P l a n s .

M o s c o w o f f i c e o( Leningradskaja

I l y a G o l o s o v . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r the
Pravda,

1924.

Elevations.
274

I l y a Golosov. E x p e r i m e n t a l composition.

275

Petr A n d r e e v . D e s i g n f o r a Palace o f W a t e r

Sports, I l y a G o l o s o v ' s s t u d i o , 1921.

Perspective.

276 F e d o r A n d r e e v . D e s i g n f o r a c a f o n T v e r s k o y
B o u l e v a r d , M o s c o w , I l y a G o l o s o v ' s s t u d i o , 1922. P l a n .
Elevation.

- -

B a 0 !D [if Ei lii fD 0 0 0 0:10 0

' TV..-"

"

0-0-tflH m
E

!i

fi-j?

s-^n^

^j

Er

etition design for tfie

272-73

. E l e v a t i o n . Plans.

M o s c o w o f l i c e o f Leningradskaja

I l y a G o l o s o v . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r the
Pravda,

1924.

Elevations.
274

I l y a Golosov. E x p e r i m e n t a l composition.

275

Petr A n d r e e v . D e s i g n f o r a Palace o f W a t e r

V e g m a n . Design for the Central Archive,

M o s c o w , 1922.

276

278

F e d o r A n d r e e v . D e s i g n f o r a c a f on T v e r s k o y

B o u l e v a r d , M o s c o w , I l y a G o l o s o v ' s s t u d i o , 1922. P l a n .
Elevation.

277

Sports, I l y a G o l o s o v ' s s t u d i o , 1921. Perspective.

Perspective.

V e g m a n . Design for a harbour lighthouse.

Perspective.

^!fpc?ure school three^ centuries

99
t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r the
E l e v a t i o n . Plans.

272-73

I l y a G o l o s o v . C o m p e d d o n d e s i g n f o r the

M o s c o w o f f i c e of Leningmdskaya

Pravda,

1924.

Elevations.
274

I l y a Golosov. E x p e r i m e n t a l composition.

275

Petr A n d r e e v . D e s i g n f o r a Palace o f W a t e r

Sports, I l y a G o l o s o v ' s s t u d i o , 1921.

276

Perspective.

Fedor A n d r e e v . Design for a caf o n T v e r s k o y

B o u l e v a r d , M o s c o w , I l y a G o l o s o v ' s s t u d i o , 1922. P l a n .
Elevation.

277

V e g m a n . Design for the C e n t r a l A r c h i v e ,

M o s c o w , 1922.
278

Perspective.

V e g m a n . Design for a harbour lighthouse.

Perspective.

100
279-80

282-83
V e g m a n . D e s i g n f o r a t l i e a t r e , 1923.

Perspective. I n t e r i o r o f e n t r a n c e h a l l .
281 V e g m a n . D i p l o m a d e s i g n f o r the R e d M o s c o w
M u . s e u m , P o l y t e c h n i c a l I n s t i t u t e , M i g i , 1922.
Perspective. Side e l e v a t i o n .

V e g m a n . Design for a r a i l w a y engine depot,

1922. E l e v a t i o n s . I n t e r i o r .
284

Frantsuz. C o m p e t i t i o n design for a c r e m a t o r i u m ,

V k h u t e m a s , I l y a C o l o s o v ' s s t u d i o , 1922.

101

282-83

G h a p t e r 3 / T h e search f o r a n e w a r t i s t i c l a n g u a g e

V e g m a n . Design f o r a r a i l w a y engine depot,

1922. E l e v a t i o n s . I n t e r i o r .
284

Frantsuz. G o m p e t i d o n design for a c r e m a t o r i u m ,

V k h u t e m a s , I l y a G o l o s o v ' s s t u d i o , 1922.

mythical beast l y i n g i n w a i t for a traveUer at the end of the

A symbolism of simple geometrical forms and colour was

widely used i n A g i t A r t d u r i n g the years immediately f o l l o w i n g

road.
Great efforts were made i n the early post-Revolutionary

the Revolution. I t affected the decoration of cities at p u b l i c hol-

years to evolve a universally intehigible symbohc language i n

idays, because of the opportunities these occasions offered for

monumental art and architecture, by means of simple geomet-

the use o f Revolutionary symbols and emblems, as well as the

ric shapes and colour. Painters and sculptors contributed a

design of posters and memorials. Lissitzky's famous poster

great deal to these endeavours. Such symbolic forms also repre-

Cleave the Whites with the Red Wedge, of 1919, was one of these.

sented one of the intermediary stages or channels used by Lef-

T h i s f o r m of symbolism became so ingrained that i t was incor-

tist painting to make the transition f r o m representational ex-

porated i n monuments even by such architects as I v a n F o m i n ,

pression, via symbohc forms, i n t o the language of architecture.

Rudnev and Gegello, who for all other purposes used t r a d i t i o n -

The work of many leading artists, M a l e v i c h and T a t h n among

al forms i n their designs.

them, passed t h r o u g h a 'symbohst' stage.

I v a n F o m i n , for example, designed a series of irionuments

A t Unovis, M a l e v i c h worked out a system of'signs' aimed at

clearly influenced by the symbolism of simple geometrical

closing the gap between representational and non-representa-

shapes and the aesthetics of C u b i s m and C u b o - F u t u r i s m . T h e

tional media. H e allocated exphcit symbohc meanings to ab-

titles of his competition designs speak for themselves: Cube, for

stract geometrical figures and colour. T h e square stood f o r the

example, was one project f o r a m o n u m e n t to the victims o f the

world as a whole, the circle for the earth's movement, the t r i a n -

Revolution at Lesnoy i n Petrograd, consisting o f a massive

gle for a higher force. Extended rectangles w h i c h he called Su-

cube supported by short r o u n d pillars, carrying a brief inscrip-

premy symbolized the interaction of forces, w i t h black, w h i t e

t i o n . Displacement {Sdvig) was a m o n u m e n t to Sverdlov i n M o s -

and red representing, respectively, evil, good and revolution. A

cow, w i t h simple geometric shapes, d y n a m i c a l l y displaced,

red square thus symbolized w o r l d revolution, and so on.

resting on a base consisting o f broken classical fragments - an

Such a symbolism of geometrical forms and colour was used

ahegory o f t h e old world's destruction. T h e widespread use of

by the members of Unovis i n their M o n u m e n t to the V i c t o r y of

symbolism i n architecture was due not only to the f u n c t i o n of

the Radiant New, i n Vitebsk, a parable for the significance and

the structures concerned monuments, memorials and pala-

meaning of the October Revolution. A square p l a t f o r m , sym-

ces - b u t equally to the fact that the investment o f symbolic

bohzing the w o r l d , was surmounted by a half-sphere, repre-

meanings i n the new forms hastened the rejection o f t h e o l d ,

senting the globe, i n t o w h i c h three white a n d red wedges were

w h i l e helping to familiarize the masses w i t h the new simple

driven to symbolize the v i c t o r y o f t h e 'Radiant N e w ' .

geometric shapes and opening their eyes to the aesthetic values

This symbolism o f geometry and colour was also used to

involved.

decorate the town as a whole and to change its inherited image,

Simple, static, geometric solids, such as the cube, the sphere,

just as the Cubo-Futurist compositions of painters and sculp-

and the p y r a m i d had already been m u c h used i n the past. C u -

tors had done earlier i n Petrograd and Moscow. Whereas the

b o - F u t u r i s m added the d y n a m i s m of displacements, diagonals

latter, however, remained m i n o r visual events amongst the

and spirals, the i n s t a b i l i t y o f ' c r u m b l i n g ' compositions, the

mass of city buildings, the Vitebsk scheme was consistent i n

stress of cantilever effects and suchlike. T h e story told by the

style throughout, and d i d genuinely alter the visual character

symbolic interpretation of an architectural f o r m was regarded

of this much smaller city. ' A strange p r o v i n c i a l t o w n , ' wrote

as so i m p o r t a n t i n A g i t A r t terms that a unified f o r m a l symbo-

Sergei Eisenstein i n 1920. 'Red brick - like so many towns of

lism was applied across the boundaries o f competing styhstic

the western provinces. Sooty and dismal. B u t this t o w n is u n -

concepts and was given p r i o r i t y over all other aesthetic consid-

commonly strange. T h e m a i n streets here are covered i n w h i t e

erations.

paint over the red bricks. Green circles straggle over the white

W h a t first struck many spectators i n Tathn's Monument to the

background, orange squares, blue triangles. . . .' I t was like a

Third International was less the unaccustomed architectural de-

sort of 'Suprematist confetti scattered along the streets o f this

vices, such as its armature or the use of glass, t h a n the symbo-

bedazzled t o w n '

l i s m of the spiral, an allegorical representation of the Revolu-

P a r t I / A e s t h e t i c problems o f design

tion's upsurge and drive. T h i s design was often i m i t a t e d : a spi-

1920-23. I n Golosov's m i n d the strong d y n a m i s m o f these

r a h i n g composition was combined w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l forms, as i n

works expressed the heroic nature of the R e v o l u t i o n i n archi-

Yakulov's project for a Monument to the 26 Commissars of Baku, or

tectural f o r m . Tension, upsurge and struggle were conveyed

w i t h understated and subdued shapes, as i n L y u d v i g ' s project

here by the interaction of volumes; the architectural masses

m 1922-23 for the Palace o f L a b o u r i n Moscow, or w i t h open-

display lines of stress, and displaced volumes, acute angles and-

w o r k metal structures hke Shchuko's project o f 1924 for a

slanting hnes are prominent.

Lenin Monument.

I n the early 1920s, I l y a Golosov propounded a new design

T h e a p p l i c a t i n to architecture o f the .narrative symbolism

approach i n his 'theory of the structure of architectural orga-

used at that early stage i n A g i t a t i o n a l A r t also clearly reflected

nisms', devoted to the general rules governing the structuring

the tastes o f t h e masses. D u r i n g the Revolutionary years, they

of large forms. H e supplemented this w i t h a theory of visual dy-

had become accustomed to bright, poster-like images w i t h a

namics (literally o f 'movement') i n architecture, w h i c h dealt

distinctly symbohc use of shape and colour, and to the wide-

w i t h the practical methods o f generating a dynamic composi-

spread use o f emblematic forms. T h e numerous projects and

tion. Golosov's theories served as a f o u n d a t i o n f o r the tenets of

proposals for the perpetuation of Lenin's memory are indica-

an independent Symbohst Romanticist architectural school. It

tive i n this sense, especially the amateur contributions submit-

h a d its o w n theoretical principles, elaborated i n I l y a Golosov'sJ

ted to the open competition for the design o f t h e L e n i n Mauso-

works; its compositional techniques; its specific teaching me-

l e u m i n 1925, almost all of w h i c h incorporate a symbohc mean-

thods devised by Golosov and implemented by h i m i n the Ar- j

i n g i n the architectural conception.

chitectural Faculties of Vkhutemas and the Polytechnical In-J

A n A l l - U n i o n competition was also held that year i n Odessa

stitute; and its distinct set o f fohowers. A group of Golosov's ]

for the design of a combined L e n i n m o n u m e n t and mausoleum

pupils f r o m both establishments j o i n e d h i m because they be-j

to local victims o f the Revolution. Here too, m a n y o f t h e sub-

lieved that his pioneering work w o u l d lead to the creation of a

missions rehed upon symbolic devices c o m m o n at that time,

revolutionary architectural concept. F r o m their enthusiastic

such as displacements, d y n a m i s m , and spirals, while a number

experiments w i t h new forms and compositional methods, we

of contributions resorted to directly thematic symbolism. I n

have a range of student projects by Shibaev, Fedor Andreev,

the project entitled Mayak

V e g m a n , K h i g e r and others.

{Lighthouse),

for instance, a tower

seems to be spiralling upwards t h r o u g h a domed b u i l d i n g of

fested i n that content. A r c h i t e c t u r a l f o r m was

specific meaning. I t was the totality of mass plu:
being the architectural i n t e n t i o n w h i c h had brc
ing. A n y piece of architecture could therefore hi
as a mass expressing its o w n relative position :
f o r m bearing the i m p r i n t o f a specific inner coi
Golosov differentiated between objective i
mass. He defined the latter as independent of the i
of other masses connected w i t h i t . As he saw i t
mass was a solid that not only supplied the nucll
tectural organism's general structure, but repres
positional centre i n which the entire spatial conce
I n architectural terms, its f u n c t i o n was to suboj
all other masses w i t h i n the composition, while re
independence i n relation to them. Since the si
provided the very centre of a composition and Wc,
rying greatest expressive responsibihty, its desig

closest attention. T h e presence or absence o f h'

composition as a whole depended on how weh i t '
A n objective mass always remained subordin
jective mass, and dependent upon i t .
Golosov also attached great importance to i
'motion inherent i n masses' - w h i c h he saw as a
geometrical properties, and as one o f t h e startin

emphatically classical design, hke the Pantheon i n Rome.

T h e symbohsm o f simple geometric shapes, combined w i t h

dimensional shape devoid o f all content. 'Forr

hand, was dependent upon the particular con

compositional process. H e was p a r t i c u l a r l y c(

Ilya Golosov: theories of the structure

displacement and d y n a m i s m derived f r o m C u b o - F u t u r i s m ,

asymmetrical volumes, w h i c h i n his view interai

of architectural organisms

t u r n e d out to be no more than a passing attraction i n so far as

other more intensively t h a n symmetrical ones. "

and of visual dynamics

volume grafted on to one o f these, and the positi(

most architects were concerned. M a n y such forms and compositional methods gradually shed their symbolic content and
merely became yet another means o f expression used i n the
new architecture.

were far less constrained t h a n i n the case o f sym

A l t h o u g h Golosov was dedicated to the search for new archi-

balanced volumes; and this fact f u r t h e r stimula

tectural forms, by f a r the most i m p o r t a n t aspect of his creed

interest i n the ' m o t i o n inherent i n masses'.

was its emphasis on the expressive combination of large forms

Symbohst R o m a n t i c i s m , however, acquired such i m p o r tance i n the o u t p u t o f certain architects that they founded a
new school (1920-24) based upon an architectonic reinterpretation of the symbohsm o f simple geometric forms and
colour.
I l y a Golosov's influence was decisive i n the f o r m a t i o n of this

or volumes, rather than on detailed stylistic innovation, as the

He introduced, moreover, the concept o f t h e

tion', according to w h i c h every organism carr

basis of design. H e was a master of massive f o r m , and practical-

force consisting o f t h e 'balanced tension betweer

ly ah his works, regardless of their i n d i v i d u a l styhstic charac-

w i t h i n an organism', and causing that organism

ter, a i m to manifest the geometrical specificities of a f o r m of this

a given direction. I t was these lines of a t t r a c t i o n '

type w h i c h dominates the spatial composition i n question and

dividual architectural elements together as an i n

subordinates to itself all other forms and details.

position. Golosov distinguished between hnes of

school. H e progressed f r o m a simphfied f o r m of Classicism i n

I n his theory o f the structure o f architectural organisms,

were 'active' or vertical, and those that were 'pa

1918-19, as i n his designs f o r a hospital, a c r e m a t o r i u m and a

Golosov gave great importance to a clear distinction between

zontal. T h e development o f an architectural cor.

school, to the apphcation

'mass' and ' f o r m ' . H e defined 'mass' as the p r i m a r y three-

based on such lines, w h i c h constituted the intangj

of Symbohst

Romanticism in

103
C h a p t e r 3 / T h e search f o r a n e w a r t i s t i c l a n g u a g e

. T h i s design was often i m i t a t e d : a spicombined w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l forms, as i n

1920-23. I n Golosov's m i n d the strong d y n a m i s m of these

works expressed the heroic nature o f t h e Revolution i n archi-

\4onument to the 26 Commissars of Baku, or

tectural f o r m . Tension, upsurge and struggle were conveyed

ibdued shapes, as i n L y u d v i g ' s project

here by the interaction of volumes; the architectural masses

;e of L a b o u r i n Moscow, or w i t h open-

display hnes of stress, and displaced volumes, acute angles and

like Shchuko's project of 1924 for a

slanting lines are p r o m i n e n t .

I n the early 1920s, I l y a Golosov propounded a new design

rchitecture of the narrative symbohsm

approach i n his 'theory o f t h e structure of architectural orga-

i n A g i t a t i o n a l A r t also clearly reflected

nisms', devoted to the general rules governing the structuring

. D u r i n g the Revolutionary years, they

of large forms. H e supplemented this w i t h a theory of visual dy-

:d to b r i g h t , poster-like images w i t h a

namics (hterally of 'movement') i n architecture, w h i c h dealt

of shape and colour, and to the wide-

w i t h the practical methods of generating a d y n a m i c composi-

tic forms. T h e numerous projects and

t i o n . Golosov's theories served as a f o u n d a t i o n for the tenets of

tuation of Lenin's memory are indica-

an independent Symbolist Romanticist architectural school. l j

lally the amateur contributions submit-

had its o w n theoretical principles, elaborated i n I l y a Golosov's

tion for the design o f t h e L e n i n Mauso-

works; its compositional techniques; its specific teaching me-

1 of w h i c h incorporate a symbohc mean

thods devised by Golosov and implemented by h i m i n the A r -

, conception.

chitectural Faculties of Vkhutemas and the Polytechnical In-^

;tition was also held that year i n Odessa

stitute; and its distinct set of followers. A group of Golosov's

)ined L e n i n m o n u m e n t and mausoleum

pupils f r o m b o t h estabhshments j o i n e d h i m because they be-

Revolution. Here too, many of the sub-

lieved that his pioneering w o r k w o u l d lead to the creation of a

ymbohc devices c o m m o n at that time,

revolutionary architectural concept. F r o m their enthusiastic

d y n a m i s m , and spirals, w h i l e a number

experiments w i t h new forms and compositional methods, we

;ed to directly thematic symbohsm. I n

have a range of student projects by Shibaev, Fedor Andreev,

'ayak {Lighthouse),

V e g m a n , K h i g e r and others.

for instance, a tower

upwards t h r o u g h a domed b u i l d i n g of
design, like the Pantheon i n Rome,
imple geometric shapes, combined w i t h

Ilya Golosov: theories of the structure

r a m i s m derived f r o m C u b o - F u t u r i s m ,

of architectural organisms

)re than a passing attraction i n so far as

and of visual dynamics

Ducerned. M a n y such forms and compolually shed their symbolic content and
lother means of expression used i n the
icism, however, acquired such i m p o r F certain architects that they founded a
) based u p o n an architectonic reinterbolism of simple geometric forms and

A l t h o u g h Golosov was dedicated to the search for new architectural f o r m s , by f a r the most i m p o r t a n t aspect of his creed

1 f r o m a simplified f o r m of Classicism i n
igns for a hospital, a crematorium and a
ication of Symbolist Romanticism i n

tional f r a m e w o r k perceived by the designer, and w h i c h bonded

hand, was dependent upon the particular content and m a n i -

together and unified the organism visually. T h e m a r k of a true

fested i n that content. A r c h i t e c t u r a l f o r m was thus mass w i t h

artist was the a b i l i t y to sense the lines of attraction and use

specific meaning. I t was the totality of mass plus idea - the idea

them to estabhsh a harmonious composition.

being the architectural intention w h i c h had brought i t into be-

Golosov and his pupils used these principles extensively

ing. A n y piece of architecture could therefore be regarded b o t h

d u r i n g the early 1920s, i n dynamic compositions w h i c h v i v i d l y

as a mass expressing its o w n relative position i n space, and a

demonstrated their intensive pursuit of ways to express the

f o r m bearing the i m p r i n t of a specific inner content.

'movement of masses' and their attempts to manifest the close

Golosov differentiated between objective and

subjective

interaction of mass and space, b o t h horizontally and vertically.

mass. H e defined the latter as independent o f t h e relative position

A c c o r d i n g to Golosov's theory, lines of attraction d i d not

of other masses connected w i t h i t . As he saw i t , the subjective

necessarily i m p l y d y n a m i s m i n a composition. T h e y were

mass was a solid that not only supplied the nucleus of an archi-

merely a tool for reveahng the possible roles of a given three-di-

tectural organism's general structure, but represented the com-

mensional element w i t h i n the general composition of an archi-

positional centre i n which the entire spatial concept was focused.

tectural organism. As such they could provide the architect

I n architectural terms, its f u n c t i o n was to subordinate to itself

w i t h m a t e r i a l for a variety of compositions: both static, w i t h

all other masses w i t h i n the composition, w h i l e retaining its o w n

the lines o f g r a v i t a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l elements balancing each

independence i n relation to them. Since the subjective mass

other; and dynamic, i n w h i c h the resultant o f t h e lines of gravi-

provided the very centre of a composition and was the f o r m car-

t a t i o n is clearly - even though notionally - located outside the

rying greatest expressive responsibihty, its design required the

architectural organism itself

closest attention. T h e presence or absence of h a r m o n y i n the

T h e ' p r i n c i p l e o f t h e m o t i o n of architectural masses' became

composition as a whole depended on how well i t was conceived.

one of the most i m p o r t a n t features i n Golosov's design theory

A n objective mass always remained subordinate to the sub-

d u r i n g the early 1920s. H e therefore supplemented his general

theory of the construction of architectural masses b y a special

jective mass, and dependent u p o n i t .

Golosov also attached great importance to i d e n t i f y i n g the

theory concerning movement i n architecture. H e connected

'motion inherent i n masses' - w h i c h he saw as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e

the elucidation of movement i n architectural

geometrical properties, and as one o f t h e starting points o f t h e

w i t h the task of reflecting the d y n a m i c character of an era, and

compositional process. H e was p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned

with

thus n a t u r a l l y a t t r i b u t e d particular importance to expressing

asymmetrical volumes, w h i c h i n his view interacted w i t h each

this n o t i o n of movement i n the design of large p u b h c buildings.

other more intensively than symmetrical ones. T h e shape of a

I n 1920, he produced a project for a city bakery i n w h i c h the

volume grafted on to one of these, and the position o f t h e graft,

horizontal movement of the arches i n the roof of the transport

were far less constrained t h a n i n the case of symmetrical, f u l l y

shed sweeps over i n t o the spiral o f t h e store and t h r o u g h i t i n t o a

balanced volumes; and this fact f u r t h e r stimulated Golosov's

vertical movement along the m a i n axis o f t h e cylindrical building.

interest i n the ' m o t i o n inherent i n masses'.

compositions

I n his project for a radio station dating f r o m 1921, the b u i l d -

was its emphasis on the expressive combination of large forms

He introduced, moreover, the concept o f t h e 'line of attrac-

i n g seems to grow stepwise out of the ground as its moves to-

or volumes, rather t h a n on detailed styhstic innovation, as the

tion', according to w h i c h every organism carried a b u i l t - i n

wards the aerial mast, where the horizontal movement is ar-

basis of design. H e was a master of massive f o r m , and practica -

force consisting o f t h e 'balanced tension between aU the forces

rested w e l l beyond the confines o f t h e b u i l d i n g and switched to

within an organism', and causing that organism to gravitate i n

the vertical axis of the free-standing mast.

ly all his works, regardless of their i n d i v i d u a l styhstic character, a i m to manifest the geometrical specificities of a f o r m o f t
type w h i c h dominates the spatial composition i n question an

ence was decisive i n the f o r m a t i o n of this

dimensional shape devoid of all content. ' F o r m ' , on the other

subordinates to itself all other forms and details.

I n his theory of the structure of architectural orgamsm^s^
Golosov gave great importance to a clear distinction between
'mass' and ' f o r m ' . H e defined 'mass' as the p r i m a r y three-

a given direction. I t was these lines of attraction w h i c h held i n -

D u r i n g the same year, Golosov also produced t w o versions

dividual architectural elements together as an integrated com-

of a project f o r an observatory, the m a i n element i n b o t h being

position. Golosov distinguished between lines of attraction that

a vertical cylinder topped by a dome. I n one variant, the h o r i -

were 'active' or vertical, and those that were 'passive' or h o r i -

zontal movement developed w i t h i n a complex stepped compo-

zontal. The development o f an architectural composition was

sition o f prisms is halted at the tower and redirected vertically

based on such lines, w h i c h constituted the intangible composi-

t h r o u g h t w o semicircular annexes, w h i c h oppose the horizon-

De- 5094658
^ ^^ree centuries
A^_hitecture^scnou^^^^^ Ampjdca

104
Part I / A e s t h e t i c problems o f design

tal movement and focus its lines of force along the axis o f t h e cy-

1923-24, experimentation i n colour became characteristic of

linder. I n the second variant the composition is built on the spi-

m a n y Golosov projects, notably the Far Eastern pavilion at t h j

ral principle.

1923 A g r i c u l t u r a l E x h i b i t i o n , the competition projects for thg!

These early projects by Golosov, carried out i n a spirit o f

Soviet pavihon at the 1925 Paris E x h i b i t i o n and the Lenin

Symbolist Romanticism, incorporate b u l g i n g volumes, slant-

House o f the People at Ivanovo-Voznesensk i n 1924. He did

i n g hnes, clashes between horizontal and vertical movements,

use triangular projections i n 1924 i n t w o competition designs-

the d y n a m i s m o f spirals and m a n y other ways o f generating a

for the Leningradskaya

Pravda newspaper's Moscow office and!

d y n a m i c composition. T h e displacement o f volumes i n the

the Arkos joint-stock company b u i l d i n g - b u t these were n j

p l a n features rarely. T h i s is equahy true o f some later designs,

more than bay fronts, rather than volumes set at an angle on a'

i n w h i c h a spatial composition conceived on a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d

rectangular p l a n .

or even a strictly symmetrical p l a n is locked into position by a

Certain of Golosov's experimental projects o f 1923-24 show

structural element w h i c h i n itself is complex and restless - as i n

h i m t r y i n g to combine simple geometrical compositions, con-

the project for a forge and p u m p house o f 1921 - or, alternative-

trasting tonal effects and latticed structural elements. T h f f l

ly, i n w h i c h a r h y t h m i c series o f equally pitched roofs w i t h an

w o r k brought h i m close to early Constructivist experiments

angular, saw-toothed outhne sets up an accelerating h o r i z o n t a l

and induced h i m to align himself w i t h that position i n the mid-

movement w i t h i n the composition as a whole, as i n the project

1920s.

f o r the Ostankino stud i n 1922.

Golosov went on to make increasingly pronounced use o f

T h e evolution o f Golosov's work was reflected i n that of his

pupils. T h e i r m a i n a i m i n 1921-22 was to produce dynamic

rectangular volumes displaced i n p l a n , and the r h y t h m o f pa-

compositions and to use for this purpose ah the various means

rallel blocks i n echelon. T h e most interesting of these projects is

and methodes developed by Symbohst Romanticism - stepped

his entry for the M o s c o w Palace o f L a b o u r competition, of late

increases o f volume, displacements, sloping lines and planes,

1922 and early 1923, w h i c h represents the c u l m i n a t i o n o f his

and so on. T h e projects by Fedor Andreev for a Palace of Water |

Symbolist Romanticist experiments. H e kept to a rectangular

Sports and a caf on the Tverskoy Boulevard, and by Georgy

p l a n for the m a j o r i t y o f t h e component elements o f t h e Palace,

V e g m a n f o r the Central A r c h i v e of O l d Legal Proceedings and

b u t rotated these t h r o u g h an angle of 45 i n relation to the l o n g

a p o r t lighthouse, all carried out under Golosov's supervision,

sides o f t h e b u i l d i n g . T h e result was a highly original composi-

are typical i n this respect. B y 1924, however, V e g m a n had pro-

tion i n both p l a n and spatial organization. T h e fagades carried

duced a project for the M u s e u m o f Red Moscow which clearly j|

three triangular projections, the edges o f each o f these being

marked an intermediate stage on the way f r o m the dynamism

treated differently. T h e movement o f the resulting complex

of Symbolist Romanticism to the strictness o f Gonstructivist

composition was directed towards an open amphitheatre con-

spatial designs.

t a i n i n g a speaker's p l a t f o r m , w h i c h projected outwards on a

cantilevered metal beam. T h e movement i n the masses i n -

T h e architects whose w o r k was inspired by Symbolist Roman-

scribed i n t o the facades o f this b u i l d i n g was focused on this

ticism i n the early 1920s made a definite c o n t r i b u t i o n to the de-

p l a t f o r m and directed along a diagonal towards the square.

velopment o f a new direction i n architecture, not least by ex-

I n 1923, Golosov produced a design for the A f g h a n p a v i h o n

tending the range o f new f o r m a l research. I n their attempts to

at the All-Russian A g r i c u l t u r a l and H a n d i c r a f t E x h i b i t i o n i n

create forms and compositions that w o u l d visually embody cer-

Moscow, where he moved f r o m the earlier echelon device to

t a i n states o f consciousness, such as repose, dynamism and'

hnk the square-planned blocks on the diagonal. T h i s project

aspiration, they applied the structural opportunities offered by

influenced L y u d v i g ' s design o f 1925 for the A f g h a n embassy i n

new technology w i t h great artistic freedom.

T u r k e y . Thereafter, Golosov gradually lost interest i n angular

T h e i r approach to the part played by new constructional

displacements i n the p l a n ; they became less p r o m i n e n t and

techniques i n the development o f a new architectural concep-

were eventually ehminated f r o m his projects. Colour took their

t i o n ahied them w i t h the Rationahsts. There was also an affini-

place as the basic device o f expressive composition. D u r i n g

ty between some of the external f o r m a l devices used to produce

spatial compositions by the followers of b o t h schools. T h e Symbolist Romanticists, however, developed their o w n concept
through the symbohsm and d y n a m i s m o f f o r m ; a t t r i b u t e d a
meaning to f o r m as such; and introduced certain narrative and
depictive devices. T h e i r f o r m a l and aesthetic experiments were
conducted on the borderhne d i v i d i n g architecture f r o m sculpture, and they treated every structure as being akin to a m o n u ment. T h e Rationalists, on the other hand, sought to display

105
C h a p t e r 3 / T h e search f o r a n e w a r t i s t i c l a n g u a g e

lines o f force along the axis o f t h e cy-

1923-24, experimentation i n colour became characteristic of

spatial compositions by the followers of both schools. T h e Sym-

rt the composition is b u i l t on the spi

m a n y Golosov projects, notably the Far Eastern p a v i h o n at the

bohst Romanticists, however, developed their o w n concept

tions w h i c h they created; they kept to a strictly architectural

' Golosov, carried out i n a spirit o f

1923 A g r i c u l t u r a l E x h i b i t i o n , the competition projects for the

through the symbohsm and d y n a m i s m o f f o r m ; a t t r i b u t e d a

approach i n the means o f expression and compositional meth-

ncorporate b u l g i n g volumes, slant-

Soviet p a v i l i o n at the 1925 Paris E x h i b i t i o n and the Lenin

meaning to f o r m as such; and introduced certain narrative and

ods w h i c h they employed.

House o f t h e People at Ivanovo-Voznesensk i n 1924. He did

depictive devices. T h e i r f o r m a l and aesthetic experiments were

horizontal and vertical movements,

ad m a n y other ways o f generating a
le displacement o f volumes i n the
is equally true o f some later designs,
t i o n conceived on a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d
ical plan is locked into position by a

use triangular projections i n 1924 i n two competition designs -

conducted on the borderline d i v i d i n g architecture f r o m sculp-

for the Leningradskaya

Pravda newspaper's Moscow office and

ture, and they treated every structure as being akin to a m o n u -

the Arkos joint-stock company b u i l d i n g - b u t these were no

ment. T h e Rationalists, on the other hand, sought to display

more t h a n bay fronts, rather than volumes set at an angle on a

rectangular p l a n .
C e r t a i n of Golosov's experimental projects o f 1923-24 show

n itself is complex and restless as i n

h i m t r y i n g to combine simple geometrical compositions, con-

)ump house o f 1921 - or, alternative-

trasting tonal effects and latticed structural elements. This

ries o f equally pitched roofs w i t h an

w o r k brought h i m close to early Constructivist experiments

ne sets up an accelerating horizontal

and induced h i m to align himself w i t h that position i n the mid-

position as a whole, as i n the project

1920s.

1922.
ike increasingly pronounced use o f

T h e evolution o f Golosov's w o r k was reflected i n that of his

pupils. T h e i r m a i n a i m i n 1921-22 was to produce dynamic

aced i n plan, and the r h y t h m o f pa

compositions and to use for this purpose a l l the various means

le most interesting of these projects is

and methodes developed by Symbohst R o m a n t i c i s m - stepped

'alace of L a b o u r competition, of late

increases o f volume, displacements, sloping hnes and planes,

:h represents the c u l m i n a t i o n o f his

and so on. T h e projects by Fedor Andreev f o r a Palace of Water

periments. H e kept to a rectangular

Sports and a caf on the Tverskoy Boulevard, and by Georgy

component elements o f t h e Palace,

V e g m a n for the C e n t r a l A r c h i v e o f O l d Legal Proceedings and

an angle of 45 i n relation to the long

a port hghthouse, a l l carried out under Golosov's supervision,

'esult was a highly original composi-

are typical i n this respect. B y 1924, however, V e g m a n had pro-

al organization. T h e fagades carried

duced a project for the M u s e u m o f Red Moscow w h i c h clearly

as, the edges o f each o f these being

marked an intermediate stage on the way f r o m the dynamism

novement o f the resulting complex

of Symbolist R o m a n t i c i s m to the strictness o f Constructivist

towards an open amphitheatre con-

spatial designs.

rm, w h i c h projected outwards on a

T h e movement i n the masses i n -

T h e architects whose w o r k was inspired by Symbohst Roman-

)f this b u i l d i n g was focused on this

ticism i n the early 1920s made a definite c o n t r i b u t i o n to the de-

ng a diagonal towards the square,

velopment o f a new direction i n architecture, not least by ex-

ced a design f o r the A f g h a n pavilion

tending the range o f new f o r m a l research. I n their attempts to

I t u r a l and H a n d i c r a f t E x h i b i t i o n i n

create forms and compositions that w o u l d visually embody cer-

1 f r o m the earlier echelon device to

t a i n states o f consciousness, such as repose, dynamism and

locks on the diagonal. T h i s project

aspiration, they apphed the structural opportunities offered by

rn o f 1925 for the A f g h a n embassy i n

new technology w i t h great artistic freedom.

lov gradually lost interest i n angular

T h e i r approach to the part played by new constructional

i ; they became less p f c m i n e n t and

techniques i n the development o f a new architectural concep-

i f r o m his projects. Colour took their

t i o n allied them w i t h the Rationalists. There was also an afiim-

of expressive composition. D u r i n g

ty between some o f t h e external f o r m a l devices used to produce

the aesthetic potential o f t h e f o r m itself i n the spatial composi-

V. V. Mayakovsky

of/lis

Contemporaries)

v vospominaniyakh

sovremenmkov

(V, V. Mayakovsky

( M o s c o w , 1963), p p . 2 7 9 - 8 0 .

in llie

Reminiscences

PIONEERS OE

ARCHITECTURE

The Search for New Solutions in the 1920s and 1930s

With 1544 illustrations

t
Q bibliothee;:
J BOUWKUNDE

Thames and Hudson

11;

Rationalism

The problem of new form

During periods of transition, two requirements become paramount in art, and that includes architecture. They are the requirements for new means of expression and for a fresh aesthetic
image or concept. I t is on these problems that the innovative
architects have always concentrated their energies. Those of
them who have achieved a significant measure of success in this
field have also been those who exerted the greatest influence on
the development of new schools and trends.
The whole tone of Soviet architecture was set by the intensive formal experimentation which followed immediately upon
the Revolution. The innovators were well aware that specific
problems of function and structure, and questions concerning
the new aesthetic imagery, could not be answered without mastery ofthe new formal possibilities. The rejection of eclecticism
and stylization clearly led to the abandonment of traditional
architectural forms, but new formal and compositional methods to replace them were still only in the making. As a result,
projects and buildings remained primitively unprofessional,
since no amount of progressive social attitude and new artistic
conception could overcome these architects' lack of formal and
compositional resources. O f all the aspects o f t h e design process - the structural and functional aspects, the compositional
aspects and the problems of ultimate aesthetic image - it was
the issue of architectural form which proved to be the weakest
link in the chain. Its retarded development held back the whole
evolution of architecture as an art.
Two problems involving architectural form gave rise to special difficulties: the relationship of such form to the objective
rules governing individual perception, on the one hand, and its
relationship to the new functional and constructional bases of a
building on the other. These were the problems which engrossed followers of the two main innovative trends in Soviet
architecture in the 1920s: the Rationahsts and the Gonstructivists. I n practice, despite the doctrinal and artistic disputes
that divided them, these two trends were engaged in a common
task. But while the Rationahsts approached form in terms of
the objective laws of perception, the Gonstructivists approached it through the structural and functional aspects of
building design: they were, so to speak, digging the same tunnel from opposite ends.
The evolution of Rationalism was protracted and full of con-

tradictions. A t the time when the doctrinal and artistic principles of this trend gradually took shape in 1918-22, its adherents were much influenced by Zholtovsky's teachings, by Gubo-Futurism, Symbolist Romanticism, experimental Suprematism and the ventures of Gonstructivist painters, as well as by
Kandinsky's psychological theories. Nikolai Ladovsky became
the acknowledged aesthetic leader, the theoretician and organizer of this Rationalist trend.

Ladovsky, the leader of Rationalism

Apart from his role in the Rationahst movement, Ladovsky's

name is also connected with the reform of artistic aspects of architectural education and with the development of an original
town-planning concept. He attended a course of lectures by
Zholtovsky immediately after the Revolution, at the same time
as closely following current experiments in the figurative arts
and estabhshing artistic contacts with Leftist painters and
sculptors.
A working group of like-minded artists gradually formed
around him, first in Zhivskulptarkh in 1919-20, then from the
end of 1920 in Inkhuk's Working Group for Objective Analysis, and thereafter, from 1921, in its Working Group of Architects, as wefl as in Obmas from 1920 to 1923. These were the
people who in 1923 would form the Association of New Architects - Asnova.
While StiU working in Zhivskulptarkh, Ladovsky was not
only producing experimental projects but was already drawing
up a set of theoretical tenets for RationaUsm. He accorded
great importance to modern technology, but regarded its new
materials and structural methods as more significant for what
they could contribute to spatial organization than for their aesthetic potential.
The Zhivskulptarkh architects saw the creation of a new,
synthetic art based on architecture, painting and sculpture in
terms of the struggle for an architecture that would employ to
the fuU the latest achievements of technology, sculpture and colour, whfle rejecting stylization and eclecticism.
I n the course ofthe debates at Zhivskulptarkh during 1919,
on ways of formulating the new image of a building, Ladovsky
always stressed the role played in architecture by space. He
pointed out that though form may be abstract and independent

of afl materials, its impa

function ofthe material
the significance of abstrj
also emphasized that it
such new form with ma.
said, 'at the latest techno
and reworked because t'"
decorative respects.'
He beheved that the
determined by its functioi
more than a mere extern
also involved the creatioi
as he saw it, would be n
without superimposed
the need to evolve metl
acteristics of each solid
means.

Yet, in this context, hi

elusive use of simple geo
that the architect shoulc
imagination through th
forms.
I n his arguments ag
stressed the primacy of
claimed that the most i:
form was space. I n Apri
tects i n Inkhuk, which w
Krinsky, Dokuchaev, Ale
put forward a programm
of Rationalism as greate
the psychology of percef
The basic factors gove
ed i n this programme in
tion, a reflection of Lado
subordinate part in this j
tial considerations for t
potential.
The quest for a new a
He used the latest bud
nection, and accorded gi
tive laws for composing
' that there should be a sc
physiological principles

107
Chapter 4/Rationalism

rMtiWiillism

[ new form

ods of transition, two requirements become para

t and that includes architecture. They are the reFor new means of expression and for a fresh aesthetic
,ncept I t is on these problems that the innovative
tave always concentrated their energies. Those of
ave achieved a significant measure of success m this
Iso been those who exerted the greatest influence on
,ment of new schools and trends.
,le tone of Soviet architecture was set by the intenexperimentation which followed immediately upon
tion. The innovators were well aware that specific
f function and structure, and questions concerning
ithetic imagery, could not be answered without masaew formal possibiUties. The rejection of eclecticism
ttion clearly led to the abandonment of traditional
ral forms, but new formal and compositional meplace them were stl only in the making. As a result,
nd buildings remained primitively unprofessional,
nount of progressive social attitude and new artistic
1 could overcome these architects' lack of formal and
3nal resources. O f afl the aspects o f t h e design prostructural and functional aspects, the compositional
id the problems of ultimate aesthetic image - it was
)f architectural form which proved to be the weakest
chain. Its retarded development held back the whole
of architecture as an art.
oblems involving architectural form gave rise to speulties: the relationship of such form to the objective
-rning individual perception, on the one hand, and its
up to the new functional and constructional bases of a
on the other. These were the problems which enUowers ofthe two main innovative trends in Soviet
ure in the 1920s: the Rationahsts and the Constructipractice, despite the doctrinal and artistic disputes
led them, these two trends were engaged in a common
t while the Rationalists approached form in terms of
ctive laws of perception, the Gonstructivists ap1 it through the structural and functional aspects of
design: they were, so to speak, digging the same tunopposite ends.
volution of Rationalism was protracted a n d f u of con-

tradictions. At the time when the doctrinal and artistic prmciples of this trend gradually took shape in 1918-22, its adherents were much influenced by Zholtovsky's teachings by Gubo-Futurism, Symbolist Romanticism, experimental Suprematism and the ventures of Gonstructivist painters, as well as by
Kandinsky's psychological theories. Nikolai Ladovsky became
the acknowledged aesthetic leader, the theoretician and organizer of this Rationahst trend.

Ladovsky, the leader of Rationalism

Apart from his role in the Rationalist movement, Ladovsky s

name is also connected with the reform of artistic aspects of architectural education and with the development of an original
town-planning concept. He attended a course of lectures by
Zholtovsky immediately after the Revolution, at the same time
as closely following current experiments in the figurative arts
and estabhshing artistic contacts with Leftist pamters and
sculptors.
, ,, r
A
A working group of like-minded artists gradually formed
around him, first i n Zhivskulptarkh in 1919-20, then from the
end of 1920 in Inkhuk's Working Group for Objective Analysis and thereafter, from 1921, in its Working Group of Architec'ts, as well as in Obmas from 1920 to 1923. These were the
people who in 1923 would form the Association of New Architects - Asnova.
Whfle still working in Zhivskulptarkh, Ladovsky was not
only producing experimental projects but was already drawing
up a set of theoretical tenets for RationaUsm. He accorded
great importance to modern technology, but regarded its new
materials and structural methods as more significant for what
they could contribute to spatial organization than for their aesthetic potential.
.
The Zhivskulptarkh architects saw the creation ot a new,
synthetic art based on architecture, painting and sculpture
terms ofthe struggle for an architecture that would emj^oy o
the fuU the latest achievements of technology, sculpture an
lour, whUe rejecting stylization and eclecticisin^
i ; the course ofthe debates at Zhivskulptarkh during 19 ^
on ways of formulating the new image of a buUdmg, Ladovs Y
always stressed the role played in -chitecture by s p a pointed out that though form may be abstract and mdepend

of aU materials, its impact on the spectator was to some extent a

function ofthe material employed. When Ladovsky underlined
the significance of abstract form in aesthetic experiments, he
also emphasized that it was engineering which could endow
such new form with material substance. 'We must look,' he
said, 'at the latest technological forms; they can be borrowed
and reworked because they have not so far been developed in
decorative respects.'
He believed that the look of a building should not be solely
determined by its function, and that the task of design involved
more than a mere external reflection of its internal purpose; it
also involved the creation of an image. The new architecture,
as he saw it, would be marked by the use of simple solid forms
without superimposed decoration, and he therefore stressed
the need to evolve methods whereby the geometrical characteristics of each solid could be highlighted by architectural
means.
Yet, in this context, Ladovsky did not merely call for the exclusive use of simple geometric compositions, but maintained
that the architect should be able to stimulate the spectator's
imagination through the conjunction of clearly intelUgible
forms.
In his arguments against the early Gonstructivists, who
stressed the primacy of structure and materials, Ladovsky
claimed that the most important factor in the generation of
form was space. I n April 1921, the Working Group of Architects in Inkhuk, which was headed by Ladovsky and included
Krinsky, Dokuchaev, Alexander Petrov and Alexander Efimov,
put forward a programme which covered such basic principles
of Rationalism as greater attention to problems of space and
the psychology of perception.
The basic factors governing the generation of form were listed in this programme in order, as Space - Form - Gonstruction, a reflection of Ladovsky's belief that construction plays a
subordinate part in this process. He stressed the priority of spatial considerations for the architect over questions of artistic
potendal.
The quest for a new artistic concept greatly concerned him.
He used the latest building materials extensively in this connection, and accorded great importance to the pursuit of objecI '^^^ laws for composing architectural form. I t was essential
that there should be a scientific study ofthe psychological and
physiological principles governing individual perception of ar-

chitectural form, space and colour. Rational aesthetics and rational architecture - 'ratio-architecture', as he put it - were
primarily the application of objective criteria, derived from
scientific research, to questions of art in architectural design.
I n Ladovsky's view, Gonstructivists paid too much attention to
the technological and functional eflTiciency of architectural
form, while he and the Rationahsts argued additionally for the
need to elicit objective perceptual, psychological and physiological criteria.
'
The task, as Ladovsky defined it, was to discover not merely
emotional but also rational principles for the artistic aspects of
architecture, so as to enable an architect to apply objective perceptual criteria when he designed a building.
He called for research into new architectural principles and
solutions, as well as a more direct individual involvement in
this task. Greative imagination had a tremendous part to play
in generating genuinely innovative architectural ideas, and Ladovsky therefore regarded it as a main responsibility of architectural schools to eUcit and develop an understanding of space
and volume among future architects.

The psychoanalytical teaching method

By 1920, when he was engaged in the reform of artistic aspects

of the curriculum in the Architectural Faculty of Vkhutemas,
Ladovsky had already worked out a new, so-called psychoanalytical method of teaching. He put forward a new system of
teaching architectural composition, devised compositional
tasks for the construction of large spatial forms and introduced
the practice of making students prepare models for their compositional exercises.
The object of the psychoanalytical method was to develop in
students from their very earUest days at a Uigher educational
establishment the spatial outlook required for architectural
work. Ladovsky suggested that particular attention should
be paid at the early stages of the students' education to the
study of artistic compositional criteria based on actual psychological and physiological perception. They became familiar
witU the basic varieties of spatial forms, surface, volume, confined space (i.e. interiors), as well as with the means of architectural composition, such as proportion, rhythm, colour and
dynamics.

285 V i k t o r P e t r o v . P a r a l l e l e p i p e d : a b s t r a c t task i n the

108

demonstration of certain geometric properties of f o r m ,

P a r t I / A e s t h e t i c p r o b l e m s o f design

V k i i u t e m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1920. M o d e l .

286

T u r k u s . P a r a l l e l e p i p e d : a b s t r a c t task i n the

demonstration o f certain geometric properties o f

V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1920.
I s o m e t r i c d r a w i n g o f t l i e e x t e r n a l surfaces. P l a n .
Perspective.

The students were set problems involving elucidadon ofthe

geometrical'features of shapes; their physical and mechanical
properties, such as mass and weight, mass and balance, etc; the
identification of dynamism, rhythm, relationships and proportions, the description of volume and space, and so forth. The
work set on each theme consisted of a twofold sequence, a first,
'abstract' part, in the form of a compositional task, the second
'productional' - the solution ofthe same compositional problem but as part ofthe design of an actual object. I n the tasks set
by [he course, the complexity of the spatial forms involved
gradually increased, as did that of their environment and of
their perception by an outside observer. I n addition, more and
more intricate compositional and functional demands were
stated i n the 'production' element of each task.
The main diflference between the psychoanalytical method
based on Ladovsky's set of principles, and traditional teaching
lay i n a different approach to the role of space and to problems
of perception. I n accordance with his views, Ladovsky taught
his students that space was the basic material of architecture,
rather than the structural elements. He also shifted the emphasis from the standard study of proportions and the hierarchy of
architectural forms to criteria derived from individual perception.
One ofthe features peculiar to this system was its insistence
on problem-solving. Ladovsky did not cram his pupils, or
needlessly intervene in the details of their design work, but invariably added some extremely complicated problem - or even
a conundrum - to each set of abstract and production tasks.
Regardless of actual content, the tasks he set his students radically changed their attitude to project work and kept them m a
state of creative tension throughout the process of design.
He knew how to draw out the very best in his students by setting them abstract and producdon problems which demanded
for their soludon the use of all the potential and talent at their
disposal. His students have vivid memories ofthe brain-teasers
he set, which nagged at them as, again and again, they went
over the countless possible solutions. When outlining an abstract problem bearing on the determination of mass and
weight, for instance, Ladovsky suggested that the solution
must take account ofthe complex relationships between mass,
weight and volume. I n terms of architectural perception,
weight was usually linked to size and also to mass, but only i f
the latter was obvious, since mass was not always linked to

such factors as size. Even such a purely preliminary analysis

disclosed the full complexity of what had appeared straight
forward at first sight.
Many of Ladovsky's abstract problems lay on the borderhne
between the compositional and the technological. Students
tended to shun compositional solutions and preferred the easier technological path. I n problems concerning mass and
weight, for example, they would seek to demonstrate the destrucdon of form by mass and weight. Ladovsky would sharply
criticize such evasions and would demand instead the properly
architectural spatial soludon of a spatial task, rather than a
mere illustration ofthe effect of physical forces.
The solutions produced in Obmas often went to the limit of
existing technology. But even though Ladovsky encouraged
the quest for original, or even extreme spatial solutions, he was
very strict in ensuring that these should always be in every way
technically sound.
The staff of Obmas included a consultant engineer,
V V. Kuzmin, who at Ladovsky's request carefully checked all
designs and analysed them with the students from the technical
and constructional point of view. Yet Ladovsky never insisted
on simplification of form until all possible constructional solutions had been exhausted, and he himself often put forward solutions of great technical virtuosity.
Ladovsky tested the full psychoanalytical method on several
groups of selected Obmas students. However, when the Vkhutemas Basic Course achieved independent status as the Basic
Section, headed by Krinsky with Balikhin, Turkus, Korzhev,
Lamtsov, Glagolev and Spassky, the first graduates and students of Obmas, as his assistants, the psychoanalytic method
became the basis of teaching in the 'Space' discipline, which
was common to all faculties.
Although 'Space' was taught on the basis of Ladovsky's method, members o f t h e Basic Section's staff, especially Viktor
Bahkhin, gradually introduced into it additions and corrections of their own.

Krinsky's evolution

As a leader of RationaUsm, Vladimir Krinsky made a considerable contribution to its theory; he too was active in the theoretical discussions held in Zhivskulptarkh and Inkhuk. LadovsKy

form,

285
oblems o f design

Its were set problems involving elucidation ofthe

eatures of shapes; their physical and mechanical
,ch as mass and weight, mass and balance, etc; the
of dynamism, rhythm, relationships and proporicription of volume and space, and so forth. The
ach theme consisted of a twofold sequence, a first,
ft, in the form of a compositional task, the second
r - the solution of the same compositional probi r t ofthe design of an actual object. I n the tasks set
le, the complexity of the spatial forms involved
creased, as did that of their environment and of
ion by an outside observer. I n addition, more and
te compositional and functional demands were
'production' element of each task.
diflference between the psychoanalytical method
Jovsky's set of principles, and traditional teaching
rent approach to the role of space and to problems
a. I n accordance with his views, Ladovsky taught
that space was the basic material of architecture,
ihe structural elements. He also shifted the emphastandard study of proportions and the hierarchy of
,1 forms to criteria derived from individual percepe features pecuUar to this system was its insistence
,-solving. Ladovsky did not cram his pupils, or
atervene in the details of their design work, but inled some extremely comphcated problem - or even
m - to each set of abstract and production tasks,
of actual content, the tasks he set his students radied their attitude to project work and kept them in a
itive tension throughout the process of design,
how to draw out the very best in his students by setbstract and production problems which demanded
ution the use of all the potential and talent at their
is students have vivid memories ofthe brain-teasers
ch nagged at them as, again and again, they went
l u n t i e s s possible solutions. When outiining an ab)lem bearing on the determination of mass and
instance, Ladovsky suggested that the solution
recount ofthe complex relationships between mass,
d volume. I n terms of architectural perception,
i usually hnked to size and also to mass, but only i f
was obvious, since mass was not always linked to

V i k t o r P e t r o v . P a r a l l e l e p i p e d : a b s t r a c t task i n the

forward at first sight.

Many of Ladovsky's abstract problems lay on the borderhne
between the compositional and the technological. Students
tended to shun compositional solutions and preferred the easier, technological path. I n problems concerning mass and
weight, for example, they would seek to demonstrate the destruction of form by mass and weight. Ladovsky would sharply
criticize such evasions and would demand instead the properly
architectural spatial solution of a spatial task, rather than a
mere illustration ofthe eff"ect of physical forces.
The solutions produced in Obmas often went to the Umit of
existing technology. But even though Ladovsky encouraged!
the quest for original, or even extreme spatial solutions, he was
very strict in ensuring that these should always be in every way
technically sound.
The staff of Obmas included a consultant engineer,
V . V . Kuzmin, who at Ladovsky's request carefully checked aU j
designs and analysed them with the students from the technical I
and constructional point of view. Yet Ladovsky never insisted j
on simplification of form until aU possible constructional solutions had been exhausted, and he himself often put forward
lutions of great technical virtuosity.
Ladovsky tested the fuU psychoanalytical method on several
groups of selected Obmas students. However, when the Vkhutemas Basic Course achieved independent status as the Basic
Section, headed by Krinsky with Balikhin, Turkus, Korzhev,
Lamtsov, Glagolev and Spassky, the first graduates and students of Obmas, as his assistants, the psychoanalytic method
became the basis of teaching in the 'Space' discipline, which,
was common to all faculties.
Although 'Space' was taught on the basis of Ladovsky's method, members of the Basic Section's staff, especially Viktor
Bahkhin, gradually introduced into it additions and corrections of their own.

Krinsky's evolution

As a leader of RationaUsm, Vladimir Krinsky made a conside.

able contribution to its theory; he too was active in the theor
cal discussions held in Zhivskulptarkh and Inkhuk. Lado

V i k t o r Petrov. Forge w i t h double hearth:

f u n c t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c ( ' p r o d u c t i o n a l ' ) task i n the

V k h u t e m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1920. M o d e l .

demonstration of form, Vkhutemas,

286

L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1921. M o d e l . P l a n . Sections.

T u r k u s . P a r a l l e l e p i p e d : a b s t r a c t task i n the

Obmas,

demonstration o f certain geometric properties o f f o r m ,

289

V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1920.

s p e c i f i c task i n the d e m o n s t r a d o n o f f o r m , V k h u t e m a s ,

I s o m e t r i c d r a w i n g o f t h e e x t e r n a l surfaces. P l a n .

O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1921. M o d e l .

Perspective.

such factors as size. Even such a purely prehminary analysis

disclosed the full complexity of what had appeared straight

287-88

demonstration o f certain geometric properdes o f f o r m ,

T u r k u s . Forge w i t h double hearth: f u n c t i o n a l l y

110
290

L a m L s o v . A b s t r a c t task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

292

K o m a r o v a . A b s t r a c t task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

293 V i k t o r P e t r o v . F u n c t i o n a l l y specific

mass a n d w e i g h t , V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s

mass a n d w e i g h t , V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , r_^adovsky's

( ' p r o d u c t i o n a l ' ) task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f mass a n d

course, 1921.

course, 1 9 2 2 - 2 3 .

weight, V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1922.

291

I C o r z h c v . A b s t r a c t task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

mass a n d w e i g h t , V k i i u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s
course, 1921.

Axonometric view.

Ill

i t i a c t task i n tlie d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

292

'kfiutemas, Obmas, Ladovsky's

mass a n d w e i g h t , V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s

i t r a c t task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f
'khutemas, Obmas, Ladovsky's

K o m a r o v a . A b s t r a c t task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

course,

1922-23.

293

V i k t o r P e t r o v . F u n c t i o n a l l y specific

( ' p r o d u c t i o n a l ' ) task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f mass a n d

w e i g l i t . V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1922.
Axonometric view.

294-95

K o r z h e v . G r a i n store: f u n c t i o n a l l y specific

task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f mass a n d w e i g h t ,
V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1922.
A x o n o m e t r i c view. Perspective.

n2
296

K o r z h e v . Cross g i r d e r s o n t w o s u p p o r t s : a b s t r a c t

298

Student design. Cross girders o n t w o supports

299

Sergei L o p a t i n . S i n g l e - s i d e d l e v e r : a b s t r a c t task

300

K o r z h e v . A b s t r a c t task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

tasl{ i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , V k h u t e m a s ,

a b s t r a c t task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f c o n s t r u c t i o n ,

i n the d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f construction, V k h u t e m a s ,

dynamism, r h y t h m , correladon and proportion,

O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1922. E l e v a t i o n .

V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course,

O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course,

V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1923.

297

Elevation. Plan.

L a m t s o v . Cross g i r d e r s o n t w o s u p p o r t s : a b s t r a c t

1922.

1921.

301

A r k a d y A r k i n . A b s t r a c t task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n

task i n the d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , V k h u t e m a s ,

o f mass a n d balance, V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s

O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1922. E l e v a t i o n .

course,

302

1922.

T u r k u s . A b s t r a c t task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

dynamism, r h y t h m , correlation and p r o p o r t i o n on the

g r o u n d , V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course,

1923.

113

299

Sergei L o p a t i n . S i n g l e - s i d e d l e v e r : a b s t r a c t task

K o r z h e v . A b s t r a c t task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

303-04

A b s t r a c t task i n the d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

306

V o l o d k o . Skyscraper:

OSS girders on t w o supports: abstract

298

a b s t r a c t task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f c o n s t r u c t i o n ,

i n the d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f construction, V k h u t e m a s ,

dynamism, r h y t h m , correlation and proportion,

d y n a m i s m , r h y t h m , c o r r e l a t i o n a n d p r o p o r t i o n i n the

f u n c t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c task i n the

stration o f construction, Vlchutemas,

V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1922.

O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1921.

V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1923.

v e r t i c a l , V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1924.

demonstration of dynamism,

r's course, 1922. E l e v a t i o n .

Elevation. Plan.

D e s i g n s b y S i l c h e n k o v (303) a n d G l u s h c h e n k o ( 3 0 4 ) .

OSS g i r d e r s o n t w o s u p p o r t s : a b s t r a c t

301

stration of construction, Vkhutemas,

/'s course, 1922. E l e v a t i o n .

S t u d e n t design. Cross girders on t w o supports:

300

A r k a d y A r k i n . A b s t r a c t task i n the d e m o n s t r a t i o n

r h y t h m , correlation and
p r o p o r t i o n i n the v e r t i c a l ,

o f mass a n d b a l a n c e , V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s

Vkhutemas, Obmas, Ladovsky's

course, 1922.

course, 1924.

302

T u r k u s . A b s t r a c t task i n the d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

305

L a m t s o v . A b s t r a c t task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

dynamism, r h y t h m , correlation and p r o p o r t i o n o n the

d y n a m i s m , r h y t h m , correlation and proportion on a

g r o u n d , V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course,

s u r f a c e , V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course,

1923.

1923.

114
307

S i m b i r t s e v . Q u a y a n d r e s t a u r a n t o n a seaside

c l i f f : f u n c t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f
mass a n d b a l a n c e , V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s
course, 1922.
308

Q u a y a n d r e s t a u r a n t o n a seaside c l i f f :

f u n c t i o n a l l y specific task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f mass

a n d b a l a n c e , V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course,
1922.

309

311-12

V i k t o r Petrov. W a t e r tower: f u n c t i o n a l l y specific

task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f v o l u m e a n d space i n a
s t r u c t u r e , V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course,
1921. E l e v a t i o n . S e c t i o n . P l a n .
310

N i k o l a i Krasilnikov. W a t e r tower:

313

f u n c t i o n a l l y specific task i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

proci

v o l u m e a n d space i n a s t r u c t u r e , V k h u t e m a s ,

deuK

O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1921. E l e v a t i o n . P l a n .

Obm

314

L a m t s o v . W a t e r t o w e r : f u n c t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c task

i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f v o l u m e a n d space i n a
s t r u c t u r e , V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course,
1921. IVlodel.

BAIUHN

309

V i k t o r P e t r o v . W a t e r t o w e r ; f u n c t i o n a l l y specific

311-12

Nikolai Krasilnikov. Water tower;

313

G r u s h e n k o . T o w e r f o r c a u s t i c soda

315

A r k a d y A r k i n . T o w e r f o r c a u s t i c soda p r o c e s s i n g :

task i n the d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f v o l u m e a n d space i n a

f u n c t i o n a l l y specific task i n the d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

p r o c e s s i n g ; f u n c t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c task i n the

f u n c t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c task i n the d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

s t r u c t u r e , V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course,

v o l u m e a n d space i n a s t r u c t u r e , V k h u t e m a s ,

d e m o n s t r a d o n o f v o l u m e a n d space, V k h u t e m a s ,

v o l u m e a n d space, V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , I^adovsky's

1921. E l e v a t i o n . S e c d o n . P l a n .

O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1921. E l e v a t i o n . P l a n .

O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1922. M o d e l .

course, 1922. E l e v a t i o n s . P l a n .

310

L a m t s o v . W a t e r t o w e r ; f u n c t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c task

i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f v o l u m e a n d space i n a
s t r u c t u r e , V k h u t e m a s , O b m a s , L a d o v s k y ' s course,
1921. M o d e l .

314

E x h i b i t i o n o f O b m a s w o r k s , 1922.

318-20

Nikolai Krasilnikov. Housing structure

comprising two dwellings, Vkhutemas, Obmas,

L a d o v s k y ' s course, 1921. E l e v a t i o n . M o d e l . P l a n s .

32526

Krinsky. Experimental methodological work

i n the d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f texture under various

c o n d i t i o n s o f l i g h t i n g , e a r l y 1920s. M o d e l s .
327

K r i n s k y . Experimental methodological w o r k on

the theme o f ' C o l o u r a n d Spatial C o m p o s i t i o n ' , early

1920s.

120
328-30

:
A b s t r a c t a n d f u n c t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c tasks i n t h e

331-32

Task i n the demonstration of volume/f,

d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f m a s s a n d w e i g h t (the f u n c t i o n b e i n g

Basic Course, 'Space' disciphne, V k h u t e m a s ,

a n e x h i b i t i o n p a v i h o n ) , Basic C o u r s e , ' S p a c e '

mid-1920s.

discipline, V k h u t e m a s , under the instruction of

K r i n s k y a n d others, mid-1920s.

333-34

Task i n the demonstration o f v o l u m e / f o r m ,

Basic Course, 'Space' disciphne, V k h u t e m a s ,

mid-1920s.

335

E x h i b i t i o n o f student w o r k s , Basic Course

'Space' d i s c i p h n e , V k h u t e m a s , m i d - 1 9 2 0 s .

: t a n d f u n c t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c tasks i n the

331-32

mass a n d w e i g h t (the f u n c t i o n b e i n g

Basic C o u r s e , ' S p a c e ' d i s c i p h n e , " V k h u t e m a s ,

Basic C o u r s e , ' S p a c e ' d i s c i p l i n e , V k h u t e m a s ,

i h o n ) , Basic C o u r s e , ' S p a c e '

mid-1920s.

mid-1920s.

emas, u n d e r t h e i n s t r u c t i o n o f
rs, m i d - 1 9 2 0 s .

Task i n the demonstration o f v o l u m e / f o r m ,

333-34

Task i n the demonstration o f volume/form,

123
338

T a s k i n t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f s u r f a c e , Basic

354-56 Task in tlie organization of expressive forms

in confined space, Basic Course, 'Space' discipline,
Vkhutemas, mid-1920s.

128
357

Krinsky. Experimental design for a building w i t h

internal structural walls, 1921. Axonometric view.

Elevation. Plan.
358 Krinsky. Experimental design for a public
building with top lighting, 1920.-

359

Krinsky. Preliminary sketch for the Palace

Labour, Moscow, 1923. Elevation.

360-61 Krinsky. Skyscraper project: lieadquarters

for tfie Supreme Soviet for the National Economy,
Vesenkha, building, Moscow, 1922-23. Elevation.
Model.

m
362 Krinsky. Competition design for the Arkos
building, Moscow, 1924. Elevation.
363

Krinsky. Competition design for a sports arena,

1928. Model.

131
364

Krinsky and Rukhlyadev. Competition design

for a Columbus Monument in Santo Domingo, 1929.

Elevation.

365 Vitaly Lavrov. Aircraft factory, Vkhutemas,

Ladovsky's studio, 1926. Axonometric view.
366 Lamtsov. Competition design for the Palace of
Labour, Moscow, 1922-23. Section.

367 Korzhev. Competition design for the Soviet

pavilion at the Strasbourg Exhibition, 1929. Elevation.
Plan. Section.

1,33
craft factory, Vkhutemas,
1926. Sections. Elevation.
Plan. Site plan.

(jg9_70 Varentsov. Aircraft factory, Vkhutemas,

Dokuchaev's studio, 1926. Elevation. Model.

371 Vitaly Lavrov. The Central Car Park, Moscow,

Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio, 1924. Elevations.
Sections.
372 Glushchenko. Aircraft factory, Vkhutemas,
Ladovsky's studio, 1926. Elevation. Plan. Axonometric
view. Section.

134
373 Krutikov. Element o f t h e Soviet display at the
'Pressa' Exhibition, Cologne, 1928, under the general
direction of Lissitzky.

374 Volodko. Soviet pavihon, Strasbourg Exhibition,

1929.
375 Lissitzky. Design for the front elevation of the
Soviet pavilion at the 'Pressa' Exhibition, Cologne,
1928.

;ment o f t h e Soviet display at the

, Cologne, 1928, under the general
ky.

374 Volodko. Soviet pavilion, Strasbourg Exhibition,

1929.
375 Lissitzky. Design for the front elevation o f t h e
Soviet pavilion at the 'Pressa' Exhibition, Cologne,
19.28.

376-77 BaHkhin. Diploma design for an airport,

Vkhutemas, Obmas, Ladovsky's studio, 1924.
Elevations: airport building and control tower. Model
of complete lay-out.

135

37879 Uglazometer, front and back, for testing

angle of vision, one o f t h e instruments i n Ladovsky's
Psycho-Technical Research Laboratory, Vkhutein.

38082 Liglazometer, Ploglazometer and

Prostometer, for research into spatial properties of
form, instruments in Ladovsky's Psycho-Technical
Research Laboratory, Vkhutein,

383 Obemometer, for comparison of volumes of liquid

i n variously shaped containers, one o f t h e instruments
in Ladovsky's Psycho-Technical Research Laboratory,
Vkhutein.

137
, front and back, for testing
of the instruments in Ladovsky's
Research Laboratory, Vkhutein.

380-82 Liglazometer, Ploglazometer and

Prostometer, for research into spatial properties of
form, instruments in Ladovsky's Psycho-Technical
Research Laboratory, Vkhutein.

383 Obemometer, for comparison of volumes of liquid

in variously shaped containers, one o f t h e instruments
in Ladovsky's Psycho-Technical Research Laboratory
Vkhutein.

384-87 Asnova team (comprising Bykova, Korzhev,

Korobov, Spassky and Turkus). Competition design for
the Proletarsky District Palace of Culture, Moscow,
1930. Large H a l l : perspective. Section. Plans of first
and second floors. ,

390-92 Asnova team (comprising Balil^hin, Budo,

Prokhorova, Turkus, lodko and Sevortyan). Design for
the first round of the Palace of Soviets competition,
Moscow, 1931. Models. Plan.

140
393-94 Asnova team (comprising Zalesskaya,
Korzhev, Prokhorova and Turkus). Competition
design for the Synthetic Theatre, Sverdlovsk, 1932.
Model. Diagrams for transformation of the hall for
different functions.

141
Chapter 4/Rationalism

and he complemented each other w e l l : the former a b o r n

Asnova

theoretician and p r o f o u n d l y rational thinker, and the latter endowed w i t h a v i v i d l y emotional approach to architecture.

T h e Rationalists set up their o w n organization - the Associa-

I n 1919-20, K r i n s k y was still p r o d u c i n g distinctive designs

t i o n of N e w Architects (Asnova) - i n J u l y 1923. T h e founders o f

displaying great originahty i n spatial composition and f u l l of

this first innovative u n i o n of Soviet architects, derived f r o m

restless d y n a m i s m . B y the early 1920s, he gradually shed C u -

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h and the W o r k i n g G r o u p of Architects i n I n -

bo-Futurist influence i n his f o r m a l aesthetic experiments. H i s

k h u k and Obmas, were Ladovsky, Dokuchaev, K r i n s k y , R u k h -

compositions were n o w increasingly aimed at expressive spa-

lyadev, E f i m o v , F i d m a n , B a h k h i n and M o c h a l o v , together

tial solutions achieved by the greatest possible use of new

w i t h two engineers, L o l e i t and K u z m i n . A c c o r d i n g to its sta-

building technology.

tutes, Asnova's activities were confined to Moscow.

D u r i n g this period he contributed to the f o r m u l a t i o n of a

Ladovsky was Asnova's ideologist, its guide i n matters o f

doctrine for Rationalism. I n a lecture read i n M a y 1921 to the

art, its organizer and leader, w h i l e K o n s t a n t i n M e l n i k o v be-

Inkhuk W o r k i n g G r o u p of Architects on ' T h e Path of Architec-

came one o f t h e most i n f l u e n t i a l architects affiliated to i t . I t was

ture', he stressed the impact of rationahty on the evolution of

the revival o f t h e M o s c o w A r c h i t e c t u r a l Society - M a o - f o u n d -

modern architecture, b u t also called for the independent study

ed before the Revolution and now gradually t a k i n g over the

of architectural f o r m . I n December of that year he drew u p a

control of architectural competitions, w h i c h impelled the Ra-

statement of his personal beliefs i n w h i c h he developed these

tionalists to f o r m an association of their o w n . As one m i g h t

ideas. I n 1922-23, K r i n s k y designed a skyscraper to test this

have expected, competition juries mostly consisted o f M a o

theoretical concept,

successive

members w h o were often highly traditionalist. I n 1922-23,

sketches display increasing restraint i n composition and shape.

M a o had been p u t i n charge of the competition for a Moscow

The dynamic emphasis i n the silhouette o f t h e b u i l d i n g gradu-

Palace of L a b o u r , and the Rationahsts, then m a i n l y located i n

ally faded, and diagonal members of the armature were re-

the I n k h u k W o r k i n g G r o u p o f Architects and Obmas,

placed by right-angles.

garded the j u r y as incapable of assessing innovative projects

and

i t is significant that

re-

This progressive rationalization of artistic means and meth-

objectively and refused to enter the competition. A l t h o u g h a

ods is illustrated i n the projects carried out by K r i n s k y d u r i n g

number o f Rationalists, K r i n s k y and L a m t s o v among them,

the 1920s and at the start o f t h e 1930s; the Palace of L a b o u r i n

had already done some sketches, the m a j o r i t y decided that no

Moscow, Arkos, the Soviet p a v i l i o n at the Paris E x h i b i t i o n , the

one should take p a r t and everybody comphed, except f o r M e l -

Lenin House o f t h e People at Ivanovo-Voznesensk, the House

nikov, w h o was not f o r m a l l y a Rationahst at that time.

of the Soviets at Bryansk, the Golumbus M o n u m e n t i n Santo

As a result. Rationalism, the strongest innovative trend o f

Domingo (the last three i n collaboration w i t h Alexei R u k h l y a -

that period, remained w h o l l y unrepresented i n this competi-

dev), the Moscow sports stadium and the Palace of Soviets i n

tion, w h i c h was so i m p o r t a n t for the development of new ap-

Moscow.

proaches i n Soviet architecture. T r a d i t i o n a h s m was countered

These projects show that by the first h a l f of the 1920s

only by projects emanating f r o m the various schools of Symbo-

Krinsky had already rejected many o f t h e methods characteris-

list Romanticism, submitted by I l y a Golosov, L y u d v i g , Belo-

tic of his earlier w o r k . I n his search for an effective architectural

g r u d and others, and the recently emerging Constructivists,

image, he boldly displayed ferro-concrete frameworks, con-

represented by the Vesnin brothers.

trastingjuxtapositions of glazed and b l i n d surfaces, colour and

T h e task set out by Ladovsky for Asnova was to make a place

the symbolism of new emblems. A t the end o f the decade he

i n the c o m m u n i t y for new architecture and to establish a centre

tended to make increasing use of the centred and symmetrical

f o r creative experimentation i n opposition to M a o . I t was pro-

compositional modes of Classicism, combined w i t h a wide-

posed gradually to attract all innovative architects to Asnova,

spread apphcation of modern types of construction and new ar-

to branch out i n t o various fields of specialized architecture, to

chitectural forms.

organize publications and to take over the competitions.

Asnova held general meetings and organized sections for the

Part I/Aesthetic problems of design

taking place i n Soviet society. T h e professional problems - of

design of housing and of transport buildings, for architectural
theory, t o w n p l a n n i n g and so on, w h i c h all went into action.
Copy was also prepared for an Association periodical.
Asnova, however, failed to become a single centre f o r the
new architecture because o f t h e way things developed i n the
Soviet U n i o n . Rationalism proved to be only one o f t h e more
i m p o r t a n t innovative trends of that period. I t largely took over
the m i n o r Symbohst Romanticist schools, b u t Constructivism,
w h i c h was t a k i n g shape at about the same time, was i n direct
opposition to Rationahsm i n its approach to form-generation.
T h e u n i o n set up i n 1925 by the Constructivists - Osa - was
j o i n e d by a number of Asnova members, and some others had
left for the newly founded V o p r a organization by the end o f t h e

b o t h theory and practice - discussed i n Asnova documents and

declarations were usually hnked to newly arising social requirements. Asnova was a f a i r l y smaU artistic organization
n u m b e r i n g only thirty-five members, centred on Vkhutemas
for purposes of collaboration among students and teachers, as
well as for scientific debate.

for Asnova itself i n the press. T h e Rationahsts failed to pubhsh

their o w n periodical. W h e n the Constructivists' j o u r n a l Sovremennaya arkhitektura {Contemporary Architectura) - S A - appeared
i n 1926, i n w h i c h Rationahst w o r k was not mentioned, Osa
gained 1 clear advantage over Asnova i n terms of p u b l i c i t y .
Asnova material m a i n l y appeared i n the officially pubhshed
periodicals Stroitelstvo Moskvy {Moscow Building)

and Stroitelnaya

promyshlennost {The Building Industry). M a n y Rationahst student

projects produced i n V k h u t e m a s were pubhshed m the school s
o w n buUetin of 1927 entitled Arkhitektura

Vkhutemasa

{Vkhutemas

Lissitzky d i d m u c h to disseminate the ideas of Asnova, b o t h

i n the U S S R and abroad, where he had been w o r k i n g when the
Association was founded. H e acted as its appointed external
representative, kept i n close touch w i t h Ladovsky and pubhshed a number of Rationahst projects i n ABC and other jour
nals.

W h e n Lissitzky returned to Moscow, he and Ladovsky tried

to arrange f o r the p u b l i c a t i o n of a regular Asnova b u l l e t i n to be
called Izvestiya Asnova {Asnova News),

b u t succeeded only m

b r i n g i n g out a single issue, dated 1926. T h i s , however, contains

the most detailed statement available of Asnova's theoretical
positions, above all i n two articles by Ladovsky.
T h e Rationahsts pointed out the importance of objective
psychological and physiological criteria i n deahng w i t h questions of f o r m a l aesthetics. T h e y gave p r i o r i t y to the quest f o r a
new architectural aesthetic, and for new kinds of dwelhngs and
pubhc buildings to celebrate the great and splendid changes

ture than projects intended f o r competiti

commissions. Indeed, m a j o r projects wei
stated, more subtly tackled and provided
theoretical solutions i n such t r a i n i n g t
come to examine the various problems t

tecture we shall therefore frequently refe:

ried out i n V k h u t e m a s under Ladovsky'

T h e Rationahsts were the first to compete w i t h the traditionalists for the support o f t h e rising generation of architects, and
were therefore more closely involved i n teaching w o r k than
members of other innovative trends.

V i r t u a l l y the entire

The two centres of Rationalism

around Ladovslty and Baiilthin

strength of Asnova was engaged i n academic w o r k at Vkhutemas. T h e Rationahsts gradually extended their activities withi n i t and involved recent V k h u t e m a s graduates as w e l l . As a re-

1920s.
Difficulties arose over p u b h c i t y f o r Rationahst concepts and

thus no less i m p o r t a n t for the developme

sult Rationalists set a general direction for V k h u t e m a s traini n g i n various ways, especially i n the Basic Section, and gained
the upper h a n d there.

After the estabhshment of the 'Space' (

Section, t w o theoretical, methodologie
groupings developed w i t h i n Asnova, one
teaching staff of the Basic Section, whil
Ladovsky's students. Gradually

the

Despite its considerable influence on the development of the

groups came to diverge. V i k t o r B a l i k h h

new architectural movement i n the Soviet U n i o n , the special

the new Rationalist grouping. H e reg:

drcumstances prevailing i n the debate about art d u r m g the

i tude to problems of art as excessively

years immediately f o l l o w i n g the R e v o l u t i o n led to Rationalism

i though he accepted his general p r i n c i

being underrepresented i n practical w o r k d u r i n g the first half

theory needed to be supplemented by re

o f t h e 1920s. The activities of Asnova members also contributed

Ladovsky p u t the objective geometric ]

to this situation. T h e y were m a i n l y concerned at that time with

form first i n his teaching, B a l i k h i n str

problems of methodology and form-generation, w i t h devising

tures.

new types of buildings and a new concept for architecture.

Ladovsky proceeded from the princi

T h e y could best f o r m u l a t e and explore these questions m

sign and therefore concentrated on thi

Vkhutemas, where Obmas' C u r r i c u l u m Commission provided

and volume and on the f o r m that manif

fuU scope for a variety of experiments.

on a composition's purely artistic asp(|

T h a t is w h y such theoretical investigations were primarily

teach f u t u r e architects to convey to ai

b u i l t into the course, and the methods of generating forms were

inherent i n their designs. A n archite

treated as part of the solution of 'abstract' and 'production

stressing or elucidating by archkectur;

tasks Experiments connected w i t h new types of buildings, new

he or she had i n m i n d , or whatever fe

spatial composition and the development of a new architectural

space he or she h a d organized. I n otl

aesthetic were conducted w i t h great gusto by Ladovsky m his

saw i t , the perceptual crfteria of f o r m

Vkhutemas studio and involved several students w o r k i n g to-

established and distinct means and m i

gether on the same set subject. Themes thoroughly explored

enable an architect to assess such critei

under his supervision included an administrative skyscraper, a

new k i n d of workers' d w e l l i n g and new types of industrial

use.
B a h k h i n , however, f e h that Ladovsl

buildings such as an aircraft factory. Such w o r k continued in

considerations i n his rationalistic appi

Ladovsky's studio throughout the second h a l f of the 1920s. The

orated the Basic Section's 'Space' coi

resulting projects were therefore not merely t r a i n i n g tasks, but

degree o f r a t i o n a l i t y into artistic met!

also the experimental f o r m u l a t i o n of theoretical problems, and

143
Chapter 4/Rationalism

tic problems of design

taking place i n Soviet society. T h e professional problems - of

thus no less i m p o r t a n t f o r the development of Soviet architec-

A comparison of t r a i n i n g tasks set i n O b m a s and the Basic

b o t h theory and practice-discussed i n Asnova documents and

ture than projects intended for competition purposes or direct

Section on the subject of, say, 'Construction' or 'Balance', re-

declarations were usually hnked to newly arising social re-

commissions. Indeed, m a j o r projects were often more broadly

veals the difference between the methods of Ladovsky and Ba-

,, however, failed to become a single centre for the

quirements. Asnova was a f a i r l y small artistic organization

stated, more subtly tackled and provided w i t h more interesting

l i k h i n . T h e abstract tasks carried out under Ladovsky's super-

itecture because of the way things developed i n the

n u m b e r i n g only t h i r t y - f i v e members, centred on Vkhutemas

theoretical solutions i n such t r a i n i n g tasks. W h e n we later

vision i n v a r i a b l y reflect the w o r k and tension involved i n each

lion. Rationahsm proved to be only one o f t h e more

for purposes of collaboration among students and teachers, as

come to examine the various problems that faced Soviet archi-

particular construction, whatever

t innovative trends of that period. I t largely took over

weh as for scientific debate.

tecture we shall therefore frequently refer back to projects car-

w h i l e those carried out i n the Basic Section concentrate on out-

ried out i n Vkhutemas under Ladovsky's guidance.

w a r d balance, regardless of the actual characteristics o f the

housing and of transport buildings, for architectural

w n p l a n n i n g and so on, w h i c h aU went i n t o action.
also prepared for an Association periodical.

its o u t w a r d

expression,

Symbohst Romanticist schools, b u t Constructivism,

T h e Rationahsts were the first to compete w i t h the tradition-

s t a k i n g shape at about the same time, was i n direct

alists for the support of the rising generation of architects, and

a to Rationahsm i n its approach to form-generation,

I were therefore more closely involved i n teaching w o r k than

n set u p i n 1925 by the Constructivists - Osa - was

members o f other innovative trends. V i r t u a l l y the

entire

The two centres of Rationalism

oped and i m p a r t e d greater depth to Ladovsky's theory by en-

a number of Asnova members, and some others had

strength of Asnova was engaged i n academic w o r k at Vkhute-

around Ladovsky and Balikhin

r i c h i n g i t w i t h artistic refinements while preserving its rational

; newly founded V o p r a organization by the end o f t h e

mas. T h e Rationahsts gradually extended their activities with-

construction concerned.
A t first sight, i t m i g h t appear that B a h k h i n genuinely devel-

approach. I n practice, however, the situation was more com-

i n i t and involved recent Vkhutemas graduates as well. As a re-

After the estabhshment of the 'Space' discipline i n the Basic

plex. Ladovsky was a confirmed Rationalist both by intellectual

Ities arose over p u b l i c i t y for Rationahst concepts and

sult, Rationalists set a general direction for Vkhutemas train-

Section, two theoretical, methodological and organizational

i n c l i n a t i o n and i n his approach to f o r m . H i s Rationalism was

a itself i n the press. T h e Rationalists failed to pubhsh

i n g i n various ways, especially i n the Basic Section, and gained

groupings developed w i t h i n Asnova, one of w h i c h included the

concerned w i t h perception rather t h a n f u n c t i o n and structure,

the upper hand there.

teaching staff of the Basic Section, w h i l e the other comprised

as i n the case o f t h e Constructivists. Yet, very m u c h hke the lat-

Despite its considerable influence on the development ofthe

Ladovsky's students. G r a d u a l l y the outlook of these t w o

ter, he d i d not confine artistic creativity merely to its rational

in w h i c h Rationahst w o r k was not mentioned, Osa

new architectural movement i n the Soviet U n i o n , the special

groups came to diverge. V i k t o r B a l i k h i n acted as ideologist for

aspect. T h e Constructivist leaders claimed that the f u n c t i o n a l

clear advantage over Asnova i n terms o f p u b h c i t y .

circumstances prevailing i n the debate about art d u r i n g the

the new Rationalist grouping. H e regarded Ladovsky's atti-

structure of a b u i l d i n g only provided a basis f o r its artistic com-

i material m a i n l y appeared i n the officially published

years immediately f o l l o w i n g the Revolution led to Rationalism

tude to problems o f art as excessively rationahstic and, a l -

position, and Ladovsky similarly saw i n perceptual criteria the

Is Stroitelstvo Moskvy {Moscow Building)

being underrepresented i n practical w o r k d u r i n g the first half

though he accepted his general principles, beheved that his

objective f o u n d a t i o n for artistic composition.

most {The Building Industry). M a n y Rationahst student

o f t h e 1920s. T h e activities of Asnova members also contributed

theory needed to be supplemented by resorting to art. Whereas

T a k i n g everything i n t o account, Ladovsky recognized the

iroduced i n Vkhutemas were published i n the school's

to this situation. T h e y were m a i n l y concerned at that time with

Ladovsky put the objective geometric properties of space and

existence of a clear d i v i d i n g line i n matters o f art w h i c h could

;tin of 1927 entitled Arkhitektura

problems of methodology and form-generation, w i t h devising

form first i n his teaching, B a l i k h i n stressed their artistic fea-

not be crossed by rational methods alone. I n his 'ratio-archi-

new types of buildings and a new concept for architecture.

tures.

tectural' theory, he d i d his best not to impinge upon purely aes-

periodical. W h e n the Constructivists' j o u r n a l Sovrerkhitektura {Contemporary Architectura) - SA-

appeared

and Stroitelnaya

Vkhutemasa

{Vkhutemas

re).

T h e y could best f o r m u l a t e and explore these questions in

Ladovsky proceeded f r o m the principle of r a t i o n a l i t y i n de-

tetic problems, w h i l e B a l i k h i n , though he remained an equally

Vkhutemas, where O b m a s ' C u r r i c u l u m Commission provided

led

sign and therefore concentrated on the organization o f space

dedicated Rationahst throughout, often crossed every such

f u l l scope for a variety of experiments.

and volume and on the f o r m that manifested them, rather than

borderline.

T h a t is w h y such theoretical investigations were primariily

sre
b u i l t i n t o the course, and the methods of generating forms wei

on a composition's purely artistic aspect. H i s purpose was to

I t is clear f r o m Ladovsky's output and teaching that he was

teach future architects to convey to an onlooker the message

gifted w i t h fine artistic i n t u i t i o n and was no mere Rationalist i n

treated as part of the solution of 'abstract' and 'production'

inherent i n their designs. A n architect must be capable o f

matters o f f o r m . H e consistently and strictly instilled i n his

tasks. Experiments connected w i t h new types of buddings, new

stressing or elucidating by architectural means whatever f o r m

pupils rational methods of f o r m a l development, but always

e f o r the p u b l i c a t i o n of a regular Asnova b u l l e t i n to be

spatial composition and the developnient of a new architectural

he or she had i n m i n d , or whatever features characterized the

knew when to p u l l up i n time, before criteria that could not be

vestiya Asnova {Asnova News),

but succeeded only i n

aesthetic were conducted w i t h great gusto by Ladovsky i n his

space he or she had organized. I n other words, as Ladovsky

f o r m a l l y stated came i n t o play. I n their personal contacts w i t h

out a single issue, dated 1926. T h i s , however, contains

Vkhutemas studio and involved several students w o r k i n g to-

saw it, the perceptual criteria o f f o r m and space needed to be

h i m , his pupils sensed b o t h the power of his u n y i e l d i n g logic i n

detailed statement available of Asnova's theoretical

gether on the same set subject. Themes thoroughly explored

established and distinct means and methods f o u n d i n order to

terms o f f o r m and the u n l i m i t e d freedom o f his artistic con-

under his supervision included an administrative skyscraper, a

enable an architect to assess such criteria and p u t them to good

cepts. T h e secret of Ladovsky's teaching resided i n his ability

new k i n d of workers' d w e l l i n g and new types of industrial

use.

to induce this creative state o f m i n d i n a p u p i l . T h a t is w h y a l -

ky d i d m u c h to disseminate the ideas of Asnova, b o t h

SR and abroad, where he had been w o r k i n g when the
on was founded. H e acted as its appointed external
;ative, kept i n close touch w i t h Ladovsky and p u b lumber of Rationalist projects i n ABC and other j o u r Lissitzky returned to Moscow, he and Ladovsky tried

, above all i n t w o articles by Ladovsky.

.ationalists pointed out the importance o f objective
gical and physiological criteria i n deahng w i t h quesarmal aesthetics. T h e y gave p r i o r i t y to the quest f o r a
itectural aesthetic, and for new kinds of dwelhngs and
aildings to celebrate the great and splendid changes

buildings such as an aircraft factory. Such w o r k continued in

Bahkhin, however, felt that Ladovsky ignored purely artistic

most all the Vkhutemas projects produced under his supervision

Ladovsky's studio throughout the second h a l f of the 1920s. The

considerations i n his rationalistic approach. H e therefore elab-

stand out by the astonishing freedom o f their spatial composi-

resulting projects were therefore not merely t r a i n i n g tasks, but

orated the Basic Section's 'Space' course so as to introduce a

tion, combined w i t h an unmistakably logical approach.

also the experimental f o r m u l a t i o n of theoretical problems, and

degree of rationality i n t o artistic methods o f composition.

A n d so t w o centres for theory and organization developed

144
Part I/Aesthetic problems of design

the earhest Obmas students had graduated. A t tl

w i t h i n Asnova i n the niidi_1920s. Ladovsky increasingly al-

J u d g i n g by the foreign press, European architects took a ge-

lowed the alternative centre i n the Basic Section more scope,

nuine interest i n Asnova's activities d u r i n g the 1920s and, in

decade, i t became closely involved i n the contract

while B a h k h i n and the rest o f the teaching staff continued to

particular, i n projects carried out at V k h u t e m a s under Ladov-

which were then m u c h i n use. As soon as Asnova ]

i m p r o v e upon the psychoanalytical method.

sky's direction.

In

1927, Ladovsky created a psycho-technical scientific

nova i n the open competition as the 'Asnova tq

research laboratory i n V k h u t e i n , the famous 'Black R o o m '

w i t h walls, floor and ceihng painted black. V a r i o u s experi-

contract, i t w o u l d first carry out an i n t e r n a l comp(

it ideas. A design team w o u l d then be f o r m e d to i

Asnova teams

project w o u l d be discussed, at various stages o f

before its f i n a l submission as a complete entry

ments i n v o l v i n g objective psycho-physiological criteria of per-

competition, at Asnova's general meetings.

ception and the impact o f architectural forms were conducted

T h e rejection o f t h e i n d i v i d u a h s m characteristic o f academic

there. Instruments for the measurement o f visual perception,

studios i n architectural faculties was mentioned i n the earliest

A t the end o f t h e 1920s and start o f t h e 1930s, as

spatial representation, and so on, were produced to Ladovsky's

Rationalist Vkhutemas pubhcations, under the slogan: ' L o n g

groups - M a o , Asnova, Osa, A R U , V o p r a - p r o l

specifications. I n the course o f this w o r k , almost as though he

live i n d i v i d u a h t y , away w i t h i n d i v i d u a h s m ! ' I n this context,

jects were often entered i n the name of such o

was stiU arguing w i t h B a l i k h i n , Ladovsky stressed the scientific

' i n d i v i d u a l i s m ' p r i m a r i l y meant the subordination of students'

A R U used teams extensively to d r a f t competitio:

j u s t i f i c a t i o n for those aspects of form-generation w h i c h he con-

opinions to the views o f whoever was i n charge o f a studio and

other organizations followed suit. I n Asnova, ho

sidered capable o f rationahzation, but stopped short when i t

the resulting suppression o f personal creativity. T h i s was set

work became an artistic principle and was regarde<

came to artistic methods.

against the ideal o f a collective studio i n w h i c h individuahties

of collective creativity appropriate to the new soci

combined and everyone was given a. generous o p p o r t u n i t y to

The team method was also used to implement t

nized w h e n Ladovsky and his followers left Asnova to set u p a

develop and display an artistic i d e n t i t y , while the leader mere-

synthetic art put f o r w a r d by Bahkhin, i n the comb

new organization, the U n i o n o f Architect-Planners - A R U -

ly acted as the senior member o f the team.

T h e spht i n the Rationahst movement was f o r m a l l y recog-

chitectural work w i t h the output of painters and sc

w h i c h w i l l be dealt w i t h i n greater detail i n connection w i t h

Asnova opted for collective w o r k i n modern architecture

early planning stage. Combined teams of sculptors

t o w n - p l a n n i n g experiments. Asnova continued as a group o f

f r o m the start, and the very first practical project undertaken

as well as architects were formed and treated as ere;

young teachers i n the Basic Section led by B a h k h i n .

b y its members, the design for an international Red S t a d i u m in

atives o f artists concerned w i t h space, volume and

Asnova's history thus fahs i n t o three periods:

Moscow i n 1924, was a collective effort. W o r k on the stadium

the first, 1923-25, when i t represented the only g r o u p i n g o f

project (and then i n more d e t a , w i t h i n the Sport Structures

innovative architects and included the m a j o r i t y o f young pro-

Division) marked an i m p o r t a n t stage i n Asnova's activity. I t

gressive architects;

was used i n competition entries by Obmas students, as well as

the second, 1926-28, when a number o f members left i t for

i n practical designs and schoolroom tasks, i n c l u d i n g diploma

Osa, while Asnova split into t w o centres headed by Ladovsky

drawings. Moreover, the extensive assortment o f b u i l d i n g

types involved made i t possible to derive f r o m i t a number of

and B a h k h i n ;
the t h i r d , 1929-32, when one of these centres became an i n -

problems bearing on experiments i n f o r m a l aesthetics and new

dependent organization - A R U - i n 1928, while some members

types o f buildings, such as stadiums, dwelhngs, theatres etc.

j o i n e d V o p r a i n 1929.

T h i s first practical project undertaken by Asnova helped to es-

A p a r t f r o m those enumerated earlier, the members of Asno-

tabhsh many aspects o f t h e cohective method p r o m o t e d by the

va included, at various stages, Borisovsky, Budo, B u n i n , Byko-

Rationalists. T h e stadium project as a whole was directed by

va, Varentsov, V o l o d k o , Gelfeld, Zalesskaya, K a r r a , K o r z h e v ,

Ladovsky, but each participant had a task o f his or her o w n in

K r u g l o v a , K r u t i k o v , V i t a l y L a v r o v , Lamtsov, M e l n i k o v , M y s -

the overall sports complex.

l i n , V i k t o r Petrov, V a l e n t i n Popov, Prokhorova, Spassky, Sil-

T h e second m a j o r Asnova project was to design and build

the Shabolovka residential area i n Moscow. W h e n the Moscow

chenkov, T r a v i n , T u r k u s and others.

architects

C i t y Soviet commissioned this w o r k i n 1927, a competition was

abroad such as A d o l f Behne i n Germany, Le Corbusier i n

held w i t h i n Asnova, w h i c h picked N i k o l a i T r a v i n ' s entry as the

France, M a r t Stam i n H o l l a n d , L u n d b e r g H o l m i n America,

best. T h i s became the basis for the actual development work,

E m i l R o t h i n Switzerland, K a r e l Teige i n Czechoslovakia, L j u -

b u t other Asnova members contributed to the f i n a l design.

Asnova maintained contacts w i t h innovative

b o m i r M i c i c i n Yugoslavia and M u r o y a m a i n J a p a n .

Asnova was most active i n the last phase o f its history when

145
Chapter 4/Rationalism

:ic problems of design

nova i n the mid-" 1920s. Ladovsky increasingly al-

J u d g i n g by the foreign press, European architects took a ge-

the earliest Obmas students had graduated. A t the t u r n o f t h e

collaboration was typical o f Vkhutein's Basic Section, to which

alternative centre i n the Basic Section more scope,

nuine interest i n Asnova's activities d u r i n g the 1920s and, in

decade, i t became closely involved i n the contract competitions

the Association's centre o f creativity shifted when Ladovsky left

khin and the rest o f the teaching staff continued to

particular, i n projects carried out at Vkhutemas under Ladov-

which were then m u c h i n use. As soon as Asnova had secured a

Asnova.

pon the psychoanalytical method.

sky's direction.

contract, i t w o u l d first carry out an i n t e r n a l competition to elic-

Practically all important projects undertaken i n the Associa-

?, Ladovsky created a psycho-technical scientific

it ideas. A design team w o u l d then be f o r m e d to represent As-

tion d u r i n g its closing phase were carried out by teams. These

aboratory i n V k h u t e i n , the famous 'Black R o o m '

nova i n the open competition as the 'Asnova team'. B u t the

projects, which had gone through a process of internal competi-

1, floor and ceiling painted black. V a r i o u s experi-

project w o u l d be discussed, at various stages o f d r a f t i n g and

tion, followed by the approval of the Association as a whole, viv-

before its final submission as a complete entry f o r the open

idly illustrate the Rationalists' orientation at the end of the 1920s.

competition, at Asnova's general meetings.

M u c h i n them derives f r o m early projects carried out i n Vkhute-

Asnova teams

)lving objective psycho-physiological criteria o f perd the impact o f architectural forms were conducted

T h e rejection o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s m characteristic o f academic

Tuments for the measurement o f visual perception,

studios i n architectural faculties was mentioned i n the earhest

A t the end o f t h e 1920s and start o f t h e 1930s, as professional

mas by young Asnova members under Ladovsky's direction, but

resentation, and so on, were produced to Ladovsky's

Rationahst V k h u t e m a s pubhcations, under the slogan: ' L o n g

groups - M a o , Asnova, Osa, A R U , V o p r a - proliferated, pro-

there are novel features, such as the use of certain favoured meth-

3ns. I n the course o f this w o r k , almost as though he

live i n d i v i d u a l i t y , away w i t h i n d i v i d u a h s m ! ' I n this context,

jects were often entered i n the name o f such organizations.

ods of spatial composition, the occasional absence of a clearly i n -

guing w i t h B a l i k h i n , Ladovsky stressed the scientific

' i n d i v i d u a l i s m ' p r i m a r i l y meant the subordination of students'

A R U used teams extensively to d r a f t competition entries and

dicated centre o f composition for the general design w i t h i n the

m for those aspects of form-generation w h i c h he con-

opinions to the views o f whoever was i n charge o f a studio and

other organizations followed suit. I n Asnova, however, team-

space allotted to i t and an extensive synthesis w i t h figurative art.

pable o f rationalization, but stopped short when i t

the resulting suppression o f personal creativity. T h i s was set

work became an artistic principle and was regarded as a method

The most interesting projects carried out by the Asnova teams,

tistic methods.

against the ideal o f a collective studio i n w h i c h individualities

of collective creativity appropriate to the new social conditions.

some of which are dealt w i t h i n later chapters, included i n Mos-

it i n the Rationahst movement was f o r m a l l y recog-

combined and everyone was given a. generous o p p o r t u n i t y to

The team method was also used to implement the concept o f

cow the House of Industry (1929-30), the AU-Union Palace of

n Ladovsky and his followers left Asnova to set u p a

develop and display an artistic identity, while the leader mere-

synthetic art put f o r w a r d by Balikhin, i n the combination o f ar-

the Arts (1930), the Proletarsky District Palace of Culture (1930),

lization, the U n i o n o f Architect-Planners - A R U -

ly acted as the senior member o f t h e team.

chitectural work w i t h the output of painters and sculptors at the

the Palace of Soviets i n the first-round competition o f 1931, the

School for the A l l - U n i o n Central Executive Committee (Vtsik) i n

. be dealt w i t h i n greater detail i n connection w i t h

Asnova opted for collective w o r k i n modern architecture

early planning stage. Combined teams of sculptors and painters

n i n g experiments. Asnova continued as a group o f

f r o m the start, and the very first practical project undertaken

as well as architects were formed and treated as creative co-oper-

the K r e m l i n (1930), the K h a r k o v Massed Musical Performance

;hers i n the Basic Section led by B a l i k h i n .

by its members, the design for an international Red Stadium in

atives of artists concerned w i t h space, volume and colour. Such

Theatre (1930-31) and the Sverdlovsk Synthetic Theatre (1932).

's history thus fahs i n t o three periods:

Moscow i n 1924, was a collective effort. W o r k on the stadium

, 1923-25, w h e n i t represented the only g r o u p i n g o f

project (and then i n more detail, w i t h i n the Sport Structures

; architects and included the m a j o r i t y o f young pro-

Division) marked an i m p o r t a n t stage i n Asnova's activity. I t

chitects;

was used i n competition entries by Obmas students, as well as

\nd, 1926-28, when a number o f members left i t for

i n practical designs and schoolroom tasks, i n c l u d i n g diploma

; Asnova split i n t o two centres headed by Ladovsky

drawings. Moreover, the extensive assortment o f b u i l d i n g

lin;

types involved made i t possible to derive f r o m i t a number of

d, 1929-32, when one of these centres became an in

problems bearing on experiments i n f o r m a l aesthetics and new

: organization - A R U - i n 1928, while some members

types o f buildings, such as stadiums, dwehings, theatres etc.

ora i n 1929.

T h i s first practical project undertaken by Asnova helped to es-

om those enumerated earlier, the members of Asno-

tabhsh m a n y aspects o f t h e collective method promoted by the

d, at various stages, Borisovsky, Budo, B u n i n , Byko-

Rationahsts. T h e stadium project as a whole was directed by

;sov, V o l o d k o , Gelfeld, Zalesskaya, K a r r a , K o r z h e v ,

Ladovsky, b u t each p a r t i c i p a n t had a task of his or her o w n in

K r u t i k o v , V i t a l y L a v r o v , Lamtsov, M e l n i k o v , M y s -

the overall sports complex.

Petrov, V a l e n t i n Popov, Prokhorova, Spassky, Sil-

T h e second m a j o r Asnova project was to design and build

the Shabolovka residential area i n Moscow. W h e n the Moscow

f r a v i n , T u r k u s and others.
architects

C i t y Soviet commissioned this w o r k i n 1927, a competition was

ch as A d o l f Behne i n Germany, L e Corbusier i n

held w i t h i n Asnova, w h i c h picked N i k o l a i T r a v i n ' s entry as the

Lart Stam i n H o h a n d , L u n d b e r g H o l m i n A m e r i c a ,

best. T h i s became the basis for the actual development work,

i n Switzerland, K a r e l Teige i n Czechoslovakia, L j u -

b u t other Asnova members contributed to the f i n a l design.

maintained contacts w i t h innovative

;ic i n Yugoslavia and M u r o y a m a i n J a p a n .

Asnova was most active i n the last phase of its history when

146

Constructivism

T o y o u w h o have accepted Russia's inheritance, y o u ( I have

Constructivism, the second m a i n trend i n Soviet architecture
d u r i n g the 1920s, achieved m a t u r i t y some years later than Rationalism. I t reflected the requirements o f t h e new architecture
as real b u i l d i n g w o r k got under way again after the end o f t h e
C i v i l W a r . As an architectural movement, i t was greatly i n f l u enced i n its early stages by C o n s t r u c t i v i s m i n the wider sense,
where i t was a broad t r e n d aff-ecting early Soviet art as a whole,
i n book and exhibition design, theatre art, apphed and decora-

f a i t h i n i t ) w h o w i l l t o m o r r o w become masters o f t h e w o r l d at
large, I address one question: w h a t fantastic structures w i f l y o u
use to cover the sites o f yesterday's conflagrations? . . .
O n l y the explosion o f the Revolution of the Spirit w i l l
cleanse us o f t h e tatters of bygone art
T h e revolution o f t h e content . . . is u n t h i n k a b l e w i t h o u t a
revolution of f o r m . . . . ' '

useful objects. Artists were to 'make' t h i i

filment i n this activity. V e r y soon, betwe

Veshchist view t u r n e d into a 'labour' coi
were to switch their creative endeavour
of use, rather t h a n mere art.
I t was next proposed to alter t h very i

ity: ' m a k i n g ' was to be replaced by 'p

originally been a demand f o r the converj

to a useful i t e m - the Veshchist stage of

tive art, i n posters, and so on. I t emerged f r o m the struggle to

I n rejecting the o l d art that had served the r u l i n g classes,

developed i n t o a 'labour' concept i n whii

establish new forms of art and b r i n g t h e m i n t o line to reflect the

Mayakovsky called u p o n painters to b r i n g the new art w i t h i n

I t was not long before Art of tiie Commu

changes then t a k i n g place i n society and the new p r o d u c t i o n

reach o f t h e broad w o r k i n g masses. H e a d j u r e d the workers not

tivity' to be merged w i t h 'mechanical wc

processes, and the development o f fresh aesthetic ideals. As a

to be seduced by the old art's apparent beauty and to make the

'creative w o r k ' . T h e most articulate sti

phenomenon i n Soviet art. C o n s t r u c t i v i s m was the outcome o f

new art their o w n . Mayakovsky's poems and articles o f this

Art's 'labour' concept can be f o u n d i n

a unique synthesis of, on the one h a n d . Leftist experiments i n

period not only embrace the struggle f o r the new art, b u t also

Musstvo V proizvodstve {Art in tlie Productie

p a i n t i n g , especially b y artists searching for a way into architec-

display traces of VesfiMzm and refer to the tasks of A g i t A r t and

cow, 1921), i n w h i c h B r i k and others stJ

ture by i m p a r t i n g aesthetic significance to materials, textures

aspects of Production A r t . As a great artist, M a y a k o v s k y was at

Production A r t principles, such as the di

and structural methods, and, on the other, the theories promot-

the centre of the web o f complex and conflicting processes

difference between art and any other fi

ed i n Production A r t by B r i k , A r v a t o v , K u s h n e r and G a n , m

whereby the new art came i n t o being, and he could not be iden-

assertion that the generation o f f o r m

particular.

tified w i t h any single trend. H e was, for instance, an equally

creation o f a useful object. This view

authoritative figure b o t h to Rationahsts and to Constructivists,

I n k h u k i n the a u t u m n o f 1921. A n arti

even though they were i n bitter dispute w i t h each other.

abandon his or her calling and enter

w i t h its appeal for an art o f every-

vative architects, f o r their part, appro'*

day usefulness, represents a stage i n the development o f t h e

art o f t h e masses and the 'decoration c

A l t h o u g h the theories o f C o n s t r u c t i v i s m and Production A r t

theory of Production A r t . H e w r o t e i n 1921, i n his p o e m ' O r d e r

object to Veshchizm because - i n any ev

very often coincided, they were by no means identical. I n

No. 2 to the A r m y of the A r t s ' :

ways.created 'useful things'. T h e y mer(

1921-24, w h e n the development o f Production A r t theory was

W e shuffle and we argue

tunity to inject greater democracy into

at its peak, its supporters regarded the early Constructivism of

I n search of mystic meaning

vote their attention equally to single

1 9 2 0 - 2 1 as no more than an early stage on the way f r o m Vesh-

W h i l e things p u t up a clamour:

mass dwellings, c o m m u n a l buildings a

chizm or 'the C u l t u r e of T h i n g s ' . T h e evolution o f Constructi-

' E n d o w us w i t h new shapes!'^

the Veshchist stage, Rationahst

vism itself, however, was aff-ected by m a n y extraneous influen-

T h e next attempt to define a social role f o r the new art was

K r i n s k y among them, successfully ci

ces and i n its f u l l y developed f o r m , d u r i n g the second h a l f of the

made i n the periodical Musstvo liommuny {Art of tiie Commune) be-

Productivists i n I n k h u k , b u t as the t l

1920s, it drew on Production A r t f o r a significant c o n t r i b u t i o n

tween December 1918 and A p r i l 1919. Its editorials and arti-

developed, their paths diverged. T h e R

to its o w n theory. Production A r t ideas had been f o r m u l a t e d af-

cles by B r i k , K u s h n e r and P u n i n supplied the first identifiable

ter the establishment o f Soviet power as p a r t o f an attempt by

tenets o f Production A r t . T h e y suggested that the purpose of

Leftist artists to acknowledge the role now devolving to art m

art was not to decorate life, but to shape ft. T h e j o b of artists

society. One o f t h e first such attempts, aheady mentioned ear-

was to create objective reahty f r o m the things composmg the

her, was made i n M a r c h 1918 i n the Futurists'

Gazette, when i t

environment, rather than to depict i t . A t this stage, however,

pubhshed 'Decree N o . 1 concerning the Democratization o f

Production A r t was stiU i n its first, Veshchist phase. I n fact, the

A r t ' . I n the same - and only - issue, M a y a k o v s k y wrote m his

t e r m vesficli (thing) was introduced by Art of tlie Commune.

Mayakovsky's VeshMzm,

Constructivism and the theory of Production Art

' O p e n Letter to W o r k e r s ' :

T h e caU to p u t art at the service o f t h e b r o a d w o r k i n g masses

' T h e t w i n fires o f war and revolution have taken h o l d o f our

- to 'decorate labour' - was thus followed, for social purposes,

souls and our cities. T h e palaces of yesterday's p o m p stand as

by the concept o f t h e art of things'. T h e reahty o f art as such

b u r n t - o u t skeletons. T h e r u i n e d cities await new builders. . . .

was not denied, but fts role was to be confined to p r o v i d i n g

arc

pared to give u p art i n its o w n right a

utihtarian m a k i n g o f a ' t h i n g ' , such a

valid reason f o r the generation o f forrj

Significantly enough, the strictest ]
A r t - such as B r i k , A r v a t o v and KusI
gists, not practitioners. T h e y urged a
don, b u t saw them p r i m a r i l y as organ
cultural level, rather than active repr
T h e t e r m ' C o n s t r u c t i v i s m ' 'was a.
Art

theory developed its strict ort

Chapter 5/Constructivism

Constructivism

ism, the second m a i n trend i n Soviet architecture

920s, achieved m a t u r i t y some years later t h a n Ra
; reflected the requirements o f t h e new architecture
hng w o r k got under way again after the end o f t h e
^s an architectural movement, i t was greatly i n f l u early stages by Constructivism i n the wider sense,
i a broad trend aff'ecting early Soviet art as a whole,
exhibition design, theatre art, apphed and decora-

T o y o u w h o have accepted Russia's inheritance, y o u ( I have

f a i t h i n i t ) w h o w i l l t o m o r r o w become masters o f t h e w o r l d at
large, I address one question: w h a t fantastic structures wiU you
use to cover the shes of yesterday's conflagrations? . . .
O n l y the explosion o f the Revolution of the Spirit w i h

T h e revolution of the content . . . is unthinkable w i t h o u t a

revolution o f f o r m . . . . ' '

w forms of art and b r i n g them into line to reflect the

Mayakovsky called u p o n painters to b r i n g the new art w i t h i n

;n t a k i n g place i n society and the new p r o d u c t i o n

reach o f t h e broad w o r k i n g masses. H e a d j u r e d the workers not

Lnd the development o f fresh aesthetic ideals. As a

to be seduced by the o l d art's apparent beauty and to make the

in i n Soviet art. Constructivism was the outcome o f

new art their o w n . Mayakovsky's poems and articles o f this

nthesis of, on the one hand, Leftist experiments i n

period not only embrace the struggle for the new art, b u t also

pecially by artists searching for a w a y i n t o architec-

display traces o f Vesliciiizm and refer to the tasks of A g i t A r t and

j a r t i n g aesthetic significance to materials, textures

aspects of Production A r t . As a great artist, Mayakovsky was at

r a l methods, and, on the other, the theories p r o m o t -

the centre o f the web o f complex and conflicting processes

action A r t by B r i k , A r v a t o v , K u s h n e r and Gan, i n

whereby the new art came i n t o being, and he could not be identified with any single trend. H e was, for instance, an equally
a u t h o r k a t i v e figure b o t h to Rationalists and to Constructivists,
even t h o u g h they were i n bitter dispute w i t h each other.
Mayakovsky's Vesliciiizm, w i t h its appeal for an art of everyday usefulness, represents a stage i n the development o f the
theory of Production A r t . H e wrote i n 1921, i n his poem 'Order

coincided, they were by no means identical. I n

N o . 2 to the A r m y o f the A r t s ' :

vhen the development o f Production A r t theory was

W e shuffle and we argue

, its supporters regarded the early C o n s t r u c t i v i s m o f

I n search o f mystic meaning

!s no more t h a n an early stage on the way f r o m Vesh-

W h i l e things p u t u p a clamour:

he C u l t u r e o f T h i n g s ' . T h e evolution o f C o n s t r u c t i -

' E n d o w us w i t h new shapes!'^

developed into a 'labour' concept i n w h i c h art equalled labour.

I t was not long before Art of the Commune required 'free creativity' to be merged w i t h 'mechanical w o r k ' i n a u n i f i e d f o r m of
'creative w o r k ' . T h e most articulate statement o f Production
Art's 'labour' concept can be f o u n d i n a coflection o f articles,
Iskusstvo Vproizvodstve {Art in the Production Process), N o . 1 ( M o s cow, 1921), i n w h i c h B r i k and others stated some f u n d a m e n t a l
Production A r t principles, such as the denial of any substantive
difference between art and any other f o r m o f labour, and the
assertion that the generation of f o r m was no more t h a n the
creation o f a useful object. T h i s view o f things t r i u m p h e d at
Inkhuk i n the a u t u m n o f 1921. A n artist was now required to
abandon his or her cafling and enter i n t o p r o d u c t i o n . I n n o vative architects, for their part, approved o f t h e appeal for an
art o f t h e masses and the 'decoration o f labour'. T h e y d i d n o t
object to Veshchizm because - i n any event - architects had al-

mass dwelhngs, c o m m u n a l buildings and i n d u s t r i a l works. A t

its f u l l y developed f o r m , d u r i n g the second h a l f of the

rew on Production A r t for a significant c o n t r i b u t i o n

tween December 1918 and A p r i l 1919. Its editorials and arti-

theory. Production A r t ideas had been f o r m u l a t e d af-

cles by B r i k , K u s h n e r and P u n i n supphed the first identifiable

ablishment of Soviet power as part o f an attempt b y

tenets o f Production A r t . T h e y suggested that the purpose of

ists to acknowledge the role now devolving to art i n

art was not to decorate life, b u t to shape i t . T h e j o b of artists

ne o f t h e first such attempts, already mentioned ear-

was to create objective reality f r o m the things composing the

Gazette, w h e n i t

environment, rather t h a n to depict i t . A t this stage, hoWever,

'Decree N o . 1 concerning the D e m o c r a t i z a t i o n o f

Production A r t was still i n its first, Veshchist phase. I n fact, the

tter to W o r k e r s ' :

originally been a demand for the conversion o f an art object i n -

vote t h e n attention equally to single, 'one-off' projects and

T h e next attempt to define a social role for the new art was

t e r m veshch (thing) was introduced by Art ofthe

ity: ' m a k i n g ' was to be replaced by ' p r o d u c i n g ' . W h a t had

the Veshchist stage, Rationahst

Commune.

T h e c a n to p u t art at the service o f t h e broad w o r k i n g masses

nn fires of war and revolution have taken h o l d o f our

- to 'decorate labour' - was thus followed, for social purposes,

our cities. T h e palaces of yesterday's p o m p stand as

b y the concept o f t h e art o f things'. T h e reahty o f art as such

skeletons. T h e r u i n e d cities await new builders. . . .

was not denied, b u t its role was to be confined to providing

thought to include the concept o f Veshchizm.

T h i s must be

clearly borne i n m i n d i n order to understand h o w Lissitzky, a

Constructivist w h e n he left the Soviet U n i o n i n 1921, could
represent the Rationahst Asnova organization abroad, b u t collaborate w i t h the Constructivists i n architecture and design

of use, rather t h a n mere art.

tunity to inject greater democracy i n t o architecture and to de-

made i n the periodical Iskusstvo kommuny {Art ofthe Commune) be-

le same - and only - issue, M a y a k o v s k y wrote i n his

were to switch their creative endeavours to p r o d u c i n g objects

ways.created 'useful things'. T h e y merely saw this as an oppor-

, however, was affected by many extraneous i n f l u e n -

nade i n M a r c h 1918 i n the Futurists'

Veshchist view t u r n e d i n t o a 'labour' conception o f art. Artists

to a useful i t e m - the Veshchist stage o f Production A r t - now

I n rejecting the old art that had served the r u h n g classes,

the theories o f Constructivism and P r o d u c t i o n A r t

filment i n this activity. V e r y soon, between 1918 and 1921, the

I t was next proposed to alter the very nature of artistic activ-

cleanse us o f the tatters o f bygone art

Dosters, and so on. I t emerged f r o m the struggle to

im and the theory of Production Art

useful objects. Artists were to 'make' things, and find their f u l -

architects, Ladovsky and

Krinsky among them, successfully collaborated w i t h f u t u r e

Productivists i n I n k h u k , b u t as the theory o f Production A r t
developed, their paths diverged. T h e Rationalists were not prepared to give u p art i n its o w n r i g h t and refused to accept the
utihtarian m a k i n g o f a ' t h i n g ' , such as a b u i l d i n g , as the only
valid reason for the generation o f f o r m .
Significantly enough, the strictest promoters o f Production
A r t - such as B r i k , A r v a t o v and K u s h n e r - were pure ideologists, not practitioners. T h e y urged artists to go i n t o production, b u t saw t h e m p r i m a r i l y as organizers w h o w o u l d raise its
cultural level, rather t h a n active representatives o f art.
The t e r m ' C o n s t r u c t i v i s m ' was current before Production
Art theory developed its strict orthodoxy, and was often

w h e n he returned to Moscow while nevertheless r e m a i n i n g a

member o f Asnova.
Lissitzky took C o n s t r u c t i v i s m abroad w h e n i t was stifl at the
Veshchist stage for theoretical purposes. H e could not, i n fact,
have adopted the strict Production A r t doctrine, since he was
himself a practising artist i n the relatively t r a d i t i o n a l sense.
T h e very title - Veshch - o f t h e periodical w h i c h he founded i n
B e r h n , together w i t h I l y a Ehrenburg, makes this point clear.
T h e leading article o f t h e first issue i n 1922 p r o m o t e d the Veshchist concept or, more accurately, the concept o f Production
A r t at the stage w h e n Veshchizm was t u r n i n g i n t o early C o n structivism.
Early C o n s t r u c t i v i s m developed as an independent trend,
t h o u g h not as yet i n architecture, d u r i n g 1921, and the bitterest
controversy over i t unfolded i n I n k h u k . T h e Constructivist
W o r k i n g G r o u p mentioned earher was set u p there i n M a r c h
1921 w i t h Alexei Gan, K o n s t a n t i n Medunetsky, Alexander
Rodchenko, K a r l loganson, V l a d i m i r and Georgy Stenberg,
and V a r v a r a Stepanova. G a n f o r m u l a t e d the theoretical basis
f o r the trend and later p u t f o r w a r d his views i n Konstruktivizm,

book published i n 1922. T h e programme o f the W o r k i n g

G r o u p was d r a f t e d by G a n and approved at its meeting on
1 A p r i l 1921, w i t h the f u n d a m e n t a l a i m o f p r o m o t i n g the C o m m u n i s t expression o f material values. T h e declared i n t e n t i o n
was to pass f r o m laboratory w o r k to real activity and practical
experimentation. T h e basic means o f expression provided by
the materials a v a a b l e were said to be 'tectonic methods, construction and facture that w o u l d b r i n g the m a t e r i a l elements o f
i n d u s t r i a l cuhure i n t o p l a y ' . I n this context, tectonic method
was regarded as dependent u p o n 'the purposeful use o f indust r i a l materials', while construction 'was to be understood as the
chosen f u n c t i o n taken to its h m i t ' . T h e G r o u p proclaimed 'the
i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f artistic activity w i t h the f u n c t i o n a l nature o f
intellectual labour', declared 'unrelenting w a r on art as a
whole', and asserted 'the unacceptabihty of artistic t r a d i t i o n i n
so f a r as the C o m m u n i s t f o r m o f Constructivist buildings is
concerned'.
T h e promoters of Constructivism and Production A r t cafled

Part I / A e s t h e t i c problems o f design

u p o n artists who had rejected easel p a i n t i n g to undertake ge-

works w h i c h mark its successive stages of development. I n such

the link between Production A r t theory and a

nuinely practical p r o d u c t i o n w o r k . T h e y beheved that the new

a context, statements o f theory should be tested not only

structivism. T h e artistic n i h i l i s m prevalent

art should, by means of p r o d u c t i o n , foster the creation of a new

against the practice o f their advocates, b u t equally i n the light

supporters of Production A r t met w i t h no obj(

m a t e r i a l environment. T h e y dreamed o f a weh-adjusted new

of counter-arguments p u t f o r w a r d by their opponents. I t is i m -

f r o m the architectural Constuctivists, who,

h u m a n being surrounded by convenient things i n a well-ap-

possible to assess trends i n Soviet architecture of the 1920s fully

nessed i t to a rejection o f inherited forms an(

pointed city. T h e y also contrasted objects i n c o m m o n use w i t h

and accurately i f one confines oneself to the logical and literal

the structurally f u n c t i o n a l aspect o f a b u i l d i

artistic creations and equated the latter w i t h the way o f life o f

meaning o f contemporary statements about principles, while

form was concerned.

the former r u l i n g classes. T h e y thought that the proletariat

disregarding their practical imphcations and the debates that

w o u l d come to reject a l l 'useless' things, i n c l u d i n g objects o f

surrounded these trends. One must grasp not only w h a t was

art, and w o u l d only require whatever was useful.

postulated i n any particular set o f theories, b u t w h a t this actu-

On the term 'Constructivism'

Boris A r v a t o v and other orthodox exponents o f Production

ally meant i n practice i n each case. T h u s , the Classicist line of

A r t regarded C o n s t r u c t i v i s m as no more than a transitional

argument should be borne i n m i n d w h e n one is confronted with

stage on the way to a new art w h i c h w o u l d , i n accordance w i t h

the obdurate denial of art throughout the 1920s by a number of

art historians. I t is, however, not altogethe

the conceptions expressed i n the j o u r n a l Lef, become the art o f

architectural C o n s t m c t i v i s t thinkers. M u c h that the Classi-

where i t arose, w h a t i t originally meant and v

l i v i n g . A r v a t o v was p r o b a b l y the strictest among these theore-

cists claimed was correct, and i t is d i f i i c u l t to understand now-

eluding architecture, are covered by i t . A n a

ticians, and the ideologist o f Production A r t ' s final stage. B r i k

adays w h y Rationalists and Constructivists should have react-

each of these questions i n t u r n follows, but wil

had been at the o r i g i n o f this trend, and G a n was i n f l u e n t i a l i n

ed so sharply against the concepts they p u t f o r w a r d .

total accuracy.

The term ' C o n s t r u c t i v i s m ' has gained wide

T h e Classicists were stressing the need to take account of

Mayakovsky wrote i n his 'Paris' essay: 'Fo

the 'labour' concept - A r v a t o v i n fact took Production A r t

t r a d i t i o n , the importance o f continuity, o f national traditions,

art term has winged its way f r o m Russia, and

beyond artistic creativity and replaced i t by 'the s t r u c t u r i n g o f

the inappropriateness

o f transplanting architectural forms

Constructivism . . . , w h i c h regards the torn

life'.

f r o m the past direct i n t o the contemporary scene, the need to

artist as merely a matter of engineering requi

Assessments o f the p a r t played i n the f o r m u l a t i o n o f archi-

adapt one's heritage creatively, instead o f copying i t . A l l this,

of our entire existence. I t is f r o m us that the 1

tectural Constructivism b y the theory o f Production A r t often

so i t w o u l d seem, should have been equally acceptable to the

have to learn. Here no clever stuff w i l l prevai

f a i l to allow f o r the artistic aspect ofarchitecture. I n so far as ar-

supporters o f the new architecture. B u t the true meaning of

a new culture demands a cleared area. I t rec

chitects were concerned, the appeals by the exponents o f Pro-

such Classicist statements can only be understood by examin-

broom.'^

d u c t i o n A r t not to represent reality b u t to shape or construct a

ing the u n d e r l y i n g practice.

f o r m u l a t i n g the theory of Constructivism, b u t - by developing

A l t h o u g h M a y a k o v s k y touches upon all 1

h u m a n environment instead, a w o r l d o f relevant objects, d i d

W h e n Zholtovsky's disciples, for instance, talked about a

tions i n this passage, i t is w o r t h considering

not i n any way call upon them to abandon the essentials of their

creative assimilation o f the heritage, they apparently main-

first of them - d i d the t e r m 'Constructivism'

w o r k . Architects have always devoted themselves to the crea-

tained that no direct copying o f Classical models should be al-

ope f r o m Soviet Russia? I n the periodical G

t i o n o f a h u m a n material environment, and they therefore re-

lowed and that a l l styhstic features must be m o d i f i e d , however

editor, Hans Richter, wrote i n an article en

garded the Production A r t demands as m a i n l y a matter of so-

slightly. Such a startUng conclusion d r a w n f r o m an apparently

Constructivism': ' T h e concept of Constructie

cial p r i o r i t y and orientation towards the mass consumer. As to

quite acceptable proposition led the Classicists' opponents to

sia. I t is apphed to an art that utihzes model

the u t i l i t a r i a n view o f form-generation, C o n s t m c t i v i s t archi-

distrust a l l their suggestions about the assimilation o f tradi-

ponents instead o f the usual materials, and ;

tects saw i n i t httle more than an a d d i t i o n a l argument to be

tion. As a safeguard against such suggestions, these opponents

tional aims. T h e concept o f Constructivism i

used i n the fight against the Classicists. I f f o r m is generated by

rejected a l l claims i n favour of t r a d i t i o n , and some even denied

tended sense by Doesburg, Lissitzky and m y

f u n c t i o n and structure, any elements o f Classical order must

all art f r o m the past. T h i s was undoubtedly a - mostly verbal -

dorf Congress i n 1920.' W h e n he used thij;

certainly be discarded as antiquated - a very clear and useful

over-reaction, b u t i t enabled the innovators to eschew hoUow

Matsa correctly gave the date o f t h e Congrt

p o i n t to score against the traditionalists, and therefore most

talk about questions of t r a d i t i o n . O n l y a knowledge o f t h e reali-

popular w i t h Constructivist architects.

ties o f this debate about art explains w h y , f o r example, La-

Alexei G a n wrote on several occasions tl

The analysis and assessment of any trend i n art must obviously

dovsky entirely excluded Classicism f r o m his teaching, while

structivist group was f o r m e d i n 1920.^ A n infc

take account o f t h e theories put f o r w a r d by its supporters, since

sensitive artists such as Alexander V e s n i n and I v a n Leonidov

the a r c h i t e c t s ' j o u r n a l

explicitly rejected the concept o f art itself.

does Gan, w i t h the f o u n d a t i o n of a Construe

a movement's creative principles contain t w o inseparable i n gredients : theoretical statements and the ideas embodied i n the

Bearing this i n m i n d , i t also becomes easier to understand

1922.*

(No. 2, 1926) a l s o

khuk^ and adds that the Constructivists' pro

149
Cliapter 5/Constructivism

tic p r o b l e m s o f design

ts w h o had rejected easel p a i n t i n g to undertake ge-

works w h i c h m a r k its successive stages of development. I n such

the hnk between Production A r t theory and architectural C o n -

w i t h photographs o f their works, had been passed for i n f o r m a -

actical p r o d u c t i o n w o r k . T h e y beheved that the new

a context, statements o f theory should be tested not only

structivism. T h e artistic n i h i l i s m prevalent among orthodox

t i o n to Lissitzky w h o was on the p o i n t o f leaving for Germany

, by means of production, foster the creation of a new

against the practice o f their advocates, b u t equally i n the light

supporters of Production A r t met w i t h no objection i n principle

and France.

n v i r o n m e n t . T h e y dreamed o f a well-adjusted new

of counter-arguments p u t f o r w a r d by their opponents. I t is i m -

f r o m the architectural Constuctivists, w h o , i n practice, har-

i n g surrounded by convenient things i n a well-ap-

possible to assess trends i n Soviet architecture o f t h e 1920s fully

nessed i t to a rejection o f inherited forms and an emphasis on

clearly forgotten that the first C o n s t m c t i v i s t group was set up

ty. T h e y also contrasted objects i n c o m m o n use w i t h

and accurately i f one confines oneself to the logical and literal

the structurally f u n c t i o n a l aspect o f a b u i l d i n g i n so far as its

i n I n k h u k i n M a r c h 1921, not 1920. W o r k s by members o f t h e

nations and equated the latter w i t h the way o f life o f

meaning o f contemporary statements about principles, while

form was concerned.

group were shown i n a separate r o o m at the O b m o k h u exhibi-

r r u l i n g classes. They thought that the proletariat

disregarding their practical implications and the debates that

t i o n i n Moscow that year,^ and photographs o f these works

ne to reject a l l 'useless' things, i n c l u d i n g objects o f

surrounded these trends. One must grasp not only w h a t was

were published by Lissitzky i n the B e r l i n periodical Veshch,

rould only require whatever was useful,

postulated i n any particular set o f theories, b u t w h a t this actu-

j v a t o v and other orthodox exponents o f Production

ally meant i n practice i n each case. Thus, the Classicist hne of

ded Constructivism as no more t h a n a transitional

argument should be borne i n m i n d when one is confronted with

The term ' C o n s t r u c t i v i s m ' has gained wide currency among

appeared i n Europe only i n 1922, brought there f r o m Soviet

le way to a new art w h i c h w o u l d , i n accordance w i t h

the obdurate denial of art throughout the 1920s by a number of

art historians. I t is, however, not altogether clear when and

Russia by Lissitzky. As to its first appearance at home, docu-

Dtions expressed i n the j o u r n a l Lef, become the art o f

architectural C o n s t m c t i v i s t thinkers. M u c h that the Classi-

where i t arose, w h a t i t originally meant and w h a t art forms, i n -

ments i n the archive o f the I n k h u k ' s W o r k i n g G r o u p o f C o n -

vatov was p r o b a b l y the strictest among these theore-

cists claimed was correct, and i t is d i f f i c u l t to understand now-

cluding architecture, are covered by i t . A n attempt to answer

structivists indicate that i t was i n use at least by the beginning

id the ideologist o f Production A r t ' s final stage. B r i k

adays w h y Rationalists and Constructivists should have react-

each of these questions i n t u r n follows, but w i t h o u t any c l a i m to

of 1921, although evidence still undiscovered may push this

ed so sharply against the concepts they p u t f o r w a r d .

total accuracy.

date back to 1920, or even 1919.

at the o r i g i n o f this trend, and G a n was i n f l u e n t i a l i n

On the term 'Constructivism'

T h i s date, however, also requires correction, since G a n had

Nos. 1-2 (1922), p. 19.

I t can therefore safely be said that the t e r m ' C o n s t r u c t i v i s m '

T h e Classicists were stressing the need to take account of

Mayakovsky wrote i n his 'Paris' essay: 'For the first time, an

T h e i n i t i a l meaning o f t h e term is i m p o r t a n t because art his-

i r ' concept - A r v a t o v i n fact took Production A r t

t r a d i t i o n , the importance o f continuity, o f national traditions,

art term has winged its way f r o m Russia, and not f r o m France -

torians nowadays, consciously or unconsciously, overlook a so-

tistic creativity and replaced i t by 'the s t r u c t u r i n g o f

the inappropriateness

o f transplanting architectural forms

Constructivism . . . , w h i c h regards the f o r m a l activity o f the

cial content w h i c h was inherent i n the t e r m f r o m the start, and

f r o m the past direct i n t o the contemporary scene, the need to

ardst as merely a matter o f engineering required for the design

chiefly stress its purely f o r m a l aspect. T h e literal meaning o f

nents o f the p a r t played i n the f o r m u l a t i o n o f archi-

adapt one's heritage creatively, instead o f copying i t . A h this,

of our entire existence. I t is f r o m us that the French artists w i l l

Constructivism carries a number o f overtones - associations

lonstructivism by the theory o f Production A r t often

so i t w o u l d seem, should have been equally acceptable to the

have to learn. Here no clever stuff w i f l prevail. T h e b u i l d i n g o f

w i t h technological constructions, w i t h the structuring o f a

w for the artistic aspect ofarchitecture. I n so far as ar-

supporters o f the new architecture. B u t the true meaning of

a new culture demands a cleared area. I t requires an October

w o r k o f art (described i n I n k h u k at that time as a 'construc-

'cre concerned, the appeals by the exponents o f Pro-

such Classicist statements can only be understood by examin-

broom.'^

x t not to represent reality but to shape or construct a

ing the u n d e r l y i n g practice.

i g the theory o f Constructivism, but - by developing

t i o n ' ) , w i t h engineering w o r k i n the construction process, and

A l t h o u g h M a y a k o v s k y touches u p o n a l l three o f our ques-

w i t h the task o f organizing - or constructing - a new environ-

W h e n Zholtovsky's disciples, for instance, talked about a

tions i n this passage, i t is w o r t h considering his answer to the

ment. A l l these expressions were current i n Soviet art early i n

way call u p o n them to abandon the essentials of their

creative assimilation o f the heritage, they apparently main-

first of them - d i d the t e r m ' C o n s t r u c t i v i s m ' i n fact reach Eur-

the 1920s. T h e promoters o f Production A r t , f o r ex;ample, re-

:hitects have always devoted themselves to the crea-

tained that no direct copying of Classical models should be al-

ope f r o m Soviet Russia? I n the periodical G, N o . 3 (1924), its

garded the construction o f a material environment as the most

l u m a n material environment, and they therefore re

lowed and that ah styhstic features must be m o d i f i e d , however

editor, Hans Richter, wrote i n an article entitled 'Concering

i m p o r t a n t activity o f all, while those w h o saw Constructivism

e Production A r t demands as m a i n l y a matter o f so-

shghtly. Such a startHng conclusion d r a w n f r o m an apparently

Constructivism': ' T h e concept of Constructivism arose i n Rus-

as a fashionable new style were p r i m a r i l y interested i n its visual

ty and orientation towards the mass consumer. As to

quite acceptable proposition led the Classicists' opponents to

sia. I t is applied to an art that utilizes modern structural com-

connection w i t h that external bareness o f technically oriented

i r i a n view o f form-generation, C o n s t m c t i v i s t archi-

distrust a f l their suggestions about the assimflation o f tradi-

ponents instead o f the usual materials, and pursues construc-

construction w o r k w h i c h became, i n some sort, the h a l l m a r k o f

i n i t httle more than an a d d i t i o n a l argument to be

tion. As a safeguard against such suggestions, these opponents

tional aims. T h e concept o f Constructivism was used i n an ex-

Constructivism. Soviet architects never saw Constructivism as

le fight against the Classicists. I f f o r m is generated by

rejected a l l claims i n favour of t r a d i t i o n , and some even denied

tended sense by Doesburg, Lissitzky and myself at the D s s e l -

i m p l y i n g the p r i m acy o f construction, but regarded i t first and

and structure, any elements o f Classical order must

afl art f r o m the past. T h i s was undoubtedly a - mostly verbal -

dorf Congress i n 1920.' W h e n he used this quotation, I v a n

foremost as a new method o f design.

be discarded as antiquated - a very clear and useful

over-reaction, b u t i t enabled the innovators to eschew hollow

Matsa correctly gave the date o f t h e Congress as 2 9 - 3 1 M a y

score against the traditionaUsts, and therefore most

talk about questions of t r a d i t i o n . O n l y a knowledge o f t h e reali-

1922.*

i v i r o n m e n t instead, a w o r l d o f relevant objects, d i d

As to the activities that the t e r m ' C o n s t r u c t i v i s m ' covered,

apart f r o m its usage abroad, i t w o u l d be w r o n g , especially i n so
far as architecture is concerned, to i m p a r t a purely stylistic

vith C o n s t m c t i v i s t architects.

ties o f this debate about art explains w h y , f o r example, La-

Alexei G a n wrote on several occasions that the first C o n -

alysis and assessment of any trend i n art must obviously

dovsky entirely excluded Classicism f r o m his teaching, while

structivist group was f o r m e d i n 1920.^ A n i n f o r m a t i o n article i n

meaning to i t i n a Soviet context, or to link i t literally w i t h the

unt o f t h e theories p u t f o r w a r d by its supporters, since

sensitive artists such as Alexander V e s n i n and I v a n Leonidov

the a r c h i t e c t s ' j o u r n a l SA ( N o . 2, 1926) also links this event, as

denudation o f a structure. Y e t this is precisely w h a t often hap-

ent's creative principles contain t w o inseparable in

explicitly rejected the concept o f art itself.

does Gan, w i t h the f o u n d a t i o n o f a C o n s t m c t i v i s t group i n I n -

pens, and foreign writers attribute all innovative Soviet works

khuk^ and adds that the Constructivists' programme, together

i n the 1920s to Constructivism, or treat as C o n s t m c t i v i s t a l l

: theoretical statements and the ideas embodied i n the

Bearing this i n m i n d , i t also becomes easier to understand

150
Part I/Aesthetic problems o f design

new structural innovations. I n the Soviet architecture o f t h e

1920s, Constructivism represents an i n f l u e n t i a l b u t by no
means unique trend, w i t h identifiable creative processes w h i c h
are pecuhar to i t , i n c l u d i n g its o w n approach to the generation
of f o r m .

chine'. G a n introduced new methods o f book design and new

typefaces so as to use the lettering itself to express the content
of a text. K l u t s i s and the Stenbergs apphed

photomontage

techniques to poster w o r k . I n architecture, as i n other fields,

simplicity o f f o r m was associated w i t h democratic sentiment
and represented the new h u m a n relationships.
T h e denial o f art and a marked u t f l i t a r i a n attitude towards
f o r m led to a generally ascetic approach to design. I n addition

Constructivist artists

Production A r t theory, w h i c h dominated I n k h u k f r o m 1921 onwards, greatly influenced C o n s t m c t i v i s t principles i n many

branches o f art: i n cinema, graphics, the stage, hterature and
the'new-born art o f design. A factual approach i n literature,
documentary shots i n film, abandonment of painted stage sets,
insistence on f u n c t i o n a l requirements i n objects of everyday
use, a f l these were part o f t h e new system o f aesthetics promoted by C o n s t m c t i v i s t artists. T h e i r f u n d a m e n t a l principles i n cluded the rejection o f artistic conceits and decorations, and o f
past forms o f art, indeed even o f art as such.
As noted earlier, the rejection of o l d - w o r l d art after the Revol u t i o n was connected w i t h the prestige it had conferred on i n d i viduals i n a class-ridden society, i n w h i c h h u m a n values had
been displaced by the value of things. Moreover, i n the social
climate o f the times, the Constructivists contrasted things o f
everyday use w i t h objects of art, w h i c h they regarded as l u x u r y
products i n v o l v i n g wasted labour. C o n s t m c t i v i s t aesthetics
took shape a m i d the complexities and contradictions prevalent
as W a r C o m m u n i s m changed over to N E P , the N e w Economic
Pohcy. A n unrestrained burst o f petit-bourgeois self-interest
and the money-making tone set by traders f u r t h e r sharpened
the conflict between the aesthetic ideals proper to the different
layers i n society. T h e workers set about showing u p the p r o f i t eers by a dehberate restraint i n dress, manner o f l i v i n g and arrangement o f pubhc estabhshments. Asceticism became the
proletariat's ethical standard. A r t soon followed suit, and artists conscientiously set about creating a material environment
appropriate to these principles.
Mayakovsky was w r i t i n g poster captions, instead o f l y r i c a l
poetry. V a r v a r a Stepanova and L y u b o v Popova were produci n g textfle designs. Dziga V e r t o v deliberately filmed only documentaries. G r i g o r y M i f l e r , Stepanova, Rodchenko and T a d i n
designed w o r k i n g , sports and everyday clothes. M e y e r h o l d
dressed his actors i n overalls and replaced fiis sets by 'the ma-

it was entirely predictable, although C o n s t m c t i v i s t artists had

not foreseen such an outcome, that the simple and severe forms
w h i c h seemed to them strictly u t i h t a r i a n and w h o l l y devoid of
ornament w o u l d soon be widely taken up as the outcome of a
new styhstic trend. Restraint derived f r o m social and moral
considerations thus came to bolster artistic experiments directed at the search for a new f o r m .
T h e C o n s t m c t i v i s t o u t p u t most closely relevant to architect u r a l interests was connected w i t h the 'construction' o f all aspects o f t h e material environment - i n everyday hfe, at w o r k , i n
public buildings, for transport purposes and i n t o w n planning
- and w i t h A g i t or A g i t a t i o n a l A r t .
T h e supporters of Production A r t contrasted the creation of
works of art w i t h the construction o f a material environment
and, i n doing so, often equated the p r o d u c t i o n of objects w i t h a
structuring of everyday life. I n its f u l l y developed f o r m , however. Production A r t went beyond Veshchizm to herald the dissolut i o n of object and f o r m w i t h i n the changing social environment. T h u s K u s h n e r linked the ' w i t h e r i n g away o f t h e object'
w i t h the progress o f technology: the multi-purpose object was
i n the m a k i n g and w o u l d adapt i t s e f l t o actual needs, thus do-

coaches etc; standard coflapsible f u r n i t u r e

and clubs, cupboard-beds,

f o l d i n g wafl-b(

shelters, f o l d i n g w a f l brackets, sectional cuij

nemas, and multi-purpose equipment for
other establishments.
Gan, Lavinsky and others took a hand
equipment, b u t the largest c o n t r i b u t i o n U
this field was made by Rodchenko, w h o inc(
niques concerned i n t o the t r a i n i n g scheduli
Faculty w h i c h he directed i n Vkhutemas.
Teaching at the Stroganov College and
tionary estabhshments had been based on
handicraft skifls. As against this, the Constr
artists w o r k i n g i n the Vkhutemas Product

duced a f u n d a m e n t a l l y different method t h j

al approach and aimed to create, by the w i
modern technology, things that were both
cally v a l i d . T h e y f o u g h t for rationalization
objects o f everyday use and based their 'cc
this field on each object's f u n c t i o n , compc
make-up.
T h e first speciahsts i n w h a t they termi
struction' of equipment graduated f r o m V
end o f t h e 1920s. Rodchenko, T a t h n and L
their most i m p o r t a n t teachers.
I n a d d i t i o n to their involvement i n t

everyday objects, the Constmctivist arti:

in A g i t A r t . T h e y and the theoreticians of
cerned a certain ' u t i l i t a r i a n ' aspect i n the
logical content and subordinate artistic f

i n g away w i t h fixed shapes for particular objects. H e beheved

tional and propaganda purposes. T h e y t h

that this evolution o f the object w o u l d generate new ways of

in the list of f u n c t i o n a l l y j u s t i f i e d forms o

meeting requirements. A 'material setting' w o u l d come into existence and provide a unified system of e q u i p p i n g accommodat i o n so as to satisfy generahzed social requirements and remain
adaptable as these requirements varied i n time and space. The
' m a t e r i a l setting' represented an ideal material environment

Alexander V e s n i n and his followers ass

of C o n s t m c t i v i s t Production A r t theory a

applied this to architecture. T h e y were de:

position to the Rationahst Asnova suppo

Constmctivist artists i n their fight for moc,

cleared of i n d i v i d u a l objects and their intractable shapes. This

tecture, new objects o f everyday use and

ideal inevitably influenced the p l a n n i n g o f a material environ-

artistic labour. T h e y therefore also adopt,

ment i n the 1920s. I t also p r o m p t e d interest among C o n s t m c t i -

description o f themselves as ' C o n s t r u c t

vist and Production artists i n adaptable multi-purpose equipment. T h e y designed - or 'constructed' - products such as mobfle market booths, sectional e x h i b i t i o n equipment, combined
table-cum-divans, adaptable seat-beds for use i n aircraft.

Neither the artistic principles, nor t h

tus o f architectural Constructivism couk
planted wholesale from another disciplin

Chapter 5/Constructivism
problems o f design

chine'. G a n introduced new methods o f book design and new

coaches etc; standard cohapsible f u r n i t u r e for use i n cinemas

part of a complex interaction between architecture and various

structivism represents an i n f l u e n t i a l b u t by no

typefaces so as to use the lettering itself to express the content

and clubs, cupboard-beds,

f o l d i n g wall-beds, sectional bus

other art forms and theories. T h e process whereby the f u n d a -

ue trend, w i t h identifiable creative processes w h i c h

of a text. K l u t s i s and the Stenbergs apphed

photomontage

shelters, f o l d i n g w a l l brackets, sectional cupboards, mobile c i -

mental beliefs o f architectural Constructivism came to be for-

techniques to poster w o r k . I n architecture, as i n other fields,

nemas, and multi-purpose equipment for clubs, shops and

mulated can be followed most clearly i n the w o r k of Alexander

simplicity o f f o r m was associated w i t h democratic sentiment

other estabhshments.

Vesnin, the leader o f this movement.

iral innovations. I n the Soviet architecture o f the

to i t , i n c l u d i n g its o w n approach to the generation

and represented the new h u m a n relationships.

Gan, Lavinsky and others took a hand i n designing such

T h e denial o f art and a marked u t i h t a r i a n attitude towards

equipment, b u t the largest c o n t r i b u t i o n to 'construction' i n

f o r m led to a generally ascetic approach to design. I n addition

this field was made by Rodchenko, w h o incorporated the tech-

Aiexander Vesnin,

i t was entirely predictable, although C o n s t m c t i v i s t artists had

niques concerned i n t o the t r a i n i n g schedule o f t h e M e t a l w o r k

leader of the Constructivists

A r t theory, w h i c h dominated I n k h u k f r o m 1921 on-

not foreseen such an outcome, that the simple and severe forms

Faculty w h i c h he directed i n Vkhutemas.

i t l y influenced C o n s t m c t i v i s t principles i n many

w h i c h seemed to t h e m strictly u t i l i t a r i a n and w h o l l y devoid of

f a r t : i n cinema, graphics, the stage, hterature and

I artists

Teaching at the Stroganov Cohege and other pre-Revolu-

U n t i l the Revolution, Alexander V e s n i n worked w i t h his

ornament w o u l d soon be widely taken up as the outcome of a

donary establishments had been based on the development o f

brothers L e o n i d and V i k t o r i n a variety o f architectural styles.

r n art o f design. A factual approach i n literature,

new styhstic trend. Restraint derived f r o m social and moral

handicraft skills. As against this, the C o n s t m c t i v i s t Production

H e was also active as a painter and worked f o r a time i n T a t -

ry shots i n f i l m , abandonment of painted stage sets,

considerations thus came to bolster artistic experiments direct-

artists w o r k i n g i n the Vkhutemas Production Faculties i n t r o -

lin's studio. H e had looked to the past, both as a painter and

ed at the search for a new f o r m .

duced a f u n d a m e n t a l l y different method that relied on a r a t i o n -

an architect, although even before the Revolution his o u t p u t

T h e C o n s t m c t i v i s t o u t p u t most closely relevant to architec-

al approach and aimed to create, by the widest possible use o f

displayed a tendency to enrich Classical traditions w i t h the

itructivist artists. T h e i r f u n d a m e n t a l principles i n -

t u r a l interests was connected w i t h the 'construction' o f all as-

modern technology, things that were b o t h useful and aestheti-

achievements o f t h e new art and technology. T h u s the ceiling

rejection o f artistic conceits and decorations, and o f

pects o f t h e material environment - i n everyday life, at w o r k , i n

cally v a l i d . T h e y fought for rationahzation i n the p r o d u c t i o n o f

w h i c h he painted i n 1915 d n the Sirotkin House, b u i l t i n

of art, indeed even o f art as such.

public buildings, for transport purposes and i n t o w n planning

objects o f everyday use and based their 'construction w o r k ' i n

N i z h n y - N o v g o r o d by the three V e s n i n brothers, hints at C -

earlier, the rejection of old-world art after the Revo-

- and w i t h A g i t or A g i t a t i o n a l A r t .

this field on each object's f u n c t i o n , component materials and

zanne's influence among its Renaissance subjects and shapes

make-up.

w h i l e designs such as that for the K o n o v a l o v factory produced

m f u n c t i o n a l requirements i n objects o f everyday

ie were part o f t h e new system o f aesthetics p r o m o t -

:onnected w i t h the prestige i t had conferred on i n d i -

T h e supporters o f Production A r t contrasted the creation of

1 class-ridden society, i n w h i c h h u m a n values h a d

works o f art w i t h the construction o f a material environment

The first speciahsts i n w h a t they termed the 'artistic con-

Lced by the value o f things. Moreover, i n the social

and, i n doing so, often equated the p r o d u c t i o n of objects w i t h a

struction' o f equipment graduated f r o m V k h u t e i n towards the

the times, the Constructivists contrasted things o f

structuring of everyday life. I n its f u l l y developed f o r m , howev-

end o f t h e 1920s. Rodchenko, T a t l i n and Lissitzky were among

se w i t h objects of art, w h i c h they regarded as l u x u r y

er. Production A r t went beyond Veshchizm to herald the dissolu-

their most i m p o r t a n t teachers.

i n 1917 i n cohaboration w i t h his brother V i k t o r show traces o f

Rationalist influence.
I n the early Soviet years Alexander V e s n i n was m a i n l y engaged i n p a i n t i n g . H e was interested i n the f o r m a l aesthetic
experiments o f Leftist p a i n t i n g i n w h i c h he sensed a great po-

avolving wasted labour. C o n s t m c t i v i s t aesthetics

t i o n o f object and f o r m w i t h i n the changing social environ-

I n a d d i t i o n to their involvement i n the 'construction' o f

a m i d the complexities and contradictions prevalent

ment. T h u s K u s h n e r linked the ' w i t h e r i n g away o f t h e object'

everyday objects, the C o n s t m c t i v i s t artists were also active

tential for the development o f a new style. H e turned out non-

n m u n i s m changed over to N E P , the N e w Economic

w i t h the progress o f technology: the multi-purpose object was

in A g i t A r t . T h e y and the theoreticians o f Production A r t dis-

representational works and showed these at a number o f exhi-

unrestrained burst o f petit-bourgeois self-interest

i n the m a k i n g and w o u l d adapt itself to actual needs, thus do-

cerned a certain ' u t i l i t a r i a n ' aspect i n the need to stress ideo-

bitions. These paintings became, m u c h as the Prouns had done

m e y - m a k i n g tone set by traders f u r t h e r sharpened

i n g away w i t h f i x e d shapes for particular objects. H e believed

logical content and subordinate artistic f o r m u l a t i o n to agita-

for Lissitzky, not merely a matter o f styhstic experiment, but a

: between the aesthetic ideals proper to the different

that this evolution o f the object w o u l d generate new ways of

tional and propaganda purposes. T h e y therefore included this

bridge of sorts l i n k i n g the achievements of Leftist p a i n t i n g w i t h

iciety. T h e workers set about showing up the p r o f i t -

meeting requirements. A 'material setting' w o u l d come into ex-

in the list of f u n c t i o n a l l y j u s t i f i e d forms o f creativity.

the architecture o f Constructivism. As a painter, Alexander

eliberate restraint i n dress, manner o f l i v i n g and ar-

istence and provide a u n i f i e d system of equipping accommoda-

of p u b l i c estabhshments. Asceticism became the

Alexander Vesnin and his followers assimilated a great deal

Vesnin was influenced by a number o f masters and trends dur-

t i o n so as to satisfy generahzed social requirements and remain

of Constmctivist Production A r t theory and practice and then

i n g this period. H e was d r a w n to Leftist a r t by the f o r m a l

's ethical standard. A r t soon fohowed suit, and ar-

adaptable as these requirements varied i n time and space. The

apphed this to architecture. T h e y were determined i n their op-

experiments i n w h i c h the painters passed f r o m colour to the or-

entiously set about creating a material environment

'material setting' represented an ideal material environment

position to the Rationalist Asnova supporters and at one w i t h

ganization o f space. T h e experiments w h i c h interested Alex-

e to these principles.

cleared of i n d i v i d u a l objects and their intractable shapes. This

Constructivist artists i n their fight for modern f u n c t i o n a l archi-

ander V e s n i n were not, however, those w h i c h sought a way i n -

ivsky was w r i t i n g poster captions, instead o f l y r i c a l

ideal inevitably influenced the p l a n n i n g o f a material environ-

tecture, new objects o f everyday use and the rationalization o f

to architecture t h r o u g h Counter-reliefs or spatial construc-

rvara Stepanova and L y u b o v Popova were produc-

ment i n the 1920s. I t also p r o m p t e d interest among Constmcti-

artistic labour. They therefore also adopted their allies' chosen

tions, but rather those w h i c h linked p a i n t i n g and architecture

iesigns. Dziga V e r t o v deliberately f d m e d only docu-

vist and Production artists i n adaptable multi-purpose equip-

description o f themselves as 'Constructivists'.

by i m p l a n t i n g the f o r m e r i n t o architectural space by means o f

Neither the artistic principles, nor the theoretical appara-

architectonic compositions. T h i s approach, adopted by Popo-

G r i g o r y M i l l e r , Stepanova, Rodchenko and T a d i n

ment. T h e y designed - or 'constructed' - products such as mo-

vorking, sports and everyday clothes. M e y e r h o l d

bile market booths, sectional exhibition equipment, combined

tus of architectural C o n s t r u c t i v i s m could, however, be trans-

va soon after the Revolution i n a cycle o f works w h i c h she de-

table-cum-divans,

planted wholesale f r o m another discipline and they evolved as

scribed as 'painterly architectonics', attracted Alexander Ves-

i actors i n overalls and replaced his sets by 'the ma-

adaptable seat-beds for use i n aircraft,

152
P a r t I / A e s t h e t i c p r o b l e m s o f design

n i n to her o u t p u t , i n w h i c h he f o u n d a more organic interaction

whereby V e s n i n assimilated for architectonic purposes the

decorations and architecture - and he set out his perso

achievements o f Leftist p a i n t i n g . H e had closely explored the

derstanding o f the concepts on w h i c h early architectur!

latter and made many attempts to apply t h e m i n the actual ar-

structivism was later based. H e wrote that the artist

the W o r k i n g G r o u p o f Architects, nor the Constructivists, b u t

chitectural w o r k available to h i m at this time, such as the sim-

neither represent nor interpret existing objects, wheth

became a member i n M a y 1921 o f the W o r k i n g G r o u p o f O b -

ple geometric volumes o f t h e Red Square speaker's p l a t f o r m i n

duced by nature or h u m a n hands, b u t should create t h h

jectivists founded a m o n t h earlier by Alexander D r e v i n , Popo-

1918 and the K a m e r n y Theatre stage decorations i n 1920-22.

were new; that every object should structure perceptie

va and Nadezhda Udaltsova. T h e p r o g r a m m e d r a w n up by its

H e was now, at long last, clearly finding his way f r o m Leftist

the order o f an object was determined by the r a p i d te

founders stated that their a i m was to create 'substantial and

p a i n t i n g i n t o architecture.

modern hfe and its mathematically accurate r h y t h m

between the methods o f Leftist p a i n t i n g and architecture.

As a result, w h e n w o r k i n g at I n k h u k , V e s n i n j o i n e d neither

concrete constructions, b o t h i n space and i n a plane', and to

A growing tendency to organize the composition makes itself

component materials and by its effectiveness; and tha

w o r k 'not on the representation of components, b u t on the crea-

felt i n works d a t i n g f r o m 1922 as compared w i t h those o f t h e

ever an artist made should be constructive w i t h o u t any

t i o n o f a concrete organism, b o t h i n space and i n a plane'.

previous year. T h e component-elements have not increased in

of representation.

Discussions about theory w i t h i n the group bore on problems

size, b u t a u n i f y i n g , specifically graphic principle becomes ap-

W o r k for the stage d i d m u c h to shape Alexander V

such as the d e f i n i t i o n and analysis o f colour, the materializa-

parent, even though the works as such remain w h o l l y pictorial.

outlook. T h e theatre acted as a sort of testing ground fo

t i o n o f colour, the analysis o f the elements o f colour, substan-

T h e composition tends to be more closely structured, a square

tecture and design d u r i n g the early years o f Soviet pow

tiahty, and the quahty o f space. Special attention was devoted

g r i d emerges f r o m the medley o f i n d i v i d u a l fragments and a

tremendous accumulated artistic potential could find n

to subjects connected w i t h the notions o f ' p r o d u c t i o n ' i n art

large p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e flat elements combine to generate a kind

in architecture at that time. Instead, i t switched to thi

and o f ' f a c t u r e ' . Experiments i n spatial construction were u n -

of cellular f r a m e w o r k . D e p t h is introduced and emphasized by

where architectural compositions and objects o f every(

dertaken.

the superimposition o f another graphic g r i d f o r m i n g a second

Could be produced life-sized, rather than on paper or as

f r a m e w o r k closer to the spectator, b u t this time consisting of

down models. T h e b r i l l i a n t successes o f t h e Soviet theat

rods rather than planes.

the Revolution were not only due to the pioneering w o i

T h e O b j e c t i v i s t programme reflected the approach to Leftist f o r m a l experiments u n d e r l y i n g the teaching i n t w o V k h u t e mas studios, one headed by D r e v i n and Udaltsova, the other

I n Alexander Vesnin's graphic works d a t i n g f r o m 1922 a

rectors such as M e y e r h o l d , T a i r o v and Vakhtangc

by Popova and Alexander V e s n i n , w h o had taught p a i n t i n g

tendency to introduce a rectangular f r a m e w o r k is even more

equally to the o u t p u t of artists attracted to stage design

and d r a w i n g there since 1921.

pronounced t h a n i n his paintings. These works represent a

time, among t h e m Y a k u l o v , Exter, Popova, A l e x a n d e r '

Popova's influence is clearly perceptible i n Vesnin's early

store o f architectural compositions for use, specifically as fa-

Rodchenko, Stepanova,

non-representational work i m m e d i a t e l y after the Revolution.

gades, i n f u t u r e C o n s t m c t i v i s t buildings. T h i s is significant:

Shestakov. W h e n V e s n i n designed the setting f o r C l

B u t i n his paintings and graphic compositions he was also i n -

unlike Lissitzky's Prouns and Malevich's Arkitectons,

LAnnoncefaite

tent on t a k i n g i n the widest possible range o f those discoveries

t i v i s m came to architecture f r o m non-representational paint-

plified medieval architecture to the l i m i t and created a

made by Leftist p a i n t i n g w h i c h pointed the way to architec-

i n g by using a f r a m e w o r k marked by a graphic rectangular

Cubist Gothic. I n 1922, the same approach led to a :

ture. H e had produced a number o f compositions i n 1917 con-

g r i d , and not t h r o u g h simple geometric solids.

Neo-Classical C u b i s m i n Phdre.

Construc-

the Stenberg brothers and

a Marie at the K a m e r n y Theatre i n 1920,

These non-representational compositions by V e s n i n , which

Constructivist designs and sets appeared i n Mosco^

the picture surface and foreshortened, sometimes i n a very cur-

v i v i d l y iflustrate the aesthetic approach o f early Constructi-

tres d u r i n g 1922-23, the most original and radically r

sory way. These planes seemed to be floating i n neutrally grey

vism, were contemporary w i t h the f o r m u l a t i o n o f early archi-

these being Popova's Magnanimous

space. T h e y p a r t l y overlapped each other and displayed a var-

tectural C o n s t m c t i v i s t doctrine and the movement's first pro-

hold at the Actor's Theatre i n 1922, and The World Upsid

iety of colours, such as red, w h i t e and black. Solids appeared i n

jects.

directed by h i m at the Theatre o f t h e Revolution i n 192^

t a i n i n g square planes o f different sizes set at various angles to

later compositons, together w i t h some barely identifiable

Alexander V e s n i n stated his personal creed at I n k h u k in

Cuckold, directed by

ander Vesnin's The Man who was Thursday, directed by T^

A p r f l 1922 and f u r t h e r clarified a number o f the points con-

the K a m e r n y Theatre i n 1923; V i k t o r Shestakov's Ly\

the composition shrank i n size, w h i l e their n u m b e r grew, so

cerned i n J u n e o f that year, as part o f a course about the prob-

directed by M e y e r h o l d at the Theatre o f the Revolu

that they gradually more or less squeezed out the e m p t y areas

lems that face an artist. T h e early C o n s t m c t i v i s t theory was set

1923; and Exter's sketches f o r a p r o d u c t i o n by Goleizo

f r o m the picture surface. These elements were no longer dis-

out i n these documents and the principles h n k i n g architectural

1922.

crete geometric figures floating i n space, b u t jagged fragments

Constructivism and Veshchizm, as well as C o n s t m c t i v i s t and

There had been various C o n s t m c t i v i s t holiday decoi

incrusted i n one another and solidly carpeting the entire pic-

Production A r t , were clearly explained. V e s n i n was at that

speakers' platforms and experimental structures befc

ture. These compositions date f r o m 1921, b u t by the f o l l o w i n g

time w o r k i n g i n v i r t u a l l y a l l the fields where these ideas found

move i n t o theatre work. T h e y were, however, a f l p r o d i

years there are already indications o f the complex process

an echo - the stage, p a i n t i n g , book p r o d u c t i o n , pubhc hohday

painters and, as a rule, lacked true architectonic qual

pieces of real objects and fragments of w r i t i n g . T h e elements o f

153
Chapter 5/Constructivism

c problems o f design

whereby V e s n i n assimflated for architectonic purposes the

decorations and architecture - and he set out his personal u n -

any awareness o f t h e i m p a c t of such shapes on the appearances

e methods o f Leftist p a i n t i n g and architecture,

achievements o f Leftist p a i n t i n g . H e had closely explored the

derstanding o f t h e concepts on w h i c h early architectural C o n -

of a modern city. Alexander Vesnin was p r o b a b l y the first to

alt, when w o r k i n g at I n k h u k , V e s n i n j o i n e d neither

latter and made many attempts to apply them i n the actual ar-

structivism was later based. H e wrote that the artist should

sense the u r b a n q u a l i t y these structures

ig G r o u p o f Architects, nor the Constructivists, b u t

chitectural w o r k avaflable to h i m at this time, such as the sim-

neither represent nor interpret existing objects, whether pro-

I n 1921, he and Popova designed an intricate set of open-air

nember i n M a y 1921 o f t h e W o r k i n g G r o u p o f O b -

ple geometric volumes o f t h e Red Square speaker's p l a t f o r m in

duced by nature or h u m a n hands, but should create things that

decorations on the Khodynskoe Field i n honour o f the T h i r d

lunded a m o n t h earher by Alexander D r e v i n , Popo-

1918 and the K a m e r n y Theatre stage decorations i n 1920-22.

were new; that every object should structure perception; that

Congress o f the C o m i n t e r n . These consisted o f two symbolic

iezhda Udaltsova. T h e programme d r a w n u p by its

H e was now, at long last, clearly finding his way f r o m Leftist

the order o f an object was determined by the r a p i d tempo of

cities, each o f w h i c h stood f o r a social system. One o f these

tated that their a i m was to create 'substantial a n d

p a i n t i n g i n t o architecture.

modern life and its mathematically accurate r h y t h m , by its

'the citadel o f capitahsm' - consisted o f b l i n d Cubist solids,

lutput,

i n w h i c h he f o u n d a more organic interaction

demanded.

mstructions, b o t h i n space and i n a plane', and to

A g r o w i n g tendency to organize the composition makes itself

component materials and by its effectiveness; and that what-

while the o t h e r - 'the city o f t h e f u t u r e ' - was composed of b l i n d

in the representation of components, but on the crea-

felt i n works d a t i n g f r o m 1922 as compared w i t h those o f t h e

ever an artist made should be constructive w i t h o u t any vestige

and openwork dynamic elements: wheels, transmission belts,

mcrete organism, both i n space and i n a plane',

previous year. T h e component-elements have not increased in

of representation.

pylons, booms, struts and cantilevers. I n f o r m , b o t h composi-

ons about theory w i t h i n the group bore on problems

size, b u t a u n i f y i n g , specifically graphic p r i n c i p l e becomes ap-

W o r k for the stage d i d m u c h to shape Alexander Vesnin's

tions were close to the Symbolist Romanticist experiments o f

; definition and analysis o f colour, the materializa-

parent, even though the works as such r e m a i n w h o l l y pictorial.

outlook. T h e theatre acted as a sort of testing g r o u n d for archi-

that time, and the openwork elements involved were p r i m a r i l y

)ur, the analysis o f the elements o f colour, substan-

T h e composition tends to be more closely structured, a square

tecture and design d u r i n g the early years o f Soviet power. T h e

used for symbolic rather than architectonic purposes. T h e rest-

i the q u a l i t y o f space. Special attention was devoted

g r i d emerges f r o m the medley o f i n d i v i d u a l fragments and a

tremendous accumulated artistic potential could find no outlet

less dynamism of this composition by Vesnin and Popova match-

; connected w i t h the notions of ' p r o d u c t i o n ' i n art

large p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e flat elements combine to generate a kind

i n architecture at that time. Instead, i t switched to the stage,

ed the actual movement o f various parts such as the wheels.

ture'. Experiments i n spatial construction were u n -

of ceflular f r a m e w o r k . D e p t h is introduced and emphasized by

where architectural compositions and objects o f everyday use

A f t e r completing this j o i n t project, the artists, w h o j o i n t l y

the superimposition o f another graphic g r i d f o r m i n g a second

could be produced life-sized, rather than on paper or as scaled-

directed one o f the p a i n t i n g studios i n V k h u t e m a s , worked se-

jectivist programme reflected the approach to Lef-

f r a m e w o r k closer to the spectator, but this time consisting of

down models. T h e b r i l l i a n t successes of the Soviet theatre after

parately on t w o stage productions; Popova for M e y e r h o l d w i t h

experiments u n d e r l y i n g the teaching i n t w o V k h u t e -

rods rather t h a n planes.

the Revolution were not only due to the pioneering w o r k o f d i -

The Magnanimous
who was Thursday.

Cuckold, and Vesnin f o r T a i r o v w i t h The Man

s, one headed by D r e v i n and Udaltsova, the other

I n Alexander Vesnin's graphic works dating f r o m 1922 a

rectors such as M e y e r h o l d , T a i r o v and V a k h t a n g o v , but

, and Alexander V e s n i n , w h o had taught p a i n t i n g

tendency to introduce a rectangular f r a m e w o r k is even more

equally to the o u t p u t o f artists attracted to stage design at that

ag there since 1921.

pronounced than i n his paintings. These works represent a

time, among them Y a k u l o v , Exter, Popova, Alexander V e s n i n ,

s influence is clearly perceptible i n Vesnin's early

store o f architectural compositions for use, specifically as fa-

Rodchenko, Stepanova, the Stenberg brothers and

Viktor

by the first h a l f o f 1921, and Vesnin m i g h t be thought to have

lentational w o r k immediately after the Revolution,

gades, i n f u t u r e C o n s t m c t i v i s t buildings. T h i s is significant:

Shestakov. W h e n Vesnin designed the setting f o r Claudel's

started w o r k on The Man who was Thursday after her, since the

paintings and graphic compositions he was also i n -

unlike Lissitzky's Prouns and Malevich's Arkitectons,

Construc-

LAnnonce faite a Marie at the K a m e r n y Theatre i n 1920, he sim-

first performance o f The Magnanimous

i n g i n the widest possible range o f those discoveries

t i v i s m came to architecture f r o m non-representational paint-

plified medieval architecture to the l i m i t and created a sort o f

25 A p r f l 1922. B u t the gap i n time was not as great as is some-

p a i n t i n g w h i c h pointed the way to architec-

i n g by using a f r a m e w o r k marked by a graphic rectangular

Cubist Gothic. I n 1922, the same approach led to a f o r m o f

times t h o u g h t : the first performance o f The Man who was Thurs-

g r i d , and not t h r o u g h simple geometric solids.

Neo-Classical C u b i s m i n Phdre.

day was scheduled for 1922, though the departure o f t h e com-

jcftist

ad produced a n u m b e r o f compositions i n 1917 con-

Popova undoubtedly set to work on The Magnanimous

Cuckold

only after the Khodynskoe Field project had been completed,

Cuckold took place on

pany on a tour abroad delayed the performance by a year.

aare planes o f different sizes set at various angles to

These non-representational compositions by V e s n i n , which

Constructivist designs and sets appeared i n Moscow thea-

: surface and foreshortened, sometimes i n a very cur-

v i v i d l y fllustrate the aesthetic approach o f early Constructi-

tres d u r i n g 1922-23, the most original and radically novel o f

Ihese planes seemed to be floating i n neutrally grey

vism, were contemporary w i t h the f o r m u l a t i o n o f early archi-

these being Popova's Magnanimous

Cuckold, directed by Meyer-

body Alexander Vesnin's artistic experiments d u r i n g 1922.

;y p a r d y overlapped each other and displayed a var-

tectural C o n s t m c t i v i s t doctrine and the movement's first pro-

hold at the Actor's Theatre i n 1922, and The World Upside Down,

T h e y represent a l i n k between the d y n a m i c compositions o f t h e

urs, such as red, w h i t e and black. Solids appeared i n

jects.

directed by h i m at the Theatre of the Revolution i n 1923; Alex-

two cities i n the Khodynskoe Field project, w h i c h hark back to

I n other words, the designs for The Man who was Thursday em-

together w i t h some - barely identifiable -

Alexander V e s n i n stated his personal creed at I n k h u k in

ander Vesnin's The Man who was Thursday, directed by T a i r o v at

Symbolist R o m a n t i c i s m and C u b o - F u t u r i s m , and the competi-

;al objects and fragments of w r i t i n g . T h e elements o f

A p r f l 1922 and f u r t h e r clarified a number o f the points con-

the K a m e r n y Theatre i n 1923; V i k t o r Shestakov's Lyul

Lake,

tion projects, submitted together w i t h his brothers i n 1922-23,

sition shrank i n size, whfle their n u m b e r grew, so

cerned i n June o f that year, as p a r t o f a course about the prob-

directed by M e y e r h o l d at the Theatre o f the Revolution i n

f o r a Palace o f L a b o u r i n Moscow. T h e stage designs, of w h i c h

[radually more or less squeezed out the empty areas

lems that face an artist. T h e early C o n s t m c t i v i s t theory was set

1923; and Exter's sketches for a p r o d u c t i o n by Goleizovsky i n

m a n y have survived, show that Vesnin was relying on the K h o -

icture surface. These elements were no longer dis-

out i n these documents and the principles l i n k i n g architectural

1922.

)Ositons,

dynskoe Field project - rather than on The Magnanimous

Cuc-

kold, a r u r a l m i l l setting for C o n s t m c t i v i s t purposes as a start-

letric figures floating i n space, but j agged fragments

Constructivism and Veshchizm, as wefl as C o n s t m c t i v i s t and

There had been various C o n s t m c t i v i s t holiday decorations,

in one another and solidly carpeting the entire pic

Production A r t , were clearly explained. V e s n i n was at that

speakers' platforms and experimental structures before this

i n g p o i n t . H e had created on stage the generalized outline o f a

e compositions date f r o m 1921, b u t by the f o l l o w i n g

time w o r k i n g i n v i r t u a l l y a l l the fields where these ideas found

move into theatre w o r k . T h e y were, however, a f l produced by

modern t o w n - an artistic embodiment o f the t o w n - p l a n n i n g

e are already indications o f the complex process

an echo - the stage, p a i n t i n g , book production, p u b l i c hohday

painters and, as a rule, lacked true architectonic q u a l i t y and

concept - by using f r a m e structures, girders, cantilevers, lifts,

154
Part I/Aesthetic problems o f design

architects and i n some small architectural items, but the aes-

architects by this V e s n i n competition er

proved outstandingly i m p o r t a n t for Soviet ar

D y n a m i s m dominated b o t h his designs for the Khodynskoe

thetic content w i t h w h i c h they were now endowed here raised

ically c o m b i n i n g as i t d i d a new building's i

Field decorations and his early sketches for The Man who was

this method of construction to the level of a new system of com-

with a modern, technically f u n c t i o n a l appro,

Thursday, b o t h hterally, as mobile components, and i n composi-

position. I t was architectonically perfected i n competition pro-

architectural image.

tional terms. As time went on, the f r a m e structure gradually as-

jects carried out i n 1923-25 by Alexander V e s n i n , j o i n t l y with

serted itself and finahy came to govern the conception o f the

his two brothers, L e o n i d and V i k t o r .

m o v i n g pavements, various tecimological elements, such as revolving wheels, etc.

Bare structural frameworks had been used earlier by some

T h e Vesnin Palace o f L a b o u r project repr

in Soviet architecture as a whole, and the

setting as a whole. These designs are crucial i n the f o r m u l a t i o n

T h e Vesnin team f i n a l l y took shape i n 1923 and i n the course

structivism i n particular. I t is therefore mor

of aesthetic principles f o r architectural Constructivism. T h e y

o f t h e next decade the brothers became the acknowledged lead-

portant to provide an objective assessment oi

show that early C o n s t m c t i v i s t ideas developed f r o m openwork

ers o f the innovative direction i n Soviet architecture. The

dividual contributions, not so much i n ter

structures and mobile parts, thus c o m b i n i n g the sense of space

team's strength lay i n the organic cohaboration o f talented,

particular structures or p r o v i d i n g functiona:

w i t h that o f movement.

uniquely creative, b u t also t h o r o u g h l y diverse architects. The

ncular b u i l d i n g requirements, as w i t h regan

T h e e l i m i n a t i o n f r o m stage designs o f thematic and repre-

brothers successfully complemented each other, not only by

a radically new architectural image. T h i s ;

sentational elements was then regarded as the p r i n c i p a l C o n -

their various i n d i v i d u a l talents, b u t also by their different pro-

that, i n the last resort, credit for the desig

s t m c t i v i s t a i m i n the theatre. T h e construction was merely re-

fessional experiences.

Alexander Vesnin, t h o u g h i t was executed \

quired to provide 'a machine t o o l ' - or setting, as the saying

Alexander's quest for a new artistic f o r m , V i k t o r ' s expe-

of his brothers. Alexander's experiments i n 1

then went - for the actors. Despite this, the C o n s t m c t i v i s t de-

rience o f i n d u s t r i a l construction and Leonid's design work on

rectly to a new architectural image, and i t is

signs immediately came to be regarded as a new style of theatre

housing ah merged i n the V e s n i n team's approach and during

prising that the s u r v i v i n g sketches for the Pa

art. T h e sets were seen to represent the i n d u s t r i a l m o o d o f t h e

the years 1923-32 i m p a r t e d a fresh quahty to their o u t p u t that

from his hand. I n fact, the spatial composi

new era, while the structures and mechanical devices on stage

was very unlike the earlier w o r k carried out by each o f the

tural character of these Palace of Labour des

acquired an aesthetic significance. C o n s t r u c t i v i s m h a d reached

brothers separately.

lated to Alexander Vesnin's previous outpu

unadorned

F r o m 1923 onwards, the Vesnins generated a large number

methods and stylistic features employed (as

buildings. N o w , for the first time, i t was embodied i n large

of projects, m a n y o f w h i c h became landmarks i n Soviet archi-

the Khodynskoe Field decorations and The M

structures deliberately endowed w i t h aesthetic content. A r c h i -

tecture and influenced the o u t p u t o f other architects. When

sets) and are quite unlike earlier works by 1

tects and artists b u i l t i n t o the C o n s t m c t i v i s t stage designs o f

they were engaged on combined w o r k , they dealt j o i n t l y w i t h

Vesnin. L e o n i d was a declared supporter ol

the early 1920s the images o f t h e city o f t h e f u t u r e and o f a new

ah artistic problems. B u t each had his o w n special area i n

dencies at the start o f t h e 1920s and taught h

way o f life. T h e y also i n i t i a t e d the aesthetics o f t o w n p l a n n i n g

w h i c h his influence proved decisive because he had taken the

dios of V k h u t e m a s . V i k t o r ' s w o r k i n the earl

and mechanization. T h e latest structures and everyday things

greatest trouble over i t : Alexander was the a u t h o r i t y on com-

ary years was closely related to Rationalist

acquired a new dimension and an aesthetic q u a l i t y when they

position, V i k t o r on structural technology and L e o n i d on func-

cepts.

appeared on stage. B y the time they returned to real life for

tional p l a n n i n g .

the theatre starting f r o m laboratory w o r k and

T h e position achieved by the Vesnin tear^

b u i l d i n g or p r o d u c t i o n purposes they had become elements of a

A r c h i t e c t u r a l Constructivism first made itself felt as an inde-

was undoubtedly the result o f Alexander'

new artistic environment, because strictly u t i h t a r i a n items o f

pendent creative movement i n 1923 i n the competition for the

general direction adopted by i t . This i n f l i

this k i n d were perceived as part o f the era's aesthetic image,

design of a Palace of L a b o u r i n Moscow. T h i s c o m p e t i t i o n - t h e

early on, i n 1923-25, and the Vesnin project

w h i c h was often far f r o m w h a t the artists themselves had i n -

largest since the October Revolution - i n m a n y ways deter-

therefore legitimately be regarded as expres

tended.

mined the p a t h that Soviet architecture was to follow. T h e ma-

most, Alexander Vesnin's principles.

T h i s increment o f aesthetic q u a h t y t h r o u g h C o n s t m c t i v i s t

j o r i t y o f t h e entries - of w h i c h there were nearly f i f t y - offered a

T h i s needs to be stressed because the thr

w o r k for the stage was p a r t i c u l a r l y well illustrated by A l e x a n d -

Palace of L a b o u r on t r a d i t i o n a l m o n u m e n t a l hues. (As we have

quently treated as j o i n t leaders o f Constn

er Vesnin's output. H e was an architect and therefore created

already said, the Rationahsts, headed by Ladovsky, refused to

mention is made o f Alexander's special rol

for the actors' use n o t j u s t a 'machine t o o l ' , b u t a real and com-

take part i n the competition.) T h e Vesnins' new-style project

urehead. I n fact, i t is sometimes assumed thi

plex architectural composition, a fact w h i c h establishes his de-

stood out among the rest by its t r u l y m o d e r n appearance, its

Vesnin was a painter rather t h a n an arcl

signs for The Man who was Thursday as m a r k i n g an i m p o r t a n t

clear and rational p l a n and the d a r i n g use o f t h e latest structu-

after the Revolution, the decisive role i n thi

stage i n the development of architectural Constructivism's aes-

ral components and materials.

tectural C o n s t r u c t i v i s m should be attribu)

thetic theory.

T h e true road to creative experiment was opened for many

rather than to h i m .

155
Chapter 5/Constructivism
; problems o f design

ements, various technological elements, such as re-

Bare structural frameworks h a d been used earher by some

architects and i n some small architectural items, b u t the aes-

bels, etc.
;m dominated b o t h his designs f o r the Khodynskoe
ations and his early sketches for The Man who was
)th hterally, as mobile components, and i n composi-

thetic content w i t h w h i c h they were now endowed here raised

this method of construction to the level of a new system of composition. I t was architectonically perfected i n competition pro-

5. As time went on, the f r a m e structure gradually as-

jects carried out i n 1923-25 by Alexander V e s n i n , j o i n t l y w i t h

^ and finally came to govern the conception o f the

his t w o brothers, L e o n i d and V i k t o r .

whole. These designs are crucial i n the f o r m u l a t i o n

T h e V e s n i n team finally took shape i n 1923 and i n the course

: principles for architectural Constructivism. T h e y

o f t h e next decade the brothers became the acknowledged lead-

arly C o n s t m c t i v i s t ideas developed f r o m openwork

ers of the innovative direction i n Soviet architecture.

m d mobile parts, thus c o m b i n i n g the sense of space

team's strength lay i n the organic collaboration of talented,

f movement.

uniquely creative, but also thoroughly diverse architects. The

n n a t i o n f r o m stage designs o f thematic and repre-

brothers successfully complemented each other, not only by

elements was then regarded as the p r i n c i p a l C o n -

their various i n d i v i d u a l talents, b u t also by their different pro-

l i m i n the theatre. T h e construction was merely re-

The

fessional experiences.

irovide 'a machine tool' - or setting, as the saying

Alexander's quest for a new artistic f o r m , V i k t o r ' s expe-

- f o r the actors. Despite this, the C o n s t m c t i v i s t de-

rience of i n d u s t r i a l construction and Leonid's design work on

diately came to be regarded as a new style of theatre

housing a l l merged i n the V e s n i n team's approach and during

ts were seen to represent the i n d u s t r i a l mood o f t h e

the years 1923-32 i m p a r t e d a fresh quahty to their output that

hile the structures and mechanical devices on stage

r aesthetic significance. Constructivism had reached

by this Vesnin competition entry. T h e project

I n fact, given the circumstances prevailing d u r i n g the early

proved outstandingly i m p o r t a n t for Soviet architecture, organ-

years of Soviet power when the torch was passing f r o m Leftist

ically c o m b i n i n g as i t d i d a new budding's social significance

p a i n t i n g to architecture, Alexander Vesnin's a c t i v i t y as an ar-

w i t h a modern, technically f u n c t i o n a l approach and a different

tist - painter, stage and graphic designer - proved a strength i n

architectural image.

relation to his brothers, rather t h a n a weakness. I n his case, the

architects

T h e Vesnin Palace of L a b o u r project represents a l a n d m a r k

interaction between Leftist p a i n t i n g and architecture unfolded

in Soviet architecture as a whole, and the evolution o f C o n -

w i t h i n one i n d i v i d u a l ' s output. Alexander V e s n i n reached new

structivism i n particular. I t is therefore more t h a n usuafly i m -

architecture by way of stage design, a m a r g i n a l area, rather

portant to provide an objective assessment of each brother's i n -

than simply t h r o u g h C u b i s m and non-representational

dividual contributions, not so m u c h i n terms o f elaborating

T h i s enabled h i m to adapt the f o r m a l aesthetic methods of L e f t -

particular structures or p r o v i d i n g f u n c t i o n a l solutions for par-

ist art for architectonic purposes i n the course of his transition

ticular b u d d i n g requirements, as w i t h regard to the creation o f

to architecture.

art.

a radically new architectural image. T h i s approach suggests

T h e surviving sketches indicate that the best and artistically

that, i n the last resort, credit f o r the design must go first to

most b r i l h a n t V e s n i n w o r k - the Palace o f L a b o u r and the Le-

Alexander Vesnin, though i t was executed w i t h the assistance

ningradskaya Pravda b u i l d i n g i n particular - is i n fact by Alex-

of his brothers. Alexander's experiments i n 1921-22 led h i m d i -

ander V e s n i n assisted by his brothers.

rectly to a new architectural image, and i t is therefore not sur-

Furthermore, a number o f V e s n i n projects w h i c h do not

prising that the surviving sketches for the Palace of L a b o u r are

carry his signature were executed by his brothers i n the hght o f

f r o m his hand. I n fact, the spatial composition and architec-

his advice, w h i c h clinched the definitive visual solution.

tural character of these Palace of L a b o u r designs are closely re-

A f t e r the Palace of L a b o u r competition, w h f l e Alexander

was very unlike the earlier w o r k carried out by each of the

lated to Alexander Vesnin's previous o u t p u t by the structural

V e s n i n became the acknowledged leader o f Constructivism,

brothers separately.

methods and stylistic features employed (as i n the projects f o r

Moisei G i n z b u r g made a considerable c o n t r i b u t i o n to the theory o f this movement.

unadorned

F r o m 1923 onwards, the Vesnins generated a large number

the Khodynskoe Field decorations and The Man who was Thursday

N o w , for the first time, i t was embodied i n large

of projects, many of w h i c h became landmarks i n Soviet archi-

sets) and are quite unhke earlier works by L e o n i d and V i k t o r

deliberately endowed w i t h aesthetic content. A r c h i -

tecture and influenced the o u t p u t of other architects. When

Vesnin. L e o n i d was a declared supporter of traditionalist ten-

irtists b u i l t i n t o the C o n s t m c t i v i s t stage designs o f

they were engaged on combined w o r k , they dealt j o i n t l y with

dencies at the start of the 1920s and taught i n the academic stu-

920s the images of the city o f t h e f u t u r e and of a new

a f l artistic problems. B u t each had his o w n special area in

dios of Vkhutemas. V i k t o r ' s w o r k i n the early post-Revolution-

T h e y also initiated the aesthetics o f t o w n p l a n n i n g

w h i c h his influence proved decisive because he had taken the

ary years was closely related to Rationalist architectural con-

Moisei G i n z b u r g taught architectural composition at V k h u t e -

inization. T h e latest structures and everyday things

greatest trouble over i t : Alexander was the authority on com-

cepts.

mas and the Moscow Institute of C i v i l Engineers (formerly the

new dimension and an aesthetic q u a l i t y w h e n they

position, V i k t o r on structural technology and L e o n i d on func-

; starting f r o m laboratory w o r k and

an stage. B y the time they returned to real life f o r

tional p l a n n i n g .

- p r o d u c t i o n purposes they had become elements of a

A r c h i t e c t u r a l Constructivism first made itself felt as an inde-

iC environment, because strictly u t i h t a r i a n items of

pendent creative movement i n 1923 i n the competition for the

vere perceived as p a r t o f t h e era's aesthetic image,

design of a Palace of L a b o u r i n Moscow. T h i s c o m p e t i t i o n - t h e

1 often far f r o m what the artists themselves had i n -

largest since the October Revolution - i n m a n y ways deter-

crement of aesthetic q u a l i t y t h r o u g h C o n s t m c t i v i s t
le stage was p a r t i c u l a r l y well illustrated by A l e x a n d s output. H e was an architect and therefore created

m i n e d the p a t h that Soviet architecture was to follow. The maj o r i t y o f t h e entries - of w h i c h there were nearly fifty - offered a
Palace of L a b o u r on t r a d i t i o n a l m o n u m e n t a l hues. (As we have
already said, the Rationahsts, headed by Ladovsky, refused to

ars' use n o t j u s t a 'machine t o o l ' , b u t a real and com-

take part i n the competition.) T h e Vesnins' new-style project

tectural composition, a fact w h i c h establishes his de-

stood out among the rest by its t r u l y modern appearance, its

Vhe Man who was Thursday as m a r k i n g an i m p o r t a n t

clear and rational p l a n and the d a r i n g use o f t h e latest structu-

e development of architectural Constructivism's aes-

r a l components and materials.

T h e true road to creative experiment was opened for many

)ry.

Ginzburg's evolution towards Constructivism

The position achieved by the Vesnin team d u r i n g the 1920s

Polytechnical I n s t i t u t e ) , and played an active part at the be-

was undoubtedly the result of Alexander's influence on the

g i n n i n g o f t h e 1920s i n the artistic and social life o f t h e architec-

general direction adopted by i t . T h i s influence was decisive

t u r a l c o m m u n i t y . I n his onslaughts on eclecticists and R a t i o n -

early on, i n 1923-25, and the V e s n i n projqcts of this period can

ahsts about problems of f o r m he stressed and expounded the

therefore legitimately be regarded as expressing, first and fore-

technical arguments for the new architectural designs i n lead-

most, Alexander Vesnin's principles.

i n g articles pubhshed by the periodical Arkhitektura i n 1923 and

This needs to be stressed because the three Vesnins are frequently treated as j o i n t leaders o f Constructivism, w h f l e no

i n his book Stil i epokha {Style and Epoch) i n 1924.

Alexander V e s n i n estabhshed the basic principles of archi-

mention is made of Alexander's special role as the actual fig-

tectural Constructivism and Ginzburg's theoretical works dat-

urehead. I n fact, i t is sometimes assumed that, since Alexander

i n g f r o m 1923-24 may be regarded as the next step i n f o r m u l -

Vesnin was a painter rather than an architect immediately

ating a body o f doctrine. T h e y contained m a n y statements o f

after the Revolution, the decisive role i n the creation of archi-

principles w h i c h became part of the basic theory of Soviet ar-

tectural C o n s t m c t i v i s m should be a t t r i b u t e d to his brothers

chitectural Constructivism i n its mature stage.

rather than to h i m .

I n his article 'Estetika sovremennosti' ('The aesthetics o f

P a r t I / A e s t h e t i c problems o f design

the present time') w r i t t e n i n 1923, G i n z b u r g stressed the effect

competition i n 1922-23

clearly shows, w i t h

elements of

on architecture o f t h e g r o w t h i n p r o d u c t i o n resources and pro-

streamhned Classicism, Symbohst Romanticist influences and

gress i n industry and technology. H e chiefly looked for new ar-

recoflections o f A m e r i c a n g r a i n sflos, a f o r m w h i c h attracted

chitectural ideas i n i n d u s t r i a l and engineering structures be-

h i m at that time.

cause i t was i n these that architects had first abandoned t r a d i t i o n a l ornamentation and discovered an aesthetic value i n its
o w n right. G i n z b u r g , moreover, believed that the application

Constructivism embodied in arcliitecture:

of science and technology involved i n the 'mechanization o f

the foundation of Osa, the Union of Contemporary Architects

life' was not merely a matter o f new components, b u t i m p l i e d

the i n t r o d u c t i o n of new and r a t i o n a l methods of design derived

T h e innovative movements entered a new phase towards the

f r o m construction engineering practice i n t o architectural

mid-1920s w h e n b u i l d i n g w o r k began i n earnest throughout

work.

the country. M a n y questions o f f o r m a l aesthetics came to be

G i n z b u r g d i d his best to sum up the experiments carried out

greatly clarified and the focus o f experimentation i n Soviet ar-

by Soviet architects d u r i n g the early 1920s in Style and Epoch,

chitecture gradually shifted to the design of buildings that were

and the theories w h i c h he advanced concerning the influence

new i n social terms.

on stylistic development o f t h e needs felt i n the various layers o f

society are o f outstanding importance.

I t had become clear by 1923 that the theory and practice

developed b y the Rationalists and Constructivists had created

T h e book also illustrates Ginzburg's o w n progress towards

a movement that grew and gained a f o o t h o l d i n Soviet architec-

Constructivism, a t e r m the meaning of w h i c h he analyses as he

ture i n its fight against eclecticism and t r a d i t i o n a h s m . I t only

goes along. As a historian of architecture, he was v i v i d l y aware

gained the upper hand, however, i n the mid-1920s, greatly

of the i m p o r t a n t part that constructional considerations had

helped i n this by the competitions held i n 1924-25 for building

always played i n the evolution o f f o r m . B u t he d i d not regard

designs, such as the Moscow office o f Leningradskaya

Pravda

structure and decoration as m u t u a l l y incompatible, despite the

(where entries by the Vesnins, M e l n i k o v , I l y a Golosov, were

different roles they performed at various stages o f t h e f o r m u l a -

particularly notable); the Arkos Joint-Stock Company (notably

t i o n and development o f style.

projects b y the Vesnins, M e l n i k o v , I l y a Golosov, K r i n s k y ) ; the

G i n z b u r g suggested i n Style and Epoch that new architectural

Soviet p a v i l i o n at the Paris exhibition (notably M e l n i k o v , La-

forms throughout history had usually been the product o f

dovsky, G i n z b u r g and I l y a Golosov); the House o f Textiles

changing structural or f u n c t i o n a l requirements and h a d been

( I l y a Golosov and G i n z b u r g ) ; the Moscow C e n t r a l Telegraph

bare of decorative detail at the start. Such detail only appeared

Office (Shchusev, the Vesnins and V e g m a n ) ; the Gospromy-

later, w i t h o u t at first d i s r u p t i n g the organic u n i t y of f o r m , b u t

shlennost House i n K h a r k o v (Serafimov, Felger and Kravets,

came to take over i n time. ' T h e y o u t h of a new style is m a i n l y a

D m i t r i e v ) , and a number o f others.

matter of construction, its m a t u r i t y is organic and its decay dec-

T w o V e s n i n p r o j ects o f 1924 must be singled out for the i n f l u -

orative.' A c c o r d i n g to G i n z b u r g , the keen interest i n structure

ence they exerted on the evolution of Constructivism. T h e first

displayed by modern architects should be seen i n this l i g h t : i f

was the Leningradskaya

Pravda design, extensively discussed in

emphasis on construction characterizes the early stage o f de-

the architectural press w o r l d w i d e and generally acknowledged

velopment o f every new style, this must apply all the more

as one o f t h e artistically most accomphshed pieces of twentieth-

strongly to modern architecture. G i n z b u r g therefore saw C o n -

century architecture. T h i s p r o d u c t of Alexander Vesnin's great

structivism at the start of the 1920s as the inevitable first phase

talent b r i f l i a n t l y illustrated the vast aesthetic potential of mod-

i n the development of a new architecture. I t was only i n his lat-

ern architecture. Its well-balanced composition, the finely de-

er writings that the t e r m ' C o n s t r u c t i v i s m ' came to stand f o r a

veloped proportions o f t h e elevations, the organic combination

particular school.

of ferro-concrete f r a m e w o r k , glass surfaces a n d nietal arma-

G i n z b u r g himself was as yet only feeling his w a y i n t o a new

architecture, as his entry f o r the M o s c o w Palace o f L a b o u r

tures, convey a sense o f aesthetic perfection.

397-98

ic p r o b l e m s o f d e s i g n

Stepanova.

T e x t i l e designs.

time') w r i t t e n i n 1923, G i n z b u r g stressed the effect

competition i n 1922-23

clearly shows, w i t h elements of

t u r e o f t h e g r o w t h i n p r o d u c t i o n resources and pro-

streamlined Classicism, Symbolist Romanticist influences and

lustry and technology. H e chiefly looked for new ar-

recoflections o f A m e r i c a n g r a i n silos, a f o r m w h i c h attracted

ideas i n i n d u s t r i a l and engineering structures be

h i m at that time.

s i n these that architects had first abandoned t r a d i mentation and discovered an aesthetic value i n its
G i n z b u r g , more aver, beheved that the apphcation

Constructivism embodied in arcliitecture:

and technology involved i n the 'mechanization o f

the foundation of Osa, the Union of Contemporary Architects

it merely a matter o f new components, b u t i m p l i e d

ction of new and rational methods of design derived

T h e innovative movements entered a new phase towards the

truction engineering practice i n t o architectural

mid-1920s w h e n b u i l d i n g w o r k began i n earnest throughout

g d i d his best to sum u p the experiments carried out

greatly clarified and the focus o f experimentation i n Soviet ar-

the country. M a n y questions o f f o r m a l aesthetics came to be

architects d u r i n g the early 1920s in Style and Epoch,

chitecture gradually shifted to the design of buildings that were

;ories w h i c h he advanced concerning the influence

new i n social terms.

development of the needs felt i n the various layers o f

I t had become clear by 1923 that the theory and practice

of outstanding importance.

developed by the Rationalists and Constructivists had created

k also illustrates Ginzburg's o w n progress towards

a movement that grew and gained a foothold i n Soviet architec-

Asm, a term the meaning of w h i c h he analyses as he

ture i n its fight against eclecticism and traditionahsm. I t only

As a historian of architecture, he was v i v i d l y aware

gained the upper hand, however, i n the mid-1920s, greatly

artant p a r t that constructional considerations had

helped i n this by the competitions held i n 1924-25 for building

/ed in the evolution o f f o r m . B u t he d i d not regard

designs, such as the Moscow office o f Leningradskaya

Pravda

i d decoration as m u t u a l l y incompatible, despite the

(where entries by the Vesnins, M e l n i k o v , I l y a Golosov, were

les they performed at various stages o f the f o r m u l a -

particularly notable); the Arkos Joint-Stock Company (notably

;velopment o f style.

projects by the Vesnins, M e l n i k o v , I l y a Golosov, K r i n s k y ) ; the

g suggested i n Style and Epoch that new architectural

Soviet p a v i l i o n at the Paris exhibition (notably M e l n i k o v , La-

ughout history had usuafly been the p r o d u c t o f

dovsky, G i n z b u r g and I l y a Golosov); the House o f Textiles

tructural or f u n c t i o n a l requirements and had been

( I l y a Golosov and G i n z b u r g ) ; the Moscow Central Telegraph

jrative detafl at the start. Such detail only appeared

Office (Shchusev, the Vesnins and V e g m a n ) ; the Gospromy-

lut at first d i s r u p t i n g the organic u n i t y o f f o r m , b u t

shlennost House i n K h a r k o v (Serafimov, Felger and Kravets,

:e over i n time. ' T h e y o u t h of a new style is m a i n l y a

D m i t r i e v ) , and a n u m b e r o f others.

instruction, its m a t u r i t y is organic and its decay dec-

T w o Vesnin p r o j ects o f 1924 must be singled out for the influ-

x o r d i n g to G i n z b u r g , the keen interest i n structure

ence they exerted on the evolution of Constructivism. T h e first

y modern architects should be seen i n this l i g h t : i f

was the Leningradskaya

n construction characterizes the early stage o f de-

the architectural press w o r l d w i d e and generally acknowledged

Pravda design, extensively discussed in

of every new style, this must apply a l l the more

as one of the artistically most accomplished pieces of twentieth-

modern architecture. G i n z b u r g therefore saw Gon-

century architecture. T h i s product of Alexander Vesnin's great

at the start of the 1920s as the inevitable first phase

talent b r i f l i a n t l y illustrated the vast aesthetic potential of mod-

opment of a new architecture. I t was only i n his lat-

ern architecture. Its well-balanced composition, the finely de- I

that the t e r m ' C o n s t r u c t i v i s m ' came to stand f o r a

veloped proportions of the elevations, the organic combination

ichool.

of ferro-concrete f r a m e w o r k , glass surfaces and nietal arma-

5 himself was as yet only feeling his way i n t o a new

tures, convey a sense o f aesthetic perfection.

e, as his entry for the Moscow Palace o f L a b o u r

399

S t e p a n o v a . D e s i g n s f o r s p o r t s clothes.

D e s i g n s f o r street a n d w o r l c i n g clothes.

401

E x t e r . F i l m c o s t u m e f o r Aelita,

402

M i l l e r . D e s i g n f o r coal m i n e r s ' special c l o t h i n g ,

1924.

V k h u t e m a s , R o d c h e n k o ' s s t u d i o , 1923.

159
403

T a t l i n . N e w cuts f o r e v e r y d a y clothes ( T a t l i n i n

t h e m i d d l e w e a r i n g a s u i t w i t h the n e w c u t ) .

Rodchenko. T e x t i l e design.

406

Rodchenko. N e w cut for a suit. Pattern and

finished

Photomontage.
404

405

P o p o v a . W o r k i n g clothes (prozodezhda)

article, modelled by Rodchenko h i m s e l f

f o r actors,

1921.

O M K A E / I A E T H3blCKAHHfl
HOBOR (POPMbI nOBCEAHEBHOR
H0PMAAb-OAE>HAbl

i'u6oraii B .npoaiiciiyccTlie., Poa-iBHHi) HCHO.Iiijifi iiiJueKTU noenoMon. weOflJiii, apxitteiiyypLi MflJii.ix iJiopM, Efo paSirthi yiactiiw.iH
;i"n Bri'iuipTiciR nt.K-rnBKe B ropuiKc
B Ii25 r.
Ho'iimafl c aO-K roA"". I'uA'ieHKo iiepexoaiiT
K craBaHino njiaKaTon, puoTUei ii iiOiiocTJi
ij!OTorpn$iiJi. i:poMrpu4)uiin, oiJiypM.tiiLT
...LE.GMw, laiiini. HiVpiio.ibi.

- I .

4nonOBA 132.1a.

160
407

^
Gan. Cover o f t h e Constructivists' magazine

Sovremennaya
408

R o d c h e n k o . A d v e r t i s i n g poster, w i t h t e x t b y

411 L i s s i t z k y . B o o k cover f o r Arkhitektura

M a y a k o v s k y , 1923.

arkhitektura.

G a n . Poster f o r the first Sovremennaya

exhibition,

409

arkhitektura

410

R o d c h e n k o . Street s i g n ,

Vkhutemasa,

1927.
1925.

1927.

U i.

IHB Ebino H HBT

COBPEMEHHAn
flPXHTEKTyPA
ARCHITEKTUR
DERCEGENWART
L'ARCHITECTURE
CONTEMPORAINE

no cTAPbix ner
inPDOHKiTCflBesaei

rOTOBl

1928
i r J U M a E mPAsnEHRE lUuriiHMaii VHptmmommt

m raorRiiPfiTBEHHaE itaRiiTEiu.OT

11

mmm mm

BXVTEMIIC

the C o n s t r u c t i v i s t s ' m a g a z i n e
'lira.
r t h e first Sovremennaja

409

R o d c h e n k o . A d v e r t i s i n g poster, w i t h t e x t b y

M a y a k o v s k y , 1923.
arkhitektura

C0BPEME>4hiaH
flPXMTEKTVPA
ARCHITEKTUR
DERCEGENWART
L'ARCHITECTURE
CONTEMPORAINE

410

R o d c h e n k o . Street s i g n ,

411
1927.

1925.

L i s s i t z k y . B o o k cover f o r Arkhitektura

Vkhutemasa

163

164
420-21

Rodchenko. A Workers' C l u b reading room,

1925. D e t a i l s o f v a r i o u s f u r n i t u r e .

422-23

B y k o v . T h e a t r e k i o s k , o p e n (422) a n d s h u t

( 4 2 3 ) , V k h u t e m a s , R o d c h e n k o ' s s t u d i o , 1923.

424-25

I v a n M o r o z o v . A d j u s t a b l e sectional table,

V k h u t e m a s , M e t f a k , R o d c h e n k o ' s s t u d i o , 1926. V i e w s
o f t h e t w o sides i n a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s .

165

424-25
enko. A W o r k e r s ' C l u b reading r o o m ,
various f u r n i t u r e .

:TEKA

422-23

B y k o v . T h e a t r e k i o s k , o p e n (422) a n d s h u t

(423), V k h u t e m a s , Rodchenko's studio,

1923.

426-27
I v a n M o r o z o v . A d j u s t a b l e sectional table,

V k h u t e m a s , M e t f a k , R o d c h e n k o ' s s t u d i o , 1926. V i e w s
o f t h e t w o sides i n a l t e r n a t i v e

positions.

1923.

G a n . B o o k s e l l i n g k i o s k , o p e n (426) a n d s h u t ( 4 2 7 ) ,

428

G a n . F o l d i n g street s t a l l , 1923.

166
429

Rogozhin. Bent w o o d chair, V k h u t e i n , T a t l i n ' s

431

K o k o r e v and L o b o v . Desk and chair, V k h u t e i n ,

Lissitzky's studio.
studio.
432
430

Kokorev. Table-cum-divan, Vkhutein,

Zeralyanitsyn. Folding chair, V k h u t e i n ,

Lissitzky's studio.

Lissitzky's studio.

433_34
431

K o k o r e v and L o b o v . Desk and chair, V k h u t e i n ,

Bent w o o d chair, V k h u t e i n , T a t l i n ' s

Lissitzky's studio.
syn. F o l d i n g chair, V k h u t e i n ,

432

Kokorev. Table-cum-divan,

Lissitzky's studio.

Vkhutein,

Zhigunov. Convertible aircraft furniture,

435-36

Petr G a l a k t i o n o v . C o l l a p s i b l e s t a n d a r d

V k h u t e i n , R o d c h e n k o ' s s t u d i o , 1929. A r m c h a i r s .

f u r n i t u r e , d e s i g n e d f o r mass t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d use i n

Couches. S t r e t c h e r s .

c i n e m a s , c l u b s , t h e a t r e s etc, V k h u t e i n , R o d c h e n k o ' s
studio,

1929.

439

437-38

Alexander Galakdonov. Collapsible standard

Grigory Pavlov. Convertible

armchair-couches

f o r coaches, V k h u t e i n , R o d c h e n k o ' s s t u d i o , 1929.

f u r n i t u r e for exhibition rooms, V k h u t e i n , Rodchenko's

440

s t u d i o , 1929.

convalescent home, V k h u t e i n , Rodchenko's

P y l i n s k y . T a b l e - c u m - d i v a n f o r use i n a

floatmg
studio,

1929.
441

B y k o v . Passenger c a r r i a g e l a y - o u t , V k h u t e m ,

R o d c h e n k o ' s s t u d i o , 1929.

442

I v a n M o r o z o v , S e c t i o n a l s t a n d a r d seats f o r a bus

station, V k h u t e i n , Rodchenko's

studio.

439

Grigory Pavlov. Convertible armchair-couches

for coaches, V k h u t e i n , R o d c h e n k o ' s s t u d i o , 1929,

440

P y l i n s k y . T a b l e - c u m - d i v a n for use i n a

floating

convalescent h o m e , V k h u t e i n , Rodchenko's studio,

1929,
441

B y k o v , Passenger c a r r i a g e l a y - o u t , V k h u t e m ,

R o d c h e n k o ' s s t u d i o , 1929,

171

448-49 Alexander Vesnin. Painterly Compositions,

. Arcliiteclmic Compositions.
1921.

450 Alexander Vesnin. Painterly Composition.

451-52 Alexander

Vesnin.

Graphic Compositions.

453 Alexander Vesnin. Competition design for a K a r l

M a r x Monument, Moscow, 1919.
454 Alexander Vesnin. Cover of the magazine
Arkhitektura, 1923.

173

nder Vesnin. Stage design for L'Annonce

imerny Theatre, 1920.

457
458

Alexander Vesnin. Stage design.

Alexander Vesnin. Stage design for L'Annonce faite

a-Marie, Kamerny Theatre, 1920

459 Alexander Vesnin. Stage design for Phdre,

Kamerny Theatre, 1922.

460-62 Alexander Vesnin and Popova. Design for the

setting of a festival on Khodynskoe Field in connection
w i t h the T h i r d Congress o f t h e Comintern, Moscow,
1921. Sketch (460). Models (461-62) of details o f t h e
setting of two symbohc cities - the City of Capitalism
(left o f t h e sketch) and the City o f t h e Future (right of
the sketch).

463

Popova. Set for The Magnanimous Cuclcold, directed

by Meyerhold, Actor's Theatre, 1922.

464

Viktor Shestakov. Set for an open-air

performance at the military camp in Odessa, 1925 ot

Lyul Lake, directed by Meyerhold at the Theatre o f t h e
Revolution, 1923.

465-67 Alexander Vesnin. Stage designs for The Man

who was Thursday, directed by Tairov, Kamerny
Theatre, 1922. Sketches (465). Models (466-67).

175

stfor The Magnanimous Cuclcold, directed

Actor's Theatre, 1922.
estakov. Set for an open-air
the military camp i n Odessa, 1925, of
ted by Meyerhold at the Theatre o f t h e

:3.

46567 Alexander Vesnin. Stage designs for The Man

wlw was Thursday, directed by Tairov, Kamerny
Theatre, 1922. Sketches (465). Models (466-67).

468 Alexander Vesnin. Costume design for Tlie A'lan

who was Thursday, Kamerny Theatre, 1922-23.
469 Alexander Vesnin. Set of The Man who was
Thursday, Kamerny Theatre, 1922-23.

470 Alexander Vesnin. Costume design for The Man

wlw was Thursday, Kamerny Theatre, 1922-23.

,ets for Khlebnikov's dramatic poem

Ign (471). Model (472).

473-75 Popova. Designs for The World Upside Down,

directed by Meyerhold, Theatre of the Revolution,
1923. Set (473). Open-air set for Kharkov performance,
1923 (474). Poster (475).

178

476-78 Stepanova. Stage 'furniture' and props for

Tarelkin's Death, directed by Meyeriiold, Gids Theatre,
1922 (476). Designs for The Mincing Machine (477) and
The Rocking Chair (478).

180
483

Alexander Vesnin. Sketch for competition design

o f t h e Palace of Labour, Moscow, 1922-23.

484

Vesnin brothers (Alexander, Viktor and Leonid).

Competition design for the Palace of Labour, Moscow,

1922-23. Plans.

485 Vesnin brothers. Competition design for the

Palace of Labour, Moscow, 1922-23. Perspective,

486-87 Vesnin brothers. Competition

design for the Palace of Labour, Moscow,
1922-23. Perspective (486). Elevation
(487).

182^

Vesnin. Slcetch for competition tiesign

.abour, Moscow, 1922-23.
tilers (Alexander, Viktor and Leonid).
ign for the Palace of Labour, Moscow,

485 Vesnin brothers. Competition design for the

Palace of Labour, Moscow, 1922-23. Perspective.

48687 Vesnin brothers. Competition

design for the Palace of Labour, Moscow,
1922-23. Perspective (486). Elevation
(487).

488 Ginzburg and Grinberg. Competition design for

tlie Palace of Labour, Moscow, 1922-23. Perspective.
489 Ginzburg. Competition design (1924) for the
Soviet pavilion, Paris Exhibition, 1925. Perspective.

490-91. Ginzburg. Conjpetition design for the

OrgamSal bfildTng.J^olc&wt'1926-27. Perspective
(490). Ground- and firfet-floor plans (491).
492 Ginzburg. Apartment block on Malaya
Bronnaya, Moscow, 1926-27.

493-94 Alexander and Viktor Vesnin. Competition

design for the Moscow office building o{ Leningradskaya
Pravda, 1924. Elevations and plans (493). Perspective
(494).

495light
plan

ind Grinberg. Competition design for

oour, Moscow, 1922-23. Perspective.
Competition design (1924) for the
Paris Exhibition, 1925. Perspective.

490-91 Ginzburg. Conjpetition design for the

O r g a m a l bAildrng,J\folciwt' 1926-27. Perspective
(490). Gr(^'und- and firjit-floor plans (491).
492 Ginzburg. Apartment block on Malaya
Bronnaya, Moscow, 1926-27.

493-94 Alexander and Viktor Vesnin. Competition

design for the Moscow office building o(Leningradskaya
Pravda, 1924. Elevations and plans (493). Perspective
(494).

495-97 Alexander and Viktor Vesnin. Design for a

light field aircraft hangar, 1924. Elevations, section,
plan (495-96). Model (497).

185

lompetitions design for

1924. Perspective (498).
ations (500-01).

502 Alexander and l-eonid Vesnin. Competition

design for the Central Telegraph Office, Moscow, 1925.
Perspective.
50304 Vesnin brothers. Competition design for the
Railway Station, Kiev, 1926. Elevation. Interior.

E::

1^

uk.

186

505 Andrei Burov. Theatre building, Vkhutemas,

Alexander Vesnin's studio, 1924. Perspective.
506

Andrei Burov. A Central Railway Station for

Moscow, 1925. Perspective.

507-08 Andrei Burov. Collective farm buildings:

stills from Eisenstein's film The General Line, 1927.
509 Gan. Design for a village kiosk, 1923.
Perspective.

I O /

v. Theatre building, Vkhutemas,

s studio, 1924. Perspective.
ov. A Central Railway Station for
erspective.

507-08 Andrei Burov. Collective farm buildings:

stills from Eisenstein's film The General Line, 1927.
509 Gan. Design for a village kiosk, 1923.
Perspective.

510 Vladimirov. Diploma design at M i g i for a

Museum of Red Moscow, 1924. Elevation.
511 Vegman. Competition design for the Central
Telegraph Office, Moscow, 1925. Perspective.

esnin, Nikolai K o l l i , Orlov and

aepropetrovsk Power Station, 1929

513-15 First Exhibition of Modern Architecture,

Moscow, 1927.

516

S h u k h o v . T r a n s m i t t e r t o w e r . M o s c o w , 1922

517

S h u k h o v . W a t e r t o w e r , S h u y a , 1926.

518-19

K r a s i n . Conveyer viaduct of Shatura

S t a t i o n , 1925. D e t a i l o f c o n v e y e r ( 5 1 8 ) . G e n e r a l
the p o w e r s t a t i o n ( 5 1 9 ) , b u i l t b y t h e a r c h i t e c t s
Dubovsky, I v a n B u r o v and Brzhostovsky.

191
518-19

K r a s i n . Conveyer viaduct o f Shatura Power

S t a t i o n , 1925. D e t a i l o f c o n v e y e r ( 5 1 8 ) . G e n e r a l v i e w o f
r a n s m i t t e r t o w e r . M o s c o w , 1922.

t h e p o w e r s t a t i o n ( 5 1 9 ) , b u i l t b y the a r c h i t e c t s
Dubovsky, I v a n B u r o v and Brzhostovsky.

192
520

M a k a r o v a . H a n g i n g r o o f s s h a p e d as h y p e r b o l i c

p a r a b o l o i d s , 1929.

nr.

T h e other outstanding V e s n i n project was

b u i l d i n g i n Moscow, remarkable for its pronoi

look. T h e b u d d i n g was located on a corner i

scheme offered an austere composition, i n c l u d i n

lined ferro-concrete f r a m e w o r k i n w h i c h the f i r i

holding the showrooms and banking premises, v
tirely glazed.

T h e impact of these designs at a time of experi

tecture was exceptionally p o w e r f u l and immedii

attention on all sides. T h e Vesnin Arkos proje

pressed architects at the e x h i b i t i o n of competil
the newness of its look and the freshness of its arcl
ception. Eye-witnesses recall its effect even no\

that by comparison w i t h i t all the other entries se

el and fade. I t was a superb piece of draughtsmar
ly coloured, w h i c h concentrated the movement i
new architecture and p r o v i d e d a t u r n i n g point
experiments of m a n y architects.

The Vesnin Arkos project was awarded a first

immediately i m i t a t e d . W h i l e the other entries fo:
tion had substantially differed f r o m i t i n ap
prize-winning entries for the next two m a j o r com

Central Telegraph OfQce and the House o f 1

more or less at the same time i n 1925, v i r t u a l l y a
Vesnins' Arkos entry. T h e Constructivist ranki
even further i n the course o f many subsequeni
held i n 1926-27.

The success o f t h e innovative trend i n Soviet <

these competitions, and o f Constructivism abov
to be followed by other architects w h o merely r(
new fashion. A Constructivist manner m i g h t we
and turned into a purely external Constructive S
structivist leaders were aware of this and fought
concentrating on the f o r m u l a t i o n of a set of artis
the foundation of an organization u n i t i n g the ne'i

supporters. The U n i o n o f Contemporary A r c h !

was set up towards the end o f 1925 w i t h Alexan
chairman, Moisei G i n z b u r g and V i k t o r Vesn
chairmen, and Georgy O r l o v as secretary. I n th;

'he registration of the new U n i o n the represent!

principles as follows:
Osa brings together i n d i v i d u a l s closely linked
ogy and carries on collective theoretical, scii

193
Chapter 5/Constructivism

T h e other outstanding V e s n i n project was for the A r k o s

b u i l d i n g i n Moscow, remarkable for its pronounced modern

cal, and practical w o r k i n a struggle against inertia and the vestiges of the past. . . .

look. T h e b u i l d i n g was located on a corner site, and their

Osa collectively determines and gives practical substance

scheme offered an austere composition, i n c l u d i n g a clearly out-

to the new architectural f o r m f u n c t i o n a l l y derived f r o m the

lined ferro-concrete f r a m e w o r k i n w h i c h the first f o u r storeys,

purpose o f a particular b u i l d i n g , the materials used i n i t , its

holding the showrooms and banking premises, were almost en-

construction and other p r o d u c t i o n requirements i n accordance

tirely glazed.

w i t h the concrete demands arising f r o m the socialist construc-

The i m p a c t of these designs at a time of experiment i n archi-

t i o n o f t h e country.'**

tecture was exceptionally p o w e r f u l and immediately attracted

As noted earlier, architectural Constructivism had i n i t i a l l y

attention on all sides. T h e Vesnin Arkos project greatly i m -

been organizationally connected w i t h I n k h u k . A group of like-

pressed architects at the e x h i b i t i o n of competition entries by

m i n d e d individuals gradually gathered r o u n d Alexander Ves-

the newness of its look and the freshness of its architectural con-

n i n i n 192324, m a i n l y recruited f r o m his students, such as

ception. Eye-witnesses recall its effect even now, so p o w e r f u l

Barshch, A n d r e i B u r o v , Sobolev, K o m a r o v a , and N i k o l a i K r a -

that by comparison w i t h i t all the other entries seemed to shriv-

silnikov, i n Vkhutemas. A number o f p r o m i n e n t members o f

el and fade. I t was a superb piece of draughtsmanship, s t r i k i n g -

L e f (the L e f t F r o n t o f the A r t s ) directed by Mayakovsky, also

ly coloured, w h i c h concentrated the movement i n favour of the

took p a r t i n the group, notably B r i k and Lavinsky.

new architecture and provided a t u r n i n g point i n the artistic

experiments of many architects.

T h i s architectural group was f o r m a l l y embodied w i t h i n I n k h u k at the beginning of 1924, i n fact replacing Ladovsky's

The Vesnin Arkos project was awarded a first prize and was

W o r k i n g G r o u p of Architects, the members of w h i c h had

immediately i m i t a t e d . W h i l e the other entries for this competi-

founded an independent creative association - Asnova - i n

tion had substantially diflFered f r o m i t i n appearance, the

1923. I n its controversies w i t h the Rationalists, the new group

prize-winning entries for the next t w o m a j o r competitions the

h a d consistently d r a w n attention by 1924 to the role of a b u i l d -

Central Telegraph O f f i c e and the House of Textiles - held

ing's f u n c t i o n a l purpose as the basis for generating its f o r m

more or less at the same time i n 1925, v i r t u a l l y all followed the

(e.g. Ladovsky's lecture i n February 1924), thus p r o v i d i n g a

Vesnins' Arkos entry. T h e Gonstructivist ranks were swelled

l i n k w i t h the promoters o f Production A r t .

even further i n the course of m a n y subsequent competitions

held i n 1926-27.
The success o f t h e innovative trend i n Soviet architecture at

T h e L e f architectural group at I n k h u k thereby served as the

nucleus for the Constructivist organization, Osa. Osa

was

j o i n e d by some of Ginzburg's followers f r o m the Moscow I n s t i -

these competitions, and of Constructivism above a l l , caused i t

tute o f C i v i l Engineers, e. g. V e g m a n and V l a d i m i r o v , a group

to be followed by other architects w h o merely regarded i t as a

of V i k t o r Vesnin's pupils f r o m the Moscow H i g h e r Technical

new fashion. A Constructivist manner m i g h t well have spread

I n s t i t u t e - M V T U - (among them O r l o v , Nikolaev and Fisen-

and turned into a purely external Constructive Style. T h e C o n -

ko) and some Production A r t Constmctivists f r o m L e n i n g r a d

structivist leaders were aware o f this and fought stylization by

headed by Nikolsky. T h e membership of Osa included Alex-

concentrating on the f o r m u l a t i o n o f a set of artistic behefs and

ander and V i k t o r Vesnin, Barshch, A n d r e i B u r o v , V e g m a n ,

the foundation of an organization u n i t i n g the new movement's

V l a d i m i r o v , Gan, G i n z b u r g , I l y a Golosov, Leonidov, N i k o -

supporters. T h e U n i o n of Contemporary Architects - Osa -

laev, Nikolsky, N i k o l a i K r a s i l n i k o v , O r l o v , Pasternak, N i k o l a i

was set up towards the end of 1925 w i t h Alexander V e s n i n as

Sokolov, K h i g e r , Y a l o v k i n and t w o engineers, Loleit and

chairman, Moisei G i n z b u r g and V i k t o r V e s n i n as deputy-

K a r l s e n . F r o m 1926 onwards, Osa published its own periodi-

chairmen, and Georgy O r l o v as secretary. I n their request f o r

cal called Sovremennaya arkhitektura {Contemporary Architecture) or

c registration of the new U n i o n the representatives defined

ts principles as follows:

SA, w i t h Alexander Vesnin and G i n z b u r g , the founders and

Osa brings together individuals closely hnked by a c o m m o n

ogy and carries on collective theoretical, scientific, techni-

leaders o f t h e group, as its chief editors.

194
Part I / A e s t h e t i c problems o f design

achievements. Great engineers such as Shu

methods i n the process of architectural composition and, as a

"

The Functional Method

uh

sometimes oversimplified the complex interaction be-

tween the f u n c t i o n of a b u d d i n g and its spatial organization.

T h e first issue of Contemporary ArchUecture

carried the slo-

T h e y also tended to exaggerate the importance of purely ra-

gan 'Contemporary architecture must crystallize the new so-

tionll

ciahst way of life.' T h e drive to participate i n p r o d u c i n g types

probably inevitably at a time when the latest technological

of buddings intended for new social purposes - the social con^

achievements were being applied to b u i l d m g w o r k .

densers of the era' - runs t h r o u g h all Constructivist theory and

eonsideradons m the creative architectural process

They j o i n t l y explored new ways of develoj

and engineers became active members of As

T h e switch at the start o f t h e 1930s to an

tion o f methods derived f r o m the past is o)

plained by the i n a b i h t y of the country's bu
meet the technical requirements set by the s

T h e Constructivists made great use i n p l a n m n g and spa lal

compositions of new inventions f r o m applied science i n fields

' " T h e ' m o v e m e n t ' s basic theories and methods were set out i n
its periodical. I n the early days of Constructivism at the begmI f o f the 1920s, its followers m a i n l y stressed t h ^ construct i o n a l effectiveness o f t h e new architectural f o r m . A t this la^e
tage on the other hand, they concentrated on its f u n c t i o n a l
qualkyoneofthemainbulwarksagainstthethreatofaste^^^^^

K r a s i n , were happy to w o r k w i t h the inno

uch as t h e r m a l insulation and acoustics, many of w h i c h were

introduced i n t o design and b u d d i n g w o r k at that time.

tecture prevaihng d u r i n g the 1920s.

I t w o u l d , of course, be w r o n g to deny that 1

ties had inherited a l o w level of b u i l d i n g techi
Russia. I t was no lower, however, than that i

A t t e m p t s were even made to q u a n t i f y projec w o r k itself

other areas of the national economy w h i c h

scientifically, so that the selecdon of a particular p l a n and spa-

ance elsewhere i n the w o r l d during the era of

compo J i o n w o u l d largely be governed b y the appheation

Plans. Moreover, as pointed out earher, R t

of mathematical formulae, tables and graphs as proposed by

the century d i d not lag far, i f at a l l , behind t l

tries of Europe and A m e r i c a i n the number, s

I n a series of articles about Constructivist theoiT, G m z b u r g

Nikolai Krasilnikov.
Generally speaking, however, when dealing w i t h f o r m m
f u n c t i o n a l terms, the Constructivists were - - t c:ncerned
w i t h a structure's social f u n c t i o n rather t h a n its u t i h t a n a n asZL
though the very simphcity o f t h e new architectural forms
[ust fied them i n a sense for f u n c t i o n a l l y structural purposes^
Ctywasnolongerburdenedbyaestheticconsiderationsand

set out the principles of a so-called F u n c t i o n a l M e t h o d w h i c h

the v i L a l concept was derived from the structure's social con-

not always encourage the i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t

was then f u r t h e r elaborated and given wide

t ^ t For the Constructivists, the architect's basic task was to

the latest improvements i n technology.

typed Constructive Style. T h e i r d o c t r i n a l statements constan ly emphasized that Constructivism was an artistic method, not
a style, and that i t demanded a specific attitude w i t h regard to
n r e s t i ; n s of construction, f u n c t i o n and f o r m . SA proclaimed.
^Architect, do not counterfeit technological shapes, b u t master
the constructor's methods instead.'

p-,hnrfr

"-J^^^

t i o n i n so far as the Constructivists were concerned, must be

organize a new way of life. I n so far as they were concerned,

give'n p r i o r i t y i n the preparation of a spatial c o - p o s ^ "

technology was the means of generating a new and function 1

b u i l d i n g . T h e F u n c t i o n a l M e t h o d proceeded f r o m the f u n c
onalrUe-ntsofagivenstructure,suchasthesi^^^^^^^^^^

m Functionalist leaders, such as V e s n i n and Ginzburg h -

Ueved that there was a qualitative difference between a me e^

d i v i d u a l units of accommodation m relation to each other, the

u iUtarian f o r m and a f u n c t i o n a l f o r m that h a d achieved

flow chart o f t h e activity i n question, and so on

I t i c perfection and become an object of art. T^e^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Constructivists made great use o f t h e so-caUed ' p a v i h o n me-

of the F u n c t i o n a l M e t h o d d i d not m so f a r

es

^^^^^^^

t h o d ' of composition, whereby a b u i l d i n g or - m p h . - - s d -

cerned, i m p l y that only one single f o r m could - j v e - g

vided i n t o blocks or units of space m accordance w i t h their p u r

f u n c t i o n and construction. T h e y set great store by the ars

pose These were then l i n k e d by corridors or bridges m accord-

imaginative power and by the special effects of p e r c e ^ o n .

ance w i t h the requirements o f t h e overaU f u n c t i o n a l process i n -

Osa's first e x h i b i t i o n was held m 1927, its first conference

A p r i l 1928 and its first congress i n M a y 1929.

" T ^ C F u n c t i o n a l M e t h o d was i n fact a f u l l y developed artistic

programme. I t confronted the architect w i t h a host of c h ^ lenges, such as taking part i n the i n v e n t i o n of new types of

Engineers and the new architecture

buildings; combating ecleetieism; f i g h t i n g for the i n d u s t n a h za" on ! f Ihe b u i l d i n g process, for standardization, the i n d u . -

T h e creative principles of innovative trends such as Rational-

t r i a l manufacture of components and the conversion of b u d d -

ism and Constructivism were w e f l understood by e g

i n g w o r k m t o a process of assembling standard c o - p o n e n t .

and constructors bent on a p p l y i n g the latest techn

T h e Constructivists promoted the utmost use of scientific

nahty of its b u i l d i n g and engineering works,

fore no good reasons f o r Soviet b u i l d i n g woi

slowly than other branches of socialist i n d t
ing technology was seriously retarded i n the
ing the thirties, forties and fifties, this was di
to the orientation of architecture d u r i n g tha

I n the twenties, on the other hand, Sov

tasks for the b u i l d i n g i n d u s t r y w h i c h p r o i
ment of new materials and structural ele
budding standards. Engineering technology
dustry achieved great successes d u r i n g this

195
Chapter 5/Constructivism
: problems o f design

methods i n the process of architectural composition and, as a

al Method

result, sometimes oversimplified the complex interaction between the f u n c t i o n of a b u i l d i n g and its spatial organization.

,sue o f Contemporary Architecture [SA) carried the slo.nrporary architecture must crystallize the new soof life.' T h e drive to participate i n p r o d u c m g types
rs intended f o r new social purposes - 'the social conihe era' - runs t h r o u g h all Gonstructivist theory and

T h e y also tended to exaggerate the importance o f purely rational considerations

i n the creative architectural process,

probably inevitably at a time when the latest technological

achievements were being applied to b u i l d m g w o r k .
T h e Gonstructivists made great use i n p l a n m n g and spatial
compositions o f new inventions f r o m apphed science m fields

,vement's basic theories and methods were set out i n

cal. I n the early days of Gonstructivism at the begme 1920s, its foUowers m a i n l y stressed the construcctiveness o f t h e new architectural f o r m . A t this later
the other hand, they concentrated on its f u n c t i o n a l
^e o f t h e m a i n bulwarks against the threat of a stereoistructive Style. T h e i r doctrinal statements constantdzed that Gonstructivism was an artistic method, not
id that i t demanded a specific attitude w i t h regard to
of construction, f u n c t i o n and f o r m . SA p r o c l a i m e d :
t, do not counterfeit technological shapes, b u t master
ructor's methods instead.'
ries o f articles about Gonstructivist theory, G i n z b u r g
le principles o f a so-called F u n c t i o n a l M e t h o d w h i c h
f u r t h e r elaborated and given wide currency. Funco f a r as the Gonstructivists were concerned, must be
ority i n the preparation of a spatial composition f o r a
, T h e F u n c t i o n a l M e t h o d proceeded f r o m the f u n c juirements of a given structure, such as the siting of i n units o f accommodation i n relation to each other, the
rt of the activity i n question, and so on.
ructivists made great use o f t h e so-called ' p a v i h o n mecomposition, whereby a b m l d i n g or complex was d i to blocks or units of space i n accordance w i t h their purlese were then hnked by corridors or bridges i n accordh the requirements o f t h e overaU f u n c t i o n a l process m unctional M e t h o d was i n fact a f u l l y developed artistic

such as t h e r m a l insulation and acoustics, many of w h i c h were

introduced i n t o design and b u d d i n g w o r k at that time.
A t t e m p t s were even made to q u a n t i f y project w o r k itself
scientifically, so that the selection of a particular p l a n and spatial composition w o u l d largely be governed by the apphcation
of mathematical formulae, tables and graphs as proposed by
Nikolai Krasilnikov.
Generally speaking, however, when deahng w i t h f o r m m
f u n c t i o n a l terms, the Gonstructivists were most

concerned

w i t h a structure's social f u n c t i o n rather than its utilitarian aspect though the very simphcity o f t h e new architectural forms
iustified them i n a sense for f u n c t i o n a l l y structural purposes
U t i h t y was no longer burdened b y aesthetic considerations and
the visual concept was derived f r o m the structure's social context For the Gonstructivists, the architect's basic task was to
organize a new way of life. I n so far as they were concerned
technology was the means of generating a new and functional
f o r m Functionahst leaders, such as V e s n i n and Ginzburg, believed that there was a qualitative difi-erence between a merely
u t i h t a n a n f o r m and a f u n c t i o n a l f o r m that had achieved aesthetic perfection and become an object of art. T h e application
of the F u n c t i o n a l M e t h o d d i d not, i n so far as they were con
cerned, i m p l y that only one single f o r m could serve a given
f u n c t i o n and construction. T h e y set great store by the artist
imaginative power and by the special effects o f perception _
Osa's first exhibition was held i n 1927, its first conference
A p r d 1928 and its first congress i n M a y 1929.

i m e . I t confronted the architect w i t h a host o f chalsuch as taking part i n the invention o f new types o f
rs; combating eclecticism; fighting for the industriah)f the b u i l d i n g process, for standardization, the industnufacture o f components and the conversion o f b u i l d k i n t o a process of assembhng standard components,
nstructivists promoted the utmost use o f scientific

Engineers and the new architecture

itinnai-

T h e creative principles o f innovative trends such as

ism and Gonstructivism were well understood

and constructors bent on applying the latest techno

achievements. Great engineers such as Shukhov, Loleit and

metal structures by Shukhov and K r a s i n , Loleit's work i n the

K r a s i n , were happy to work w i t h the innovative architects.

field of ferro-concrete, the elaboration o f m o d e r n timber work

They j o i n t l y explored new ways o f developing architecture,

by Karlsen and the p r o d u c t i o n o f new hyperbolic paraboloid

and engineers became active members o f Asnova and Osa.

roofing by M a k a r o v a . T h e very latest structures and b u i l d i n g

T h e switch at the start o f the 1930s to an intensive applica-

materials, as well as modern p r o d u c t i o n methods, were applied

tion o f methods derived f r o m the past is often p r i m a r i l y ex-

i n the construction o f engineering and i n d u s t r i a l buildings,

plained by the i n a b i l i t y o f the country's b u i l d i n g i n d u s t r y to

such as Shukhov's radio tower i n Moscow i n 1922 and Krasin's

meet the technical requirements set by the standards o f archi-

viaduct at the Shatura power station i n 1925.

Engineers not only helped the architects to elaborate and

tecture prevailing d u r i n g the 1920s.

I t w o u l d , of course, be w r o n g to deny that the Soviet a u t h o r i -

implement their ideas i n technical terms, b u t influenced their

ties had inherited a l o w level of b u i l d i n g technique f r o m Tsarist

f o r m a l experiments, both directly and i n d i r e c t l y . T h u s , the

Russia. I t was no lower, however, t h a n that o b t a i n i n g i n many

pronounced skeletal look o f early Gonstructivist compositions

other areas o f the national economy w h i c h equalled p e r f o r m -

is closely related to the latticed metal structures w h i c h gained

ance elsewhere i n the world during the era o f t h e First Five Year

widespread currency even before the Revolution. I t is also

Plans. Moreover, as pointed out earlier, Russia at the t u r n o f

w o r t h stressing the influence o f t h e quantitative theory taught

the century d i d not lag far, i f at a l l , behind the developed coun-

i n higher architectural and constructional educational estab-

tries of Europe and A m e r i c a i n the number, standard and origi-

lishments on the forms developed i n the new architecture. T h i s

naUty of its b u i l d i n g and engineering works. There were there-

led to a m a x i m u m application o f modern technology i n many

fore no good reasons for Soviet b u i l d i n g w o r k to develop more

student projects dating f r o m the 1920s and lent a d d i t i o n a l

slowly than other branches o f sociahst industry. A n d i f b u i l d -

p o i n t to the f o r m a l experiments w h i c h they embodied.

ing technology was seriously retarded i n the Soviet U n i o n during the thirties, forties and fifties, this was due i n large measure
to the orientation of architecture d u r i n g that period, w h i c h d i d
not always encourage the i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o b u i l d i n g w o r k o f
the latest improvements i n technology.

Mayakovsky,

Polnoe sobranie sochinenii,

v o l . 12, p p . 8 - 9 .

Mayakovsky,

Polnoe sobranie sochinenii,

v o l . 2, p p . 88.

Mayakovsky,

Polnoe sobranie sochinenii,

v o l . 4 , p . 238.

istorii sovetskoi esteticlieskoi

of Soviet Aestlietic

Thought),

Col-

l e c t e d A r t i c l e s ( M o s c o w , 1967), p p . 4 6 - 4 7 .
5

A . G a n , Konstruktivizm

Sovremennaya

tasks for the b u i l d i n g industry w h i c h p r o m p t e d the employ-

Katalog-Pervaya

ment of new materials and structural elements, and raised

(Catalogue

I n the twenties, on the other hand, Soviet architecture set

mysli (From the History

arkhitektura

( T v e r , 1922), p . 3.
[Contemporary

diskussionaya

oJ the First Discursive

Architecture),

N o . 3 ( 1 9 2 8 ) , p . 79.

vystavka

oh 'edinenii aktivnogo

Exhibition

of the Associations

revolyutsionnogo

iskusstva

of Active Revolutionary

Art)

( M o s c o w , 1924), p . 14.

building standards. Engineering technology i n the b u i l d i n g i n -

dustry achieved great successes d u r i n g this period, such as the

1926-32)

Iz istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury

1926-1932

( M o s c o w , 1970), p . 69.

g g (From the History

of Soviet

Architecture

Creative innovation in the second half

of the 1920s:
teachers, schools, groupings

Canonization:
a threat to the formal tenets of the new trend

By the mid-1920s, the innovative trends came to exert a decisive influence on creative experimentation i n Soviet architecture. T h e next stage involved the reconcihadon of u n c o m p r o m ising attitudes i n the quarrels between Rationahsts and Gonstructivists. I n the second h a l f of the decade the m a i n task was
to achieve an organic synthesis of afl that had been secured so
far by the Gonstructivist F u n c t i o n a l M e t h o d and Rationalist
experiments i n f o r m a l aesthetics.

f u n c t i o n a l connection between various structural components

in the quest for diversity i n his w o r k . H

proved to lack ardstic u n i t y . Moreover, styhzation i n the Gon-

bined u l t r a - m o d e r n Gonstructivist forr

structive manner could mean that i n d i v i d u a l elements of the

conjunction of contrasting volumes, si

new architecture w o u l d be canonized and become merely ex-

parallelepiped, w i t h planes composed c

ternal and f o r m a l features of buddings, i m p a r t i n g to them a

and confidentiy modefled his fagades. I

tery i n demonstrating the artistic pote:

styhstic stamp of approval.

A n outdated architectural concept and a lack of compositional ideas were often cloaked by a fashionable covering of

I n 1925-27, w h e n many architects

architecture involved the solution of a host of problems by org-

structivism, Golosov even came to be n

anic means, i n particular by i m p a r t i n g expression to buildings.

thing of a n artistic leader. Gonstructr

shionable and m a n y new converts beg
'Constructive' style. Golosov probably

had been done i n the field of spatial composition, but its strictly
p o i n t the w a y to successful composition.
I n n o v a t i v e architects w h o were strugghng against t r a d i t i o n aUsm d u r i n g the 1920s rehed on the achievements of science
and technology, and constantly stressed the importance of a rational approach to architectural w o r k . T h i s led them to t i p the
scales i n favour of rational factors i n architectural design, as
opposed to emodonal ones. I t also increasingly directed attent i o n to the f u n c t i o n a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n of a structure, often at the expense of artistic considerations, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Gonstructivist
designs. T h e technological factors i n t r o d u c e d i n t o a design b y
the architect were essentially rational, and tended very m u c h
to displace the emotional or i n t u i t i v e aspects involved i n the

sal, stdl f a i r l y l i m i t e d at that time.

glass and concrete. Styhstic c h c h s apart, progress for modern

T h e Functional M e t h o d undoubtedly consolidated w h a t

r a t i o n a l approach to f u n c t i o n a l construction d i d not i n itself

and made exquisite use o f t h e means ar

to this deveiopment.

Ilya Golosov's Constructive Style

Careful inspection of Golosov's C

Golosov, as we have already pointed out, never based his work

however, especially i f one traces his eve

on any single style and worked w i t h more or less equal success

od, clearly shows that he was not prima

i n a variety of idioms w h f l e r e m a i n i n g f a i t h f u l to his own per-

externals of style, then as at all other

sonal methods of spatial composition. T h e Vesnins' brifliant

Constructive Style does not play a lea

entries for the Arkos and Leningradskaya

projects dating f r o m these years i n so f

Pravda competitions

impressed h i m deeply and converted h i m to the methods devel-

the bufldings is concerned.

oped b y the Gonstructivists i n search of an artistic image. A

I t is true that a l l projects by Golosov

clearly accented f r a m e w o r k and a prevalence of glazed surfaces

half of the 1920s are o u t w a r d l y typical

became characteristic features of Golosov's o u t p u t after 1925.

even here the spatial composition is i n v

H e turned out a series of artistically first-rate projects after

complex f o r m w h i c h harks back to th(

j o i n i n g the Gonstructivists and d i d m u c h to spread an under-

ganization elaborated by Golosov i n h i

standing of this trend. Golosov was the most successful inter-

of architectural organisms. H i s princi]

w o r k . Inevitable as this w o u l d seem to have been under the cir-

preter of Gonstructivist methods i n the m i d - 1920s. He was cer-

tectural image must be a large spatial

cumstances, i t involved a danger that this transient phenomen-

tainly uniquely popular as a Gonstructivist architect i n the

power of expression even when some o

on m i g h t become a permanent feature o f t h e new architecture.

years that separated the Vesnins' t r i u m p h a l success f r o m the

by others, continued to dominate his

flowering

Gonservatism, as many innovators saw it, was chiefly a mat-

of I v a n Leonidov's w o r k at the end of the decade.

Gonstructivist period. Golosov was al

ter of d r a w i n g on the past for architectural forms and methods.

A n d yet, although he d i d b r i f l i a n t wor*k i n the Gonstructivist

styhstic opportunities offered by Gons

These architects were not always clearly aware as they fought

manner, Golosov was never a true Gonstructivist when all is

generously glazed frameworks. T h i s is

against eclecticism and Classicist stylization that an equally se-

said and done. A close scrutiny o f his o u t p u t reveals that he

istic of 1925-26 when Golosov desigm;

rious threat to every new movement f r o m w i t h i n was a conser-

treated Gonstructivism more as an o u t w a r d trend than as a

proportioned office b u i l d i n g projects,

vative tendency to erect its o w n means and methods i n t o can-

f u n c t i o n a l method. H e nevertheless rose as a star i n the Con-

frameworks and w i n d o w s . M o s t outs

ons. Such tendencies increasingly made themselves felt i n the

s t r u c t i v i s t f i r m a m e n t and for a time outshone even such leaders

were the competition entries for the H(

new architecture, not least because long years of eclecdcism

of the movement as Alexander V e s n i n and Ginzburg. Golo-

jointly w i t h Boris U f i n i c h , the Rusgertc

and styhzation had conditioned architects i n favour of canons

sov's rise as a Gonstructivist started w i t h the award of a firs

trobank i n 1926.

that fetter and h m i t creative i m a g i n a t i o n . O r t h o d o x Gonstruc-

prize i n the competition f o r a House of Textiles i n Moscow m

tivists were also sometimes hampered i n this respect by a sim-

1925. Thereafter, he took part i n v i r t u a l l y all the competition^

designing frameworks and

plistic view of how shape and the basic f u n c t i o n a l structure of a

w h i c h were p r o l i f e r a t i n g at that time and carried away w a

showed nevertheless: he could not si

b u i l d i n g were interrelated.
Complex asymmetrical compositions designed to satisfy the

was probably a record number of prizes. H e seemed insatia

plain, or put up w i t h the w a l l as a ' t h a

Golosov took special trouble i n dra;

openings,

'

197

C h a p t e r 6 / C r e a t i v e i n n o v a t i o n i n t h e s e c o n d h a l f o f the 1920s

Creative innovation in tiie second lialf

of the 1920s :
teachers, schools, groupings

3 formal tenets of the new trend

I-1920s, the innovative trends came to exert a deciace on creative experimentation i n Soviet architeclext stage involved the reconcihation of u n c o m p r o m ides i n the quarrels between Rationahsts and C o n 3. I n the second half o f the decade the m a i n task was
an organic synthesis of ah that had been secured so
Gonstructivist Functional M e t h o d and Rationalist
Its i n f o r m a l aesthetics.

f u n c t i o n a l connection between various structural components

i n the quest for diversity i n his w o r k . H e easily and freely com-

to all appearances, an ultra-modern piece of glazed f r a m e w o r k .

proved to lack artistic u n i t y . Moreover, stylization m the Gon-

bined ultra-modern Gonstructivist forms, boldly introduced a

Each o f these projects also exhibited a touch of plasticity a

conjunction of contrasting volumes, such as a cylinder and a

c o m b i n a t i o n of right-angled prisms i n the House of Textiles, a

parallelepiped, w i t h planes composed of glass and b l i n d walls,

cylinder of glass at the angle of the Elektrobank and a half-

and confidently modelled fiis fagades. H e displayed great mas-

cylinder i n the Rusgertorg.

structive manner could mean that i n d i v i d u a l elements o f t h e

new architecture w o u l d be canonized and become merely external and f o r m a l features of buildings, i m p a r t i n g to them a
stylistic stamp of approval.
A n outdated architectural concept and a lack of compositional ideas were often cloaked by a fashionable covering of
glass and concrete. Styhstic c h c h s apart, progress for modern
architecture involved the solution of a host of problems by organic means, i n particular b y i m p a r t i n g expression to bufldings.

tery i n demonstrating the artistic potential of Gonstructivism

Golosov soon exhausted the possibihties offered by glazed

and made exquisite use of the means and methods at its dispo-

frameworks and increasingly reverted, towards the end of the

sal, still f a i r l y l i m i t e d at that time.

1920s, to the large spatial elements w h i c h he always saw as the

I n 192527, when many architects were switching to Gon-

basis for o u t w a r d l y expressive buildings.

structivism, Golosov even came to be regarded briefly as something o f an artistic leader. Gonstructivism was becoming fashionable and many new converts began to w o r k i n a sort o f

Symbolist and Expressionist

m c t i o n a l M e t h o d undoubtedly consohdated w h a t

'Constructive' style. Golosov probably contributed a good deal

responses to engineering structures -

lone i n the f i e l d of spatial composition, b u t its strictly

to this development.

Lyudvig and Chernlkhov

Ilya Golosov's Constructive Style

pproach to f u n c t i o n a l construction d i d not i n itself

way to successful composition.
tive architects w h o were struggling against t r a d i t i o n i n g the 1920s relied on the achievements of science
ology, and constantly stressed the importance of a ra)roach to architectural w o r k . T h i s led them to t i p the

Careful inspection of Golosov's Gonstructivist projects,

Golosov, as we have already pointed out, never based his work

however, especially i f one traces his evolution d u r i n g that peri-

T h e Constructive Style and its ever more canonical aesthetic

on any single style and worked w i t h more or less equal success

od, clearly shows that he was not p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h the

modes earned p o p u l a r i t y and wide-ranging application, but

i n a variety of idioms w h f l e remaining f a i t h f u l to his own per-

externals of style, then as at a l l other times. I n practice, the

also stimulated a search for ways of dislodging the aesthetic ste-

sonal methods of spatial composition. T h e Vesnins' brifliant

Constructive Style does not play a leading part i n any of his

reotypes connected w i t h it. D u r i n g the second h a l f of the 1920s,

entries for the Arkos and Leningradskaya

projects dating f r o m these years i n so far as the appearance o f

the quest for variety i n the approach to architectural composi-

the buildings is concerned.

t i o n developed not only w i t h i n the innovative trend itself, but

Pravda competitions

favour o f rational factors i n architectural design, as

impressed h i m deeply and converted h i m to the methods devel-

;o emotional ones. I t also increasingly directed atten-

also at the interface between the innovative trends - Gonstruc-

oped by the Gonstructivists i n search of an artistic image. A

I t is true that afl projects by Golosov dating f r o m the second

; f u n c t i o n a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n of a structure, often at the ex-

clearly accented f r a m e w o r k and a prevalence of glazed surfaces

half of the 1920s are o u t w a r d l y typical of Gonstructivism. B u t

t i v i s m and Rationalism and Symbolist R o m a n t i c i s m , as well

artistic considerations, particularly i n Gonstructivist

as Classicism.

became characteristic features o f Golosov's o u t p u t after 1925.

even here the spatial composition is i n v a r i a b l y based on a large

r h e technological factors introduced i n t o a design by

H e turned out a series of artistically first-rate projects after

complex f o r m w h i c h harks back to the methods of spatial or-

tect were essentially rational, and tended very m u c h

As to the Symbolists, one should bear i n m i n d those archi-

j o i n i n g the Gonstructivists and d i d m u c h to spread an under-

ganization elaborated by Golosov i n his theory of the structure

tects w h o set out to integrate engineering techniques i n t o Sym-

ce the emotional or i n t u i t i v e aspects involved i n the

standing of this trend. Golosov was the most successful inter-

of architectural organisms. H i s principle that the basic archi-

bolist and Expressionist compositions i n order to resolve func-

;vitable as this w o u l d seem to have been under the d i -

preter of Gonstructivist methods i n the m i d - 1920s. H e was cer-

tectural image must be a large spatial f o r m w h i c h retains its

tional, structural and technological problems. One o f t h e most

ces, i t involved a danger that this transient phenomen-

t a i n l y uniquely popular as a Gonstructivist architect m the

power of expression even when some of its details are replaced

original of these was G e n r i k h L y u d v i g . He had been trained as

: become a permanent feature o f t h e new architecture,

years that separated the Vesnins' t r i u m p h a l success f r o m the

by others, continued to dominate his o u t p u t even d u r i n g his

an engineer as well as an architect, and seemed to combine a

Constructivist period. Golosov was attracted to the o u t w a r d

strictly scientific, engineering designer's approach w i t h that o f

rvatism, as many innovators saw i t , was chiefly a mat-

flowering

w i n g o n the past for architectural forms and methods,

A n d yet, although he d i d b r i f l i a n t wor\

of I v a n Leonidov's w o r k at the end of the decade.

i n the Gonstructivist

stylistic opportunities offered by Gonstructivism, such as the

an artist inspired by the d y n a m i c forms b o r n o f revolutionary

chitects were not always clearly aware as they fought

manner, Golosov was never a true Gonstructivist when all is

generously glazed frameworks. T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y character-

symbolism. Classicism marked his student w o r k i n 192021

eclecticism and Glassicist styhzation that an equally se-

said and done. A close scrutiny of his o u t p u t reveals that he

ishc of 192526 when Golosov designed a series of exquisitely

and he came to new architecture by w a y of b o t h f o r m a l symbo-

eat to every new movement f r o m w i t h i n was a conser-

treated Gonstructivism more as an o u t w a r d trend than as a

proportioned office b u i l d i n g projects, w i t h b e a u t i f u l l y traced

lism and the extensive practice of b u i l d i n g technology and app-

ndency to erect its o w n means and methods i n t o can-

f u n c t i o n a l method. H e nevertheless rose as a star m the Con

frameworks and windows. M o s t outstanding i n this respect

lied science, a sort o f 'Symbohst F u n c t i o n a l i s m ' grounded i n

h tendencies increasingly made themselves felt i n the

structivist firmament and for a time outshone even such leade

were the competition entries for the House of Textfles i n 1925,

the achievements of science and technology.

hitecture, not least because long years of eclecticism

o f t h e movement as Alexander Vesnin and Ginzburg^ Co

jointly with Boris U l i n i c h , the Rusgertorg i n 1926 and the Elek-

ization had conditioned architects i n favour of canons

sov's rise as a Gonstructivist started w i t h the award ot a

trobank in 1926.

er and h m i t creative i m a g i n a t i o n . O r t h o d o x Gonstruc-

prize i n the competition for a House of Textiles m Moscow

ere also sometimes hampered i n this respect by a sim-

1925. Thereafter, he took part i n v i r t u a l l y all the competiti^^^

idiosyncrasies

technological purpose o f t h e buildings: a spiralling tower o f

lew of h o w shape and the basic f u n c t i o n a l structure of a

w h i c h were p r o l i f e r a t i n g at that time and earned away

ed nevertheless: he could not simply leave the fagades

t r a d i t i o n a l Symbohst design, together w i t h a ferro-concrete

r were interrelated.
plex asymmetrical compositions designed to satisfy the

was probably a record number of prizes. He seemed insat

or put up w i t h the w a l l as a 'theme', even though i t was.

the Moscow Palace of L a b o u r competition i n 192223, i n

Colosov took special trouble i n d r a w i n g these fagades and

designing frameworks and openings, but his

T h i s can already be seen i n his first m a j o r w o r k , an entry for

w h i c h Symbolist shapes combine w i t h others, derived f r o m the

cantilevered pad answering contemporary

engineering

re-

198
Part I / A e s t h e t i c problems o f design

quirements on to which aircraft could be lowered in front of

their hangars by means of a special cranedift. The acoustics of
the main hall have been very closely studied, with the speaker's
platform as their natural focus, and with facihties for acoustically tuning the accommodation as a whole.
I n 1924, Lyudvig submitted a design for the Soviet embassy
in Ankara built up from simplified Neo-Glassicist forms. He also submitted a design (which was not carried out) for an Afghan embassy in Turkey, based on a saw-toothed plan.
I n 1926, he provided Kemal Pasha with a project for the
Turkish President's summer palace at Geflik, consisting of a
combination of offset rectangular apartments diagonally intersected by corridors and gaUeries, with a large number of terraces under a vertical dominant consisting of a mooring tower for
dirigibles.
The originality of Lyudvig's talent is best exemplified by designs in which the symbolic shapes which he favoured, such as
the spiral and the five-pointed star, are combined with a novel
functional and technological solution embodying some characteristic engineering concept. The designs for a Golumbus Monument i n Santo Domingo in 1929 and for the Palace of Soviets
in Moscow in 1931-32 are typical of his competition entries.
True to his convictions, Lyudvig covered the engineering aspect ofthe Golumbus Monument, as well as the symbolism of
this memorial complex. He hned the shore with a green vegetative acoustic barrier, its width calculated according to a formula, together with rows of trees, the height of which was governed by a graph.
For the first round of the Palace of Soviets competition,
Lyudvig designed a pentagonal building surmounted by a
stepped pyramid. For the second round, he proposed a gently
tapering cylinder on a pentagonal foundation and, wound
around it, a spiral car ramp for tourist access to the viewing
platform on the roof and ease of maintenance ofthe outer walls
while the budding was in use.
Lyudvig's brdliant command of engineering considerations
in construction and architecture is demonstrated by two projects for platform shelters in leisure parks. The first is a temporary guyed structure with wooden uprights, wire struts and a
tarpaulin cover, which was erected in the Moscow Gentral
Park for Gulture and Leisure in 1929. The second was intended
to cover a stadium holding an audience of 6,000 for stage and
musical performances. The structure was based on a ferro-con-

crete ring, one side of which was supported at the bottom by the
foundation of the building and at the top by the segmented
cone of metal girders and glass forming the side of the amphitheatre. A circular screen enclosed in the ferro-concrete ring reflected the sound towards the amphitheatre.
The work of Yakov Ghernikhov exemplifies another approach to the use of technology in order to impart outward expressiveness to bufldings. He was well versed in matters of engineering, had perfect command of both perspective drawmg
and architectural draftsmanship, and created a large number
of'architectural fantasies' during the second half of the 1920s.
These 'fantasies' display an original amalgam of Symbohst
Romanticism, Rationahsm and Gonstructivism. Many of them
reveal an inventive talent, but, despite superficial differences
between them, the vast majority are no more than variations on
famihar themes. There are few original discoveries here or any
great attempt at the higher reaches of form-generation, such as
characterize the output of Melnikov and Leonidov, for example.

Zholtovsky's Harmonized Constructivism

Overtly traditionahst concepts could no longer hold their own

against innovations when the new movement came to dominate Soviet architecture in the second haft of the 1920s. As a result, many traditionalists ralhed to the new architecture. Even
such stalwart Glassicists as Zholtovsky and Fomin came to
experiment on the frontier between innovation and Glassicism.
As we have noted earlier, although they both harked back to
the Classical tradition, Zholtovsky regarded proportion and
harmony as the most important elements in Classical composition while Fomin laid stress on the individual idiom ofthe
Classical order involved. This determined the difference between the means and methods they employed when they a tempted to find a place for their work in the new architecture,
starting from a Glassicist position.
I n the second haff of the 1920s, when Zholtovsky returne
from Italy, where he had hved during 1924-25, he again tri ^
to found a Neo-Renaissance school by gathering about n^^^
group of talented young architects. Its mainstay was provi
by Georgy Golts, Mikhail Parusnikov, Ivan Sobolev and be^g^^
Kozhin, described in architectural circles of that perio

'Zholtovsky's Quadriga'. The first two

training under Zholtovsky at the start of
others had graduated in Vkhutemas from
studio and had therefore been trained in tl
tivism.

Given the complex circumstances pre

Zholtovsky fought on two fronts againsts i
produced basic models incorporating i
methods and forms derived from the Itali
at the same time, took up the new archite
tion of artisticafly harmonizing its utilits
the Renaissance compositions in the desi
- the Makhachkala House of Soviets,
Bank) building in Moscow - and the nev
purposes - the Ivanteevka factory, the
houses for the Moges, Kievges and the D i
projects.
Zholtovsky came to set great store b^
ture. He could see that changing aesthel
his Renaissance designs uncompetitive ar
be best and most convincingly displayed v
festations of new architecture.

As a result, a peculiair trend, a sort c

structivism', emerged on the borderline 1
sance and Gonstructivist formal experimt
The industrial structures designed by Zh(
characterized by an aesthetically refine
gades. The Renaissance wall became a
proportioned and strictly symmetrical fa
against new architectural concepts, Zho
leading part played by the fagade in the a
tural image against innovators who increi
central element for architectural purpos
tnal design, but in other types of constn
He reserved the central place in any co
elevation. Glazing was widely used to pr
ground, while the structural framework
when this was required i n order to artici
or as a styhstic component.
The Neo-Renaissance school certainly
tural element into industrial architectur
ceived by Zholtovsky and his pupils st^
among the many only too drearily utihtJ

199
C h a p t e r 6 / C r e a t i v e i n n o v a t i o n i n the second h a l f o f the 1920s
c problems of design

5 on to which aircraft could be lowered in front of

irs by means of a special crane-lift. The acoustics of
ah have been very closely studied, with the speaker's
s their natural focus, and with facities for acoustic the accommodation as a whole.
Lyudvig submitted a design for the Soviet embassy
built up from simplified Neo-Classicist forms. He al;ed a design (which was not carried out) for an Afissy in Turkey, based on a saw-toothed plan.
;, he provided Kemal Pasha with a project for the
resident's summer palace at Ceflik, consisting of a
on of offset rectangular apartments diagonally inter:orridors and galleries, with a large number of terraa vertical dominant consisting of a mooring tower for
ginality of Lyudvig's talent is best exemplified by dehich the symbolic shapes which he favoured, such as
and the five-pointed star, are combined with a novel
1 and technological solution embodying some characgineering concept. The designs for a Columbus Mon
Santo Domingo in 1929 and for the Palace of Soviets
w in 1931-32 are typical of his competition entries.
) his convictions, Lyudvig covered the engineering ase Columbus Monument, as well as the symbolism of
3rial complex. He hned the shore with a green vegetaitic barrier, its width calculated according to a formuler with rows of trees, the height of which was gova graph.
e first round of the Palace of Soviets competition,
designed a pentagonal budding surmounted by a
)yramid. For the second round, he proposed a gently
cyhnder on a pentagonal foundation and, wound
t, a spiral car ramp for tourist access to the viewing
on the roof and ease of maintenance ofthe outer wahs
; budding was in use.
'ig's brilliant command of engineering considerations
uction and architecture is demonstrated by two proalatform shelters in leisure parks. The first is a tempoed structure with wooden uprights, wire struts and a
1 cover, which was erected in the Moscow Central
Culture and Leisure in 1929. The second was intended
a stadium holding an audience of 6,000 for stage and
performances. The structure was based on a ferro-con-

crete ring, one side of which was supported at the bottom by the
foundation of the building and at the top by the segmented
cone of metal girders and glass forming the side ofthe amphitheatre. A circular screen enclosed in the ferro-concrete ring reflected the sound towards the amphitheatre.
The work of Yakov Chernikhov exemplifies another approach to the use of technology in order to impart outward expressiveness to buildings. He was wefl versed in matters of engineering, had perfect command of both perspective drawing
and architectural draftsmanship, and created a large number
of'architectural fantasies' during the second half of the 1920s.
These 'fantasies' display an original amalgam of Symbohst
Romanticism, Rationalism and Constructivism. Many of them
reveal an inventive talent, but, despite superficial differences
between them, the vast majority are no more than variations on
famihar themes. There are few original discoveries here or any
great attempt at the higher reaches of form-generation, such as
characterize the output of Melnikov and Leonidov, for example.

Zholtovsky's Harmonized Constructivism

Overtly traditionahst concepts could no longer hold their own

against innovations when the new movement came to dominate Soviet architecture in the second haff of the 1920s. As a result, many traditionalists raflied to the new architecture. Even
such stalwart Classicists as Zholtovsky and Fomin came to
experiment on the frontier between innovation and Classicism.
As we have noted earlier, although they both harked back to
the Classical tradition, Zholtovsky regarded proportion and
harmony as the most important elements in Classical composition, while Fomin laid stress on the individual idiom of the
Classical order involved. This determined the difference between the means and methods they employed when they attempted to find a place for their work in the new architecture,
starting from a Classicist position.
I n the second haff of the 1920s, when Zholtovsky returne
from Italy, where he had hved during 1924-25, he again trie^
to found a Neo-Renaissance school by gathering about him ^
group of talented young architects. Its mainstay was P'-O^'
by Georgy Golts, Mikhafl Parusnikov, Ivan Sobolev and se^g^^
Kozhin, described in architectural circles of that peno

'Zholtovsky's Quadriga'. The first two had completed their

training under Zholtovsky at the start ofthe 1920s, while the
others had graduated in Vkhutemas from Alexander Vesnin's
studio and had therefore been trained in the spirit of Constructivism.
Given the complex circumstances prevailing at that time,
Zholtovsky fought on two fronts againsts innovative trends. He
produced basic models incorporating many compositional
methods and forms derived from the Italian Renaissance and,
at the same time, took up the new architecture with the intention of artistically harmonizing its utilitarian forms. He used
the Renaissance compositions in the design of public buildings
- the Makhachkala House of Soviets, the Gosbank (State
Bank) building in Moscow - and the new forms for industrial
purposes - the Ivanteevka factory, the power station boiler
houses for the Moges, Kievges and the Dneproges competition
projects.
Zholtovsky came to set great store by industrial architecture. He could see that changing aesthetic criteria had made
his Renaissance designs uncompetitive and that his skill would
be best and most convincingly displayed within the latest manifestations of new architecture.
As a result, a peculiar trend, a sort of 'Harmonized Constructivism', emerged on the borderline between Neo-Renaissance and Constructivist formal experiments during the 1920s.
The industrial structures designed by Zholtovsky's group were
characterized by an aesthetically refined composition of fagades. The Renaissance wall became a model for a carefully
proportioned and strictly symmetrical fagade. I n his polemics
against new architectural concepts, Zholtovsky defended the
leading part played by the fagade in the creation of an architectural image against innovators who increasingly rejected it as a
central element for architectural purposes, not only in industrial design, but in other types of construction as well.
He reserved the central place in any composition to the front
elevation. Glazing was widely used to provide a neutral background, while the structural framework was only picked out
when this was required in order to articulate the composition,
or as a styhstic component.
The Neo-Renaissance school certainly injected a potent cultural element into industrial architecture. The buildings conceived by Zholtovsky and his pupils stand out to advantage
among the many only too drearily utilitarian industrial struc-

tures of those times. This fact in itself did much to establish the
authority of Zholtovsky's school among young architects.
The rising generation's close interest in Zholtovsky's ventures into industrial architecture was also due in part to the
threat of canonization which hung over the innovative forms
and methods described earlier, and the resulting disillusionment with the Constructive Style.

Fomln's Proletarian Classicism

Ivan Fomin's determination to combine Classicist and new architectural concepts led him to undertake yet another attempt
in this direction. We have already seen how he had tried to adapt
the Classical order to early Soviet circumstances by picking out
the most 'heroic' and elementary forms of what he described as
Red Doric. By the mid-1920s, he was switching from the selection of Classical forms to their simplification, a process which
he described as the reconstruction of the Classical order. A system of composition gradually emerged in his projects and became the basis of his new conception, of 'Proletarian Classicism'. He superimposed a Classical order on the armature of a
fagade which was largely glazed and without concealing the
framework imparted a Classical look to it. By 1928, Fomin's
Proletarian Classicism had become a full-blown artistic system
backed by an elaborate theoretical justification.
Fomin beheved that a modern style should be at once international and democratic. He suggested that such a style should
be based on a severely simphfied version of a Classical order,
standardized and stripped of all ornament. I n other words, he
proposed that only the framework of a Classical order should
be preserved. He regarded it as essential, for instance, that the
window area should be extended so that the whole surface between the supports or columns ofthe building's framework
was glazed. A l l versions of an order should be simplified to the
limit. Complex cornices should be replaced by simple lintels,
afl fascia, moulding, capitals and phnths should be suppressed
and tapering columns replaced by simple cylinders.
Fomin used this system in his design for the Dynamo buflding in Moscow, in which he hnked six ofthe storeys by paired
columns, while the seventh acted as a sort of entablature
pierced by rounded windows. Fomin regarded paired columns,
a basic component of Proletarian Classicism, as among his per-

200
521-22

Part I / A e s t h e t i c problems o f design

I l y a G o t o s o v . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r the

C e n t r a l T e l e g r a p h O f f i c e , M o s c o w , 1925. E l e v a t i o n
(521). P l a n ( 5 2 2 ) .

sonal artistic creations. These allowed the design of a single

muhistorey building to be unified by means of a single order,
thereby creating the effect of one monumental pile.
The new Mossoviet (Moscow Soviet) building, erected in
1929-30, was regarded by Fomin himself as the most successf u l embodiment of his Proletarian Glassicist concept. The attractively proportioned paired columns enclosed square windows and were topped by a phnth surmounted by an atric storey pierced by low rectangular windows. Fomin used Proletarian Glassicism in a series of projects dating from the early
1930s, such as the Moscow Workers' Faculty, the IvanovoVoznesensk Polytechnical Institute and the NKPS (People's
Gommissariat for Transport) in Moscow.
I n justifying his choice of Glassicism as the basis for a new
style, he pointed not only to the universal acceptance it commanded, but equally to the regularity and disciphne inherent
in the compositions derived from it. He sought in the 'reconstructed' order a means of providing both variety and continuity in a way that would not conflict with new structural technology. Fomin strove to impart a renewed sense of architectural
relevance to the tectonic approach of Glassicism by combining
an order based on it with the use of ferro-concrete, the proportions involved having been adjusted to the efficient use of this
new material. As he saw it, far from conflicting with the principles of a Classical order, a ferro-concrete framework would open up new potentiahties for this age-old architectural system.
Proletarian Glassicism was akin to the Neo-Glassical experiments then being carried out by, among others, Auguste Perret
in France, Gunnar Asplund in Sweden and Marcello Piacentini in Italy. Two main movements concerned with form developed i n Europe early in the twentieth century as a reaction
against eclecticism and the Moderne: a Classical revival and a
new functionally constructive approach to architectural design. The Neo-Classical variant of this trend - to which Fomin's school, among others, belonged - strove to achieve both the
rationalizing aesthetics of Classicism and a rational use of new
materials. This was no mere Classical revival, but a determination to make a ferro-concrete framework serve the working
principles imphcit in a Classical order.

A New stage in design

I t was, however, not Golosov's Constructive Style, Ghernikhov's Symbohsm and Expressionism, Zholtovsky's Harmonized Constructivism or Fomin's Proletarian Classicism that
impeded the new architecture on to a higher level in the second
half of the 1920s.
A n influx of fundamentally new ideas was now required, not
least in matters of form. Yet all the experimentation described
so far during the late 1920s, and much else besides, was either a
matter of developing and perfecting what had been devised so
far or of injecting means of expression derived from symbolism,
or the art ofthe past, into the new methods and forms.
The new architecture had been launched by ardsts, such as
Malevich and Tatlin, and architects, such as Ladovsky and
Alexander Vesnin, whose creative concepts and artistic experiments were marked by originality of mind and true innovation.
Their successors merely developed their ideas within the scope
of such talents as they possessed, a respectable and necessary
activity. There is nevertheless a fundamental difference be-i
tween original talent and a mind, however brilliant, which develops and interprets what another has discovered.
As the signs that the formal methods ofthe new architecture
were being erected into canons became ever more threatening,
masters capable of discovering fundamentally new ideas and
creative methods, fresh ardstic thought and innovation were
needed, capable of imparting to architectural concepts uniquely personal and pristine quahties. Two outstanding personalities, Konstantin Melnikov and Ivan Leonidov, made major
contributions to the innovative forays of Soviet architects in the
second half of the 1920s. Their output displays broadly original
artistic concepts. These two architects were both capable of
deep emotional response, but they bowed to the requirement for
rationahzation, in terms both ofthe functionally structural conception of a building and of its architecturally aesthetic image.
Their experiments in formal aesthetics imphed a wish to discard
the estabhshed stereotype of what a building should look like.

IMelniltov, a master of expressive composition

Konstantin Melnikov was an outstanding master of expressive

architectural form and one of the most inventive architects o

201

problems o f design

c creations. These allowed the design of a single

building to be unified by means of a single order,
iting the effect of one monumental pde.
Mossoviet (Moscow Soviet) budding, erected in
as regarded by Fomin himself as the most successnent of his Proletarian Classicist concept. The atropordoned paired columns enclosed square winere topped by a phnth surmounted by an attic stoby low rectangular windows. Fomin used Proletacism in a series of projects dadng from the early
1 as the Moscow Workers' Faculty, the IvanovoL Polytechnical Institute and the NKPS (People's
iat for Transport) in Moscow,
ring his choice of Classicism as the basis for a new
)inted not only to the universal acceptance it comut equally to the regularity and discipline inherent
positions derived from it. He sought in the 'recon:der a means of providing both variety and continuithat would not conflict with new structural technol1 strove to impart a renewed sense of architectural
0 the tectonic approach of Classicism by combining
ased on it with the use of ferro-concrete, the proporved having been adjusted to the efiicient use of this
ial. As he saw it, far from conflicting with the princilassical order, a ferro-concrete framework would oppotentiahties for this age-old architectural system,
-ian Classicism was akin to the Neo-Classical experi1 being carried out by, among others, Auguste Perret
Gunnar Asplund in Sweden and Marcello Piacenti. Two main movements concerned with form devel,urope early i n the twentieth century as a reaction
lecticism and the Moderne: a Classical revival and a
ionally constructive approach to architectural deNeo-Classical variant of this trend - to which Foml, among others, belonged - strove to achieve both the
iiig aesthetics of Classicism and a rational use of new
This was no mere Classical revival, but a determinalake a ferro-concrete framework serve the working
I imphcit in a Classical order.

52122 I l y a G o t o s o v . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r t h e

523

C e n t r a l T e l e g r a p h O f f i c e , M o s c o w , 1925. E l e v a t i o n

the H o u s e o f T e x t i l e s , M o s c o w , 1925. Perspective.

(521). P l a n ( 5 2 2 ) .

I l y a Golosov a n d U l i n i c h . C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r

524-25

I l y a G o l o s o v . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r the

R u s g e r t o r g b u i l d i n g , M o s c o w , 1926. Perspective ( 5 2 4 ) .
G r o u n d - f l o o r plan (525).

A New stage in design

I t was, however, not Golosov's Constructive Style, Chernikhov's Symbohsm and Expressionism, Zholtovsky's Harmonized Constructivism or Fomin's Proletarian Classicism that
impeded the new architecture on to a higher level in the second
half of the 1920s.
An influx of fundamentally new ideas was now required, not
least in matters of form. Yet all the experimentation described
so far during the late 1920s, and much else besides, was either a
matter of developing and perfecting what had been devised so
far or of injecting means of expression derived from symbohsm,
or the art ofthe past, into the new methods and forms.
The new architecture had been launched by artists, such as
Malevich and Tathn, and architects, such as Ladovsky and
Alexander Vesnin, whose creative concepts and artistic experiments were marked by originality of mind and true innovation.
Their successors merely developed their ideas within the scope
of such talents as they possessed, a respectable and necessary
activity. There is nevertheless a fundamental diflference be.
tween original talent and a mind, however brilliant, which develops and interprets what another has discovered.
As the signs that the formal methods ofthe new architecture
were being erected into canons became ever more threatening,
masters capable of discovering fundamentally new ideas and
creative methods, fresh artistic thought and innovation were
needed, capable of imparting to architectural concepts uniquely personal and pristine qualities. Two outstanding personalities, Konstantin Melnikov and Ivan Leonidov, made major
contributions to the innovative forays of Soviet architects m the
second half of the 1920s. Their output displays broadly original
artistic concepts. These two architects were both capable o
deep emotional response, but they bowed to the requirement tor
rationalization, in terms both ofthe functionally structural conception of a building and of its architecturally aestheticimage^
Their experiments in formal aesthetics imphed a wish to discar
the estabhshed stereotype of what a building should look h e.

lWlelnil<ov, a master of expressive composition

^^""^'^^^^^f

Konstantin Melnikov was an outstanding master

architectural form and one ofthe most inventive archi

202
529
526

I l y a Golosov. C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r the D y n a m o

b u i l d i n g , M o s c o w , 1928. E l e v a t i o n .
527

I l y a Golosov. H o t e l , Sverdlovsk.

528

I l y a Golosov and M i t e l m a n . A z n e f t p u m p i n g

s t a t i o n , 1928.

Perspective.

Perspective.

I l y a Golosov. C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r the

E l e k t r o b a n k b u i l d i n g , M o s c o w , 1926.

Perspective.

530-31

I l y a G o l o s o v . C o m p e t i t i o n de

Regional Soviet b u i l d i n g , Rostov-on-Do

(530). Plans (531).

203
53031 I l y a G o l o s o v . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r t h e
529
sov. C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r tire D y n a m o
;ow, 1928. E l e v a t i o n .
isov. H o t e l , S v e r d l o v s k .

Perspective.

)Sov a n d M i t e l m a n . A z n e f t p u m p i n g

Perspective.

I l y a Golosov. C o m p e t i t i o n design for the

E l e k t r o b a n k b u i l d i n g , M o s c o w , 1926.

Perspective.

R e g i o n a l Soviet b u i l d i n g , R o s t o v - o n - D o n . P e r s p e c t i v e
( 5 3 0 ) . Plans ( 5 3 1 ) .

td-L.:..:.-

205,
C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r tire Palace
. 1 T,,
,
/COON
Di

535
L y u d v i g . T h e Soviet Embassy b u i l d i n g .
iqQ4_9f;_

538-39

L y u d v i g . D e s i g n f o r t h e s u m m e r residence o f

540-41

L y u d v i g . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r the

K e m a l Pasha, President o f t h e T u r k i s h R e p u b l i c ,

C o l u m b u s M o n u m e n t , S a n t o D o m i n g o , 1929. G e n e r a l

g i f l i k , 1926. E l e v a t i o n ( 5 3 8 ) . P l a n ( 5 3 9 ) .

v i e w ( 5 4 0 ) . Section t h r o u g h the v e g e t a t i v e a c o u s t i c
screen ( 5 4 1 ) .

546-48

L y u d v i g . D e s i g n f o r the second r o u n d o f t h e

206

Palace o f Soviets c o m p e t i t i o n , M o s c o w , 1932. E l e v a t i o n

542-45 L y u d v i g . D e s i g n f o r t i i e first r o u n d o f tire

Palace o f S o v i e t s e o m p e t i t i o n , M o s c o w , 1 9 3 1 . E l e v a t i o n

(546). Section (547). Plan (548),

(542). Section (543). M o d e l (544). Plan (545).

2U7
546-48
Design f o r t i i e f i r s t r o u n d o f t l i e
i p e t i t i o n , M o s c o w , 1931. E l e v a t i o n
. M o d e l (544). Plan (545).

L y u d v i g . Design f o r the second r o u n d o f t h e

Palace o f Soviets c o m p e t i t i o n , M o s c o w , 1932. E l e v a t i o n

(546). Section (547). Plan (548).

549-50

L y u d v i g . R o o f i n g o f t h e s u m m e r stage,

Gentral Park for Gulture and Leisure, Moscow,

1929;

i n the b a c k g r o u n d , r i g h t , t h e ' H e x a g o n ' E x h i b i t i o n

p a v i l i o n , 1923, b y Z h o l t o v s k y ( 5 4 9 ) . A x o n o m e t r i c
views (550).
551 L y u d v i g . R o o f i n g f o r t h e l i g h t e n t e r t a i n m e n t a n d
concert arena. Perspective.

556-57

208
552

554
Chernikhov. A r c h i t e c t u r a l fantasy - A

Gigantic

Building'.
553

City of the

of Labour'.
555

C h e r n i k h o v . A r c h i t e c t u r a l f a n t a s y f r o m the series
Learned.

Chernikhov. A r c h i t e c t u r a l fantasy - ' A n Institute

C h e r n i k h o v . A r c h i t e c t u r a l f a n t a s y - d y n a m i c s of

space, v o l u m e a n d p l a n e .

C h e r n i k h o v . A r c h i t e c t u r a l fantasies.

556-57
Architectural fantasy - ' A Gigantic
A r c h i t e c t u r a l f a n t a s y f r o m the series

554

Ghernikhov. A r c h i t e c t u r a l fantasy - ' A n Institute

C h e r n i k h o v . A r c h i t e c t u r a l fantasies.

558

Chernikhov. Architectural fantasy -

of Labour'.

c u r v e d surfaces a n d r e c t a n g u l a r p l a n e s .

555

559

Chernikhov. Architectural fantasy - dynamics o f

space, v o l u m e a n d p l a n e .

three-

d i m e n s i o n a l stage set c o n s i s t i n g o f a c o m b i n a t i o n o f
C h e r n i k h o v . A r c h i t e c t u r a l fantasy.

210
560 Zholtovsky, jointly with Kozhin. The boiler
house of the Moscow District Power Station - Moges Moscow, 1927.
561 Parusnikov and Golts. The boiler house o f t h e
Kiev District Power Station - Kievgres - Kiev, 1928.
Elevation.

562-63

Parusnikov. A Museum o f t h e Revolution,

1922. Elevations.
564 Zholtovsky, jointly with Golts, Kozhin, and
Parusnikov. Extensions to the State Bank, Moscow,
1927-28.

565 Golts, Kozhin and Parusnikov, w i t h Zholtovsky

as consultant. Factory at Ivanteevka, 1928-31.
Perspective.
566 Zholtovsky. Shaumyan Monument, with
sculpture by Merkurov, Erevan, 1926.
567 Ivan Fomin. Polytechnical Institute, IvanovoVoznesensk. Detail.

568-69
565
562-63

Parusnikov. A Museum of tlie Revolution,

Golts, Kozhin and Parusnikov, with Zholtovsky

as consultant. Factory at Ivanteevka, 1928-31.

(569).
570

Parusnikov. Extensions to the State Bank, Moscow,

Perspective.
,
566 Zholtovsky. Shaumyan Monument, with
sculpture by Merkurov, Erevan, 1926.

1927-28.

567

1922. Elevations.
564

Zholtovsky, jointly w i t h Golts, Kozhin, and

Ivan Fomin. Polytechnical Institute, Ivanovo-

Voznesensk. Detail.

Ivan Fomin. New building for the Moscow

Soviet (Mossoviet), 1929-30. Perspective (568). Detail

Ivan Fomin. Dynamo Sports Association

building, Moscow, 1928-29.

212
571 Melnikov. Makhorka pavilion, All-Russian
Agricultural and Handicraft Exhibition, Moscow,
1923.

5 7 2 - 7 3 Melnikov. Design (1924) for the Soviet

pavilion, Paris International Exhibition, 1925.
Preliminary sketches (572). Perspective (573).

574-76 Melnikov. Design (1924) for the Soviet

pavihon, Paris International Exhibition, 1925.
Elevation. Plans of ground and first floors (574).
Section (574). General view (575). Detail (576).

Makhorka pavilion, All-Russian

Handicraft Exhibition, Moscow,

213

5 7 2 - 7 3 Melnikov. Design (1924) for the Soviet

pavihon, Paris International Exhibition, 1925.
Prehminary sketches (572). Perspective (573).

PAVILION
PiRIS

U.R.S.S.
1355

574-76 Melnikov. Design (1924) for the Soviet

pavihon, Paris International Exhibition, 1925.
Elevation. Plans of ground and first floors (574).
Section (574). General view (575). Detail (576).

5 8 2 - 8 5 Melnikov. Rusakov Club, 1927-28

Drawings; elevation, section, plan, (582-83)
view (584). Detail (585).

.LLJL..

AtlTPKO;!^^

{OV. Soviet Trade Section, Paris

,. Drawings (577). Details (578-79)

580-81

Melnikov. Design for a multi-storey car park,

Paris, 1925. Elevation (580). Plan (581).

5 8 2 - 8 5 Melnikov. Rusakov Club, 1927-28.

Drawings: elevation, section, plan, (582-83). General
view (584). Detail (585).

2^5

216
586 Melnikov. Competition design for the Columbus
Monument, Santo Domingo, 1929. Perspective.

587-88

Melnikov. Bus garages, Moscow.

217
58788 Melnikov. Bus garages, Moscow.

589-90

Melnikov and Kuroctikin. Bus garage,

218
5 9 1 - 9 2 Melnikov (structural engineer; Shukhov).
Truck depot, Moscow. Detail of elevation (591).
Glimpse of interior (592) in a photograph by
Rodchenko.

593 Melnikov. Competition design for the Frunze

Military Academy, Moscow. Elevation.
594 Melnikov. Competition design for the Arkos
building, Moscow, 1924. Axonometric view.

222
604
605
606

607
Nikolsky. Formal exercise, 1923. Sketch.
Nikolsky. Architectm-al fantasy, 1919. Sketch.
Nikolsky. Design for a club i n Kandalaksha.

Khidekel. Architectural composition - Aero-Club,

1922. Axonometric view.

6 0 8 - 0 9 Khidekel. Design for a Workers' Club, 1926.
Elevation (608). Plans of first and third floors (609).

6 1 0 - 1 2 Khidekel. Design for a collective

1927. Axonometric view (610). Plan (611)
(612).

..1

223
61012 Khidekel, Design for a collective dwelling,
1927, Axonometric view (610), Plan (611), Section
(612).

224
6 1 3 - 1 4 Nikolsky, Beldovsky, V l a d i m i r Galperin and
Alexander Krestin. H a l l for public performances,
seating 500, 1926. Model (613). Elevations, plans,
sections (614).

615 Nikolsky, Beldovsky, V l a d i m i r Galperin and

Alexander Krestin. Hall for communal gatherings,
seating 1,000, 1926. Model.
616 Nikolsky, Beldovsky, V l a d i m i r Galperin and
Alexander Krestin. Design for a cinema and restaurant,
Leningrad, 1926. Model.

61718 Nikolsky, Beldovsky, V l a d i m i r Galperin and

Alexander Krestin. Crematorium. Model (617).
Elevation, section, plan (618).

615

Nikolsky, Beldovsky, V l a d i m i r Galperin and

Alexander Krestin. H a l l for communal gatherings,

seating 1,000, 1926. Model.
616 Nikolsky, Beldovsky, V l a d i m i r Galperin and
Alexander Krestin. Design for a cinema and restaurant,
Leningrad, 1926. Model.

617-18 Nikolsky, Beldovsky, V l a d i m i r Galperin and

Alexander Krestin. Crematorium. Model (617).
Elevation, section, plan (618).

619 Nikolsky, V l a d i m i r Galperin and Alexander

Krestin. T r a m station with hairdressing salon and
toilet. Plan, perspectives. Section. Elevations. Site
map.

226
6 2 0 - 2 1 Gladkov, Gennady Movchan, Nikolaev,
Fisenko and Karlsen, under the direction of Alexander
Kuznetsov. Central Institute of Aero- and
Hydrodynamics - Tsagi - Moscow, 1924-28. Details of
complex.

622 Gladkov and Nikolaev. Red Bobbin factory,

Ivanovo-Voznesensk, 1927.
6 2 3 - 2 4 Nikolaev and Fisenko, under the direction of
Alexander Kuznetsov. Conference complex o f t h e
Textile Institute, Moscow, 1928. Perspective (623).
Section (624).

6 2 5 - 2 7 Vladimir:
Nikolaev, Meilman
Alexander Kuznetsi
Institute - Vei - M(
in the complex.

227

Gennady Movchan, Nikolaev,

:n, under the direction of Alexander
1 Institute of Aero- and
fsagi-Moscow, 1924-28. Details of

622 Gladkov and Nikolaev. Red Bobbin factory,

Ivanovo-Voznesensk, 1927.
6 2 3 - 2 4 Nikolaev and Fisenko, under the direction of
Alexander Kuznetsov. Conference complex of the
Textile Institute, Moscow, 1928. Perspective (623).
Section (624).

6 2 5 - 2 7 Vladimir and Gennady Movchan, Fisenko,

Nikolaev, Meilman and Karlsen, under the direction of
Alexander Kuznetsov. A l l - U n i o n Electro-Technical
Institute - Vei - Moscow, 1927-29. Various buildings
in the complex.

628 Turgenev and Shvidkovsky. Pumping station,

1927. Elevations. Plan. Axonometric view.
629 Nikolaev and Fisenko. Linen mill, Kasimov,
1928. Axonometric view.

229

I Shvidkovsky. Pumping station,

Ian. Axonometric view.
Fisenko. Linen m i l l , Kasimov,
view.

6 3 0 - 3 2 Golts and Shvidkovsky. Paper factory,

Balakhna, 1926. Elevations (630-31). Site perspective
(632).

230
633-35 Shchusev. Design for the first wooden Lenin
Mausoleum, Moscow, 1924. Perspective, plan
elevation (633-34). Completed structure (635).

^1
It

633-35 Shchusev. Design for the first wooden Lenin

Mausoleum, Moscow, 1924. Perspective, plan,
elevation (633-34). Completed structure (635).

husev. Design for the first wooden Lenin

Moscow, 1924. Perspective, plan,
- 3 4 ) . Completed structure (635).

636-37 Shchusev. The second wooden Lenin

Mausoleum, Moscow, 1924.

638-40 Shchusev. Lenin Mausoleum, Moscow,

1929-30. Drawings, 1929: perspective, elevation, plan
(639). Completed structure (638, 640).

232
641 Shchusev. Competition design for the Central
Telegraph Office, Moscow, 1925. Perspective.
642 Shchusev. Competition design for the Railway
Station, Kiev, 1927. Perspective.

the twentieth century. H e designed the M a k h o i

the 1923 Moscow A g r i c u l t u r a l and H a n d i c r a f t
A. B. l i l i y C E B
A. W. SCHTSCHUSSEW

an original spatial composition, w i t h a b l i n d , ov

per structure, an open w i n d i n g staircase, a vertic

and a roof w i t h a sharp diagonal slope. H e devel

approach to the design of exhibition buildings e

the Soviet pavihon at the Paris I n t e r n a t i o n a l
1925, the first and immediately t r i u m p h a n t l y

pearance on the w o r l d stage of the new-born S(

ture. T h i s p a v i l i o n stood out among the rest by i

pearance - simple geometric forms, bold use of;

timber f r a m e w o r k and an unusual external stairc

agonally across a two-storey b u i l d i n g laid out on
plan.
D u r i n g the late 1920s and early 1930s, M e l n i k
whole series o f o r i g i n a l designs w h i c h helped
scope of experimental w o r k and intensified p(
form. Projects by M e l n i k o v such as the Rusakov
residence, the Columbus M o n u m e n t and the Pal

demonstrated the possibilities o f creating expj

compositions by such means as overhanging elen

forms of symmetry such as symmetry about a h

a generous use of diagonals etc.
Melnikov's merit d u r i n g this complex perioc
opment of Soviet architecture was that he got ric
ven tions through his innovative projects and
move psychological barriers hindering the acce
forms.
He attached great importance to the functie
and to achieving the most rational organization ]
composition. B u t his m a i n concern i n connecti
building was to devise an appropriately expressi
for it, an artistic image that w o u l d i n c o n t r o v e r t i l
tial organization w i t h a novel approach to its ii

AU Melnikov's designs are marked by virtuosit;

ment of their interiors. W h a t is more, the mean
ganization are never repeated and remain entir
each individual case.
Melnikov boldly extended the range of meani
of expression i n modern architecture and set gre
velty in an architect's o u t p u t . As he p u t it, 'Creal'
the point where one can say: " T h i s is m i n e . ' " T

e production of original forms and images is ev:

233
Chapter 6/Creative innovation in the second half of the 1920s

the twentieth century. H e designed the M a k h o r k a p a v i l i o n at

out his w o r k . H i s spatial compositions were striking by their

the 1923 Moscow A g r i c u l t u r a l and H a n d i c r a f t E x h i b i t i o n as

novelty. B u t M e l n i k o v never distorted a geometric f o r m . C y -

an original spatial composition, w i t h a b l i n d , overhanging up-

linders, cones, parallelepipeds, rhomboids and other elemen-

per structure, an open w i n d i n g staircase, a vertical glazed shaft

tary volumes freely combine, intersect, interpenetrate and are

and a roof w i t h a sharp diagonal slope. H e developed this new

articulated w i t h each other i n a variety of ways while retaining

approach to the design o f exhibition buildings even f u r t h e r i n

their clearly defined geometrical identity.

the Soviet p a v i l i o n at the Paris I n t e r n a t i o n a l E x h i b i t i o n i n

T h e h a l l m a r k o f M e l n i k o v ' s architectural forms is their i n -

1925, the first and immediately t r i u m p h a n t l y successful ap-

ner tension, rather than any showy d y n a m i s m , emphatic struc-

pearance on the w o r l d stage o f the new-born Soviet architec-

ture or excessively obvious balance. There are no idle elements

ture. T h i s pavilion stood out among the rest by its modern ap-

i n his compositions: everything is thoroughly resilient, b u t no

pearance simple geometric forms, bold use o f colour, glazed

display is made o f t h e great inner strength held i n reserve. I n so

timber f r a m e w o r k and an unusual external staircase c u t t i n g d i -

far as he was concerned, architectural f o r m should be like a

agonally across a two-storey b u i l d i n g l a i d out on a rectangular

tensed muscle, and this accounts for the overhanging compo-

plan.

nents w h i c h he favoured, because they supplied the most load-

D u r i n g the late 1920s and early 1930s, M e l n i k o v produced a

bearing shape i n visual terms.

whole series o f original designs w h i c h helped to extend the

scope o f experimental w o r k and intensified polemics about
form. Projects by M e l n i k o v such as the Rusakov C l u b , his o w n

Leonidov, a poet of pure form

residence, the Columbus M o n u m e n t and the Palace of Nations

demonstrated the possibilities o f creating expressive spatial

D u r i n g the second h a l f o f the 1920s, Soviet architects not only

compositions by such means as overhanging elements, unusual

successfully fought off the threatened canonization o f stylistic

forms of symmetry - such as symmetry about a horizontal axis,

features, b u t made a m a j o r c o n t r i b u t i o n to the solution of a ser-

a generous use o f diagonals etc.

ies o f problems affecting the treatment o f f o r m and a new ap-

Melnikov's merit d u r i n g this complex period i n the devel-

nEPCREKTHBA

opment of Soviet architecture was that he got r i d o f m a n y con-

proach to spatial organization i n the architecture o f their period.

ventions through his innovative projects and helped to re-

One o f the most outstanding creative personalities involved

move psychological barriers h i n d e r i n g the acceptance o f new

i n these developments was I v a n Leonidov, an exceptionally

forms.

gifted artist, inventor and original thinker. L e Corbusier called

He attached great importance to the f u n c t i o n a l approach

and to achieving the most r a t i o n a l organization possible i n any
composition. B u t his m a i n concern i n connection w i t h every

h i m 'a poet, and the hope o f Russian A r c h i t e c t u r a l Constructivism'.

Leonidov's graduation project f o r a L e n i n I n s t i t u t e , d r a w n

building was to devise an appropriately expressive appearance

u p i n Alexander Vesnin's V k h u t e m a s studio, was shown at the

for it, an artistic image that w o u l d incontrovertibly l i n k its spa-

first

Moscow E x h i b i t i o n o f Contemporary Architecture i n

tial organization w i t h a novel approach to its interior design.

1927. Alexander V e s n i n saw i n i t the b i r t h o f a new architec-

All Melnikov's designs are marked by virtuosity i n the treat-

ture, and i t was also highly commended by Ladovsky and

ment of their interiors. W h a t is more, the means o f spatial or-

Ginzburg.

ganizafion are never repeated and remain entirely original i n

each individual case.

T h e project provided for a large b u i l d i n g complex on the

L e n i n hills comprising a l i b r a r y , a scientific research institute,

Melnikov boldly extended the range o f means and methods

an a u d i t o r i u m and other supplementary accommodation. T h e

expression i n modern architecture and set great store by no-

treatment o f the large a u d i t o r i u m was unusual and was re-

ty in an architect's output. As he p u t it, 'Creativity begins at

garded at that time as breaking new g r o u n d . I t consisted o f a

the
'^^^^^
" ""^^^^ m i n e . ' " T h i s attitude to
^e production of original forms and images is evident t h r o u g h -

vast sphere raised above g r o u n d level on an openwork metal

of

armature; the top h a l f of the sphere was glazed over, while the

employed by the followers of Symbohst R o m a n t i c i s m . Early m

lower part housed the a u d i t o r i u m . T h e whole structure was

the 1920s he produced a number of projects inspired by C u b o -

flanked by a vertical paraUelepiped, an element i n the same

F u t u r i s m ' often oddly combined w i t h themes derived f r o m an-

spatial composition, intended for a book store.

I n 1928-30 Leonidov became the effective leader o f Gon-

cient Russian architecture. By the mid-1920s, however, his

experiments took a different stylistic t u r n .

structivism. H e single-handedly represented this movement i n

T h e designs then produced i n Nikolsky's studio sought to

a series o f outstandingly i m p o r t a n t competitions and matched

create expressive compositions by means o f large rectangular

the entries submitted by entire teams w o r k i n g on behaff of v a r i -

horizontal and vertical volumes contrastingly juxtaposed, w i t h

ous other organizations. D u r i n g this period he produced a

a generous use o f colour, b h n d surfaces, either strictly symmet-

whole series of competition entries w h i c h stood out by the

depth o f their conception, their technical mastery and their
graphic presentation, among t h e m the Tsentrosoyuz (Central
U n i o n o f Consumer Co-operatives)

b u i l d i n g i n 1928, the

House o f I n d u s t r y i n 1929-30 and the Palace of C u l t u r e m

1930 aU f o r Moscow, and the Socialist Settlement attached to
the M a g n i t o g o r s k I n d u s t r i a l C o m b i n e i n 1930. These projects
tackled i n an original way problems such as the sitmg of a cult u r a l and social centre i n the construction o f a new t o w n , the
lay-out o f a modern city complex and the relationship between
areas o f h o u s i n g and their environment.
T h e principles o f spatial organization i n m o d e r n buildings
w o r k e d out by Leonidov were to exert great influence on the
f u r t h e r o u t p u t o f Soviet architects. H e was among the first to
sense as early as the 1920s, the basic tendency o f modern arc h i t e r t u r a l design towards simphcity i n the treatment o f volume, w h i c h only secured widespread recognition d u r m g the
1940s and 1950s. H e demonstrated i n his projects that an extremely laconic use o f geometrical volumes devoid o f decorat i o n was no less expressive i n its effect t h a n more elaborate
compositions. Such utter restraint i n the organization of space
was t r u l y innovative i n the 1920s, at a time w h e n m a n y architects were stiU exploring the expressive potentiahties of modern
architecture by b r i n g i n g greater complexity i n t o compositions.

Suprematist Constructivism Nii<olsky and Khidekel

O t h e r means of overcoming the stylistic stereotypes w h i c h had

estabhshed themselves were adopted b y the leader o f t h e C o n structivists i n L e n i n g r a d , Alexander Nikolsky, and Lazar K h i dekel, a p u p f l o f M a l e v i c h .
Nikolsky discarded Classicism soon after the Revolution,
then came under the influence o f t h e C u b o - F u t u r i s t methods

rical or sharply asymmetrical compositions, and violent contrasts of light and shade, at the expense of intersecting forms,
overhanging elements and any extensive use o f ledges.
T h e originality and polemical nature o f N i k o l s k y s f o r m a l

viously been b l i n d geometric volumes, thereby

measure o f architectural actuahty to Suprema

K h i d e k e l studied i n Nikolsky's studio f r o m the n!

wards and the increasingly Suprematist Construe

of its o u t p u t may well have been p a r t l y due to hi

I t was i n fact K h i d e k e l w h o produced the firs

oped architectural project - a Workers' C l u b - i i

tist spirit i n 1926, a design w h i c h already reflectec

features of Suprematist Constructivism. H e went (

a whole series o f designs i n the later 1920s anc

based on the f o r m a l aesthetic discoveries o f t h e 15

Suprematist C o n s t r u c t i v i s m was an original appi
and style i n composition w h i c h left some m a r k oi
vative ventures by L e n i n g r a d architects i n the l i

aesthetic experiments is largely accounted for by the situation

A t the same time, however. Classicist influen

that had arisen i n the architectural w o r l d of L e m n g r a d I n al-

more significant i n the o u t p u t o f L e n i n g r a d arch

tering the city's appearance d u r i n g the early post-Revolution-

that o f their Moscow colleagues. T h i s was most c

ary years the 'destructive' C u b o - F u t u r i s t experiments had

competition entries submitted f r o m either side

shaken Classicism to its roots, b u t failed to destroy its composi-

1920s. T h e asymmetrical composition, glazing an

tional basis. By the mid-1920s, the new architecture was con-

works of the Central Telegraph Office and House

solidating its position w i t h every passing day, b u t h a d to cut

entries o r i g i n a t i n g f r o m M o s c o w contrasted w i t l

t h r o u g h the canons imposed by the Classical order. Leningrad

try of compositions i n c o r p o r a t i n g simple geometr

architects gradually succeeded i n sloughing o f f traditional

designs submitted f r o m L e n i n g r a d , as i n those f(

forms and ornaments, b u t they retained many ingrained hab-

Culture i n the city's M o s c o w - N a r v a district, anc

its - symmetry, for instance - and preferred the use of straight-

prom (State I n d u s t r y ) b u i l d i n g i n K h a r k o v .

f o r w a r d geometric volumes i n the external design o f bmldmgs

Such differences between the creative concept:

to C o n s t m c t i v i s t means o f expression, such as exposed frame-

these two cities led to the apphcation o f conflicd

works and large areas of glazing. T h e experimental designs of

the assessment of entries f o r competitions organiz

Malevich's group - the Arkitectons and the Plamts - contributed

local architectural associations. A split developec

to this approach after the move to Petrograd f r o m Vitebsk in

architects, so that m a n y o f those i n Leningrad rei

1922

c o m p e t i o n s launched i n Moscow, and vice ven

Malevich's experiments w i t h f o r m , i n w h i c h his students -

As a result, the w o r k of Nikolsky's group becan

Suetin K h i d e k e l and Chashnik - shared, were w e l l k n o w n m

tally i m p o r t a n t because i t helped to consolidate i

Petrograd, where they had greatly influenced decorative art

creative experimentation by Soviet architects M

and architecture. A f t e r the U n o v i s move, Lazar K h i d e k e l be-

might be. I t provided a synthesis o f the artistic;

gan to study architecture, and was thus able to i n j e c t Suprema-

ation carried out i n the three m a i n Soviet artistic 1

tist ideas i n t o i t f r o m w i t h i n , rather than indirectly, as m Wi-

in Moscow, Petrograd and Vitebsk - though N i k

kolsky's case.
, , ^irl
Khidekel's first projects go back to 1922-24, although he did
not begin to concentrate on architecture u n t the m i d d l e ot
decade. H i s Suprematist forms gained i n realism as his mteres
i n architecture increased and his compositions, such as n
A e r o - C l u b designs i n 1922, are the first o r i g i n a t i n g f r o m th
school to include door and w i n d o w openings m w h a t had p

the increasingly stereotyped features identifyini

schools. T h i s enabled h i m and the members of hii
sign truly original projects for clubs, schools, bai
ums. Nevertheless, even t h o u g h i t had assimflatc
Moscow-based Constructivism, the Suprematis
vism which Nikolsky's group adopted was closer i

235
Chapter 6/Creative innovation i n the second half of the 1920s
itic problems of design

t housed the a u d i t o r i u m . T h e whole structure was

y a vertical parallelepiped, an element i n the same
imposition, intended for a book store.
8 - 3 0 , Leonidov became the effective leader o f Gonm . H e single-handedly represented this movement i n
F outstandingly i m p o r t a n t competitions and matched
;s submitted by entire teams w o r k i n g o n behalf of v a r i r organizations. D u r i n g this period he produced a
ries of competition entries w h i c h stood out by the
their conception, their technical mastery and their
presentation, among them the Tsentrosoyuz (Central
f Consumer Co-operatives) b u i l d i n g i n 1928, the
[ I n d u s t r y i n 1929-30 and the Palace o f C u l t u r e i n
for Moscow, and the Socialist Settlement attached to
nitogorsk I n d u s t r i a l C o m b i n e i n 1930. These projects
n an original way problems such as the siting o f a cul1 social centre i n the construction o f a new t o w n , the
,f a modern city complex and the relationship between
housing and their environment.
irinciples o f spatial organization i n m o d e r n buildings
out by Leonidov were to exert great influence on the
)utput o f Soviet architects. H e was among the first to
; early as the 1920s, the basic tendency o f m o d e r n arral design towards simplicity i n the treatment o f v o l l i c h only secured widespread recognition d u r i n g the
i d 1950s. H e demonstrated i n his projects that an exlaconic use o f geometrical volumes devoid o f decoras no less expressive i n its effect than more elaborate
itions. Such utter restraint i n the organization o f space
y innovative i n the 1920s, at a time w h e n many archire still exploring the expressive potentiahties of modern
l u r e by b r i n g i n g greater complexity i n t o compositions.

employed by the followers of Symbolist R o m a n t i c i s m . E a r l y i n

viously been b l i n d geometric volumes, thereby i m p a r t i n g a

sign to Malevich's experiments and Khidekel's architectural

the 1920s, he produced a number of projects inspired by Cubo-

measure o f architectural actuality to Suprematist projects.

projects.

F u t u r i s m ' often oddly combined w i t h themes derived f r o m an-

K h i d e k e l studied i n Nikolsky's studio f r o m the mid-1920s on-

cient Russian architecture. B y the mid-1920s, however, his

wards and the increasingly Suprematist Constructivist flavour

experiments took a different stylistic t u r n .

o f i t s output may well have been p a r t l y due to his influence.

T h e designs then produced i n Nikolsky's studio sought to

create expressive compositions by means of large rectangular

oped architectural project a Workers' C l u b i n a Suprema-

Pre-Revolutionary R a t i o n a l Architecture, as we have already

horizontal and vertical volumes contrastingly juxtaposed, w i t h

dst spirit i n 1926, a design w h i c h already reflected a l l the basic

said, d i d not provide a basis for an innovative trend immediate-

a generous use o f colour, b l i n d surfaces, either strictly symmet-

features of Suprematist Constructivism. H e went on to produce

ly after the Revolution. I t w o u l d , however, be w r o n g to deny i t

rical or sharply asymmetrical compositions, and violent con-

a whole series o f designs i n the later 1920s and early 1930s

any role i n the evolution o f Soviet architecture.

trasts o f light and shade, at the expense of intersecting forms,

based on the f o r m a l aesthetic discoveries o f the Suprematists.

I n the 1920s, interaction between the t r a d i t i o n o f Rational

overhanging elements and any extensive use o f ledges.

Suprematist Constructivism was an original approach to f o r m

Architecture and Constructivism led to the f o r m a t i o n o f a

and style i n composition w h i c h left some m a r k on many inno-

school o f i n d u s t r i a l architecture, the representatives o f w h i c h

T h e originahty and polemical nature o f Nikolsky's f o r m a l

aesthetic experiments is largely accounted for by the situation

and Khideleel

made a significant c o n t r i b u t i o n to resolving problems not only

that had arisen i n the architectural w o r l d of L e n i n g r a d . I n al-

i n the lay-out of p r o d u c t i o n and engineering structures, b u t al-

tering the city's appearance d u r i n g the early post-Revolution-

more significant i n the o u t p u t o f L e n i n g r a d architects than i n

so i n their artistic f o r m u l a t i o n . A n architectural section was set

ary years, the 'destructive' C u b o - F u t u r i s t experiments had

that of their Moscow colleagues. T h i s was most obvious i n the

up i n the Moscow H i g h e r Technical I n s t i t u t e - M V T U - i n

shaken Classicism to its roots, b u t failed to destroy its composi-

competition entries submitted f r o m either side i n the m i d -

1918, w h i c h had by the mid-1920s trained a group o f talented

tional basis. B y the mid-1920s, the new architecture was con-

1920s. T h e asymmetrical composition, glazing and bare f r a m e -

architects under the guidance o f such distinguished represen-

solidating its position w i t h every passing day, b u t had to cut

works o f t h e Central Telegraph Office and House of Textiles i n

tatives o f Rational Architecture as Alexander Kuznetsov, as

t h r o u g h the canons imposed by the Classical order. Leningrad

entries originating f r o m Moscow contrasted w i t h the symme-

weU as V i k t o r and L e o n i d Vesnin.

architects gradually succeeded i n sloughing o f f traditional

try of compositions i n c o r p o r a t i n g simple geometrical shapes i n

T h e teachers o f architecture at M V T U differed f r o m their

forms and ornaments, b u t they retained many ingrained hab-

designs submitted f r o m L e n i n g r a d , as i n those for a House o f

opposite numbers i n Vkhutemas by a more practical approach

its - symmetry, for instance - and preferred the use of straight-

Culture i n the city's M o s c o w - N a r v a district, and for the Gos-

to the problems i n h a n d and this largely determined their grad-

f o r w a r d geometric volumes i n the external design of buildings

prom (State I n d u s t r y ) b u i l d i n g i n K h a r k o v .

uates' subsequent choice o f w o r k i n the field o f i n d u s t r i a l and

to Constructivist means o f expression, such as exposed frame-

Such differences between the creative concepts prevalent i n

housing construction, as well as structural design. Neverthe-

works and large areas o f glazing. T h e experimental designs of

these two cities led to the application o f conflicting criteria i n

less, the t r a i n i n g o f t h e M V T U architectural students was, Ra-

Malevich's group - the Arkitectons and the P/anzi^ - contributed

the assessment of entries for competitions organized by the t w o

tional Architecture apart, influenced by the contemporary

to this approach after the move to Petrograd f r o m Vitebsk in

local architectural associations. A split developed among these

mood i n Soviet art as a whole. A Creative G r o u p gradually

1922.

architects, so that m a n y o f those i n L e n i n g r a d refused to enter

f o r m e d among these students. T h e y arranged 'Wednesday' fix-

Malevich's experiments w i t h f o r m , i n w h i c h his students

in
Suetin, K h i d e k e l and Chashnik - shared, were well known in
irt
Petrograd, where they had greatly influenced decorative an

competidons launched i n Moscow, and vice versa.

tures at w h i c h reports were read and i n f o r m a t i o n provided

concerning architecture, the visual arts and poetry or new

tally important because i t helped to consolidate the process o f

stage productions by M e y e r h o l d and T a i r o v . These 'Wednes-

creative experimentation by Soviet architects wherever they

days' began i n 1922-23 and carried on u n t i l 1928, even after

a-

might be. I t provided a synthesis o f the artistic experiment-

the members o f the Creative G r o u p had graduated. A m o n g

ation carried out i n the three m a i n Soviet artisdc laboratories -

those w h o took p a r t i n t h e m were V l a d i m i r and Gennady M o v -

in Moscov/, Petrograd and Vitebsk - though Nikolsky rejected

chan, Nikolaev, K a l i s h , Fisenko, M e i l m a n , Evgeny Popov and

the increasingly stereotyped features i d e n t i f y i n g the various

Sergei Turgenev.

tist ideas into i t from w i t h i n , rather than indirectly, as in Ni.J

Khidekel's first projects go back to 1922-24, although he dm

bed themselves were adopted by the leader o f t h e C o n -

not begin to concentrate on architecture u n t the middle o t

ists i n L e n i n g r a d , Alexander Nikolsky, and Lazar K h i -

decade. H i s Suprematist forms gained i n realism as his interes^

i pupil of Malevich.

i n architecture increased and his compositions, such as

Isky discarded Classicism soon after the R e v o l u t i o n ,

A e r o - C l u b designs i n 1922, are the first originadng from

,me under the influence of the C u b o - F u t u r i s t methods

school to include door and w i n d o w openings i n what ha

As a result, the w o r k of Nikolsky's group became f u n d a m e n -

le

gan to study architecture, and was thus able to inject Suprem

kolsky's case.

neans of overcoming the stylistic stereotypes w h i c h had

vadve ventures by L e n i n g r a d architects i n the 1920s.

A t the same time, however. Classicist influences were also

and architecture. A f t e r the U n o v i s move, Lazar Khidekel belist Constructivism -

The graduates of IMVTU

I t was i n fact K h i d e k e l w h o produced the first f u l l y devel-

schools. This enabled h i m and the members of his studio to de-

These fixtures helped to shape the outlook on art o f the

sign truly original projects for clubs, schools, baths and stadi-

young architects and to f o u n d a school, m a i n l y i n the field of i n -

ums. Nevertheless, even though i t had assimilated the ideas o f

dustrial architecture.

oscow-based Construcdvism, the Suprematist Constructi-

T h e clearest examples o f this school's orientation can be

ism which Nikolsky's group adopted was closer i n terms of de-

seen i n projects carried out i n Moscow by M V T U graduates,

236
Part I/Aesthetic problems of design

such as the complexes of buildings for the C e n t r a l I n s t i t u t e of

Aero- and H y d r o d y n a m i c s , Tsagi, and the A l l - U n i o n ElectroT e c h n i c a l I n s t i t u t e , V e i ; the laboratories o f t h e Moscow Textile I n s t i t u t e and the headquarters b u i l d i n g of the A l l - U n i o n
Electro-Technical Association.
These buildings combine f u n c t i o n a l and structural efficiency w i t h the apphcation of new architectural methods, such as
the geometrically accurate a r t i c u l a t i o n of volumes, contrasts
between glazed and b h n d walls, and the j u x t a p o s i t i o n of rectangular and semicircular elements.

Shchusev and the adoption of

new architectural principles

T h e innovative trend achieved a d o m i n a n t position i n Soviet

architecture d u r i n g the second h a l f of the 1920s and the early
1930s. One after another, architects belonging to an earlier
generation, w h o immediately after the R e v o l u t i o n had seen the
way f o r w a r d i n the greatest possible rehance on traditions, began to change sides. T h e evolution of Alexei Shchusev's o u t p u t
is a case i n point. H e was not a strict Classicist and f o u n d the
picturesqueness and r i c h plasticity of ancient Russian architecture more attractive. H e freely combined its forms w i t h the new
types of structures and the M o d e r n e , w h i c h he f o u n d more tolerable t h a n Classicism.
Shchusev was an u n c o m m o n l y g i f t e d artist, whose enthusiasm was readily captured by new styles. I f some architectural
conception attracted h i m even t h o u g h i t conflicted w i t h his
o w n at that moment, or i f he considered that i t answered present requirements better, he was apt to switch to i t .
T h i s degree of adaptability took h i m to the verge of eclecticism, b u t also enabled h i m to appreciate i n n o v a t i o n more
b r o a d l y and objectively t h a n m a n y other architects o f t h e older
generation. I t was due to his support, f o r instance, that M e l n i -

entablature.

v i d u a l groups gradually lost their significa

T i g h t construction schedules and b u i l d i n g difficulties prevent-

points f o r the innovators, though not before th(

ed the project f r o m being f u l l y carried out and the first mauso-

i m p o r t a n t part i n the struggle against eclectici

l e u m remained unfinished, w i t h only the base completed.

of a new artistic orientation and the establishn

ument consisting of four columns carrying an

fiably

I n the course of designing the second wooden mausoleum,

Shchusev attempted to r e t u r n to his i n i t i a l idea by c r o w n i n g a
stepped base w i t h an extended colonnade, either circular or

action by a l l the innovators at a time when th(

rectangular i n p l a n . B u t the spare forms o f t h e unfinished first

new towns and settiements, as w e f l as indu

mausoleum fitted wefl i n t o the surroundings of Red Square and

dwellings and pubhc buildings, was being c

the very fact of their presence influenced a f l f u r t h e r design. As

grandiose scale. T h e existence of different asse]

sketch foflowed sketch, the colonnade gradually shrank u n t i l it

ginning to hamper united action by Soviet a n

u l t i m a t e l y became the uppermost tier of the stepped design.

One sign of the times, among others, was th

Styhstically, the second wooden mausoleum was treated i n the

of the f u n d a m e n t a l ideological struggle betwt

Classical manner for compositional and f o r m a l purposes, w i t h

and Constructivists, w h o all turned to the solu

columns, pilasters, consoles, and so on.

i m p o r t a n t p r a c t i c a l problems t h r o w n up by ir

Between 1924, when one wooden mausoleum followed the

As we have already noted, Ladovsky left Asnc

other, and 1929, w h e n the stone one was designed, Shchusev's

some of his followers and founded the U n i o n of

artistic outlook completely altered. T h i s change foUowed the

ners, A R U , whose members set out to solve the

success of the V e s n i n Arkos project. Shchusev allied himself

practical problems involved i n socialist t o w n ]

w i t h the innovative movement and produced a competition en-

I n the same year, G i n z b u r g also left his

t r y for the Moscow Central Telegraph O f l i c e i n its spirit. This

searches i n Osa to head a group of architects i

new approach equally affected the design and construction of

Section o f t h e Committee for Construction of t l

the stone mausoleum i n 1929-30. H e was set the task of perpe-

sian Repubhc), investigating i n depth the desi

t u a t i n g the composition o f t h e wooden one, w h i c h had become

of inexpensive dweUings.

a f a m i f i a r feature of Red Square, and of translating i t into

Early i n 1929, the Presidium of Osa, w h i c h e

stone. Nonetheless he completely discarded the traditional ar-

ander Vesnin, G i n z b u r g , Leonidov, K h i g e r a

chitectural elements incorporated i n the previous monument

gested that i n d i v i d u a l architectural associat

and concentrated on spatial composition, so as to stress the

merged i n a single Federation of Revolutionary

simplicity o f t h e geometric forms employed, the proportions of

only d i d this prove impossible, but a furthi

the composition and die relationship between the colours in-

grouping was founded i n the same year - the A

volved.

illustrated by the process of designing and b u i l d i n g the L e n i n

M a u s o l e u m i n Moscow's Red Square.
Shchusev's first design for a temporary wooden mausoleum
p r o v i d e d a cubic base on w h i c h i t was proposed to erect a m o n -

Architects'

Association,

Vopra,

wh

M a n y other older architects, such as V l a d i m i r Shchuko and

V l a d i m i r G e l f r e i k h , w h o had previously w o r k e d w i t h tradi-

Ivanov, Kochar, Alexander K r e s t i n , K r y u k o \

tional forms, similarly went over to the innovative movement

Matsa, M i k h a i l o v , M o r d v i n o v , N i k o l a i Polyak

d u r i n g the second h a l f of the 1920s.

sev.
The part taken i n competitions at the t u r n c
representatives of the various groups brought

and, unhke Zholtovsky, he d i d not consider the Vesnins' PaT h e evolution of Shchusev's approach i n the 1920s is clearly

tarian

among its members A l a b y a n , Baburov, Vlai

kov's M a k h o r k a pavihon was included i n the 1923 e x h i b i t i o n

lace o f L a b o u r project unacceptable.

Soviet architecture. B y the beginning <

Year Plan, i n 1928-32, objective circumstanct

A unified new trend

creative rivalry i n t o their debates. Each organi

the example of Asnova and A R U i n setting up

T h e existence of a variety of trends i n the first stage of Soviet ar-

for each major competition, although their

chitectural development, each w i t h its o w n set of clearly forniu-

hardly diverged f r o m the general styhstic orien

lated tenets, helped to i m p a r t shape and cohesion to the inno

novative movement. There was also a good deai

ative movement. B y the end o f t h e 1920s, however, these i

^adon between the groups concerned.

237
Chapter 6/Greative innovation i n the second half of the 1920s
etic problems of design

he complexes of buildmgs f o r the C e n t r a l I n s t i t u t e of

d H y d r o d y n a m i c s , Tsagi, and the A l l - U n i o n Electrod I n s t i t u t e , V e i ; the laboratories o f t h e Moscow Textute and the headquarters b u i l d i n g of the A l l - U n i o n
rechnical Association.
buildings combine f u n c t i o n a l and structural eflficien:he apphcation of new architectural methods, such as
netrically accurate articulation of volumes, contrasts
glazed and b h n d walls, and the j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f recand semicircular elements.

and the adoption of

tecturai principles

ovative trend achieved a d o m i n a n t position i n Soviet

ture d u r i n g the second h a l f of the 1920s and the early
3ne after another, architects belonging to an earher
ion, w h o immediately after the Revolution had seen the
ward i n the greatest possible rehance on traditions, behange sides. T h e evolution of Alexei Shchusev's o u t p u t
; i n point. H e was not a strict Classicist and f o u n d the
iqueness and r i c h plasticity of ancient Russian architecire attractive. H e freely combined its forms w i t h the new
:structures and the Moderne, w h i c h he f o u n d more tol:han Classicism.
lusev was an u n c o m m o n l y g i f t e d artist, whose enthusiLS readily captured by new styles. I f some architectural
tion attracted h i m even though i t conflicted w i t h his
that moment, or i f he considered that i t answered presuirements better, he was apt to switch to i t .
, degree of a d a p t a b f l i t y took h i m to the verge of eclecti3ut also enabled h i m to appreciate i n n o v a t i o n more
y and objectively than many other architects o f t h e older
tion. I t was due to his support, for instance, that M e l n i -

T h e closeness o f the views held by these groups became

entablature.

v i d u a l groups gradually lost their significance as r a l l y i n g

T i g h t construction schedules and b u d d i n g difficulties prevent-

points for the innovators, though not before they had played an

apparent whenever

ed the project f r o m being f u l l y carried out and the first mauso-

i m p o r t a n t part i n the struggle against eclecticism, the shaping

trends. T h u s a j o i n t protest by Osa, Asnova, A R U and V o p r a

ument consisting of four columns carrying an

l e u m remained unfinished, w i t h only the base completed.

I n the course of designing the second wooden mausoleum,
Shchusev attempted to r e t u r n to his i n i t i a l idea by c r o w n i n g a
stepped base w i t h an extended colonnade, either circular or
rectangular i n p l a n . B u t the spare forms o f t h e unfinished first
mausoleum fitted well i n t o the surroundings of Red Square and
the very fact of their presence influenced afl f u r t h e r design. As
sketch followed sketch, the colonnade gradually shrank u n t i t

they combined to resist traditionalist

of a new artistic orientation and the establishment of an i d e n t i -

was organized against the decision to b u i l d the L e n i n L i -

fiably Soviet architecture. B y the beginning of the First Five

brary on Classical lines. A j o i n t meeting of architectural asso-

Year Plan, i n 1928-32, objective circumstances favoured j o i n t

ciations to discuss p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the design for a Palace o f

action by all the innovators at a time when the construction o f

Soviets resolved on a united f r o n t i n opposition to conserva-

new towns and settlements, as well as i n d u s t r i a l premises,

tive tendencies. A l l this contributed to the consolidation of

dwelhngs and p u b l i c buildings, was being carried out on a

artistic and organizational attitudes among innovative archi-

grandiose scale. T h e existence of different associations was be-

tects.

ginning to hamper united action by Soviet architects.

u l t i m a t e l y became the uppermost tier of the stepped design.

One sign o f t h e times, among others, was the abandonment

Stylistically, the second wooden mausoleum was treated i n the

of the f u n d a m e n t a l ideological struggle between Rationalists

Classical manner for compositional and f o r m a l purposes, w i t h

and Constructivists, w h o all turned to the solution o f t h e most

columns, pilasters, consoles, and so on.

important p r a c t i c a l problems t h r o w n up by industrialization.

Despite the gathering m o m e n t u m o f t h e movement for creative

As we have already noted, Ladovsky left Asnova i n 1928 w i t h

u n i t y among innovative trends, dissensions w i t h i n the new So-

some of his followers and founded the U n i o n of Architect-Plan-

viet architecture actually sharpened, largely o w i n g to the activ-

ners, A R U , whose members set out to solve the theoretical and

i t y of V o p r a members. T h e creation of this new group, at a mo-

practical problems involved i n socialist t o w n p l a n n i n g .

ment when objective circumstances already pointed the way to

Between 1924, when one wooden mausoleum followed the

other, and 1929, w h e n the stone one was designed, Shchusev's
artistic outlook completely altered. T h i s change followed the
success o f t h e V e s n i n Arkos project. Shchusev alhed himself

Growing controversy within the new trend

w i t h the innovative movement and produced a competition en-

I n the same year, G i n z b u r g also left his theoretical re-

a c o m m o n programme u n i t i n g all progressive Soviet archi-

t r y f o r the Moscow C e n t r a l Telegraph Office i n its spirit. This

searches i n Osa to head a group of architects i n the T y p o l o g y

tects, greatly complicated the situation and converted polemics

new approach equally affected the design and construction of

Section o f t h e Committee for Construction o f t h e RSFSR (Rus-

about art i n t o internecine warfare. I n the i n i t i a l statement of

the stone mausoleum i n 1929-30. H e was set the task of perpe-

sian Republic), investigating i n depth the design of new types

their organization's aims, and a number of articles by Alexei

t u a t i n g the composition o f t h e wooden one, w h i c h h a d become

of inexpensive dwellings.

M i k h a i l o v and A r k a d y M o r d v i n o v among others, the supporters of V o p r a claimed the sole r i g h t of their group to speak for

a f a m i a r feature of Red Square, and of translating into

Early i n 1929, the Presidium of Osa, w h i c h comprised Alex-

stone. Nonetheless he completely discarded the traditional ar-

ander Vesnin, G i n z b u r g , Leonidov, K h i g e r and O r l o v , sug-

Proletarian Architecture and classified all other creative trends

chitectural elements incorporated i n the previous monument

gested that i n d i v i d u a l architectural associations should be

as 'openly bourgeois', 'fellow-travelling', and so on. T h e y pro-

and concentrated on spatial composition, so as to stress the

merged i n a single Federation of Revolutionary Architects. N o t

moted a vulgarized version of M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t teaching about

simphcity o f t h e geometric forms employed, the proportions of

only d i d this prove impossible, but a f u r t h e r

independent

the role of art i n social life, adopted cliquishness as a g u i d i n g

the composition and the relationship between the colours in-

grouping was founded i n the same year - the A l l - U n i o n Prole-

principle and set about expelling f r o m the w o r l d of socialist art

tarian

numbered

all w h o were not o f a like m i n d w i t h them. T h e y used rabble-

among its members A l a b y a n , Baburov, Vlasov, Zaslavsky,

rousing methods of criticism under the pretence of fighting for

Ivanov, Kochar, Alexander K r e s t i n , K r y u k o v , M a z m a n y a n ,

Proletarian Architecture.

volved.

M a n y other older architects, such as V l a d i m i r Shchuko and

V l a d i m i r G e l f r e i k h , w h o had previously worked w i t h traditional forms, s i m a r l y went over to the innovative movement
d u r i n g the second h a l f of the 1920s.

Architects'

Association,

Vopra,

which

Matsa, M i k h a i l o v , M o r d v i n o v , N i k o l a i Polyakov and S i m b i r t sev.

The part taken i n competitions at the t u r n of the decade by

M a n y i n f l u e n t i a l members of V o p r a conducted a group warfare of sorts: they replaced intellectual leadership by crude administrative procedures, p u t f o r w a r d i n f l a t e d assessments o f

klakhorka p a v i l i o n was included i n the 1923 e x h i b i t i o n

representatives of the various groups brought an element of

the - professionally inadequate - o u t p u t of V o p r a members

nhke Zholtovsky, he d i d not consider the Vesnins' Pa-

creative rivalry i n t o their debates. Each organization followed

and conducted destructive criticism of w o r k by members of

L a b o u r project unacceptable.
evolution of Shchusev's approach i n the 1920s is clearly
ited by the process of designing and b u i l d i n g the L e n i n
)leum i n Moscow's Red Square.
husev's first design for a temporary wooden mausoleum
ied a cubic base on w h i c h i t was proposed to erect a m o n -

A unified new trend

the example of Asnova and A R U i n setting up a special team

other organizations. Architects such as Leonidov, M e l n i k o v ,

T h e existence of a variety of trends i n the first stage of Soviet ar-

for each major competition, although their various entries

Ladovsky and K r u t i k o v , whose w o r k best displayed signs o f

chitectural development, each w i t h ks o w n set of clearly forni^^

hardly diverged f r o m the general stylistic orientation o f t h e i n -

experimental activity, took the f u l l b r u n t o f attacks f r o m the

lated tenets, helped to i m p a r t shape and cohesion to the inn

novative movement. There was also a good deal of cross-fertili-

V o p r a side. Leonidov was one o f t h e earhest targets of what be-

zation between the groups concerned.

came a genuine persecution. T h e expression Leonidovshchina

ative movement. B y the end o f t h e 1920s, however, these i

238

The problem of nationalism

and internationalism

Part I/Aesthetic problems of design

'Leonidovishness' - was coined to describe f o r m a l i s m and w i l fulness wherever i t was f o u n d .

I n some cases, V o p r a members not unreasonably picked on
a degree of narrowness i n Constructivist and Rationalist positions and r i g h t l y stressed the need for more attention to artistic
ideology i n architecture. B u t they u n w a r r a n t a b l y attempted to
translate

disagreements

between

i n d i v i d u a l architectural

trends i n t o pohtical terms. T h e lack of an articulated and welldefmed V o p r a programme increasingly shifted the debate into
the area of scholastic disputations about f o r m u l a e and definitions.

By declaring that the Constructivist and Rationalist

movements, w h i c h included some o f t h e most prestigious crea-

Changes in the relationship between

tive architects o f t h e period, were ' u n p r o l e t a r i a n ' , the suppor-

the national and international

ters of V o p r a contributed to a marked weakening o f t h e m a i n

trend i n Soviet architecture o f t h e 1920s and early 1930s, and to

T h e culture o f every n a t i o n , and its architectui

an increase i n the influence of those w h o favoured a recourse to

are at once international and national i n chara

tradition.

features w h i c h l i n k and unite i t w i t h that of oth

T h e traditionalist trends contemporaneous w i t h the inno-

as others make i t distinctive, i m p a r t originahty

vative movement had lost most of their influence by the m i d -

measure o f uniqueness. G i v e n favourable circu:

1920s. T h e y revived at the end of that decade: o l d tendencies

tional architecture may very effectively produ(

and schools were resurrected, and new ones developed as part of

are i n i t i a l l y uniquely national, but are subseq

a move to revert as far as possible to the architectural heritage.

by other nations.
T h e p a r t played by international features i n I
ture grew sharply after the October Revolutio
ready obvious i n T a t l i n ' s Monument to the Third
1919-20, and remained true of Rationalist and
designs. Pride of place, i n this sense, goes to the
at the Paris I n t e r n a t i o n a l E x h i b i t i o n i n 192i
among the m a j o r i t y o f other national pavilic

signers had relied on a stylized approach to the 1

past, by the way i n w h i c h i t highlighted the i n i
o f i t s international image. T a t l i n ' s tower, M e l r
and many other designs by Soviet architects o f t
greeted by progressive architects abroad as the
sion of the international nature o f t h e world's f
chitecture. T h e y influenced the international i
the new architecture.
As compared w i t h the past, however, the b;
national and i n t e r n a t i o n a l elements i n Sovi
changed i n the 1920s. W i t h i n the stylistic unit^
chitecture the designers undoubtedly reflected
to their nationality, not to be f o u n d elsewhere. 1
pares the works o f Alexander Vesnin, L a d o v
Leonidov or I l y a Golosov w i t h those of their (
abroad, one is struck by the specifically Russi
their output, despite the dehberate international
one of the most marked features of Soviet arch
that period.

The search for a 'national' style

between 1917 and 1934, the innovative movem

tend not only w i t h Classicism, but also w i t h st^

239

ic problems of design

ishness' - was coined to describe f o r m a l i s m and w i l -

tive architects o f t h e period, were 'unproletarian', the suppor-

lerever i t was f o u n d .
; cases, V o p r a members not unreasonably picked on
f narrowness i n Constructivist and Rationalist posidghtly stressed the need for more attention to artistic
1 architecture. B u t they u n w a r r a n t a b l y attempted to
disagreements

between

movements, w h i c h included some o f t h e most prestigious crea-

individual

architectural

3 pohtical terms. T h e lack of an articulated and w e l l opra programme increasingly shifted the debate into
,f scholastic disputations about f o r m u l a e and d e f m i declaring that the Constructivist and Rationahst

The problem of nationalism

and internationalism

Changes in the relationship between

national spirit' w h i c h had become widespread at that time, es-

the national and international

pecially i n the first decade after the Revolution.

The culture o f every n a t i o n , and its architecture i n particular,

owned r i c h architectural traditions o f their o w n , but were pre-

are at once i n t e r n a t i o n a l and national i n character. There are

vented f r o m developing them unhindered. I n a number o f

features w h i c h l i n k and unite i t w i t h that o f other nations, j u s t

cases, i n fact, the development o f local architecture was forci-

as others make i t distinctive, i m p a r t originality to i t , and even a

bly broken off and another line imposed w h i c h the local people

measure o f uniqueness. Given favourable circumstances, a na-

regarded as coloniahst.

M a n y constituent nationahties o f t h e f o r m e r Russian empire

ters o f V o p r a contributed to a marked weakening o f t h e m a i n

trend i n Soviet architecture o f t h e 1920s and early 1930s, and to
an increase i n the influence of those w h o favoured a recourse to
tradition.
T h e traditionahst trends contemporaneous w i t h the innovative movement had lost most o f their influence by the m i d 1920s. T h e y revived at the end o f that decade: o l d tendencies
and schools were resurrected, and new ones developed as part of
a move to revert as far as possible to the architectural heritage

tional architecture may very effectively produce features that

T h e Soviet creation o f U n i o n Republics equal i n rank and

are i n i t i a l l y uniquely national, b u t are subsequently adopted

the grant of autonomy to f o r m e r colonial peoples stimulated an

by other nations.

intense g r o w t h o f national cultures and thereby apparently

T h e part played by international features i n Soviet architecture grew sharply after the October Revolution. T h i s was a l -

quite inevitably - led to the r e b i r t h of certain national architect u r a l forms.

ready obvious i n T a t l i n ' s Monument to the Third International, i n

I n these circumstances, recourse to t r a d i t i o n a l national

1919-20, and remained true o f Rationalist and Constructivist

forms d i d not necessarily i m p l y inherent professional conser-

designs. Pride of place, i n this sense, goes to the Soviet p a v i l i o n

vativism on the part o f an architect. T r a d i t i o n a l forms, for i n -

at the Paris I n t e r n a t i o n a l E x h i b i t i o n i n 1925. I t stood out

stance, often acted as symbols o f national prestige. T h e 1923

among the m a j o r i t y o f other national pavilions, whose de-

Moscow A g r i c u l t u r a l and H a n d i c r a f t E x h i b i t i o n provided v i -

signers had relied on a stylized approach to the heritage of their

v i d illustrations o f this: the pavilions o f K i r g i z i a , Turkestan,

past, by the way i n w h i c h i t highlighted the innovative nature

Azerbaidzhan, A r m e n i a , Georgia, T a r t a r y , the C r i m e a and

ofits international image. T a t l i n ' s tower, M e l n i k o v ' s p a v i l i o n

other republics, w i t h their t r a d i t i o n a l forms, spoke for local ar-

and many other designs by Soviet architects of that period were

chitecture by their appearance and represented original archi-

greeted by progressive architects abroad as the n a t u r a l expres-

tectural exhibits i n an attractive display of i n d i v i d u a l local cul-

sion o f t h e international nature o f t h e world's first sociahst ar-

t u r a l features. B u t difficulties arose w h e n t r a d i t i o n a l local

chitecture. T h e y influenced the international development o f

forms were picked as a basis f o r the development o f a national

the new architecture.

architecture, especially w h e n such forms harked back to some

As compared w i t h the past, however, the balance between

h i g h point o f architecture i n the past.

national and international elements i n Soviet architecture

T h e quest for national styles w h i c h began d u r i n g early So-

changed i n the 1920s. W i t h i n the stylistic u n i t y o f the new ar-

viet times reached its peak i n the m i d - 1920s. T h e new architec-

chitecture the designers undoubtedly reflected features proper

ture had so far made no headway i n a n u m b e r of republics and

to their nationahty, not to be f o u n d elsewhere. T h u s i f one com-

left the field free for traditionalist trends d r a w i n g on the past.

pares the works o f Alexander V e s n i n , Ladovsky, M e l n i k o v ,

Wherever groups of trained architects existed locally, trends o f

Leonidov or I l y a Golosov w i t h those o f their contemporaries

this sort usually burgeoned i n t o schools w i t h explicit theoreti-

abroad, one is struck by the specifically Russian character o f

cal programmes. A t the end o f t h e 1920s and start o f t h e 1930s,

their output, despite the deliberate internationalism w h i c h was

the r a p i d spread o f t h e new architecture to cities and republics

one of the most marked features o f Soviet architecture d u r i n g

throughout the Soviet U n i o n led to an increasingly bitter clash

that period.

between the upholders o f t h e various national styles and the i n novators. T h e professional support o f Moscow and L e n i n g r a d
architects proved very i m p o r t a n t i n the course o f this conflict.

The search for a 'national' style

Schools o f modern architecture developed d u r i n g the 1920s

i n extremely adverse conditions due to: the widely d i f i e r i n g lev-

Between 1917 and 1934, the innovative movement had to con-

els of local traditions and degrees of development; a shortage o f

tend not only w i t h Classicism, b u t also w i t h stylization ' i n the

trained architects; the d o m i n a n t position occupied by eclecti-

239

The problem of nationalism

and internationalism

r o b l e m s o f design

less' - was coined to describe f o r m a l i s m and w i l -

movements, w h i c h included some o f t h e most prestigious crea-

Changes in the relationship between

national spirit' w h i c h had become widespread at that time, es-

ver i t was f o u n d .

tive architects o f t h e period, were ' u n p r o l e t a r i a n ' , the suppor-

the national and international

pecially i n the first decade after the Revolution.

ses, V o p r a members not unreasonably picked on

ters o f V o p r a contributed to a marked weakening o f t h e main

irrowness i n Gonstructivist and Rationalist posi-

trend i n Soviet architecture of the 1920s and early 1930s, and to

The culture o f every nation, and its architecture i n particular,

owned r i c h architectural traditions o f their o w n , b u t were pre-

tly stressed the need for more attention to artistic

an increase i n the influence o f those w h o favoured a recourse to

are at once international and national i n character. There are

vented f r o m developing t h e m unhindered. I n a number o f

chitecture. B u t they u n w a r r a n t a b l y attempted to

tradition.

features w h i c h link and unite i t w i t h that o f other nations, j u s t

cases, i n fact, the development o f local architecture was forci-

agreements

between

individual

M a n y constituent nationalities o f t h e f o r m e r Russian empire

architectural

T h e traditionahst trends contemporaneous w i t h the inno-

as others make i t distinctive, i m p a r t originality to i t , and even a

bly broken o f f and another line imposed w h i c h the local people

l i t i c a l terms. T h e lack of a n articulated and well-

vative movement had lost most o f their influence by the mid-

measure o f uniqueness. Given favourable circumstances, a na-

regarded as colonialist.

1 programme increasingly shifted the debate i n t o

1920s. T h e y revived at the end o f that decade: o l d tendencies

tional architecture may very effectively produce features that

bolastic disputations about formulae and d e f m i -

and schools were resurrected, and new ones developed as part of

are i n i t i a l l y uniquely national, b u t are subsequently adopted

the grant of autonomy to former colonial peoples stimulated an

;laring that the Gonstructivist and Rationalist

a move to revert as far as possible to the architectural heritage.

by other nations.

intense g r o w t h o f national cultures and thereby - apparently

The part played by international features i n Soviet architecture grew sharply after the October Revolution. T h i s was al-

T h e Soviet creation o f U n i o n Republics equal i n rank and

quite inevitably - led to the r e b i r t h of certain national architect u r a l forms.

ready obvious i n T a t l i n ' s Monument to the Third International, i n

I n these circumstances, recourse to t r a d i t i o n a l national

1919-20, and remained true o f Rationalist and Constructivist

forms d i d not necessarily i m p l y inherent professional conser-

designs. Pride of place, i n this sense, goes to the Soviet pavilion

vativism on the part o f an architect. T r a d i t i o n a l f o r m s , for i n -

at the Paris I n t e r n a t i o n a l E x h i b i t i o n i n 1925. I t stood out

stance, often acted as symbols of national prestige. T h e 1923

among the m a j o r i t y o f other national pavilions, whose de-

M o s c o w A g r i c u l t u r a l and H a n d i c r a f t E x h i b i t i o n p r o v i d e d v i -

signers had rehed on a stylized approach to the heritage of their

v i d illustrations o f this: the pavilions o f K i r g i z i a , Turkestan,

past, by the way i n w h i c h i t highlighted the innovative nature

Azerbaidzhan, A r m e n i a , Georgia, T a r t a r y , the C r i m e a and

ofits international image. T a t l i n ' s tower, M e l n i k o v ' s p a v i h o n

other republics, w i t h their t r a d i t i o n a l forms, spoke for local ar-

and many other designs by Soviet architects of that period were

chitecture by their appearance and represented original archi-

greeted by progressive architects abroad as the n a t u r a l expres-

tectural exhibits i n an attractive display of i n d i v i d u a l local cul-

sion of the international nature o f the world's first sociahst ar-

t u r a l features. B u t difficulties arose w h e n t r a d i t i o n a l local

chitecture. T h e y influenced the i n t e r n a t i o n a l development of

the new architecture.
As compared w i t h the past, however, the balance between

forms were picked as a basis for the development o f a national

architecture, especially w h e n such forms harked back to some
h i g h p o i n t o f architecture i n the past.

national and international elements i n Soviet architecture

T h e quest for national styles w h i c h began d u r i n g early So-

changed i n the 1920s. W i t h i n the stylistic u n i t y o f t h e new ar-

viet times reached its peak i n the m i d - 1920s. T h e new architec-

chitecture the designers undoubtedly reflected features proper

ture had so far made no headway i n a number o f republics and

to their nationality, not to be f o u n d elsewhere. Thus i f one com-

left the field free for traditionahst trends d r a w i n g on the past.

pares the works o f Alexander Vesnin, Ladovsky, M e l n i k o v ,

Wherever groups of trained architects existed locally, trends o f

Leonidov or I l y a Golosov w i t h those o f their contemporaries

this sort usually burgeoned i n t o schools w i t h explicit theoreti-

abroad, one is struck by the specifically Russian character o f

cal programmes. A t the end o f the 1920s and start of the 1930s,

their output, despite the dehberate internationahsm w h i c h was

the r a p i d spread o f the new architecture to cities and repubhcs

one of the most marked features o f Soviet architecture d u r i n g

t h r o u g h o u t the Soviet U n i o n led to an increasingly bitter clash

that period.

between the upholders of the various national styles and the i n novators. T h e professional support o f Moscow and L e n i n g r a d
architects proved very i m p o r t a n t i n the course o f this conffict.

The search for a'national'style

Schools o f modern architecture developed d u r i n g the 1920s

i n extremely adverse conditions due to: the widely d i f f e r i n g lev-

^etween 1917 and 1934, the innovative movement had to con-

els of local traditions and degrees of development; a shortage o f

nd not only w i t h Classicism, b u t also w i t h stylization ' i n the

trained architects; the d o m i n a n t position occupied by eclecti-

240
^3

Part I / A e s t h e t i c problems o f design

Pavilions o f t h e N a t i o n a l R e p u b l i c s at the

Agricultural and H a n d i c r a f t E x h i b i t i o n , M o s c o w ,
1923. T o p , l e f t to r i g h t : T u r k m e n i a n ( b y S h e k h t e l ) ,
ICirgizian, T a t a r , A r m e n i a n ( b y B u n y a t o v ) . B e l o w ;
Crimean ( b y G i n z b u r g ) , A z e r b a i d z h a n i ( b y
Syryshchev), a n d G e o r g i a n .

cism and stylization; and the still r u d i m e n t a r y approach w i t h -

T h e Constructivists were the most consistent i n following

i n the new architecture to problems of art i n composition. I t

this policy both i n theory and practice. G i n z b u r g , for instance,

was not only a matter of overcoming eclecticism and ' n a t i o n a l '

based his design for the C r i m e a n Republic pavihon at the 1923

stylization, but also of surviving the i n i t i a l reaction to the i n t r o -

Moscow E x h i b i t i o n on a t r a d i t i o n a l T a t a r dwelling, while Fe-

duction o f t h e new architecture, w h i c h was apt to be regarded

dor Shekhtel modelled his T u r k e s t a n pavihon on a medieval

as an attempt to get r i d of distinctive national features. A new

mausoleum, N i k o l a i B u n y a t o v on a local shrine f o r Armenia

national architecture could only be created w i t h i n the general

and Y a k o v Syryshchev on mosques and palaces f o r Azerbaid-

innovative f r a m e w o r k after all the f u n c t i o n a l , structural and

zhan.

compositional aspects involved had been clearly worked out.

T h e best insight i n t o the Gonstructivist attitude towards the

A new architecture d i d develop i n the national republics

role of national and international factors i n modern architec-

d u r i n g the period under review, but this process was h a r d l y

ture is afforded by the buildings designed for the various repub-

completed anywhere and was arrested early i n the 1930s at var-

lics by leading Constructivists, such as those provided by the

ious stages of evolution. T h e entire process may be d i v i d e d i n t o

Vesnins i n B a k u and by G i n z b u r g i n A l m a - A t a .

three broadly equal phases, each lasting some f o u r to six years,

i n so far as m a n y republics are concerned. I n the first stage,
while the Soviets were still f i g h t i n g to establish themselves i n

'National' style and new architecture

m a n y areas of the country, eclecticism and stylized historical

in Azerbaidzhan

traditions ruled. T h e second phase, i n 1923-28, witnessed an

intensive search for national styles based on local architectural

I n the mid-1920s, architecture i n Azerbaidzhan was ruled by

traditions. W h e n the t h i r d phase was reached at the t u r n o f t h e

traditionahsm based on the fifteenth-century Shirvan school

decade, innovative trends gradually estabhshed themselves i n

T h e Sabunchinsky r a i l w a y station i n B a k u , designed by Niko-

the republics, and modern national schools of architecture took

lai Baev i n 1926, represents the centrepiece o f this national

shape. These developments h a d been prepared

throughout

style, i n w h i c h such 'eastern' elements as lanceolate arches,

the 1920s by theoretical studies concerning the existence and

peshtaks or ornamental portals, domes and pendants were wide-

nature of international and national factors i n modern archi-

ly used.

tecture, and by the t r a i n i n g of young architects for the republics.

By the t u r n of this deqade, however, the new architecture

had gained the upper hand. Its followers designed buildings
that were modern i n p l a n , composition and appearance, but
tried to take account of local environmental and social charac-

Innovators and the problems raised

by national and international considerations

teristics.
T h e Workers' Clubs b u i l t i n B a k u and its surroundings from
designs by the Vesnins are typical i n this respect. They are laid

T h e innovative architects d i d not deny that the national aspect

out as a set of pavilions and occupy a complete block, with an

of architecture needed to be explored. B u t w h i l e the protago-

internal courtyard or deep forecourt. T h e i r spatial organiza-

nists o f ' n a t i o n a l styles' sought to d r a w on historical forms, the

t i o n is complex and they are organically integrated into their

innovators m a i n l y took account o f t h e local way of life, climate

surroundings by means of galleries, open terraces, loggias and

and environment. T h e y rejected, as a matter of principle, ar-

balconies.

chitectural forms associated i n the past w i t h the r u l i n g classes

A whole series o f large public buildings i n Baku were de-

and religion, because they believed that progressive national

signed i n the spirit o f t h e new architecture d u r i n g the late 1920s

traditions were more accurately reflected i n popular b u i l d i n g

and early 1930s, such as the Press Palace by Semyen Pen, food

work, less i n its ornamentation than i n its adaptation to local

factories by Sadykh Dadashev, M i k a e l Useinov and Konstan-

circumstances, such as climate and l i v i n g conditions, and i n its

t i n Senchikhin, and some fine school complexes.

spatial organization.

KHppecnyenHKM.

3 . H a H/ibOK

' ( a i [;Ci.ny6imh.

4. RaaHn

649-50

Vesnin brothers. A Workers' C l u b ,

S u r a k h i n , B a k u , 1928. Side e l e v a t i o n ( 6 4 9 ) . P l a n
(650).

244
653

D a d a s h e v a n d U s e i n o v . M a s s l i i t c h e n , Balcu,

1930.
654

U d a l e n k o v . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r t h e Palace o f

L a b o u r , A s h k h a b a d , 1927. P e r s p e c t i v e .
655

U d a l e n k o v . C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r a theatre,

656

V e g m a n . Design for a theatre, Samarkand.

658

G u r e v - G u r e v i c h . De

Axonometric view.

Post, T e l e g r a p h a n d Tele)

657

Perspective.

L e o n i d o v . C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r the

Kazakhstan Government House, A l m a - A t a , 1927-28.

Axonometric view.

M e r v , 1926. P e r s p e c t i v e .

HEPEj

658
656
lass k i t c h e n , B a k u ,
l e s i g n f o r the Palace o f
.pective.
design f o r a t h e a t r e .

V e g m a n . Design f o r a theatre, Samarkand.

Axonometric view.
657

G u r e v - G u r e v i c h . D e s i g n f o r the C e n t r a l A s i a

659

Gurev-Gurevich and Solomonov. Competition

Post, T e l e g r a p h a n d T e l e p h o n e O f f i c e . E l e v a t i o n .

design for the K a z a k h s t a n G o v e r n m e n t House, A l m a

Perspective.

A t a , 1927-28. Perspective.

L e o n i d o v . C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r the

660

Kazakhstan Government House, A l m a - A t a , 1927-28.

Polupanov. Uzbekistan Government Building,

T a s h k e n t , 1931.

Axonometric view.

nCPCnEKTHBA.

246
661

Chernyavsky. Mass kitchen, Tashkent,

663

Polupanov. Housing C o m m u n e , Tashkent, 1931.

665-66

D w e l l i n g blocks composed o f standardi:

1930-33.

Axonometric view o f front r o w of buildings.

h o u s i n g u n i t s f o r e r e c t i o n i n u n p o p u l a t e d areas of

662

664

Central Asia. Models.

1931.

Polupanov. Housing Commune, Tashkent

Polupanov. Housing Commune,

1929-30. Axonometric view.

Samarkand,

667

K a l m y k o v . M u l t i - s t o r e y stepped d w e l l i n g bl

f o r e a r t h q u a k e areas i n C e n t r a l A s i a , M o d e l s .

247

rashkent,

663

P o l u p a n o v . H o u s i n g C o m m u n e , T a s h k e n t , 1931.

Axonometric view of front row o f buildings.

, Tashkent,

664

Polupanov. Housing C o m m u n e ,

1929-30. Axonometric view.

Samarkand,

665-66

D w e l h n g blocks composed o f standardized

668

K a l m y k o v . Development of i n d u s t r i a l settlement

h o u s i n g u n i t s f o r e r e c t i o n i n u n p o p u l a t e d areas o f

b y m e a n s o f v a r i o u s types o f d w e l l i n g s . M o d e l s h o w i n g

Central Asia. Models.

p l a n o f w h o l e site.

667

K a l m y k o v , M u l t i - s t o r e y stepped d w e l l i n g blocks

f o r e a r t h q u a k e areas i n C e n t r a l A s i a . M o d e l s .

669

K a l m y k o v . T e r r a c e d d e v e l o p m e n t o f h i l l y areas

of Central Asia. Model.

67071

Types of dweUings f o r K i r g i z i a n nomads i n

672

R e s i d e n t i a l area w i t h v a r i o u s types o f d w e l l i n g s

t h e process o f b e c o m i n g s e t d e d . E l e v a t i o n s . Sections.

for formerly nomadic Kirgizians. Model,

Plans. M o d e l s .

673

R e s i d e n t i a l area f o r f o r m e r l y n o m a d i c K i r g i z i a n s .

Model.

fi74-75 B u n i n a n d K r u g l o v a . E x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n o f
rraced houses i n treeless areas o f K a z a k h s t a n ,
1 9 M - 3 0 - P l a n , section ( 6 7 4 ) , F r o n t a l a x o n o m e t r i c
view (675),

ian n o m a d s i n

672

ons. Sections.

for formerly nomadic Kirgizians. Model.

673

R e s i d e n t i a l area w i t h v a r i o u s t y p e s o f d w e l l i n g s
R e s i d e n t i a l area f o r f o r m e r l y n o m a d i c K i r g i z i a n s .

Model.

g74_75

B u n i n a n d K r u g l o v a . E x p e r i m e n t a l design o f

terraced houses i n treeless areas o f K a z a k h s t a n ,

jg29_30. Plan, section (674). F r o n t a l axonometric
view ( 6 7 5 ) .

250
676

Dyachenko. Agrochemical Institute o f t h e

Agricultural Academy, Kiev,

677

1927-30.

Aleshin. Housing complex, K i e v ,

1928-30.

251

al I n s t i t u t e o f tlie
678

1927-30.
:x, K i e v ,

1928-30.

M i l i n i s . Student design done i n Aleshin's studio,

o f a M u s e u m o f t h e R e v o l u t i o n , K i e v , 1927.
Perspective.
679

M i h n i s . A club, Rakovka, Kiev.

680

M i h n i s . Student design for a r a i l w a y station,

1926. E l e v a t i o n .

Perspective.

684

Panteleimon Golosov. C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r the

Post O f f i c e , K h a r k o v , 1928. A x o n o m e t r i c v i e w .

2:A
686

T a m a n y a n , B u i l d i n g o f the People's

689

A l a b y a n a n d M a z m a n y a n . T h e so-called

Commissariat for Agriculture, Erevan, 1927-28.

' C h e s s b o a r d ' H o u s i n g B l o c k , E r e v a n , 1930.

Detail.

690

687-88

M a z m a n y a n . Design for a theatre i n Erevan,

A l a b y a n and M a z m a n y a n . Housing C o m m u n e ,

1930. M o d e l .

V k h u t e m a s , A l e x a n d e r V e s n i n ' s s t u d i o , 1927.

691

Perspective (687). A x o n o m e t r i c section (688).

K a f a n s e t t l e m e n t , 1929. M o d e l .

M a z m a n y a n . D e s i g n f o r the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the

T'gg

Alabyan, Kochar and Mazmanyan, Building

7 .='Club Erevan, 1929-31, Exterior of building

25,5
689
1927-28.
jtre i n Erevan,
1927.

A l a b y a n a n d M a z m a n y a n . T h e so-called

692-93

Alabyan, Kochar and Mazmanyan. Building

694

A l a b y a n , K o c h a r a n d M a z m a n y a n , w i t h the

' C h e s s b o a r d ' H o u s i n g B l o c k , E r e v a n , 1930.

Workers' C l u b , Erevan, 1 9 2 9 - 3 1 . Exterior of building

s c u l p t o r S a r k i s y a n , C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r the

690

(692), I n t e r i o r o f h a l l ( 6 9 3 ) ,

S h a u m y a n M o n u m e n t , E r e v a n , 1925. M o d e l ,

Alabyan and Mazmanyan. Housing Commune,

1930, M o d e l ,
691

M a z m a n y a n , Design f o r the development o f t h e

K a f a n s e t d e m e n t , 1929, M o d e l ,

695-96

K o c h a r . D z e r z h i n s k y C l u b , E r e v a n , 1934.

Exterior (695). Detail (696).

697

Kochar, M a z m a n y a n , M a r k a r y a n , Safaryan.

C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r t h e Palace o f L a b o u r , E r e v a n ,
1933. M o d e l .
698

K o c h a r . Design for the C i t y Soviet a n d

C o m m u n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s B u i l d i n g , L e n i n a k a n , 1930.
Perspective. T h i s b u i l d i n g was s u b s e q u e n t l y c a r r i e d
out w i t h the a d d i t i o n of external

decorations.

The Central Asian Republics

Alexander Udalenkov's 1926 competition entries for a hospital

in Samarkand and a theatre i n M e r v provide the most representative examples of the search i n the Central Asian Repubhcs for a national style centring on t r a d i t i o n , w i t h characteristically medieval Islamic forms derived f r o m mosques,
madrasahs, mausoleums and caravanserais.
Competitions for the design of large p u b h c buildings, i n
which Moscow architects took part, d i d m u c h to spread a
knowledge o f t h e new architecture's principles i n this area. T h e
Government House of the K a z a k h Repubhc i n A l m a - A t a , for
instance, was b u i l t f r o m Ginzburg's p r i z e w i n n i n g project. N e w
architectural methods were apphed to the p l a n and o u t w a r d
appearance of a b u i l d i n g w h i c h makes no concessions whatsoever to archaism. O n the other hand, G i n z b u r g took careful
account of local environmental factors and t r a d i t i o n a l ways of
life. The component elements o f t h e Government House are arranged around a small central courtyard and garden, while traditional khauz - basins w i t h fountains - are sited among vegetation i n the antechamber of the meeting h a l l and on the flat
roofs.
I n Uzbekistan, Stepan Polupanov successfully applied new
architectural methods i n Tashkent d u r i n g the 1920s and 1930s.
Viktor K a l m y k o v ' s C e n t r a l A s i a n designs at the beginning o f
the 1930s are also of considerable interest. A resident of Tashkent, he attended Ladovsky's and Dokuchaev's

studios

at

Vkhutemas, graduated i n 1930 and concentrated d u r i n g the

next few years on problems of p l a n n i n g and b u i l d i n g towns, v i l lages and settlements i n Central Asia, w h i l e also w o r k i n g on
competition entries and experimental projects. He strove to
take into account differences i n chmatic conditions, terrain,
economic activity and local b u i l d i n g materials encountered i n
various parts of this area.
Kalmykov suggested the construction of standard two-storey dwelhng units, w i t h the upper level used for summer habitation, i n lower-lying, seismically active areas. These units
could be combined i n variously shaped complexes, enclosing
yards provided w i t b fountains and sheltered f r o m the w i n d ,
which w o u l d occupy the bulk o f t h e settlement areas i n industrial sites. T h e i r density w o u l d increase towards the centre of
each site, where buildings five to eight storeys high, b u i l t on a
cruciform plan and w i t h a stepped profile, w o u l d be concen-

Chapter 7/The problem of nationalism and internationalism

697

Kochar, M a z m a n y a n , M a r k a r y a n , Safaryan.

C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r the P a l a c e o f L a b o u r , E r e v a n ,
1933. M o d e l .
698

K o c h a r . D e s i g n f o r the C i t y S o v i e t a n d

C o m m u n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s B u i l d i n g , L e n i n a k a n , 1930.
Perspective. T h i s b u i l d i n g was subsequently carried
o u t w i t h the a d d i t i o n o f external decorations.

The Central Asian Republics

trated. T h i s spatial composition, i n w h i c h the stepped elements acted as buttresses, was dictated by seismic considera-

Alexander Udalenkov's 1926 competition entries for a hospital

tions.

i n Samarkand and a theatre i n M e r v provide the most re-

For h i l l y areas, K a l m y k o v designed terraced dweUings i n a

presentative examples o f the search i n the C e n t r a l Asian Re-

number o f versions depending on the gradient. For areas con-

pubhcs f o r a national style centring on t r a d i t i o n , w i t h charac-

t a i n i n g large numbers of nomads, such as K i r g i z i a , he promot-

teristically medieval Islamic forms derived f r o m mosques,

ed special types of dwellings based on a r o u n d p l a n , f o r the use

madrasahs, mausoleums and caravanserais.

of populations that were ceasing to be nomadic, but still re-

Competitions for the design of large p u b l i c buildings, i n

which Moscow architects took part, d i d m u c h to spread a

quired the i n t e r n a l spatial organization to w h i c h they had been

accustomed i n their transportable huts,

oryurts.

knowledge of the new architecture's principles i n this area. T h e

A n d r e i B u n i n and M a r i y a K r u g l o v a produced an experi-

Government House o f the K a z a k h Republic i n A l m a - A t a , for

mental design i n 1929-30 consisting o f blocks o f two-storey

instance, was b u i l t f r o m Ginzburg's p r i z e w i n n i n g project. N e w

dwellings

architectural methods were apphed to the plan and o u t w a r d

thatched straw or reed roofs, intended as temporary new ac-

appearance o f a b u i l d i n g w h i c h makes no concessions what-

c o m m o d a t i o n for use i n the timberless parts o f Kazakhstan.

with

prefabricated

standard

party

walls

and

soever to archaism. O n the other hand, G i n z b u r g took careful

account o f local environmental factors and t r a d i t i o n a l ways o f
life. The component elements o f t h e Government House are ar-

Ukrainian Neo-Baroque and the new architecture

ranged around a small central courtyard and garden, while traditional khauz - basins w i t h fountains - are sited among vegeta-

A bitter struggle between traditionalists and innovators devel-

tion i n the antechamber o f the meeting hall and on the flat

oped d u r i n g the first h a l f o f the 1920s i n the U k r a i n e where,

roofs.

among various other forms o f eclecticism and stylization, a

I n Uzbekistan, Stepan Polupanov successfully apphed new

trend emerged w i t h the declared a i m of creating a U k r a i n i a n

architectural methods i n Tashkent d u r i n g the 1920s and 1930s.

style. Its adherents suggested that this should be based upon

Viktor K a l m y k o v ' s Central Asian designs at the beginning o f

the traditions o f seventeenth and eighteenth-century U k r a i n -

the 1930s are also o f considerable interest. A resident o f Tash-

i a n Baroque w h i c h , so they claimed, most closely reflected the

kent, he attended Ladovsky's and Dokuchaev's studios at

essential

Vkhutemas, graduated i n 1930 and concentrated d u r i n g the

D m i t r y Dyachenko, the ideological leader o f U k r a i n i a n Neo-

next few years on problems of p l a n n i n g and b u i l d i n g towns, v i l -

Baroque, for the Forestry Faculty b u i l d i n g o f the K i e v A g r i -

features o f U k r a i n i a n architecture. A design b y

lages and settlements i n Central Asia, while also w o r k i n g on

c u l t u r a l Academy erected i n 1925-27, came to embody the

competition entries and experimental projects. H e strove to

f u n d a m e n t a l principles o f this trend. T h e intricately fashioned

take into account differences i n chmatic conditions, terrain,

central 'pediment' employed elements taken f r o m U k r a i n i a n

economic activity and local b u i l d i n g materials encountered i n

Baroque - volutes, cornices, pediments, capitals and stucco

various parts o f this area.

ornaments. Dyachenko went on to b u i l d the I n s t i t u t e o f A g r i -

Kalmykov suggested the construction o f standard two-sto-

c u l t u r a l Chemistry i n 1927-30.

rey dwelhng units, w i t h the upper level used for summer habi-

Somewhat belatedly, Symbolist Romanticist elements ap-

tation, i n lower-lying, seismically active areas. These units

pear i n U k r a i n i a n architecture, o w i n g to a determination to su-

could be combined i n variously shaped complexes, enclosing

perimpose plastic ornamentation vaguely reminiscent o f Ba-

yards provided w i t h fountains and sheltered f r o m the w i n d ,

roque on buildings conceived i n a contemporary mode. Such

which would occupy the b u l k o f t h e settlement areas i n indus-

attempts are directly derived f r o m T a t h n ' s experiments and

trial sites. Their density w o u l d increase towards the centre o f

f r o m E r i c h Mendelsohn's Expressionism - as, for instance, i n

each site, where buildings five to eight storeys h i g h , b u i l t on a

I g n a t y M i l i n i s ' 1927 project f o r a M u s e u m o f t h e Revolution,

cruciform plan and w i t h a stepped profile, w o u l d be concen-

where a semicircular hall flanks a stepped component w h i c h

258
Part I/Aesthetic problems o f design

spirals upwards to a rounded element placed at the corner of

the complex and surmounted by a dome. Milinis was also
working at this time on the design of a club on the Rakovka in
Kiev which also displays Expressionist influence.
The Ukrainian style achieved the height of its influence in
Kiev, where numerous monuments embodied the principles of
Ukrainian Baroque. Rationalism and Constructivism, however, with which young architects and students became famihar
through periodicals and books published in Moscow, also
made themselves felt, as a student project by Milinis in 1926 for
a railway station, produced under the influence of designs published in Ginzburg's Style and Epoch, characteristically shows.
Building work boomed in Kharkov, the capital of the
Ukraine until 1934, and the impact ofthe new architecture was
already perceptible there by the mid-1920s. The competition
for the Gosprom building in 1925 played an important part i n
this, as well as the subsequent construction work on the project
submitted by Serafimov, Mark Felger and Samuil Kravets.
The working drawings for it had been prepared under Kravets'
supervision by a group of local architects and students.
The latter were siding with the new architecture with increasing dedication by the second half of the 1920s. I n 1927,
Ivan Malozemov, Milinis and Yakov Shteinberg collaborated
in a Constmctivist project - which was carried out - for a
Builders' Club. Mikola Kholostenko produced interesting
work in Kiev inspired by the new architecture, such as his design for a cinema. The young innovators formed a nucleus to
promote the new trend in Ukrainian architecture, and in 1928
they founded the Union of Contemporary Architects of the
Ukraine - OsaU - with branches in Kharkov, Kiev and Odessa.
This was the only innovative association in the Ukraine and
united all the supporters ofthe new architecture, mainly on a
Constructivist basis.
Creative discussion developed towards the end of the 1920s
concerning the further development of Soviet architecture
within the Repubhc. I t involved the publication of a multitude
of articles in periodicals, arguments about Arkady Mordvinov's entry for the Kharkov Post Office competition, a debate
in 1929 i n Kiev about a national style, and so on. The accompanying struggle against the rebirth of Baroque ended with victory for the innovators, who were then joined by a number of
experienced architects - among them Pavel Aleshin and Viktor
Trotsenko - who had earher sought to assimilate tradition or

searched for a national style. By the turn of the decade,

Workers' Clubs, industrial buildings, communal houses and
dwelHng complexes were being erected in the Ukraine in accordance with innovative designs.

The Neo-Armenian style

and the new architectural
movement in Armenia

The struggle in Armenia between traditionalists and innovators during the 1920s was relevant to the outcome of architectural experimentation throughout the Soviet Union at this time.
I n the mid-1920s, a traditionalist trend produced a Neo-Armenian style, with Alexander Tamanyan as its chief promotor.
Tamanyan had made great use ofthe Russian Classicist tradition in his pre-Revolutionary work, but when he came to study
local monuments and the methods used by ancient Armenian
architects, he was led to conclude that traditional local forms
and decorations should be merged with Classical and, above
all, Russian Classicist, methods of composition in order to impart to the new Armenian architecture the enlarged scale demanded by modern circumstances. This became the basic concept of the Neo-Armenian style, the governing principles of
which were stated in the design for the Narkomzem (People's
Commissariat for Agriculture) built in 1927-28 and reflected
in the general composition ofthe Government House complex
in 1939-41. I n the Narkomzem building, Tamanyan's model
for the Neo-Armenian style, the ancient Armenian forms may
be said to have been filtered through Classicism. An integrated
artistic system resulted, in which modified traditional forms
became elements in a Classicist composition. This style became dominant in Armenia from 1926, but in 1928-29 a fierce
debate developed there concerning the further development of
architecture. A group of young architects led by some talented
Vkhutemas graduates - Mikhail Mazmanyan, Gevorg Kochar
and Karo Alabyan - sharply attacked the Neo-Armenian style.
They set up innovative projects adapted to local requirements
in opposition to the traditionahst approach of Tamanyan and
his foUowers.
Guided by Ladovsky, Alexander Vesnin and Ilya Golosov,
these young architects attempted while they were sdll at Vkhutemas to discover ways of organically combining the principles

of the new architecture with local features characteristic

their repubhc, such as Mazmanyan's designs for a theatre
Erevan and dwelling houses in Armenia. These young a r d
tects collected a sizeable team about them as they clashed wi,
the supporters of the Neo-Armenian style. These clashes i
volved debates about national architecture, articles in perio(
cals and public arguments about current projects. The inno\
tors organized the Opra of Armenia, the only grouping unitl
all the supporters ofthe new architecture in the repubhc.
An innovative national architectural school soon took sha
in Armenia and was already setting the tone there by 1929.
tenets were formulated by Mazmanyan and published in ai
cles by him in 1928-29. These articles also stated the inno'
tors' position with regard to the relation between national a
international factors in architecture. While Mazman^
sharply criticized the theory and practice ofthe Neo-Armen
style he also stressed the need to study the methods used*
earher masters, so as to create modern works with an imp
equal to that of monuments ofthe past.
The young innovative architects beheved that the prodi
of local vernacular building work, which took account of ev.
day requirements, dictated by the way of life and the chm^
approximated more closely to contemporary needs than eai
religious monuments. They therefore integrated the princi
involved into their own work, so that we find a character
distribution of deep-set loggias in the 'checquerboard' bloc
flats in Erevan; the project for a communal dwelhng incor
ating complex spatial solutions (such as overhanging terr
means of access at varying levels etc) which evoked distan
sociations with multi-terraced mountain viUages, and a si

259
Chapter 7/The problem of nationalism and internationalism
lesign

ounded element placed at the corner of

mounted by a dome. Milinis was also
n the design of a club on the Rakovka in
lys Expressionist influence,
e achieved the height of its influence i n
i monuments embodied the principles of
.ationalism and Constructivism, howevirchitects and students became familiar
md books published in Moscow, also
is a student project by Mihnis in 1926 for
uced under the influence of designs pub'\tyle and Epoch, characteristically shows.
)med in Kharkov, the capital of the
d the impact ofthe new architecture was
ere by the mid-1920s. The competition
ing in 1925 played an important part in
iequent construction work on the project
OV, Mark Felger and Samuil Kravets.
for it had been prepared under Kravets'
3 of local architects and students,
ing with the new architecture with in
f the second half of the 1920s. I n 1927,
inis and Yakov Shteinberg collaborated
oject - which was carried out - for a
)la Kholostenko produced interesting
by the new architecture, such as his de
; young innovators formed a nucleus to
1 in Ukrainian architecture, and in 1928
ion of Contemporary Architects of the
I branches in Kharkov, Kiev and Odessa,
ovative association in the Ukraine and
rs of the new architecture, mainly on a
developed towards the end ofthe 1920s
;r development of Soviet architecture
t involved the pubhcation of a multitude
als, arguments about Arkady Mordviarkov Post Office competition, a debate
a national style, and so on. The accomist the rebirth of Baroque ended with vici, who were then joined by a number of
- among them Pavel Aleshin and Viktor
earlier sought to assimilate tradition or

searched for a national style. By the turn of the decade.

Workers' Clubs, industrial buildings, communal houses and
dwelling complexes were being erected in the Ukraine in accordance with innovative designs.

The Neo-Armenian style

and the new architectural
movement in Armenia

The struggle in Armenia between traditionalists and innovators during the 1920s was relevant to the outcome of architectural experimentation throughout the Soviet Union at this time.
I n the mid-1920s, a traditionalist trend produced a Neo-Armenian style, with Alexander Tamanyan as its chief promotor.
Tamanyan had made great use ofthe Russian Classicist tradition in his pre-Revolutionary work, but when he came to study
local monuments and the methods used by ancient Armenian
architects, he was led to conclude that traditional local forms
and decorations should be merged with Classical and, above
all, Russian Classicist, methods of composition in order to impart to the new Armenian architecture the enlarged scale demanded by modern circumstances. This became the basic concept of the Neo-Armenian style, the governing principles of
which were stated in the design for the Narkomzem (People's
Commissariat for Agriculture) built in 1927-28 and reflected
in the general composition ofthe Government House complex
in 1939-41. I n the Narkomzem building, Tamanyan's model
for the Neo-Armenian style, the ancient Armenian forms may
be said to have been filtered through Classicism. An integrated
artistic system resulted, in which modified traditional forms
became elements in a Classicist composition. This style became dominant in Armenia from 1926, but in 1928-29 a fierce
debate developed there concerning the further development of
architecture. A group of young architects led by some talented
Vkhutemas graduates - Mikhail Mazmanyan, Gevorg Kochar
and Karo Alabyan - sharply attacked the Neo-Armenian style.
They set up innovative projects adapted to local requirements
in opposition to the traditionahst approach of Tamanyan and
his followers.
Guided by Ladovsky, Alexander Vesnin and Ilya Golosov,
these young architects attempted while they were still at Vkhutemas to discover ways of organically combining the principles

of the new architecture with local features characteristic of

their republic, such as Mazmanyan's designs for a theatre in
Erevan and dwelling houses in Armenia. These young architects collected a sizeable team about them as they clashed with
the supporters of the Neo-Armenian style. These clashes involved debates about national architecture, articles in periodicals and pubhc arguments about current projects. The innovators organized the Opra of Armenia, the only grouping uniting
ah the supporters of the new architecture in the republic.
An innovative national architectural school soon took shape
in Armenia and was already setting the tone there by 1929. Its
tenets were formulated by Mazmanyan and pubhshed in articles by him in 1928-29. These articles also stated the innovators' position with regard to the relation between national and
international factors in architecture. While Mazmanyan
sharply criticized the theory and practice ofthe Neo-Armenian
style, he also stressed the need to study the methods used by
earlier masters, so as to create modern works with an impact
equal to that of monuments ofthe past.
The young innovative architects beheved that the products
of local vernacular building work, which took account of everyday requirements, dictated by the way of life and the chmate,
approximated more closely to contemporary needs than earlier
religious monuments. They therefore integrated the principles
involved into their own work, so that we find a characteristic
distnbution of deep-set loggias i n the 'checquerboard' block of
flats in Erevan; the project for a communal dwelling incorporating complex spatial solutions (such as overhanging terraces,
means of access at varying levels etc) which evoked distant associations with multi-terraced mountain viUages, and a skilful

exploitation ofthe steep gradient in the Kafan village project in

order to create unusual multi-storey stepped houses in which
every apartment had a door giving directly on to the street,
while all the rooms lay on the same level.
By the late 1920s and early 1930s, these architects had produced a mass of designs for dwellings. Workers' Clubs, hospitals, industrial buildings. Houses of Soviets, administrative estabhshments, rest houses, and so on, many of which were carried out. Most of these projects did not go beyond the elementary stages ofthe new architecture. A number of works, however - especially those by Mazmanyan, Kochar and Alabyan,
who often worked jointly or in pairs - were already clearly
characteristic ofthe newly emergent Armenian school. I t is significant that the latter consisted of local architects whose leaders had adopted the new architecture when they were students.
They were thoroughly familiar with the local approach, but
launched straight into innovative work and rejected the stylized exploitation of traditional forms from the start.
The output ofthe innovative school of architecture in Armenia at the turn of the decade can be regarded as one ofthe first
successful attempts to develop a modern national approach, in
which local traditions and the development of innovative resources and techniques were integrally combined. The development of this school was, however, interrupted at an early
stage, when Tamanyan's Neo-Armenian style again emerged
as dominant. Its fundamental principles and, in particular, the
combination of Classical compositional methods with traditional national forms and decoration, were also to exert much
influence on the architecture of other republics during the
1930s.

260

Innovation and tradition debates of tlie early 1930s

Organizational reconstruction

Changing objectives

Some important successes were scored in major Soviet and international competitions by the innovators early i n the 1930s,
with designs such as those for theatres in Rostov-on-Don,
Kharkov and Sverdlovsk. Even though the disputes among the
various trends had not abated, a wish was clearly emerging
among them for the consolidation of all innovative tendencies
and schools within a single creative movement. But the standards of argument deteriorated sharply when the Vopra followers shifted the debate from questions of art to hostihties between groups.
The control foisted on architecture and the polemical tactics
used by part of the Vopra leadership proved counterproductive. They defeated the well-meant efforts of its rank-and-file
towards greater ideological soundness in the new architecture,
and induced instead a state of chaos among architectural innovators, while leaders and thinkers in other groups tried to unite
all architects within one common organization.
A new umbrella organization called the All-Union Architectural Scientific Society Vano was founded in May 1930. The
pre-existing architectural groups such as Osa, which had now
converted itself into the Sector of Architects for Socialist Construction, Sass; Asnova; Mao; A R U , and others, now became
Sectors of its Moscow regional section, Movano. This consolidation of the various groups into Vano was, however, held up
at the beginning of the 1930s by the unrelenting hostilities conducted by Vopra members with demagogic means similar to
those used by the supporters of Rapp in the field of literature.
Ultimately, party intervention in the cultural revolution which
had developed in the country became essential. The Central
Committee ofthe AU-Union Communist Party found it necessary to liquidate Rapp in a decree of 23 April 1932 'Concerning
the Reconstruction of Literary-Artistic Organizations' and to
'Unite all writers supporting the programme ofthe Soviet State
and anxious to participate in socialist construction in a single
Union of Soviet Writers, including a communist fraction.'^ I t
was proposed to carry out similar changes in other fields of art
as well.
The Union of Soviet Architects was created in July 1932 and
representatives of various existing architectural groupings
were elected to its directorate, among them Alabyan, Balikhin,
Ginzburg, Zholtovsky and Ladovsky.

1932 also marked a return towards the past in the work of many
architects. This is vividly illustrated by the entries for the four
rounds in the competition to design a Palace of Soviets in Moscow in 1931-32. The award of one ofthe first prizes in the second round to Zholtovsky's stylizing design, accompanied by a
wish, expressed in the nomination, for the use ofthe best Classical models, immediately affected the entries for the third
round and then the fourth. The leaders and active supporters of
Rationalism and Constructivism continued to submit designs
inspired by the principles of the new architecture throughout
the competition. Vopra supporters, on the other hand, and
those who had merely taken up the new architecture because
they wanted to be in the'fashion, submitted styhzing and eclecticist designs in the third and fourth rounds, very different in
spirit from the Leftist projects which they had entered for the
first and second rounds.
Generally speaking, the creative activity conducted by Soviet architects during the whole period under review virtually
embraced the entire spectrum of artistic problems and proceeded on a broad front. Included were, among all else, experiments with a new synthetic art; Symbohst forms; dynamic
compositions; complex constructions; elementary geometrical
volumes; the combination of different materials; new idioms;
and the functional justification of forms. By the end of this period, i n the early 1930s, intensive research by innovative architects had elaborated a compositional system for a new architecture, whereby solutions were put forward for the greatest possible variety of problems.
It would be incorrect, therefore, to hnk the change of course in
Soviet architecture at the start ofthe 1930s with any failure to
formulate the artistic problems facing an innovative movement
which, so it was claimed, had been insufficiently prepared for
the great model tasks which it had been called upon to solve. On
the contrary, the numerous works produced by the innovators
early in the 1930s in fact bear witness to the flowering ofthe new
architecture and the vast range of opportunities it offered for
dealing with an infinity of questions. Be that as it may, the centre
of gravity in Soviet architectural work gradually shifted during
the 1930s from a search for types of buildings that were new in
social terms, and for new forms, to the creation of monumental
compositions involving a generous use of traditional forms.

Vopra's fundamental position required that a

should be devoted first and foremost to the ideologic
lems of architecture as an art, and this, taken in isola
doubtedly answered the historical conditions and circ
ces of that time. However, even while they were cam
for a new artistic image, the more militant Vopra i
subjected to the most devastating critical attacks
those innovative architects who were alone in laying
dations for just such a new image - either, among Cc
vists, by a socially functional approach, or as Ration
formal aesthetic experiment. As a resuk, Vopra's q
new architectural image was ever more tenuously i
any objective rules governing the development of a n
tecture. Worse stl, the Vopra members actually cast
the entire direction taken by the new architecture thrc
root-and-branch rejection ofthe Rationahst and Com

contribution.
And so, when the change in aesthetic approach s|
the Palace of Soviets competition and the fate ofthe i,
tecture hung in the balance in the USSR, only the nj
innovators, such as Melnikov, Leonidov and Alexa
nin, could hold their own against Classicist mastei|
tovsky's and Ivan Fomin's cahbre. They wer
meantime, subjected to devastating criticism and pc
and were thus in no position to bring their fufl power
at this crucial moment in order to make plain the gr
potential ofthe new architecture.
The sharp change of direction in the Soviet arcf
the 1930s was primarily the result of an altered aest
rather than of any shortcomings i n the innovative, as
with traditionahst trend. Indeed, in purely professi
the innovative architects produced their most ac(
work at the start ofthe 1930s, while many ofthe 'ne
traditionalists were designing gutless eclectic com];
Except for Zholtovsky's House on the Mokhova
1932-34, with its row of large columns inspired b
Loggia Capitano in Vicenza, no other traditionafi
of true artistic worth were in fact erected by the mi
the majority of cases, 'decorative' bufldings pre
more than rather featureless stylization. Yet, durn
period, many of the best works of modern arch^
signed during the 1920s and the turn ofthe next (
coming into use every year: large buildings of a

261
Chapter 8/Innovation and tradition

inovation and tradition ebates of tlie early 1930s

onstruction

Changing objectives

It successes were scored in major Soviet and inipetitions by the innovators early i n the 1930s,
uch as those for theatres in Rostov-on-Don,
verdlovsk. Even though the disputes among the
had not abated, a wish was clearly emerging
r the consolidation of all innovative tendencies
thin a single creative movement. But the standnt deteriorated sharply when the Vopra followdebate from questions of art to hostihties be-

1932 also marked a return towards the past in the work of many
architects. This is vividly illustrated by the entries for the four
rounds in the competition to design a Palace of Soviets in Moscow in 1931-32. The award of one ofthe first prizes in the second round to Zholtovsky's stylizing design, accompanied by a
wish, expressed in the nomination, for the use ofthe best Classical models, immediately affected the entries for the third
round and then the fourth. The leaders and active supporters of
Rationahsm and Constructivism continued to submit designs
inspired by the principles of the new architecture throughout
the competition. Vopra supporters, on the other hand, and
those who had merely taken up the new architecture because
they wanted to be in the'fashion, submitted stylizing and eclecticist designs in the third and fourth rounds, very different in
spirit from the Leftist projects which they had entered for the
first and second rounds.
Generally speaking, the creative activity conducted by Soviet architects during the whole period under review virtually
embraced the entire spectrum of artistic problems and proceeded on a broad front. Included were, among aU else, experiments with a new synthetic art; Symbohst forms; dynamic
compositions; complex constructions; elementary geometrical
volumes; the combination of different materials; new idioms;
and the functional justification of forms. By the end of this period, in the early 1930s, intensive research by innovative architects had elaborated a compositional system for a new architecture, whereby solutions were put forward for the greatest possible variety of problems.
It would be incorrect, therefore, to hnk the change of course m
Soviet architecture at the start ofthe 1930s with any failure to
formulate the artistic problems facing an innovative movement
which, so it was claimed, had been insufficiently prepared for
the great model tasks which it had been called upon to solve. On
the contrary, the numerous works produced by the innovators
early in the 1930s in fact bear witness to the flowering ofthe new
architecture and the vast range of opportunities it offered for
deahng with an infinity of questions. Be that as it may, the centre
of gravity in Soviet architectural work gradually shifted during
the 1930s from a search for types of buildings that were new m
social terms, and for new forms, to the creation of monumenta
compositions involving a generous use of traditional forms.

foisted on architecture and the polemical tactics

f the Vopra leadership proved counterproduc;ated the weh-meant efforts of its rank-and-fde
r ideological soundness in the new architecture,
stead a state of chaos among architectural innoaders and thinkers in other groups tried to unite
/ithin one common organization,
eha organization called the All-Union ArchitecSociety-Vano-wasfounded in May 1930. The
chitectural groups such as Osa, which had now
f into the Sector of Architects for Sociahst Gon; Asnova; Mao; A R U , and others, now became
loscow regional section, Movano. This consoharious groups into Vano was, however, held up
ig of the 1930s by the unrelenting hostihties con)ra members with demagogic means similar to
the supporters of Rapp in the held of literature,
rty intervention in the cultural revolution which
. in the country became essential. The Central
the All-Union Communist Party found it neceste Rapp in a decree of 23 April 1932 'Concerning
ction of Literary-Artistic Organizations' and to
;rs supporting the programme ofthe Soviet State
) participate in socialist construction in a single
;t Writers, including a communist fraction.'' I t
to carry out similar changes in other fields of art
af Soviet Architects was created in July 1932 and
s of various existing architectural groupings
) its directorate, among them Alabyan, Balikhin,
jltovsky and Ladovsky.

Vopra's fundamental position required that attention

should be devoted first and foremost to the ideological problems of architecture as an art, and this, taken in isolation, undoubtedly answered the historical conditions and circumstances of that time. However, even while they were campaigning
for a new artistic image, the more mihtant Vopra members
subjected to the most devastating critical attacks precisely
those innovative architects who were alone i n laying the foundations for just such a new image - either, among Constructivists, by a socially functional approach, or as Rationalists, by
formal aesthetic experiment. As a result, Vopra's quest for a
new architectural image was ever more tenuously related to
any objective rules governing the development of a new architecture. Worse still, the Vopra members actually cast doubt on
the entire direction taken by the new architecture through their
root-and-branch rejection ofthe Rationahst and Constructivist
contribution.
And so, when the change in aesthetic approach set in after
the Palace of Soviets competition and the fate of the new architecture hung in the balance in the USSR, only the most gifted
innovators, such as Melnikov, Leonidov and Alexander Vesnin, could hold their own against Classicist masters of Zholtovsky's and Ivan Fomin's cahbre. They were, in the
meantime, subjected to devastating criticism and persecution,
and were thus in no position to bring their full powers into play
at this crucial moment i n order to make plain the great artistic
potential ofthe new architecture.

standard and excellent workmanship, among them the Rostovon-Don theatre by Shchuko and Gelfreikh in 1930-35; the
House of Project Organizations in Kharkov by Serafimov and
Zandberg-Serafimova in 1930-33; the Government House in
Minsk by Langbard in 1929-34; the Narkomzem (People's
Commissariat for Agriculture) building in Moscow by Shchusev in 1928-33; the Proletarsky District Palace of Culture in
Moscow by the Vesnin brothers in 1931-37; and the Pravda
combine in Moscow by Panteleimon Golosov in 1930-35.
But these buildings had virtually no influence on further
work. The changing aesthetic ideals meant that their quahty
went almost unnoticed by the majority of architects; indeed,
revulsion set in. This was well illustrated at the completion in
1934 of two brliantly designed buildings of radically different
conception: Zholtovsky's House on the Mokhovaya and Le
Corbusier's Tsentrosoyuz building. The merits of the latter
were no longer obvious to architects at large, whereas Zholtovsky's design attracted high praise in the professional press.
Both aesthetic ideals and critical standards had changed. The
innovative trends and schools which, and teachers who, had
been influential in the 1920s now gave way to traditionalism.
Artistic activity changed its direction and the herkage of the
past was intensively quarried.

The sharp change of direction in the Soviet architecture of

the 1930s was primarily the result of an altered aesthetic ideal,
rather than of any shortcomings in the innovative, as compared
with traditionalist trend. Indeed, in purely professional terms,
the innovative architects produced their most accomphshed
work at the start ofthe 1930s, while many ofthe 'newly baked'
traditionalists were designing gutless eclectic compositions.

Aesthetic problems in the generation of form became as centrally important again in the early 1930s as they had been during the early Soviet years.
The wholesale rejection of architectural traditions characteristic o f t h e early 1920s can largely be accounted for by the
specific features of architectural evolution in Russia before the
Revolution. Many Rationahsts and Constructivists excluded
from their teaching any closer study ofthe principles employed
by the old masters, as part of their fight against the earlier educational methods whereby students were trained to use compositional procedures and architectural forms drawn from a miscellany of past styles.
The founders of the new architecture, such as Alexander
Vesnin, Ladovsky, Melnikov, Lissitzky, Ilya Golosov, Krinsky
and Ginzburg among others, were well versed in the principles
of Classical art. This helped them to appreciate the relation-

Except for Zholtovsky's House on the Mokhovaya, but i n

1932-34, with its row of large columns inspired by Palladio's
Loggia Capitano in Vicenza, no other traditionalist buildings
of true artistic worth were in fact erected by the mid-1930s. I n
the majority of cases, 'decorative' buildings provided httie
"lore than rather featureless stylization. Yet, during that very
period, many of the best works of modern architecture designed during the 1920s and the turn ofthe next decade were
coming into use every year: large buildings of a high artistic

Innovation and tradition

262
Part I / A e s t h e t i c problems o f design

ship between tradition and innovation, accurately to assess the

value of innovations and to preserve continuity in the evolution
of architecture.
One might have thought that the second generadon of Rationalists and Constructivists, especially those who had been
trained in Vkhutemas, would be better inoculated against the
influence of tradition than their teachers and senior colleagues,
since they had not studied the principles of past architecture at
ah and knew hardly anything about them. However, this 'aseptic' method of training led to diametrically opposite results i n
practice. The young professionals who had been genuinely attracted by the new architecture, but lacked any knowledge of
the past and its aesthetic approach, proved far more receptive
to Classicist influences than those who had reached the new architecture by a conscious rejection of stylization.
The attraction of Classicism for young architects brought up
in these 'sterile' conditions was already apparent i n the 1920s
and 1930s, a suppressed tendency also partly prompted by a revulsion against the ever-growing canonization ofthe new architecture's methods and forms. Many young architects who first
encountered Classicism only after they had completed their
training saw it as something that was novel and full of unhmited creative potential.

T h e debates of 1 9 3 3 - 3 4

Harsh and acrimonious discussions accompanied the change

of direction in Soviet architecture, particularly during 1933-34
when debates about problems of form-generation largely dominated the activity ofthe recently created Union of Soviet Architects. Once the representatives of the various trends, groups
and schools had been united in a single creative organization,
they together set about formulating a new programme for Soviet architecture at this further stage in its development. I n the
course of the resulting debate representatives of the different
trends advanced a variety of theoretical concepts to serve as a
basis for a fresh creative approach.
The debate revolved around the question of continuity. The
sharpest clashes between the supporters of contending concepts concerned attitudes towards architectural tradition, and
they frequently supported their theoretical stances by drawn
demonstrations of formal experimentation.

Much as i n early Soviet days, this period of change produced

a proliferation of styhstic trends and creative schools. Two of
these, at opposite ends of the range, put forward clear programmes - Constructivism on the left and Zholtovsky's NeoRenaissance school on the right - although the majority of architects involved in the debates of 1933-34 rejected both Constmctivist functionalism and Neo-Renaissance retrospection.
But if one looks beyond the spate of general declarations emanating from a number of intermediary groups and examines
the actual drift of theoretical views expressed and artistic work
done, one becomes vividly aware how rapidly the central position was shifting away from Constructivism and towards Zholtovsky's school.
Supporters of all trends and schools took part in the I
1933-34 debates, among them Alexander and Viktor Vesnin,
Ginzburg, Leonidov, Ivan Fomin, Alabyan, Melnikov, Andrei
Burov, Nikolai Kolh, Balikhin, Vlasov, Boris lofan, Ilya Golosov, Shchusev, Golts, Kozhin, Kryukov, Mordvinov, David
Arkin, Matsa and Mikhailov.
Among the representatives of innovative trends, the Constructivists were probably the most consistent in defending
their views. They energetically promoted their case at meetings
and discussions, as weh as in newspaper articles, and sharply
criticized the constantly increasing tendency to resort to historical forms.
I n 1934, Alexander Vesnin, Ginzburg and Viktor Vesnin together stated their position i n an article entitied 'Problems of
Contemporary Architecture', pubhshed in Arkhitektura SSSR
{Architecture of the USSR), No. 2, which elaborated their views
and clarified their attitude to the changes then in progress in
Soviet architecture. I n particular, they questioned the prevailing tendency to call upon the heritage ofthe past and to be carried away by concern with detail.
These were practices in fact avoided by Alexander and Viktor Vesnin, and by Ginzburg, who often spoke together as a
group. But in their search for livelier means of expression they ,
introduced ever-growing complexity into their general compositions and enlarged the scale of individual structural elements
and components, as in the lay-out ofthe Kotelnicheskaya and
Goncharnaya Embankments and the competition entries for
the headquarters of Narkomtyazhprom (the People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry).
During the debates, Leonidov consistently defended the new

architecture. He believed that the creative use of ne^

offered great opportunities for raising architectural
and demonstrated this in his Narkomtyazhprom pr(
tering a design consisting of three glazed towers a
from each other in plan, height and outline, but li:
lower storeys by a single stylobate.
Balikhin, who led Asnova and provided its ideoh
during its final phase, believed that a Rationahst a
form should provide the starting point for the next i
development of Soviet architectural theory.
Thus the Constructivists and Rationalists de
theoretical basis of their movements, rejected ecle(
styhzation, and opposed the utilization of architec
derived from the past.

A return to tradition by w a y of intermediate trends

The many schools and trends that held an intermj

tion between innovators and retrogressives were a d
tic feature of this transitional period in Soviet archil
some of them stood out by the definition and clarity
they upheld.
Ivan Fomin, for instance, continued to refine t h
Proletarian Classicism with a group of his follow(
dents. By the early 1930s, however* this group was i
enriching its compositional repertoire with traditi
both in theory and practice. The achievements of
chitecture gradually faded away from it, while Clas
earlier cut back, began to regain some of their cor
Another influential intermediate trend was pro-\
time by Ilya Golosov's school. His main tenet had;
the need to master large-scale form, and the chan
styhstic approach therefore left his basic concep
was merely driven to pick on other forms while mai
general attitude to the creation of an architectural i
Golosov's contribution to the 1933-34 debates wa:
the fact that he did not regard Constructivism anc
as mutually incompatible stylistically, but merely J
composition with different potentialities for the
large expressive forms.
During this transitional period, the schools of
Golosov exerted a restraining influence on the spr(

Chapter 8/Innovation and tradition

lesign

1 and innovation, accurately to assess the

nd to preserve continuity in the evolution
ought that the second generation of Raactivists, especially those who had been
;, would be better inoculated against the
;han their teachers and senior colleagues,
died the principles of past architecture at
lything about them. However, this 'asepg led to diametrically opposite results in
)rofessionals who had been genuinely atchitecture, but lacked any knowledge of
;tic approach, proved far more receptive
s than those who had reached the new arious rejection of stylization.
lassicism for young architects brought up
itions was already apparent in the 1920s
ed tendency also partly prompted by a re;r-growing canonization ofthe new archi1 forms. Many young architects who first
3m only after they had completed their
ething that was novel and full of unlimit-

)us discussions accompanied the change

irchitecture, particularly during 1933-34
roblems of form-generation largely domile recently created Union of Soviet Archi;sentatives of the various trends, groups
united in a single creative organization,
ut formulating a new programme for Sois further stage in its development. I n the
g debate representatives of the different
riety of theoretical concepts to serve as a
ive approach.
;d around the question of continuity. The
veen the supporters of contending conides towards architectural tradition, and
orted their theoretical stances by drawn
mal experimentation.

Much as in early Soviet days, this period of change produced

a prohferation of styhstic trends and creative schools. Two of
these, at opposite ends of the range, put forward clear programmes - Constructivism on the left and Zholtovsky's NeoRenaissance school on the right - although the majority of architects involved i n the debates of 1933-34 rejected both Constructivist functionalism and Neo-Renaissance retrospection.
But if one looks beyond the spate of general declarations emanating from a number of intermediary groups and examines
the actual drift of theoretical views expressed and artistic work
done, one becomes vividly aware how rapidly the central position was shifting away from Constructivism and towards Zholtovsky's school.
Supporters of all trends and schools took part in the
1933-34 debates, among them Alexander and Viktor Vesnin,
Ginzburg, Leonidov, Ivan Fomin, Alabyan, Melnikov, Andrei
Burov, Nikolai Kolh, Balikhin, Vlasov, Boris lofan, Ilya Golosov, Shchusev, Golts, Kozhin, Kryukov, Mordvinov, David
Arkin, Matsa and Mikhailov.
Among the representatives of innovative trends, the Constructivists were probably the most consistent in defending
their views. They energetically promoted their case at meetings
and discussions, as well as in newspaper articles, and sharply
criticized the constantly increasing tendency to resort to historical forms.
I n 1934, Alexander Vesnin, Ginzburg and Viktor Vesnin together stated their position in an article entitled Troblems of
Contemporary Architecture', published in Arkhitektura SSSR
[Architecture ofthe USSR), No. 2, which elaborated their views
and clarified their attitude to the changes then in progress in
Soviet architecture. I n particular, they questioned the prevailing tendency to call upon the heritage of the past and to be carried away by concern with detail.
These were practices in fact avoided by Alexander and Viktor Vesnin, and by Ginzburg, who often spoke together as a
group. But in their search for livelier means of expression they
introduced ever-growing complexity into their general compositions and enlarged the scale of individual structural elements
and components, as in the lay-out of the Kotelnicheskaya and
Goncharnaya Embankments and the competition entries for
the headquarters of Narkomtyazhprom (the People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry).
During the debates, Leonidov consistently defended the new

architecture. He believed that the creative use of new materials

offered great opportunities for raising architectural standards,
and demonstrated this in his Narkomtyazhprom project by entering a design consisting of three glazed towers all different
from each other in plan, height and outline, but linked in the
lower storeys by a single stylobate.
Balikhin, who led Asnova and provided its ideological basis
during its final phase, believed that a Rationalist approach to
form should provide the starting point for the next stage in the
development of Soviet architectural theory.
Thus the Constructivists and Rationalists defended the
theoretical basis of their movements, rejected eclecticism and
stylization, and opposed the utilization of architectural forms
derived from the past.

A return to tradition by way of intermediate trends

The many schools and trends that held an intermediate position between innovators and retrogressives were a characteristic feature of this transitional period in Soviet architecture, and
some of them stood out by the definition and clarity ofthe views
they upheld.
Ivan Fomin, for instance, continued to refine the concept of
Proletarian Classicism with a group of his followers and students. By the early 1930s, however* this group was increasingly
enriching its compositional repertoire with traditional forms,
both in theory and practice. The achievements of the new architecture gradually faded away from it, while Classicist forms,
earlier cut back, began to regain some of their complexity.
Another influential intermediate trend was provided at this
time by Ilya Golosov's school. His main tenet had always been
the need to master large-scale form, and the change to a new
stylistic approach therefore left his basic concept intact. He
was merely driven to pick on other forms while maintaining his
general attitude to the creation of an architectural image. Thus
Golosov's contribution to the 1933-34 debates was affected by
the fact that he did not regard Constructivism and Classicism
as mutually incompatible stylistically, but merely as systems of
composition with different potentialities for the creation of
large expressive forms.
During this transitional period, the schools of Fomin and
Golosov exerted a restraining influence on the spread of'deco-

rativeness' which had swept through Soviet architecture with

unexpected speed during the first half of the decade and threatened to swamp even those architects who carried on with their
purposeful quest. Signs of glaring eclecticism began to appear
in the work of many architects at that time, as the output of
Shchusev and a large number of his followers and pupils indicates.
'Shchusism', as Viktor Vesnin called it, would appear to
have been an inevitable consequence ofthe circumstances surrounding the fundamental reconstruction of Soviet architecture. The extreme Leftist trends of Rationalism and Constructivism, as weh as the Rightist, Neo-Renaissance, trend, afl with
their clearly defined positions, were rejected by the majority of
architects during this transitional period and subjected to
sharp criticism. Intermediate trends with a well-formulated
theory such as Proletarian Classicism, or a solid set of artistic
tenets, as i n the case of Golosov's school, not only had a relatively restricted following, but rapidly shifted towards traditional motifs.
The situation was further complicated by the intemperate
abuse to which many of those involved in these debates, especially former members of Vopra, subjected both Rationalism
and Constructivism, whfle they themselves - Alabyan, Vlasov
and Mordvinov, for instance - made increasing use of traditional methods and forms.
The groundswefl that later brought 'decorativeness' into
architecture did not assert itself immediately when the orientation of architectural work changed. Rationalism and Constructivism were chiefly criticized at the start for the lack of monumental quality and ostentatiousness in their output. I n the early days, therefore, 'monumentalization' set in without necessarily referring back to traditional forms, as the entries for the
Narkomtyazhprom competition in 1934 show. This was vividly
illustrated by an original trend, best described as the 'Boris lofan school', which emerged to compete with Classicism in determining the basic direction of Soviet architecture in the 1930s.
The most representative products of this movement include the
winning entry for the Palace of Soviets competition by Gelfreikh, lofan and Shchuko in 1933-35; the Councfl of Ministers building in Moscow by Arkady Langman in 1932-36; the
Minsk Opera and Ballet Theatre by losif Langbard in
1935-37; and the Soviet pavilion by lofan at the Paris World
Exhibition in 1937.

:26-l
Part I / A e s t h e t i c problems o f design

699

Z h o l t o v s k y . A p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g ' o n the

M o k h o v a y a ' (today's M a r x Prospect), M o s c o w ,

1932-34.

By the first half of the 1930s, Soviet architecture had lost the
styhstic identity which had set it apart during the previous decade, and began to display increasing signs of eclecticism. I n
these conditions, Zholtovsky's well-defined, exquisite understanding of the Classical models and great artistic mastery
strongly attracted other architects. The House on the Mokhovaya proved a revelation of sorts for many of them. The carefully thought-out composition, superbly executed detail and
excellent quality of the workmanship set this building apart
among the ostentatious eclectic structures erected at that time.
Zholtovsky's school had its own clearly formulated system of
aesthetic views which played an important part in the confused
circumstances ofthe early 1930s: many Constructivist supporters, educated in terms of a definite orientation and constitutionally averse to eclecticism, saw in Zholtovsky's teaching a
means of escape from the dead-end in which they found themselves. They foUowed him and enthusiastically studied Classical compositional methods, resources and forms that were new
to them. I n fact, a large number of fully trained architects had
to learn a great deal anew and assimilate the Classicist heritage
ofthe past. The Academy of Architecture was created in 1934
as the highest educational and scientific research establishment in its field in order to speed up the process of artistic reorientation. The basic function of the Academy during the
1930s was to arrange for the retraining of a large squad of architects in the Postgraduate Institute (Institut aspirantury) and
in the Faculties of Further Architectural Studies (Fakultety
arkhitekturnogo usovershenstvovaniya), where they were able
to study the best models ofthe Classical heritage and the histories of architecture and art.
For practical purposes, from 1932 onwards and regardless of
the opinions about the Neo-Renaissance school expressed in
discussions and articles in periodicals, a rapid reorientation
from new architecture to tradition took place among the overwhelming majority of architects. Intermediate trends and

schools were swept away as part of this development, and tradition increasingly came to rule all artistic endeavour.
Creative experimentation in Soviet architecture during the
1920s and early 1930s followed a complex and contradictory
course. I n general terms, however, the processes of artistic
form-generation followed the main requirements ofthe nascent
new architecture.
The circumstances of the period in which the new orienta
tion established itself stimulated, among other things, a close
attention to theory, an intensive search for a new image, the
elaboration of a new creative methodology, and increased interest in the link between the functionally structural parameters of a building and its architectural form.
During the 1920s, the wish for a separate identity prevalent
among creative trends and schools had led to a proliferation of
programmatic statements. These were often highly polemical
and stressed first and foremost how each particular group differed from all the rest. This frequently led to unduly nihihsdc
utterances, prophetic statements and, at times, to mere inventiveness in place of true creativity. A l l these polemical exaggerations and outbursts are completely understandable in the surrounding atmosphere of sharp creative competition. I t would
therefore be wrong to assess the principles of these various
trends and schools merely on the strength of their statements of
principles and selected individual designs.
Despite ah complexities and contradictions, the artisdc
work of Soviet architects during the period under review and
the creative trends and schools which emerged from it, represent essential and highly important steps in the development of
a new architecture.

KPSS

0 kulture, prosueshchenie

Culture Education

and Science),

i nauke (Communist

p . 214.

Party of the Soviet Union

concerning

265

lems o f d e s i g n

ilf of the 1930s, Soviet architecture had lost the

which had set it apart during the previous decto display increasing signs of eclecdcism. I n
3, Zholtovsky's we-defmed, exquisite underClassical models and great artisdc mastery
ed other architects. The House on the Mokhoeveladon of sorts for many of them. The careat composition, superbly executed detail and
y of the workmanship set this building apart
itatious eclectic structures erected at that time,
school had its own clearly formulated system of
ivhich played an important part in the confused
)f the early 1930s: many Constmctivist supporn terms of a definite orientation and constituto eclecticism, saw in Zholtovsky's teaching a
; from the dead-end in which they found themlowed him and enthusiastically studied Classial methods, resources and forms that were new
, a large number of fully trained architects had
deal anew and assimilate the Classicist heritage
; Academy ofArchitecture was created in 1934
educational and scientific research establishI in order to speed up the process of artistic rele basic function of the Academy during the
ange for the retraining of a large squad of architgraduate Institute (Institut aspirantury) and
s of Further Architectural Studies (Fakultety
3 usovershenstvovaniya), where they were able
t models ofthe Classical heritage and the histo;ure and art.
purposes, from 1932 onwards and regardless of
)out the Neo-Renaissance school expressed in
i articles in periodicals, a rapid reorientation
tecture to tradition took place among the overority of architects. Intermediate trends and

599 Z h o l t o v s l i y . A p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g ' o n t h e

700-01

Mokhovaya' (today's M a r x Prospect), M o s c o w ,

K o l l i . Tsentrosoyuz building, Aloscow.

1932-34.

schools were swept away as part of this development, and tradition increasingly came to rule all artistic endeavour.
Creative experimentation in Soviet architecture during the
1920s and early 1930s followed a complex and contradictory
course. I n general terms, however, the processes of artistic
form-generation followed the main requirements ofthe nascent
new architecture.
The circumstances of the period in which the new orientation estabhshed itself stimulated, among other things, a close
attention to theory, an intensive search for a new image, the
elaboration of a new creative methodology, and increased interest in the link between the functionally structural parameters of a building and its architectural form.
Duung the 1920s, the wish for a separate identity prevalent
among creative trends and schools had led to a proliferation of
programmatic statements. These were often highly polemical
and stressed first and foremost how each particular group dif
fered from all the rest. This frequently led to unduly nihihsdc
utterances, prophetic statements and, at times, to mere inventiveness in place of true creativity. A l l these polemical exaggerations and outbursts are completely understandable in the surrounding atmosphere of sharp creative competition. I t would
therefore be wrong to assess the principles of these various
trends and schools merely on the strength of their statements of
principles and selected individual designs.
Despite all complexities and contradictions, the artistic
work of Soviet architects during the period under review and
the creative trends and schools which emerged from it, represent essential and highly important steps in the development of
a new architecture.

KPS.S 0 kulture, prosveshchenie

Culture Education

and Science),

i nauke (Communist

p . 214.

Party ofthe

Soviet Union

concerning

Le Corbusier, i n collaboration w i t h Nikolai

266
702

A l e x a n d e r a n d V i k t o r V e s n i n , w i t h G i n z b u r g as

c o n s u l t a n t . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r the
N a r k o m t y a z h p r o m (People's C o m m i s s a r i a t f o r H e a v y
I n d u s t r y ) b u i l d i n g , M o s c o w , 1934. P e r s p e c t i v e .
703

G i n z b u r g and Lisagor, w i t h Alexander and

V i k t o r V e s n i n as c o n s u l t a n t s . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r
t h e N a r k o m t y a z h p r o m b u i l d i n g , M o s c o w , 1934.
Perspective.

267
/ e s n i n , w i t h G i n z b u r g as

704-06

yn f o r t h e

N a r k o m t y a z h p r o m b u i l d i n g , M o s c o w , 1934. E l e v a t i o n

L e o n i d o v . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n f o r the

Commissariat for Heavy

(704). Perspective ( 7 0 5 ) . S k e t c h w i t h St B a s i l ' s

1934. Perspective,

Cathedral (706).

with Alexander and

, C o m p e t i t i o n design for
n g , M o s c o w , 1934.

268

707-08

M e l n i k o v . C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n for t h e

Narkomtyazhprom

building, Moscow,

Perspective (70). D e t a i l (708).

1934.

709

Ivan Fomin, Abrosimov, and Minkus.

C o m p e t i t i o n d e s i g n for the

Narkomtyazhprom

b u i l d i n g , M o s c o w , 1934. P e r s p e c t i v e .
710

Gelfreikh, Boris l o f a n and Shchuko. Design

( v a r i a n t ) f o r t h e Palace o f Soviets, M o s c o w ,
Perspective.

1933-35.

709

Social Tasks
of
Architecture

I v a n F o m i n , Abrosimov, and Minlcus.

C o m p e t i t i o n design f o r the N a r l i o m t y a z h p r o m
b u i l d i n g , M o s c o w , 1934. P e r s p e c t i v e .
710

Gelfreikh, Boris l o f a n and Shchuko.

Design

( v a r i a n t ) f o r t h e Palace o f Soviets, M o s c o w ,

1933-35.

Perspective.

Part

271

The socialist pattern of settlement

and town-planning concepts

Problems of socialist settlement

The attention devoted to town planning was a characteristic

feature of Soviet architecture from its earliest years. The abolition of private ownership of land and the planned nature of the
sociahst economy made it possible to formulate and execute
town-planning projects. The mood of the time favoured a
multi-lateral approach to all town-planning projects and the
solution ofthe entire range of architectural problems within the
framework of a general concept of 'socialist settlement' which
was to embrace questions of regional planning; the functional
zoning of cities; the creation of a network of public services; the
elaboration of a new type of settlement and its component elements; a more flexible organization of planning; the creation of
communal centres; the opportunities for zoning buildings vertically in cities, and many other such problems.
Two distinct stages can be discerned in the solution of these
problems during the period under review, each of which bears
the characteristic marks of the prevailing historical situation,
of social developments, economic opportunities and other factors governing urban development. After many years devoted
to the exploration of town-planning problems early practical
experiments, theoretical studies and the formulation of ideas these two stages culminated in a far-reaching debate about
town planning before a period of intensive practical project
work and construction set in.
The first town-planning debate took place in 1922-23 in
connection with building work set i n train throughout the
country by the Goelro electrification plan and while the New
Economic Policy - NEP - was in progress. The second debate
was triggered by the construction of new towns and accelerating industriahzation under the First Five Year Plan.
The treatment ofthe big cities created by capitalism and the
abohtion of the opposition between town and country were
among the major social problems discussed in the course of
both debates. Both had been touched upon in the works of
Engels and Lenin, whose statements in this context were widely quoted during the discussions. I n his Anti-Diihring, Engels
wrote: 'The abolition ofthe division between town and country
IS therefore no Utopian ideal, not even from the point of view of
achieving the most equal distribution of heavy industry
throughout the country. Of course, civihzation has endowed us
in the great cides with an inheritance which it will take much

time and trouble to shed. But they must be got rid of, and they
will be, even if the process is a long one.''
In his article entitled ' K a r l Marx', Lenin posed the problem
of 'a resettlement of mankind (with the eradication of rural
neglect, isolation from the world and barbarism, as well as of
the unnatural accumulation of gigantic masses of people in
large towns)'.^
In his essay on The Agrarian Problem and Marx's Critics, Lenin
wrote: 'Yet the clear acknowledgement ofthe progressive nature of large towns in a capitahst society in no way hinders us i n
numbering among our ideals . . . the destruction ofthe opposition between town and country. I t is not true that this would be
equivalent to a-rejection ofthe treasures of science and art. Just
the opposite: this is essential so as to make these treasures accessible to the entire nation, so as to destroy this alienation
from culture of millions in the rural population.'^ The general
Marxist-Leninist positions concerning the treatment of large
capitalist cities, the relatively equal distribution ofthe population across the country and the abolition of opposition between
town and countryside obviously only offered suggestions concerning the solution of town-planning problems, and merely
indicated the direction explorations should take. The urge to
estabhsh practical ways of solving these outstanding social
problems fuelled the debate on sociahst settlement.

The garden-city concept

Ebenezer Howard's concept of the garden city greatly influenced town-planning experiments in early Soviet years. A
movement in favour of it had arisen in Russia even before the
October Revolution and influenced the town-planning theories
and practice of Semenov, Ivan Fomin, Dubelir, Tamanyan, Dikansky and others. I t was adopted into Soviet town-planning
theory and, i n the early stages, widely interpreted by many architects as a method of settlement covering everything from
large garden cities or even entire groups of cities to suburbs
and villages.
The planning principles derived from the garden-city concept were used in the preparation of designs for the reconstruction of large cities, including Moscow, Petrograd, Yaroslavl
and Erevan, as weh as the creation of small workers' villages
and the building of suburbs.

272
P a r t I l / S o c i a l tasks o f a r c h i t e c t u r e

The garden-city concept owed its influence on Soviet town

planning in the early post-Revoludonary years to a whole
series of circumstances connected with the social, ecpnomic,
cultural and other historical conditions prevaihng at that
time.
Wardme difficulties, economic dislocation, the closing down
of many factories and industrial plants, the decay ofthe urban
economy, famine and epidemics led to a sharp shrinkage in the
population of large cities, an unusual phenomenon in the development of urban life in an industrialized country. This was
interpreted by some town planners as the beginning ofthe fragmentation of large cities.
The wardme food shortages, and the faffed harvest in 1920
in particular, prompted city dwellers to acquire an 'anciflary
establishment' - a vegetable plot, an orchard or livestock - and
to move into small-scale dwellings in the suburbs.
I n addition, during the NEP period, private capital was attracted to the construction of smaller houses. Mass private
housing development, with plots of land attached, took place in
the suburbs of many towns.
Resettiement in early Soviet years was also greatly affected
by the location of many new industrial dwelhng complexes well
beyond the confines of towns, in relatively smaU workers' villages near electric power stations but under the Goelro plan,
widely separated oilfield villages in the Baku and Grozny
areas, smaflish settlements serving agricultural produce processing plants, such as the Sakhartrest works, and so on.
These were the circumstances in which the various townplanning concepts evolved in the early years. Afl else apart,
they focused the attention of architects on the questions posed
by the planning of smafler towns. The project for a sma settlement elaborated by Zholtovsky is typical in this respect. He
based his design on a harmonious spatial composition working
inwards from the periphery to the centre. The diagram represents: (a) the individual (i. e. dwellings); (b) groups (the clubs,
schools, hbraries and shops); (c) the community (the government buddings); (d) the ruhng phosophical concept (e. g. a
place of worship). The buildings around the town centre were
orientated towards it along horizontal axes, while the central
complex itself was directed verticafly upwards.
Work on projects for the rebuilding of Moscow and Petrograd had a special part to play in the shaping of town-planning
proposals during early Soviet years. This inevitably raised the

whole complex of questions affecting resettlement: questions

concerning the future of a large city, the connection between
cultural centres and garden cities and villages, the part to be
played by the suburban zones, and so on. One of the centres in
which the theory underlying many of these questions was formulated was the Architectural A r t Department ofthe People's
Commissariat for Education, headed by Zholtovsky. Its townplanning theory was based on the garden-city concept and involved the development of a system of interconnected setdements through the construction of new garden cities and villages, and the phased reconstruction of large cities by diffusing
their population among garden suburbs.
These early Soviet concepts influenced the formulation of
a general plan for Moscow and the construction of housing
complexes there. A n outhne project for the replanning and extension of Moscow was prepared in the City Counc's
Architectural Studio under Zholtovsky's direction in 1918-19.
Its main emphasis was on the provision of open green spaces
for a healthier environment, a reduction of population density
in the central areas of the city through the construction of
garden villages on the outskirts and the conversion into garden
cities of several dozen hohday-home settlements located in a
belt some 10-15 km wide around the city.
The garden suburbs were primarily regarded as dormitory
settiements into which many of the inhabitants stih employed
in Moscow would graduay have to move.
The conversion of Moscow into a garden city surrounded by
garden suburbs, foreshadowed in this outhne project, set the
main guidehnes during the first half ofthe 1920s for the project
for the reconstruction of Moscow. The work proceeded at two
levels: a team of architects led by Zholtovsky and Shchusev
elaborated a project for the existing area of the city entitled
'New Moscow' during 1918-24, while Sergei Shestakov was
responsible for the project directed towards expansion of the
city, including the suburban area, under the titie 'Great Moscow' in 1921-25.
I n so far as the reconstruction ofthe central area of the city
was concerned, attention was mainly devoted in the New Moscow project to its decongestion, as well as to the conservation of
architectural monuments and the opening up of their surrounding areas. I t was proposed to supplement the existing
ring roads by a further ring, laid out as a garden city; complete
the ' A ' ring of boulevards; build a Central Raway Station on

273
C h a p t e r 1/The sociaHst p a t t e r n o f s e t t l e m e n t

litecture

concept owed its influence on Soviet town

idy post-Revolutionary years to a whole
ices connected with the social, economic,
historical conditions prevailing at that
;ies, economic dislocation, the closing down
id industrial plants, the decay ofthe urban
id epidemics led to a sharp shrinkage in the
cities, an unusual phenomenon in the de
I life in an industrialized country. This was
; town planners as the beginning ofthe fragcities.
d shortages, and the failed harvest in 1920
pted city dwellers to acquire an 'ancillary
egetable plot, an orchard or hvestock - and
scale dwellings in the suburbs,
ng the NEP period, private capital was atitruction of smaller houses. Mass private
nt, with plots of land attached, took place in
y towns.
early Soviet years was also greatly affected
any new industrial dwelling complexes well
s of towns, in relatively smafl workers' vil)ower stations built under the Goelro plan,
)ilfield vfllages in the Baku and Grozny
fements serving agricultural produce pro1 as the Sakhartrest works, and so on.
circumstances in which the various townevolved in the early years. A f l else apart,
;ention of architects on the questions posed
mafler towns. The project for a small settleZholtovsky is typical in this respect. He
a harmonious spatial composition working
eriphery to the centre. The diagram repredual (i. e. dwellings); (b) groups (the clubs,
i d shops); (c) the community (the govern1) the ruling philosophical concept (e.g. a
r h e buildings around the town centre were
it along horizontal axes, while the central
directed vertically upwards,
s for the rebuilding of Moscow and Petro)art to play in the shaping of town-planning
irly Soviet years. This inevitably raised the

whole complex of questions affecting resettlement: questions

concerning the future of a large city, the connection between
cultural centres and garden cities and villages, the part to be
played by the suburban zones, and so on. One ofthe centres in
which the theory underlying many of these questions was formulated was the Architectural A r t Department ofthe People's
Commissariat for Education, headed by Zholtovsky. Its townplanning theory was based on the garden-city concept and involved the development of a system of interconnected settlements through the construction of new garden cides and villages, and the phased reconstruction of large cities by diffusing
their population among garden suburbs.
These early Soviet concepts influenced the formulation of
a general plan for Moscow and the construction of housing
complexes there. A n outline project for the replanning and extension of Moscow was prepared in the City Counc's
Architectural Studio under Zholtovsky's direction in 1918-19.
Its main emphasis was on the provision of open green spaces
for a healthier environment, a reduction of population density
in the central areas of the city through the construction of
garden villages on the outskirts and the conversion into garden
cities of several dozen hohday-home settlements located in a
belt some 10-15 km wide around the city.
The garden suburbs were primarily regarded as dormitory
settlements into which many of the inhabitants still employed
in Moscow would gradually have to move.
The conversion of Moscow into a garden city surrounded by
garden suburbs, foreshadowed in this outline project, set the
main guidehnes during the first half of the 1920s for the project
for the reconstruction of Moscow. The work proceeded at two
levels: a team of architects led by Zholtovsky and Shchusev
elaborated a project for the existing area of the city entitled
'New Moscow' during 1918-24, while Sergei Shestakov was
responsible for the project directed towards expansion ofthe
city, including the suburban area, under the title 'Great Moscow' in 1921-25.
I n so far as the reconstruction ofthe central area ofthe city
was concerned, attention was mainly devoted in the New Moscow project to its decongestion, as wefl as to the conservation of
architectural monuments and the opening up of their surrounding areas. I t was proposed to supplement the existing
ring roads by a further ring, laid out as a garden city; complete
the ' A ' ring of boulevards; bud a Central Railway Station on

Kalanchev Square; rebuild radial routes; bring railway lines

into the city centre by means of viaducts and tunnels; prepare
Okhotny Row for the proposed construction of a Palace of Labour, and reconstruct Soviet Square; concentrate new workers'
dwelhngs in the Lenin Suburb quarter, near the area zoned for
industry in the Simonovsky district, and reserve large tracts on
the outskirts for the construction of small, suburban-type
dwelhngs.
Sergei Shestakov's Great Moscow plan proposed a nearly
tenfold increase in the city's area. Three belts were to encircle
the historical nucleus of Moscow. The first was split into ten
sectors, of which two were reserved for industry and the rest for
parks. The second belt consisted of eight sectors - four garden
cities separated by four parks which were to act as clean-air reservoirs of sorts for the inner city. The third belt was to be solid
woodland.
The garden-city concept was also embodied in the project
for the regulation of Petrograd, drawn up in 1919-23 under the
direction of Ivan Fomin and Lev Ilin, which was closely related
to the Moscow project in town-planning terms. Both projects
made provision for the conservation of the central district as a
historic product of architectural art; clearance of buildings surrounding important architectural monuments; the introduction of green open spaces into the centre and the reduction of
population density there. New housing was removed to the outskirts, into the area in which industry was concentrated, and
preference was given to smaller houses with gardening allotments. Both projects also proposed the creation of a green belt
around the city; the inclusion of suburban localities within the
city's jurisdiction; and the creation on a garden-city pattern of
new dwelling complexes within the city limits and in its suburbs.
Settlements on garden-city lines were frequently built during the early Soviet period to help in reducing population density by the provision of housing complexes of satellite settlements.
The Greater Yaroslavl plan, drawn up in 1920-22, provided
for garden suburbs with private plots in Dyadkovo and elsewhere once the city itself had been rebut and rehabilitated.
Co-operatives of workers and employees designed and built
garden settlements at this early stage in the suburbs of such
towns as Vologda, Nizhny-Novgorod, Saratov, Tver, Bryansk,
Shcheglovsk (in Tomsk Province) and elsewhere.

Many workers' settlements laid out as garden cities were

also designed to serve industrial plants, such as the new power
stations built under the electrification plan.
Thus Leonid Vesnin's designs for workers' settlements at
Shatura (1918) and Podolsk (1922) include garden-city features, such as blocks of low houses with adjoining plots, streets
that are not gridded and vary in outhne, as well as public buildings and squares surrounded by green spaces and parks.
The principles of garden-city planning are most clearly exemplified during the first half of the 1920s in designs for off
workers' settlements. Notable here were the competition entries of 1923, by the Vesnins and Golosovs among others, for a
site with 3,500 workers and employees at Novo-Grozny; and
the Stepan Razin settlement near Baku, laid out by Alexander
Ivanitsky and Alexander and Viktor Vesnin, with dwelhngs
designed by Anatoly Samoilov, the first sector of which was
completed in 1925. Great importance was attached in such settlements to attractive lay-out and design, and to the provision
of green spaces, by contrast with the older oil industry settlements which were dirty and devoid of greenery.
The most important social problem of these early Soviet
town-planning projects lay in the provision of better sanitation
and hygiene for the workers. The garden city, as architects saw
it, provided an opportunity to build new workers' settlements
as close to nature as possible, as well as refashioning old cities,
opening them out and providing them with green spaces. I n
addition, the garden city offered the best scientific basis immediately after the Revolution for a socialist pattern of settlement.
This concept proved particularly attractive to Soviet town
planners by its systematic approach to the problems facing
them, such as the provision of organically interrelated settlement patterns; it inserted functional zones into an urban area
and offered dwelling complexes supplied with a network of
public services.
Many town planners regarded the garden-city concept as
setting the trend for the socialist settlement pattern of the f u ture. They saw in it a method of decentralizing the large cities
inherited from capitalism and overcoming the opposition between town and country. Future towns would, it was thought,
be conceived as a Workers' Garden City, a Red Garden City or
a City Village.
Other questions, however, remained, such as the fate ofthe
big cities and the nature ofthe city ofthe future and its housing.

274
P a r t I l / S o c i a l tasks o f a r c h i t e c t u r e

Not all town planners believed that the only answer lay in the
garden-city concept, and a debate therefore developed about
settlement under socialism. I t was carried on in newspapers
and technical periodicals, at conferences, in professional gatherings and at workers' assemblies.

The first debate about town planning, 1 9 2 2 - 2 3

A n attempt in 1922 to revive the pre-Revoludonary Garden

City Society provided a direct impetus for a discussion of sociahst modes of setdement. Architects, health officers, structural engineers, local government representatives, sociologists,
lawyers, journahsts and members of the pubhc at large, took
part in this debate. The arguments put forward by the supporters ofthe garden-city concept came under three headings: the
architectural plan, sanitation and hygiene, and the communal
services problem.
The garden-city idea was championed at that time in architectonic terms by a large group of experienced town planners
and architects of repute, Vladimir Semenov, Alexander Ivanitsky, Nikolai Markovnikov and Grigory Barkhin among
them. The most comprehensive collection of arguments i n favour ofthe garden city is to be found in Semenov's lectures and
articles published in 1922-23. He set out to prove three basic
propositions: the need to extend green areas within cities; the
advantages of keeping settiements small; and the efficiency of
lower dwellings.
I n order to demonstrate that the garden city was efficient, a
central point at issue, its supporters produced experimental designs for garden cities, garden settlements and low, cottagetype dwellings. They provided quantity surveys for structural
work, standard fittings and materials; analysed garden-city
construction in England and Germany; and suggested a large
assortment of planning and construction methods to reduce the
cost of single occupancy dwellings.
The supporters ofthe garden city considered that the public
health advantages of this type of settiement were a decisive argument in its favour, which they referred for confirmation to
pubhc health authorities, doctors and hygienists.
The aesthetic advantages of the garden-city concept represented further weighty proof of its merit, as they saw it. Abundance of greenery, irregular street patterns, the freeing of old

monuments from later accretions, the preservation of picturesque natural areas - in other words, everything which 'constitutes the natural beauty of a town' and represents 'a valuable
gift of nature' - is most clearly expressed, according to Markovnikov, in the concept of the garden city.
One ofthe most burning questions in the town-planning debate was how to overcome the opposition between town and
country. Garden-city supporters beheved that Howard's proposal for a group of interconnected small towns surrounded by
an agricultural belt provided the best solution. As they saw it,
the garden-city concept embodied the objective town-planning
requirements apphcable to industrialized countries. They beheved, as Shliosberg's articles put it, that Howard had based
his theory on the workers' settlement, the most advanced model in this field. I t had developed in capitalist society, but had
come to provide an independent nucleus for the communist
city.
The garden city's supporters maintained that this type of
settiement not only showed how the conflict between town and
country could be overcome, but also how industry and agriculture could be merged. I t pointed to the possibihty of recruiting
the factory worker for agricultural activity, especially if he were
to look after a small individual plot - with flowers, fruit, vegetables, domestic animals and poultry - put at the disposal of every family in a rural-type settlement.
They also heavily stressed the availability of new transport
facilities and pointed out that, given modern means of transport, there was little reason for the concentration of large
numbers of people at any single spot. They regarded the development of urban commuter and inter-city transport as one of
the most important means of decentrahzing the great cities and
redistributing their population.
Essential features ofthe garden-city concept, such as the denial that big cities had a future, the adoption ofthe smafl town
as the basic unit of settlement and a bias in favour of low, peasant-type premises compatible with the running of individual
smallholdings, were sharply criticized in the course of the debate. The critics pointed to the reafities of the existing situation: industrial conurbations were taking shape and involved
genuinely regional problems of planning; garden cities were
proving economically inefficient; the implantation on a large
scale of peasant-type habitations into cities was socially unacceptable in terms of the changing way of life. On the other

hand, the problems connected with dwelhng complexes w

matter of ever-growing concern for workers.
According to the garden-city concept, the pattern of ha
tion was to consist of identical settiements, with not more
32,000 inhabitants each, combined into groups that
themselves hnked to a central city responsible for their a
nistration and numbering not more than 58,000 inhabit
The settled area of a garden city contained no speciafl'
signed standard structures and consisted of individual d
ings with their plots, connected by a road network and
vided with communal services and a social centre.
Such a uniform scheme directly conflicted with the cor
and contradictory processes of actual urban development
erned by town plans that differed in scope and characte;
formed part of an interrelated and constantly changing
tern. The emergence within the garden-city concept, si
side with the idea of a 'typical' smafl town, of notions si
the transformation of a large town into a system of gard<
ies, suburbs and villages, brought home the intricacy of p,
cal town-planning processes. But nothing could be dc,
reconcile the rigid system of relocation, required b
basic concept, with the ever more complex realities of
planning.
I n the early 1920s, as statements of principle and di
about theory, together with the designing of workers'
ments i n suburbs or adjoining newly erected industrial p
gave way to projects for dwefling complexes in large citi
work on regional plans, it was already becoming clear ti
garden-city concept was unrealistic.

The urban dwelling complex

The pattern of settiement of a city area is largely determi

the nature of its housing. That is why the construction c:
vidual dwellings advocated by the supporters of the g
city concept became one of the main issues in the towi
ning controversy.
Its opponents fundamentally objected to the construe
individual dwellings, with plots of land intended for a
holding economy, in workers' settiements. They befiev
new forms of habitation would arise as they built comm
with collective dwellings in which individual elements

275
C h a p t e r 1/The sociahst p a t t e r n o f s e t t l e m e n t

elieved that the only answer lay in the

d a debate therefore developed about
ism. I t was carried on in newspapers
s, at conferences, in professional gathssembhes.

lanning, 1922-23

revive the pre-Revolutionary Garden

direct impetus for a discussion of sont. Architects, health officers, structuernment representatives, sociologists,
members of the public at large, took
irguments put forward by the suppormcept came under three headings: the
ation and hygiene, and the communal
was championed at that time in archi group of experienced town planners
, Vladimir Semenov, Alexander Iva'nikov and Grigory Barkhin among
hensive collection of arguments in fato be found in Semenov's lectures and
!2-23. He set out to prove three basic
) extend green areas within cities; the
;ttlements small; and the efficiency of
te that the garden city was efficient, a
supporters produced experimental dejarden settlements and low, cottage)vided quantity surveys for structural
and materials; analysed garden-city
and Germany; and suggested a large
tid construction methods to reduce the
dwellings.
garden city considered that the public
type of settlement were a decisive aruch they referred for confirmation to
, doctors and hygienists.
Lges of the garden-city concept repreroof of its merit, as they saw it. Abundar street patterns, the freeing of old

monuments from later accretions, the preservation of picturesque natural areas - in other words, everything which 'constitutes the natural beauty of a town' and represents 'a valuable
gift of nature' - is most clearly expressed, according to Markovnikov, in the concept of the garden city.
One ofthe most burning questions in the town-planning debate was how to overcome the opposition between town and
country. Garden-city supporters believed that Howard's proposal for a group of interconnected sma towns surrounded by
an agricultural belt provided the best solution. As they saw it,
the garden-city concept embodied the objective town-planning
requirements applicable to industrialized countries. They believed, as Shliosberg's articles put it, that Howard had based
his theory on the workers' settlement, the most advanced model in this field. I t had developed in capitalist society, but had
come to provide an independent nucleus for the communist
city.
The garden city's supporters maintained that this type of
settlement not only showed how the conflict between town and
country could be overcome, but also how industry and agriculture could be merged. I t pointed to the possibility of recruiting
the factory worker for agricultural activity, especially if he were
to look after a small individual p l o t - w i t h flowers, fruit, vegetables, domestic animals and poultry - put at the disposal of every family in a rural-type settlement.
They also heavily stressed the availability of new transport
facilities and pointed out that, given modern means of transport, there was little reason for the concentration of large
numbers of people at any single spot. They regarded the development of urban commuter and inter-city transport as one of
the most important means of decentrahzing the great cities and
redistributing their population.
Essential features of the garden-city concept, such as the denial that big cities had a future, the adoption ofthe small town
as the basic unit of settlement and a bias in favour of low, peasant-type premises compatible with the running of individual
smallholdings, were sharply criticized in the course ofthe debate. The critics pointed to the realities ofthe existing situation: industrial conurbations were taking shape and involved
genuinely regional problems of planning; garden cities were
proving economically inefficient; the implantation on a large
scale of peasant-type habitations into cities was socially unacceptable in terms of the changing way of life. On the other

hand, the problems connected with dwelling complexes were a

matter of ever-growing concern for workers.
According to the garden-city concept, the pattern of habitation was to consist of identical settlements, with not more than
32,000 inhabitants each, combined into groups that were
themselves linked to a central city responsible for their administration and numbering not more than 58,000 inhabitants.
The settled area of a garden city contained no specially designed standard structures and consisted of individual dwellings with their plots, connected by a road network and provided with communal services and a social centre.
Such a uniform scheme directly conflicted with the complex
and contradictory processes of actual urban development, governed by town plans that differed in scope and character, but
formed part of an interrelated and constantly changing pattern. The emergence within the garden-city concept, side by
side with the idea of a 'typical' small town, of nodons such as
the transformation of a large town into a system of garden cities, suburbs and vfllages, brought home the intricacy of practical town-planning processes. But nothing could be done to
reconcfle the rigid system of relocadon, required by the
basic concept, with the ever more complex realities of town
planning.
In the early 1920s, as statements of principle and debates
about theory, together with the designing of workers' setde
ments in suburbs or adjoining newly erected industrial plants,
gave way to projects for dwelling complexes in large cities and
work on regional plans, it was already becoming clear that the
garden-city concept was unrealistic.

The urban dwelling complex

The pattern of setdement of a city area is largely determined by

the nature of its housing. That is why the construction of individual dwelhngs advocated by the supporters of the gardencity concept became one of the main issues in the town-planning controversy.
Its opponents fundamentally objected to the construction of
individual dwelhngs, with plots of land intended for a smallholding economy, in workers' settlements. They believed that
new forms of habitation would arise as they buflt communism,
With coflective dwellings in which individual elements would

be gathered up into a single centralized architectural organism

by means of a network of collectively used facilities.
Meanwhile, industrial and agricultural labour would be
merged as part of the development of collective economic units.
The quest for new ways of organizing the pattern of settlement within a city and providing a new structural articulation
for it were linked to the radical restructuring ofthe city dwellers'
way of life. The construction of individual houses was opposed
by those who held that the organization of cides into districts
and areas should reflect the new processes at work in society.
The competition held in 1922-23 for the design of two model
workers' dwelling areas in Moscow was extremely important
for the development of a new type of dwelling complex. The
task was to create housing complexes with the requisite network of public services on restricted area sites surrounded by
existing buildings. On both sites the requirements included
two types of dwellings - separate flats for families, and hostels
for single people; a club; a crche and playground for children;
a canteen and communal kitchen; baths, a laundry, garaging,
and so on.
Although the architects concerned understood that a
garden-city type solution was unacceptable for the design of inner city dwellings, the solutions they offered differed widely.
Some, such as Andrei Belogrud, proposed three-storey cottagetype blocks, and others, such as Leonid Vesnin, stuck essentially to the old multi-apartment building type. The communal
house was used as a prototype by Melnikov, while the Golosovs
suggested a mixture of family and individual accommodation
units as a possible solution.
This competition marked an important stage in the design of
the urban dwefling complex with its own network of public services, because it promoted the rejection ofthe garden city, the
return to large buildings comprising standard units, and at the
same time the search for new types of bufldings combining habitation with public functions.
The movement of population out ofthe big cities which had
marked the early post-Revolutionary years stopped at the beginning ofthe 1920s and was then soon reversed. The acute demand for housing combined with a shortage of funds enforced
close attention to economic efliciency in selecting types of housing. This led to substantial changes in the approach to the construction of mass housing for workers during the first half of the
1920s. By the middle of this decade, garden-city construction

P a r t I l / S o c i a l tasks o f a r c h i t e c t u r e

had been replaced virtually everywhere by that of secdonal

blocks, with subdivided cottage-type houses as an early intermediate stage.
The building work carried out on the Apsheron peninsula in
the mid-1920s is typical in this respect: as the economic inefficiency of individual housing became increasingly obvious, the
latter was abandoned in favour of apartment blocks. The setdement of Armenikend (now renamed Shaumyan) on the
semi-desert outskirts of Baku was designed by Samoilov during
the 1920s as one of the earhest Soviet experiments in the integrated development of a large urban area. The districts included in the first construcdon phase, of 1925-28, comprised
three-storey housing blocks, as well as schools, shops, public
institudons and amenides for children.
Some ofthe first urban workers' dwelling complexes consisting of large housing blocks were built in Leningrad. I n the Narva Gate district in 1925-27, the Traktorskaya Street and Serafimsky sites had three- and four-storey buildings by Gegello,
Nikolsky and Simonov; and in the Palev district, in 1925-28,'
two- and three-storey housing was built by Ale'xei Zazersky
andl.A.Rybin.
I n Ivanovo-Voznesensk, construction of the First Model
Workers' Vihage began in 1924. This was to accommodate
8,000 inhabitants and take the form of a garden city with twostorey houses, public buildings (school, nursery school, crche
etc), services (main water supply, sewers, electric street lighting) and green spaces (park, garden, boulevard, pedestrian
precincts). But here, as in other industrial centres, a switch was
made to apartment blocks in the mid-1920s. A n Ah-Union
competition for the design of workers' dwelhng complexes announced i n 1925 marked the switch from single houses, with
plots attached, to blocks consisting of three- to five-storey
apartment buildings. This was to become the norm for mass
housing erected in the second half of that decade and the early
1930s.
This practice of building up empty sites with housing and an
integrated network of pubfic services became the most common town-planning approach in the larger cities. Individual
accommodation units were designed and tested in the course of
such development and future planning requirements were also
investigated. These built-up areas helped to remove the sharp
contrast between city centres and their working-class suburbs,
so typical of the past.

I n addition to Armenikend and the Leningrad housing

areas, two complexes in Moscow deserve a mention: that built
on Usacheva Street in 1926-27 by Alexei Meshkov and others,
and that on Pervaya Dubrovskaya Street budt under the supervision of Mikhail Motylev during the same period.

First regional planning projects the work of Ivanitsky and Sakulin

One ofthe weaknesses of the garden-city theory of resetdement

was the absence of any place in it for such characteristically
modern town-planning phenomena as, for instance, the conurbation. Attempts to integrate a large city and its suburban
garden settlements into a single entity by various means, as in
the early projects for the rationahzation and reconstruction of
Moscow, Petrograd, Yaroslavl, and so on, did not, as a rule, go
beyond the creation of a network of garden cities.
Wherever the relationship between the centre and its outiying parts, the working conditions and way of hfe ofthe population, the environment and other factors, favoured resetdement
along the hnes of a grouped garden-city scheme, this concept
exerted a marked influence on the actual design involved,
which would thus embrace a number of interrelated settiements, rather than merely the planning of a single town.
I n 1924-25, Ivanitsky, together with Alexander and Viktor
Vesnin, formulated a plan for Baku and its surroundings which
off'ered solutions for the economic, technological and townplanning problems of an industrial area adjoining a large city.
I t replanned Baku's inner city, including a change in its existing building pattern, so as to bring it closer to the garden-city
model, above all by the introduction of green spaces such as
squares, parks and boulevards; by the creation within the city's
boundaries of new, semi-independent housing complexes laid
out as garden suburbs; by the incorporation into the general
settiement scheme of the industrial area of existing small suburban villages such as, among others, Surakhany, Sabunchy,
Balakhny, Romany and Akhmedly; and the creation of new
large garden settiements for oil industry workers, approximating in size to the archetypal garden city, such as, for instance,
the Stepan Razin settiement with 10,000 inhabitants.
The regional planning project prepared for Moscow by Boris Sakulin in 1918-22 was highly significant. Sakulin beheved

277
C h a p t e r 1/The socialist p a t t e r n o f s e t t l e m e n t

ure

tually everywhere by that of sectional

1 cottage-type houses as an early interirried out on the Apsheron peninsula in
1 in this respect: as the economic ineffiasing became increasingly obvious, the
n favour of apartment blocks. The setd (now renamed Shaumyan) on the
Baku was designed by Samoilov during
earliest Soviet experiments i n the inte a large urban area. The districts intruction phase, of 1925-28, comprised
ocks, as well as schools, shops, public
ies for children.
m workers' dwelling complexes consist;ks were built in Leningrad. I n the Nar-27, the Traktorskaya Street and Seraand four-storey buildings by Gegello,
; and i n the Palev district, in 1925-28,
[rousing was built by Alexei Zazersky
;nsk, construction of the First Model
n in 1924. This was to accommodate
ake the form of a garden city with twodldings (school, nursery school, crche
ter supply, sewers, electric street light(park, garden, boulevard, pedestrian
in other industrial centres, a switch was
3cks in the mid-1920s. An All-Union
gn of workers' dwelling complexes an;d the switch from single houses, with
;ks consisting of three- to five-storey
'his was to become the norm for mass
econd half of that decade and the early
ing up empty sites with housing and an
)ublic services became the most comproach in the larger cities. Individual
ere designed and tested in the course of
iiture planning requirements were also
It-up areas helped to remove the sharp
:ntres and their working-class suburbs,

I n addition to Armenikend and the Leningrad housing

areas, two complexes in Moscow deserve a mention: that built
on Usacheva Street in 1926-27 by Alexei Meshkov and others,
and that on Pervaya Dubrovskaya Street built under the supervision of Mikhail Motylev during the same period.

First regional planning projects the work of Ivanitsky and Sakulin

One ofthe weaknesses of the garden-city theory of resettlement

was the absence of any place in it for such characteristically
modern town-planning phenomena as, for instance, the conurbation. Attempts to integrate a large city and its suburban
garden settlements into a single entity by various means, as in
the early projects for the rationalization and reconstruction of
Moscow, Petrograd, Yaroslavl, and so on, did not, as a rule, go
beyond the creation of a network of garden cities.
Wherever the relationship between the centre and its outlying parts, the working conditions and way of life ofthe population, the environment and other factors, favoured resettlement
along the lines of a grouped garden-city scheme, this concept
exerted a marked influence on the actual design involved,
which would thus embrace a number of interrelated settlements, rather than merely the planning of a single town.
I n 1924-25, Ivanitsky, together with Alexander and Viktor
Vesnin, formulated a plan for Baku and its surroundings which
offered solutions for the economic, technological and townplanning problems of an industrial area adjoining a large city.
I t replanned Baku's inner city, including a change in its existing building pattern, so as to bring it closer to the garden-city
model, above all by the introduction of green spaces such as
squares, parks and boulevards; by the creation within the city's
boundaries of new, semi-independent housing complexes laid
out as garden suburbs; by the incorporation into the general
settlement scheme ofthe industrial area of existing smafl suburban villages such as, among others, Surakhany, Sabunchy,
Balakhny, Romany and Akhmedly; and the creation of new
large garden settlements for oil industry workers, approximating in size to the archetypal garden city, such as, for instance,
the Stepan Razin setdement with 10,000 inhabitants.
The regional planning project prepared for Moscow by Boris Sakulin in 1918-22 was highly significant. Sakulin beheved

that the future of large cides lay in the development of industrial conurbations, which meant the application of a complex
regional treatment to a large area, rather than in syphoning off
the population into garden suburbs or involving it in a grouped
garden-city scheme. He proposed that development should be
made to conform to known economic requirements, rather
than artificially fimiting the growth of large cities. I n his project for the Moscow of the future, Sakuhn evolved a resettlement scheme incorporating a number of small towns gravitating around the main industrial and cultural centre. He saw
these satellite towns as organic elements of a conurbation
which would evolve i n step with the main city, help to control
the development and growth ofthe system as a whole and make
it possible to site industry rationally within the confines of a
given economic region. He regarded small towns as satelhtes
rather than dormitories, which would develop on an industrial
basis, form an integral part of the conurbation's productive
economic system and be connected with the main city and the
other settiements in the economic region by a highly developed
transport network.
Sakuhn's project provided for the removal of industry from
the central areas of Moscow and its concentration in the satellite settiements nearest to the city, which would be connected
to each other by a new orbital railway marking the city's outer
limit. A green belt would be created beyond it with parks,
wooded areas and agricultural plots. Further stifl, nine satellite
towns connected to each other by an electrified ring railway
would mark Moscow's area of direct economic impact. A t an
even greater distance, thirteen satellite towns linked by a circular rafl fine would, although mainly located within Moscow's
administrative area, be only partly included in its direct sphere
of economic influence. The entire scheme was rounded by a
further thirteen sateflite towns situated in neighbouring administrative areas, but gravitating around Moscow in economic
terms, and connected with each other by a circular transport
network, including rail and waterways.
Sergei Shestakov's 1924 scheme of two rings of sateflite
towns developed from existing settlements located along main
roads and railway lines around Moscow is close i n conception
to that of Sakulin.
The Goelro electrification plan greatly influenced townplanning experimentation, since it was conceived in terms of
the population distribution throughout the country, a more

even spread of industry and the involvement of remote, poorly

developed and inaccessible areas in the general economic and
cultural growth.
One of the first projects connected with this plan was a settlement scheme covering the Central Industrial Region of European Russia, involving over one miflion square kilometres and
some forty million inhabitants in all or part of eighteen provinces. The project treated afl the main centres of population as
elements of a general settlement system linked by a single
transport network. Existing rates of town development were
taken into account, developing centres were highlighted and
selected, industrial centres were earmarked for future enlargement. This project expanded the economic complex centred on
Moscow by adding to the three rings proposed by Sakuhn a
fourth in which the main towns were to be linked with Moscow
by radial railway lines, and with each other by a semicircular
highway.
A n integral settlement scheme was thereby proposed for the
Central Industrial Region, which treated it as Moscow's
sphere of economic influence. The nature and intensity of that
economic influence was seen as depending upon the distance of
the given town from the capital, and was charted by a subdivision of the entire economic region into several zones along a
number of ring roads. The population was distributed in the region i n accordance with a system based on a clearly defined
classification ofthe towns situated in it. Those nearest to^ Moscow were closely tied to it for economic and cultural purposes
as well as by manpower. As distances from Moscow increased,
many of these links became looser, although the basic economic connections were maintained. The towns themselves increased in size and became local cultural and industrial centres. The larger towns on the periphery were treated as centres
of local conurbations surrounded by rings of road and rail communications connecting their satellite settlements.

New urban communal centres

At the time when Soviet architecture was establishing itself,

one ofthe most important town-planning problems - on a par
with those of the housing complex and of regional planning was the creation of communal centres, both for a city as a whole
and for a single district.

278
P a r t I l / S o c i a l tasks o f a r c h i t e c t u r e

The implementation of the Monumental Propaganda Plan

gave visual expression i n cities to the revolutionary events taking place within them. Slogans, posters, murals and monuments to leading revolutionaries and cultural figures helped to
impart a new meaning to old settings and inject a fresh ideological and artistic content into them.
The workers' resolve to set up Revolutionary funerary monuments at the heart of Moscow and Leningrad also prompted a
review of these cities' centrepieces. I n Petrograd, the funerary
monument on the Field of Mars was planned by Ivan Fomin
and Evgeny Shreter, and sculpted by Lev Rudnev, in 1917-19.
I n Moscow, the necropolis was sited at the foot ofthe Kremhn
wall, thereby sharply altering the social significance of Red
Square: the latter became the socio-political focus ofthe country as a whole without impairing the historic character of its architecture.
Existing buildings of artistic or historic interest were converted by the authorities to new uses, with a minimum of reconstruction usually directed at stressing their novel ideological
and artistic significance. This is illustrated by Soviet Square in
Moscow where the City Council - the Mossoviet - was housed
in the residence of the former Governor-General. The square
was redesigned in 1923 in accordance with a project by Ilya
Golosov and Shchusev; the monument to General Skobelev at
its centre had been replaced as early as 1918-19 by the Freedom Obelisk, designed by Dmitry Osipov as architect and N i kolai Andreev as sculptor, and engraved with the text of the
First Soviet Constitution.
I n Petrograd in 1923, an entrance square designed by
Shchuko and Gelfreikh was laid out in front of the former
Smolny Institute which had been the Revolutionary Headquarters, and a monument to Lenin by Vladimir Kozlov was
erected at the foot of its central portico in 1927.
But new social centres were not always achieved by the partial reconstruction of older buildings. Soviet architects were
confronted with new tasks in this field owing to the creation of
fresh organs of government and the transformation of a
number of towns into administrative and political centres, particularly as a result ofthe formation of Autonomous and Union
Repubhcs. Examples of different approaches to the provision of
new social centres in the mid- 1920s are provided by the designs
for government buildings in the capitals of the Armenian and
Ukrainian Union Repubhcs, at Erevan and Kharkov.

When Tamanyan drew up a general plan for Erevan, which

was officially sanctioned in 1924, he used garden-city principles and Classical traditions in his design, and both were
strongly reflected in his project for Lenin Square, the city's social centre, which dates from the same period. I t formed an
oval, and its semicircular pavements were surrounded by NeoArmenian style buildings. One ofthe longer sides was flanked
by the symmetrical main building, while the other opened on to
a boulevard. Construction work on Tamanyan's project was
begun in 1926; it lasted several decades and was eventually
completed after the Second World War.
The construction of the new social centre of Kharkov was
started at about the same time as that in Erevan. I t was sited
where the old and new towns met and was intended to be the
political, economic and social focal point of what was at that
time the capital ofthe Ukraine.
Following Viktor Trotsenko's 1925 design, a round open
space - Dzerzhinsky Square - surrounded by the oflices of central institutions, was to provide the new focus. Radial streets
diverged from it and intersected the neighbouring residential
, areas. The Gosprom (State Industry) budding designed by Serafimov, Felger and Kravets was the first to be erected in
1925-28. This was designed as a composition staggered in
depth and providing an integrated spatial complex by its
jagged rhythmic bufld-up and contrastingly lower central part.
The House of Project Organizations, designed by Serafimov
and Zandberg-Serafimova and built in 1930-34, the Co-operative House, designed by Dmitriev and Munts in 1928 and buflt
in 1929-34, and Gosprom together make up a majestic set of
buildings, one ofthe largest products ofthe new architecture of
that day not only in the Soviet Union, but in Europe as a whole.
Only in a few ofthe social centres newly created for the capitals ofthe national repubhcs at this time did it prove possible to
maintain styhstic unity amongst all component bufldings. The
most successful of these in architectural terms were those that
resulted from an overafl concept by a single designer, as for example at Kharkov, where Serafimov had acted throughout as
'conductor'.
Thus the new social centre constructed in 1929-34 in AlmaAta, the capkal of Kazakhstan, is a single large complex consisting entirely of Constmctivist buildings, a project carried
out in its entirety under the direction of Ginzburg. The centre
ofthe composition is Government House, buflt in 1928-31 on

plans by Ginzburg assisted by Mflinis, with <

space laid out in front of it. To the left of G
this square is bounded by the headquarters
Siberia Railway built by Ginzburg and Mili:
its right, it is bounded by the House of Com
by Georgy Gerasimov in 1931-34. The soc
vernment House of the Kalmyk capital E
1928-32 to designs by Ilya Golosov.
The social centres newly laid out in the
tional republics came to exert a great influer
city centres elsewhere. These were chiefly c,
1920s for the country's main proletarian ag,
workers' suburbs were rebuik or new worl
structed, and a social focus was required foi
was most intensively pursued in Leningrad
concentrations ofthe revolutionary proletJ
One of the most elaborate social centre
trict was created at the end ofthe 1920s a
1930s in the vicinity ofthe Narva Gate in L
prised bufldings intended for various pur
centre and the area which it was intended,
the provision of pubhc services and the ir
spaces: a square was laid out and a gard('
and educational estabhshments were cor
ously: a House of Culture in 1925-27, I
chevsky, and a school in 1926-27, by N i k
was followed by the construction of comi
trading establishments: baths in 1927-;
Alexander Krestin, and a combined cor[
general store in 1928-29, by Armen Ban
losif Meerzon and Yakov Rubanchik. Fii
tive complex was designed by Noi Trotsk
space was laid out.
The experience acquked in providing
of Baku with a new kind of social centre, o
Club, a communal kitchen, a school an<
crucially important for Soviet architecti
terms of both purpose and composition
these centres was a large Workers' Club
comprising a complex set of buildings,
erected after designs by Alexander and
I n 1931, Leonidov supphed an origin:
trict centre at the Serpukhovo Gate Squ;

279
C h a p t e r 1/The sociahst p a t t e r n o f s e t t l e m e n t

the Monumental Propaganda Plan

ities to the revolutionary events takogans, posters, murals and monunaries and cultural figures helped to
Id settings and inject a fresh ideologito them.
set up Revolutionary fimerary moncow and Leningrad also prompted a
repieces. I n Petrograd, the fimerary
Mars was planned by Ivan Fomin
culpted by Lev Rudnev, in 1917-19.
; was sited at the foot ofthe Kremlin
;ring the social significance of Red
the socio-political focus ofthe counairing the historic character of its arrtistic or historic interest were con1 new uses, with a minimum of reconat stressing their novel ideological
his is illustrated by Soviet Square in
3uncil the Mossoviet was housed
mer Governor-General. The square
1 accordance with a project by Ilya
e monument to General Skobelev at
ed as early as 1918-19 by the FreeDmitry Osipov as architect and Ni
, and engraved with the text of the
an entrance square designed by
^as laid out in front of the former
lad been the Revolutionary Headt to Lenin by Vladimir Kozlov was
intral portico in 1927.
/ere not always achieved by the par;r buildings. Soviet architects were
in this field owing to the creation of
lent and the transformation of a
Inistrative and political centres, parjrmation of Autonomous and Union
ferent approaches to the provision of
id-1920s are provided by the designs
in the capitals of the Armenian and
cs, at Erevan and Kharkov.

When Tamanyan drew up a general plan for Erevan, which

was officially sanctioned in 1924, he used garden-city principles and Classical traditions in his design, and both were
strongly reflected in his project for Lenin Square, the city's social centre, which dates from the same period. I t formed an
oval, and its semicircular pavements were surrounded by NeoArmenian style buildings. One of the longer sides was flanked
by the symmetrical main budding, while the other opened on to
a boulevard. Construction work on Tamanyan's project was
begun in 1926; it lasted several decades and was eventually
completed after the Second World War.
The construction of the new social centre of Kharkov was
started at about the same time as that in Erevan. I t was sited
where the old and new towns met and was intended to be the
political, economic and social focal point of what was at that
time the capital ofthe Ukraine.
Following Viktor Trotsenko's 1925 design, a round open
space - Dzerzhinsky Square - surrounded by the oflices of central institutions, was to provide the new focus. Radial streets
diverged from it and intersected the neighbouring residential
areas. The Gosprom (State Industry) building designed by Serafimov, Felger and Kravets was the first to be erected in
192528. This was designed as a composition staggered in
depth and providing an integrated spatial complex by its
jagged rhythmic build-up and contrastingly lower central part.
The House of Project Organizations, designed by Serafimov
and Zandberg-Serafimova and buflt i n 1930-34, the Co-operative House, designed by Dmitriev and Munts in 1928 and buflt
in 1929-34, and Gosprom together make up a majestic set of
buildings, one ofthe largest products ofthe new architecture of
that day not only in the Soviet Union, but in Europe as a whole.
Only in a few of the social centres newly created for the capitals of the national repubhcs at this time did it prove possible to
maintain stylistic unity amongst afl component buildings. The
most successful of these in architectural terms were those that
resulted from an overafl concept by a single designer, as for example at Kharkov, where Serafimov had acted throughout as
'conductor'.
Thus the new social centre constructed in 1929-34 in AlmaAta, the capital of Kazakhstan, is a single large complex consisting entirely of Constmctivist buildings, a project carried
out i n its entirety under the direction of Ginzburg. The centre
ofthe composition is Government House, built i n 1928-31 on

plans by Ginzburg assisted by Milinis, with a rectangular open

space laid out in front of it. To the left of Government House,
this square is bounded by the headquarters of the TurkestanSiberia Railway buflt by Ginzburg and Mflinis in 1929-34. To
its right, it is bounded by the House of Communicadons, built
by Georgy Gerasimov in 1931-34. The social centre and Government House of the Kalmyk capital Ehsta were buflt in
1928-32 to designs by Ilya Golosov.
The social centres newly laid out i n the capitals of the national repubhcs came to exert a great influence on the lay-out of
city centres elsewhere. These were chiefly designed during the
1920s for the country's main proletarian agglomerations when
workers' suburbs were rebuflt or new workers' dwellings constructed, and a social focus was required for them. This process
was most intensively pursued in Leningrad and Baku, the main
concentradons of the revoludonary proletarian population.
One of the most elaborate social centres for a workers' district was created at the end ofthe 1920s and beginning ofthe
1930s in the vicinity ofthe Narva Gate i n Leningrad, and comprised bufldings intended for various purposes. Work on the
centre and the area which it was intended to serve began with
the provision of public services and the introduction of green
spaces: a square was laid out and a garden planted. Cultural
and educational estabhshments were constructed simultaneously: a House of Culture in 1925-27, by Gegello and K r i chevsky, and a school in 1926-27, by Nikolsky. This first stage
was foflowed by the construction of communal buildings and
trading establishments: baths in 1927-30, by Nikolsky and
Alexander Krestin, and a combined communal kitchen and
general store in 1928-29, by Armen Barutchev, Izidor Gilter,
losif Meerzon and Yakov Rubanchik. Finally, an administrative complex was designed by Noi Trotsky and a central open
space was laid out.
The experience acquired in providing the residential areas
of Baku with a new kind of social centre, comprising a Workers'
Club, a communal kitchen, a school and other facilides, was
crucially important for Soviet architecture in this period. I n
terms of both purpose and composition the main budding in
these centres was a large Workers' Club or Palace of Culture,
comprising a complex set of buildings, three of which were
erected after designs by Alexander and Leonid Vesnin.
In 1931, Leonidov supplied an original design for a city district centre at the Serpukhovo Gate Square in Moscow: a pro-

posal for a communal forum with a film theatre, museum, administrative building, open-air theatre, stadium, park and an
open space for district gatherings and meetings. The open space
was to be a square pedestrian precinct, bypassed by the traffic.

Vertical zoning - ideas from

Lavinsky, Lissitzky and Melnikov

Proposals for vertical urban zoning are prompted by the wish

to do away with traffic intersections and to segregate pedestrians and vehicles. A number of early twentieth-century vertical
zoning projects by Sant' Elia, Hilberseimer, Le Corbusier, and
others, suggested walkways raised above street level, including
the use of flat roofs as pedestrian precincts, or leaving the
streets free for trafldc by reserving space for pedestrians under
buildings erected on piers.
The ideas advanced in this field by Soviet architects in the
first half ofthe 1920s differed significantly from such proposals.
I n his City on Springs project of 1921, Lavinsky proposed that
the entire street network of a city, planned on a combined radial and orbital pattern, should be reserved for pedestrians,
and turned into tree-lined boulevards. Bufldings would be
raised on supports consisting of steel springs, so as to prevent
the vibration generated by traffic from reaching the dwefling
areas. Roadways would be laid underneath these and cross the
boulevards through tunnels. Escalators would connect the pedestrian areas with the buildings. The first tier of accommodation immediately overlying the supports would be reserved for
social and communal institutions, such as shops. Dwelling
space would occupy the upper tiers, while storage room would
be provided below ground. Special equipment would be provided to rotate the dwellings around a vertical axis so that
every unit of accommodation would receive its share of direct
sunlight.
Lissitzky's Horizontal Skyscraper project of 1923-25 for Moscow suggested the erection of eight identical buildings intended
for central institutions directly over the traffic arteries at the
intersections of radial main roads with the inner, boulevard
ringroad. His buildings consisted of two- or three-storey blocks
stretched out horizontally and supported above ground level
by three vertical pillars containing lifts and stairs; at each site,
one of these would lead direct to a metro station.

280
P a r t I l / S o c i a l tasks o f a r c h i t e c t u r e

I n 1925, Melnikov drew up a project for car parks in Paris

situated above the existing bridges over the Seine.
I n all these schemes the buildings on pilotis were sited above
traffic lanes, rather than over pedestrian ways. O f the three
basic elements in vertical zoning - pedestrian, traffic and
buildings Soviet architects gave preference to the first because they thought that it was inefficient to alter its place
within the spatial arrangement of a city. They looked to buildings erected above traffic lanes for their main, vertically zoned
reserves of space. I n a project for a new town, such as Lavinsky's, all the roads were inserted below buildings, while in existing cities Lissitsky's Moscow and Melnikov's Paris a second
tier was proposed only in specific spatially unencumbered locations, such as crossroads and bridges.

R o d c h e n k o ' s 'top elevation' concept

I n 1920, Rodchenko evolved a project for a new town with special emphasis on its top elevation. He suggested that in the past
the spatial composition of a building, as long as it remained
free-standing among vegetation, recalled that of an upwardpointing pyramid, while i n a modern town, buddings set out in
rectangular blocks adjoin each other. I n future, however, in
order to save ground space, buildings would be composed as
upended pyramids: only an insignificant part of them would
touch the ground, while their bulk would act as support for suspended or constructed frameworks above them. Architects and
artists ofthe future would be mainly concerned with this upper
part i n cities. The simple rectangular volumes of 'box-like'
buildings resting on the ground would underpin the upward
surge of a new top tier, complex in its composition and forms, a
sort of top elevation to be viewed from a variety of towers and
piers, or by air travellers. This upper tier would include platforms, stairs, lifts, gardens, fountains, side-shows, iUuminated
signs and spotlights, as well as an assortment of modern latticed and transparent structures in the shape of towers, bridges
between houses, ramps, and so on. Because he believed that 'a
building will be admired from within and from above, rather
than from below, as is the case at present', Rodchenko paid
particular attention i n his sketches of the new town to the formulation of new spatial forms for the 'top elevation', while the
ground-level buildings were designed as the most rudimentary

blocks devoid of all artistic treatment. This is also true of many

of his sketches produced in 1920 at Zhivskulptarkh for Sovdep
and other structures, as well as of various drawings for details
ofthe new town.

the aircraft of these years. This symbolism occurs ii

vich's own designs, such as the Airman's Planit of 1924
Khidekel's Aero-Club of 1922 and Chashnik's sketches i
in the work of his pupfls.

The c o s m i c city proposal - Malevich

Khidekel's experimental d e s i g n s

The idea of creating a cosmic city freelyffoating in space as a sort

of urban earth satellite was first mooted during this period, and
appeared in its most generalized form in the work of Malevich.
Malevich's two- and three-dimensional Suprematist compositions had been devoid of any identifiable static points of
reference. As a matter of principle, his compositions were free
and spatially detached. He dealt in his paintings with cosmic
categories.
When Suprematism began to break through into architecture with complex spatial compositions - first at Unovis in V i tebsk, and later in Ginkhuk in Leningrad - its 'cosmic' approach survived in a number of ways. Malevich talked a good
deal with his students about the cosmos and cities in it. The
earlier graphic Supremes, freely floating in the cosmos against a
background of infinite space and reminiscent ofthe rings that
surround some planets, began to acquire an increasingly convincing architectural quahty at the start ofthe 1920s. Unovis
designs included not only cities floating in the cosmos, but also
a number of others directly circling the Earth. These by now
represented a species of 'aero-cities' linked to settlements on
the Earth, the Planit dwelhngs of Earthfings. I t is significant in
this respect that the collections of articles published in Vitebsk
by Unovis bear the title Aero.
The thought of a cosmic city stimulated imaginations at Unovis, and hopes were expressed that scientific and technological advances would presently make free unpowered flight possible, thereby providing an opportunity to position cities as
free-floating satellites above the Earth's surface. These ideas
were reflected in the first architectural designs produced by
Malevich and his pupfls early in the 1920s, which represented
precisely such complexes in flight. The concept of an aero-city,
however, was not only embodied in such flying towns, but also
led to the inclusion of symbolically 'spatial' compositions in architectural projects by members of Unovis, in which the shapes
of the buildings and structural complexes were reminiscent of

A set of interesting experimental town-planning desij

duced by Khidekel during the 1920s develop some as
the aero-city concept, and also reveal the influence
experimental town-planning ideas of that period, such
cal zoning. Taken as a whole, in fact, all these designs r
variations, and developments ofthe latter concept. As
however, from the proposals by Lavinsky, Lissitzky a
nikov dealt with earlier, Khidekel's projects for a vert^
ing of cities involve a global approach to this town-]
concept: in so far as he was concerned, it was not mere
ter of organizing the area of habitation within a city's
ries in a rational way, but of the interaction between hu
tlement and the environment as a whole. This broad s!
accounts for the way in which the architectural com
his sketches interact with levels below ground, stretchj
ter, a virgin environment and supraterrestrial space.

I n an attempt to preserve nature intact among the y

plexes, Khidekel's project of 1922 relegated main 1
lines to tunnels, and allowed them to surface only in c i
the vicinity of bufldings. I n another project dating
same year, he designed a budding floating above gn
only tenuously linked to it. I n 1926, he drew a bufl
great height above the Earth and wholly detached fi
Khidekel's experimental town-planning projects c:
volve around the idea of a city laid out over a commu
network sunk into the ground or raised wefl above it a
porating a conception of vertical zoning radically
from that of his cofleagues. His outhnes of architect
plexes in the form of Suprematist compositions dating
time clearly reveal an element of vertical stratificatie
spatial organization. Buildings and structural com
not simply rest on the ground, but are raised to van
above it, while their component elements intersect e
at right angles. Clear space, cuttings, canals and pi
ture underhe these structures.

281
C h a p t e r 1/The socialist p a t t e r n o f s e t t l e m e n t

ew up a project for car parks in Paris

ng bridges over the Seine,
le buildings on pilotis were sited above
r over pedestrian ways. O f the three
cal zoning - pedestrian, traffic and
tects gave preference to the first be
t it was inefficient to alter its place
;ement of a city. They looked to build
; lanes for their main, vertically zoned
roject for a new town, such as Lavinnserted below buildings, while in exist5SCOW and Melnikov's Paris a second
specific spatially unencumbered locai and bridges.

blocks devoid of all artistic treatment. This is also true of many

of his sketches produced in 1920 at Zhivskulptarkh for Sovdep
and other structures, as well as of various drawings for details
ofthe new town.

the aircraft of these years. This symbolism occurs in Malevich's own designs, such as the Airman's Planit of 1924, and in
Khidekel's Aero-Club of 1922 and Chashnik's sketches we see it
in the work of his pupils.

The c o s m i c city proposal - Malevich

Khidekel's experimental designs

The idea of creating a cosmic city freely floating in space as a sort

of urban earth satellite was first mooted during this period, and
appeared in its most generahzed form in the work of Malevich.
Malevich's two- and three-dimensional Suprematist compositions had been devoid of any identifiable static points of
reference. As a matter of principle, his compositions were free
and spatially detached. He dealt in his paintings with cosmic
categories.

oncept

When Suprematism began to break through into architecture with complex spatial compositions - first at Unovis in V i tebsk, and later i n Ginkhuk in Leningrad its 'cosmic' approach survived in a number of ways. Malevich talked a good
deal with his students about the cosmos and cities in it. The
earlier graphic Supremes, freely floating in the cosmos against a
background of infinite space and reminiscent ofthe rings that
surround some planets, began to acquire an increasingly convincing architectural quality at the start ofthe 1920s. Unovis
designs included not only cities floating in the cosmos, but also
a number of others directly circling the Earth. These by now
represented a species of 'aero-cities' linked to settlements on
the Earth, the Planit dwellings of Earthfings. I t is significant in
this respect that the coflections of articles published in Vitebsk
by Unovis bear the title Aero.

A set of interesting experimental town-planning designs produced by Khidekel during the 1920s develop some aspects of
the aero-city concept, and also reveal the influence of other
experimental town-planning ideas of that period, such as vertical zoning. Taken as a whole, in fact, all these designs represent
variations, and developments ofthe latter concept. As distinct,
however, from the proposals by Lavinsky, Lissitzky and Melnikov dealt with earher, Khidekel's projects for a vertical zoning of cities involve a global approach to this town-planning
concept: in so far as he was concerned, it was not merely a matter of organizing the area of habitation within a city's boundaries in a rational way, but ofthe interaction between human setdement and the environment as a whole. This broad approach
accounts for the way in which the architectural complexes in
his sketches interact with levels below ground, stretches of water, a virgin environment and supraterrestrial space.
I n an attempt to preserve nature intact among the city complexes, Khidekel's project of 1922 relegated main transport
lines to tunnels, and allowed them to surface only in cutdngs in
the vicinity of bufldings. I n another project dating from the
same year, he designed a building floating above ground and
only tenuously hnked to it. I n 1926, he drew a building at a
great height above the Earth and wholly detached from it.
Khidekel's experimental town-planning projects came to revolve around the idea of a city laid out over a communications
network sunk into the ground or raised well above it and incorporating a conception of vertical zoning radically different
from that of his colleagues. His oudines of architectural complexes in the form of Suprematist compositions dating from this
dme clearly reveal an element of vertical stratification in their
spatial organization. Bufldings and structural complexes do
not simply rest on the ground, but are raised to various levels
above it, while their component elements intersect each other
at right angles. Clear space, cuttings, canals and pristine nature underhe these structures.

ved a project for a new town with spelevation. He suggested that in the past
of a building, as long as it remained
fetation, recalled that of an upwardin a modern town, buildings set out in
n each other. I n future, however, in
ace, buildings would be composed as
r an insignificant part of them would
heir bulk would act as support for susameworks above them. Architects and
1 be mainly concerned with this upper
)le rectangular volumes of 'box-like'
ground would underpin the upward
)mplex i n its composition and forms, a
e viewed from a variety of towers and
). This upper tier would include platas, fountains, side-shows, dluminated
well as an assortment of modern latuctures in the shape of towers, bridges
and so on. Because he beheved that 'a
1 from within and from above, rather
he case at present', Rodchenko paid
is sketches of the new town to the forbrms for the 'top elevation', while the
ere designed as the most rudimentary

The thought of a cosmic city stimulated imaginations at Unovis, and hopes were expressed that scientific and technological advances would presently make free unpowered flight possible, thereby providing an opportunity to position cities as
free-floadng satellites above the Earth's surface. These ideas
were reflected in the first architectural designs produced by
Malevich and his pupfls early in the 1920s, which represented
precisely such complexes in flight. The concept of an aero-city,
however, was not only embodied in such flying towns, but also
led to the inclusion of symbohcally 'spatial' compositions in architectural projects by members of Unovis, in which the shapes
of the buildings and structural complexes were reminiscent of

By the mid-1920s, the buildings floating above ground and

the stratified complexes which he had designed at the beginning ofthe decade had led Khidekel to the idea of raising an entire city above ground, without cutting it adrift, by resting it on
piers. The surface itself with its contours and vegetation remained untouched, while the entire city was carried absolutely
level above the landscape.
Khidekel worked on the idea of a city above ground level for
several years, from 1925 to 1929, and produced a number of
variants for it, the first of which was close in its conception to
his 'planing bufldings' and stratified complexes, a city consisting of a layered rectangular pattern of horizontal blocks raised
above ground on ferro-concrete piers.
I n 1926-27, Khidekel produced a great many vertical compositions, some with several tiers. The horizontal compositions
characteristic of Spatial Suprematism were now supplemented
with vertical components. The spatial organization ofthe city
on piers also changed in Khidekel's sketches during 1927-29.
I t was no longer simply a matter of a rectangular pattern of horizontal blocks, although this still recurred in some variants,
but of an intricate combination of horizontal and vertical
blocks, the latter jutting up above the horizontal pattern.
Khidekel's town on piers represents a novel reinterpretation
ofthe garden-city town-planning concept. The heavy traffic is
accommodated i n cuttings, or immediately below the horizontal blocks, while the landscape remains unaltered - for rambhng and recreation along picturesque paths, and for the general enjoyment of nature.
I n 1924-26, Khidekel produced a design for a town buflt
over water. Its base was a concrete pontoon, double-bottomed
for extra strength and with internal cavities for communications such as rail traffic. The pontoon was to carry terraces of
one- or two-storey houses separated by shallow inner canals.
These were laid out on the surface of the foundation pontoon
and connected the city and the individual houses with both the
open sea and the shore by the use of boats. The first tier of
buildings above the pontoon was mainly intended for industrial and storage purposes. Above this, flat roofs or terraces carried motor roads, pedestrian ways and boulevards, as well as
bridges over the canals. The third level - and, to a lesser extent,
the second - carried dweflings, above which recreational terraces, gardens and squares were provided.

282
P a r t I l / S o c i a l tasks o f a r c h i t e c t u r e

Proposals from Vkhutein for the future city:

d e s i g n s by Varentsov, Krasilnikov and Lavrov

Towards the end of the 1920s, Vkhutein became a centre for the
study of problems presented by the new city. Diploma projects
on the theme of the 'New City', undertaken in various studios
in the Architectural Faculty in 1928, received a great deal of
publicity in architectural circles. The set subject was the elaboration of reahstic principles to govern the planning and spatial
organization of the new city, taking into account the structure
of society and the existing level of technology. A number of alternative town-planning ideas were explored, such as the self
limiting city, aimed at restricting growth, and the decentralized city, which would enable the city's territory to increase indefinitely.
The most interesdng ofthe 1928 diploma projects in terms of
various experimental schemes for planning space were those
presented by Nikolai Krasilnikov from Alexander Vesnin's
studio, Trifon Varentsov from Dokuchaev's studio and Vitaly
Lavrov from Ladovsky's studio.
Krasilnikov planned the new city as an administrative, economic and social centre of internadonal standing, housing
500,000 people involved in administrative and technical activities, as weh as 150,000 delegates and visitors to congresses and
conferences. The city was laid out on a pattern of intersecting
ring and radial communications. The administradve centre
was designed as a circular forum surrounded by five belts of
skyscrapers with various ground plans, decreasing in height towards the periphery.
Varentsov attempted to rework the radial-concentric pattern and open it out, in order to allow the city to expand.
Lavrov designed a linear city, comprising a large dwehing
area which adjoined industrial land and developed in parallel
along a main highway. The dwelling area, consisting of rhythmically sited communal houses budt on a cross-shaped ground
plan, provided the main axis ofthe finear city, while the outer
bands contained the pubhc buildings.
The laboratory experiments in planning conducted in
Vkhutein, as well as work on experimental building designs,
helped to raise the general level of debate about the theory and
artistic principles of town planning and made it possible to examine the relevant problems in a long-term, as well as a shortterm, perspective.

After visiting Vkhutein's annual exhibition of works in 1928,

Lunaeharsky, the People's Commissar for Education, commented: ' I n my opinion, the Architectural Faculty of Vkhutein
represents its crowning achievement. I t contains a tremendous
charge of practical, objective, disciplined inventiveness for
which there is indeed a place in the gamut of our socialist building work. The young often sweep too widely. They already
dream ofthe city as it will be in fifty years' time, but how they
do dream! With an unheard-of practical imagination, with
scientific calculation ofthe utmost accuracy. . . . One emerges
from the Vkhutein Architectural Faculty's exhibition positively refreshed with even greater confidence in our potential for'
construction work on the grand scale.'*

Krutikov's proposal for mobile architecture

and the Flying City

Ladovsky's pupil Georgy Krutikov became interested in the

concept of mobile architecture while he was still a pupil at
Vkhutemas-Vkhutein. The idea as such was not new. I n early
Soviet years, for instance, interest in Cubo-Futurist composition often became an urge to create mobile buildings, even entire mobile cities. Klutsis, for example, produced a series of
sketches for a 'dynamic city' in 1919.
Krutikov approached mobile architecture in terms of the relationship between buildings and nature, and in this sense his
initial position was close to that of Khidekel. Man's capacity
for speed had increased continuously throughout history and,
as Krutikov saw it, this development in transport facilities had
directly affected architecture, especially in so far as dwellings
were concerned. The most modern means of transport could
therefore be regarded as a form of mobile architecture, since
they opened new vistas in the relation between architectural
structures and nature. This led Krutikov to ask whether it
might not be possible to avoid tying down dwellings and other
structures on the ground and to release the vast areas occupied
by buildings.
As he worked on the concept of mobile architecture, Krutikov graduafiy came to the conclusion that it would promote
efdciency not merely to free dwellings from any fixed location,
in other words to make them mobile, but - better still - to raise
them above the surface of the Earth.

As early as 1921, during a discussion at I

sky's City on Springs, Ladovsky had already suj
nical feasibility not only of raising a house abc
the ground without supports, but even of creai
ings.
For his diploma project on the town ofthe f
working in Ladovsky's studio, produced wl
known as his Flying City project. The Earth wa
dwellings and official buildings and reserved
and tourism. Communications between the
buildings floating in the air were provided by
thod of transport - a 'cabin' - capable of travel)
the ground, over water and below it. Krutikov
in both as an individual vehicle and a short-rai
which would provide people with the requisit
fort in travel and at stops outside the flying cit^
designed for a single person's use and fitted wit
and retractable furniture. The mobile cabin u
into the buildings in mid-air and was regardec;
the mobfle, autonomous component of a fixed

Krutikov's City of the Future consisted of t\

ments, one planing vertically and intended ft'
poses, the other for industrial use and fixed to
flying was done by the inhabitants rather than
the entire spatial structure ofthe City of the Fut\
by Krutikov with aerial communications in mil
ies themselves were sited at definite locations
surface. The industrial component was planne(
a central point along a spiral. The residential (
pended' in space, on the other hand, dipped as:
its apex above the industrial area along an axis
from the centre of the latter. The dwelling con
ranged in ders along the nodonal surfaces of t

Krutikov designed three types of flying dwe

was the labour commune, consisting of eight'
rey dwefling blocks connected by lift shafts w i t
lar, communal building. Each storey ofthe dw
divided into six units, consisdng of a porch, t
provided berths for cabin units, and a livin|
above it. The communal ring building carried
cells intended as temporary berths for the mol
second was a more compact version of the firs
all the vertical dwelhngs were consolidated int

283
C h a p t e r I / T h e sociahst p a t t e r n o f s e t t l e m e n t

ture city:
and Lavrov

, Vkhutein became a centre for the

by the new city. Diploma projects
y ' , undertaken in various studios
in 1928, received a great deal of
;les. The set subject was the elaboo govern the planning and spatial
taking into account the structure
/el of technology. A number of alts were explored, such as the self-

After visiting Vkhutein's annual exhibition of works in 1928,

Lunaeharsky, the People's Commissar for Education, commented: T n my opinion, the Architectural Faculty of Vkhutein
represents its crowning achievement. I t contains a tremendous
charge of practical, objective, disciplined inventiveness for
which there is indeed a place in the gamut of our socialist building work. The young often sweep too widely. They already
dream ofthe city as it will be in fifty years' time, but how they
do dream! With an unheard-of practical imagination, with
scientific calculation of the utmost accuracy. . . . One emerges
from the Vkhutein Architectural Faculty's exhibition positively refreshed with even greater confidence in our potential for'
construction work on the grand scale.'*

cting growth, and the decentral; the city's territory to increase in

; 1928 diploma projects in terms of

Krutikov's proposal for mobile architecture

es for planning space were those

and the Flying City

Inikov from Alexander Vesnin's

m Dokuchaev's studio and Vitaly
dio.
ew city as an administrative, ecointernational standing, housing
Iministrative and technical activiites and visitors to congresses and
id out on a pattern of intersecting
tions. The administrative centre
orum surrounded by five belts of
md plans, decreasing in height toework the radial-concentric patr to allow the city to expand,
city, comprising a large dwelling
lal land and developed in parallel
A'clling area, consisting of rhythm;s budt on a cross-shaped ground
of the linear city, while the outer
Duildings.

ents in planning conducted in

n experimental budding designs,
vel of debate about the theory and
inning and made it possible to exin a long-term, as well as a short-

Ladovsky's pupil Georgy Krutikov became interested in the

concept of mobile architecture while he was still a pupil at
Vkhutemas-Vkhutein. The idea as such was not new. I n early
Soviet years, for instance, interest in Cubo-Futurist composition often became an urge to create mobile buildings, even entire mobile cities. Klutsis, for example, produced a series of
sketches for a 'dynamic city' in 1919.
Krutikov approached mobile architecture in terms ofthe relationship between buildings and nature, and in this sense his
initial position was close to that of Khidekel. Man's capacity
for speed had increased continuously throughout history and,
as Krutikov saw it, this development in transport facihties had
directly affected architecture, especially in so far as dwellings
were concerned. The most modern means of transport could
therefore be regarded as a form of mobile architecture, since
they opened new vistas in the reladon between architectural
structures and nature. This led Krutikov to ask whether it
might not be possible to avoid tying down dwelhngs and other
structures on the ground and to release the vast areas occupied
by buildings.
As he worked on the concept of mobile architecture, Krudkov gradually came to the conclusion that it would promote
efficiency not merely to free dwelhngs from any fixed location,
in other words to make them mobile, but - better stl - to raise
them above the surface ofthe Earth.

As early as 1921, during a discussion at Inkhuk of Lavinsky's City on Springs, Ladovsky had already suggested the technical feasibility not only of raising a house above the surface of
the ground without supports, but even of creating flying bufldings.
For his diploma project on the town ofthe future, Krutikov,
working in Ladovsky's studio, produced what has become
known as his Flying City project. The Earth was to be cleared of
dweflings and official bufldings and reserved for work, leisure
and tourism. Communications between the ground and the
buildings floating in the air were provided by a universal method of transport - a 'cabin' - capable of travelling in the air, on
the ground, over water and below it. Krutikov treated this cabin both as an individual vehicle and a short-range mobile home
which would provide people with the requisite degree of comfort in travel and at stops outside the flying city. The cabin was
designed for a single person's use and fitted with multi-purpose
and retractable furniture. The mobile cabin unit linked easily
into the buildings in mid-air and was regarded by Krutikov as
the mobile, autonomous component of a fixed dwelling.
Krutikov's City of the Future consisted of two essential elements, one planing vertically and intended for dwelling purposes, the other for industrial use and fixed to the ground. The
flying was done by the inhabitants rather than by the city, since
the entire spatial structure ofthe City of the Future was designed
by Krutikov with aerial communications in mind, while the cities themselves were sited at definite locations on the Earth's
surface. The industrial component was planned outwards from
a central point along a spiral. The residential component 'suspended' in space, on the other hand, dipped as a parabolid with
Its apex above the industrial area along an axis rising verticafly
from the centre ofthe latter. The dwelling complexes were arranged in tiers along the notional surfaces ofthe parabolid.
Krutikov designed three types of flying dwellings. The first
was the labour commune, consisting of eight vertical five-storey dwefling blocks connected by lift shafts with a lower, circular, communal building. Each storey ofthe dwefling block was
divided into six units, consisting of a porch, the top of which
provided berths for cabin units, and a living space located
above it. The communal ring building carried a honeycomb of
cefls intended as temporary berths for the mobile cabins. The
second was a more compact version of the first type, in which
all the vertical dweflings were consolidated into a single eight-

storey cylindrical block, while the accommodadon in the communal ring was gathered into a ball. The third type was a tiered
vertical block with hotel-type accommodation, including a
tiered honeycomb parking system for cabins in transit, a central portion with hving space and a top part reserved for communal use.
When he was working on his flying city project Krutikov assumed that atomic energy would make it easy in future to lift
buildings above the surface ofthe Earth.
Krutikov's interest in space was also reflected in the competition project for a Columbus Monument in Santo Domingo
which he produced with Varentsov and Bunin in 1929. The
monument comprised two spheres, the larger of which - symbolizing the world was placed below the smaller one carried
on a pole and representing a planet. The underlying idea was
that Columbus had inaugurated the age of great geographical
discoveries, and that the way to other worlds and the age of cosmic discovery lay ahead.
Once Krutikov had publicized his idea, the concept of a
town raised unsupported above the Earth's surface engaged
the attention of other architects. Efforts were in fact made to
solve the practical problem of maintaining such a city in suspension above ground, and in 1929 two projects by Vkhutein
students attempted to answer it.
Viktor Kalmykov, a pupil of Ladovsky, suggested the construction round the equator of a circular town that he called 6*0turny, raised above ground and so rigidly constructed that it
would orbit the globe at the speed of rotation of the Earth.
Isaak lozefovich, also from Ladovsky's studio, designed the
House of Congresses of the USSR as a huge flying assembly
hall capable of mooring at special towers situated in various
cities. These towers would fulfil a dual role as vertical communication facihties and as complexes of residential and official accommodation cantilevered off the tower's core.

The s e c o n d debate about town planning, 1 9 2 9 - 3 0

The pohcy for the accelerated industrialization of the country

adopted by the X l V t h Party Congress i n December 1925, and
the resolutions of the X V t h Congress in December 1927 for
drawing up the First Five Year Plan, followed by its formulation, approval and early implementation in 1928-32, set So-

chitecture

ctical tasks i n the realm o f t o w n p l a n n i n g ,

711 Zholtovsky. Diagrammatic structure of a small

settlement, 1921.

dowed, i n its massive and r a n d o m character, the relatively i n -

I came to focus once again on questions of so-

significant amount o f b u i l d i n g work on workers's dwellings.

Indeed, the theory and artistic practice o f

T h e second t o w n - p l a n n i n g debate coincided w i t h the mass de-

u r i n g the period o f the First Five Year Flan

velopment o f large dwelling complexes to serve the new pro-

lined by t o w n - p l a n n i n g considerations. T h i s

d u c t i o n plant. T h i s programme was overwhelmingly con-

ure gradually became central to all profes-

cerned w i t h workers' housing, so that the social problems i n -

Sfew groupings and teams were f o r m e d , such

volved i n t o w n p l a n n i n g and the reconstruction of a new w a y of

list Settlement Section and others, to devote

life were now b r o u g h t to the fore.

)lems arising f r o m i t .

T h e subjects discussed d u r i n g the t o w n - p l a n n i n g debate

S^ear Plan, published i n the spring o f 1929,

dealt w i t h all levels o f the p r o b l e m f r o m the l i v i n g u n i t to the

mstruction o f 200 new i n d u s t r i a l towns and

countrywide system o f settlement. I n fact, attitudes towards

tural ones. A n intense debate about t o w n

the city as such, its structure and dimensions, were largely de-

d i n the press at large, as well as i n architec-

termined by the principles adopted i n tackling these t w o ex-

Theoretical concepts, p l a n n i n g schemes,

tremes, the u n i t o f housing and the general system o f settle-

IS and counter-periodicals for the construc-

ment.

- A v t o s t r o i , Magnitogorsk, G h a r d z h u i , K o -

Three especially i n f l u e n t i a l concepts o f socialist settlement

letsk, B o b r i k i , Zeleny G o r o d (Green C i t y ) -

may be picked out f r o m among the m u l t i p h c i t y o f views ex-

s f o r dispute and discussion.

pressed about social and other problems arising f r o m town

IS the attitude to be adopted towards large

planning. T w o o f these are usually described as urbanization

between t o w n and country, and the trans-

and disurbanization, although i t w o u l d be more correct to

j.y of life were as central for the participants

speak o f compact and hnear methods o f settlement - or o f t h e

i-planning debate i n 1929-30 as they had

Sotsgorod (socialist city) and the new settlement while the

;h debate i n 1922-23. However, the empha-

t h i r d concept was connected w i t h the tenets o f A R U .

s o f industrialization on the construction o f

lant demanded a fresh approach to the dewelhng complexes. I n such circumstances,

Sabsovich's Sotsgorod conception

jes were no longer adequate,

character o f the m i g r a t i o n between t o w n

T h e Sotsgorod conception is most f u l l y elaborated i n the theo-

; beginning and end o f the 1920s differed

retical writings o f t h e economist Leonid Sabsovich i n 1928-30.

,bove, the early post-Revolutionary years i n

Its supporters rejected the notion o f large cities and based so-

itnessed a phenomenon that was unusual i n

cialist settlement pohcy on the creation o f compact communi-

Duntry - a flux o f city dweflers to the coun-

ties a d j o i n i n g large i n d u s t r i a l units and sovkhozy (state farms)

istrialization was speeded up, on the other

w i t h populations h m i t e d to 40,000-50,000 inhabitants at least,

lusual opposite effect occurred - a quite u n -

and 80,000-100,000 at most. T h e o p d m u m dimensions for a

i o n to the cities. T h u s the u r b a n p o p u l a t i o n

t o w n , according to Sabsovich, were closely related to the aver-

I more than doubled - rising f r o m 26.3 mil

age number of people housed i n the dwelling complexes which

- between 1926 and 1939.

i t had become necessary to erect i n connection w i t h the actual

I also greatly affected the social composition

construction o f large i n d u s t r i a l plants.

housed i n the new dwelling complexes. T h e

B y contrast w i t h the garden city and its i n d i v i d u a l houses,

debate took place at a time when the p r i -

the Sotsgorod was regarded by its proponents as a communal-

i i v i d u a l houses was getting into its stride,

ized settlement w i t h coflecdve dweflings. The garden city's

ork on i n d i v i d u a l houses p a i d for by the pe-

m o n o s t r u c t u r a l character was to be replaced by a town-plan-

s o f t h e u r b a n p o p u l a t i o n entirely oversha-

n i n g concept

i n v o l v i n g zhilkombinaty

(dwelhng

combines)

712 'New Moscow' project. Detail o f t h e city centre.

Perspective.
713 'New Moscow' project. Zamoskvorechie and
Khamovniky districts. Perspective.

286
714 'New Moscow' project. Khamovniky district.
Perspective.
715 'New Moscow' project. The Central Railway
Station at Kalanchev Square. Perspective.

716 Ilya and Panteleimon Golosov. Competition

design for an oil industry settlement, Novo-Grozny.
General lay-out. Detail. Building development.

717 Sergei Shestakov.'New

1921-25. Diagrammatic gene

EM..J

ii'"'Tnirr,

287
vniky district.

716 Ilya and Panteleimon Golosov. Competition

design for an oil industry settlement, Novo-Grozny.
General lay-out. Detail. Building development.

717 Sergei Shestakov.'New Moscow'project,

1921-25. Diagrammatic general plan.

718 Leonid Vesnin. Workers' settlement, Shatursk,

1918.

7 1 9 - 2 0 Meshkov and others. Usacheva Street

development, Moscow, 1926-27. Exterior view of one
dwelling complex (719). Aerial view of a part o f t h e
development (720).

721 Samoilov. The residential district of Armenikend,

Baku, 1925-28. Detail.

722 Nikolsky, Gegello and Simonov. Housing

complex i n the Narva Gate district, Leningrad,
1925-27. Detail.

723-24
Dubrovsk
dwelling i
developm

sacheva Street
Exterior view of one
;w of a part of the

721 Samoilov. The residential district of Armenikend,

Baku, 1925-28. Detail.

722 Nikolsky, Gegello and Simonov. Housing

complex i n the Narva Gate district, Leningrad,
1925-27. Detail.

7 2 3 - 2 4 Motylev and others. Development of First

Dubrovskaya Street, Moscow, 1926-27. Exteriorofone
dwelling complex (723). Aerial view of part o f t h e
development (724).

727 Sakulin. Diagram o f t h e Central Industrial

Area.

728-29 Ivan Fomin (lay-out) and Rudnev

(monument). Field of Mars Memorial, Leningrad,
1917-20. Detail (728). Panoramic view (729).

291

liagram of the
if Moscow's satelhte

727 Sakuhn, Diagram of the Central Industrial

Area,

728-29 Ivan Fomin (lay-out) and Rudnev

(monument). Field of Mars Memorial, Leningrad,
1917-20, Detail (728). Panoramic view (729),

730 Osipov (design) and Nikolai Andreev

(sculpture). The Freedom Obelisk, Sovietskaya
Square, Moscow.
731 Ilya Golosov and Shchusev. Design for the
reconstruction of Sovietskaya Square, Moscow, 1923.
Perspective.

292
732

Tamanyan. General plan for Erevan, 1924.

73334 Dzerzhinsky Square, Kharkov. General layout (733). Square under construction (734).

7 3 5 - 3 8 Serafimov, Felger and Kravets. The House of

Industry (Gosprom) i n Kharkov, 1925-28. Panoramic
view (735). Plan (736). Details (737-38).

294
739 Ginzburg, with Milinis. Kazakhstan Government
House, Alma-Ata, 1929-31.
7 4 0 - 4 1 Ginzburg with Milinis. Competition design
for the Kazakhstan Government House, Alma-Ata,
1927-28. Perspective (740). Plan (741).

742 Shteinberg. The Ukrainian Communist Party's

Central Committee" building, 1931.
743 A social centre near Narva Gate, Leningrad.
General lay-out.

744 Gerasimov. The Post and T r u n k Telephone

Office, Alma-Ata, 1929-34.
745 Ginzburg, with Milinis. Design for the Head
Office o f t h e Turkestan-Siberian Railway, Alma-Ata,
1929. Perspective.

296
7 4 6 - 4 7 Lavinsky. City on Springs, 192L Diagram of a
Irousing block (746). Diagram o f t h e city plan (747).

7 4 8 - 4 9 Lavinsky. City on Springs, 1921. Structure of

radio aerials.
7 5 0 - 5 1 Melnikov. Design for a multi-storey car park,
Paris, 1925. Perspective (750). Elevation (751).

752 Lissitzky. Diagram for the siting of'Horizontal

Skyscrapers' i n Moscow, 1923-25.
753 Lissitzky. Design for a 'Horizontal Skyscraper',
Moscow, 1923-25. Axonometric view.

7 4 8 - 4 9 Lavinsky. Cily on Springs, 192L Structure of

radio aerials.
75051 Melnikov. Design for a multi-storey car park,
Paris, 1925. Perspective (750). Elevation (751).

752 Lissitzky. Diagram for the siting of 'Horizontal

Skyscrapers' in Moscow, 1923-25.
753 Lissitzky. Design for a 'Horizontal Skyscraper',
Moscow, 1923-25. Axonometric view.

7 5 4 - 5 5 Lissitzky. Design for a 'Horizontal

Skyscraper', Moscow, 1923-25. Perspective (754).
Section of perspective (755).

299
city development

7 5 8 - 6 0 Rodchenko. Designs of buildings w i t h 'top

elevations', 1920.

766 Khidekel. Design for a building located near the

entrance to a communications tunnel.

767 Khidekel. Design for buildings raised above the

Earth's surface, 1922.
768 Khidekel. Design for a 'planing building', 1926.

769-70 Khidekel. Abstract compositions i n the form

of architectural complexes stratified along shared
planes, 1921-22.

301
767 Khidekel. Design for buildings raised above the
Earth's surface, 1922.
768 Khidekel. Design for a 'planing building', 1926.

7 6 9 - 7 0 Khidekel. Abstract compositions i n the form

of architectural complexes stratified along shared
planes, 1921-22.

771-72 Design for a city over water, 1924-26.

Perspective (7 71). Common planes - details of the
district (771-72).

7 7 3 - 7 4 Khidekel. Design for a city on pilotis: variant

with horizontal blocks, 1925-28. Perspective, section
(773). Axonometric view (774).

775 Khidekel. Design for a city on pilotis: variant with

horizontal blocks, 1927.
776 Khidekel. Design for a city on pilotis: variant with
horizontal blocks over river and road, 1929. Section.
Perspective.

78183 Varentsov. Design for a new city, Vkhutein,

Dokuchaev's studio, 1928. Model of development
(781). Perspective of city (782). Lay-out diagrams
(783).

307
790 Rabinovich. Cily on Mars. IVIodel of a set for the
film Aelita.

7 9 1 - 9 2 Kriikov, MyiHg City design, Vkhutein,

Ladovsky's sttldlo, 1928. OeHei'al view (791). Section,
plan (792).

793 Krutikov. F/j'in^ C0i design, Vkhutein,

Ladovsky's studio, 1928. Planetary diagram: siting of
cities in relation to the Earth and planets.
794 Krutikov. Highly elaborate Housing Commune,
Flying City design, Vkhutein, Ladovsky's studio, 1928.
Diagram of lay-out.

7 9 5 - 9 6 Krutikov. Highly elaborate Housing

Commune, Flying City design, Vkhutein, Ladovsky's
studio, 1928. Section, plan (795). General view (796).

308
7 9 7 - 9 8 Krutikov. Compact Housing Commune,
Flying City design, Vkhutein, Ladovsky's studio, 1928.
Section, plans (797). Elevation (798).

799 Krutikov. Hotel-type dwelling, F/jim^ GY)> design,

Vkhutein, Ladovsky's studio, 1928. Plans. Section.
Elevation.

8 0 0 - 0 1 Krutikov. The cabin as universal means of

transport. Flying City design, Vkhutein, Ladovsky's
studio, 1928. Diagram (800). Exterior and interior

!^ompact Housing Commune,

chutein, Ladovsky's studio, 1928.
Elevation (798).

799 Krutikov. Hotel-type dwelling. Flying City design,

Vkhutein, Ladovsky's studio, 1928. Plans. Section.
Elevation.

80001 Krutikov. The cabin as universal means of

transport. Flying City design, Vkhutein, Ladovsky's
studio, 1928. Diagram (800). Exterior and interior
(801).

8 0 2 - 0 3 Krutikov, Varentsov and Bunin.

Competition design for the Columbus Monument,
Santo Domingo, 1929. Elevation, plan (802).
Perspective (803).
804 Kalmykov. Design for the Ring City Saturn,
1929.

805 Kalmykov. Design for the Ring City Saturn,

1929.
806 lozefovich. Design for the hall of the House of
Congresses o f t h e USSR, floating above a mooring
mast.

80708 Turkus. Design for a housing complex,

Moscow, Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio, 1926.
Axonometric view o f t h e complete design (807) and of
one residential district (808).

809 Sobolev. Competition design for a housing

complex, 1927. Perspective.
81011 Lamtsov. Design for a housing complex in
Moscow, Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio, 1926,
completed 1927. Model of general lay-out (810).
Dwelling variants assembled from standard elements
plans, diagrams, sections and elevations (811).

812 Nikolai K u z m i n . Housing combine for the

Anzhero-Sudzhensk miners' settlement, 1928-29.
Axonometric plan.

311
809 Sobolev, Competition design for a housing
complex, 1927. Perspective,
810-11 Lamtsov, Design for a housing complex in
Moscow, Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio, 1926,
completed 1927, Model of general lay-out (810).
Dwelling variants assembled from standard elements plans, diagrams, sections and elevations (811).

>KI/l/lblE

C T A H A A F = > T

812 Nikolai K u z m i n , Housing combine for the

Anzhero-Sudzhensk miners' settlement, 192829,
Axonometric plan.

lal|7;

k ft

SKI

rcmi

813 Alexander and Leonid Vesnin. Competition

design for Kuznetsk, 1930. General lay-out.
8 1 4 - 1 5 M V T U student team directed by
Mordvinov. Competition design for the lay-out and
development of Avtostroi, 1930. General lay-out (814),
Detail, perspective and standard plan of dwelling
combine (815).

?-^,<^

1^
'
c
c

i:

cd

'''

THnoBbiH n/iBH
WHnoro HouBHHaTa

312
816 Alexander and Leonid Vesnin. Competition
design for Kuznetsk, 1930. Dwelling combine perspective, interiors, axonometric plan.

81718 Alexander and Leonid Vesnin. Competition

design for a Sotsgorod dwelling complex, Stalingrad,
1929. Variant I - axonometric view (817) and general
lay-out of dwelling complex (818); Variant I I - g e n e r a l
lay-out (818).

819-21 Ilya Golosov. Competition design for a

dwelling combine i n Stalingrad, 1930. Model (819).
General lay-out (820). Plan of dwelling units (821).

817-18 Alexandei- and Leonid Vesnin. Competition

design for a Sotsgorod dwelling complex, Stalingrad,
1929. Variant I - axonometric view (817) and general
lay-out of dwelling complex (818); Variant I I - general
lay-out (818).

81921 Ilya Golosov. Competition design for a

dwelling combine i n Stalingrad, 1930. Model (819).
General lay-out (820). Plan of dwelling units (821).

822 Ligi team (Zhukovsky, Alexander Knyazev,

Proskurina, Rubanenko, Khomutetsky and Shadrin).
Competition design for communal houses - forming a
dwelling combine - for 2,000 residents, 1930. Model.

314
82324 Antonov, Venyamin Sokolov and Tumbasov.
'Chekist (Special Police), Compound': dwelling
complex, Sverdlovsk, 1931-32. Detail of compound
(823). Plans of communal houses (824).

825-28 Aleshin. 'New Kharkov' Sotsgorod,

[g29_30. Club restaurant (825). Design of dwelling
comple't (826). Housing section for families, w i t h
children's institution i n background (827). General layout (828).

315
min Sokolov and Tumbasov.
Compound': dwelling
- 3 2 . Detail of compound
houses (824).

8 2 5 - 2 8 Aleshin. 'New Kharkov' Sotsgorod,

1929-30. Club restaurant (825). Design of dweiling
complex (826). Housing section for families, with
children's institution in background (827). General layout (828).

317
83132 Andrievsky and Konstantin Knyazev.
Buildings in the Sixth Zaporozhe Settlement.
Dwellings.

8 3 3 - 3 4 Vegman. The 'Ray' (Luch) housing

complex, Kharkov, 1928-30. Design: shop and
dwellings (833). Detail of completed building (834).

835 Motylev, Boris Blokhin and others.

Dangauerovka housing complex, Moscow, 1929-33.
General lay-out.

83638 Kochar and Mazmanyan. Housing complex,

Erevan, 1931-32. General lay-out, with diagram of
public services (836). Lay-out of residential district
(837). Detail of a completed dwelling (838).

318
8 4 3 - 4 5 Okhitovich, Barshch, Vladimirov and
Nikolai Sokolov. Competition design for Magnitogorsk,
1930. Linear setement, general lay-out (843). Detail of
linear settlement, axonometric view (844). Housing
unit: section, elevation, interior, plan, perspectives
(843).

8 3 9 - 4 2 The Socialist Settlement Section in

accordance w i t h the RSFSR State Plan. Settlement
schemes; (1) Disurbanized (839). (2) Decentralized
(840). (3) A-centrahzed (841). (4) Dispersed (842).

A ' .\

cn3

'A.

319

8 4 3 - 4 5 Okhitovich, Barshch, Vladimirov and

Nikolai Sokolov. Competition design for Magnitogorsk,
1930. Linear setdement, general lay-out (843). Detail of
linear settlement, axonometric view (844). Housing
unit: section, elevation, interior, plan, perspectives
(843).

846 Okhitovich, Barshch, Vladimirov and Nikolai

Sokolov. Competition design for Magnitogorsk, 1930.
General lay-out.

320
84748 Okhitovich, Barshch, Vladimirov and
Nikolai Sokolov. Gompetition design for Magnitogorsk,
1930. Industrial zone: perspective (847). Kilometre
station: elevations, axonometric view (848).

321
, Vladimirov and
design for Magnitogorsk,
ective (847). Kilometre

849-51

Barshch and Ginzburg. Competition design

for Zeleny Gorod (Green City), 1930. General lay-out

(849). Detail of linear settlement: general lay-out (850).

852 Design team leader: Ginzburg. Design for the

settlement o f t h e Chernikov industrial district, 1931.
General lay-out.

8 5 3 - 5 4 Barshch and Ginzburg. Competition design

for Green City, 1930. Details of settlement: axonometric
view (853); housing unit, shown singly and in blocks:
plans, elevations, section, axonometric view (854).

857 Leonidov, Competition design for Magnitogorsk,

1930, Variant with low-rise buildings. Perspective.
858 Leonidov. Competition design for Magnitogorsk,
1930. Swimming pool: plan, elevation. Sports hall:
plans, elevation.

323
857 Leonidov. Competition design for Magnitogorsk,
1930. Variant with low-rise buildings. Perspective.
858 Leonidov. Competition design for Magnitogorsk,
1930. Swimming pool: plan, elevation. Sports hall:
plans, elevation.

iH3>CV4tiTJAA

85961 Leonidov. Competition design for

Magnitogorsk, 1930. Cross-section through the city
(859). Axonometric view (860). Perspective (861).

Comarova, Nikolai
alovkin. Gompetition
Qeral lay-out (862).
ing units, elevation

325
864 M i l i u t i n . Functional flow diagram for the
Stahngrad settlement, 1930.

865 M i h u t i n . Functional flow diagram for

Magnitogorsk, 1930.
866 M i l i u t i n . Functional flow diagram for Avtostroi,
1930.

327
tlementnear
lut.

870-72 Ladovsky. Kosdno industrial settlement,

1927-29. Club: plan, axonometric view (870). Types of
dwellings: axonometric section, plan (871);
axonometric view, plan (872).

873 Ladovsky. Basic diagram o f t h e expanding city,

1930.

330
879 Vitaly Lavrov. Design for an industrial settlement
near Ufa, 1929-30. Model of general lay-out.
880 Kalmykov. Design for a dwelling combine.

881 Revyakin and Fedulov. Design for Avtostroi,

Vkhutein, Ladovsky's studio, 1930. General lay-out.

882 Le Corbusier. Proposal for restructuring the city

of Moscow, 1930. General lay-out.

8 8 3 - 8 4 Ladovsky. Proposal for restructuring the city

of Moscow. Competition design, 1932 (883).
Diagrammatic plan (884).

332
88589 Competition for tlie restructuring of
Moscow. Designs by the Kratyuk team (885), Vopra
team (886), K u r t Meyer (887), Hannes Meyer (888)
and M a y (889).

333
Chapter 1/The sociahst pattern of settlement

made up of standard component units and designed for the accommodation of two to four thousand inhabitants.
The archetypal dwelling combine evolved towards the end
of the 1920s. I t was the outcome of two somewhat remotely
connected developments. On the one hand, collective housing
became increasingly complex and space was made within it for
the requisite communal facihties. On the other hand, dwellings
and public buildings became ever more closely and organically
hnked within each city district. A dwelling combine may therefore be regarded either as a collective dwelhng that has grown
to the size of a district, or as a district in which all the buildings
physically communicate with each other.
Fully developed collective houses and residential areas,
complete with pubhc buildings, were already being designed
by the mid-1920s. Interesting diploma projects for dwelling
complexes included in city construction were designed in
Vkhutemas in 1926 by both Turkus and Lamtsov under Ladovsky's direction. I n Turkus' design the dweUing complex
consisted of five small residential areas of two- to four-storey
houses, linked by gangways at second-floor level with a communal building containing a kindergarten, a crche and a canteen. A l l these residential areas, each of which represented a
kind of embryonic dwelhng combine, were grouped around a
cultural and sports centre with a club and stadium. Lamtsov
based his design on the whohy communal upbringing of children and feeding of the inhabitants in the complexes. He set
aside a sector for buildings to serve children. The dweUing
houses for adults were assembled out of two standard elements,
the combination of which provided a large number of buildings
differing from each other in the composition of their ground
plan, elevation and outhne. The club and canteen were located
in a building at the centre ofthe complex.
One of the first designs for a fully developed dwelling combine was submitted at an internal Osa competition in 1927 by
Sobolev. This consisted of a city district often blocks, each six
or seven storeys high, linked by gangways both with each other
and with a group of communal buildings - a canteen, club, l i brary, shop, crche, and so on. A stadium, sports grounds and
gardens were sited at the centre of the complex.
Subsequent projects aimed at the inclusion in the dwelling
combine of an ever-increasing number of public buildings, so
as to turn it into an independent component urban unit. Phalanstere-type combines were also designed as self-contained

settlements, such as Nikolai Kuzmin's project of 1928-29 for

the Anzhero-Sudzhensk coal mining community which, when
completed, was intended to house 5,140 people and provide all
the public services required.
The tendency during the 1920s to create a structural unit the dwelling combine - intended to be virtually self-contained
within a city may be seen as a more or less straightforward attempt to convert a self-contained independent workers' settlement into a city district, with a minimum of adaptation. The
supporters of the Sotsgorod idea articulated their designs for a
city quite independently of industrial working conditions and
concentrated on everyday requirements for social services.
They treated a city as an assembly of independent elements of
construction, rather than an integrated entity. Social contacts
in dwelling combines conformed to the patterns of life in independent settlements, so that the outlook of a village dweller
with his or her narrow neighbourhood view was transplanted
to the big city. The latter was to be turned into a sort of machine pattern of independent worker's settlements and of the
qualitatively different town-planning system generated by
dweUing combines, which represented the cross-connected,
but self-contained constituent elements of a city.
The concept of Sotsgorods consisting of identical dwelling
combines was widely applied during the period ofthe First Five
Year Plan. Standard component units were designed for such
Sotsgorods in the form of district communes, competition projects were drawn up for new industrial towns and dwelhng
complexes were built.
The most consistent application of the Sotsgorod concept,
with the dwelling complex as its component unit, can be found
in competition designs submitted i n 1929-30 for new socialist
towns and living complexes.
I n their project for the lay-out and construction of Kuznetsk,
Alexander and Leonid Vesnin offered a compactly planned
Sotsgorod for 35,000 inhabitants with clearly identified communal and cultural centres. Its districts were to consist of
dwelling combines, each composed of four accommodation
blocks, two for famihes and two for single people, a communal
block with a canteen, assembly hah, reading room, gymnasium
etc, blocks for children's institutions, and a school block with
provision for boarders. A l l the blocks communicated with each
other by gangways. Two dwelling combines formed a city district with a clump of vegetation at its centre on to which opened

Chapter 1/The socialist pattern of settlement

made up of standard component units and designed for the accommodation of two to four thousand inhabitants.
The archetypal dwelling combine evolved towards the end
o f t h e 1920s. I t was the outcome of two somewhat remotely
connected developments. On the one hand, collective housing
became increasingly complex and space was made within it for
the requisite communal facilities. On the other hand, dwelhngs
and pubhc buildings became ever more closely and organically
Hnked within each city district. A dwelhng combine may therefore be regarded either as a coUective dwelhng that has grown
to the size of a district, or as a district in which all the buildings
physically communicate with each other.
Fully developed collective houses and residential areas,
complete with pubhc buUdings, were already being designed
by the mid-1920s. Interesting diploma projects for dwelling
complexes included in city construction were designed in
Vkhutemas i n 1926 by both Turkus and Lamtsov under Ladovsky's direction. I n Turkus' design the dwelling complex
consisted of five small residential areas of two- to four-storey
houses, linked by gangways at second-floor level with a communal building containing a kindergarten, a crche and a canteen. AU these residential areas, each of which represented a
kind of embryonic dweUing combine, were grouped around a
cultural and sports centre with a club and stadium. Lamtsov
based his design on the whoUy communal upbringing of children and feeding of the inhabitants in the complexes. He set
aside a sector for buildings to serve chUdren. The dweUing
houses for adults were assembled out of two standard elements,
the combination of which provided a large number of buildings
differing from each other in the composition of their ground
plan, elevation and outline. The club and canteen were located
in a buUding at the centre of the complex.
One of the first designs for a fully developed dweUing combine was submitted at an internal Osa competition in 1927 by
Sobolev. This consisted of a city district often blocks, each six
or seven storeys high, hnked by gangways both with each other
and with a group of communal buildings - a canteen, club, l i brary, shop, crche, and so on. A stadium, sports grounds and
gardens were sited at the centre of the complex.
Subsequent projects aimed at the inclusion in the dweUing
combine of an ever-increasing number of public buildings, so
as to turn it into an independent component urban unit. Phalanstere-typt combines were also designed as self-contained

settlements, such as Nikolai Kuzmin's project of 1928-29 for

the Anzhero-Sudzhensk coal mining community which, when
completed, was intended to house 5,140 people and provide all
the public services required.
The tendency during the 1920s to create a structural unit the dweUing combine - intended to be virtuaUy self-contained
within a city may be seen as a more or less straightforward attempt to convert a self-contained independent workers' setde
ment into a city district, with a minimum of adaptation. The
supporters ofthe Sotsgorod idea articulated their designs for a
city quite independently of industrial working conditions and
concentrated on everyday requirements for social services.
They treated a city as an assembly of independent elements of
construction, rather than an integrated entity. Social contacts
in dweUing combines conformed to the patterns of life in independent settlements, so that the outlook of a village dweUer
with his or her narrow neighbourhood view was transplanted
to the big city. The latter was to be turned into a sort of machine pattern of independent worker's settlements and of the
qualitatively different town-planning system generated by
dweUing combines, which represented the cross-connected,
but self-contained constituent elements of a city.
The concept of Sotsgorods consisting of identical dwelling
combines was widely applied during the period ofthe First Five
Year Flan. Standard component units were designed for such
Sotsgorods in the form of district communes, competition projects were drawn up for new industrial towns and dweUing
complexes were built.
The most consistent apphcation of the Sotsgorod concept,
with the dwelling complex as its component unit, can be found
in competition designs submitted in 1929-30 for new socialist
towns and Uving complexes.
I n their project for the lay-out and construction of Kuznetsk,
Alexander and Leonid Vesnin offered a compactly planned
Sotsgorod for 35,000 inhabitants with clearly identified communal and cultural centres. Its districts were to consist of
dweUing combines, each composed of four accommodation
blocks, two for famUies and two for single people, a communal
block with a canteen, assembly hall, reading room, gymnasium
etc, blocks for chUdren's institutions, and a school block with
provision for boarders. A l l the blocks communicated with each
other by gangways. Two dwelling combines formed a city district with a clump of vegetation at its centre on to which opened

Part Il/Social tasks of architecture

the children's institutions and the school. The settlement - the

Sotsgorod - was entirely made up of these standard city districts.
The project submitted for the Avtostroi competition by
M V T U students under Mordvinov's direction resembled this
Vesnin design closely. The town was composed of standard
districts built on an almost square ground plan, each of which
consisted of two fully developed living combines: six dwelling
blocks, a school block, club, kindergarten and two blocks for
crches.
The Vesnin project for Stahngrad was hkewise an autonomous Sotsgorod consisting of large dwelling combines. The first
version of this scheme, for a town of 64,000 inhabitants, consisted of twenty dwelhng combines each housing 3,200 people
and each comprising eighteen blocks. The second version, for
32,000 inhabitants, consisted of twelve dwelling combines
housing 2,600 people in each.
A complete dwelling combine was also proprosed in one of
the competition projects for Magnitogorsk submitted by a
group of students from Vkhutein under the direction of an architect named Brilling.
Golosov submitted an unusual design for a dwelling complex in Stalingrad. Instead of a single compact block, it provided a set of three parallel blocks, linked at the centre by gangways. Two blocks were for communal use, offering a communal
centre and a children's section, while the central and longest
block, stretching for 450 metres, provided living quarters.
Another imaginative scheme for the spatial organization of a
dwelling combine in Leningrad to house 2,000 people was put
forward by a team from the Leningrad Institute of Civil Engineers, Ligi, consisting of Pavel Zhukovsky, Alexander Knyazev, Olga Proskurina, Boris Rubanenko, Nikolai Khomutetsky
and Nikolai Shadrin. I n their design for 2,000 people in Leningrad, a communal block built on a V-shaped plan was linked to
two rows of parallel dwelhng blocks.
The Gorodok chekistov (Special Pohce Cantonment) at
Sverdlovsk, designed by I . Antonov and Venyamin Sokolov in
1931, provides an instance of a design that was actually executed.
Standard dwelhng combines were also used to make up the
New Kharkov Sotsgorod, an autonomous complex of 50,000
inhabitants designed by Aleshin in 1929 and begun in 1930 for
the Kharkov Tractor Factory. This new town, eight kilometres

from Kharkov, was planned as part of a large industrial district. Its basic component unit - a dwelling combine or town
quarter - was intended for 3,000 inhabitants and consisted of
eight dwelhng blocks, six of which were segmented for the use
of families, while the other two were laid out along corridors as
accommodation for individuals, and four blocks housing institutions for children, a club and a canteen. Unlike the fully developed dwehing combines in Kharkov itself, this industrial
housing district offered only those communal facihties required
for everyday use. I n this instance, the inhabitants were dependent for public services on the general communal facihties
provided within the Sotsgorod as a whole. This Kharkov complex clearly marks an intermediate stage in the change-over
from huge housing communes to the traditional city district as
the basic component unit o f t h e Sotsgorod. This evolution in
the dwehing combine concept was connected with the transition from experimental design work to the actual construction
of Sotsgorods to serve new industrial undertakings during the
First Five Year Plan.

The further evolution of the dwehing combine conce]

well illustrated by the sixth settlement at Zaporozhe, when
overah division of the town into districts was already
marked, but where the residential areas still preserved t
basic component units, including housing and commi
blocks.
Another original interpretation ofthe concept of a Sotsg(
consisting of dwehing combines was used in laying out resii
tial areas on empty sites in large cities as micro-districts cj
plete with dwellings, children's institutions, a school, si
and educational establishments. Examples of such city
tricts can be found in the former Dangauerovka area of j
cow built in 1929-33 by Motylev, Boris Blokhin and other
Armeniken in Baku, and in the residential areas of Erevan I
in 1931-32 by Kochar and Mazmanyan.

Disurbanization:
Olctiltovicli's 'new settiement'

The component units designed for the Sotsgorods at New

Goriovka in 1929-30 and Kominternovsk in 1929, the latter by
Petr Yurchenko, Mikhail Grechina and others, closely resemble the New Kharkov dwelling combines in that their network
of pubhc services is closely integrated into the city's pubhc
services system as a whole.
The practice of dispensing, with the dwelling combine's selfsufficiency and integrating its requirements in the general
scheme regulating the pubhc services ofthe city concerned, is
clearly ihustrated by a competition project for a Housing Commune submitted in 1930 by Nikolai Baranov, Leonid Galperin,
Evgeny Ihn, Venyamin Notes, Mikhail Rusakov and Andrei
Chaldymov. These architects did not treat the Housing Commune as an independent social unit, including it, instead, in the
Sotsgorod's multi-tiered organizational scheme. They distributed the various component elements of the public services in
accordance with an ingeniously conceived hierarchy within the
city structure. The dwelling combine, a community of2,000 inhabitants, was designed in this case as a city district without
covered gangways, and the graduated system of public services
was designed to serve both component elements larger than a
dwelhng complex, such as a group of communes or a whole
Sotsgorod, and smaller than it, such as the nucleus of a commune, a commune element or two such elements together.

The second most influentical concept of socialist settlemc

disurbanization - is linked with the lectures and articles o'
sociologist Mikhail Okhitovich. The principles on whic
based his 'new settlement' concept differed radically ]
those underlying the Sotsgorod theory, and were in some ^
at the opposite extreme to them.
Okhitovich and Sabsovich were at one in their rejecti(
big cities. But while Sabsovich regarded the creation of tc
strictly designed to serve a given purpose as the basis of so
ist settiement, Okhitovich rejected ah forms of compact 1
planning and countered the principle of urbanization w:
consistently 'disurbanizing' concept. I n so far as he was
cerned, town and country needed to be ehminated as cont
ing notions and replaced by the principle of decentrahzec
dement. Modern inter-city transport facihties would re
the traditional patterns of settlement out of date. More(
new technology and the abihty to carry power over long dii
ces would lead to the dispersal of industry. This would ma
possible to replace existing dense concentrations of industi
a linear distribution of sites and, consequently, of dwellin
close proximity to the production plant they served. Ok
vich suggested for the immediate future that existing cornindustrial sites should be served by ribbon developme:

33:)

ure

ns and the school. The settlement - the

ly made up of these standard city dis;ed for the Avtostroi competition by
Mordvinov's direction resembled this
The town was composed of standard
lost square ground plan, each of which
sveloped living combines: six dwelling
club, kindergarten and two blocks for
or Stahngrad was likewise an autonotig of large dwelling combines. The first
for a town of 64,000 inhabitants, con
g combines each housing 3,200 people
^hteen blocks. The second version, for
nsisted of twelve dwelling combines
each.
combine was also proprosed in one of
ts for Magnitogorsk submitted by a
Vkhutein under the direcdon of an arn unusual design for a dwelling comead of a single compact block, it prolel blocks, linked at the centre by gang3r communal use, offering a communal
section, while the central and longest
I metres, provided living quarters,
jcheme for the spatial organization of a
nngrad to house 2,000 people was put
the Leningrad Institute of Civil Engif Pavel Zhukovsky, Alexander Knya)ris Rubanenko, Nikolai Khomutetsky
their design for 2,000 people i n Leninbuilt on a V-shaped plan was hnked to
;lling blocks.
tov (Special Police Cantonment) at
I . Antonov and Venyamin Sokolov in
ice of a design that was actually exenbines were also used to make up the
i , an autonomous complex of 50,000
Aleshin in 1929 and begun in 1930 for
;tory. This new town, eight kilometres

Chapter 1/The sociahst pattern of settlement

from Kharkov, was planned as part of a large industrial district. Its basic component unit - a dwelhng combine or town
quarter - was intended for 3,000 inhabitants and consisted of
eight dwelling blocks, six of which were segmented for the use
of families, while the other two were laid out along corridors as
accommodation for individuals, and four blocks housing institutions for children, a club and a canteen. Unhke the fuhy developed dwelling combines in Kharkov itself, this industrial
housing district offered only those communal facihties required
for everyday use. I n this instance, the inhabitants were dependent for public services on the general communal facilities
provided within the Sotsgorod as a whole. This Kharkov complex clearly marks an intermediate stage in the change-over
from huge housing communes to the traditional city district as
the basic component unit of the Sotsgorod. This evolution in
the dwelling combine concept was connected with the transition from experimental design work to the actual construction
of Sotsgorods to serve new industrial undertakings during the
First Five Year Plan.
The component units designed for the Sotsgorods at New
Goriovka in 1929-30 and Kominternovsk in 1929, the latter by
Petr Yurchenko, Mikhail Grechina and others, closely resemble the New Kharkov dwelling combines in that their network
of pubhc services is closely integrated into the city's public
services system as a whole.
The practice of dispensing, with the dwelling combine's selfsufficiency and integrating its requirements in the general
scheme regulating the public services of the city concerned, is
clearly illustrated by a competition project for a Housing Commune submitted in 1930 by Nikolai Baranov, Leonid Galperin,
Evgeny I l i n , Venyamin Notes, Mikhail Rusakov and Andrei
Chaldymov. These architects did not treat the Housing Commune as an independent social unit, including it, instead, in the
Sotsgorod's multi-tiered organizational scheme. They distributed the various component elements of the public services in
accordance with an ingeniously conceived hierarchy within the
city structure. The dwehing combine, a community of2,000 inhabitants, was designed in this case as a city district without
covered gangways, and the graduated system of pubhc services
was designed to serve both component elements larger than a
dwelling complex, such as a group of communes or a whole
Sotsgorod, and smaller than it, such as the nucleus of a commune, a commune element or two such elements together.

The further evolution of the dwelling combine concept is

weh illustrated by the sixth settlement at Zaporozhe, where the
overall division of the town into districts was already well
marked, but where the residential areas still preserved their
basic component units, including housing and communal
blocks.
Another original interpretation ofthe concept of a Sotsgorod
consisting of dwelling combines was used in laying out residential areas on empty sites in large cities as micro-districts complete with dwelhngs, children's institutions, a school, shops
and educational establishments. Examples of such city districts can be found in the former Dangauerovka area of Moscow built i n 1929-33 by Motylev, Boris Blokhin and others, at
Armeniken in Baku, and in the residential areas of Erevan built
in 1931-32 by Kochar and Mazmanyan.

Disurbanization:
Olchitovich's 'new settiement'

The second most inffuentical concept of socialist settlement disurbanization is linked with the lectures and articles ofthe
sociologist Mikhail Okhitovich. The principles on which he
based his 'new settlement' concept differed radically from
those underlying the Sotsgorod theory, and were i n some ways
at the opposite extreme to them.
Okhitovich and Sabsovich were at one in their rejection of
big cities. But while Sabsovich regarded the creation of towns
strictly designed to serve a given purpose as the basis of socialist settlement, Okhitovich rejected all forms of compact town
planning and countered the principle of urbanization with a
consistently 'disurbanizing' concept. I n so far as he was concerned, town and country needed to be ehminated as contrasting notions and replaced by the principle of decentralized settlement. Modern inter-city transport facilities would render
the traditional patterns of settlement out of date. Moreover,
new technology and the ability to carry power over long distances would lead to the dispersal of industry. This would make it
possible to replace existing dense concentrations of industry by
a linear distribution of sites and, consequently, of dwelhngs in
close proximity to the production plant they served. Okhitovich suggested for the immediate future that existing compact
industrial sites should be served by ribbon development of

workers' housing along the main routes hnking interdependent

production units.
Individual prefabricated and mobile units were to make up
such linear settlements. As a corollary ofthe decentralization of
housing advocated by Okhitovich, social and pubhc service
centres would be replaced by a network of services brought as
close as possible to the consumers. Large public service establishments would provide the output that would then be channelled to small distribution points intended to serve areas of restricted size.
Okhitovich's town-planning ideas were most closely followed in the Socialist Settlement Section of Gosplan (the State
Planning Commission) for the RSFSR, where town-planning
problems were studied by Barshch, Vladimirov, Georgy
Zundblat, Milinis, Pasternak, Nikolai Sokolov and others, under the direction of Ginzburg and Okhitovich.
A general settlement scheme and two designs for actual locations - Magnitogorsk in the Urals and Green City (Zeleny Gorod) near Moscow were produced there. The general settlement scheme provided for a regular network of major roads for
the transport of raw materials, fuel, semi-finished and finished
products, and labour. Production plant would be installed at
the apexes of the triangles, at the intersection of these roads.
The sides ofthe triangles would be bordered by strips of parkland 50-100 metres deep with local roads beyond them and, at
some distance along these, dwellings for the workers employed
at neighbouring factories. These dwellings were to range from
communal blocks to one-family homes, with gaps some fifty
metres wide between buildings. There would be no settlement
in the inner areas ofthe triangles, which would be reserved for
agriculture and extractive industry, the workers in either of
these being also housed along the main routes. The network of
public service estabhshments - post offices, libraries, children's institutions, canteens and the like would be located in
the parkland strips. A Park of Culture and Leisure, with a club,
cinema, sports complex, exhibition area, swimming pools etc,
would be sited at the most favourable natural location along
each line or 'ribbon'.
The design for Magnitogorsk drawn up in 1930 by Okhitovich, Barshch, Vladimirov and Sokolov was an attempt to plan
the actual settlement of an industrial area as an integrated system of industrial plants, mines, ancillary plant and agriculture.
Eight main ribbons of settlement, with an average length of

336
Part Il/Social tasks of architecture

twenty-five kilometres each, drawn along the main highroads

converging on the metallurgical combine, provided housing
and a network of pubhc services for the entire district. Each ribbon included a cultural centre with its club and park, while a
central Park of Culture and a single administrative and communal centre were also provided.
A competition was launched in 1930 for the design of a
Green City - Zeleny Gorod - in the Moscow suburban area, to
serve as a health complex or 'city of recuperation'. Barshch and
Ginzburg submitted an entry, but disregarded the terms of reference to some extent and treated Green City as a part of the
'new settlement'.
I n this project. Green City would represent one of the suburban districts of Moscow, a ribbon of settlement strung out
along the main Yaroslavl road and housing 100,000 inhabitants, with a strip of parkland 200-250 metres deep to border it.
Beyond this parkland would lie a continuous band of living
quarters consisting of bunched housing units raised on pillars,
with a covered passage running underneath it from end to
end. Covered walkways would lead from the regularly spaced
bus stops along the main road to the housing, by way of various
communal estabhshments. Children's institutions, schools,
technical colleges and cultural establishments would be located on the other side ofthe main road, amid undisturbed clumps
of vegetation.
The Green City project revived to some extent the idea of syphoning off the population of Moscow into its suburbs. I t treated the new town as part ofthe proposed reconstruction of Moscow, and specifically as the first move in the measures to relieve
congestion there. Its authors suggested a ban on new construction and the enlargement of existing industrial enterprises in
Moscow. These, along with scientific, educational, administrative and other institutions, would gradually be removed
beyond the city's limits, while the population would be resettled along the main lines of communication linking the city
with other neighbouring centres. Within Moscow itself, most
existing buildings would be demolished as they became obsolete and replaced by green areas, while architectural features
and monuments of historical and artistic interest would be preserved. Moscow would thus in effect become a Central Park of
Culture and Leisure towards which the ribbons of socialist settlement would converge. This grandiose park would accommodate the few remaining free-standing administrative institu-

tions, scientific institutes and higher educational establishments serving only the local population, along with concert
halls, sports stadiums, swimming pools, zoological and botanical gardens, horticultural institutes and nurseries.
I n 1931, a group of architects headed by Ginzburg also designed a settlement for the Chernikov industrial district in the
Bashkir Autonomous Republic. The 'new settlement' concept
sought to disperse the large cities and resettle their population
in natural surroundings by laying out ribbons of development
amply supplied with social services. Unlike the Sotsgorod concept, this was to be achieved through conditions that thoroughly favoured individual development, since Okhitovich was
categorically opposed to anything fostering a regimentation of
the way of life.

In s e a r c h of flexible planning Leonidov, lUliliutin

During the period ofthe First Five Year Plan, Soviet architects
were faced with having to design new towns of apparently fixed
size and population, while it was perfectly obvious to them that
the further growth of towns could not be artificially restrained.
They therefore sought for some planning principle that would
enable a town to evolve without conflicting with its functional
order or requiring a radical revision.
Theoretical planning schemes for such a flexible structure of
the developing Soviet city were worked out at the end of the
1920s by Leonidov, by Nikolai Miliutin, and by Ladovsky.
These three separate schemes were pubhshed almost simultaneously in 1930, at the height ofthe debate on the problems of
socialist settlement. Neither the Sotsgorod theory of Sabsovich
nor Okhitovich's linear resettlement concept took into consideration problems arising from the evolution of the planned
structure over a period of time, A Sotsgorod consisting of dwelling combines could, seemingly, only grow by the addition of
further standard districts or dwehing combines, while its layout remained otherwise unaltered. Disurbanizing linear development gave greater scope for the creation of the flexible
planning structure: in theory, the line of settlement could grow
both lengthwise, and by increasing the density of population
per linear kilometre. However, in the disurbanizers' scheme for
Okhitovich's intermediate stage, the ribbons ofhousing linked

industrial nodes, and the linear structure was therefore c

off at both ends.
In earlier linear projects of settlement - by Soria y M ;
Spain and Benoit-Lvy in France - exisdng compact inha
locahties, which acted as centres of employment and cu
were linked by newly created lines of residential dis!
stretched out along main roads. By contrast, the 'new si
ment' disurbanizers provided for cultural and social fac
along the line of the residential zone.

The concept of linear settlement influenced the schem

flexible planning elaborated by Leonidov and Mihudn.
nidov used as his base line Okhitovich's transitional stage!
industry in compact locations and settlement planned '
ribbon zones. Miliutin, on the other hand, adopted the
stage oudined in this theory in which industry itself woil
sited linearly. Leonidov's and Miliutin's projects include!
ments of both disurbanization and the Sotsgorod concept^
though the main influence on both was that of Okhito
theory of hnear settlement. This dual origin was chief
vious in their attitudes to building height in housing, a
building density.

Leonidov may be said to have detached a district fro

general scheme of disurbanization and treated it as an
pendent linear town developed along one or more of the
hnes of communication radiating from a compactly laid c
dustrial centre.
In 1930, Leonidov produced a competition entry for ^
togorsk based on the generahzed planning scheme for a
town. I t consisted of a strip of residential districts cont;
two types of buildings, some low-rise and some tower t;
ahernating with districts reserved for children's institi
The detached public buildings, sports facilities and park
sited on either side of this strip. Freight and passenger
munication lines ran along the outer boundary of the tc
As it developed along the highway leading to the indi
area, the town cut into the surrounding vegetation, and
grow in any given direction without departing from its pi
structure, although as it grew its residential districts cam
ever more remote from the places of work.
Leonidov's design, to which Vkhutein students had c<
uted under his direction, was submitted for competition
name of Osa. The Constructivists were active particip^
competitions for the design of new towns or residential di

337
Chapter 1/The socialist pattern of settlement

I, drawn along the main highroads

rgical combine, provided housing
ices for the entire district. Each ribitre with its club and park, while a
1 a single administrative and comivided.
iched in 1930 for the design of a
in the Moscow suburban area, to
'city of recuperation'. Barshch and
ry, but disregarded the terms of reftreated Green City as a part of the
y would represent one of the subur1 ribbon of settlement strung out
oad and housing 100,000 inhabiti 200-250 metres deep to border it.
Id lie a continuous band of living
'led housing units raised on pillars,
nning underneath it from end to
uld lead from the regularly spaced
id to the housing, by way of various
Children's institutions, schools,
ral establishments would be locatain road, amid undisturbed clumps
;vived to some extent the idea of syf Moscow into its suburbs. I t treatle proposed reconstruction of Mosirst move in the measures to relieve
s suggested a ban on new construcf existing industrial enterprises in
scientific, educational, administras, would gradually be removed
hile the population would be reof communication linking the city
ntres. Within Moscow itself, most
demolished as they became obsoareas, while architectural features
1 and artistic interest would be prein effect become a Central Park of
s which the ribbons of socialist setis grandiose park would accommoe-standing administrative institu-

tions, scientific institutes and higher educational establishments serving only the local population, along with concert
halls, sports stadiums, swimming pools, zoological and botanical gardens, horticultural institutes and nurseries.
I n 1931, a group of architects headed by Ginzburg also designed a settlement for the Chernikov industrial district in the
Bashkir Autonomous Republic. The 'new settlement' concept
sought to disperse the large cities and resettle their population
in natural surroundings by laying out ribbons of development
amply supplied with social services. Unlike the Sotsgorod concept, this was to be achieved through conditions that thoroughly favoured individual development, since Okhitovich was
categorically opposed to anything fostering a regimentation of
the way of life.

In s e a r c h of flexible planning Leonidov, Miliutin

During the period ofthe First Five Year Plan, Soviet architects
were faced with having to design new towns of apparently fixed
size and population, while it was perfectly obvious to them that
the further growth of towns could not be artificially restrained.
They therefore sought for some planning principle that would
enable a town to evolve without conflicting with its functional
order or requiring a radical revision.
Theoretical planning schemes for such a flexible structure of
the developing Soviet city were worked out at the end of the
1920s by Leonidov, by Nikolai Mihutin, and by Ladovsky.
These three separate schemes were published almost simultaneously in 1930, at the height ofthe debate on the problems of
socialist settlement. Neither the Sotsgorod theory of Sabsovich
nor Okhitovich's linear resettlement concept took into consideration problems arising from the evolution of the planned
structure over a period of time, A Sotsgorod consisting of dwelling combines could, seemingly, only grow by the addition of
further standard districts or dwelling combines, while its layout remained otherwise unaltered. Disurbanizing hnear development gave greater scope for the creation of the flexible
planning structure: in theory, the hne of settlement could grow
both lengthwise, and by increasing the density of population
per linear kilometre. However, in the disurbanizers' scheme for
Okhitovich's intermediate stage, the ribbons ofhousing hnked

industrial nodes, and the linear structure was therefore closed

off at both ends.
I n earlier linear projects of settlement - by Soria y Mata in
Spain and Benoit-Lvy in France - existing compact inhabited
locahdes, which acted as centres of employment and culture,
were linked by newly created lines of residential districts
stretched out along main roads. By contrast, the 'new settlement' disurbanizers provided for cultural and social fachities
along the line of the residential zone.
The concept of linear settlement influenced the schemes for
flexible planning elaborated by Leonidov and Miliudn. Leonidov used as his base line Okhitovich's transitional stage, with
industry in compact locadons and setement planned along
ribbon zones. Miliutin, on the other hand, adopted the final
stage outlined in this theory in which industry itself would be
sited linearly. Leonidov's and Miliutin's projects included elements of both disurbanization and the Sotsgorod concept, even
though the main influence on both was that of Okhitovich's
theory of linear settlement. This dual origin was chiefly obvious in their attitudes to building height in housing, and to
building density.
Leonidov may be said to have detached a district from the
general scheme of disurbanization and treated it as an independent linear town developed along one or more ofthe main
lines of communication radiating from a compactly laid out industrial centre.
I n 1930, Leonidov produced a competition entry for Magnitogorsk based on the generahzed planning scheme for a linear
town. I t consisted of a strip of residential districts containing
two types of buildings, some low-rise and some tower blocks,
alternating with districts reserved for children's institutions.
The detached public buildings, sports facilities and parks were
sited on either side of this strip. Freight and passenger communication lines ran along the outer boundary of the town.
As it developed along the highway leading to the industrial
area, the town cut into the surrounding vegetation, and could
grow in any given direction without departing from its planned
(Structure, although as it grew its residential districts came to be
ever more remote from the places of work.
Leonidov's design, to which Vkhutein students had contributed under his direction, was submitted for competition in the
name of Osa. The Constructivists were active participants in
competitions for the design of new towns or residential districts

during 1929-30. The projects submitted by Constructivist

teams were mainly variants of the linear settlement concept,
from a settlement strip - as in Magnitogorsk and Green City to various forms of linear cities. The only exceptions to this general rule were probably the designs for Kuznetsk and Stalingrad, which proposed compact Sotsgorods. Thus the design
submitted by Osa's team for the Avtostroi competition embodied the linear planning principle, in that the residential strip
consisted of a row of dwelling combines in each of which ten
six-storey blocks were connected at second-storey level by
buildings with a cultural or social purpose. The design submitted for Chardzhui by a team from Osa's successor organization, Sass, provided dwelling combines consisting of two-storey
buildings on a square ground plan disposed on a single axis
alongside the main transport line leading to the industrial area.
I n the same year, Mihutin drew upon Okhitovich's 'new settlement' concept, developed Leonidov's design, and published
his town-planning scheme based on the principle of functional
flow. By siting the industrial plants parallel to the residential
buildings, he not only brought the place of work and the living
quarters more closely together, but enabled the hnear town to
develop in two different directions.
Miliutin proposed the zoning of the urban area in parallel
strips arranged i n the following sequence:
(1) railway lines;
(2) production and communal facilities, as well as scientific
and technical educational establishments connected with
them;
(3) a green zone conceahng a highway;
(4) residential area consisting of three strips - public service
buildings, dwellings, and children's institutions;
(5) a park zone with recreational facilities, sports grounds,
swimming pools etc;
(6) market garden, dairy and fruit-growing zone.
I n addition, Mihutin thought it desirable that a stretch of water, such as a river, lake or large pond, should adjoin the residential zone of the linear town. This would be important i n
terms of recreational, sporting and health amenities, as well as
providing additional communications facilities to link the different parts ofthe linear town by water transport. He suggested
that the residential zone of his linear town should consist of
three-storey buildings, either lining the highway or abutting
on it.

337

Chapter 1/The socialist pattern of settlement

ks of architecture

ilometres each, d r a w n along the m a i n highroads

tions, scientific institutes and higher educational

n the metallurgical combine, provided housing

ments serving only the local population, along w i t h concert

k of public services for the entire district. Each r i b a c u l t u r a l centre w i t h its club and park, while a

establish-

halls, sports stadiums, s w i m m i n g pools, zoological and botanical gardens, h o r t i c u l t u r a l institutes and nurseries.

i n d u s t r i a l nodes, and the linear structure was therefore closed

off at b o t h ends.
I n earher linear projects o f settlement - by Soria y M a t a i n

d u r i n g 1929-30. T h e projects submitted by Constructivist

teams were m a i n l y variants o f the linear settlement concept,
f r o m a settlement strip - as i n Magnitogorsk and Green C i t y -

Spain and B e n o i t - L v y i n France - existing compact i n h a b i t e d

to various forms of linear cities. T h e only exceptions to this gen-

I n 1931, a group o f architects headed by G i n z b u r g also de-

localities, w h i c h acted as centres o f employment and culture,

eral rule were p r o b a b l y the designs f o r K u z n e t s k and Stahn-

; were also provided.

signed a settlement for the Chernikov i n d u s t r i a l district i n the

were linked by newly created lines o f residential districts

grad, w h i c h proposed compact Sotsgorods. T h u s the design

of C u l t u r e and a single administrative and com

tion was launched i n 1930 for the design o f a

Bashkir A u t o n o m o u s Republic. T h e 'new settlement' concept

stretched out along m a i n roads. B y contrast, the 'new settle-

submitted by Osa's team for the A v t o s t r o i competition embo-

Zeleny Gorod - i n the Moscow suburban area, to

sought to disperse the large cities and resettle their p o p u l a t i o n

ment' disurbanizers provided for c u l t u r a l and social facilities

died the linear p l a n n i n g principle, i n that the residential strip

1th complex or 'city of recuperation'. Barshch and

i n n a t u r a l surroundings by l a y i n g out ribbons o f development

along the line o f the residential zone.

consisted o f a r o w o f dwelling combines i n each o f w h i c h ten

)mitted an entry, but disregarded the terms of ref-

a m p l y supplied w i t h social services. U n l i k e the Sotsgorod con-

T h e concept o f linear settlement influenced the schemes for

six-storey blocks were connected at second-storey level by

le extent and treated Green C i t y as a p a r t o f the

cept, this was to be achieved through conditions that thorough-

flexible p l a n n i n g elaborated by Leonidov and M i h u t i n . Leo-

buildings w i t h a c u l t u r a l or social purpose. T h e design submit-

;nt'.

ly favoured i n d i v i d u a l development, since O k h i t o v i c h was

nidov used as his base line O k h i t o v i c h ' s transitional stage, w i t h

ted for C h a r d z h u i by a team f r o m Osa's successor organiza-

iect. Green C i t y w o u l d represent one of the subur-

categorically opposed to a n y t h i n g fostering a regimentation of

industry i n compact locations and settlement planned along

tion, Sass, provided d w e l l i n g combines consisting of two-storey

the way o f life.

r i b b o n zones. M i h u t i n , on the other hand, adopted the f i n a l

buildings on a square g r o u n d plan disposed on a single axis

i n Yaroslavl road and housing 100,000 i n h a b i t -

stage o u t l i n e d i n this theory i n w h i c h i n d u s t r y itself w o u l d be

alongside the m a i n transport line leading to the i n d u s t r i a l area.

:rip of p a r k l a n d 2 0 0 - 250 metres deep to border i t .

sited linearly. Leonidov's and M i h u t i n ' s projects included ele-

I n the same year, M i l i u t i n drew u p o n O k h i t o v i c h ' s 'new settlement' concept, developed Leonidov's design, and pubhshed

of Moscow, a r i b b o n of settlement strung out

parkland w o u l d lie a continuous band o f l i v i n g

In search of flexible planning -

ments of b o t h disurbanization and the Sotsgorod concept, even

isting o f bunched housing units raised on pillars,

Leonidov, Miliutin

though the m a i n influence on both was that o f O k h i t o v i c h ' s

his t o w n - p l a n n i n g scheme based on the p r i n c i p l e of f u n c t i o n a l

theory o f linear settlement. T h i s dual origin was chiefly ob-

f l o w . B y siting the i n d u s t r i a l plants parallel to the residential

sd passage r u n n i n g underneath i t f r o m end to

walkways w o u l d lead f r o m the regularly spaced

D u r i n g the period o f t h e First Five Year Plan, Soviet architects

vious i n their attitudes to b u i l d i n g height i n housing, and to

buildings, he not only brought the place of w o r k and the l i v i n g

Lg the m a i n road to the housing, by w a y of various

were faced w i t h having to design new towns of apparently fixed

b u i l d i n g density.

quarters more closely together, but enabled the linear t o w n to

itablishments. Children's institutions, schools,

size and p o p u l a t i o n , while i t was perfectly obvious to them that

Leonidov may be said to have detached a district f r o m the

eges and c u l t u r a l establishments w o u l d be locat-

the f u r t h e r g r o w t h o f towns could not be artificially restrained.

general scheme o f disurbanization and treated i t as an inde-

r side o f t h e m a i n road, a m i d undisturbed clumps

T h e y therefore sought for some p l a n n i n g principle that would

pendent linear t o w n developed along one or more o f t h e m a i n

strips arranged i n the foUowing sequence:

enable a t o w n to evolve w i t h o u t conflicting w i t h its functional

lines of communication r a d i a t i n g f r o m a compactly l a i d out i n -

(1)

r a i l w a y lines;

order or r e q u i r i n g a radical revision.

dustrial centre.

(2)

p r o d u c t i o n and c o m m u n a l facihties, as w e l l as scientific

C i t y project revived to some extent the idea of sy-

develop i n t w o different directions.

M i l i u t i n proposed the zoning o f the u r b a n area i n parallel

e population of Moscow i n t o its suburbs. I t treat-

Theoretical p l a n n i n g schemes for such a flexible structure of

I n 1930, Leonidov produced a competition entry for M a g n i -

v n as p a r t o f t h e proposed reconstruction of M o s -

the developing Soviet city were worked out at the end o f t h e

togorsk based on the generalized p l a n n i n g scheme f o r a hnear

ifically as the first move i n the measures to relieve

1920s by Leonidov, by N i k o l a i M i l i u t i n , and by Ladovsky.

town. I t consisted o f a strip o f residential districts containing

(3)

a green zone concealing a highway;

:re. I t s authors suggested a ban on new construc-

These three separate schemes were published almost simul-

two types o f buildings, some low-rise and some tower blocks,

(4)

residential area consisting o f three strips - p u b l i c service

;nlargement o f existing i n d u s t r i a l enterprises i n

taneously i n 1930, at the height of the debate on the problems of

alternating w i t h districts reserved for children's institutions.

se, along w i t h scientific, educational, administra-

socialist settlement. Neither the Sotsgorod theory o f Sabsovich

The detached pubhc buildings, sports facihties and parks were

er institutions, w o u l d gradually be

sited on either side of this strip. Freight and passenger com-

and technical educational establishments connected w i t h

them;

buildings, dwellings, and children's institutions;

(5)

a park zone w i t h recreational facihties, sports grounds,

(6)

market garden, dairy and f r u i t - g r o w i n g zone.

removed

nor O k h i t o v i c h ' s linear resettlement concept took i n t o consid-

ity's hmits, while the population w o u l d be re-

eration problems arising f r o m the evolution o f the planned

the m a i n lines o f communication l i n k i n g the city

structure over a period of time, A Sotsgorod consisting of dwell-

As i t developed along the highway leading to the i n d u s t r i a l

I n a d d i t i o n , M i h u t i n thought i t desirable that a stretch of wa-

ighbouring centres. W i t h i n Moscow itself, most

i n g combines could, seemingly, only grow by the addition of

area, the t o w n cut i n t o the surrounding vegetation, and could

ter, such as a river, lake or large p o n d , should a d j o i n the resi-

ings w o u l d be demolished as they became obso-

f u r t h e r standard districts or dwelling combines, while its lay-

grow i n any given direction w i t h o u t departing f r o m its planned

dential zone o f the hnear t o w n . T h i s w o u l d be i m p o r t a n t i n

ced by green areas, while architectural features

out remained otherwise unaltered. D i s u r b a n i z i n g linear de-

(Structure, although as i t grew its residential districts came to be

terms of recreational, sporting and health amenities, as well as

Its of historical and artistic interest w o u l d be pre-

velopment gave greater scope for the creation o f the flexible

ever more remote f r o m the places o f w o r k .

p r o v i d i n g a d d i t i o n a l communications facilities to link the dif-

)w w o u l d thus i n effect become a C e n t r a l Park o f

p l a n n i n g structure: i n theory, the line of settlement could grow

Leonidov's design, to w h i c h V k h u t e i n students h a d contrib-

ferent parts o f t h e linear t o w n by water transport. H e suggested

icisure towards w h i c h the ribbons of socialist set-

b o t h lengthwise, and by increasing the density o f population

uted under his direction, was submitted for competition i n the

that the residential zone o f his linear t o w n should consist o f

I converge. T h i s grandiose park w o u l d accommo-

per linear kilometre. However, i n the disurbanizers' scheme for

name of Osa. T h e Constructivists were active participants i n

three-storey buildings, either l i n i n g the highway or a b u t t i n g

remaining free-standing administrative i n s t i t u -

Okhitovich's intermediate stage, the ribbons of housing hnked

competitions for the design of new towns or residential districts

on i t .

munication hues ran along the outer boundary o f t h e t o w n .

s w i m m i n g pools etc;

338
Part Il/Social tasks ofarchitecture

Thus, i n the project for replanning Tashkent

produced

A l t h o u g h M i h u t i n ' s f l u i d f u n c t i o n a l scheme allowed the

t r i a l conurbations, of f l e x i b i l i t y i n p l a n n i n g and the compo-

t o w n to develop i n two different directions, i t made no p r o v i -

nent elements of large cities were all studied i n theoretical w r i t -

1930-32 by Ladovsky's p u p i l Silchenkov, together w i t h (

sion f o r the creation of a f u l l y developed social centre. T h e

ings and experimental designs by the A R U supporters.

feld, the i n d u s t r i a l zone surrounded the residential area ;

Ladovsky's t o w n - p l a n n i n g concept was characteristically

the city centre like a horseshoe. T h i s allowed for the f u r t h e r

vide the basis for the f u n d a m e n t a l principles of the U n i o n of

complex. As opposed to many t o w n planners i n the 1920s, for

velopment of the residential area towards the open end of

Architect-Planners, A R U , display a radically different ap-

instance, Ladovsky paid attention to questions such as a city's

horseshoe.

proach to the search for a flexible u r b a n p l a n n i n g scheme, and

aesthetic q u a l i t y and the increasing intricacy of its lay-out as i t

i n particular to the role played by the city centre.

grew i n size.

t o w n - p l a n n i n g designs p u t f o r w a r d by Ladovsky w h i c h pro-

Ladovsky asserted t h a t the lay-out of a city was a matter

only of space, but of time, and that a city was a growing oij

I n his project for the i n d u s t r i a l settlement of K o s t i n o near

nism. A city could be said to be g r o w i n g organically whei

Moscow i n 1927, Ladovsky had already suggested a design

parts increased i n step w i t h the whole and both f o r m e d part

coherent time-and-space structure.

Ladovsky's conception of an expanding city -

w h i c h allowed the settlement to grow w i t h o u t i m p a i r i n g its lay-

ARU's urban planning proposal

out and made i t possible for the residential and i n d u s t r i a l areas

U n h k e the followers of O k h i t o v i c h and Sabsovich, the A

to develop freely together. T h i s project contained i n embryonic

membership directed by Ladovsky took a broad view of t(!

T h e t o w n - p l a n n i n g principles applied i n the linear settlement

f o r m the ideas w h i c h Ladovsky later developed i n a radically

planning and d i d not reduce complex questions of settlemei

and Sotsgorod concepts influenced the design and construction

new scheme for the flexible planned lay-out of a city.

a single type such as a hnear settlement or a Sotsgorod. I t w|

mistake, they beheved, to design standard houses and resid

of new i n d u s t r i a l towns and promoted a more thorough study

H e stressed that t o w n p l a n n i n g must now be given p r i o r i t y

of many p l a n n i n g problems, such as that o f transport between

i n architecture by c o m b i n i n g a thorough study o f t h e theoreti-

tial districts w i t h o u t reference to the size o f t h e settlement

w o r k and residential areas, the improvement of p u b l i c health

cal problems w i t h practical w o r k . I n d i v i d u a l buildings should

cerned, as was w i d e l y the practice at that time, since qua

conditions w i t h i n the area o f habitation, the inclusion o f the

only be treated as elements of an entity i n other words, a city -

tive differences i n the lay-out of a settlement are governs

n a t u r a l environment i n the latter, the creation o f a single net-

and design should proceed f r o m city to b u i l d i n g , not the other

the number of its component elements.

work of p u b l i c services, the design o f a basic component ele-

w a y about, as m a n y architects were i n the habit of doing.

ment f o r d w e l l i n g complexes, and the f o r m u l a t i o n o f a system

of settlement f o r larger areas.

T h e A R U supporters were active i n competitions for

H e thought that i t was essential as a matter of principle to

p l a n n i n g and construction of new sociahst towns. Their

produce a p l a n n i n g scheme w h i c h w o u l d not only allow for the

signs stood out by their great spatial i m p a c t and the attem]

Nevertheless, their rejection i n principle of large cities made

quantitative expansion o f a town's territory, but also take into

endow i n d i v i d u a l districts w i t h the greatest possible varie,

it d i f f i c u l t f o r the supporters of these concepts to f i t them i n t o

account the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of a qualitative increase i n the com-

special treatments. T h e i r residential districts - or dwe:

practical t o w n - p l a n n i n g w o r k . As a result, designs for settle-

plexity of its lay-out as i t developed.

combines - varied i n composition, w i t h circular districts, ci

ment w i t h i n an economic district based on the linear develop-

I n 1930, Ladovsky elaborated a new scheme for the plan-

onally or r a d i a l l y sited buildings, and the types o f house

ment concept lacked any economic focal point, w h i l e those

n i n g o f a developing t o w n , based on a careful analysis of the

eluded differed i n their g r o u n d plans and the number of i

w h i c h envisaged a spatially organized solution for the design of

merits and demerits of linear lay-out and those based on main

storeys.

a city were restricted to one residential area, or a small t o w n at

lines of communication radiating outwards t h r o u g h concentric

T h e A R U t o w n - p l a n n i n g concept was reflected i n a w

best. M e a n w h i l e , the requirement for an accelerated rate of i n -

rings. T h e scheme Ladovsky put f o r w a r d may for purposes of

series of projects p u t f o r w a r d by its supporters: i n the G

dustrialization countrywide demanded ever greater attention

argument be regarded either as a radial-concentric

system

City project of 1930 by Ladovsky; at A v t o s t r o i i n 1930 by ]

to the problertis generated by large cities and i n d u s t r i a l conur-

broken at a given point, or as a curved version o f M i h u t i n ' s

tikov, V i t a l y L a v r o v and V a l e n t i n Popov; at Chardzhi

bations.

f u n c t i o n a l - f l o w scheme. Ladovsky's design represented a par-

1930 by K a l m y k o v and L e o n i d G r i n s h p u n ; i n the Indus

I n these circumstances, the views and designs of architects

abola i n w h i c h a social centre aligned on its axis was enclosed

settlement near U f a i n 1929-30 by V i t a l y L a v r o v , as w e l l ;

w h o adopted a consistently u r b a n i z i n g position carried m u c h

by successive residential, i n d u s t r i a l and green zones. As a re-

a series of designs produced w i t h i n V k h u t e i n under Ladovi

weight: i n particular those of Ladovsky and the group of his

sult, the new p l a n n i n g scheme combined to some extent the ad-

direction, such as that for A v t o s t r o i i n 1930 by K a l m y k o v ,

followers w h o left Asnova i n 1928 to f o u n d A R U , w i t h L a -

vantages of b o t h radial and linear lay-outs, w h i l e i t lacked their

Revyakin and Panteleimon Fedulov.

dovsky as president. Founder members of A R U were F r i d m a n ,

drawbacks. Ladovsky's 'parabola' provided an opportunity to

V i t a l y L a v r o v , K r u t i k o v , Sakulin, Zazersky, G r i n b e r g , Sergei

develop a centre for the city as a whole, while preserving its role

L o p a t i n , Saishnikov, Glushchenko, the p u b l i c health special-

as a nucleus for p l a n n i n g purposes.

ists Nekrasov and Kovalev, and the economist Z h m u d s k y .

T h e problems of socialist settlements as a whole, of indus-

Ladovsky's parabola influenced not only theoretical studies

of d y n a m i c t o w n p l a n n i n g , but actual t o w n - p l a n n i n g practice.

339
Chapter 1/The socialist pattern of settlement

;ture

Thus, i n the project for replanning Tashkent produced i n

The problem of the big city:

nent elements of large cities were a l l studied i n theoretical w r i t -

1930-32 by Ladovsky's p u p i l Silchenkov, together w i t h Gel-

the competition for replanning Moscow

ings and experimental designs by the A R U supporters.

feld, the i n d u s t r i a l zone surrounded the residential area and

s f l u i d f u n c t i o n a l scheme allowed the

t r i a l conurbations, o f flexibility i n p l a n n i n g and the compo-

3 different directions, i t made no provi

j f a f u l l y developed social centre. T h e

Ladovsky's t o w n - p l a n n i n g concept was characteristically

the city centre like a horseshoe. T h i s allowed for the f u r t h e r de-

W h e n a l l is said and done, and despite the polemics involed,

fundamental principles o f t h e U n i o n o f

complex. As opposed to m a n y t o w n planners i n the 1920s, for

velopment o f the residential area towards the open end of the

the debate i n 1929-30 about socialist settlement played an i m -

R U , display a radically different ap

instance, Ladovsky p a i d attention to questions such as a city's

horseshoe.

portant part i n Soviet t o w n p l a n n i n g . I t helped architects to

r a flexible u r b a n p l a n n i n g scheme, and

aesthetic q u a l i t y and the increasing intricacy of its lay-out as i t

e played by the city centre.

grew i n size.

5 put f o r w a r d by Ladovsky w h i c h pro-

Ladovsky asserted t h a t the lay-out of a city was a matter not

i d e n t i f y and discuss i n contemporary terms a large set o f

only o f space, b u t o f time, and that a city was a g r o w i n g orga-

among other - social, economic and pubhc transport problems.

I n his project f o r the i n d u s t r i a l settlement o f K o s t i n o near

nism. A city could be said to be g r o w i n g organically when its

I t was on opportune moment for the investigation o f questions

Moscow i n 1927, Ladovsky had already suggested a design

parts increased i n step w i t h the whole and both f o r m e d p a r t of a

such as the creation o f a network o f public services, the transi-

n expanding city -

w h i c h allowed the settlement to grow w i t h o u t i m p a i r i n g its lay-

coherent time-and-space structure.

t i o n f r o m the p l a n n i n g o f a single inhabited locality to that o f

osal

out and made i t possible for the residential and i n d u s t r i a l areas

U n l i k e the fohowers of O k h i t o v i c h and Sabsovich, the A R U

settlement w i t h i n an entire district, the development o f the

to develop freely together. T h i s project contained i n embryonic

membership directed by Ladovsky took a broad view o f t o w n

p r i m a r y components w i t h i n a residential district and a city as a

inciples applied i n the linear settlement

f o r m the ideas w h i c h Ladovsky later developed i n a radically

planning and d i d not reduce complex questions of settlement to

whole, or the f o r m u l a t i o n o f a flexible city lay-out.

s influenced the design and construction

new scheme for the flexible planned lay-out o f a city.

a single type such as a linear settlement or a Sotsgorod. I t was a

I n J u n e 1931, the Plenum o f t h e C o m m u n i s t Party's Central

Committee held a discussion 'Concerning the management o f

s and promoted a more thorough study

H e stressed that t o w n p l a n n i n g must now be given p r i o r i t y

mistake, they believed, to design standard houses and residen-

ilems, such as that o f transport between

i n architecture by c o m b i n i n g a thorough study o f the theoreti-

tial districts w i t h o u t reference to the size o f t h e settlement con-

the city of M o s c o w and the development of u r b a n management

w i t h i n the U S S R ' . T h e basic principles applicable to u r b a n de-

reas, the improvement o f pubhc health

cal problems w i t h practical w o r k . I n d i v i d u a l buildings should

cerned, as was widely the practice at that time, since qualita-

area o f habitation, the inclusion o f the

only be treated as elements of an e n t i t y - i n other words, a c i t y

tive differences i n the lay-out o f a settlement are governed by

velopment d u r i n g the next few years were estabhshed. Propo-

1 the latter, the creation o f a single net-

and design should proceed f r o m city to b u i l d i n g , not the other

the number o f its component elements.

sals for the l i q u i d a t i o n of big cities were rejected, but i t was also

3, the design o f a basic component ele-

way about, as m a n y architects were i n the habit o f doing.

T h e A R U supporters were active i n competitions f o r the

decided not to b u i l d new i n d u s t r i a l plants w i t h i n the conflnes

H e thought that i t was essential as a matter of principle to

planning and construction o f new socialist towns. T h e i r de-

of large u r b a n centres. A requirement was stated for the recon-

areas.

produce a p l a n n i n g scheme w h i c h w o u l d not only ahow for the

signs stood out by their great spatial impact and the attempt to

struction and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f existing cities and the construc-

ejection i n principle of large cities made

quantitative expansion o f a town's territory, b u t also take into

endow i n d i v i d u a l districts w i t h the greatest possible variety o f

t i o n o f new socialist towns. T h e resolutions o f t h e Plenum set

orters o f these concepts to fit them i n t o

account the i n e v i t a b i h t y o f a quahtative increase i n the com-

special treatments. T h e i r residential districts - or dwelling

architects the task o f p r o d u c i n g a scientifically based p l a n for

lg w o r k . As a result, designs for settle-

plexity o f its lay-out as i t developed.

combines varied i n composition, w i t h circular districts, diag-

f u r t h e r development and b u i l d i n g w o r k i n Moscow.

plexes, and the f o r m u l a t i o n o f a system

T h e elaboration o f a general p l a n for Moscow at the begin- |

nic district based on the linear develop-

I n 1930, Ladovsky elaborated a new scheme for the plan-

onahy or radially sited buildings, and the types o f houses i n -

any economic focal point, while those

n i n g o f a developing t o w n , based on a careful analysis o f the

cluded differed i n their ground plans and the number o f their

n i n g o f 1930 went far beyond the creation of a design f o r replan-

ially organized solution for the design o f

merits and demerits o f linear lay-out and those based on main

storeys.

n i n g a single large city and focused attention on the general

) one residential area, or a smah t o w n at

lines of c o m m u n i c a t i o n r a d i a t i n g outwards t h r o u g h concentric

T h e A R U t o w n - p l a n n i n g concept was reflected i n a whole

;quirement f o r an accelerated rate of i n -

rings. T h e scheme Ladovsky p u t f o r w a r d may for purposes of

series o f projects p u t f o r w a r d by its supporters: i n the Green

'wide demanded ever greater attention

argument be regarded either as a radial-concentric system

City project o f 1930 by Ladovsky; at A v t o s t r o i i n 1930 b y K r u -

T wo radically different proposals were published in the

p r o b l e m o f developing a large city and the whole conurbation

connected w i t h i t .

broken at a given point, or as a curved version o f M i h u t i n ' s

tikov, V i t a l y L a v r o v and V a l e n t i n Popov; at C h a r d z h u i i n

press i n 1930, even before a competition was announced. One

f u n c t i o n a l - f l o w scheme. Ladovsky's design represented a par-

1930 by K a l m y k o v and L e o n i d G r i n s h p u n ; i n the i n d u s t r i a l

was the disurbanizing design by Barshch and G i n z b u r g for

ces, the views and designs o f architects

abola i n w h i c h a social centre aligned on its axis was enclosed

settlement near U f a i n 1929-30 by V i t a l y L a v r o v , as well as i n

Green C i t y , discussed above, whereby Moscow w o u l d gradual-

ently u r b a n i z i n g position carried m u c h

by successive residential, i n d u s t r i a l and green zones. As a re-

a series of designs produced w i t h i n V k h u t e i n under Ladovsky's

ly dissolve into the ribbons o f settlement converging upon i t .

hose o f Ladovsky and the group o f his

sult, the new p l a n n i n g scheme combined to some extent the ad-

direction, such as that for A v t o s t r o i i n 1930 by K a l m y k o v , Petr

The other was a coherent u r b a n i z i n g design by Ladovsky

lova i n 1928 to f o u n d A R U , w i t h L a -

vantages of b o t h r a d i a l and hnear lay-outs, while i t lacked their

Revyakin and Panteleimon Fedulov.

w h i c h opposed the dispersal o f Moscow and assumed that i t ,

lunder members of A R U were F r i d m a n ,

drawbacks. Ladovsky's 'parabola' provided an o p p o r t u n i t y to

was capable o f developing f u r t h e r as a political, administra- [

3v, Sakulin, Zazersky, G r i n b e r g , Sergei

develop a centre f o r the city as a whole, while preserving its role

tive, c u l t u r a l and i n d u s t r i a l centre. B u t Ladovsky also believed

ilushchenko, the p u b l i c health special-

as a nucleus for p l a n n i n g purposes.

that unless the closed radial-concentric lay-out were radically i

ted by large cities and i n d u s t r i a l conur-

alev, and the economist Z h m u d s k y .

ualist settlements as a whole, o f indus-

Ladovsky's parabola influenced not only theoretical studies

reshaped, i t w o u l d set solid l i m i t s to the f u r t h e r expansion o f i

of d y n a m i c t o w n p l a n n i n g , but actual t o w n - p l a n n i n g practice.

the city, and that the constant topping-up o f the o l d planned I

340

lay-out by new insertions w o u l d break u p the aesthetically sat-

T h e design submitted by V l a d i m i r K r a t y u k ' s team also pro-

isfying hues o f t h e streets and squares. H e thought it essential to

posed the development o f the city beyond the historically con-

p l a n for the possibility o f the social centre t u r n i n g outwards i n

ditioned radial-concentric lay-out, but - as distinct f r o m L a -

social production processes

order to preserve the historic pattern o f buildings by not over-

dovsky's proposal - the g r o w t h of its area was planned i n sever-

loading w i t h new functions the central complexes and street

al directions at once w i t h d i f f e r i n g degrees o f scale and inten-

The October Revolution set architects the task of creatin

pattern inherited f r o m the past. Ladovsky suggested that M o s -

sity.

cially new f o r m o f dwelling, an a i m strenuously pursuec

Part Il/Social tasks ofarchitecture

cow should be developed i n accordance w i t h his proposed

Reconstruction of tlie way of life

and development of new forms of
dwelling

The reconstruction of domestic life

and involvement of women in

T h e r e m a i n i n g designs combined the preservation o f the

the very beginning as part o f the process o f establishinj

scheme for an expanding city, using the line o f G o r k y Street

city's historical nucleus w i t h the decentralization o f t h e entire

cialist way of life. A l l the aspects and every stage o f t h e de

and the L e n i n g r a d H i g h w a y as the axis o f his parabola. T h e

structure o f Moscow, ranging f r o m the articulation o f t h e city

ment o f the new society are reflected i n this search for

new, g r o w i n g and changing functions o f the centre were to be

into districts to its conversion i n t o a set o f independet settle-

propriate f o r m o f housing.

given an o p p o r t u n i t y to escape beyond the historic nucleus o f

ments.

Soviet architects closely followed the social changes

the city by breaking t h r o u g h its r i n g roads i n one sector. T h e

T h e V o p r a team project proposed to develop Moscow as a

place a r o u n d them as they w o r k e d on their new designs

axis o f t h e parabola, shaped like a comet, along w h i c h the cen-

city consisting o f five district complexes representing inde-

studied the proposals of Utopian socialists, such as More,|

tre was to develop, w o u l d incorporate a l l the basic dynamic al-

pendent p l a n n i n g units, each w i t h its dwelling blocks, service

panefla, Veiras d'Allais, M o r e l l e t , D z a m y , Fourier,

terations, thereby protecting the historical centre f r o m f u r t h e r

industry and district centre. K u r t Meyer d i v i d e d the city area

and Saint-Simon, as well as those o f t h e M a r x i s t - L e n i n i i

overloading.

into five districts converging at the centre and g r o w i n g out-

sic writers. T h e latter treated the housing p r o b l e m and it

T h e grouped garden-city theory also continued to exert a

wards i n t o the suburbs. I n the design submitted by Krasin's

tions under socialism as p a r t o f t h e m u c h wider problen

marked influence on the f o r m u l a t i o n o f projects for the recon-

team, the city's territory pushed out even more vigorously into

ciahst resettlement, i n connection w i t h the resolution

struction o f Moscow i n the early 1930s. A n outhne scheme for

the suburban area w i t h broad wedges centred on the m a i n

conflict between t o w n and country and the i n v o l v e n

replanning Moscow was prepared at the end o f 1930 under Se-

highways. Hannes Meyer's team p u t f o r w a r d a project i n

women i n the social p r o d u c t i o n process.

menov's direction. I t suggested that the city required radical

w h i c h 'wedges' and 'rays' were distributed among ten satellite

Engels wrote that 'the l i b e r a t i o n o f W o m a n , the a(

reconstruction and represented an ill-defined u r b a n f o r m . Se-

settlements strung out along the m a i n transport routes. They

ment by her o f equality w i t h men is impossible . . . so 1

menov described i t as 'the Moscow blob . . . a historically gen-

f o r m e d a single conurbation, w i t h Moscow, the b i g city, still re-

W o m a n is kept away f r o m socially productive labour ar

erated conglomeration of factories, buildings, streets and green

taining its importance. I n Ernst M a y ' s design, the compact big

fined to domestic work'.^

spaces'. I t needed to be deliberately broken up i n t o a system o f

city was i n fact replaced for a l l intents and purposes by a sys-

'city complexes' arranged around the o l d city centre i n accor-

tem o f satellite towns linked w i t h a c o m m o n centre.

L e n i n also devoted m u c h attention i n his writings to

construction o f the way o f life i n w h i c h he saw the oppo:

dance w i t h a predetermined plan. Each city complex was to be

T h e discussion early i n the 1930s about the f u r t h e r develop-

for a genuinely sociahst position on the status o f w o m

given a significant degree o f autonomy i n p l a n n i n g and a d m i -

ment o f Moscow, and the designs submitted for its replanning,

wrote i n M a r c h 1917, as p a r t of an analysis of various asji

nistrative matters and immersed i n a protective and health-

stimulated additional w o r k on the preparation o f a general

the structure o f life under sociahsm: '. . . w i t h o u t d:

p l a n for the city's reconstruction.

women i n t o social service . . . and pohtical life, without

giving green zone.

I p an outhne p l a n produced i n 1930, L e Corbusier proposed

M u c h experience of experimental design and the theoretical

ing them out of their s t u l t i f y i n g domestic and kitchen sit

that the area o f Moscow should be cut back and filled w i t h

elaboration o f t h e problems of t o w n b u i l d i n g and u r b a n devel-

it is impossible to ensure genuine freedom, i t is imposs

greenery by redeveloping i t w i t h high-rise buildings, while pre-

opment had thus been accumulated by the end o f the period

build even democracy, let alone socialism'.^

serving the best historical settings, substituting a rectangular

under review. As a result, the great expansion o f new town

A f t e r the October Revolution, L e n i n repeatedly retu:

g r i d pattern f o r its radial-concentric p l a n and drastically re-

b u i l d i n g d u r i n g the 1930s d i d not catch Soviet architects un-

the p r o b l e m o f t h e socialist reconstruction o f t h e way of ii

awares. T h e experimental design work, scientific study, com-

regarded practical measures i n this field as i m p e r a t i

constructing the b u l k o f existing buildings.

A closed competition to find suggestions for the reconstruct i o n of Moscow was carried out i n 1932. Seven teams took part.
I n his competition design, as i n his article pubhshed i n 1930,
Ladovsky advocated

petitions and discussions o f theory i n the preceding years

urged that ah embryonic manifestations o f such restrui

helped them to enter u p o n practical design and construction

should be sought out i n everyday life, to be fostered and

work.

gated.

1
2
3
4

W o m e n cahed by the C e n t r a l Committee o f the C o m

A t the First A l l - R u s s i a n Congress o f W o r k i n g and I

the application o f a parabola-shaped

p l a n n i n g scheme so as to gradually t r a n s f o r m the radial-concentric lay-out o f Moscow i n t o a d y n a m i c structure developing

i n a particular direction.

F,Engels, Anti-Dhring (Moscow, 1948), p.281.

V . I . L e n i n , CoUected Works, Fourth Edition, vol.21 (Moscow), p.55.
V . I . Lenin, CoUected Works, Fourth Edition, vol. 5 (Moscow), pp. 137-38.
Izvestiya, No. 122, 27May 1928.

Party i n November 1918, L e n i n said: ' W o m a n is crus

her domestic w o r k , and only sociahsm can save her from

341
chitecture

Reconstruction of tlie way of life

and development of new forms of
dwelling

r t i o n s w o u l d break up the aestheticahy sat-

T h e design submitted by V l a d i m i r K r a t y u k ' s team also pro-

The reconstruction of domestic life

tuation.'^ A f t e r a thorough examination o f the problems i n -

itreets and squares. He thought i t essential to

posed the development o f t h e city beyond the historically con-

and involvement of women in

volved i n women b u i l d i n g a new society, the Congress adopted

ility o f the social centre t u r n i n g oiitwards i n

ditioned radial-concentric lay-out, but - as distinct f r o m L a -

social production processes

a resolution w h i c h stated that: ' I n the place of kitchen pots and

he historic pattern o f buildings by not over-

dovsky's proposal the g r o w t h of its area was planned i n sever-

functions the central complexes and street

al directions at once w i t h d i f f e r i n g degrees o f scale and inten-

The October Revolution set architects the task of creating a so-

nal kitchens, c o m m u n a l eating places, central laundries, w o r k -

-om the past. Ladovsky suggested that M o s -

sity.

wash troughs we must put, i n t o w n as i n the country, c o m m u cially new f o r m o f dwelling, an a i m strenuously pursued f r o m

shops for m e n d i n g clothes, collectives for the cleaning o f linen

veloped i n accordance w i t h his proposed

T h e r e m a i n i n g designs combined the preservation o f the

the very beginning as part o f the process o f establishing a so-

and dwellings, etc.'*

anding city, using the hne o f G o r k y Street

city's historical nucleus w i t h the decentralization o f t h e entire

cialist way of life. A l l the aspects and every stage o f t h e develop-

' W o m a n , ' wrote L e n i n i n 1919, 'remains a domestic slave des-

I H i g h w a y as the axis o f his parabola. T h e

structure o f Moscov^', ranging f r o m the articulation o f t h e city

ment o f the new society are reflected i n this search for an ap-

pite a l l hberating legislation, because menial domesticity presses

changing functions o f the centre were to be

into districts to its conversion i n t o a set o f independet settle-

propriate f o r m o f housing.

on her, strangles her, renders her mindless and humiliates her

ity to escape beyond the historic nucleus o f

ments.

Soviet architects closely foUowed the social changes taking

by fettering her to kitchen and nursery, squandering her labour

lg through its r i n g roads i n one sector. T h e

T h e V o p r a team project proposed to develop Moscow as a

place a r o u n d them as they worked on their new designs. T h e y

i n an unbelievably unproductive, mean, enervating and de-

I, shaped like a comet, along w h i c h the cen-

city consisting o f five district complexes representing inde-

studied the proposals of Utopian socialists, such as M o r e , C a m -

pressing way. T h e genuine liberation of women begins only at that

w o u l d incorporate a l l the basic d y n a m i c al-

pendent p l a n n i n g units, each w i t h its dwelling blocks, service

panella, Veiras d'Allais, M o r e l l e t , D z a m y , Fourier, O w e n

place and time at w h i c h the struggle against such demeaning

Drotecting the historical centre f r o m f u r t h e r

i n d u s t r y and district centre. K u r t Meyer divided the city area

and Saint-Simon, as well as those o f t h e M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t clas-

domesticity is undertaken, or more accurately, the mass recon-

into five districts converging at the centre and g r o w i n g out-

sic writers. T h e latter treated the housing p r o b l e m and its solu-

struction i n t o large-scale socialist management begins.'^

rden-city theory also continued to exert a

wards i n t o the suburbs. I n the design submitted by Krasin's

tions under socialism as part o f t h e m u c h wider p r o b l e m of so-

O n 8 M a r c h 1920, i n its special edition devoted to Interna-

in the f o r m u l a t i o n o f projects for the recon-

team, the city's t e r r i t o r y pushed out even more vigorously into

cialist resettlement, i n connection w i t h the resolution o f the

tional W o m a n ' s Day, Pravda published an article i n w h i c h Le-

w i n the early 1930s. A n outline scheme f o r

the suburban area w i t h broad wedges centred on the m a i n

conflict between t o w n and country and the involvement o f

n i n yet again stressed the close connection between the genuine

V was prepared at the end o f 1930 under Se-

highways. Hannes Meyer's team p u t f o r w a r d a project i n

women i n the social p r o d u c t i o n process.

liberation of w o m e n and the radical reconstruction of domestic

i t suggested that the city required radical

w h i c h 'wedges' and 'rays' were distributed among ten satelhte

Engels wrote that 'the liberation o f W o m a n , the achieve-

represented an ill-defmed u r b a n f o r m . Se-

settlements strung out along the m a i n transport routes. They

ment by her o f equality w i t h men is impossible . . . so long as

' T o involve w o m a n i n social-productive labour, to extract

as 'the Moscow blob . . . a historically gen-

f o r m e d a single conurbation, w i t h Moscow, the big city, still re-

W o m a n is kept away f r o m socially productive labour and con-

her f r o m "domestic slavery", to hberate her f r o m the subjec-

i o n of factories, buildings, streets and green

taining its importance. I n Ernst M a y ' s design, the compact big

fined to domestic w o r k ' . '

t i o n w h i c h dulls and humiliates her i n the ceaseless and u n -

0 be deliberately broken up i n t o a system o f

city was i n fact replaced for a l l intents and purposes by a sys-

ranged around the o l d city centre i n accor-

tem o f satellite towns linked w i t h a c o m m o n centre.

L e n i n also devoted m u c h attention i n his writings to the re-

life:

r e m i t t i n g environment o f kitchen and nursery - that is the

construction o f t h e way of life i n w h i c h he saw the o p p o r t u n i t y

m a i n task.

termined p l a n . Each city complex was to be

T h e discussion early i n the 1930s about the f u r t h e r develop-

for a genuinely socialist position on the status o f w o m e n . H e

' T h i s is a long struggle w h i c h requires a radical reshaping o f

degree o f autonomy i n p l a n n i n g and a d m i -

ment o f Moscow, and the designs submitted for its replanning,

wrote i n M a r c h 1917, as part of an analysis of various aspects o f

b o t h social practice and ethics.'^

and immersed i n a protective and health-

stimulated a d d i t i o n a l w o r k on the preparation o f a general

the structure o f life under socialism: '. . . w i t h o u t d r a w i n g

plan for the city's reconstruction.

women i n t o social service . . . and political life, w i t h o u t draw-

n produced i n 1930, Le Corbusier proposed

M u c h experience of experimental design and the theoretical

ing them out of their s t u l t i f y i n g domestic and kitchen situation,

The growth of communal living:

oscow should be cut back and fihed w i t h

elaboration o f t h e problems o f t o w n b u i l d i n g and u r b a n devel-

it is impossible to ensure genuine freedom, i t is impossible to

a new social brief for housing

oping i t w i t h high-rise buildings, w h i l e pre-

opment had thus been accumulated by the end o f the period

b u i l d even democracy, let alone socialism'.^

itorical settings, substituting a rectangular

under review. As a result, the great expansion o f new t o w n

radial-concentric p l a n and drastically re-

b u i l d i n g d u r i n g the 1930s d i d not catch Soviet architects un-

the p r o b l e m of the sociahst reconstruction of the w a y of life. H e

i n g at that time exerted a strong influence o f their o w n on the >

dk o f existing buildings,

awares. T h e experimental design w o r k , scientific study, com-

regarded practical measures i n this field as imperative and

search for a new type o f dwelling.

ition to f m d suggestions for the reconstruc-

petitions and discussions o f theory i n the preceding years

urged that a l l embryonic manifestations o f such restructuring

O n 20 August 1918, the Presidium o f the Afl-Russian Cen-

1 carried out i n 1932. Seven teams took part,

helped them to enter upon practical design and construction

should be sought out i n everyday life, to be fostered and propa-

t r a l Executive C o m m i t t e e issued a decree 'Concerning the

m design, as i n his article pubhshed i n 1930,

work.

gated.

A b o l i t i o n o f Private Real Estate i n Cities'. A f l the more valua-

sd the application o f a parabola-shaped

) as to gradually transform the radial-con^oscow i n t o a dynamic structure developing
ction.

1
2
3
4

F. Engels, Anti-Dhring (Moscow, 1948), p. 281.

V . I . L e n i n , Collected Works, Fourth Edition, vol.21 (Moscow), p.55.
V . I . Lenin, Collected Works, Fourth Edition, vol. 5 (Moscow), pp. 137-38.
Izvestiya, No. 122, 27 May 1928.

A f t e r the October Revolution, L e n i n repeatedly returned to

T h e actual changes w h i c h the Soviet way o f life was undergo-

A t the First All-Russian Congress o f W o r k i n g and Peasant

ble dwellings were transferred to the local councils. A mass re-

W o m e n called by the C e n t r a l Committee o f the C o m m u n i s t

settlement o f workers began, m o v i n g t h e m out o f shacks and

Party i n November 1918, L e n i n said: ' W o m a n is crushed by

cellars i n t o the houses confiscated f r o m the bourgeoisie. I n

her domestic w o r k , and only socialism can save her f r o m this si-

1918-24, nearly 500,000 people were moved i n t o comfortable i

341_
if architecture

Reconstruction of the way of life

and development of new forms of

insertions w o u l d break u p the aesthetically sat-

T h e design submitted by V l a d i m i r K r a t y u k ' s team also pro-

The reconstruction of domestic life

tuation.'^ A f t e r a thorough examination o f the problems i n -

l e streets and squares. He thought i t essential to

posed the development o f t h e city beyond the historicahy con-

and involvement of women In

volved i n w o m e n b u i l d i n g a new society, the Congress adopted

sibility o f the social centre t u r n i n g oiitwards i n

ditioned radial-concentric lay-out, but - as distinct f r o m L a -

social production processes

a resolution w h i c h stated that: ' I n the place of kitchen pots and

e the historic pattern o f buildings by not over-

dovsky's proposal the g r o w t h of its area was planned i n sever-

;w functions the central complexes and street

al directions at once w i t h d i f f e r i n g degrees o f scale and inten-

d f r o m the past. Ladovsky suggested that M o s -

sity.

wash troughs we must put, i n t o w n as i n the country, c o m m u The October Revolution set architects the task of creating a so-

nal kitchens, c o m m u n a l eating places, central laundries, w o r k -

cially new f o r m o f dwelhng, an a i m strenuously pursued f r o m

shops for m e n d i n g clothes, collectives for the cleaning o f linen

the very beginning as part o f the process o f establishing a so-

and dwellings, etc.'*

developed i n accordance w i t h his proposed

T h e r e m a i n i n g designs combined the preservation o f the

;xpanding city, using the line o f G o r k y Street

city's historical nucleus w i t h the decentralization o f t h e entire

ciahst w a y of life. A l l the aspects and every stage o f t h e develop-

' W o m a n , ' wrote L e n i n i n 1919, 'remains a domestic slave des-

rad H i g h w a y as the axis o f his parabola. T h e

structure o f Moscow, ranging f r o m the articulation o f the city

ment o f the new society are reflected i n this search f o r an ap-

pite a l l l i b e r a t i n g legislation, because menial domesticity presses

ad changing functions o f t h e centre were to be

into districts to its conversion into a set o f independet settle-

propriate f o r m o f housing.

on her, strangles her, renders her mindless and humiliates her

u n i t y to escape beyond the historic nucleus o f

ments.

Soviet architects closely followed the social changes taking

by fettering her to kitchen and nursery, squandering her labour

place around them as they worked on their new designs. T h e y

i n an unbehevably unproductive, mean, enervating and de-

city consisting o f five district complexes representing inde-

studied the proposals of Utopian socialists, such as M o r e , C a m -

pressing way. T h e genuine liberation of women begins only at that

)p, w o u l d incorporate all the basic d y n a m i c al-

pendent p l a n n i n g units, each w i t h its dwelling blocks, service

panella, Veiras d'Allais, M o r e l l e t , D z a m y , Fourier, O w e n

place and time at w h i c h the struggle against such demeaning

jy protecting the historical centre f r o m f u r t h e r

industry and district centre. K u r t Meyer divided the city area

and Saint-Simon, as well as those o f t h e M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t clas-

domesticity is undertaken, or more accurately, the mass recon-

into five districts converging at the centre and g r o w i n g out-

sic writers. T h e latter treated the housing p r o b l e m and its solu-

struction i n t o large-scale socialist management begins.'^

garden-city theory also continued to exert a

wards i n t o the suburbs. I n the design submitted by Krasin's

tions under socialism as part o f t h e m u c h wider p r o b l e m of so-

O n 8 M a r c h 1920, i n its special edition devoted to I n t e r n a -

;e on the f o r m u l a t i o n o f projects for the recon-

team, the city's t e r r i t o r y pushed out even more vigorously into

cialist resettlement, i n connection w i t h the resolution o f the

tional W o m a n ' s D a y , Pravda pubhshed an article i n w h i c h Le-

5COW i n the early 1930s. A n outhne scheme for

the suburban area w i t h broad wedges centred on the m a i n

conflict between t o w n and country and the involvement o f

n i n yet again stressed the close connection between the genuine

cow was prepared at the end o f 1930 under Se-

highways. Hannes Meyer's team put f o r w a r d a project i n

women i n the social p r o d u c t i o n process.

liberation of w o m e n and the radical reconstruction of domestic

m. I t suggested that the city required radical

w h i c h 'wedges' and 'rays' were distributed among ten satehite

Engels wrote that 'the l i b e r a t i o n o f W o m a n , the achieve-

m d represented an ill-defined u r b a n f o r m . Se-

settlements strung out along the m a i n transport routes. They

ment by her o f equality w i t h men is impossible . . . so long as

' T o involve w o m a n i n social-productive labour, to extract

i i t as 'the Moscow blob . . . a historically gen-

f o r m e d a single conurbation, w i t h Moscow, the big city, still re-

W o m a n is kept away f r o m socially productive labour and con-

her f r o m "domestic slavery", to liberate her f r o m the subjec-

;ration of factories, buildings, streets and green

taining its importance. I n Ernst M a y ' s design, the compact big

fined to domestic w o r k ' . '

;d to be deliberately broken u p into a system o f

city was i n fact replaced for a l l intents and purposes by a sys-

k i n g t h r o u g h its r i n g roads i n one sector. T h e

T h e V o p r a team project proposed to develop Moscow as a

)ola, shaped like a comet, along w h i c h the cen-

arranged around the o l d city centre i n accor-

tem o f satellite towns linked w i t h a common centre.

L e n i n also devoted m u c h attention i n his w r i t i n g s to the re-

life:

t i o n w h i c h dulls and humiliates her i n the ceaseless and u n r e m i t t i n g environment o f kitchen and nursery that is the

construction o f t h e w a y o f life i n w h i c h he saw the o p p o r t u n i t y

m a i n task.

;determined p l a n . Each city complex was to be

T h e discussion early i n the 1930s about the f u r t h e r develop-

for a genuinely socialist position on the status o f w o m e n . H e

' T h i s is a long struggle w h i c h requires a radical reshaping o f

nt degree o f autonomy i n p l a n n i n g and a d m i -

ment o f Moscow, and the designs submitted for its replanning,

wrote i n M a r c h 1917, as part of an analysis of various aspects o f

both social practice and ethics.'

rs and immersed i n a protective and health-

stimulated additional w o r k on the preparation o f a general

the structure o f life under socialism: '. . . w i t h o u t d r a w i n g

le.

p l a n for the city's reconstruction.

women into social service . . . and political life, w i t h o u t draw-

plan produced i n 1930, Le Corbusier proposed

M u c h experience of experimental design and the theoretical

ing them out of their s t u l t i f y i n g domestic and kitchen situation,

The growth of communal living:

' Moscow should be cut back and filled w i t h

elaboration o f the problems o f t o w n b u i l d i n g and u r b a n devel-

it is impossible to ensure genuine freedom, i t is impossible to

a new social brief for housing

iveloping i t w i t h high-rise buildings, while pre-

opment had thus been accumulated b y the end o f the period

build even democracy, let alone socialism'.^

historical settings, substituting a rectangular

under review. As a result, the great expansion of new town

A f t e r the October Revolution, L e n i n repeatedly returned to

T h e actual changes w h i c h the Soviet way o f life was undergo-

its radial-concentric plan and drastically re-

b u i l d i n g d u r i n g the 1930s d i d not catch Soviet architects un-

the p r o b l e m of the socialist reconstruction o f t h e way of life. H e

i n g at that time exerted a strong influence o f their o w n on the

bulk o f existing buildings,

awares. T h e experimental design w o r k , scientific study, com-

regarded practical measures i n this field as imperative and

search for a new type o f dwelling.

petition to find suggestions for the reconstruc-

petitions and discussions o f theory i n the preceding years

urged that a l l embryonic manifestations o f such restructuring

O n 20 A u g u s t 1918, the Presidium o f t h e A l l - R u s s i a n Cen-

vas carried out i n 1932. Seven teams took part,

helped them to enter u p o n practical design and construction

should be sought out i n everyday life, to be fostered and propa-

t r a l Executive C o m m i t t e e issued a decree 'Concerning the

ition design, as i n his article published i n 1930,

work.

gated.

A b o l i t i o n o f Private Real Estate i n Cities'. A h the more valua-

:ated the application o f a parabola-shaped

; so as to gradually transform the radial-conPMoscow i n t o a dynamic structure developing
irection.

1
2
3
4

F. Engels, Anti-Diihring (Moscow, 1948), p. 281.

V . I . Lenin, Collected Works, Fourth Edition, vol. 21 (Moscow), p. 55.
V . L Lenin, Collected Works, Fourth Edition, vol.5 (Moscow), pp. 137-38.
Izvestiya, No. 122, 27 May 1928.

A t the First All-Russian Congress o f W o r k i n g and Peasant

ble dwellings were transferred to the local councils. A mass re-

W o m e n called by the C e n t r a l Committee o f the C o m m u n i s t

settlement o f workers began, m o v i n g them out o f shacks and

Party i n November 1918, L e n i n said: ' W o m a n is crushed b y

cellars i n t o the houses confiscated f r o m the bourgeoisie. I n

her domestic work, and only socialism can save her f r o m this si-

1918-24, nearly 500,000 people were moved i n t o comfortable

342
Part Il/Social tasks ofarchitecture

L e n i n and adopted at the E i g h t h Party Congress s

apartments i n Moscow, and some 300,000 were likewise moved

the eighty flats housed t w o or three famihes, and i n w h i c h a

i n Petrograd.

club, reading r o o m , bakery, baths, l a u n d r y and storeroom had

' W i t h o u t confining itself to the f o r m a l statement c

been set up.

equal rights, the Party is intent upon hberating the:

H o u s i n g Communes sprang u p o f their o w n accord for social, political or simply domestic purposes, as part o f the

W h e n the H o u s i n g C o m m u n e movement gathered momen-

material ties o f an outdated domestic economy fl

massed move o f workers into bourgeois apartments. T h e vic-

t u m , the conversion o f c o m m u n a l houses into centres o f the

provision o f c o m m u n a l canteens, central l a u n d r i

torious proletariat was intent on converting the expropriated

new communist culture, the creation o f domestic collectives

and the like.'''

houses into springs of communist culture. T h e properties origi-

and the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f the way of life t h r o u g h self-adminis-

T h e movement f o r reshaping the way of life arose

nally b u i l t for investment and rental were renamed H o u s i n g

tered c o m m u n a l institutions were among the tasks set for i t .

workers themselves. W h e n they took over the h o m

Communes - workers' houses or c o m m u n a l houses - and treat-

B u t even w h e n this movement was at its peak, c o m m u n a l ways

estate investments o f the bourgeoisie they rejected

ed as new forms o f workers' dwellings, the domestic arrange-

of life developed very slowly i n nationahzed houses. I t was

social system developed by the o l d society. T h u s se

ments and organization of w h i c h w o u l d help to develop collec-

thought at the time that the m a i n reason for this lag was that

ment by the residents replaced private ownership

tive habits among the p o p u l a t i o n and educate its communist

old houses were ifl-suited to the new way o f life and that the

There was rent-free accommodation for workers,;

consciousness. D u r i n g 1918-20, before the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the

provision o f specially designed c o m m u n a l dwellings, complete

high payments for h v i n g space; an explicitly col

N e w Economic Pohcy, the workers p a i d no rent and each house

w i t h the requisite social services, w o u l d lead to a more r a p i d

proach to everyday life, instead o f t h e isolation a n d !

set u p an a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of its o w n w h i c h w o u l d not only m a n -

movement i n this direction.

of i n d i v i d u a l families; broad m u t u a l co-operation

There was, however, no agreement about w h a t architectural

the f r i c t i o n and r i v a l r y aroused by the pursuit of pre

such as c o m m u n a l canteens and kitchens, kindergartens,

f o r m the new dwelhngs should take. Three basic concepts were

instance, the 'cult o f material things', and voluntai;

c r c h e s , rest rooms, l i b r a r y reading rooms, laundries, and so

i n competition. T h e first was linked to the garden-city theory

instead o f the employment o f servants and maintei

on. A h these, as well as the cleaning and maintenance o f com-

and aimed at a c o m m u n a l settlement consisting o f i n d i v i d u a l

T h e H o u s i n g Communes served as a k i n d of test-

age the b u i l d i n g , b u t also organize collective arrangements,

houses, together w i t h p u b l i c buildings. T h e second m a i n l y

ing out new ways of organizing life. I t was here t h a t '

T h e H o u s i n g Communes w h i c h spontaneously developed i n

stressed the role of c o m m u n a l housing complexes, and a social-

of c o m m u n a l social services w h i c h were to develo'

1918 were officially recognized by local councils f r o m 1919 as

ization o f t h e way of life i n w h i c h not only the domestic econo-

arose spontaneously and manifested themselves i n i

an approved method f o r the use of dwellings b y a workers' col-

m y b u t the f a m i l y itself w o u l d be radically reconstructed. T h e

ways. T h i s p r i n c i p a l l y involved aspects o f commui

lective. Such c o m m u n a l self-management o f housing by the

supporters o f t h e t h i r d concept believed that buildings special-

t u r a l activities w i t h a bearing on such crucial so(

workers was very widespread i n the early Soviet period. There

ly designed for f u l l y developed H o u s i n g Communes could not

tasks as the liberation o f w o m e n f r o m domestic wd

were 865 H o u s i n g Communes i n M o s c o w at the end o f 1921,

be b u i l t immediately, b u t that a transitional type o f dwelling -

b r i n g t h e m into the field of p r o d u c t i o n and social li

and 242 were registered i n K.harkov d u r i n g the years 192225.

the collective house - must be, designed so as to assist w i t h the

help of canteens, c o m m u n a l kitchens, laundries, kii

H o u s i n g Communes played an i m p o r t a n t part i n the upkeep o f

gradual integration o f new habits into the existing way o f life.

etc, and the launching of a c u l t u r a l revolution throi

the nationalized b u i l d i n g stock that had been handed over

Such a house w o u l d continue to offer accommodation for i n d i -

ration o f such facihties as reading rooms and Red

rent-free to the workers. T h e y d i d m u c h to i m p r o v e l i v i n g con-

v i d u a l families, b u t w o u l d incorporate collective institutions,

ditions and to consolidate new political principles i n the way o f

such as c o m m u n a l kitchens and d i n i n g rooms, c r c h e s , laund-

life o f the l a b o u r i n g classes. T h e very t e r m ' H o u s i n g C o m -

ries, and so on.

m u n a l premises, were carried out collectively.

m u n e ' described a new social focus and a new relationship

Communal houses

T h e H o u s i n g Communes that arose spontaneously i n nationalized accommodation served as a basis for the f o r m u l a t i o n

The experience acquired i n H o u s i n g Communes le

T h e domestic communes f o r m e d i n the early post-Revolu-

of the new social d w e l h n g requirement. T h e y were regarded as

mulation of a programme for the development of ne

tionary years were v o l u n t a r y consumer associations of workers

an i m p o r t a n t advance i n the field o f housing, representing

suitable for this purpose, and the appearance of coi

w i t h a set o f rules to regulate the lives o f a l l their members.

prototypes for the dwehings o f the f u t u r e and actual embodi-

experimental and competition designs d u r i n g the

F u l l y fledged communes were governed by a general assembly

ments o f t h e new way o f life. T h e experience they offered was

the 1920s.

and a C o m m u n a l Council. T h e domestic communes varied

studied and the indications about a new way of life arising f r o m

widely i n size. I n Petrograd, f o r instance, there was i n 1919 a

them were spotlighted as models.

among the inhabitants o f a b u i l d i n g .

One o f the earhest projects o f this sort was p u t

Ladovsky and K r i n s k y i n 1920 at Z h i v s k u l p t a r l

commune consisting o f t h i r t y - t w o people sharing their every-

T h i s new way o f organizing the life o f the workers had the

volved multi-storey buildings o f complex design i

day existence, while i n K i e v , i n 1922, the workers o f t h e Arse-

support o f the Party, the trade unions and ah the other social

commodation o f various kinds was grouped aroun

nal factory set up a commune i n an old house i n w h i c h each o f

organizations i n the country. T h e programme f o r m u l a t e d by

courtyard.

343
Chapter 2/Reconstruction o f t h e way of life

xture

w, and some 300,000 were likewise moved

es sprang up o f their o w n accord for sop l y domestic purposes, as part o f the

the eighty flats housed t w o or three families, and i n w h i c h a

L e n i n and adopted at the E i g h t h Party Congress stated that:

A competition was launched at the end o f 1921 for the design

club, reading r o o m , bakery, baths, l a u n d r y and storeroom had

' W i t h o u t confining itself to the f o r m a l statement o f women's

of a standard cohective dwelling for use i n the development o f

been set up.

equal rights, the Party is intent upon l i b e r a t i n g them f r o m the

the Petrograd suburban area. T h e specification involved the

material ties o f an outdated domestic economy t h r o u g h the

construction of a transitional type of dwelling for t h i r t y families

provision o f c o m m u n a l canteens, central laundries, c r c h e s

c o m b i n i n g the n o r m a l domestic amenities w i t h some c o m m u -

and the like.'^

nal facilities. T h e first prize went to D a v i d B u r y s h k i n and L e v

W h e n the H o u s i n g C o m m u n e movement gathered momen-

:ers i n t o bourgeois apartments. T h e vic-

tum,

is intent on converting the expropriated

new communist culture, the creation o f domestic collectives

the conversion o f c o m m u n a l houses i n t o centres o f the

communist culture. T h e properties origi-

and the transformation o f t h e w a y of life through self-adminis-

T h e movement for reshaping the way of life arose among the

Tverskoy for a b u i l d i n g o f complex design the central part o f

nent and rental were renamed H o u s i n g

tered c o m m u n a l institutions were among the tasks set for i t .

workers themselves. W h e n they took over the homes and real

w h i c h was to house a canteen and kitchen, a l i b r a r y reading

' houses or c o m m u n a l houses - and treat-

But even when this movement was at its peak, c o m m u n a l ways

estate investments o f the bourgeoisie they rejected the entire

r o o m and a c r c h e , w h i l e f o u r wings w i t h 'cottage-type' l i v i n g

orkers' dwellings, the domestic arrange-

of life developed very slowly i n nationahzed houses. I t was

social system developed by the o l d society. T h u s self-manage-

quarters (but no cooking facilities) radiated f r o m the centre.

Dn of w h i c h w o u l d help to develop coUec-

thought at the t i m e that the m a i n reason for this lag was that

ment by the residents replaced private ownership o f housing.

A competition held at the end o f 1922 for model workers'

population and educate its communist

old houses were ill-suited to the new way o f life and that the

There was rent-free accommodation for workers, instead o f

houses i n t w o Moscow residential districts also specified a t r a n -

y 1918-20, before the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the

provision o f specially designed c o m m u n a l dwellings, complete

high payments for l i v i n g space; an explicitly collective ap-

sitional type o f d w e l l i n g . Requirements f o r f a m h y and single

, the workers p a i d no rent and each house

w i t h the requisite social services, w o u l d lead to a more r a p i d

proach to everyday life, instead o f t h e isolation and segregation

l i v i n g quarters were clearly defined: the two- and three-room

ion of its o w n w h i c h w o u l d not only man

movement i n this direction.

; also organize collective arrangements,

canteens and kitchens,

of i n d i v i d u a l families; broad m u t u a l co-operation, instead o f

f a m i l y flats were to be provided w i t h a f u l l set of domestic o f f i -

There was, however, no agreement about w h a t architectural

the f r i c t i o n and r i v a l r y aroused by the pursuit of prestige i n , f o r

ces, i n c l u d i n g kitchens; a d j o i n i n g c o m m u n a l facilities included

a kindergarten, c r c h e , l i b r a r y reading roorn, storage rooms,

kindergartens,

f o r m the new dwellings should take. Three basic concepts were

instance, the 'cult o f material things', and v o l u n t a r y self-help,

i b r a r y reading rooms, laundries, and so

i n competition. T h e first was linked to the garden-city theory

instead o f the employment o f servants and maintenance staff.

baths and showers. Childless couples and single people were to

is the cleaning and maintenance o f com

and aimed at a c o m m u n a l settlement consisting o f i n d i v i d u a l

T h e H o u s i n g Communes served as a k i n d of test-bed for try-

have i n d i v i d u a l rooms o f appropriate size, w i t h wash basins.

; carried out cohectively.

houses, together w i t h p u b l i c buildings. T h e second m a i n l y

ing out new ways of organizing life. I t was here that the systems

T h e accompanying c o m m u n a l accommodation included re-

nunes w h i c h spontaneously developed i n

stressed the role of c o m m u n a l housing complexes, and a social-

of cornmunal social services w h i c h were to develop later first

ception rooms, l i b r a r y reading rooms, canteens, kitchens, stor-

xognized by local councils f r o m 1919 as

ization o f t h e w a y of life i n w h i c h not only the domestic econo-

arose spontaneously and manifested themselves i n a variety o f

age rooms, baths, showers, lavatories etc. T h e district was also

for the use of dwellings by a workers' col-

m y b u t the f a m i l y itself w o u l d be radically reconstructed. The

ways. T h i s p r i n c i p a l l y involved aspects o f c o m m u n a l and cul-

to be provided w i t h a surgery, garage, l a u n d r y , housing m a n -

nal self-management of housing by the

supporters o f t h e t h i r d concept believed that buildings special-

tural activities w i t h a bearing on such crucial socio-political

agement office and meeting hah. I n the m a j o r i t y of competition

espread i n the early Soviet period. There

ly designed for f u l l y developed H o u s i n g Communes could not

tasks as the l i b e r a t i o n o f w o m e n f r o m domestic w o r k , so as to

entries, the f a m i l y accommodation consisted o f three-storey

immunes i n Moscow at the end o f 1921,

be b u i l t immediately, b u t that a transitional type o f d w e l l i n g -

b r i n g t h e m i n t o the field o f p r o d u c t i o n and social life, w i t h the

buildings where standard dwelling units were repeated around

:d i n K h a r k o v d u r i n g the years 192225.

the collective house - must be designed so as to assist w i t h the

help o f canteens, c o m m u n a l kitchens, laundries, kindergartens

staircases, as i n the projects by L e o n i d V e s n i n , Sergei Cherny-

)layed an i m p o r t a n t part i n the upkeep o f

gradual integration o f new habits i n t o the existing way o f life.

etc, and the launching of a c u l t u r a l revolution t h r o u g h inaugu-

shev, I l y a and Panteleimon Golosov, Edgar N o r v e r t and o t h -

ding stock that had been handed over

Such a house w o u l d continue to offer accommodation for i n d i -

ration o f such facihties as reading rooms and Red Corners.

ers. I n m a n y cases, the district institutions were planned either

rs. T h e y d i d m u c h to i m p r o v e l i v i n g con-

v i d u a l families, b u t w o u l d incorporate collective institutions,

late new political principles i n the way o f

such as c o m m u n a l kitchens and d i n i n g rooms, c r c h e s , laund-

classes. T h e very t e r m ' H o u s i n g G o m -

ries, and so on.

ew social focus and a new relationship

as separate buildings or grouped functionally.

T h e project submitted by M e l n i k o v was o f outstanding i m Communal houses

portance. I t provided separate blocks for families, while com-

The experience acquired i n H o u s i n g Communes led to the for-

design, linked by covered walkways at second-storey level w i t h

T h e H o u s i n g Communes that arose spontaneously i n na-

b i n i n g a l l c o m m u n a l services i n a single b u i l d i n g o f complex

:s o f a b u i l d i n g .

tionalized accommodation served as a basis f o r the f o r m u l a t i o n

tnunes f o r m e d i n the early post-Revolu-

o f t h e new social dwelling requirement. T h e y were regarded as

mulation of a programme for the development of new dwellings

four-storey blocks intended for childless couples and single

u n t a r y consumer associations of workers

an i m p o r t a n t advance i n the field o f housing, representing

suitable for this purpose, and the appearance o f corresponding

people. I t was the prototype of a c o m m u n a l house, w i t h its dis-

regulate the lives o f a l l their members,

prototypes for the dwellings o f the f u t u r e and actual embodi-

experimental and competition designs d u r i n g the first h a l f o f

tinguishing features already present: a well-developed c o m m u -

les were governed by a general assembly

ments o f t h e new way o f life. T h e experience they offered was

the 1920s.

nal sector w i t h provision for eating, rest and culture, education

)uncil. T h e domestic communes varied

studied and the indications about a new way of life arising f r o m

-ograd, for instance, there was i n 1919 a

t h e m were spotlighted as models.

One o f t h e earliest projects o f this sort was p u t f o r w a r d by

and domestic requirements; dwelling blocks for single people,

Ladovsky and K r i n s k y i n 1920 at Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h . T h i s i n -

w i t h o u t kitchens or other facihties; covered walkways carried

af t h i r t y - t w o people sharing their every-

T h i s new way o f organizing the life o f the workers had the

volved multi-storey buildings o f complex design i n w h i c h ac-

on piers to connect the dwellings w i t h the c o m m u n a l block,

a K i e v , i n 1922, the workers o f t h e Arse-

support o f the Party, the trade unions and a l l the other social

commodation o f various kinds was grouped around a covered

and a modern design radically different i n aspect f r o m the o l d

m m u n e i n an old house i n w h i c h each o f

organizations i n the country. T h e programme f o r m u l a t e d by

courtyard.

tenements.

344
Part Il/Social tasks of architecture

From

1923, students i n Ladovsky's Vkhutemas

studio

k i n d o f families for w h i c h they had been designed. A n y disre-

others emerged. T h i s was as true o f Housini

worked on the design o f ' T h e C o m m u n a l House for Workers'.

gard o f these conditions - such as service failures, the use of

everything else.

T h e task set by Ladovsky was to create a dwelling w h i c h w o u l d

c o m m u n a l accommodation for d w e l l i n g purposes, or the use of

T h i s process already began to show itseh

combine the advantages o f i n d i v i d u a l housing w i t h those o f a

blocks intended for childless couples and individuals by f a m i -

the 1920s, w h e n the switch to the N e w Ecom

well-developed c o m m u n a l b u i l d i n g . H e occasionally varied

lies w i t h children made any objective assessment o f the ad-

the principle o f rent-maintained u r b a n hou

the requirements and i n a n u m b e r of projects, for instance, de-

vantages and drawbacks

communal

changed the very basis o f the Workers' H

manded access f r o m each d w e l l i n g u n i t both to the c o m m u n a l

dwellings impossible. Worse still, i t inflicted discomfort on the

economy, founded as i t was on a totally free

facilities and direct to the street, at no increased cost. T u r k u s

inhabitants and so made them sharply critical o f c o m m u n a l

ing and complete self-service. A new approa

provided a b r i l l i a n t solution w i t h the design for a three-storey

houses as such.

house i n w h i c h a l l the l i v i n g units for childless couples and i n -

o f such experimental

T h e failure to establish the c o m m u n a l house as a model for

dividuals communicated directly w i t h the outside w o r l d and

mass workers' housing was also attributable to other causes.

w i t h inner corridors. L a m t s o v suggested a novel way of h n k i n g

T h u s the conditions and forces that had brought the domes-

i n d i v i d u a l and c o m m u n a l accommodation by r o u t i n g all com-

tic communes i n t o being d u r i n g the early years, the reasons

munications t h r o u g h the f r o n t o f the house. Silchenkov prov-

for their evolution and gradual disintegration, had not been

ided horizontal c o m m u n i c a t i o n along l o w corridors carried i n

adequately

overhanging outer gaheries. H e later elaborated this scheme

lated.

studied before new design briefs were f o r m u -

housing took its place, under w h i c h memb

' nancially to the construction and r u n n i n g o

The housing associations

The co-operative housing associations to

Housing Communes o f t h e W a r Communisr

and patented i t i n 1930. H e also designed a two-storey u n i t o f

D u r i n g the period of W a r C o m m u n i s m i t had been thought,

duced a new set of collective principles. A res

t w o rooms, a component f o r a c o m m u n a l house w i t h a corridor

f o r example, that the b u y i n g and selling o f goods w o u l d be re-

Congress o f H o u s i n g Co-operation, held ii

serving t w o storeys at once.

placed by barter t h r o u g h a highly developed network of consu-

stated that the tasks o f housing associations;

A n A l l - U n i o n competition was held i n 1924-25 f o r a com-

mer collectives or communes. T h e exchange o f goods and la-

maintenance of buildings and the provision (i

m u n a l house i n K h a r k o v . Its specification required a new type

bour w o u l d u n d e r p i n not only the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f i n d u s t r i a l

amenities for general use, such as study root!

of dwelling i n c o r p o r a t i n g a f u l l y developed c o m m u n a l compo-

products and foodstuffs, but the provision o f p u b l i c services

canteens, bathrooms and facilities for childj

and housing as well. I n the barter system that arose under W a r

T h e housing co-operative buildings plan

I n 1925-26, the Moscow C i t y C o u n c i l held an A h - U n i o n

C o m m u n i s m , w i t h its a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f surpluses, its distribu-

the m i d - and late 1920s often included, alon[

competition for the design o f a workers' dwelling, w h i c h speci-

t i o n points and its ban on private trade the commune became

number o f c u l t u r a l and general domestic an

fied 'a type o f house suitable b o t h for single workers and w o r k -

the basic economic u n i t of the distributive system for goods and

i n the collectivization o f the way o f life, t

i n g families w i t h no housekeeping facilities o f their o w n ' .

services. A h this was radically changed by the N e w Economic

more closely to transitional type dwellings I

Policy.

oped c o m m u n a l houses.

. nent. I n the outcome, Trotsenko's design was implemented.

T h e design submitted by Georgy Volfenson, Samuil A i z i k o v i c h and E. V o l k o v , w h i c h secured a second prize, involved a

Moreover, the creation o f W o r k e r s ' H o u s i n g Communes

T y p i c a l buildings of this k i n d include the

b u i l d i n g on a complex g r o u n d p l a n , consisting o f h v i n g quar-

had also been promoted by the proletariat's assertion of its po-

tive house i n Moscow, b u i l t by Alexander I

ters sited along corridors and a b u t t i n g on each other at either

litical role i n previously hostile residential districts. T h i s fos-

the co-operative house i n Zachatevsky L a i

side of an open courtyard w i t h a c o m m u n a l block at its far end.

tered the organization o f domestic communes w h i c h became

signed by S a m o o v i n 1925; the design f(

T h i s project was carried out w i t h some modifications on

the mainstays o f Soviet power among the p o p u l a t i o n o f cities,

(New C o m m u n i s t W a y o f Life) b u i l d i n g , 1

Khavsko-Shablovsky Lane. T h e dwelling blocks consisted o f

helped to b r i n g sympathizers together, instilled a new attitude

1928, consisting o f f a m i l y flats, single roor

flats and single rooms, while the c o m m u n a l part contained a

to material possessions among the people at large and played

accommodation; and the co-operative h(

canteen, a club w i t h a reading room, a c r c h e and a kinder-

an undoubted part i n setting a new socialist ethical and com-

Tverskaya i n Moscow (today's G o r k y Stre(

garten.

m u n a l standard.

1930.

C o m m u n a l houses were also designed - and some b u i l t - for

I n m a n y ways, therefore, the first W o r k e r s ' H o u s i n g C o m -

Co-operative housing, along w i t h m o s t '

other cities i n the mid-1920s. A n acute shortage of l i v i n g space,

munes were not, as later critics wrote, an ' u n t i m e l y move', but

buildings developed d u r i n g the 1920s, was a

however, meant that the use for w h i c h they had been planned

genuinely reflected the circumstances of their day. Attempts to

Vkhutemas, where Alexei Zaltsman design

was disregarded.

Functionally designed c o m m u n a l houses

preserve them and secure their f u t u r e failed because economic,

housing association i n Alexander Vesnin's

could ensure comfort f o r their inhabitants i f all the c o m m u n a l

social and political circumstances changed r a p i d l y as socialism

As a rule, housing associations were conn

amenities worked well and i f they were used for housing the

was being b u i l t . Some features of everyday life faded away and

ic w o r k i n g c o m m u n i t y . Efforts were m a d

345
Cliapter 2/Reconstruction o f t h e way of life

if architecture

Students i n Ladovslcy's V k h u t e m a s

studio

k i n d o f families for w h i c h they had been designed. A n y disre-

others emerged. T h i s was as true o f H o u s i n g Communes as o f

lesign o f ' T h e Cornmunal House for W o r k e r s ' .

gard o f these conditions - such as service failures, the use o f

everything else.

1920s to accommodate w i t h i n a single b u i l d i n g both the l i v i n g

quarters and offices o f t h e organization to w h i c h the members

Ladovsky was to create a dwelhng w h i c h w o u l d

c o m m u n a l accommodation for dwelling purposes, or the use o f

T h i s process already began to show itself i n the first h a l f o f

o f t h e housing co-operative belonged. T h e D o m K o z h s i n d i k a t a

vantages o f i n d i v i d u a l housing w i t h those o f a

blocks intended for childless couples and individuals by f a m i -

the 1920s, when the switch to the N e w Economic Policy and to

(the Leather Syndicate b u i l d i n g ) i n Moscow, f o r instance, de-

c o m m u n a l b u i l d i n g . H e occasionally varied

lies w i t h children made any objective assessment o f the ad-

the principle o f rent-maintained u r b a n housing substantially

signed by Golubev i n 1925, housed offices on the three lower

ts and i n a number of projects, for instance, de-

vantages and drawbacks

changed the very basis o f the Workers' H o u s i n g C o m m u n e

storeys and ffats for employees on the four upper ones. I n the

o f such experimental

communal

f r o m each dwelling u n i t b o t h to the c o m m u n a l

dwellings impossible. Worse still, i t inflicted discomfort on the

economy, founded as i t was on a totally free use o f each b u i l d -

same year, the Elektro Co-operative commissioned f r o m I l y a

rect to the street, at no increased cost. T u r k u s

inhabitants and so made them sharply critical o f c o m m u n a l

ing and complete self-service. A new approach to co-operative

Golosov a combined dwelling and office b u i l d i n g i n w h i c h the

iant solution w i t h the design for a three-storey

houses as such.

housing took its place, under w h i c h members contributed fi-

first three storeys were reserved for offices and the top f o u r for

nancially to the construction and r u n n i n g o f a b u i l d i n g .

l i v i n g quarters, while the basement housed the club accommo-

all the l i v i n g units for childless couples and i n -

T h e failure to establish the c o m m u n a l house as a model for

mnicated directly w i t h the outside w o r l d and

mass workers' housing was also attributable to other causes.

dors. Lamtsov suggested a novel w a y of l i n k i n g

T h u s the conditions and forces that had brought the domes-

:ommunal accommodation by r o u t i n g a l l com-

tic communes i n t o being d u r i n g the early years, the reasons

ough the f r o n t o f t h e house. Silchenkov prov-

for their evolution and gradual disintegration, had not been

communication along low corridors carried i n

adequately

ter galleries. H e later elaborated this scheme

lated.

dation.
The housing associations
Experiments in the use of traditional dwelling types

studied before new design briefs were f o r m u -

T h e co-operative housing associations took over f r o m the

Housing Communes o f t h e W a r C o m m u n i s m period and i n t r o -

T h e interest displayed i n early Soviet days i n the f u l l y devel-

i n 1930. H e also designed a two-storey u n i t o f

D u r i n g the period of W a r C o m m u n i s m i t had been thought,

duced a new set of collective principles. A resolution o f t h e First

oped c o m m u n a l house stemmed p a r t l y f r o m the sharp contrast

mponent for a c o m m u n a l house w i t h a corridor

for example, that the b u y i n g and selling o f goods w o u l d be re-

Congress o f H o u s i n g Co-operation, held i n December 1923,

d r a w n between i t and private housing i n the course o f polem-

eys at once.

placed by barter t h r o u g h a highly developed network of consu-

stated that the tasks o f housing associations included b o t h the

ics, since the single-family house w i t h its plot of land had been

1 competition was held i n 1924-25 for a com-

mer collectives or communes. T h e exchange o f goods and la-

maintenance of buhdings and the provision of various domestic

treated as the model for mass workers' dwellings by the suppor-

K h a r k o v . Its specification required a new type

bour w o u l d u n d e r p i n not only the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f i n d u s t r i a l

amenities for general use, such as study rooms, reading rooms,

ters o f t h e garden-city concept. Smah houses f o r workers were

r p o r a t i n g a f u l l y developed c o m m u n a l compo-

products and foodstuffs, but the provision o f p u b l i c services

canteens, bathrooms and facilities for children.

first designed immediately after the October Revolution. I n

come, Trotsenko's design was implemented,

and housing as well. I n the barter system that arose under W a r

T h e housing co-operative buildings planned and erected i n

1918, Belogrud produced a project for a 'proletarian d w e l l i n g '

the Moscow C i t y C o u n c i l held an A l l - U n i o n

C o m m u n i s m , w i t h its a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f surpluses, its d i s t r i b u -

the m i d - and late 1920s often included, alongside f a m i l y flats, a

consisting o f a single-family house arranged on three levels. I n

the design of a workers' dwelling, w h i c h speci-

t i o n points and its ban on private trade the commune became

number o f cultural and general domestic amenities. As a stage

1921, M a r k o v n i k o v designed

)use suitable b o t h for single workers and w o r k -

the basic economic u n i t o f t h e distributive system f o r goods and

i n the collectivization o f the way o f life, they approximated

split-level, brick house. H i s designs were used i n 1923 for a set-

ti no housekeeping facilities o f their o w n ' ,

services. A l l this was radically changed by the N e w Economic

more closely to transitional type dwehings t h a n to f u l l y devel-

tlement by the Sokol housing association, comprising a variety

i b m i t t e d by Georgy Volfenson, Samuil A i z i k o -

Pohcy.

oped c o m m u n a l houses.

of small self-contained houses for single famihes, terraced

an experimental t w o - f a m i l y ,

kov, w h i c h secured a second prize, involved a

Moreover, the creation o f Workers' H o u s i n g Communes

T y p i c a l buildings of this k i n d include the D u k s t r o i co-opera-

)mplex g r o u n d plan, consisting o f l i v i n g quar-

had also been promoted by the proletariat's assertion of its po-

tive house i n Moscow, b u i l t by Alexander Fufaev i n 1927-28;

E a r l y i n the 1920s, architects were t r y i n g to keep d o w n the

corridors and a b u t t i n g on each other at either

litical role i n previously hostile residential districts. T h i s fos-

the co-operative house i n Zachatevsky Lane i n Moscow, de-

cost o f small houses while preserving their cottage character

;ourtyard w i t h a c o m m u n a l block at its f a r end.

tered the organization o f domestic communes w h i c h became

signed by Samoilov i n 1925; the design for the N o v k o m b y t

t h r o u g h inclusion o f direct outside access f r o m each housing

as carried out w i t h some modifications on

the mainstays o f Soviet power among the p o p u l a t i o n o f cities,

(New C o m m u n i s t W a y o f Life) b u i l d i n g , by I l y a Golosov i n

u n i t and a garden plot f o r each f a m i l y . T h i s led them to design

Dvsky Lane. T h e dwelling blocks consisted o f

helped to b r i n g sympathizers together, instilled a new attitude

1928, consisting o f f a m i l y flats, single rooms, and c o m m u n a l

a variety o f houses, b o t h free-standing, w i t h t w o , f o u r or eight

rooms, while the c o m m u n a l part contained a

to material possessions among the people at large and played

accommodation; and the co-operative house b u i l t on the

flats each, and i n terraces. Some o f these designs displayed

w i t h a reading room, a c r c h e and a kinder-

an undoubted p a r t i n setting a new socialist ethical and com-

Tverskaya i n Moscow (today's G o r k y Street) by Ladovsky i n

great inventiveness i n the search for rational p l a n n i n g of the ac-

m u n a l standard.

1930.

commodation and spatial organization o f t h e flats. I n competi-

houses and smah blocks containing three dwellings.

Duses were also designed - and some b u i l t - for

I n m a n y ways, therefore, the first Workers' H o u s i n g C o m -

Go-operative housing, along w i t h most other new types o f

tion entries f o r a d w e l l i n g complex i n Moscow i n 1922-23, for

e m i d - 1920s. A n acute shortage of l i v i n g space,

munes were not, as later critics wrote, an ' u n t i m e l y move', but

buildings developed d u r i n g the 1920s, was a subject of study i n

instance, Belogrud and M e l n i k o v designed f a m i l y flats i n ter-

that the use f o r w h i c h they had been planned

genuinely reflected the circumstances of their day. Attempts to

Vkhutemas, where Alexei Zaltsman designed a b u i l d i n g for a

raced houses set out i n rows on a saw-toothed g r o u n d p l a n ,

d. F u n c t i o n a l l y designed c o m m u n a l houses

preserve them and secure their f u t u r e failed because economic,

housing association i n Alexander Vesnin's studio.

w i t h the smaller flats on the g r o u n d floor and the larger on the

rnfort for their inhabitants i f all the c o m m u n a l

social and political circumstances changed r a p i d l y as socialism

As a rule, housing associations were connected w i t h a specif-

id well and i f they were used for housing the

was being b u i l t . Some features of everyday life faded away and

ic w o r k i n g c o m m u n i t y . Efforts were made d u r i n g the m i d -

floor above, while the attic floor was provided w i t h outside

stairs at the back o f t h e blocks.

346

Part Il/Social tasks ofarchitecture

E a r l y i n the 1920s, smah houses became the usual type of

workers' dwellings i n towns themselves, as well as i n o u t l y i n g

on behalf o f the Moscow C i t y C o u n c f l , wrote i n 1925, the slogan here was: ' M a x i m u m h v i n g space at m i n i m u m cost'.^

I n 1925, Ladovsky a n d Lissitzky submitt

competition f o r the design o f dwelhng com

settlements. I n Moscow d u r i n g the first h a l f o f the decade the

I n housing commissioned by the M o s c o w C o u n c i l , pubhc

Voznesensk. T h e y used wide-angle sectio:

dwelling complexes that were b u i l t consisted chiefly o f small

services were provided at district and area level. T h e closed

f a m i l y housing l a i d out i n strips on cur

houses, such as the workers' setflements o f t h e A M O factories,

system o f the c o m m u n a l house was being replaced by large

ground plans. T h e rooms were ah rectangul

comprising two-storey terraced houses by Zholtovsky i n 1923;

dwehing complexes made u p of sectional housing, shops, c h i l d -

gle was used to fit i n stairwells on a trapeze

the K r a s n y Bogatyr settlement i n 1924-25; and the Duks set-

ren's facilities, canteens etc.

ing the orientation o f the latter, the compo

tlement, w i t h two-storey four-, six- or eight-flat houses, by

Venderov i n 1924-25. T h e Stepan Razin settlement at Apsher-

I n Moscow, L e n i n g r a d , B a k u and other towns, the

first

dwelling complexes consisting o f sectional housing were b u i l t

on, by Samoilov, the first sector of w h i c h was occupied i n 1925,

w i t h specially designed units o f accommodation for each pro-

consisted of single- as wefl as some two-storey houses, contain-

ject. T h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f standardized

and

mass-produced

i n g one, two, f o u r or eight flats. T h e first workers' settlement i n

components, however, made i t necessary to devise standard so-

1924-26 at Ivanovo-Voznesensk consisted o f standard small

lutions. T h e first standard sectional units began to appear i n

houses.
I t became obvious by the middle o f the decade, however,
that neither small houses nor c o m m u n a l ones could provide the

be made to p o i n t i n a variety o f directions.

Osa's internal competition

for the design of communal dwellings

the mid-1920s. These underwent substantial changes i n design

The switch i n the mid-1920s to secrional a

d u r i n g the years that followed, and this i n t u r n affected the type

housing for the u r b a n w o r k i n g populatio|

of occupancy o f the newly b u i l t housing.

dwellings a suitable subject for experimemj

basic model for mass housing. T h e construction o f small

T h u s i n Moscow, f o r instance, i n 1925-26, t w o - r o o m flats

so far as the design o f a new type o f hous:

houses, especially w i t h a plot attached, proved uneconomic i n

predominated i n the first sectional units of f o u r flats each, w i t h

M u c h w o r k was done i n this field by the C

u r b a n conditions. C o m m u n a l houses were stifl only i n the early

only r u d i m e n t a r y domestic facilities, thereby setting a l i m i t to

tects' group Osa, w h i c h p u t f o r w a r d the slo:

stages o f their evolution as a f o r m of dwelhng. Doubts and dis-

the number o f occupants per r o o m . B y 1927-28, the standard

tecture must crystallize the new sociahst w!

putes arose about m a n y aspects o f life w i t h i n them, whfle the

module contained two flats, usually o f three rooms each. T h e

number o f its periodical SA i n 1926. T h e p

inclusion o f a complete c o m m u n a l component greatly i n -

standard of amenities i n the flats also substantially i m p r o v e d -

on to announce 'an i n t e r n a l competition fo

creased their i n i t i a l cost.

w i t h bathrooms, t h r o u g h ventilation and no rooms w i t h o u t an

of a new workers' d w e l l i n g ' .

independent exit - and the total area of each flat increased. O n

Practically ah the designs submitted i n ]

switch to mass b u i l d i n g methods for workers' dwellings and to

the other hand, the general tendency d u r i n g the second h a l f of

tition represented transitional forms o f hi

an economically viable type o f b u i l d i n g . T h e use o f standard

the decade to b u i l d flats w i t h larger numbers o f rooms, com-

both f a m i l y d w e l l i n g units and a f u l l y de

d w e l l i n g units around staircases provided the answer, and this

bined w i t h relatively little new construction and an acute shor-

component. T h e designers were particulai

type became k n o w n as 'sectional' housing. A m a j o r factor i n

tage o f housing, affected the allocation o f l i v i n g space. As a

tablish the cheapest w a y of p r o v i d i n g these

this development was that local councils had become the m a i n

rule, new housing came to be occupied r o o m by r o o m .

ications to the c o m m u n a l facihties - such

T h e increasingly acute shortage o f housing necessitated a

commissioning authorities for housing by the mid-1920s, while

T h e transition i n cities, d u r i n g the mid-1920s, to dwelling

the volume of private commissions, as well as those f r o m trade

ways and stairs.

complexes consisting o f sectionally designed housing required

enterprises and co-operatives, shrank sharply.

the architects to produce new standard p l a n elements suitable

storey dwelling blocks linked at the top by

T h e g r o w i n g part played by local councils i n commissioning

for adequately compact dwelhng complexes, yet capable of en-

ponent, w i t h a canteen, l i b r a r y reading roc

u r b a n housing influenced b o t h the type o f dwelhngs b u i l t and

suring a varied spatial organization i n city districts and allow-

bly hah. T h e g r o u n d floor o f each dwehin

the method of allocating l i v i n g space. Private b u f l d i n g aimed at

i n g for plenty of fresh air and vegetation. W i t h this end i n view,

near the stairs by small annexes for childr

i n d i v i d u a l dwehings. Co-operatives represented pre-selected

the widely used hnear, a b u t t i n g , angled, T-shaped and cruci-

and c r c h e . Corridors provided i n t e r n a l a

groups of shareholders, and therefore often commissioned well

f o r m sectional units were supplemented by new types arranged

each served t w o floors, since a l l flats were

laid-out garden setflements, or houses w i t h elaborate c o m m u -

as three-pronged elements or elements set at an obtuse angle.

I n two o f t h e designs, the architects - Sol

G i n z b u r g designed a c o m m u n a l house c

nal elements operated on a self-service basis. A local council,

T h e three-pronged standard sectional u n i t was first used i n

on the other hand, d i d not usually have any particular group i n

a design by Ladovsky i n 1924 for a smah residential area con-

serve no less t h a n three floors of a dwehing

view for housing purposes and supphed accommodation to

sisting o f three-storey masonry houses composed of three types

Such flats were also used i n designs w i t h e

those workers' famihes w h i c h needed i t most. As Alexei M e s h -

of elements - hnear, three-pronged and square - offset i n rela-

circhng the buildings, by N i n a Vorotyntst

t i o n to each other.

ak, and i n sectional buildings, by V l a d i m :

kov, an architect actively involved i n the p l a n n i n g o f housing

tried to save space horizontally by maki

347
Chapter 2/Reconstruction o f t h e way of life

hitecture

Os, small houses became the usual type o f

on behalf o f the Moscow C i t y C o u n c i l , wrote i n 1925, the slo-

i n towns themselves, as well as i n o u t l y i n g

gan here was: ' M a x i m u m l i v i n g space at m i n i m u m cost'.**

I n 1925, Ladovsky and Lissitzky submitted a j o i n t entry i n a

I n v i r t u a l l y a l l the entries featuring split-level flats the m a i n

competition for the design o f dwehing complexes at Ivanovo-

l i v i n g rooms rose to the f u l l height o f b o t h levels, w h i l e small

scow d u r i n g the first h a l f o f the decade the

I n housing commissioned by the Moscow C o u n c i l , pubhc

Voznesensk. T h e y used wide-angle sections i n the design o f

bedrooms and ancillary accommodation were kept to h a l f that

5 that were b u i l t consisted chiefly o f small

services were provided at district and area level. T h e closed

f a m i l y housing l a i d out i n strips on curved or u n d u l a t i n g

height and f i t t e d i n either at the level o f the h v i n g r o o m or on

half-landings.

workers' settlements o f the A M O factories,

system o f the c o m m u n a l house was being replaced by large

ground plans. T h e rooms were a l l rectangular and the wide an-

rey terraced houses by Zholtovsky i n 1923;

dwehing complexes made up of sectional housing, shops, c h i l d -

gle was used to fit i n stairwells on a trapezoidal p l a n . By alter-

T h e five-storey .sectional houses i n Vegman's entry were

r settlement i n 1924-25; and the Duks set-

ren's facilities, canteens etc.

ing the orientation o f t h e latter, the component sections could

linked at the top by covered gangways, and the top floor of eve-

be made to point i n a variety o f directions.

r y seventh block was reserved for c o m m u n a l purposes. I n Pas-

storey four-, six- or eight-flat houses, by

I n Moscow, L e n i n g r a d , Baku and other towns, the

first

dwelling complexes consisting o f sectional housing were b u i l t

ternak's project a l l the g r o u n d floors o f each six-storey block

e first sector of w h i c h was occupied i n 1925,

w i t h specially designed units o f accommodation for each pro-

held c o m m u n a l accommodation, so that corridors could be

as well as some two-storey houses, contain-

ject. T h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f standardized and

~ eight flats. T h e first workers' settlement i n

components, however, made i t necessary to devise standard so-

o-Voznesensk consisted o f standard small

lutions. T h e first standard sectional units began to appear i n

25. T h e Stepan Razin settlement at Apsher-

mass-produced

Osa's internal competition

for the design of communal dwellings

combined w i t h a sectional lay-out.

T h e i n t e r n a l Osa competition supphed a wealth of new ideas
about the spatial organization o f dwelling units, the combina-

the mid-1920s. These underwent substantial changes i n design

The switch i n the mid-1920s to sectional construction o f mass

t i o n o f residential and c o m m u n a l elements w i t h i n a single

us by the middle o f the decade, however,

d u r i n g the years that followed, and this i n t u r n affected the type

housing f o r the u r b a n w o r k i n g population made c o m m u n a l

b u i l d i n g and the r a t i o n a l use o f floor space. T w o projects o f

ouses nor c o m m u n a l ones could provide the

of occupancy o f t h e newly b u i l t housing.

dwehings a suitable subject for experimentation, especially i n

similar date by L e n i n g r a d students were closely related to the

so far as the design o f a new type o f housing was concerned.

Osa i n t e r n a l competition entries. T h e first of these, by M i k h a U

lass housing. T h e construction o f small

Thus i n Moscow, for instance, i n 192526, t w o - r o o m flats

/ i t h a plot attached, proved uneconomic i n

predominated i n the first sectional units of four flats each, w i t h

M u c h w o r k was done i n this field by the C o n s t m c t i v i s t archi-

K r e s t i n , involved five four-storey d w e f l i n g blocks, consisting o f

lommunal houses were still only i n the early

only r u d i m e n t a r y domestic facilities, thereby setting a l i m i t to

tects' group Osa, w h i c h p u t f o r w a r d the slogan ' M o d e r n archi-

split-level flats w i t h a kitchen, bathroom and lavatory, each link-

t i o n as a f o r m o f dwehing. Doubts and dis-

the n u m b e r o f occupants per room. By 1927-28, the standard

tecture must crystallize the new socialist w a y of life' i n the first

ed w i t h t w o c o m m u n a l blocks. I n the second project, by K o n -

nany aspects o f life w i t h i n them, w h i l e the

module contained t w o flats, usually o f three rooms each. T h e

number o f its periodical SA i n 1926. T h e periodical then went

stantin I v a n o v , Petr S m o l i n and Fedor T e r e k h i n , the dwehing

iplete c o m m u n a l component greatly i n -

standard of amenities i n the flats also substantially i m p r o v e d -

on to announce 'an i n t e r n a l competition for the outline design

and c o m m u n a l elements were combined i n a single seven-

cost.

w i t h bathrooms, t h r o u g h v e n t i l a t i o n and no rooms w i t h o u t an

of a new workers' d w e l l i n g ' .

storey block on a trefoil ground p l a n , w i t h the canteen, kinder-

acute shortage o f housing necessitated a

garten, c r c h e and reading r o o m located on the g r o u n d floor.

independent exit - and the total area of each flat increased. O n

Practically a l l the designs submitted i n 1927 for this compe-

i i n g methods for workers' dwellings and to

the other hand, the general tendency d u r i n g the second h a l f of

tition represented transitional forms o f housing, comprising

ible type o f b u i l d i n g . T h e use o f standard

the decade to b u i l d flats w i t h larger numbers o f rooms, com-

both f a m i l y dwehing units and a f u l l y developed communal

ad staircases provided the answer, and this

bined w i t h relatively little new construction and an acute shor-

component. T h e designers were p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned to es-

Transitional housing designs

1 as 'sectional' housing. A m a j o r factor i n

tage o f housing, affected the allocation o f l i v i n g space. As a

tablish the cheapest way of p r o v i d i n g these units and c o m m u n -

incorporating new uses of space

as that local councils had become the m a i n

rule, new housing came to be occupied r o o m by r o o m .

ications to the c o m m u n a l facilities - such as corridors, gang-

lorities f o r housing by the m i d - 1920s, while

T h e transition i n cities, d u r i n g the mid-1920s, to dwehing

te commissions, as well as those f r o m trade

ways and stairs.

W o r k on the rationahzation of housing and the development o f

complexes consisting o f sectionally designed housing required

G i n z b u r g designed a c o m m u n a l house consisting of two six-

a transitional design for c o m m u n a l dwellings was carried out

operatives, shrank sharply,

the architects to produce new standard plan elements suitable

storey dwelling blocks linked at the top by the c o m m u n a l com-

i n 1928 i n the T y p o l o g i c a l Section o f t h e C o m m i t t e e for C o n -

t played by local councils i n commissioning

for adequately compact dwelling complexes, yet capable of en-

ponent, w i t h a canteen, l i b r a r y reading r o o m , club and assem-

struction, RSFSR (Russian Republic), by a group of architects,

enced b o t h the type o f dwellings b u i l t and

suring a varied spatial organization i n city districts and allow-

bly hall. T h e ground floor o f each dwelling block was flanked

i n c l u d i n g Barshch, V l a d i m i r o v , Pasternak and G r i g o r y Sum-

ting l i v i n g space. Private b u i l d i n g aimed at

i n g for plenty of fresh air and vegetation. W i t h this end i n view,

near the stairs by small annexes for children a kindergarten

Shik, directed by G i n z b u r g . Problems i n v o l v i n g a scientific ap-

s. Co-operatives represented pre-selected

the widely used linear, a b u t t i n g , angled, T-shaped and cruci-

and c r c h e . Corridors provided i n t e r n a l communications and

proach to the organization o f t h e way of life were tackled here at

ers, and therefore often commissioned well

f o r m sectional units were supplemented by new types arranged

each served two floors, since a l l flats were b u i l t on two levels.

government level v i r t u a l l y for the first time. H o u s i n g units

lements, or houses w i t h elaborate c o m m u -

as three-pronged elements or elements set at an obtuse angle.

I n two o f t h e designs, the architects - Sobolev and A n d r e i O l

were to be developed so that a separate flat could be allocated

:ed on a self-service basis. A local council,

T h e three-pronged standard sectional u n i t was first used i n

~ tried to save space horizontally by m a k i n g a single corridor

to every f a m i l y . A f t e r a thorough study o f t h e practical possibil-

i d not usually have any particular group i n

a design by Ladovsky i n 1924 for a small residential area con-

serve no less than three floors of a dwelhng w i t h split-level flats.

ities then available, the architects i n the T y p o l o g i c a l Section

urposes and supplied accommodation to

sisting of three-storey masonry houses composed of three types

Such flats were also used i n designs w i t h external galleries en-

decided that the only viable solution to the housing p r o b l e m

lies w h i c h needed i t most. As Alexei M e s h -

of elements - linear, three-pronged and square - offset i n rela-

circhng the buildings, by N i n a Vorotyntseva and Raisa Poly-

lay i n the p r o d u c t i o n o f a standard,

t i o n to each other.

ak, and i n sectional buildings, by V l a d i m i r o v .

roomed) flat intended for an i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y .

tively involved i n the p l a n n i n g o f housing

small ( i n i t i a l l y one-

348
Part Il/Social tasks ofarchitecture

Ways o f reducing the cost o f flats i n sectional housing were

construction o f dwellings recommended for use i n 1930', as

thoroughly investigated. Particular attention was paid to their

well as the construction i n Moscow, Sverdlovsk and Saratov of

rational p l a n n i n g and, more especially, to the reduction o f an-

six experimental c o m m u n a l houses of transitional design. V a r -

cillary floor space. T h e housewife's w o r k i n the kitchen was

ious designs o f housing units, methods o f l i n k i n g the dwelling

subjected to close time-and-motion analysis and a planned ar-

and c o m m u n a l components to each other, new structures and

rangement o f the equipment involved made i t possible to save

materials, and methods of organizing b u i l d i n g w o r k were tried

some otherwise wasted space.

out i n the course o f their construction.

Several versions o f a r a t i o n a l l y planned sectional flat were

T h e most interesting o f these houses is that designed by

produced w h i c h the architects called T y p e A , as well as a fresh

G i n z b u r g and M i h n i s , w i t h Prokhorov acting as engineer, buflt

spatial lay-out for a sectional flat termed T y p e B . The designers

i n 192830 on the N o v i n s k y Boulevard (now Tchaikovsky

succeeded i n reducing the height o f ancillary accommodation

Street) i n Moscow, w i t h the inclusion o f dwelling, communal

by alternating the accommodation w i t h i n a b u i l d i n g f r o m side

and shopping elements. T h e d w e l l i n g part consists of a six-sto-

to side, i n other words, by f o l l o w i n g a m i r r o r - i m a g e p l a n f r o m

rey block w i t h t w o corridors, one on the first, the other on the

one floor to the next.

fifth floor, and two staircases. T h e g r o u n d level is open save for

A p a r t f r o m this rationalization o f the lay-out o f sectional

pilotis. Three types o f flat make u p the design: t h i r t y - t w o re-

flats, the T y p o l o g i c a l Section developed various versions o f t h e

duced T y p e F units, several doubled 2F units, eight units for

f o u r ways of arranging housing units along a corridor serving a

larger families a p p r o x i m a t i n g to T y p e D , and hostel accommo-

single floor to produce their T y p e C, or on t w o floors i n Types

dation w i t h rooms for one or t w o people. T h e flat r o o f carries a

D and F and three floors i n T y p e E. A comparative analysis o f

sun terrace a n d a garden. A t first-floor level, a covered gang-

the economic efficiency o f the various types o f housing units

way leads f r o m the dwelling block to a separate b u f l d i n g hous-

showed that T y p e F was most cost-effective for purposes o f

i n g a kitchen and canteen ( m i d d a y meals were taken home)

mass resettlement o f single famihes i n small flats.

and kindergarten.

I n spatial terms, a b u f l d i n g composed o f T y p e F units re-

N e w structures, materials and b u i l d i n g methods were tried

quired a corridor. As distinct f r o m Types G, D and E, however,

out i n the N o v i n s k y Boulevard house, as well as new dwelling

such corridors d i d not reduce the area available for dwellings.

units. These included weight-bearing ferro-concrete frames,

Each corridor served t w o floors and f i t t e d i n t o the space saved

thermo-insulated outer wafls,

fire-doors,

sliding windows,

by reducing the height o f the ancillary accommodation a n d

standardized prefabricated structural elements, such as p i l -

sleeping alcoves i n the flats. Moreover, such corridors secured

lars, girders, panels, windows and doors, and their assembly on

daylight, while every flat could be n a t u r a l l y ventilated.

site. Other experiments were also carried out: i n spatial organi-

Several models were worked out i n the T y p o l o g y Section for

zation, to find a h u m a n scale for the rooms, a m a x i m u m per-

single-room T y p e F flats w i t h l i v i n g areas o f 27 m^, 30 m^ and

missible l i m i t a t i o n o f space etc; i n l i g h t i n g , to estabhsh the re-

31 m^. Each o f these h a d a small entrance hall, f r o m w h i c h

lationship between the dimensions o f rooms a n d the lighting

stairs led u p or d o w n to a m a i n l i v i n g r o o m 3.50 m or 3.20 m

required for them, a n d to create the apparent enlargement of

h i g h , i n c l u d i n g , behind a f o l d i n g p a r t i t i o n , a kitchen recess

interiors by the rationalized d i s t r i b u t i o n of w i n d o w space; and

containing standard units range, sink etc. A c c o m m o d a t i o n

i n colour, by the differential shading o f walls a n d ceilings to

w i t h lower ceihngs at 2.25 m or 2.15 m included a sleeping al-

stimulate the perception of interior space, and by the function-

cove and a d j o i n i n g toilet facilities containing a b a t h , shower or

al use o f colours for purposes o f orientation w i t h i n the build-

wash basin.

ings.

A number of designs for transitional communal housing were

T h e second o f t h e experimental houses was b u i l t i n Moscow

prepared b y the T y p o l o g y Section i n w h i c h various types o f

on the Gogol Boulevard by Barshch, V l a d i m i r o v , M i l i n i s , Or-

dwelling units were combined i n different ways.

lovsky, Pasternak, a n d L y u b o v Slavina. I t consisted o f two

T h e Section's w o r k i n 1928-29 resulted i n the f o r m u l a t i o n ,

published i n 1929, o f 'model designs a n d assemblies f o r the

d w e f l i n g blocks a n d a free-standing c o m m u n a l b u i l d i n g . T h e
t h i r d was situated at Rostokino i n Moscow.

890-91 Krinsliy. Experimental design for a

communal house, Zhivskulptarkh, 192. Elevation

893-94
communa

(890). Plan (891).

892 Ladovsky. Experimental design for a communal

(893). Pla

319

(
ggO91 Krinsky. Experimental design for a
communal house, Zhivskulptarkh, 1920. Elevation
(890). Plan (891).
892 Ladovsky. Experimental design for a communal
house, Zhivskulptarkh, 1920. Section.

of architecture

lucing the cost o f flats i n sectional housing were

construction o f dwellings recommended f o r use i n 1930', as

^estigated. Particular attention was p a i d to their

well as the construction i n Moscow, Sverdlovsk and Saratov of

ing and, more especially, to the reduction o f an-

six experimental c o m m u n a l houses of transitional design. V a r -

)ace. T h e housewife's work i n the kitchen was

ious designs o f housing units, methods o f l i n k i n g the dwelling

ose time-and-motion analysis and a planned ar-

and c o m m u n a l components to each other, new structures and

;he equipment involved made i t possible to save

materials, and methods of organizing b u i l d i n g w o r k were tried

e wasted space.

out i n the course o f their construction.

lions o f a rationally planned sectional f l a t were

T h e most interesting o f these houses is that designed by

;h the architects called T y p e A , as well as a fresh

G i n z b u r g and M i l i n i s , w i t h Prokhorov acting as engineer, built

for a sectional flat termed T y p e B . T h e designers

i n 1928-30 on the N o v i n s k y Boulevard (now Tchaikovsky

educing the height o f ancillary accommodation

Street) i n Moscow, w i t h the inclusion o f dwelling, c o m m u n a l

the accommodation w i t h i n a b u i l d i n g f r o m side

and shopping elements. T h e dwelling part consists of a six-sto-

r words, by f o l l o w i n g a mirror-image p l a n f r o m

rey block w i t h t w o corridors, one on the first, the other on the

s next.

fifth floor, and t w o staircases. T h e ground level is open save for

this rationalization o f the lay-out o f sectional

pilotis. Three types o f flat make u p the design: t h i r t y - t w o re-

logical Section developed various versions of the

duced T y p e F u n i t s ; several doubled 2F units, eight units for

ranging housing units along a corridor serving a

larger families a p p r o x i m a t i n g to T y p e D , and hostel accommo-

produce their T y p e C, or o n t w o floors i n Types

dation w i t h rooms for one or t w o people. T h e flat r o o f carries a

iree floors i n T y p e E. A comparative analysis o f

sun terrace a n d a garden. A t first-floor level, a covered gang-

sfhciency o f the various types o f housing units

way leads f r o m the d w e l h n g block to a separate b u i l d i n g hous-

ype F was most cost-effective f o r purposes o f

i n g a kitchen a n d canteen ( m i d d a y meals were taken home)

ent o f single famihes i n small flats.

and kindergarten.

;rms, a b u i l d i n g composed o f T y p e F units re-

N e w structures, materials a n d b u i l d i n g methods were tried

or. As distinct f r o m Types C, D and E , however,

out i n the N o v i n s k y Boulevard house, as well as new dwelhng

d i d not reduce the area available for dwellings,

units. These included weight-bearing ferro-concrete frames,

served t w o floors and f i t t e d i n t o the space saved

thermo-insulated

outer walls,

fire-doors,

sliding windows,

le height o f the ancillary accommodation a n d

standardized prefabricated structural elements, such as p f l -

s i n the flats. Moreover, such corridors secured

lars, girders, panels, windows and doors, and their assembly on

every f l a t could be n a t u r a l l y ventilated,

els were worked out i n the T y p o l o g y Section for

site. O t h e r experiments were also carried out: i n spatial organization, to find a h u m a n scale for the rooms, a m a x i m u m per-

^pe F flats w i t h l i v i n g areas o f 27 m^, 30 m^ and

missible h m i t a t i o n o f space etc; i n h g h t i n g , to establish the re-

f these h a d a small entrance hall, f r o m w h i c h

lationship between the dimensions o f rooms a n d the hghting

d o w n to a m a i n l i v i n g r o o m 3.50 m or 3.20 m

required f o r them, a n d to create the apparent enlargement o f

I, behind a f o l d i n g p a r t i t i o n , a kitchen recess

interiors by the rationalized d i s t r i b u t i o n of w i n d o w space; and

i d a r d units - range, sink etc. A c c o m m o d a t i o n

i n colour, b y the differential shading o f walls a n d ceihngs to

ngs at 2.25 m or 2.15 m included a sleeping ai-

stimulate the perception of interior space, and by the function-

ling toilet facilities containing a bath, shower or

al use o f colours for purposes o f orientation w i t h i n the buildings.

designs for transitional communal housing were

T h e second o f t h e experimental houses was b u i l t i n Moscow

e T y p o l o g y Section i n w h i c h various types o f

on the Gogol Boulevard by Barshch, V l a d i m i r o v , M i l i n i s , O r -

were combined i n different ways,

lovsky, Pasternak, a n d L y u b o v Slavina. I t consisted o f two

s work i n 1928-29 resulted i n the f o r m u l a t i o n ,

dwelling blocks a n d a free-standing c o m m u n a l b u i l d i n g . T h e

929, o f 'model designs a n d assemblies f o r the

t h i r d was situated at Rostokino i n Moscow.

893-94 Ladovsky. Experimental design for a

communal house, Zhivskulptarkh, 1920. Elevation
(893). Plan (894).

J JU
895 Melnikov. Competition design for a communal
house, 1922-23. Elevations. Plan. General lay-out.
Axonometric view. Perspective. Section. Details.
89697 Turkus. Communal house for workers,
Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio, 1923. General lay-out,
elevations (896). Plans, sections (897).

898-900 Silchenkov. Communal house, Vkhutemas,

Ladovsky's studio, 1924-25. Perspective (898). Section
through housing unit (899). Plan (900).

352
905-06 Fufaev. A house belonging to the Dukstroi
Co-operative, Moscow, 1927-28. General view (905).
Detail (906).

907 Golubev. The Leather Syndicate building,

Moscow, 1924.
908 Samoilov. ffouse in Zachatevsky Lane, Moscow,
1928. Detail.

353
907 Golubev. The Leather Syndicate building,
Moscow, 1924.
908 Samoilov. House i n Zachatevsky Lane, Moscow,
1928. Detail.

909 Ilya Golosov. Head Office and housing block of

the Elektro Co-operative, 1925. Perspective.
910-11 Ilya Golosov. The Novkombyt (New
Communist Way of Life) housing block, 1928.
Perspective (910). Plan of fourth and fifth floors
(911)-

912-13 Ladovsky. Housing block on the Tverskaya,

Moscow, 1930. Detail of building (912). Model (913).

354
914 Markovnikov. House i n the Sokol Co-operative
settlement, Moscow, 1923.
915 Belogrud. Compefition design for terraced
houses, 1922-23. Axonometric view of one district.

916-17 Belogrud. Competition design for terraced

houses, 1922-23. Sections and plans.

91617 Belogrud. Competition design for terraced

houses, 1922-23. Sections and plans.

356
922-23 Ginzburg, Competition design for a
communal house, 1927. Model (922). Axonometric
view of housing units, section (923).
924 O l , Ivanov and Ladinsky. Competition design for
a communal house, 1927. Axonometric section.

925 Vorotyntseva and Polyak. Communal house,

1927. Elevation. Plans of ground and first three floors.
926 Vegman. Competition design for a communal
house, 1927. Axonometric view. General lay-out of one
dwelling complex. Plan of single element.

927 Vladimirov. Competition design for i

house, 1927. Plans of standard housing ele
Elements i n various combinations. Axonoi

m m m m m m m
pzina a n a l

3na m c

]nama|

ri

n
n ,0,

-11-

-mi

n~ir

"' S

T L

r...:
!

....-1
TTTTT7~~

Ll
fiU

m m m m m m m
II

M Jl

357
925 Vorotyntseva and Polyak. Communal house,
1927. Elevation, Plans of ground and first three floors,
926 Vegman, Competition design for a communal
house, 1927, Axonometric view. General lay-out of one
dwelhng complex. Plan of single element.

m m m m

927 Vladimirov. Competition design for a communal

house, 1927. Plans of standard housing elements.
Elements in various combinations, Axonometric view.

m m m

928-30 Ivanov, Smolin and Terekhin, Housing

Commune, 1928, Models of house and whole complex
(928-29). Section and plans of housing units (930).

mm

m m m m m m m m
I one

J
il

ll
1! llllll

PA3PE3

H nyiAHbl

flHEEK

358
931 Stroikom (Committee for Construction, RSFSR).
Diagrammatic representation of cubic capactiy of
iiousing units with graphs of their economic
efiiciency.

932-34 Stroikom, Design for a cooking alcove

(933-34). View of living room with cooking alcove,
Type A 3 flat (932).

or Construction, RSFSR).
1 of cubic capactiy of
tiieir economic

932-34 Stroikom. Design for a cooking alcove

(933-34). View of living room w i t h cooking alcove.
Type A 3 flat (932).

935 Stroikom. Communal house with Type El flats:

(a) Perspective of stairs with landing, (b) Plans of first
and fourth floors, (c) Section, (d) Cross-section of
staircase, (e) View of shared landing.

936 Stroikom. Type G 2 housing unit: (a) Plans of two

floors o f t h e same height, (b) Section.
937 Stroikom. Communal house with Type A 2 and
A 3 flats. Plans of flat and house. Section. Axonometric

L-

111111 i 1111 U l i l H l i i l l l l l i l i l i l i
KoMnama omdmxa

360
938-39 Stroikom. Communal house with Type F
flats. Perspective. Plans of floors with and without
corridors (938). Type F housing unit: interior view
(939).

940-41 Stroilcom. Type F housing units. Plans of

three variants ofthe unit (one with bath). Section (940)
Model (941).

II

O
O

II

'

942-43 Ginzburg and Milinis. Design for a housing

omplex for Narkomfin, Novinsky Boulevard, Moscow,
1928-30. Perspective (942). Elevations of variant
actually carried out (943).

Cr
c

BI llffiW ^ i l
O-

o[j

.1

U/tan KOpiidopHoso amam

u

3_L

oer
P/iaH smama HVBBK

1 1

LJ

IJ

>-'-

"

"

1r

fiTl i l l l l l l
1 1 1 1 1
lllllllllll

44^
imiTl [ED
1

li

I'll

iiilllllllllllllllUlllllliiii

im

4 4 - l " " " " l 11H11 l " " " " l 11II11

1"'"-^^

I'l

III

r III II III II ill II ms

anal house with Type F

loors with and without
ising unit: interior view

361

940-41 Stroiliom. Type F housing units. Plans of

three variants ofthe unit (one with bath). Section (940).
Model (941).

944-45 Ginzburg and Mihnis. Design for a housing

complex for Narkomfin, Novinsky Boulevard, Moscow,
1928-30. Plans and sections of living accommodation
and communal areas (944). Plans of housing units
(945).

942-43 Ginzburg and Milinis. Design for a housing

complex for Narkomfin, Novinsky Boulevard, Moscow,
1928-30. Perspective (942). Elevations of variant
actually carried out (943).

Mid..

P-

^nmT|
1111II111 i r r m
1111II111 i r r m

nrniTmi 111 im

rnrirTmiTm
I I 11 i n I 111 1 I n

jff

_0
I

^ mo

Q_

rff rff

IT

lI
i. I

r]

'nni

ID

tal

mi

tmiji ll i!
iiiiiimiiiiiiiiilniiiiiiiiiiimTi

:\
O

r o

362
946-48 Ginzburg and Milinis. Housing complex for
Narkomfin on Novinsky Boulevard, Moscow, 1928-30.
Design for tire service building: perspective (946). Plans
(947). Detail of actual elevation (948).

949-54 Ginzburg and Milinis. Housing complex for

Narkomfin on Novinsky Boulevard, Moscow, 1928-30.
Details of elevation and interiors of living
accommodation and communal areas.

364
955 Barshch, Vladimirov, Milinis, Orlovsky,
Pasternak and Slavina. Housing complex on Gogol
Boulevard, Moscow. Detail.

956 Barshch, Vladimirov, Milinis, Orlovsky,

Pasternak and Slavina. Housing complex on Gogol
Boulevard, Moscow. Axonometric view.
957 Barshch and Vladimirov. Experimental design
for a Housing Commune, 1929. Axonometric view.

9 5 8 - 6 0 Ginzburg and Lisagor. Housing conRostokino, Moscow. General view (958). Plan
Axonometric view. (960).

Drlovsky,
plex on Gogol

3n^
956 Barshch, Vladimirov, Milinis, Orlovsky,
Pasternak and Slavina. Housing complex on Gogol
Boulevard, Moscow. Axonometric view.
957 Barshch and Vladimirov. Experimental design
foi-a Housing Commune, 1929. Axonometric view.

958_60 Ginzburg and Lisagor. Housing complex at

Rostokino, Moscow. General view (958). Plan (959).
Axonometric view. (960).

961 Ginzburg and Pasternak. Housing complex,

Sverdlovsk. Detail of elevadon.

956-67 Gladkov, Zaltsman and Pavel Blokhin.

Student village at Vsesvyatskoe, Moscow, 1929-30.
General view (966). Interior of a room (967).

368
970 Alexander Knyazev, Rubanenko, Fromzel and
Khazanov. Competition design for a Student Housing
Commune, 1929-30. Axonometric view.
971 Vernik, Gedike and Makletsova. Competition
design for a Student Housing Commune, 1929-30.
Axonometric view.

972 Leonid and Nikolai Pavlov. Competition design

for a Student Housing Commune, Vkhutein,
Leonidov's course, 1929-30. Perspective.
9 7 3 - 7 4 Maximov and Korsunsky. Competition
design for a Student Housing Commune, Vkhutein,
Leonidov's course, 1929-30. Model of general lay-out
(973). Plan of building (974).

9 7 5 - 7 6 Pyankov. Competition design for a Student

Housing Commune, Vkhutein, Leonidov's course,
1929-30. Model of general lay-out (975). Elevations of
the structure as a whole and individual buildings
(976).

972 Leonid and Nilcolai Pavlov. Competition design

for a Student Housing Commune, Vkhutein,
Leonidov's course, 1929-30. Perspective.
9 7 3 - 7 4 Vlaximov and Korsunsky. Competition
design for a Student Housing Commune, Vkhutein,
Leonidov's course, 1929-30. Model of general lay-out
(973). Plan of building (974).

975-76 Pyankov. Competition design for a Student

Housing Commune, Vkhutein, Leonidov's course,
[929-30. Model of general lay-out (975). Elevations of
the structure as a whole and individual buildings
(976).

9 7 7 - 8 0 Ivan K u z m i n . Competition design for a

Student Housing Commune, Vkhutein, Leonidov's
course, 1929-30. Model o f t h e general lay-out (977).
Elevation, section and plans of a house (978 and
979-800).

370
9 8 1 - 8 4 Leonidov. Competition design for a socialist
settlement, Magnitogorsk Industrial Combine.
Dwelling complex. Dwelling element: section, interior

372
987 Socialist Settlement Section. Building with
sixteen rooms. Perspective. Section. Plans of ground
and first floors.
988 Socialist Settlement Section. Workers' Commune
No. 17. Axonometric view.

"1

h< 7

989 Socialist Settlement Section. Workers'

Commune. Axonometric view. Stages of construction.
Plans of ground and first floors.

990 Socialist Settlement Section. Family housing

block. Plan. Axonometric view of unit for a family of
four. Perspective of elevation.
991 Socialist Settlement Section. Temporary dwelling
for a childless couple w i t h split-level sleeping
accommodation over the corridor. Elevation. Section.
Axonometric view. Plan of unit (alternative versions).

373
989 Socialist Settlement Section. Workers'
Commune. Axonometric view. Stages of construction.
Plans of ground and first floors.

990 Socialist Settlement Section. Family housing

block. Plan. Axonometric view of unit for a family of
four. Perspective of elevation.
991 Sociahst Settlement Section. Temporary dwelling
for a childless couple with split-level sleeping
accommodation over the corridor. Elevation. Section.
Axonometric view. Plan of unit (alternative versions).

] ^ [W [
Sjri

992 Socialist Settlement Section. Dwelling unit

situated underneath a corridor. Section, plan and
axonometric view of two dwelling units with stairs
leading up and central toilet facilities. Diagrams of
alternative lay-outs obtained with movable partitions.
993 Socialist Settlement Section. Dwelling unit with
variable interior organization via movable partitions
and retractable furniture. Axonometric view. Plans
(two alternatives).

rtn m

jF|oHo[Pld

|.

,0-

--

,0 -

II

DM y
.

1000 Levinson and Igor Fomin. Housing blocli,

Karpovka, Leningrad, 1931-34. (Photo
Chr. Schadlich)

375
997 Volodko. Housing block, Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's
studio, 1925. Elevation.
998 Kalmykov. Housing combine of stepped housing
blocks with stepped inner corridors, Vkhutein,
Ladovsky's studio, 1930. Model.
999 Abrosimov, Simonov, Khryakov. Housing
Commune o f t h e Association of Former Pohtical
Prisoners, Leningrad, 1931-33.

1000 Levinson and Igor Fomin. Housing block,

Karpovka, Leningrad, 1931-34. (Photo
Chr. Schadlich)

1001-03 Boris lofan. Dwelhng complex,

Bersenevskaya Embankment, Moscow, 1928-30.
Details (1001-02), Plan (1003).

376
1004 Malevich. Planit ofthe Pilots [Planit: 'Dwelling'),
1924. Perspective.
1005 Malevich. Planits - Today's Structures, 1924.
Axonometric view.

1006 Malevich. Future Planits of the Earthmen, 1924.

Axonometric view.
1007 Malevich. Housing complex, Moscow, 1927.
General lay-out.

1006 Malevich. Future Planits ofthe Earthmen, 1924.

Axonometric view.
1007 Malevich. Housing complex, Moscow, 1927.
General lay-out.

378
1012 Valentin Popov. Design for a Housing
Commune i n a new city, Vkhutein, Ladovsky's studio,
1928. Model.
1013 Ilya Golosov and Mitelman. Housing
Commune, 1931. Axonometric view.

2 :

M-liltlDG

H C MH y H P

1014-10 Ilya Golosov. Collective h

Voznesensk, 1929-30. First design vi
lay-out (1014). Perspective (1015). E
(1016).
]^017-18 Ilya Golosov. Collective h
Voznesensk, 1929-31. Version adopi
Perspective (1018).

1014-16 Ilya Golosov, Collective house i n IvanovoVoznesensk, 1929-30, First design variant; general
lay-out (1014), Perspecdve (1015), Elevation, sections
(1016),
1017-18 Ilya Golosov, Collective house in IvanovoVdznesensk, 1929-31. Version adopted: view (1017),
Perspective (1018).

tea t^icMi't^.

380
1019-22 Asnova team: Travin and otliers. Housing
complex, Shabolovka, Moscow, 1927-28. Design of
elevations lining the roadway (1019). Detail (1020).
General view (1021). Axonometric view (1022).

381
1023

Krutikov. Competition design for a dwelling,

Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio, 1924. Elevation. Plan.

Section.
1024 Krutikov. Design for a Higher A r t School. Staff
houses: axonometric views. Plans. Section.

1025-28 Krutikov. Design for a Higher A r t School,

Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio, 1927. A r t School
village: model (1025). Student hostel: axonometric
view, plan (1026-27). Teaching accommodation:
- axonometric view (1028).

I
El

382
1029 Mazmanyan. Design for a dwelling, Vkhutein,
Ladovsky's studio, 1928.
1030 Melnikov. Design for a housing block with
cylindrical elements. Plan.

1031-33 Kochar. Design for a housing complex,

Vkhutein, Ladovsky's studio, 1928. Model (1031) and
plan (1033) of one floor. Axonometric view o f t h e
dwelling complex (1032).

J034-36

Melnikov. Melnikov's house, Moscow,

1929. Plans (1034). General view (1035). Interior

(1036).

383

'khutein,
with

1031-33 Kochar. Design for a housing complex,

Vkhutein, Ladovsky's studio, 1928. Model (1031) and
plan (1033) of one floor. Axonometric view of the
dwelling complex (1032).

1034-36 Melnikov. Melnikov's house, Moscow,

1929. Plans (1034). General view (1035). Interior
(1036).

1037-38 Bunin. Design for a parabolic house, 1930.

Elevation (1037). Plan (1038)

384
1039 Lissitzky. Interior lay-out of a Type F dwelling
unit, 1929. Model.
1040 Zemlyanitsyn. Cupboard-cum-table for a
communal house, Vkhutein, Lissitzky's studio, 1929.
Model.

1041 Boris Sokolov. Cupboard-cum-partition

between a kitchen and dining room, Vkhutein,
Lissitzky's studio, 1929. Model.

1042 Lissitzky. Diagram for assembling sectional

furniture from five standard elements, 1929.

t
.

J
A

1043 Dwelling assembled from prefabricated

components manufactured by the Standard Joint-Stoc
Company, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, 1924-26.

386
1044 Socialist Settlement Section. One-room
dwelling. Axonometric view. Plan. Assembly diagram for
individual elements.
1045 Okhitovich, Barshch, Vladimirov and Nikolai Sokolov.
Gompetidon design for Magnitogorsk, 1930. Prefabricated
wooden structural components for use i n buildings of various
kinds, such as dwelling units, crches etc. Diagram of elevations
and the assembly of dwelhng units.

One-room
Assembly diagram for
nirov and Nilcolai Sokolov.
sk, 1930. Prefabricated
ise i n buildings of various
es etc. Diagram of elevations

4
t

<

2 6

Designed by G i n z b u r g and Solo

three blocks: one w i t h five store]

room flats; another comprising T y

building, containing an assembly 1

laundry etc. T h e f o u r t h , erected
and Pasternak, w i t h Prokhorov a
four buildings on a square w i t h a
f i f t h , by V l a d i m i r o v and Y u l i a n (
prised fourteen large T y p e 2F flats
al rooms and a c o m m u n a l kitcher
Evgeny Popov i n Saratov, consisti
ing block made u p of T y p e F an<
building. I n a d d i t i o n to these, a
communal, transitional housing
end o f t h e 1920s. Some of these des
on the strength of commissions f i
Kiev, K h a r k o v , B a k u , Tashkent,

The family and communal accommodatici

the debate about transforming the way o

W o r k on the design of new t o w n

serve the i n d u s t r i a l plants being b

Plan focused the attention of arch|

housing, as w e h as on resettleme
on this subject b o t h i n the press
tions. A h aspects of life were deb;
relations between parents and ch:
social contacts, the collectivizad
sumption, a n d many other such f

models were p u t f o r e w a r d , each c

cial new requirements i n housin|
T h e character of m a r i t a l and f<
their implications for the plannir
der p a r t i c u l a r l y close scrutiny al
T h e difficulties of everyday l i f
l u t i o n had f u r t h e r aggravated a ;
ing f r o m the rejection o f t h e tradii
its new interpretation had not ye
concept of the f a m i l y emerged ;
stances of C i v i l W a r , economic c
of W a r C o m m u n i s m and was fl

Chapter 2/Reconstruction o f t h e way of hfe

Designed by G i n z b u r g and Solomon Lisagor, i t consisted o f

f u n c t i o n i n g n o r m a l l y . Day-to-day existence lost m u c h o f its

three blocks: one w i t h five storeys, comprising paired two-

stability as a result o f t h e C i v i l W a r , the new f a m i l y was often

room flats; another comprising T y p e F units; and a c o m m u n a l

altogether unable to take root i n i t , and marriage itself fre-

building, containing an assembly hall, foyer, canteen, kitchen,

quently became i m p e r m a n e n t i n character. A l t h o u g h such i n -

laundry etc. T h e f o u r t h , erected i n Sverdlovsk by G i n z b u r g

stability had been caused by the complex circumstances o f

and Pasternak, w i t h Prokhorov as engineer, was l a i d out as

those early Soviet days, i t was nevertheless often regarded as

four buildings on a square w i t h a garden i n the m i d d l e . T h e

the expression of a new socialist ethic. A n d so, w h e n the stabili-

f i f t h , by V l a d i m i r o v and Y u l i a n Gershtein, i n Moscow, com-

zation of economic life d u r i n g the first h a l f of the 1920s restored

prised fourteen large T y p e 2F flats, and a hostel w i t h i n d i v i d u -

to the f a m i l y its role as the basic economic and consumer u n i t

al rooms and a c o m m u n a l kitchen. T h e sixth, by Lisagor and

i n society, the young revolutionary generation saw i n this a

Evgeny Popov i n Saratov, consisted o f two buildings: a d w e l l -

threatened r e b i r t h o f conformism, the j e o p a r d i z i n g o f t h e col-

ing block made up o f T y p e F and 2F units and a c o m m u n a l

lective spirit and an attempt to replace i t by petit-bourgeois i n d i -

building. I n a d d i t i o n to these, a large number o f designs for

communal, transitional housing were produced towards the
end o f t h e 1920s. Some of these designs were carried out, mostly
on the strength o f commissions f r o m housing associations, i n
Kiev, K h a r k o v , B a k u , Tashkent, Smolensk and elsewhere.

vidualism. Stormy discussions raged i n the press and at y o u t h

meetings throughout that decade concerning a new sexual
m o r a h t y and alternative models o f f a m i l y relationships.
Theories gained currency w h i c h linked a new way of life
not merely w i t h the wholesale collectivization o f domestic
existence, but w i t h the rejection o f t h e f a m i l y as the basic u n i t
of society. I n the new collective way o f life the existence o f

The family and communal accommodation:

every member o f society w o u l d be subjected to m i n u t e regula-

the debate about transforming the way of life

tion.
T h i s approach to a new w a y of life was most coherently stat-

W o r k on the design o f new towns and dwelling complexes to

ed i n the theoretical w r i t i n g s o f N i k o l a i K u z m i n and f o u n d its

serve the i n d u s t r i a l plants being b u i l t under the First Five Year

architectural expression i n 1928-29 i n his design for a c o m m u -

Plan focused the attention of architects on the p r o b l e m of mass

nal house. K u z m i n completely discarded f a m i l y flats. Instead,

housing, as well as on resettlement. A keen debate developed

he d i v i d e d the residents into age groups and designed separate

on this subject both i n the press and i n specialized publica-

accommodation for each o f these. T h e rooms p r o v i d e d i n spe-

tions. A l l aspects o f life were debated: the f u t u r e o f the f a m i l y ,

cial blocks were reserved for sleeping, and the remainder o f f i c e

relations between parents and children, the nature of everyday

time had to be spent by everyone i n a c u l t u r a l centre. T h e f a m i -

social contacts, the collectivization o f domestic life and con-

ly as such d i d not exist. C h i l d r e n were brought u p collectively,

sumption, and many other such problems. A diversity of social

i n separate age groups. Meals were taken c o m m u n a l l y . L i f e

models were p u t f o r e w a r d , each of w h i c h involved its o w n spe-

was strictly regulated, and the programmes prescribed for each

cial new requirements i n housing.

age group were reckoned out to the minute.

The character of m a r i t a l and f a m i l y relationships, i n c l u d i n g

T h e 'Theses on H o u s i n g ' p u t f o r w a r d by N i k o l a i K u z m i n at

their implications for the p l a n n i n g o f new dwellings, came u n -

the First Osa Congress i n 1929, w h i c h declared flats to be a

der particularly close scrutiny at that time.

m a t e r i a l manifestation oi petit-bourgeois ideology unacceptable

The difficulties o f everyday life immediately after the Revo-

i n the new society, were adopted by the gathering as a whole.

lution had f u r t h e r aggravated a series o f m o r a l problems aris-

T h e f u l l y developed c o m m u n a l house, i n v o l v i n g the utmost

ing f r o m the rejection o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l view o f t h e f a m i l y , whhe

collectivization of all aspects of life, was erected into the model

its new interpretation had not yet taken shape. T h e n e w Soviet

of new socialist housing.

concept of the f a m i l y emerged among the disturbed c i r c u m -

T h e c o m m u n a l house designed i n 1929 by Barshch and V l a -

stances of C i v i l W a r , economic chaos and the popular upsurge

d i m i r o v reflected the Osa concepts as embodied i n these

of W a r C o m m u n i s m and was therefore often prevented f r o m

'Theses'. A complex consisting o f t w o sets o f buildings inter-

:',>iii

Part Il/Social tasks of architecture

secting each other at r i g h t angles was d i v i d e d into three inter-

development of y o u t h groups, b u t hence also their temporary

connected basic blocks: a six-storey block, housing 360 people,

nature, their instabihty and their inevitable decay.

for children of pre-school age; a five-storey block, housing 320,

T h i s tendency among the young to f o r m groups o f contem-

for school c h d r e n ; and a ten-storey block for 1,000 adults.

poraries was intensified d u r i n g the 1920s by special circum-

Each block contained all the facilities required by the relevant

stances. T h e young often saw the struggle for a new way of life

age group.

as a chahenge to f a m h y ties: these gradually weakened i n any

w h i c h housing, basic (
and study were collectiv
A l l parts o f the hostel p

w i t h new functions be
ly f o r b i d d e n i n daytim(
dies. A l l books were ' n ;

Designs by Alexander and L e o n i d Vesnin, I l y a Golosov and

case and were replaced by comradeship among contempora-

service l i b r a r y . A self-se

others, for actual d w e l l i n g combines, regarded as the structural

ries. T h e creation of communes among the y o u n g was also

of a commune was helpi

units of a new t o w n i n the Sotsgorod p l a n n i n g concept, were

greatly stimulated by the fact that large numbers of them were

o f t h e students, all of w l

undoubtedly influenced by such proposals for a f u l l y developed

directed to workers' colleges and institutes of higher education,

terest i n study and thei

c o m m u n a l house catering for a completely collectivized way of

or employed i n the construction o f new cities. These were the

T h e movement for t h

life. Sabsovich, the proponent o f the Sotsgorod theory, fa-

circumstances i n w h i c h domestic communes for the young

among y o u n g workers

voured the wholesale collectivization o f t h e way o f life and the

came i n t o being. Lonely students or b u i l d i n g workers, a long

ments, and the sponta

rejection o f t h e f a m i l y . H e even opposed the provision of shared

way f r o m home and their childhood peer groups and communi-

strongly influenced the'

rooms i n c o m m u n a l houses for m a r r i e d couples: rooms, i n his

ties, as yet w i t h o u t new families of their o w n , n a t u r a l l y chose

tels towards the end of

opinion, were p r i m a r i l y there for sleeping i n , as well as for i n d i -

company over solitude and preferred to live communally.

A n experimental con

v i d u a l rest and study. Sabsovich believed that the f a m i l y w o u l d

M a n y aspects o f t h e new way o f life were exemplified i n the

disappear as the basic u n i t of society and be replaced by com-

everyday existence of y o u n g workers and students d u r i n g the

vast eight-storey

1920s. Certain sociologists and architects belonging to that de-

measuring 6 m^. T h i s b

munities founded on other principles. As he saw i t , i n a socialist

society the p r o b l e m of parents and children w o u l d be replaced
by that of adults and children, or society and children, and resolved thereby.

/ cow i n 1929-30 f o r 2,01

blocl

cade allowed themselves undue scope, however, i n their inter-

communal b u i l d i n g cor

pretation of specific life styles, ethics and reladonships when

seating 1,000, a d i n i n g

they studied the H o u s i n g Communes o f t h e young. I n pracdce,

study r o o m accommoc

many designs of c o m m u n a l houses catering for a f u l l y cohective

study cubicles. T h e de

way of life and the rejection o f t h e f a m i l y were no more than at-

'workshop, a c r c h e aa

Youth collectives and communal dwellings

tempts to provide an architectural f r a m e w o r k f o r y o u t h hostels

race, club rooms and si

involving wholly shared living

and to rationalize the way of life appropriate to them. The sub-

Other well-equipped

sequent history of c o m m u n a l houses b u i l t to serve such com-

rary w i t h Nikolaev's dei

T h e theories advocating a wholesale collectivization of life and

munities is indicative i n this respect. Those designed for stu-

to c o m m u n a l housing,

the h q u i d a d o n o f the f a m i l y , as well as the architectural de-

dent communes survived successfully for m a n y years as well-

cheskaya

signs derived f r o m them, claimed to reflect a current social

equipped hostels, because their inhabitants consistently met

blocks linked to a buildi

Embankmen

need. T h e i r promoters pointed to i n d i v i d u a l examples of Hous-

the age and f a m i l y requirements for w h i c h the buildings were

a d i n i n g and dayroom, i

i n g Communes w i t h w h o l l y shared h v i n g and v o l u n t a r y elimi-

i n i t i a l l y conceived. O n the other hand, c o m m u n a l houses de-

floor.

nation o f t h e f a m i l y . Such communes d i d i n fact exist, but were

signed for young workers' communes gradually developed into

Similar hostels were

usually no more t h a n a temporary f o r m o f domestic organiza-

unsuitable dwehings as their inhabitants acquired famihes of

the Zoological Veterin

tion by groups o f young people.

their o w n and the occupants no longer bore any resemblance to

1931 i n Erevan, f o r inst

T h e young, o w i n g to their position i n the f a m i l y , at w o r k or

the y o u t h communes for w h i c h such buildings had been de-

dwelling blocks and a

i n t r a i n i n g , are very inchned to associate w i t h their contempo-

signed. I t must be stressed, however, that y o u t h communes

connected w i t h each ot
A n A l l - U n i o n Interci

raries and to f o r m independent groups w i t h values and an out-

came i n t o being before any c o m m u n a l houses specifically in-

look of their o w n . T h e y need close contact w i t h their o w n age

tended for a f u l l y collectivized w a y of life were designed and

communal students' ho

group as they develop f r o m dependent children i n t o f u l l y

b u i l t . I n other words, these houses met a genuine social re-

for 1,000 residents, was|

fledged adults. T h i s urge gradually fades, new f a m i l y ties de-

quirement, even i f its scope has been grossly exaggerated.

movement was at its

velop and individuals become absorbed i n t o w o r k i n g c o m m u -

I n the m i d - 1920s, for instance, the students of the Leningrad

marked difference i n t h

nities. Hence the objective circumstances w h i c h favour the

Electro-Technical Faculty f o r m e d a domestic commune in

b u i l d i n g between the p

391

Chapter 2/Reconstruction o f t h e way of hfe

;ht angles was divided into three inter-

development o f y o u t h groups, b u t hence also their temporary

a six-storey block, housing 360 people,

nature, their instability and their inevitable decay.

which housing, basic expenditure, everyday activities, food

I n s t i t u t e f o r C o m m u n a l - C o n s t r u c t i o n Engineers (Liiks) and

and study were collectivized. T o t a l self-service was introduced.

those f r o m V k h u t e i n i n Moscow.

)1 age; a five-storey block, housing 320,

T h i s tendency among the y o u n g to f o r m groups o f contem-

A l l parts o f the hostel premises were reallocated and provided

d a ten-storey block for 1,000 adults.

poraries was intensified d u r i n g the 1920s by special circum-

w i t h new functions - bedrooms, access to w h i c h was complete-

ready become t r a d i t i o n a l for this purpose: a multi-storey block

11 the facilities required by the relevant

stances. T h e y o u n g often saw the struggle for a new way of life

ly f o r b i d d e n i n daytime, a d i n i n g r o o m , a rest r o o m and stu-

or blocks linked to a c o m m u n a l b u i l d i n g or buildings. T h e de-

T h e L e n i n g r a d students adopted an approach w h i c h had al-

as a challenge to f a m i l y ties: these gradually weakened i n any

dies. A l l books were 'nationahzed' and incorporated i n a self-

signs produced by the V k h u t e i n students under Leonidov's d i -

r and Leonid Vesnin, I l y a Golosov and

case and were replaced by comradeship among contempora-

service l i b r a r y . A self-service shop was organized. T h e creation

rection, on the other hand, attempted to reflect the inner struc-

i g combines, regarded as the structural

ries. T h e creation o f communes among the y o u n g was also

of a commune was helped by the age and common social o r i g i n

ture o f the hfe o f commune members. M o s t o f t h e designs split

the Sotsgorod p l a n n i n g concept, were

greatly stimulated by the fact that large numbers of t h e m were

o f t h e students, a l l of w h o m were f o r m e r workers, their j o i n t i n -

the communes into groups o f t e n , fifty or a hundred students.

by such proposals for a f u l l y developed

directed to workers' coUeges and institutes of higher education,

terest i n study and their equal incomes.

Each group was architecturally provided for by a b u i l d i n g

i g for a completely collectivized way o f

or employed i n the construction o f new cities. These were the

The movement for the establishment of domestic communes

complex w i t h i n d i v i d u a l rooms intended for sleep, rest and

3ponent o f the Sotsgorod theory, fa-

circumstances i n w h i c h domestic communes for the young

among young workers entering higher educational establish-

study, together w i t h c o m m u n a l and ancillary accommodation.

Ilectivization o f the way o f life and the

came into being. Lonely students or b u i l d i n g workers, a long

ments, and the spontaneous emergence o f such communes,

I n a d d i t i o n , there was a c o m m o n c u l t u r a l centre. I n I v a n K u z -

[e even opposed the provision of shared

way f r o m home and their chfldhood peer groups and communi-

strongly influenced the design and construction of student hos-

m i n ' s design, each such basic c o m m u n i t y was allocated a se-

ises f o r m a r r i e d couples: rooms, i n his

ties, as yet w i t h o u t new families o f their o w n , n a t u r a l l y chose

tels towards the end o f t h e 1920s.

parate circular two-storey b u i l d i n g on pilotis. I n the design by

there f o r sleeping i n , as well as for i n d i -

company over solitude and preferred to live communally.

A n experimental c o m m u n a l student house was b u i l t i n M o s -

L e o n i d and N i k o l a i Pavlov, i t was part o f a l o w complex w i t h

.bsovich believed that the f a m i l y w o u l d

M a n y aspects o f the new w a y of life were exemplified i n the

cow i n 1929-30 for 2,000 residents, to designs by Nikolaev. A

i n d i v i d u a l small inner courtyards. For Grigory Pyankov, i t was

nit o f society and be replaced by com-

everyday existence o f y o u n g workers and students d u r i n g the

vast eight-storey block contained small double

bedrooms

a single standard 'section' i n a tower block, and for V i k t o r K a -

er principles. As he saw i t , i n a sociahst

1920s. Certain sociologists and architects belonging to that de-

measuring 6 m^. T h i s block communicated w i t h a three-storey

l i n i n , as for Alexander M a x i m o v and Z a n v i l Korsunsky, i t was

arents and children w o u l d be replaced

cade allowed themselves undue scope, however, i n their inter-

communal b u i l d i n g containing a sports hall, an assembly h a l l

part o f a multi-storey block.

ildren, or society and children, and re-

p r e t a d o n o f specific hfe styles, ethics and relationships when

seating 1,000, a d i n i n g r o o m , a reading r o o m seating 150, a

Leonidov's theories about the reconstruction o f the w a y o f

they studied the H o u s i n g Communes o f t h e young. I n practice,

study room accommodating 300, and numerous i n d i v i d u a l

life, w h i c h had influenced the V k h u t e i n students' designs, were

many designs of c o m m u n a l houses catering for a f u l l y collective

study cubicles. T h e design also included a l a u n d r y , a repair

best illustrated by his design for a socialist settlement attached

way of life and the rejection of the f a m i l y were no more than at-

workshop, a c r c h e accommodating 100, a surgery, sun ter-

to the Magnitogorsk I n d u s t r i a l C o m b i n e . T h e dwellings i n i t

inal dwellings

tempts to provide an architectural f r a m e w o r k for y o u t h hostels

race, club rooms and showers.

represented a f o r m o f hostel for i n d i v i d u a l s and childless cou-

and to rationalize the way of life appropriate to them. T h e sub-

Other weh-equipped student hostels i n Moscow, contempo-

ples, i n w h i c h each section consisted o f sixteen small single-

sequent history o f c o m m u n a l houses b u i l t to serve such com-

rary w i t h Nikolaev's design, variously reflected the research i n -

r o o m flats for two people. These sections could be used as se-

a wholesale collectivization of life and

munities is indicative i n this respect. Those designed for stu-

to communal housing. A student hostel b u i l t on the K o t e l n i -

parate dwellings or incorporated i n a multi-storey tower block.

m i l y , as well as the architectural de

dent communes survived successfully for m a n y years as well-

cheskaya E m b a n k m e n t i n 1930 consisted o f t w o dwelling

A t the centre of each section, a h a l l provided w i t h a double light

n, claimed to reflect a current social

equipped hostels, because their inhabitants consistently met

blocks hnked to a b u i l d i n g inserted between t h e m and housing

was intended for use as a c o m m o n rest r o o m , c u l t u r a l meeting

Dinted to i n d i v i d u a l examples of Hous-

the age and f a m h y requirements for w h i c h the buildings were

a dining and d a y r o o m , as well as a self-service kitchen, on each

place, m o r n i n g g y m n a s i u m and d i n i n g r o o m . Leonidov be-

j l l y shared l i v i n g and v o l u n t a r y e l i m i -

i n i t i a h y conceived. O n the other hand, c o m m u n a l houses de-

floor.

heved that the new dwehings should not recall hotels, where

h communes d i d i n fact exist, b u t were

signed for y o u n g workers' communes graduahy developed into !

:emporary f o r m o f domestic organiza-

Similar hostels were also b u i l t i n other cities. T h e hostel o f

thousands lived along noisy corridors far removed f r o m nature.

unsuitable dwellings as their inhabitants acquired famhies of

the Zoological V e t e r i n a r y I n s t i t u t e designed by K o c h a r i n

Instead, they should provide a f r a m e w o r k for small c o m m u n i -

people.

their o w n and the occupants no longer bore any resemblance to

1931 i n Erevan, for instance, consisted o f three buildings - t w o

ties i n w h i c h the i n d i v i d u a l w o u l d not be submerged, b u t be

:heir position i n the f a m i l y , at w o r k or

the y o u t h communes for w h i c h such buildings had been de-

dwehing blocks and a c o m m u n a l block l y i n g between them,

able to develop to the f u l l and communicate w i t h others by

med to associate w i t h their contempo-

signed. I t must be stressed, however, that y o u t h communes

connected w i t h each other by gangways.

graduating f r o m small groups to increasingly larger ones.

;ndent groups w i t h values and an out-

came into being before any c o m m u n a l houses specifically in-

need close contact w i t h their o w n age

f r o m dependent

children into f u l l y

e gradually fades, new f a m i l y ties de-

A n A l l - U n i o n Intercollegiate C o m p e t i t i o n for the design of a

I n Leonidov's design, the dwellings were surrounded by

tended for a f u l l y cohectivized w a y o f life were designed and

communal students' house i n L e n i n g r a d , w i t h accommodation

gardens, sports grounds and fountains. Each dwelling complex

b u i l t . I n other words, these houses met a genuine social re-

for 1,000 residents, was held i n 1929-30, w h e n the commune

or district w o u l d house 250 people, and a free-standing b u i l d -

quirement, even i f its scope has been grossly exaggerated.

movement was at its height among students. There was a

ing for children's institutions w o u l d be sited between every t w o

come absorbed into w o r k i n g c o m m u -

I n the mid-1920s, for instance, the students o f t h e Leningrad

marked difference i n the spatial composition o f t h e c o m m u n a l

complexes. O n l y the most elementary forms o f pubhc accom-

dve circumstances w h i c h favour the

Electro-Technical Faculty f o r m e d a domestic commune i n

budding between the projects submitted f r o m the L e n i n g r a d

m o d a t i o n and c o m m u n a l services were located i n the i m m e -

Part I I/Social tasks of architecture

diate vicinity o f t h e d w e h i n g units. A l l other c o m m u n a l i n s t i t u -

other people. They advocated a combination of i n d i v i d u a l free-

the p r i m a r y element o f society. T h

tions i n Leonidov's design were located i n p u b l i c buildings

d o m w i t h a provision for everyday needs t h r o u g h a centralized

outright, b u t merely regarded as an

beyond the confines o f t h e residential districts.

supply system, as opposed to the communalist concept o f a

tion between i n d i v i d u a l s . T h i s mad^

minutely regulated way o f life.

design o f h o u s i n g units to the ' m o b i

I n 1930, the L e n i n g r a d C i t y C o u n c i l launched an A l l - U n i o n

open competition for a c o m m u n a l house 'a collective dwelling

I n his settlement scheme, O k h i t o v i c h assumed that people

order to take account o f both j o i n t

combine' - to house 2,000 workers. T h e b u l k o f t h e entries of-

w o u l d always eat, dress, and so on i n other words, engage i n

M i l i u t i n , for instance, asserted i n

fered dwelling combines comprising housing and c o m m u n a l

consumption - as i n d i v i d u a l s , and that i n d i v i d u a l demands for

and i n a design for a d w e h i n g bio

blocks hnked by gangways.

consumption w o u l d grow as society evolved. T h e disurbaniz-

b u i l d i n g called u p o n to reflect the m i

ers' attitude to the socialization o f everyday life stressed the

ly i n a socialist society must be plai

selected and provided a c o m m u n a l dwelling for 1,750 people.

need to socialize the more labour intensive domestic tasks w i t h -

M o s t o f those concerned w i t h re

I t was a complex design consisting o f interconnected housing

i n the house and outside i t , b u t denied that consumption itself

believed that the m a i n need was for

blocks, each w i t h its strictly defined purpose - for individuals

must be collectivized. T h e y d i d not set out to create permanent

types o f housing, concentrating on.:

and chhdless couples, families, school boarders - and a com-

social contracts between fellow occupants o f a dwehing, but

planning and spatial organization ol

m u n a l centre containing a theatre, sports fachities, a d i n i n g

stressed instead the autonomy o f each i n d i v i d u a l ' s existence i n

T h e development o f a new way of l i

r o o m , and so on.

every possible way. T h e disurbanizers designed small i n d i v i d -

their minds w i t h the provision o f cei

T h e design by Simonov, Notes and Rusakov was u l t i m a t e l y

T h e c o m m u n a l house designed by O l and b u i l t i n L e n i n g r a d

ual standard units w h i c h could either be free-standing i n natu-

ah ' o l d ' types of dwellings were usua

on Rubinstein Street i n 1930 was commissioned by an associa-

r a l surroundings; linked i n continuous ribbons, as i n the

ly unacceptable.

tion of young engineers and writers w h o themselves decided at

Barshch and G i n z b u r g Green C i t y design; or included i n hous-

Ladovsky saw the connection he

their general meetings the degree o f collectivization to be ap-

i n g association and hostel projects, such as those d r a f t e d for va-

housing rather differently. H e thoug

plied i n the b u i l d i n g . A l l domestic w o r k was to be c o m m u n a l -

rious types o f dwellings i n the Socialist Settlement Section.

emphasis i n pursuit of the new way o

ized, and leisure was to be collective. None o f t h e flats i n the

However, even though the disurbanizers rejected extremist

tricts and entire cities, and away frc'

b u i l d i n g , whether larger, w i t h three to f o u r rooms; smah, w i t h

attitudes towards the socialization of domestic life and the col-

i n d i v i d u a l dwellings. H e considered,

two rooms; or hostel accommodation f o r single people, i n -

lectivization o f consumption, their approach to the design of a

ular types o f residential b u i l d i n g w i

cluded a kitchen. T h e g r o u n d floor housed a d i n i n g hall, read-

basic housing u n i t was m u c h the same as that o f t h e supporters

since the social i d e n t i t y o f any dwel;

i n g r o o m , children's rooms, rest r o o m and other public p r e m -

of c o m m u n a l housing i n v o l v i n g a f u l l y socialized way o f life.

hostel embodying one measure o f [

ises. However, difiiculties arose i n the life of this domestic com-

O k h i t o v i c h believed that the u n i t o f housing should be desig-

may be successfully accommodated ii

mune after the first flush of collective enthusiasm. N e w families

ned for a single person, since wives and husbands would live apart

ing, i n c l u d i n g a skyscraper. T h e i

developed, and the house w h i c h had been planned for a com-

i n the f u t u r e , while children w o u l d be brought u p collectively.

buildings were simply a matter o f r'

As he saw i t , 'the f a m i l y hearth' as such w o u l d vanish i n time.

day practice and o f the way i n whic

T h e debate at the end o f the 1920s about restructuring the

network o f c o m m u n a l services, rathl

T h i s fate also overtook a whole series o f other c o m m u n a l

way o f life unfolded at a time w h e n resources for new housing

principle. T h i s attitude was reflect

houses b u h t for the w o r k i n g y o u t h . I n contrast to c o m m u n a l

had to be allocated most sparingly i n order to meet all other de-

signs and those o f his students i n \

houses for students, the f a m i l y circumstances o f the inmates

mands for the r a p i d i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n o f t h e country. A n y bet-

designs o r i g i n a t i n g f r o m the latte

changed as the years went by and w i t h them the entire life style.

terment o f t h e workers' l i v i n g conditions required an improve-

might be conceived sectionally, or i

ment o f the housing as such rationalized p l a n n i n g , modern

towers, along corridors or i n some o

equipment, increases i n the per capita quotas o f floor space etc-

ly as part o f the new social organiza

Individual personal requirements,

as well as the development of a network o f c o m m u n a l facilities.

or a city.

collective living and the e c o n o m y :

These two basic requirements, however, proved conflicting

This approach to the connection 1

ideal projects and actual c i r c u m s t a n c e s

when a decision had to be made as to w h i c h o f them should be

way of hfe proved j u s t i f i e d by experi

given p r i o r i t y i n f u n d i n g . A m a j o r i t y gave clear preference to

life towards the end o f t h e 1920s, dis

I n their model for the f u t u r e way o f life, the disurbanizers

the socialized amenities, since the restructuring o f life was

al housing and free-standing c o m n

scorned designs for c o m m u n a l houses i n v o l v i n g total collectivi-

linked, as they thought, not only w i t h a gradual loss o f t h e fami-

fact, differ greatly f r o m the interme(

zation where an i n d i v i d u a l w o u l d constantly be surrounded by

ly's role as the basic economic u n i t , but also w i t h its decay as

communal accommodation b u i l t fo

m u n i t y of young people proved to be completely unsuitable for

ordinary domestic purposes.

393

Chapter 2/Reconstruction o f t h e way of life

s of architecture

other people. T h e y advocated a c o m b i n a d o n of i n d i v i d u a l free-

the p r i m a r y element o f society. T h e f a m i l y was not rejected

T h e total socialization o f life and the w i t h e r i n g away o f the

lidov's design were located i n p u b l i c buildings

d o m w i t h a provision for everyday needs t h r o u g h a centralized

outright, but merely regarded as an unstable f o r m o f associa-

f a m i l y were advocated i n radical theories. M e a n w h i l e , the

)nfmes o f t h e residendal districts,

supply system, as opposed to the communalist concept o f a

tion between i n d i v i d u a l s . T h i s made i t necessary to adjust the

c o m m u n a l houses and dwelling combines that were designed,

m i n u t e l y regulated way o f life.

design o f h o u s i n g units to the ' m o b f l e ' nature o f t h e f a m i l y , i n

and especially those that were actually b u i l t , increasingly prov-

o f t h e dwehing units. A l l other c o m m u n a l i n s d t u -

e L e n i n g r a d Gity Gounch launched an A l l - U n i o n

I n his setdement scheme, O k h i t o v i c h assumed that people

order to take account o f both j o i n t and i n d i v i d u a l occupancy.

ed to be intermediate dwelhngs, hotel-hke buildings and

I house 2,000 workers. T h e b u l k o f t h e entries of-

w o u l d always eat, dress, and so on - i n other words, engage i n

M i h u t i n , for instance, asserted i n his theoretical statements

groups o f sectional dwellings and c o m m u n a l blocks, either ad-

g combines comprising housing and c o m m u n a l

consumption - as i n d i v i d u a l s , and that i n d i v i d u a l demands for

and i n a design for a dwelling block that l i v i n g quarters i n

jacent or linked by gangways.

by gangways.

consumption w o u l d grow as society evolved. T h e disurbaniz-

buflding called u p o n to reflect the mobile character o f t h e f a m i -

I b y Simonov, Notes and Rusakov was u l t i m a t e l y

ers' attitude to the sociahzadon o f everyday life stressed the

ly i n a socialist society must be planned

provided a c o m m u n a l dwelling for 1,750 people,

need to socialize the more labour intensive domestic tasks w i t h -

Most o f those concerned w i t h restructuring the way o f life

for housing and a new p r i m a r y component of society to replace

plex design consisdng o f interconnected housing

i n the house and outside i t , b u t denied that consumpdon itself

beheved that the m a i n need was for the design of radically new

the t r a d i t i o n a l f a m i l y . T h e latter had developed w i t h i n its o w n

with its strictly defined purpose - f o r i n d i v i d u a l s

must be collecdvized. T h e y d i d not set out to create permanent

types o f housing, concentrating on the search for the correct

f o r m of accommodation. T h i s was now to be replaced by a fresh

couples, families, school boarders - and a com

social contracts between fellow occupants o f a dwelhng, but

planning and spatial organization o f t h e dwelling o f t h e f u t u r e .

spatial design to fit the new everyday personal relationships

; containing a theatre, sports facilides, a d i n i n g

stressed instead the autonomy o f each i n d i v i d u a l ' s existence in

The development o f a new way o f life was i n t i m a t e l y linked i n

w i t h i n a new p r i m a r y c o m m u n i t y . T h e actual course o f events

every possible way. T h e disurbanizers designed smah i n d i v i d -

their minds w i t h the provision o f certain forms o f h o u s i n g , and

soon made i t p l a i n , however, that t w o of the basic features o f

ual standard units w h i c h could either be free-standing i n natu-

all ' o l d ' types of dwelhngs were usually rejected as being social-

the proposed 'ideal' housing communities, w h i c h w o u l d need

a Street i n 1930 was commissioned by an associa-

ral surroundings; hnked i n condnuous

ly unacceptable.

to take root and spread before the f a m i l y flat could be replaced

engineers and writers w h o themselves decided at

Barshch and G i n z b u r g Green Gity design; or included i n hous-

Ladovsky saw the connection between the way o f life a n d

by a different housing component, were unrealistic. For one

meetings the degree o f collectivizadon to be ap-

i n g association and hostel projects, such as those d r a f t e d for va-

housing rather differentiy. H e thought i t i m p o r t a n t to shift the

thing, the f a m i l y proved more lasting as the basic u n i t of society

u i l d i n g . A l l domestic work was to be c o m m u n a l -

rious types o f dwelhngs i n the Sociahst Settiement Section.

emphasis i n pursuit o f t h e new way of life on to the design of dis-

than m a n y had imagined i n early Soviet years. For another, the

tion for a c o m m u n a l house - 'a collective d w e l l i n g

on.
unal house designed by O l and b u i l t i n L e n i n g r a d

ribbons, as i n the

flexibly.

T h e advocates of c o m m u n a l houses catering f o r a w h o l l y socialized way o f life were searching for a new g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e

was to be collective. None o f t h e flats i n the

However, even though the disurbanizers rejected extremist

tricts and entire cities, and away f r o m the preoccupation w i t h

H o u s i n g G o m m u n e as a consumer collective based on com-

t h e r larger, w i t h three to f o u r rooms; small, w i t h

attitudes towards the socialization of domestic life and the col-

individual dwellings. He considered i t w r o n g to i d e n t i f y partic-

pletely v o l u n t a r y self-help by its members, operating i n a so-

r hostel accommodation for single people, i n -

lectivization o f consumption, their approach to the design of a

ular types o f residential b u i l d i n g w i t h specific social purposes,

cialist economy on the principle ' F r o m each according to his

ben. T h e g r o u n d floor housed a d i n i n g hah, read-

basic housing u n i t was m u c h the same as that o f t h e supporters

since the social identity o f any dwelhng - be i t a flat, say, or a

abihty, to each according to his labour', proved to be mere uto-

ildren's rooms, rest r o o m and other p u b l i c p r e m -

of c o m m u n a l housing i n v o l v i n g a f u l l y socialized way of life.

hostel embodying one measure o f socialization or another

pia. I t took no account o f t h e real economic relations between

r, difficulties arose i n the life of this domestic com-

O k h i t o v i c h beheved that the u n i t o f h o u s i n g should be desig-

may be successfully accommodated i n every known type of build-

people, such as differential earnings among the members o f t h e

ic first flush of collective enthusiasm. N e w famihes

ned for a single person, since wives and husbands w o u l d live apart

ing, i n c l u d i n g a skyscraper. T h e distinctions between such

c o m m u n i t y and the resulting material inequalities i n oppor-

i n the f u t u r e , whfle children w o u l d be brought up cohectively.

buildings were simply a matter o f m i n o r differences i n every-

tunities and needs, or the impossibility of assessing i n d i v i d u a l

As he saw i t , 'the f a m i l y hearth' as such w o u l d vanish i n time.

day practice and o f t h e way i n w h i c h a dwelling fitted into the

contributions to the self-service system as a whole , and the re-

T h e debate at the end o f t h e 1920s about restructuring the

network o f c o m m u n a l services, rather t h a n any point o f social

sulting artificiality o f egahtarianism. T h e H o u s i n g Gommune,

also overtook a whole series o f other c o m m u n a l

way o f life unfolded at a time when resources for new housing

principle. This attitude was reflected i n Ladovsky's o w n de-

therefore, simply d i d not take root as a new basic u n i t of society.

for the w o r k i n g y o u t h . I n contrast to c o m m u n a l

had to be allocated most sparingly i n order to meet a l l other de-

signs and those o f his students i n V k h u t e m a s - V k h u t e i n . T h e

However, the demand for a special type o f d w e l l i n g - the

udents, the f a m i l y circumstances o f the inmates

mands for the r a p i d industriahzation o f t h e country. A n y bet-

designs originating f r o m the latter included dwellings that

c o m m u n a l house - w h i c h arose d u r i n g the early Soviet period

le years went by and w i t h them the entire life style.

terment o f t h e workers' l i v i n g conditions required an improve-

might be conceived sectionally, or i n galley f o r m , i n blocks o f

i n connection w i t h the spontaneous emergence o f H o u s i n g

towers, along corridors or i n some other f o r m , b u t always

firm-

Gommunes, acquired an impetus o f i t s o w n . I t f o r m e d part o f

ly as part of the new social organization of a dwehing complex

the search for a restructured way o f life and came to be re-

or a city.

garded as an ideal model, however unattainable i t m i g h t be i n

lure

nd the house w h i c h had been planned for a comang people proved to be completely unsuitable for

nestic purposes.

ment o f the housing as such - rationahzed p l a n n i n g , modern

equipment, increases i n the per capita quotas o f floor space e t c )nal requirements,

as well as the development of a network of c o m m u n a l facihties.

These two basic requirements, however, proved conflicting

This approach to the connection between housing and a new

the actual circumstances prevailing at the time. M a n y sociolo-

when a decision had to be made as to w h i c h o f them should be

way of life proved j u s t i f i e d by experience. I n terms of everyday

gists and architects treated i t as a matter for the f u t u r e and be-

given p r i o r i t y i n f u n d i n g . A m a j o r i t y gave clear preference to

hfe towards the end o f t h e 1920s, districts consisting of section-

lieved that at some stage i t w o u l d be necessary to forgo the ideal

del for the f u t u r e way o f hfe, the disurbanizers

the socialized amenities, since the restructuring o f life was

al housing and free-standing c o m m u n a l buildings d i d not, i n

c o m m u n a l house as a model and temporarily resort instead, for

rns for c o m m u n a l houses i n v o l v i n g total collectivi-

linked, as they thought, not only w i t h a gradual loss o f t h e fami-

fact, differ greatly f r o m the intermediate type of dwelhngs w i t h

purposes of mass accommodation, to a transitional type of build-

ly's role as the basic economic u n i t , but also w i t h its decay as

communal accommodation b u i l t for the housing associations.

ing. Yet even the latter d i d not achieve widespread use. I n real

and tiie economy:

nd actuai c i r c u m s t a n c e s

an i n d i v i d u a l w o u l d constantly be surrounded by

394

Part Il/Social tasks of architecture

life, the burden f a h i n g on the housewife was eased by taking

lic r o o m s - f i l m theatre, kindergarten, c r c h e , d i n i n g r o o m and

also to i m p a r t a new look to the

some o f the heavier domestic tasks out o f the home - by such

shop - a d j o i n the dwelhngs, but do not communicate w i t h

visibly different f r o m the inherit

means as ready-made foods, for instance - and by streamlining

them i n t e r n a l l y ; a housing complex i n K i e v , i n Revolyutsiya

T h e visual stereotype for the

work w i t h i n the home t h r o u g h new equipment. Hopes that the

Street, b u f l t i n 1929-30 by A n i c h k i n as architect and Zholtus

complex composition, consistin

m a j o r i t y of domestic chores could r a p i d l y be ehminated proved

as engineer, w h i c h consists of a five-storey b u i l d i n g w i t h a com-

hnked by gangways, w h i c h grad

illusory, however, and the f a m i l y continued to provide not only

plex ground p l a n , having p u b l i c rooms on the g r o u n d floor and

sal currency - d i d not establish

the basic component o f society b u t also its p r i m a r y economic

a l a u n d r y i n the ceflar; and a dwelling on K a r p o v k a i n Lenin-

the appearance o f the dwehing (

u n i t . Furthermore, experience failed to j u s t i f y the expectation,

grad by Evgeny Levinson and I g o r F o m i n i n 1931-34.

by its palatial character, as i n T^

w h i c h had seemed so incontroverdble i n early Soviet days, that

These and many other such examples o f housing designed

everyday consumption itself w o u l d gradually become collectiv-

towards the end o f t h e 1920s clearly show that the mass urban

ically d y n a m i c composition, as

ized. Finally, the g r o w t h o f increasingly complex social rela-

dwelhng was then still only i n its experimental stage. A r c h i -

for a c o m m u n a l house; or by (

tionships outside w o r k i n g hfe p u t an end to the hope that

tects were no longer content w i t h sectional houses consisting of

w i t h the pompousness o f a b o u i

neighbourliness w o u l d become an i m p o r t a n t factor among res-

large flats w i t h single-room occupancy, or c o m m u n a l houses

in Malevich's Planits o f 1923-S

sign of a Dwellingfor

a Proletarian i

idents and lead to the gradual evolution o f a l i v i n g c o m m u n i t y

made up of dwelhng cubicles lacking ancillary facilities. A kind

housing designs o f 1 9 2 7 - 3 1 ; (

w i t h i n a house.

of convergence was t a k i n g place between these t w o types of

'workers' dwelling was seen to be

dwelling w h i c h involved a search for a f a m i l y housing u n i t and

air, as i n Leonidov's glazed p

ways o f l i n k i n g a dwelling w i t h p u b l i c amenities.

Magnitogorsk.

I n the outcome, not only d i d transitional housing f a i l to

provide a basis for a gradual evolution o f communities to the
'higher' level of H o u s i n g Communes, b u t even such elements o f

I n M a y 1930, the C e n t r a l Committee of the A l l - U n i o n Com-

self-service as they incorporated failed to develop and often

munist Party adopted a resolution 'Concerning W o r k on the

on the collective nature o f t h e ne

vanished after a few years. A house would then either simply shed

Reconstruction o f the W a y o f L i f e ' w h i c h stressed the impor-

sion for general social contact w i

its c o m m u n a l accommodation, or become part o f a dwelling

tance of shaping a new socialist way of life and pointed to errors

essential elements o f t h e spatial

complex w i t h p u b l i c services o f i t s o w n . Alternatively, i t m i g h t

committed so far i n the course o f this process.

in the 1920s. T h i s approach w

Nevertheless, an emphasis i n

survive as a hotel-like d w e l l i n g offering a h i g h level o f service,

T h e development o f a socially new f o r m o f dwelling dis-

rather than encouraging self-help, for the benefit o f residents

played many contradictory features d u r i n g the period under

w h o for one reason or another had no domestic facilities of their

review. Y e t the intensive investigation of creative opportunities

Covered gangways on piloti

own.
A large number o f houses and complexes designed and built

existing i n this field greatly influenced the evolution o f Soviet

ing blocks and c o m m u n a l buile:

architecture. T h e reconstruction o f t h e way of life was debated

the m i d - and late 1920s i n design

towards the end o f t h e 1920s included features variously taken

and tested i n numerous

designs and buildings. New ap-

use of gangways to connect buil(

f r o m c o m m u n a l houses, d w e l l i n g combines, houses of a transi-

proaches to the p l a n n i n g and spatial organization o f dwellings

new spatial solutions. A new toi[

d o n a l type, hotel-like establishments and districts w i t h their

and housing complexes were worked out. I n order to plan and

oped f r o m the design o f reside

o w n networks o f p u b l i c service, and often extravagantly com-

equip dwelling units i n a r a t i o n a l way, new scientifically based

were incorporated i n designs for

bined. A m o n g these were a house on the Petrograd Embank-

methods were introduced into the design w o r k . T h e set of com-

al buildings and d w e l l i n g com!

Melnikov's competition design i

cow, o f 1922-23.

ment i n L e n i n g r a d , designed by Simonov and others i n the ear-

m u n a l institutions required w i t h i n a dwelling complex was

deuce o f the connection betwei

ly 1930s, consisting o f blocks i n t e r n a l l y connected w i t h each

carefully studied, the structure o f t h e p u b l i c services involved

a new architectural image foi

other and composing an entrance h a l l j foyer, a u d i t o r i u m and

was elaborated and the various p u b l i c buildings required could

itself

d i n i n g r o o m on the g r o u n d floor; a complex of f a m i l y hostels i n

thus be provided.

The f u l l y developed commur

Pirogovskaya Street i n Moscow by Rukhlyadev and Osipov i n

was usually designed on a near

1928-30 and consisdng of eight interconnected blocks: one f o r

up an entire city district or bloc

single residents, six w i t h t w o - r o o m flats for famihes and one

w i t h larger flats, together w i t h c o m m u n a l kitchens, toflet f a c i l i -

Manifesting the new coiiective way

the spatial composition could nc

of iife fn the appearance of housing

ponent buildings were set parall

o f t h e site. T h e spectator w o u l d i

ties and l a u n d r y rooms on every floor at the butt-ends o f the

buildings; a d w e l h n g complex by Boris l o f a n , i n 1928-30, o n

W h e n architects designed workers' dwellings, they tried not

them, and w o u l d perhaps f a f l to

the Bersenevskaya E m b a n k m e n t i n Moscow, i n w h i c h the pub-

only to promote a new w a y o f life among the inhabitants, but

the new u r b a n element.

395
:s of architecture

Chapter 2/Reconstruction o f t h e way of life

en f a l l i n g on the housewife was eased by taking

hc rooms - film theatre, kindergarten, c r c h e , d i n i n g r o o m and

also to i m p a r t a new look to the buildings, so as to make them

eavier domestic tasks out o f the home - by such

shop a d j o i n the dwellings, but do not communicate w i t h

visibly different f r o m the inheritance o f the past.

ly-made foods, for instance and by streamlining

t h e m i n t e r n a l l y ; a housing complex i n K i e v , i n Revolyutsiya

The visual stereotype for the new c o m m u n a l dwelling a

set the component blocks diagonally, or strung them out w i t h

he home t h r o u g h new equipment. Hopes that the

Street, b u i l t i n 1929 30 by A n i c h k i n as architect and Zholtus

complex composition, consisting o f blocks o f different sizes

their connecting gangways along the street, instead o f l a y i n g

imestic chores could r a p i d l y be eliminated proved

as engineer, w h i c h consists of a five-storey b u i l d i n g w i t h a com-

linked by gangways, w h i c h gradually achieved almost univer-

them out i n depth w i t h i n the site. T w o designs by I l y a Golosov

;ver, and the f a m i l y continued to provide not only

plex ground p l a n , h a v i n g p u b l i c rooms on the g r o u n d floor and

sal currency - d i d not establish itself immediately. Earher on,

are typical i n this respect: the U M S c o m m u n a l house, d r a w n

iponent of society but also its p r i m a r y economic

a l a u n d r y i n the cehar; and a dwelling on K a r p o v k a i n L e n i n -

the appearance o f the dwelhng o f the f u t u r e m i g h t be marked

up i n conjunction w i t h Boris M i t e l m a n i n 1931, and the so-

more, experience failed to j u s t i f y the expectation,

grad by Evgeny Levinson and I g o r F o m i n i n 193134.

by its palatial character, as i n Tverskoy's 1920 competition de-

called Collective House for the First W o r k e r s ' Settlement i n

sign of a Dwellingfor

Magnitogorsk i n 1 9 2 9 - 3 1 .

m e d so incontrovertible i n early Soviet days, that

These and m a n y other such examples o f housing designed

a Proletarian i n Petrograd; or by its emphat-

I n an attempt to i m p a r t greater external i m p a c t to c o m m u nal houses or dwelling complexes, their architects sometimes

towards the end o f t h e 1920s clearly show that the mass urban

ically dynamic composition, as i n Ladovsky's forceful design

Experiments i n the spatial composition o f dwellings were

dwelling was then still only i n its experimental stage. A r c h i -

for a c o m m u n a l house; or by contrasting o u t w a r d austerity

not confined to the creation o f a new image for a socially novel

side w o r k i n g life put an end to the hope that

tects were no longer content w i t h sectional houses consisting of

w i t h the pompousness o f a bourgeois investment property, as

type o f dwelling. T h e y also involved the design o f new types o f

;ss w o u l d become an i m p o r t a n t factor among res-

large flats w i t h single-room occupancy, or c o m m u n a l houses

in Malevich's Planits o f 1923-24 and Khidekel's c o m m u n a l

sections, new forms o f spatial organization for d w e l l i n g units,

the f o r m u l a t i o n of spatial compositions for d w e l l i n g complexes
and the use o f colour.

sumption itself w o u l d gradually become collectivthe g r o w t h o f increasingly complex social rela-

id to the gradual evolution o f a l i v i n g c o m m u n i t y

made u p of dwelling cubicles lacking anciflary facihties. A kind

housing designs o f 1 9 2 7 - 3 1 ; or by the way i n w h i c h the

;e.

of convergence was taking place between these t w o types of

workers' dweUing was seen to be t h r o w n open to sun and fresh

come, not only d i d transitional housing f a i l to

dwehing w h i c h involved a search for a f a m i l y housing u n i t and

air, as i n Leonidov's glazed prismatic houses designed for

is f o r a gradual evolution o f communities to the

ways o f l i n k i n g a dwelling w i t h p u b l i c amenities.

Magnitogorsk.

T h e Moscow C i t y C o u n c i l approached Asnova i n 1927 w i t h

a request to design and b u i l d an experimental residential dis-

3f Housing Communes, but even such elements o f

I n M a y 1930, the C e n t r a l Committee o f t h e A l l - U n i o n Com-

Nevertheless, an emphasis i n the appearance o f t h e dwelling

t r i c t on the Shabolovka. A t that time, the construction of dwell-

s they incorporated failed to develop and often

munist Party adopted a resolution 'Concerning W o r k on the

on the collective nature o f t h e new life w i t h i n i t , and the p r o v i -

i n g complexes based on standard component sections and de-

a few years. A house would then either simply shed

Reconstruction o f the W a y o f L i f e ' w h i c h stressed the impor-

sion for general social contact w i t h i n housing units, became the

signs embodying the latter was i n f u l l swing i n the city; their

I accommodation, or become part o f a d w e h i n g

tance of shaping a new socialist way of life and pointed to errors

essential elements o f the spatial composition o f new dwellings

appearance satisfied neither those w h o had

public services o f i t s o w n . Alternatively, i t m i g h t

committed so far i n the course o f this process.

in the 1920s. T h i s approach was first exemplified clearly i n

them nor their prospective users. T h i s forced the C i t y C o u n c i l

Melnikov's competition design for a dwelling complex i n M o s -

i n 1926, first to launch a competition for the design o f fagades

cow, of 1922-23.

for dwehings, and then to resort to Asnova as a creative organi-

otel-like dwelhng offering a h i g h level o f service,

T h e development o f a socially new f o r m o f dwelling dis-

Qcouraging self-help, for the benefit o f residents

played many contradictory features d u r i n g the period under

lason or another had no domestic facilities of their

commissioned

review. Yet the intensive investigation of creative opportunities

Covered gangways - on pilotis or i n spans - between d w e l l -

zation w i t h a reputation for research into artistic f o r m . Asnova

existing i n this field greatly influenced the evolution o f Soviet

ing blocks and c o m m u n a l buildings were widely used d u r i n g

carried out an i n t e r n a l competition and selected T r a v i n ' s de-

nber of houses and complexes designed and b u i l t

architecture. T h e reconstruction o f t h e way of life was debated

the m i d - and late 1920s i n designs for new types o f h o u s i n g . T h e

sign, w h i c h was used as the basis for the design actually carried

nd o f the 1920s included features variously taken

and tested i n numerous

designs and buildings. New ap-

use of gangways to connect buildings led to the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f

out by an Asnova team. Spatial organization o f t h e district by

lal houses, dwelling combines, houses of a transi-

proaches to the p l a n n i n g and spatial organization o f dwellings

new spatial solutions. A new t o w n - p l a n n i n g dimension devel-

buildings sited diagonally and the application o f colour by a

otel-like establishments and districts w i t h their

and housing complexes were worked out. I n order to plan and

oped f r o m the design o f residential areas. M a n y fresh ideas

conjunction o f brick and coloured rendering were p r i n c i p a l l y

; o f p u b l i c service, and often extravagantly com-

equip dwelling units i n a r a t i o n a l way, new scientifically based

were incorporated i n designs for communal houses, transition-

stressed. As a result o f this original artistic presentation, the

y these were a house on the Petrograd E m b a n k -

methods were introduced into the design w o r k . T h e set of com-

al bufldings and dwelling combines, where the external evi-

district b u i l t on Shabolovka i n 1930 was pleasingly different

grad, designed by Simonov and others i n the ear-

m u n a l institutions required w i t h i n a dwelling complex was

dence o f the connection between the various blocks created

f r o m other dwelling complexes b u i l t by means o f t h e very same

5isting o f blocks internally connected w i t h each

carefully studied, the structure o f t h e p u b l i c services involved

a new architectural image for them and for the new life

component sections.

nposing an entrance hall^ foyer, a u d i t o r i u m and

was elaborated and the various p u b l i c buildings required could

itself

n the g r o u n d floor; a complex of f a m i l y hostels i n

thus be provided.

Street i n Moscow by Rukhlyadev and Osipov i n

The f u l l y developed c o m m u n a l house or d w e l l i n g combine

was usually designed on a near-square g r o u n d p l a n and took

consisting of eight interconnected blocks: one for

Experiments with curved forms

up an entire city district or block. I n practice, the intricacy o f

ts, six w i t h t w o - r o o m flats for families and one

Manifesting ttie new coiiective way

the spatial composition could not be f u l l y displayed i f the com-

D u r i n g the 1920s, Soviet architects resorted to semicircular

ts, together w i t h c o m m u n a l kitchens, toilet facili-

of life in the appearance of housing

ponent buildings were set parallel or at right angles to the sides

and circular g r o u n d plans for buildings i n their search for ra-

ofthe site. The spectator w o u l d then only have a p a r t i a l view o f

tional p l a n n i n g and expressive spatial composition.

I r y rooms on every floor at the butt-ends o f the

welhng complex by Boris l o f a n , i n 1928-30, on

W h e n architects designed workers' dwellings, they tried not

them, and w o u l d perhaps fail to take i n the collective nature o f

kaya E m b a n k m e n t i n Moscow, i n w h i c h the pub-

only to promote a new way o f life among the inhabitants, but

the new urban element.

K r u t i k o v designed a competition entry for a three-storey

hostel on a semicircular p l a n i n 1924; a standard semicircular

396
Part I I/Social tasks of architecture

p l a n i n 1924; a standard semicircular housing u n i t i n 1926; and

However, the new social circumstances and the l i v i n g condi-

ture, many o f w h i c h were designed to fit the houi

i n 1927, as part o f a scheme f o r an academic c o m m u n i t y de-

tions w h i c h they imposed demanded the development of such a

evolved i n the Committee for Construction.

signed i n Ladovsky's studio at V k h u t e m a s , he used a semicir-

standard unit. T h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of a single n o r m for the ahoca-

The complexity o f such an approach to the r a t i o n

cular section for a two-storey i n d i v i d u a l house, f o r a housing

t i o n o f housing space required a f u n d a m e n t a l l y different ap-

sign o f mass type flats and standard equipment and

block composed o f t w o sections, and for a seven- and eight-

proach to the design o f flats: the consumer considerations go-

for them not only reflected a highly professional ap

storey multi-section student hostel.

verning l i v i n g space no longer involved satisfaction o f t h e needs

housing problems, b u t was also dictated by the new s

I n 1928, both M a z m a n y a n and K o c h a r , also w o r k i n g i n L a -

of various layers o f the u r b a n p o p u l a t i o n i n accordance wit'H

didons. W o r k done i n the Soviet U n i o n d u r i n g the 19

dovsky's studio at V k h u t e m a s , designed two-storey and m u l t i -

their levels of income. T h e y were determined instead by scien-

rationahzation o f u r b a n flat d w e l l i n g was not directe

storey dwelhngs on a circular g r o u n d p l a n . M a z m a n y a n de-

tifically based standards o f public health and other parame-

where, towards the provision o f cheap housing for lo

signed a two-storey domed house, while Kochar's design was

ters, due attention being p a i d to the economic circumstances of

earners, b u t towards the design o f standard flats for

for a nine-storey hostel-type house on a circular p l a n , either

the country as a whole. E q u a l i t y of o p p o r t u n i t y i n securing ac-

This was a f u n d a m e n t a l l y different approach to the c

single, or t w i n n e d w i t h a shared stairwell.

commodation was i n practice, i f not i n theory, the decisive fac-

housing unit and was linked, i n pardcular, w i t h the

T o w a r d s the e n d o f the 1920s, M e l n i k o v evolved a method o f

tor i n the shaping of a new way of life, and radically altered the

ment o f a standard for the allocation o f l i v i n g space

c o m b i n i n g a set o f intersecting cylinders. H e used this i n a

entire approach to the design and construction o f u r b a n hous-

number o f designs for housing blocks and p u b l i c buildings, as

ing.

well as i n the house he designed for himself i n Moscow. Here,

T h e rationahzed p l a n n i n g and equipment o f flats became a

Prefabricated accommodation and mobile dwellings

the curvilinear p l a n and the different ways o f a r t i c u l a t i n g the

matter of intensive study towards the end o f t h e 1920s, especial-

various elements generated a set o f complex i n t e r i o r effects.

ly by the team of architects w h i c h G i n z b u r g headed i n 1928-29,

Suggestions for the use o f standard elements i n prel

T w o rooms identical i n their shape and dimensions, f o r i n -

first i n the T y p o l o g y Section o f the Committee for Construc-

bufldings and for various forms o f mobile dwelhng

stance, produced w h o l l y different effects, because one was pro-

tion, RSFSR, and later i n the Socialist Settlement Section.

early i n Soviet times. T h u s L a v i n s k y assumed i n J

vided w i t h a large plate-glass screen while the other was l i t by a

T h e flat w i t h its basic and ancillary accommodation was

Springs design o f 1921 that standard prefabricated co'

c o m b i n a t i o n o f f o r t y hexagonal windows combined i n a com-

treated as a single spatial entity i n w h i c h ah the m a i n processes

made of materials such as steel, a l u m i n i u m , glass a n

plex pattern.

of f a m i l y life unfolded. These processes were closely studied so

would be used i n construction.

T h e ' p a r a b o l o i d ' c o m m u n a l house for n o r t h e r n districts, by

B u n i n i n 1930, provided another instance o f originality i n spatial organization. I t consisted o f a six-storey dwelling for com-

that they m i g h t be rationally organized w i t h i n a restricted livi n g space.

A group o f architects w h o had learned to use mj

structures when b u i l d i n g the pavihons o f t h e Moscor

B u i l t - i n equipment, its design and efficient distribution, was

tural and H a n d i c r a f t E x h i b i t i o n o f 1923 worked i n [

m u n a l use i n the f o r m o f an u p w a r d - p o i n t i n g paraboloid. I t

given high p r i o r i t y as a means o f i m p r o v i n g comfort i n a con-

office of the Standard Joint-Stock C o m p a n y i n 192'

was set on pilods w i t h a central stairweh, f r o m w h i c h circular

fined space. T h e economic circumstances o f t h e t i m e d i d not al-

company therefore organized the prefabrication by i

corridors led on each floor to the doors o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l rooms,

l o w the allocation to every f a m i l y o f a flat w i t h purpose-built

cessing plants of standard two-storey houses for wo

as well as to a reading r o o m , hah and open terrace. O n the top

rooms, so that the latter had to serve a n u m b e r of purposes. I n

dements, such as those used i n 1925-26 at Ivano'

an effort to meet this need, adaptable equipment and furniture

sensk.

floor, a sports h a l l was roofed over by a transparent dome.

were designed, as well as

flexible-purpose

flats.

T h e T y p o l o g y Section team devised an economical flat of

B u i l d i n g materials were p r i m a r i l y reserved for

purposes towards the end o f t h e 1920s, and were i n

Equal opportunities for the c o n s u m e r :

l i m i t e d area calculated for a single f a m i l y . T h e y carried out ex-

supply. T h e construction process itself was converte

a new approach to rationalizing accommodation

tensive research i n t o scientifically based standards ofhousing;

possible i n t o the continuous i n d u s t r i a l p r o d u c t i o n o'

studied the rationalized p l a n n i n g o f h o u s i n g units i n the hght of

components for subsequent assembly. B o t h thesi

T h e tendency p r e v a i l i n g towards the end o f t h e 1920s to design

various basic features o f everyday life; and took into account

sdmulated research and design w o r k on the const

c o m m u n a l houses f o r a f u l l y sociahzed way o f life, on the one

i n d i v i d u a l perceptions o f h o u s i n g i n terms of size, lighting and

prefabricated housing f r o m local materials and

hand, and the provision by local councils o f sectional housing

colouring.

waste.

w i t h flats intended for single-room occupancy, on the other,

Side by side w i t h this w o r k by the T y p o l o g y Section, Lis-

The first dwehing b u i l t o f smah breeze blocks wa;

undoubtedly delayed the development o f a r a t i o n a l l y planned

sitzky at V k h u t e i n was directing a programme for the develop-

by two engineers, K r a s i n and Loleit, and erected i n I

standard t o w n flat w h i c h took m a x i m u m account of f u n c t i o n a l

ment o f modern b u i l t - i n f u r n i t u r e , adaptable f u r n i t u r e , sec-

1927. Burov and B l o k h i n began a long r u n of designi

f a m i l y needs and the efficient organization o f everyday life.

tional f u r n i t u r e and i n d i v i d u a l components o f standard f u r n i -

block housing at the end o f t h e 1920s. Research into!

397

architecture

Chapter 2/Reconstruction o f t h e way of hfe

m d a r d semicircular housing u n i t i n 1926; and

However, the new social circumstances and the l i v i n g condi-

ture, many o f w h i c h were designed to fit the housing units

large b u i l d i n g blocks was launched i n 1929 at the K h a r k o v

of a scheme f o r an academic c o m m u n i t y de-

tions w h i c h they imposed demanded the development of such a

evolved i n the C o m m i t t e e for Construction.

Structural I n s t i t u t e under the direction o f t h e engineer A n d r e i

ky's studio at Vkhutemas, he used a semicir-

standard u n i t . T h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of a single n o r m for the alloca-

The complexity o f such an approach to the rationalized de-

Vatsenko. These investigations resulted i n the construction o f

a two-storey i n d i v i d u a l house, for a housing

tion o f housing space required a f u n d a m e n t a l l y different ap-

sign o f mass type flats and standard equipment and f u r n i t u r e

experimental city districts consisting o f three-storey houses

of t w o sections, and for a seven- and eight-

proach to the design o f flats: the consumer considerations go-

for them not only reflected a highly professional approach to

b u i l t w i t h large breeze and concrete blocks i n 1929; a t r i a l six-

ion student hostel.

verning l i v i n g space no longer involved satisfaction o f t h e needs

housing problems, but was also dictated by the new social con-

storey dwelhng b u i l t o f large blocks in 1930 i n K h a r k o v , and a

Vlazmanyan and K o c h a r , also w o r k i n g i n La

of various layers o f the u r b a n population i n accordance w i t h

ditions. W o r k done i n the Soviet U n i o n d u r i n g the 1920s on the

settlement consisting o f similarly b u i l t houses at K r a m a t o r s k

t Vkhutemas, designed two-storey and m u l t i -

their levels of income. T h e y were determined instead by scien-

rationahzation o f u r b a n flat dwelling was not directed, as else-

i n 1933.

on a circular ground plan. M a z m a n y a n de-

tifically based standards o f p u b l i c health and other parame-

where, towards the provision o f cheap housing for low-income

Simultaneously w i t h the construction o f increasingly tall

ey domed house, while Kochar's design was

ters, due attention being p a i d to the economic circumstances of

earners, but towards the design o f standard flats for mass use.

dwelhngs using large b u i l d i n g blocks, a team headed by Ginz-

hostel-type house on a circular p l a n , either

the country as a whole. E q u a l i t y of o p p o r t u n i t y i n securing ac-

This was a f u n d a m e n t a l l y different approach to the design of a

b u r g investigated the use o f factory-made standard

d w i t h a shared stairwell,

commodation was i n practice, i f not i n theory, the decisive fac-

housing u n i t and was linked, i n particular, w i t h the establish-

nents for the assembly of low-rise timber houses. T h e scientific

i d of the 1920s, M e l n i k o v evolved a method o f

tor i n the shaping o f a new way of hfe, and radically altered the

ment o f a standard for the allocation o f l i v i n g space.

study and experimental design o f standard

of intersecting cylinders. H e used this i n a

entire approach to the design and construction o f u r b a n hous-

IS for housing blocks and p u b l i c buildings, as

ing.

compo-

prefabricated

wooden houses was carried out initially at the Socialist Settlement Section o f Gosplan, the State Planning Commission o f

ise he designed for himself i n Moscow. Here,

T h e rationalized p l a n n i n g and equipment o f flats became a

Ian and the different ways o f a r t i c u l a t i n g the

matter of intensive study towards the end o f t h e 1920s, especial-

generated a set o f complex interior effects,

ly by the team of architects w h i c h G i n z b u r g headed i n 1928-29,

Suggestions for the use o f standard elements i n prefabricated

ban Design, i n 1 9 2 9 - 3 1 . Designs for various kinds of dwellings

tical i n their shape and dimensions, for i n -

first i n the T y p o l o g y Section o f the Committee for Construc-

buildings and for various forms o f mobile dwellings crop u p

built of local materials were produced. Provision was made in a

w h o h y different effects, because one was pro

tion, RSFSR, and later i n the Sociahst Settlement Section.

Prefabricated accommodation and mobiie dwellings

the USSR, and later by the G r o u p for Prefabricated House

B u i l d i n g and Planning o f Giprogor, the State I n s t i t u t e for U r -

early i n Soviet times. T h u s Lavinsky assumed i n his City on

number o f these for variations o f t h e basic lay-out by means o f

; plate-glass screen while the other was l i t by a

T h e flat w i t h its basic and ancillary accommodation was

Springs design o f 1921 that standard prefabricated components

movable and collapsible partitions. I t was proposed to set up

)rty hexagonal windows combined i n a com-

treated as a single spatial entity i n w h i c h a l l the m a i n processes

made of materials such as steel, a l u m i n i u m , glass and asbestos

special organizations for the construction o f two-storey stand-

of f a m i l y life unfolded. These processes were closely studied so

would be used i n construction.

ardized housing w i t h local materials. B u i l d i n g w o r k was to be

id' c o m m u n a l house for northern districts, by

that they m i g h t be rationally organized w i t h i n a restricted hv-

ovided another instance o f originality i n spa-

i n g space.

A group o f architects who had learned to use new t i m b e r

f u l l y industrialized by the p r o d u c t i o n o f hghtweight compo-

structures when b u i l d i n g the pavilions o f t h e Moscow A g r i c u l -

nents i n factories, f o r assembly on site w i t h the help o f small

I t consisted o f a six-storey dwelhng f o r com-

B u i l t - i n equipment, its design and eflicient distribution, was

tural and H a n d i c r a f t E x h i b i t i o n o f 1923 worked i n the design

cranes. T h e basic structural components were to consist of pre-

f o r m o f an u p w a r d - p o i n t i n g paraboloid. I t

given h i g h p r i o r i t y as a means o f i m p r o v i n g comfort i n a con-

office o f t h e Standard Joint-Stock C o m p a n y i n 1924-25. T h e

fabricated t i m b e r frames and fibrolite panelling.

w i t h a central stairwell, f r o m w h i c h circular

fined space. T h e economic circumstances of the time d i d not al-

company therefore organized the prefabrication by wood-pro-

ach floor to the doors o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l rooms,

low the allocation to every f a m i l y of a flat w i t h purpose-built

cessing plants o f standard two-storey houses for workers' set-

appear at the t u r n o f t h e decade. Varentsov's New City d i p l o m a

ding r o o m , h a l l and open terrace. O n the top

rooms, so that the latter had to serve a number of purposes. I n

dements, such as those used i n 1925-26 at Ivanovo-Vozne-

project already included multi-storey dwellings w i t h housing

II was roofed over by a transparent dome.

an effort to meet this need, adaptable equipment and furniture

sensk.

units suspended on brackets f r o m a central pillar. I n 1930, L a -

were designed, as well as

flexible-purpose

flats.

Designs i n c o r p o r a t i n g prefabricated housing units began to

Building materials were p r i m a r i l y reserved for i n d u s t r i a l

dovsky suggested i n his Green Gity competition entry that a

T h e T y p o l o g y Section team devised an economical flat of

purposes towards the end o f t h e 1920s, and were i n very short

f u l l y equipped housing unit or cabin, produced i n two alterna-

or the c o n s u m e r :

l i m i t e d area calculated f o r a single f a m i l y . T h e y carried out ex-

supply. T h e construction process itself was converted as f a r as

tive designs, should be used as the basic standard

tionalizlng accommodation

tensive research i n t o scientifically based standards ofhousing;

possible into the continuous i n d u s t r i a l p r o d u c t i o n o f standard

rather than walled boxes or structural members. Such units

studied the rationalized p l a n n i n g o f h o u s i n g units i n the light of

components for subsequent assembly.

B o t h these features

w o u l d be factory-produced and brought on site for assembly i n

vailing towards the end o f t h e 1920s to design

various basic features o f everyday life; and took into account

stimulated research and design w o r k on the construction o f

a wide variety o f patterns ranging f r o m i n d i v i d u a l houses to

3 for a f u l l y socialized way o f life, on the one

i n d i v i d u a l perceptions o f h o u s i n g i n terms o f size, hgh ting and

prefabricated housing f r o m local materials and i n d u s t r i a l

multi-storey buildings, offering both dwelling space and com-

)vision by local councils o f sectional housing

colouring.

waste.

m u n a l accommodation for general or specialized purposes. L a -

element,

;d for single-room occupancy, on the other,

Side by side w i t h this w o r k by the T y p o l o g y Section, Lis-

The first dwelling b u i l t o f smafl breeze blocks was designed

dovsky outlined a procedure whereby a l l communications

yed the development o f a rationally planned

sitzky at V k h u t e i n was directing a programme for the develop-

by two engineers, K r a s i n and Loleit, and erected i n Moscow i n

w o u l d first be l a i d , a f u f l y standardized f r a m e w o r k w o u l d then

t w h i c h took m a x i m u m account of f u n c t i o n a l

ment o f modern b u f l t - i n f u r n i t u r e , adaptable f u r n i t u r e , sec-

1927. Burov and B l o k h i n began a long r u n of designing breeze-

be erected and a crane used to put the assembled cubicles i n t o

the efficient organization o f everyday life.

tional f u r n i t u r e and i n d i v i d u a l components o f standard furni-

block housing at the end o f the 1920s. Research into the use o f

place, w h i c h w o u l d then be connected to all the services availa-

Part Il/Social tasks of architectu

New types of buildings i

and administrative purp
in tlie Soviet Union
ble.

T h e arrangement o f the standard components o f the

f r a m e w o r k ahowed a choice o f spadal composidons for such

dwehmgs, whhe c o m m u n a l accommodation could be located
anywhere w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k and ahowed as m u c h space as
necessary. T h i s proposal was officially recognized as an origi n a l invention i n 1931 and awarded an A u t h o r ' s C o p y r i g h t

House, w h i c h represented a circular f r a m e w i t h a large inner

courtyard; a Book House f o r m e d by t w o vertical planes ( w i t h
bays), set at an angle to each other and resembhng an open

A htde book cahed My i koma {Ourselves and Houses) had been

w r i t t e n by the F u t u r i s t poet V e l e m i r K h l e b n i k o v i n 1914-15
b u t w a s o n l y p u b h s h e d i n 1930. I t contained m a n y s t i m u l a t i n g
Ideas about f u t u r e housing, w h i c h only obtained wider currency d u r i n g the second h a l f of the twentieth century. K h l e b n i k o v
wrote that m times to come the housing unit or cabin w o u l d not

cover o f a glass dome along a h i g h metal p y l o n ; underwater

houses; floadng houses; p y r a m i d a l houses; housing complexes
w i t h a r a n d o m d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d w e l l i n g cabins i n n a t u r a l sur-

D u r i n g the early post-Revolutionary y(

by cabins i n a chequerboard p a t t e r n ; Cradle Houses; Field

and H o u s i n g Communes played an importa^

Houses, and so on.

l u t i o n o f a network o f c u l t u r a l and civic i.

proletarian organizations, i n conjunction w:

w i t h Its occupant, w h o could thus carry on his or her usual ex-

T h e quest for a new f o r m o f h o u s i n g d u r i n g the period under re-

istence wherever he or she went.

view was marked by the boldness o f its approach and the

broad, clear and courageous statement o f t h e problems

strictiy standard dimensions. A h cities w o u l d be p r o v i d e d w i t h

T h e new type o f h o u s i n g was most closely connected w i t h

metal cellular structures, or 'Frame Houses', w i t h m o o r i n g

the social problems of that period a n d i n t i m a t e l y touched upon

bays f o r the cabins. A l l means of passenger transport, whether

the restructuring o f t h e way o f life. B u t other questions - con-

by road, rail or water, w o u l d be designed to carry these stand-

cermng f u n c t i o n , aesthetics and structure - were also raised by

ard cabins. T h e d w e l h n g cabin could be fitted i n t o a Frame

m a n y designs for new housing. I n fact, d u r i n g those years So-

House bay m every city by special means of propulsion and h f t -

viet architects intensively studied ah aspects o f t h e opportuni-

m g gear. Simhar 'Frame H o t e l s ' w o u l d be erected at leisure

des they encountered, such as novel methods of spatial organi-

centres, where the bays for d w e l h n g cabins w o u l d alternate

zation, the alternatives available i n c o m b i n i n g housing and

w i t h p u b h c accommodation, such as d i n i n g rooms, l i v i n g

p u b h c accommodation, spatial models o f h o u s i n g units ra-

rooms etc.

donahzadon i n p l a n n i n g and equipping, new types ofhousing

K h l e b n i k o v considered i t essential to v a r y the spatial composidon o f Frame Houses, so as to diversify the visual appear-

The bitter political struggle w h i c h the wc

undertake i n order to estabhsh a new syst
and radically reorganize the social and adm
was reflected i n the elaboration o f new kim
ings.

roundings; m o v i n g cabins; Chess Houses, w i t h bays occupied

only provide a fixed residence, but w o u l d move about freely

K h l e b n i k o v suggested that a l l dwelling cabins should have

in the immediate post-Revolutionary period

book; a Whisker House consisting of one, t w o or three vertical

sets o f d w e l h n g cabins supported by a central metal rod- a
B o w l House, i n w h i c h several cabins were arranged under the

Certificate 3714 N o . 21406.

Special social requirements

- s i n g l e flats, blocks, single- and multi-sectional houses, prefabricated and mobile dwelhngs - and m u c h else

cfls, supphed the basic constituents o f a m

brought into existence a whole set of new mas
consequentiy, o f new types o f p u b h c bufldin
The H o u s i n g Communes w h i c h had spn
ously i n the first years after the Revolution, a
houses for workers w h i c h they called into
new kinds o f c o m m u n a l service accommoda
teens, pubhc laundries and children's f a c f l i t i .

buildings characteristic of those early years -1

Labour, Workers' Palaces, Palaces o f N a t i o
leading part i n the creation o f a new k i n d o f
tabhshment.
I n the circumstances o f the times, when th
only j u s t set up the new structure o f social o
mass cultural services, these multi-purpose t
the workers' social and cultural centres. The>

ance of a city. H e suggested several basic types of Frame House

dated i n former private houses, palaces, Cou

for this purpose, a l l o f w h i c h could be assembled out o f stand-

Nobihty and other nationalized buildings. T h

ard d w e l h n g cabins. These included a Poplar House a com-

ties for w h i c h they catered made i t possible to c

mumcadons tower to w h i c h circular tiers o f dwelling cabins

could be attached; a Tape House designed f o r 1,000-2 000
cabins and representing a single or double r o w of cabins strung
out along a vertical p a r t i t i o n between two towers; a Bridge
House consisting o f towers and spans connecting them above
g r o u n d or water, w i t h bays for d w e l l i n g cabins; a Funnel

sign specifications for new bufldings of this kini

2 V . I . Lenin, Works, vol. 23, p. 320.

3 /frf., vol.28, p. 161.

mr^rr""^"congress

a wide spectrum and i n c l u d e d the provision of i

oJ working Women) (ICharkov,

5 V . I . L e n i n , Works, vol.29, pp.395-97

6 Ibid., vol.30, p.383.
7 Ibid., vol. 38, p. 425.
8 Stroitelstm Moskvy (Moscow Buildmg), No. 10 (1928), p. 4.

for social organizations, educational work, a ti

seum, hbrary reading r o o m , and so on.
The very varied purposes f u l f i l l e d by such ]
reflected a particular stage i n the developmen
of new social organizations and institutions, as
donally undifferentiated nature o f the deveh'
cultural and civic provision f o r the workers. T h
to bring together as m a n y institutions and o
possible w i t h i n a single pubhc b u f l d i n g was
strongly influenced by a wish to make the new p

399
irchitecture

ement of the standard components

New types of buildings for social

and administrative purposes
in the Soviet Union

of the

House, w h i c h represented a circular f r a m e w i t h a large inner

ed a choice of spatial compositions for such

courtyard; a Book House f o r m e d by two vertical planes ( w i t h

communal accommodation could be located

bays), set at an angle to each other and resembling an open

the f r a m e w o r k and allowed as m u c h space as

book; a Whisker House consisting of one, two or three vertical

The bitter political struggle w h i c h the w o r k i n g class had to

ary r o m a n t i c i s m over the new requirements for p u b h c archi-

iroposal was officially recognized as an orig-

sets o f dwelling cabins supported by a central metal r o d ; a

undertake i n order to establish a new system o f government

tecture. T h e workers were determined that the evidence for a

1931 and awarded an A u t h o r ' s C o p y r i g h t

B o w l House, i n w h i c h several cabins were arranged under the

and radically reorganize the social and administrative systems

bright and j o y f u l f u t u r e should be embodied f r o m the very start

cover o f a glass dome along a h i g h metal p y l o n ; underwater

was reflected i n the elaboration of new kinds o f p u b l i c b u i l d -

i n splendidly majestic buildings, w h i c h must essentially be 'Pa-

lied Mji i doma (Ourselves and Houses) had been

houses; floating houses; p y r a m i d a l houses; housing complexes

ings.

laces': Workers' Palaces, Palaces of Nations, Palaces o f L a -

turist poet V e l e m i r K h l e b n i k o v i n 1914-15,

w i t h a r a n d o m d i s t r i b u t i o n of dwelling cabins i n n a t u r a l sur-

D u r i n g the early post-Revolutionary years, trade unions

bour, Palaces of C u l t u r e , and so on. These were seen as sym-

ished i n 1930. I t contained m a n y s t i m u l a t i n g

roundings; m o v i n g cabins; Chess Houses, w i t h bays occupied

and Housing Communes played an i m p o r t a n t part i n the evo-

bols o f t h e new power. T h e y were also visible representations o f

; housing, w h i c h only obtained wider curren-

by cabins i n a chequerboard pattern; Cradle Houses; Field

lution of a network o f c u l t u r a l and civic institutions. These

a free w o r k i n g people's f u t u r e city, often described i n those

ind h a l f of the twentieth century. K h l e b n i k o v

Houses, and so on.

proletarian organizations, i n conjunction w i t h the local coun-

days by such adjectives as 'huge', 'gigantic', ' b r i g h t ' , ' r a d i -

cils, supplied the basic constituents o f a new u r b a n life and

ant', 'stupendous', ' l u x u r i o u s ' , 'marvellous', 'majestic', 'well-

ced residence, but w o u l d move about freely

T h e quest for a new f o r m o f h o u s i n g d u r i n g the period under re-

brought i n t o existence a whole set of new mass institutions and,

shaped', 'beauteous'.

w h o could thus carry on his or her usual ex-

view was marked by the boldness of its approach and the

consequently, of new types of p u b l i c b u i l d i n g .

4O.21406.

s to come the housing u n i t or cabin w o u l d not

he or she went.

broad, clear and courageous statement o f t h e problems.

Special social requirements

lic b u i l d i n g conspicuously huge and majestic, to be seen as the

in the immediate post-Revolutionary period

unique centre o f t h e workers' pohtical and c u l t u r a l life.

T h e upsurge of those early years shed a glow o f revolution-

The Housing Communes w h i c h had sprung up spontane-

T h e worker had become used to being i n company d u r i n g

those stormy times, at meetings, assemblies and demonstra-

ggested that a l l dwelling cabins should have

T h e new type o f housing was most closely connected w i t h

ously i n the first years after the Revolution, and the c o m m u n a l

tions. H a v i n g achieved power, the proletariat sought to express

hmensions. A l l cities w o u l d be provided w i t h

the social problems of that period and i n t i m a t e l y touched upon

houses for workers w h i c h they called i n t o being, demanded

its m o n o l i t h i c u n i t y and vastness i n its p u b l i c buildings.

uctures, or 'Frame Houses', w i t h m o o r i n g

the restructuring o f t h e w a y of life. B u t other quesdons - con-

new kinds of c o m m u n a l service accommodation, such as can-

A l l these considerations influenced the architecture o f pub-

s. A h means of passenger transport, whether

cerning f u n c t i o n , aesthetics and s t r u c t u r e - w e r e also raised by

teens, public laundries and children's facilities. M u l t i - p u r p o s e

lic buildings, representing as they d i d a set of social require-

iter, w o u l d be designed to carry these stand-

many designs for new housing. I n fact, d u r i n g those years So-

buildings characteristic of those early years - such as Palaces of

ments arising out o f actual circumstances. Architecture pro-

i w e l l i n g cabin could be fitted i n t o a Frame

viet architects intensively studied all aspects o f t h e opportuni-

Labour, Workers' Palaces, Palaces of Nations etc - played a

vided a spatial erhbodiment to the t r u l y revolutionary way o f

y city by special means of propulsion and l i f t -

ties they encountered, such as novel methods of spatial organi-

leading part i n the creation of a new k i n d of mass c u l t u r a l es-

life of those heroic years and created a f r a m e w o r k for the activi-

'Frame Hotels' w o u l d be erected at leisure

zation, the alternatives available i n c o m b i n i n g housing and

tablishment.

t y o f the revolutionary masses. T h e i n d i v i d u a l was seen as a

e bays f o r dwelling cabins w o u l d alternate

p u b l i c accommodation, spatial models o f housing units, ra-

I n the circumstances of the times, when the proletariat had

m m o d a t i o n , such as d i n i n g rooms, l i v i n g

tionalization i n p l a n n i n g and equipping, new types o f h o u s i n g

onjy just set up the new structure of social organizations and

member o f a team, i n constant m o t i o n - i n processions,

at

meetings or m a r c h i n g i n the ranks. T h i s also accounts for cer-

- single flats, blocks, single- and multi-sectional houses, pre-

mass c u l t u r a l services, these multi-purpose buildings became

tain characteristic features o f early designs for pubhc venues:

fabricated and mobile dwelhngs - and m u c h else.

the workers' social and c u l t u r a l centres. T h e y were accommo-

vast open spaces for demonstrations, grand halls for meetings,

Houses, so as to diversify the visual appear-

dated i n former private houses, palaces, C o u n c f l Halls of the

and m o n u m e n t a l flights o f stairs.

luggested several basic types of Frame House

Nobihty and other nationalized buildings. T h e range of activi-

rsidered i t essential to vary the spatial com-

,11 of w h i c h could be assembled out o f standns. These included a Poplar House, a comr to w h i c h circular tiers of dwelhng cabins
I ; a Tape House designed for 1,000-2,000
;nting a single or double row of cabins strung
;al p a r t i t i o n between t w o towers; a Bridge
of towers and spans connecting t h e m above
w i t h bays for dwelling cabins; a F u n n e l

des for w h i c h they catered made i t possible to determine the de1 K . M a r x and F. Engels, Izbramjeproizvedeniya v duukh tomakh [Selected Writings in Two
Volumes), vol.2 (Moscow, 1955), p. 114.
2 V . L Lenin, Works, vol. 23, p. 320.
3 flfl'., vol.28, p. 161.
4 Peivyi vserossiiskii s'ezd rabotnits [All-Russian Congress of Working Women) (Kharkov,
1920), p. 17.
5 V . L Lenin, Works, vol. 29, pp. 395-97
6 /iW., vol.30, p.383.
7 /AiW., vol.38, p.425.
8 Stroitelstvo Moskvy [Moscow Bmlding), No. 10 (1928), p.4.

sign specifications for new buildings of this k i n d . These covered

P a l a c e s of Labour

a wide spectrum and included the provision of accommodation

for social organizations, educational work, a theatre, club, m u -

Palaces of L a b o u r were officially the venue of trade u n i o n or-

seum, l i b r a r y reading room, and so on.

ganizations. I n early Soviet years, however, they became t y p i -

The very varied purposes f u l f f l l e d by such pubhc bufldings

reflected a particular stage i n the development of the network

cal of p u b l i c buildings serving a wide range of purposes, many

of them well outside the range o f trade u n i o n activities.

of new social organizations and institutions, as well as the func-

A competition was launched i n 1922 f o r the design o f a Pa-

tionally undifferentiated nature of the developing system of

lace of L a b o u r i n Moscow, intended as a symbol of the new so-

cultural and civic provision for the workers. T h e determination

ciety. T h e list o f functions specified for the b u i l d i n g provides

to bring together as many institutions and organizations as

the clearest illustration of the complex uses to w h i c h these insti-

possible w i t h i n a single p u b l i c b u i l d i n g was, however, also

tutions were then p u t ; i t included: a large hall h o l d i n g 8,000

strongly influenced by a w i s h to make the new proletarian p u b -

people; a number of smaller halls for a variety of purposes, such

400
Part Il/Social tasks of architecture

as meetings, lectures, concerts, performances and films, for au-

chev, K a r r a and Lamtsov, w i t h a m a i n h a l l formed by r h y t h m -

Zholtovsky's design, w h i c h was adopted, offering an impreg-

diences of 300, 500 and 1,000 people; sets of offices for the M o s -

ically arranged semi-cylinders o f glass; and K a l m y k o v and

nable castle w i t h a closed inner courtyard, and that by Ginz-

cow C i t y C o u n c i l and the Moscow Party Committee, i n c l u d i n g

Osipov, i n whose design the wings o f a thirty-storey b u i l d i n g

burg, who attempted to stress t h r o u g h his spadal composidon

conference rooms and suites; a M u s e u m o f Social Sciences; a

descended to street level i n steps f o r m i n g a series o f terraces.

the democratic character and freedom o f access promoted by

d i n i n g h a l l seating 1,500 people, and more. T h e upper levels of

the new k i n d o f official premises, and the accessibility o f the

the b u i l d i n g were intended to house a radio station and an observatory, among other things, while the possibility o f l a y i n g

new authorities to the broad layers o f t h e population.

Houses

G i n z b u r g f u r t h e r developed this approach i n his competi-

an a i r c r a f t l a n d i n g strip there was also to be investigated.

tion design o f 1927 f o r the Government House o f t h e K a z a k h

A variety o f approaches were used to convey the spirit o f the

D u r i n g early post-Revolutionary years, local Soviets, or Coun-

Republic at A l m a - A t a , w h i c h was adopted and carried out i n

social changes then i n progress i n some fifty designs, submit-

cils, were housed i n existing buildings adapted for their use

1929-31. I t consisted of several blocks linked by corridors and

ted, among others, by the Vesnins, T r o t s k y , I l y a Golosov,

while the organization of the new authorities was being worked

a covered gangway. I n his organization o f interior space, the

L y u d v i g , M e l n i k o v , Belogrud, G i n z b u r g w i t h G r i n b e r g , and

out and specifications were devised for specially designed

architect took special trouble over the reception areas. T h e i n -

Sergei T o r o p o v w i t h Alexander Kuznetsov.

buildings. Experimental designs at that early stage usually

terior composition is centred on a h i g h entrance foyer, l i t by

T h e requirements set i n the Moscow Palace o f L a b o u r com-

sought to provide a visual i d e n t i t y for buildings embodying the

paired windows f r o m either side, w h i c h acts as a connecting

petition served as a model for a whole set o f competitions for

newly acquired workers' power, such as those by Rodchenko

hnk between ah the m a i n parts o f the b u f l d i n g . T h i s foyer is

and Shevchenko for a Sovdep i n 1920, and by Nikolsky for a r u -

laid out as an indoor patio, complete w i t h a f o u n t a i n and

ral district Soviet i n 1921.

plants. Its glass partitions could be slid open i n summer to let

similar official buildings d u r i n g the years 1923-26.

T h u s the Rostov-on-Don Palace o f L a b o u r competition required the inclusion i n a single b u i l d i n g o f a theatre seating

T h e {development o f a b u i l d i n g type for a House o f Soviets

open air i n t o the b u i l d i n g .

3,500; t w o concert hahs, seating 500 and 1,000; a d i n i n g r o o m

began i n real earnest towards the mid-1920s, when the con-

Other interesting Government House designs can be f o u n d

f o r 1,000 people; a l i b r a r y reading r o o m ; rooms for group activ-

struction of buildings to house the new People's Authorities be-

at Ehsta i n K a l m y k i a , by I l y a Golosov, at M i n s k i n Belorussia,

ities; and other accommodation. Designs for this were submit-

gan i n the Republics and administrative areas. Competitions

by L a n g b a r d , and at Tashkent i n Uzbekistan, by Polupanov.

ted by, among other, Boris K o r s h u n o v , I l y a Golosov w i t h U l i -

for the design of Houses of Soviets exerted a considerable i n f l u -

nich, Sergei Ovsyannikov, G r i n b e r g , G i n z b u r g and Aleshin.

ence i n this field.

Houses o f Soviets were also b u i l t d u r i n g this period i n K h a barovsk, by I l y a Golosov and U l i n i c h ; i n G o r k y , by Grinberg;

M u c h the same requirements were set i n the competition for

One o f t h e first of these, launched i n 1924, was for a House of

in Novosibirsk, by Gordeev, Turgenev and A n d r e i K r y a c h k o v ,

the Palace o f L a b o u r at Ekaterinoslavl (now Dnepropetrovsk)

Soviets i n Bryansk. Grinberg's design was implemented in

while a new block was added to the Moscow Soviet b u i l d i n g by

w i t h entries submitted, among others, by Sergei K r e s t o v n i k o v

1926. I l y a and Panteleimon Golosov, F o m i n , Rukhlyadev and

Ivan Fomin.

w i t h Vasily V o i n o v , G r i n b e r g , G r i g o r y B a r k h i n , D a v i d K o -

K r i n s k y were also among those taking part. A c c o r d i n g to the

The Krasnaya Presnya district o f Moscow was among the j

gan, R a i k h w i t h F r i d m a n , and G i n z b u r g w i t h K o r s h u n o v . A l l

specification, this House o f Soviets was required to accommo-

first to acquire a local C o u n c f l or Soviet b u i l d i n g o f its o w n ,

the p r i z e w i n n i n g designs provided for a Palace o f L a b o u r

date the Provincial Soviet, as well as Party, trade union, and

buflt i n 1928-29 f r o m a design by Golubev and N i k o l a i Shcher-

building

Y o u n g C o m m u n i s t institutions and organizations,

consisting

o f f u n c t i o n a l l y different

components

welded i n t o a single complex composition.

together

bakov. L e n i n g r a d architects made a m a j o r c o n t r i b u t i o n to the

w i t h a group of public premises: a smafl and a large hall, seat-

design of D i s t r i c t Houses o f Soviets at the end of the 1920s and

Such Palaces of L a b o u r represented centres of mass c u l t u r a l

i n g 200 and 1,000-1,200 respectively, b o t h for House of Soviets

beginning o f the 1930s. Great importance was attached to the

activity w i t h clearly differentiated sectors reserved for theatri-

purposes, such as congresses and conferences, and for club ac-

actual siting of these bufldings w i t h i n the general lay-out o f t h e

cal, club, sports, l i b r a r y , lecture and other purposes. M a n y

tivities, such as shows and film performances; together w i t h a

district c o m m u n a l centres then being b u i l t . T h e Leningrad

pubhc buddings serving a variety o f functions first took shape

h b r a r y and section offices. I n most o f t h e competition designs,

Narva District Soviet, located i n a large open area, was de-

w i t h i n these Palaces of L a b o u r complexes and then increasing-

the architectural image established by this b u i l d i n g was main-

signed by T r o t s k y and b u i l t as a flattened volume, w i t h a con-

ly developed a separate existence d u r i n g the second h a l f o f the

ly developed f r o m its c u l t u r a l and social component, since this

trasting high-rise component w h i c h provided the d o m i n a n t ac-

decade, as clubs, libraries, sports buddings, theatres, Houses o f

offered greater scope for spatial composition t h a n the strictly

cent i n the entire district centre complex. Closely related to this

Soviets, c o m m u n a l d i n i n g rooms or museums.

official part o f t h e premises.

was the design by V a l e r i a n D a u g u l and V i k t o r Tvelkmeier,

A competition was held i n 1932 for a Moscow D i s t r i c t T r a d e

T w o f u n d a m e n t a l l y different approaches to the design of a

awarded a first prize i n the competition f o r a V y b o r g District

U n i o n Palace o f L a b o u r . A m o n g the most interesting designs

new type o f official b u i l d i n g came to light i n the 1926 comped-

Soviet b u f l d i n g i n 1931. A different conception was used f o r the

submitted were those by K o r n f e l d and M i l i n i s , w i t h the m a i n

tion for the Dagestan Republic's House of Soviets at Makhach-

external elevations o f Leningrad's Moscow D i s t r i c t Soviet, by

b u i l d i n g opening i n a semicircle on to the m a i n road; Egory-

kala. T h e clearest examples o f the contrasting trends were

Igor F o m i n , i n w h i c h the m a i n element o f t h e spatial composi-

401

architecture

Chapter 3/New types of buildings

ares, concerts, performances and f i l m s , f b r au-

chev, K a r r a and Lamtsov, w i t h a m a i n hall f o r m e d by r h y t h m -

Zholtovsky's design, w h i c h was adopted, offering an impreg-

)0 and 1,000 people; sets of offices f o r the M o s -

ically arranged semi-cyhnders o f glass; and K a l m y k o v and

nable castle w i t h a closed inner courtyard, and that by Ginz-

courtyard, set against t w o counterbalancing three- and four-

1 and the Moscow Party Committee, i n c l u d i n g

Osipov, i n whose design the wings of a thirty-storey b u i l d i n g

burg, who attempted to stress through his spatial composition

storey blocks. T h e whole b u i l d i n g was erected d u r i n g the first

s and suites; a M u s e u m of Social Sciences; a

descended to street level i n steps f o r m i n g a series of terraces.

the democratic character and freedom of access promoted by

h a l f of the 1930s.

ig 1,500 people, and more. T h e upper levels of

the new k i n d of official premises, and the accessibility of the

2 intended to house a radio station and an ob-

new authorities to the broad layers o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n .

y other things, while the possibility of l a y i n g

G i n z b u r g f u r t h e r developed this approach i n his competi-

H o u s e s of Soviets

i g strip there was also to be investigated,

tion design of 1927 for the Government House o f t h e K a z a k h

tion was a block, b u i l t on a circular ground plan w i t h an inner

The s e a r c h for an aesthetic image

for the country's 'Supreme Building'

iproaches were used to convey the spirit o f t h e

D u r i n g early post-Revolutionary years, local Soviets, or Coun-

len i n progress i n some f i f t y designs, submit-

cils, were housed i n existing buildings adapted for their use

1929-31. I t consisted of several blocks linked by corridors and

T h e designing and b u i l d i n g of'palaces' of every k i n d i n early

irs, b y the Vesnins, T r o t s k y , I l y a Golosov,

while the organization of the new authorities was being worked

a covered gangway. I n his organization o f interior space, the

Soviet times reflected the proletariat's determination to assert

;ov, Belogrud, G i n z b u r g w i t h G r i n b e r g , and

out and specifications were devised for specially

designed

architect took special trouble over the reception areas. T h e i n -

its position as the new r u h n g class. I t was also proposed to

v i t h Alexander Kuznetsov.

buildings. Experimental designs at that early stage usually

terior composition is centred on a h i g h entrance foyer, l i t by

create a grandiose m o n u m e n t to the Great Revolution. T h i s

;nts set i n the Moscow Palace of L a b o u r com-

sought to provide a visual i d e n t i t y for buildings embodying the

paired windows f r o m either side, w h i c h acts as a connecting

urge was f u r t h e r manifested i n the search for a national 'Su-

s a model for a whole set o f competitions for

newly acquired workers' power, such as those by Rodchenko

link between ah the m a i n parts o f the b u i l d i n g . T h i s foyer is

preme B u f l d i n g ' w h i c h w o u l d become the symbol o f t h e Revo-

lildings d u r i n g the years 1923-26.

and Shevchenko for a Sovdep i n 1920, and by Nikolsky for a r u -

laid out as an indoor patio, complete w i t h a f o u n t a i n and

l u t i o n and the new society.

ov-on-Don Palace of L a b o u r competition re-

ral district Soviet i n 1921.

plants. Its glass partitions could be slid open i n summer to let

Repubhc at A l m a - A t a , w h i c h was adopted and carried out i n

I t was envisaged that this 'Supreme B u i l d i n g ' w o u l d act as a

iion i n a single b u i l d i n g of a theatre seating

T h e development of a b u i l d i n g type for a House o f Soviets

rt halls, seating 500 and 1,000; a d i n i n g r o o m

began i n real earnest towards the mid-1920s, when the con-

Other interesting Government House designs can be f o u n d

nificance. V a r i o u s i n s t i t u t i o n a l buildings were suggested at

a l i b r a r y reading r o o m ; rooms for group activ-

struction of buildings to house the new People's Authorities be-

at Ehsta i n K a l m y k i a , by I l y a Golosov, at M i n s k i n Belorussia,

that early stage as suitable political symbols for the country as

ccommodation. Designs f o r this were submit-

gan i n the Republics and administrative areas. Competitions

by Langbard, and at Tashkent i n Uzbekistan, by Polupanov.

a whole, because, whatever its p r i m a r y designation, the 'Su-

ter, Boris K o r s h u n o v , I l y a Golosov w i t h U l i -

for the design of Houses of Soviets exerted a considerable influ-

Houses of Soviets were also b u i l t d u r i n g this period i n K h a -

preme B u i l d i n g ' was intended to provide for an assortment of

yannikov, G r i n b e r g , G i n z b u r g and Aleshin.

ence i n this field.

open air i n t o the b u i l d i n g .

barovsk, by I l y a Golosov and U l i n i c h ; i n Gorky, by G r i n b e r g ;

focus for social life and provide a l a n d m a r k of international sig-

functions.

requirements were set i n the competition for

One of the first of these, launched i n 1924, was for a House of

in Novosibirsk, by Gordeev, Turgenev and A n d r e i K r y a c h k o v ,

A candidate for the p a r t was, for instance, the Palace of N a -

lour at Ekaterinoslavl (now Dnepropetrovsk)

Soviets i n Bryansk. Grinberg's design was implemented i n

while a new block was added to the Moscow Soviet b u i l d i n g by

tions i n Moscow, the f o u n d a t i o n stone of w h i c h had been cere-

l i t t e d , among others, by Sergei K r e s t o v n i k o v

1926. I l y a and Panteleimon Golosov, F o m i n , Rukhlyadev and

Ivan F o m i n .

lov, G r i n b e r g , G r i g o r y B a r k h i n , D a v i d K o -

K r i n s k y were also among those taking part. A c c o r d i n g to the

The Krasnaya Presnya district of Moscow was among the

as a grandiose edifice housing assembly halls, theatres and a

Fridman, and G i n z b u r g w i t h K o r s h u n o v . A l l

specification, this House of Soviets was required to accommo-

first to acquire a local C o u n c i l or Soviet b u i l d i n g o f its o w n ,

wealth of accommodation f o r a variety of purposes. A n o t h e r

; designs provided for a Palace o f L a b o u r

date the Provincial Soviet, as well as Party, trade union, and

bmlt i n 1928-29 f r o m a design by Golubev and N i k o l a i Shcher-

was the b u i l d i n g for Vesenkha, the Supreme C o u n c i l for the

ing

Y o u n g C o m m u n i s t institutions and organizations,

together

bakov. L e n i n g r a d architects made a m a j o r c o n t r i b u t i o n to the

N a t i o n a l Economy, for the design of w h i c h a competition was

gle complex composition,

w i t h a group of p u b l i c premises: a small and a large hall, seat-

design of D i s t r i c t Houses of Soviets at the end o f t h e 1920s and

also decreed that a u t u m n .

f L a b o u r represented centres of mass c u l t u r a l

i n g 200 and 1,000-1,200 respecdvely, b o t h for House of Soviets

beginning o f t h e 1930s. Great importance was attached to the

T o m a r k the contrast w i t h the past, the 'Supreme B u i l d i n g '

rly differentiated sectors reserved f o r theatri-

purposes, such as congresses and conferences, and for club ac-

actual siting of these buildings w i t h i n the general lay-out of the

had to present a totally new artistic image. T h i s largely ac-

l i b r a r y , lecture and other purposes. M a n y

tivities, such as shows and film performances; together w i t h a

district c o m m u n a l centres then being b u f l t . T h e L e n i n g r a d

counts for the widespread support secured by T a t l i n ' s Monu-

serving a variety of functions first took shape

l i b r a r y and section offices. I n most o f t h e competition designs,

Narva District Soviet, located i n a large open area, was de-

ment to the Third International and its emphatically novel concep-

ces of L a b o u r complexes and then increasing-

the architectural image established by this b u i l d i n g was main-

signed by T r o t s k y and b u i l t as a flattened volume, w i t h a con-

tion.

Darate existence d u r i n g the second h a l f of the

ly developed f r o m its c u l t u r a l and social component, since this

trasting high-rise component w h i c h provided the d o m i n a n t ac-

T h e First Congress of Soviets of the U n i o n of Soviet Socialist

ibraries, sports buildings, theatres. Houses of

offered greater scope for spatial composition than the strictly

cent i n the entire district centre complex. Closely related to this

Republics met on 30 December 1922 and adopted ' A Resolu-

al d i n i n g rooms or museums,

official part o f t h e premises.

o f f u n c t i o n a l l y diflFerent components

monially l a i d i n the a u t u m n of 1918, and w h i c h was conceived

was the design by V a l e r i a n D a u g u l and V i k t o r Tvelkmeier,

d o n and T r e a t y for the Creadon o f t h e USSR'. Sergei K i r o v

was held i n 1932 for a Moscow D i s t r i c t T r a d e

T w o f u n d a m e n t a l l y different approaches to the design of a

awarded a first prize i n the competition for a V y b o r g D i s t r i c t

moved a proposal that this occasion should be marked by ' u n -

Labour. A m o n g the most interesting designs

new type of official b u f l d i n g came to light i n the 1926 competi-

Soviet b u f l d i n g i n 1931. A different conception was used f o r the

dertaking i n the very near f u t u r e the construction o f a m o n u -

lose by K o r n f e l d and M i l i n i s , w i t h the m a i n

t i o n for the Dagestan Repubhc's House of Soviets at Makhach-

external elevations o f Leningrad's Moscow D i s t r i c t Soviet, by

ment i n w h i c h the representadves of labour could meet'. ' I t is

i n a semicircle on to the m a i n road; Egory-

kala. T h e clearest examples o f the contrasting trends were

Igor F o m i n , i n w h i c h the m a i n element of the spatial composi-

often said of us,' he declared, 'that we wiped the palaces o f

402

Part Il/Social tasks of architecture

bankers, landowners and tsars off the face o f t h e earth w i t h the

speed o f l i g h t n i n g . T h a t is correct. L e t us now erect i n their

it could open on to the demonstration area or provide access

to i t .

place the new palace o f workers and l a b o u r i n g peasants.'^

I t was such a 'palace o f workers and l a b o u r i n g peasants'
that architects set out to design when they took p a r t i n 1922-23
i n the compeddon f o r a Palace o f L a b o u r i n Moscow, then i n tended to become the 'Supreme B u d d i n g ' .
Great a c d v i t y was devoted i n V k h u t e m a s - V k h u t e i n to the

I n the V o p r a design, by A l a b y a n , K a r r a , M o r d v i n o v , Revy a k i n and Simbirtsev, the m a i n h a l l w h i c h represented the p i vot o f t h e composition was sited and organized so that ah the
congress delegates' seats faced the m a i n square, f r o m w h i c h columns o f demonstrators could move towards them when the

and Sobolev i n Alexander Vesnin's studio, and by L e o n i d Tephtsky i n Golosov's studio - i n 1926; the House o f Congresses
o f t h e USSR - w i t h designs by Rashel Smolenskaya, Glushchenko and T r a v i n i n Ladovsky's s t u d i o - i n 1928-29- and the
C o m i n t e r n b u i l d i n g - w i t h designs by K o m a r o v a i n Alexander
Vesmn's studio, and by K o c h a r i n Fridman's s t u d i o - i n 1929

I n the Asnova design, by B a l i k h i n , Budo, Prokhorova T u r kus, R o m u a l d l o d k o and F. Sevortyan, the m a i n element of the
b u d d i n g , w h i c h housed the large hall, represented a cube intersected by an inclined plane. T h i s f o r m e d an

amphitheatre

w i t h m the b u i l d i n g and c o n t i n u i n g outside i t , i n the open air'

so as to enable the delegates to greet the demonstrators
T h e large hall i n the Sass team's project, by L e o n i d Pavlov
and M i k h a d Kuznetsov, was a glass and metal structure provided w i t h wahs that could be raised and a r o o f that could be
lowered.

The competition for the Palace of Soviets, 1 9 3 1 - 3 3

Some interesting i n d i v i d u a l elements for the Palace were alA compedtion f o r the design o f a Palace o f Soviets i n Moscow
was carried out d u r i n g 1931-33 i n f o u r successive rounds. Its
significance was outstanding i n terms o f t h e development o f a
new type of government b u i l d i n g , the establishment of an ardsdc model f o r the country's 'Supreme B u i l d i n g ' and the f u r t h e r
evoludon o f Soviet architecture as a whole.
I n the first, p r e l i m i n a r y , r o u n d o f t h e compeddon, w h i c h
served to clarify the requirements, m a n y architects treated the
Palace o f Soviets as a People's F o r u m , a place for mass cohective occasions, such as demonstrations, meetings, pohtical festivals, and both m d i t a r y and sports displays. T h e business p a r t
ot the Palace, i n c l u d i n g the smaller of two halls, was accommodated m a separate set o f premises subordinated i n composi-

national f o r u m i n t o the imag(

further developed i n the cont;

which had been adopted as t b

Official and administrative buildings

Intensive w o r k on the design c

varied greatiy i n the designs submitted. There were simple

The economic hfe o f the couni

m o n u m e n t a l forms, by Boris l o f a n and Hector H a m d t o n ; sym-

official and administrative insti

bolic compositions by L y u d v i g , Vlasov, K u r o v s k y , Lamtsov

and trade relations were deveic

and I g o r Y a v e m ; the apphcation o f t r a d i t i o n a l methods and

this required the construction

forms by Zholtovsky, Golts, Sobolev and Parusnikov; and com-

the newly created i n d u s t r i a l , sa

positions f o l l o w i n g the forms o f t h e new architecture by Le Cor-

tions.

busier, as well as by A l a b y a n and Simbirtsev. I n the statement

hnes laid d o w n f o r f u r t h e r w o r k on the projects stressed 'monumental quality, simphcity, i n t e g r i t y and elegance i n the architectural presentation', and the application 'both o f new methods and the best employed i n Classical architecture'.

cial use, the other for mass purposes, w h i c h communicated

lar hall capable of h o l d i n g 15,000 people and arranged so that

i n successive rounds o f t h e coi

verted the whole conception o f

and business b u i l d i n g began a

prizes to the designs by Zholtovsky, H a m i l t o n and l o f a n , guide-

m a i n component o f the accommodation was a large rectangu-

ditsa and others; or a genen

Shchuko and Gelfreikh, and S

T h e second r o u n d attracted 160 entries, i n c l u d i n g twenty-

were typical i n this respect.

The

new architecture by the Vesni

of m o n u m e n t a l Neo-Classicisi

four f r o m abroad. Spatial and stylistic treatments o f t h e subject

cerning the results o f t h e open competition, w h i c h awarded top

through the outdoor area left open for demonstrations.

tures adopted i n each case, w l

lengthwise and composed o f overhanging tiers.

large h a l l . T h e A R U , V o p r a , Asnova and Sass teams' entries

tween t w o sets o f premises i n the Palace, one reserved for o f f i -

ah treated the Palace o f Sovie

compact g r o u n d p l a n , regarc

w i t h sloping tiers o f external balconies; by Nikolsky, w i t h a

tent-shaped roof; and by F i d m a n , w i t h a b u d d i n g d r a w n out

by the C o u n c i l for the Construction o f t h e Palace of Soviets con-

taly L a v r o v and V a l e n t i n Popov, clearly distinguished be-

traditional forms, as i n the des

chuhn, and Shchusev.

so submitted by Ladovsky, i n the f o r m of a hemispherical dome

d o n a l terms to the m a i n block o f t h e b u i l d i n g i n c o r p o r a t i n g a

T h e A R U design, by N i k o l a i Beseda, Georgy K r u t i k o v V i -

of hne, as i n designs by A l a b )
and l o f a n ; and a set o f closer

Five teams competed i n th

glass f r o n t p a r t i t i o n was opened.

design o f a 'Supreme B u d d i n g ' . Three buddings vied for this

role: the C e n t r a l Palace o f L a b o u r - w i t h designs by K o z h i n

as i n the entries o f G i n z b u r
dovsky, and the Vesnins; a n

D u r i n g this period, competiti

offices f o r the Arkos organizatioi
the State I n d u s t r y bureau, i n K l
1924 for the Arkos b u i l d i n g wa;
stood out among the rest o f t h e e:
to the solution of f u n c t i o n a l reqr
and its uncompromisingly mode
further research i n t o the design

T h e variety of approaches displayed i n the open compeddon

enced many competition entries

became even more marked i n the t h i r d , closed r o u n d involving

1925, for the Rusgertorg (Russo-(

thirteen entries. Three different conceptions stood out: a na-

Commission), Orgametal (Truji

donwide f o r u m designed i n the forms o f t h e new architecture.

Manufacture i n M a c h i n e B u i l d i n

of architecture
Chapter 3/New types of buildings

wners and tsars off the face o f t h e earth w i t h the

It could open on to the demonstration area or provide access

to i t .

as i n the entries o f G i n z b u r g , Gassenpflug and Lisagor, L a -

I n d u s t r y ) and Elektrobank buildings i n 1926. T h e latest con-

dovsky, and the Vesnins; a monument governed by simplicity

struction techniques such as ferro-concrete frames were used i n

I n the V o p r a design, by A l a b y a n , K a r r a , M o r d v i n o v , Rev-

of hne, as i n designs by A l a b y a n , K o c h a r and others, Golosov,

these bufldings, and this to a large extent determined the treat-

y a k i n and Simbirtsev, the m a i n hall w h i c h represented the p i -

iet out to design when they took p a r t i n 1922-23

and l o f a n ; and a set o f closed compositions relying heavily on

ment o f their fagades.

vot o f the composition was sited and organized so that a l l the

ion for a Palace o f L a b o u r i n Moscow, then i n -

traditional forms, as i n the designs by Zholtovsky, D m i t r y Che-

congress delegates' seats faced the m a i n square, f r o m w h i c h col-

ne the 'Supreme B u i l d i n g ' ,

chuhn, and Shchusev.

umns o f demonstrators could move towards them when the

y was devoted i n V k h u t e m a s - V k h u t e i n to the

glass f r o n t p a r t i t i o n was opened.

ing. T h a t is correct. L e t us now erect i n their

3alace o f workers and l a b o u r i n g peasants.''
a 'palace o f workers and l a b o u r i n g peasants'

W h e n designing such oflice bufldings, architects were closely tied by explicit requirements and largely deprived of any op-

Five teams competed i n the f o u r t h , closed r o u n d , and they

p o r t u n i t y for f u n c t i o n a l experiments. T h e y therefore devoted

ah treated the Palace o f Soviets as a single m o n u m e n t set on a

m u c h attention to f o r m a l and aesthetic aspects, the more so be-

I n the Asnova design, by B a l i k h i n , Budo, Prokhorova, T u r -

compact g r o u n d p l a n , regardless o f the external stylistic fea-

cause the commissioning agency as a rule insisted o n buildings

kus, R o m u a l d l o d k o and F. Sevortyan, the m a i n element o f t h e

tures adopted i n each case, whether these were the forms of the

w i t h a distinctive look. T h i s led to the p r o d u c t i o n towards the

b u i l d i n g , w h i c h housed the large hah, represented a cube inter-

new architecture by the Vesnins; simplified forms i n the spirit

middle o f t h e decade, largely by Constructivists, o f some very

sected by an inclined plane. This formed an amphitheatre,

w i t h designs by Rashel Smolenskaya, Glush-

of monumental Neo-Classicism by l o f a n , A l a b y a n , Y a k o v D o -

striking office b u f l d i n g designs. H o r i z o n t a l strips o f glazing

w i t h i n the b u i l d i n g and continuing outside i t , i n the open air,

v i n i n Ladovsky's studio - i n 1928-29; and the

ditsa and others; or a generous use o f t r a d i t i o n a l forms by

were combined w i t h n o r m a l w i n d o w s ; solid areas o f glass on

so as to enable the delegates to greet the demonstrators.

Shchuko and Gelfreikh, and Shchusev. T h e trend established

the lower floors contrasted w i t h blank walls i n the upper sto-

T h e large h a l l i n the Sass team's project, by L e o n i d Pavlov

in successive rounds o f t h e competition, w h i c h gradually con-

reys; colour was applied; and the lettering o f signs and adver-

and M i k h a i l Kuznetsov, was a glass and metal structure pro-

verted the whole conception of a Palace of Soviets f r o m that of a

tisements

vided w i t h walls that could be raised and a roof that could be

national f o r u m i n t o the image o f a majestic monument, was

foreign-language inscriptions.

Dreme B u d d i n g ' . Three buildings vied for this

d Palace o f L a b o u r - w i t h designs by K o z h i n
Alexander Vesnin's studio, and by L e o n i d Teov's studio - i n 1926; the House o f Congresses

Jing - w i t h designs by K o m a r o v a i n Alexander

and by K o c h a r i n F r i d m a n ' s studio - i n 1929.

lowered.
the Palace of Soviets, 1 9 3 1 - 3 3

Some interesting i n d i v i d u a l elements for the Palace were al-

further developed i n the continuing work on l o f a n ' s design,

which had been adopted as the basis for the project.

so submitted by Ladovsky, i n the f o r m of a hemispherical dome

)r the design o f a Palace o f Soviets i n M o s c o w
d u r i n g 1931-33 i n f o u r successive rounds. Its
outstanding i n terms o f t h e development o f a
rnment b u i l d i n g , the establishment of an artiscountry's 'Supreme B u i l d i n g ' and the f u r t h e r
iet architecture as a whole,
rehminary, r o u n d o f the compeddon, w h i c h ,

Oflice buildings i n the mid-1920s also f r e q u e n t l y f u l f i l l e d

various a d d i t i o n a l functions. T h e specification for the House o f
Textfles, f o r instance, included, apart f r o m office space, a res-

w i t h sloping tiers o f external balconies; by Nikolsky, w i t h a

tent-shaped roof; and by F i d m a n , w i t h a b u i l d i n g d r a w n out

was used for decorative purposes i n Russian and

taurant, general store and hotel, while a shop, caf, film theatre
Official and administrative buildings

and lodgings were p r o v i d e d i n the Rusgertorg b u i l d i n g . O n e

T h e second r o u n d attracted 160 entries, i n c l u d i n g twenty-

Intensive work on the design o f a new type o f administrative

A l a b y a n and Zalesskaya i n Ladovsky's V k h u t e m a s studio,

f o u r f r o m abroad. Spatial and stylistic treatments o f t h e subject

and business b u i l d i n g began about the m i d d l e o f t h e 1920s.

w i t h shops at ground level, offices on the next t w o floors and a

varied greatiy i n the designs submitted. There were simple

The economic life o f the country was reviving, a network o f

hotel on the top three.

lengthwise and composed o f overhanging tiers.

such variant o f a multi-purpose office block was designed by

m o n u m e n t a l forms, by Boris l o f a n and Hector H a m i l t o n ; sym-

official and administrative institutions was being estabhshed,

bohc compositions by L y u d v i g , Vlasov, K u r o v s k y , Lamtsov

and trade relations were developing w i t h many countries. A h

early as 1922-23, K r i n s k y took up a suggestion by Ladovsky

and I g o r Y a v e i n ; the apphcation o f t r a d i t i o n a l methods and

this required the construction o f modern office premises for

ich as demonstrations, meedngs, pohdcal fes-

and produced an experimental design for a Vesenkha sky-

forms by Zholtovsky, Golts, Sobolev and Parusnikov; and com-

the newly created i n d u s t r i a l , sales and foreign trade organiza-

ailitary and sports displays. T h e business p a r t

scraper. T h i s w o r k was carried f u r t h e r i n Ladovsky's V k h u t e -

positions f o h o w i n g the forms of the new architecture by Le Cor-

tions.

mas studio w i t h designs by V o l o d k o , Glushchenko, V i t a l y

the requirements, many architects treated the

as a People's F o r u m , a place for mass cohec-

Rationalist designers also essayed high-rise structures. As

luding the smaher of two halls, was accommo-

busier, as well as by A l a b y a n and Simbirtsev. I n the st9.tement

ite set o f premises subordinated i n composi-

D u r i n g this period, competitions were held for the design o f

L a v r o v and others for a Vesenkha b u i l d i n g o f between f o r t y

by the C o u n c i l for the Construction o f t h e Palace of Soviets con-

le m a i n block o f the b u i l d i n g i n c o r p o r a t i n g a

offices for the Arkos organization i n M o s c o w and f o r Gosprom,

and sixty storeys. I n 1929, Ladovsky designed a 56-storey sky-

cerning the results of the open competition, w h i c h awarded top

R U , V o p r a , Asnova and Sass teams' entries

the State I n d u s t r y bureau, i n K h a r k o v . T h e Vesnins' design o f

scraper on a c r u c i f o r m g r o u n d p l a n for the Columbus M o n u -

prizes to the designs by Zholtovsky, H a m d t o n and l o f a n , guide-

1924 for the Arkos b u d d i n g was awarded the first prize, and

ment competition.

ns respect.

hnes l a i d d o w n f o r f u r t h e r w o r k on the projects stressed 'monu-

gn, by N i k o l a i Beseda, Georgy K r u t i k o v , V i -

mental quahty, simphcity, i n t e g r i t y and elegance i n the archi-

V a l e n t i n Popov, clearly distinguished be-

tectural presentation', and the apphcation 'both o f new meth-

premises i n the Palace, one reserved for o f f i -

ods and the best employed i n Classical architecture'.

stood out among the rest o f t h e entries by its r a t i o n a l approach

I n the mid-1920s, there emerged office b u i l d i n g designs

to the solution of f u n c t i o n a l requirements by structural means

w h i c h attempted to combine the Constructivist and R a t i o n a l -

and its uncompromisingly modern look. I t set a standard for

ist approaches. T h e y were d i v i d e d for purposes of spatial com-

further research i n t o the design o f office buddings and i n f l u -

position i n t o t w o elements, one lower, on the lines of Arkos, the

T h e variety of approaches displayed i n the open competition

enced many competition entries for the House o f Textiles i n

other a high-rise tower a k i n to the Rationahst concept. T h e

became even more marked i n the t h i r d , closed r o u n d involving

o f t h e accommodation was a large rectangu-

1925, for the Rusgertorg (Russo-German I n d u s t r i a l and T r a d e

outstanding examples o f this approach were designs for the

thirteen entries. Three different conceptions stood out: a na-

rholding 15,000 people and arranged so that

Commission), O r g a m e t a l ( T r u s t for the Rationalization o f

bufldings of Izvestiya, by G r i g o r y B a r k h i n , and o f Gostorg, the

tionwide f o r u m designed i n the forms o f t h e new architecture.

^Manufacture i n M a c h i n e B u i l d i n g and i n the M e t a l Processing

State T r a d i n g Office for I m p o r t and E x p o r t , by Boris V e l i -

:r for mass purposes, w h i c h communicated

oor area left open for demonstrations.

The

404
Part Il/Social tasks of architecture

1050 Buryshkin, Katsenelenbogen and Reizman.

Competition design for the Palace of Labour, Moscow,
1922-23. Perspective.

kovsky, both o f 1925-27. I n b o t h cases, ferro-concrete f r a m e

ministrative centre. Some twenty-five i n d i v i d u a l institutions -

buildings were to combine a m a i n six-storey block w i t h a cen-

a H i g h e r C o u n c i l for the People's Economy, an Industrial

t r a l component o f twelve to thirteen storeys.

Bank and various other i n d u s t r i a l institutions were housed in

However, a regulation issued i n M o s c o w i n 1926 banned the

the vast Gosprom b u i l d i n g consisting o f three blocks linked by

construction of buildings more than six storeys h i g h w i t h i n the

gangways. Each block had its o w n entrance hall, but they com-

Sadovoe or Garden Ringroad, although some structures rising

municated internally and shared such facilities as a m a i n con-

to ten storeys had previously been erected there, such as a

ference hall, a d i n i n g r o o m and a l i b r a r y .

dwelling block by D a v i d K o g a n . T h i s made i t necessary to stop

T h e House o f I n d u s t r y at Sverdlovsk, the i n d u s t r i a l head-

high-rise construction while b u i l d i n g work was already i n pro-

quarters for the Urals, closely resembled the Gosprom building

gress and accounts for the fact that not a single high-rise b u d d -

i n K h a r k o v . T h e competition f o r its design was carried out in

i n g was constructed i n central Moscow d u r i n g these years.

two rounds: the first, i n 1927, attracted entries f r o m Alexander

Such buildings nevertheless continued to be designed, i n par-

and L e o n i d V e s n i n ; A n d r e i B u r o v , Sinyavsky and Barshch;

ticular for p u b l i s h i n g houses. Examples f r o m Vkhutemas i n -

and I v a n F o m i n , among others. T h e second, i n 1931, received

cluded designs by Leonidov, i n Ladovsky's studio, and by

designs f r o m Afanasev, K o r n f e l d and M i l i n i s ; and I l y a Golo-

Alexander K u r o v s k y , i n Shchusev's, i n 1926. Three- to five-sto-

sov, among others.

rey buildings took their place, such as the offices p u t up i n 1930

A competition for a House o f I n d u s t r y i n M o s c o w attracted

for Mosproekt, the Moscow O r g a n i z a t i o n for A r c h i t e c t u r a l

entries f r o m , among others, Panteleimon Golosov; Zalesskaya,

Projects, on the L e n i n g r a d H i g h w a y , and for T r a n s t r o i , the

Korzhev, Lissitzky and Prokhorova; Ladovsky and Fridman;

Construction Organization for Refrigeration W o r k s , on the

and Simbirtsev. T h e most interesting design i n this case origi-

Rozhdestvenka.

nated f r o m Leonidov. I n i t , each specialized category of em-

A competition was held i n 1930 for a Pravda Publishing

ployees, up to a m a x i m u m o f 120, was accommodated on a

House b u i l d i n g , for w h i c h Golosov and K u r o v s k y designed a

standard-size floor o f the b u i l d i n g , d i v i d e d i n t o areas of 5 m^

structure w i t h a h i g h component at the angle o f the b u i l d i n g ,

per person. T h e floor was soundproofed and partitions be-

w h i l e Lissitzky's entry, for instance, contained no high-rise ele-

tween the i n d i v i d u a l areas were replaced by pot plants. One

ments. Y e t the project adopted and carried out i n the 1930s was

side of these areas was reserved f o r rest, physical exercise and a

that by Golosov, though shorn o f i t s high-rise component.

l i b r a r y , together w i t h space reserved for consuming food sent

T h e competition held i n 1928 for the design o f t h e Tsentro-

f r o m below, showers, a pool, paths, r u n n i n g tracks and recep-

soyuz headquarters set a trend i n the design of office buildings

t i o n areas. There was natural light f r o m either side of the build-

and Leonidov's entry attracted particular attention. He offered

i n g and the walls could be moved aside i n summertime. The

a f u n c t i o n a l l y well-conceived b u i l d i n g comprising an entrance

lower, extended floor contained an assembly hall, a gymnasi-

h a l l between the t w o parallel streets on either side, a rationally

u m , club premises, cloakrooms etc, and on its roof a movable

l a i d out w o r k i n g area, and a sober but nevertheless striking

pool, sports accommodation and r u n n i n g track. T h e top floor

spatial composition. T h e Tsentrosoyuz b u i l d i n g was

finally

b u i l t i n accordance w i t h a design by Le Corbusier, though only

after he had considerably altered i t .
D u r i n g the period under review, appropriate People's C o m -

housed a hotel for visitors, and an intermediate open floor provided a restaurant and open-air walks.
Experimental designs for a standard House of I n d u s t r y were
carried out i n Ladovsky's V k h u t e m a s - V k h u t e i n studio. Earlier

missariats or ministries had not yet been set up, and indus-

designs i n 1924-25 by Glushchenko, V o l o d k o and V i t a l y Lav-

t r y was directed by republican and local Economic Councils

rov for Vesenkha buildings had concentrated a l l the accommo-

called Sovnarkhozy, f b r w h i c h Houses o f I n d u s t r y and State

dation i n skyscrapers b u i l t on a compact ground plan, but in

I n d u s t r y , or Gosprom, buildings were erected.

Silchenkov's design for a House of I n d u s t r y and Trade the spa-

T h e K h a r k o v Gosprom b u i l d i n g , designed and b u i l t by Se-

tial composidon took account o f both the connecdons between

r a f i m o v , Felger and Kravets i n 1925-28, represented an i m -

the various component institutions, and their separate identi-

portant l a n d m a r k i n the development of this f o r m of officiai ad-

ties, expressing these i n a high-rise block for the central organi-

'1-05
cture

1050 Buryshkin, Katsenelenbogen and Reizman.

Competition design for the Palace of Labour, Moscow
1922-23. Perspective.

-27. I n both cases, ferro-concrete f r a m e

ministrative centre. Some twenty-five i n d i v i d u a l institutions -

bine a m a i n six-storey block w i t h a cen-

a H i g h e r C o u n c i l for the People's Economy, an I n d u s t r i a l

Ive to thirteen storeys,

Bank and various other i n d u s t r i a l institutions were housed in

on issued i n Moscow i n 1926 banned the

the vast Gosprom b u i l d i n g consisting o f three blocks linked by

igs more than six storeys h i g h w i t h i n the

gangways. Each block had its o w n entrance hall, but they com-

ngroad, although some structures rising

municated i n t e r n a l l y and shared such facilities as a m a i n con-

eviously been erected there, such as a

ference hall, a d i n i n g r o o m and a l i b r a r y .

id K o g a n . T h i s made i t necessary to stop

T h e House o f I n d u s t r y at Sverdlovsk, the i n d u s t r i a l head-

while b u i l d i n g work was already i n pro-

quarters for the U r a l s , closely resembled the Gosprom building

the fact that not a single high-rise b u i l d -

i n K h a r k o v . T h e competition for its design was carried out in

n central Moscow d u r i n g these years,

two rounds: the first, i n 1927, attracted entries f r o m Alexander

heless continued to be designed, i n par-

and L e o n i d V e s n i n ; A n d r e i B u r o v , Sinyavsky and Barshch;

houses. Examples f r o m Vkhutemas i n -

and I v a n F o m i n , among others. T h e second, i n 1931, received

onidov, i n Ladovsky's studio, and by

designs f r o m Afanasev, K o r n f e l d and M i l i n i s ; and I l y a Golo-

n Shchusev's, i n 1926. Three- to five-sto-

sov, among others.

r place, such as the offices p u t up i n 1930

A competition for a House o f I n d u s t r y i n Moscow attracted

[oscow Organization for A r c h i t e c t u r a l

entries f r o m , among others, Panteleimon Golosov; Zalesskaya,

igrad H i g h w a y , and for T r a n s t r o i , the

Korzhev, Lissitzky and Prokhorova; Ladovsky and F r i d m a n ;

ation for Refrigeration Works, on the

and Simbirtsev. T h e most interesting design i n this case origi-

held i n 1930 for a Pravda Publishing

ployees, up to a m a x i m u m o f 120, was accommodated on a

nated f r o m Leonidov. I n i t , each specialized category of em[rich Golosov and K u r o v s k y designed a

standard-size floor o f the b u i l d i n g , divided i n t o areas o f 5 m^

;omponent at the angle o f the b u i l d i n g ,

per person. T h e floor was soundproofed and partitions be-

for instance, contained no high-rise ele-

tween the i n d i v i d u a l areas were replaced by pot plants. One

idopted and carried out i n the 1930s was

side of these areas was reserved for rest, physical exercise and a

rh shorn o f i t s high-rise component.

l i b r a r y , together w i t h space reserved for consuming food sent

Id i n 1928 for the design o f t h e Tsentro-

f r o m below, showers, a pool, paths, r u n n i n g tracks and recep-

: a trend i n the design of office buildings

t i o n areas. There was n a t u r a l light f r o m either side o f t h e build-

ttracted particular attention. H e offered

i n g and the walls could be moved aside i n summertime. The

ceived b u i l d i n g comprising an entrance

lower, extended floor contained an assembly hall, a gymnasi-

arahel streets on either side, a rationahy

u m , club premises, cloakrooms etc, and on its roof a movable

, and a sober b u t nevertheless striking

pool, sports accommodation and r u n n i n g track. T h e top floor

^he Tsentrosoyuz b u i l d i n g was

housed a hotel for visitors, and an intermediate open floor pro-

finally

h a design by L e Corbusier, though only

bly altered i t .

vided a restaurant and open-air walks.

Experimental designs for a standard House of I n d u s t r y were

ider review, appropriate People's G o m -

carried out i n Ladovsky's V k h u t e m a s - V k h u t e i n studio. Earlier

es - had not yet been set up, and indus-

designs i n 1924-25 by Glushchenko, V o l o d k o and V i t a l y Lav-

publican and local Economic Councils

rov f o r Vesenkha buildings had concentrated a l l the accommo-

ir w h i c h Houses o f I n d u s t r y and State

dation i n skyscrapers b u i l t on a compact ground plan, but in

buildings were erected,

Silchenkov's design for a House of I n d u s t r y and Trade the spa-

o m b u i l d i n g , designed and b u h t b y Se-

t i a l composition took account o f both the connections between

ra vets i n 1925-28, represented an i m -

the various component institutions, and their separate identi-

E development of this f o r m of official ad-

ties, expressing these i n a high-rise block for the central organi-

1 0 5 1 - 5 2 Trotsky. Competition design for the Palace

of Labour, Moscow, 1922-23. Perspective (1051).
Interior of hall (1052).
1 0 5 3 Toropov and Alexander Kuznetsov.
Competition design for the Palace of Labour, Moscow,
1922-23. Perspective.

1 0 5 4 - 5 5 Ginzburg. Gompetition design for the

Palace of Labour, Rostov-on-Don, 1925. Elevations
(1054). Perspective (1055).

1056

Ilya Golosov and Ulinich. Gompetition design

for the Palace of Labour, Rostov-on-Don, 1925.

Perspective.

Competition design for tlie

3v-on-Don, 1925. Elevations
55).

1056

Ilya Golosov and Ulinich. Gompetition design

for the Palace of Labour, Rostov-on-Don, 1925.

Perspective.

1 0 5 7 - 5 8 Aleshin, Zabolotny, Smyk, Milinis,

Torisyuk and Yurchenko. Competition design for the
Palace of Labour, Rostov-on-Don, 1925. Elevation
(1057). Plan (1058).

408
1059 Egorychev, K a r r a and Lamtsov. Gompetition
design for tire Palace of Labour, Moscow, 1932.
Model.
1 0 6 0 Kalmykov and Osipov. Competition design for
the Palace o f Labour, Moscow, 1932. Model.

1 0 6 1 - 6 2 Ginzburg and Korshunov. Competition

design for the Palace of Labour, Ekaterinoslavl, 1926.
Elevation (1061). Plan (1062).

1 0 6 1 - 6 2 Ginzburg and Korsliunov. Gompetition

design for tlie Palace of Labour, Ekaterinoslavl, 1926.
Elevation (1061). Plan (1062).

1 0 6 3 - 6 4 Kornfeld and Milinis. Competition design

for the Palace of Labour o f t h e Moscow District Soviet
o f T r a d e Unions (Mosps), 1932. Perspective (1063).
Plan (1064).

410
1 0 6 5 - 6 7 Rodchenko. Experimental design variants
for the House of Soviets (Sovdep), Zhivskulptarkh,
1920. Perspectives (1065-66). Plan (1067).

1 0 6 8 - 7 0 Shevchenko. Experimental design for the

House of Soviets (Sovdep), Zhivskulptarkh, 1920.
Elevation (1068). Section (1069). Composite
diagrammatic plan of all floors (1070).

jQ71_72

Nikolsky. The District Executive Soviet

building, 1921. Perspective from the rear (1071). Plans

(1072).

411
1071-72 Nikolsky. The District Executive Soviet
building, 1921- Perspective from the rear (1071). Plans
(1072).

1 0 7 3 Grinberg. The House of Soviets, Bryansk,

1924-26.
1 0 7 4 - 7 5 Ilya Golosov. Competition design for the
House of Soviets, Bryansk, 1924. Perspective (1074).
Plan of second floor (1075).

1 0 7 6 - 7 7 Zholtovsky. The Dagestan House of

Soviets, Makhachkala, 1926-28. Detail of elevation
(1076). Axonometric view (1077).
1 0 7 8 Ginzburg. Competition design for the Dagestan
House of Soviets, Makhachkala, 1926. Perspective.

107980 Ilya Golosov and Mitelman. Design for the

Government building, Kalmyk ASSR, Ehsta.
Perspective (1079). General view of the completed
building ( K
1081 Langbard. The Government building,
Belorussian SSR, Minsk, 1929-33.

1 0 8 2 Milinis, w
Competition desi
Khaborovsk. Per
1 0 8 3 - 8 4 IlyaC
design for the He
Perspective (108!
(1084).

1 0 7 9 - 8 0 Ilya Golosov and Mitelman. Design for the

Government building, Kalmyk ASSR, Ehsta.
Perspective (1079). General view o f t h e completed
building (1080).
1081 Langbard. The Government building,
Belorussian SSR, Minsk, 1929-33.

1082 Milinis, with Ginzburg as consultant.

Competition design for the House of Soviets,
Khaborovsk. Perspective.
1 0 8 3 - 8 4 Ilya Golosov and Uhnich. Competition
design for the House of Soviets, Khabarovsk.
Perspective (1083). Detail of completed variant
(1084).

414
1 0 8 5 Grinberg. The House of Soviets, Gorky, 1930.
1086 Trotsky. The Narva Gate District Soviet,
Leningrad.

1087 Gordeev, Turgenev and Kryachkov. The House

of Soviets, Novosibirsk.

1088 Kozhin. Design for the Central Palace of Labour,

Moscow, Vkhutemas, Alexander Vesnin's studio, 1926.
Perspective.
1089 Sobolev. Design for the Central Palace of Labour,
Moscow, Vkhutemas, Alexander Vesnin's studio, 1926.
Perspective.
1090 Tcplitsky. Design for the Central Palace of Labour,
Moscow, Vkhutemas, Ilya Golosov's studio, 1926. Perspective.

IB f l

[ouse of Soviets, Gorky, 1930.

irva Gate District Soviet,

41.5
1087 Gordeev, Turgenev and Kryachkov. The House
of Soviets, Novosibirsk.

1088 Kozhin. Design for the Central Palace of Labour,

Moscow, Vkhutemas, Alexander Vesnin's studio, 1926.
Perspective.
1089 Sobolev. Design for the Central Palace of Labour,
Moscow, Vkhutemas, Alexander Vesnin's studio, 1926.
Perspective.
1090 Teplitsky. Design for the Central Palace of Labour,
Moscow, Vkhutemas, Ilya Golosov's studio, 1926. Perspective.

1091 Tephtsky. Design for the Central Palace of

Labour, Moscow, Vkhutemas, Ilya Golosov's studio,
1926. Plan. Elevation.

416

109294 Smolenskaya. Design for the House of

Congresses o f t h e USSR, Vkhutein, Ladovsky's studio
1928. Perspective (1092). Ax-onometric view (1093).
Section (1094).

1095 Glushchenko. Design for the House of

Congresses o f t h e USSR, Ladovsky's studio, 1928.
Perspective.

1096-97 Travin. Design for the House of Congresses

ofthe USSR, Vkhutein, Dokuchaev's studio, 1929.
Model (1096). Plan (1097).

le House of
dovsky's studio,
;view (1093).

1095 Glushchenko. Design for the House of

Congresses o f t h e USSR, Ladovsky's studio, 1928.
Perspective.

1096-97 Travin. Design for the House of Congresses

of the USSR, Vkhutein, Dokuchaev's studio, 1929.
Model (1096). Plan (1097).

418
1100 A R U team comprising Beseda, Krutikov, Vitaly
Lavrov and Valentin Popov. First-round competition
design for the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931.
Perspective of part of the complex.
1101 Vopra team comprising Alabyan, Karra,
Mordvinov, Revyakin and Simbirtsev. First-round
competition design for the Palace of Sviets, Moscow
193h. Perspective.

1102 Sass team comprising Leonid Pavlov and

Mikhail Kuznetsov. First-round competition design for
the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Plans.
Perspective. Section.
1103 Sass team comprising Leonid Pavlov, Alexandrov
and Mikhail Kuznetsov. First-round competition design
for the Palace of Soviets - counterproposal located
on the Lenin Hills, 1931. Plans. Perspective. Section.

419
, Krutikov, Vitaly
und competition
cow, 1931.
'an, Karra,
/. First-round
ioviets, Moscow,

1102 Sass team comprising Leonid Pavlov and

Mikhail Kuznetsov. First-round competition design for
the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Plans.
Perspective. Section.
1103 Sass team comprising Leonid Pavlov, Alexandrov
and Mikhail Kuznetsov. First-round competition design
for the Palace of Soviets - counterproposal located
on the Lenin Hills, 1931. Plans. Perspective. Section.

110406 Ladovsky. First-round competition design

for the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Perspective
(1104). Section (1105). Plan (1106).

1107 Nikolsky. First-round competition design for the

Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Elevations. Section.
1108 Fidman. First-round competition design for the
Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Perspective. Plan.

1 rjiBDHuH ^ncan

420
110910 Zholtovsky. Second-round competition
design for the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931.
Elevation (1109). Plan (1110).
1111 Boris lofan. Second-round competition design
for the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Model.

1112 Golubev. Second-round competition design for

the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Perspective.

1113 Hamilton. Second-round compeddon design for

the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Perspective.
1114 Lamtsov. Second-round competition design for
the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Model.

-round competition
, Moscow, 1931.
competition design
ow, 1931. Model.

1112 Golubev. Second-round competition design for

the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Perspective.

T T ^ H a m i l t o n . Second-round competition design for

he Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Perspective.
,114 Lamtsov. Second-round competition design for
t i Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Model.

1115 Vainshtein, Komarova and Mushinsky.

Second-round competition design for the Palace of
Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Model.
1116 Zholtovsky. Third-round competition design for
the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1932. Perspective.
1117 Perret. Second-round competition design for the
Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Perspective.

422
1118 Gropius. Second-round competition design for
the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Perspective.
1119 Le Corbusier. Second-round competition design
for the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1931. Bird's-eye
view.
1120 Ladovsky. Third-round competition design for
the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1932. Model.

1121 Ginzburg, Gassenpflug and Lisagor. T h i r d round competition design for the Palace of Soviets,
Moscow, 1932. Model.

122-23 Vesnin brothers. Third-round competition

L.ien for the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1932. Interior
il4ehall(1122).Plan(1123).
1124 Ilya Golosov. Third-round competition design
for the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1932. Perspective.

und competition design for

:ow, 1931. Perspective,
d-round competition design
loscow, 1931. Bird's-eye
und competition design for
;ow, 1932. Model.

1121 Ginzburg, Gassenpflug and Lisagor. T h i r d round competition design for the Palace of Soviets,
Moscow, 1932. Model.

1122-23 Vesnin brothers. Third-round competition

I Ln for the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1932. Interior
l a r g e h a U (1122). Plan (1123)
1124 Ilya Golosov. Third-round competition design
for the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1932. Perspective.

1125-26 Vesnin brothers. Fourth-round competition

design for the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1933.
Elevations.
1127 Boris lofan. Fourth-round competition design
for the Palace of Soviets, Moscow, 1933. Perspective.

424
1128 Ginzburg. Competition design for the House of
Textiles, Moscow, 1925. Perspective.
1129 Ginzburg. Competition design for the
Rusgertorg building, Moscow, 1926. Axonometric
view.

1130-31 Alabyan. Design for an office and dwelling

block, Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio, 1926.
Perspective (1130). Plan (1131).

1132 Zalesskaya. Design for an office and dwelling

block, Ladovsky's studio, 1926. Perspective.
1133 Sergei Lopatin. Design for the headquarters
building o f t h e Supreme Soviet for the National
Economy (Vesenkha), Moscow, Vkhutemas,
Ladovsky's studio, 1925. Axonometric view.

1134 \
building
1924-2';

425
1130-31 Alabyan. Design for an oflice and dwelling
block, Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio, 1926.
Perspective (1130). Plan (1131).

^32
} l
m
i
L

Zalesskaya. Design for an office and dwellmg

T adovsky's studio, 1926. Perspective,
S i e i L o p a t i - Design for the headquarters
f of the Supreme Soviet for the National

rnVvesen^

S o J y ' - ' " ^ - ' ^ ' ^ 2 5 . Axonometric view.

1134 Vitaly Lavrov. Design for the Vesenkha

building, Moscow, Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio,
1924-25. Perspecdve.

1135 Ladovsky. Competition,design for the

Columbus Monument, Santo Domingo, 1929.
Perspective.

427
likhail Barkhin.
[oscow, 1925-27.
137).

1138 Velikovsky, with Barshch, Vegman, Gaken and

Langman. Design variant for the Gostorg building,
Moscow, 1925. Perspecdve.
1139 David Kogan. The Mosselprom building,
Moscow, 1923-24.

1140-41 Velikovsky, with Barshch, Vegman, Gaken

and Langman. The Gostorg building, Moscow,
1925-27. Detail (1140). Interior (1141).

428
1142 Leonidov. Design for tlie Izvestiya printing
works, Moscow, Vkhutemas, Alexander Vesnin's
studio, 1926. Perspective.

1143 Kurovsky. Design for the Izvestiya printing

works, Moscow, Vkhutemas, Shchusev's studio, 1926.
Perspective.
1144 Pashkov. Design for a printing works,
Vkhutemas, 1926. Perspective.

" ^ i r T r T i s s i t z k y . Competition design for the Pravda

' ^ ' ' ^ n e r h adqulrters, Moscow, 1930. Model
P f c r o u n d l o r plan (1146).

1143 Kurovsky. Design for tlie Izvestiya printing

works, Moscow, Vklrutemas, Shchusev's studio, 1926.
Perspective.
1144 Pashkov. Design for a printing works,
Vkhutemas, 1926. Perspective.

1147 Panteleimon Golosov and Kurovsky.

Competition design for the Pravda newspaper
headquarters, Moscow, 1930. Perspective.
1148 Panteleimon Golosov. The Pravda combine,
Moscow, as built, 1930-35.

-^^'''Tr^Z^Hzkr^
design for the Pravda
L w p'aper headquarters, Moscow, 1930. Model
( S . Ground-floor plan (1146).

;... ~ i ; ' . _r>.... ^ r1

-:iH^--,

m I . ; : LMJ

fn
::::

:.m

yi-

430
1149-50 Leonidov. Compeddon design for the
Tsentrosoyuz building, Moscow, 1928. Axonometric
view (1149). Side elevation (1150).
1151 Samoilov. Competition design for the
Tsentrosoyuz building, Moscow. Perspective.

1152 Nikolsky. Competition design for the

Tsentrosoyuz building, Moscow. Perspective.'
1153 Afanasev, Kornfeld and ALlinis. Competition
design for the Urals House of Industry, Sverdlovsk,
1931. Axonometric view.

154

Ilya Golosov. Competition design for the Urals

House of Industry, Sverdlovsk, 1931. Perspective,

jj55_56 Zalesskaya, Korzhev, Lissitzky and
P-nkhorova.-Competition design for the House of
jndusti-y, Moscow, 1929-30. Model (1155). Plan
(1156).

1157 Silchenkov. Design for a House of Industry and

Trade, Vkhutein, Ladovsky's studio, 1928.
Axonometric view.
1158 Leonidov. Competition design for the House of
Industry, Moscow, 1929-30. Plan.

432
1162 Shchusev, The People's Commissariat for
Agriculture (Narkomzem) building, Moscow,
1929-33,
1163 Ivan Fomin, The headquarters o f t h e People's
Commissariat for Communications, Moscow, 1930,

1164 Meilman, Vladimir and Gennady Movchan,

and Chuenko, The A l l - U n i o n Electro-Technical
Association building, Moscow, 1929-30. (Photo
Chr. SchadUch)
1165 Viktor Vesnin. Bank, Ivanovo-Voznesensk,
1927-28.

433
Chapter 3/New types of buildings

zations and lower structures on a circular ground plan for specialized undertakings.
In general, research into the creadon of new types ot administrative and office buildings pursued two main aims: to
create favourable circumstances of work and leisure for those
employed there, such as special accommodation for rest, eadng
and social work; and to stress the democradc nature of Soviet
institutions both in the organization of interior space, in well-ht
passages, reception rooms, exhibitions in corridors etc, and i n
the exteriors ofthe buildings, so as to create an atmosphere favouring close contacts between visitors and those employed in
the various institutions concerned.
A large number of administrative and office buildings were
erected during the period under review. These often differed
sharply from each other, not only in their functional lay-out, but
also in their external appearance. Thus, for example, the People's Commissariat for Agriculture in Erevan was buht by Tamanyan in 1928 in the Neo-Armenian style, while its Moscow
equivalent, by Shchusev in 1929-33, was conceived in the spirit ofthe new architecture. The People's Commissariat for Com-

munications in Moscow of 1930, by Ivan Fomin, was a NeoClassicist building. There was an equally marked difference in
appearance between the virtually contemporaneous Neo-Renaissance Gosbank i n Moscow, by Zholtovsky in 1927-29, and
the Constructivist Bank in Ivanovo-Vosnesensk, by Viktor
Vesnin in 1927-28.
A competition was held in 1934 for the design of a headquarters for Narkomtyazhprom, the People's Commissariat for
Heavy Industry, which was the first of the industrial ministries. This was regarded as far more than an office building. I t
was to be a symbol ofthe country's successful industrialization,
and the proposed site for it was in Moscow's Red Square. This
competition could be said to have been the last creative contest
between the innovative architects - represented here by Alexander and Viktor Vesnin, Leonidov, Melnikov, Ginzburg and
Lisagor - and the traditionahsts, who now estabhshed themselves ever more firmly.
1 S. M . Kirov, Izbrannye stati i rechi [Selected Articles and Speeches) (Moscow, 1957),
pp. 150-52.

434

Workers' Clubs as centres of

a new socialist culture

Types of Workers' Clubs

From the very first years of Soviet power, a great deal of attendon had been devoted to the cultural dimension ofthe Revolution, which was seen as an integral component of the plan to
build socialism. The Workers' and Village Clubs - otherwise
known as 'People's Houses' - which sprang up in those early
days provided the main breeding ground for the dissemination
points ofthe new sociahst culture. These clubs ranked as outstandingly important centres for mass agitation, for the improvement of cultural standards among workers and for the organization of leisure throughout the population. The programme adopted by the V H I t h Party Congress in 1919 included the task of 'organizing the most fruitful possible network of People's Houses'.' No less than 7,000 People's Houses
- or clubs - came into being i n the first two years of Soviet rule.
The X H t h Party Congress stressed that clubs must become
'centres for mass propaganda and the development of creativity among the working class'.^ As Workers' Clubs proliferated
in former palaces and private residences, four distinct types developed from the very start, depending on the kind of community each of them was intended to serve. There were domestic ones,
hnked with Housing Communes; industrial ones, attached to
production plants; vocational ones, which were offshoots of trade
unions, and territorial clubs, run by district or city councils.
These last formed the most closely planned and numerically
important category. They originated from the design of communal cultural complexes such as the first Palaces of Labour
and Workers' Palaces. Typically, the competition specification
for the design of a Workers' Palace in Petrograd in 1919 stated
that this was 'a new requirement, first called into being by life
itself, for the creation of a district cultural educational centre'.
I t was to include a large hall for meetings and theatrical performances, accommodating 3,000-4,000 people, a small lecture
hah for 300, separate study areas, a two-year People's University course with a lecture hall seating 1,200 and lecture rooms
for 120 students each, an art school, a school of music, an educational cultural club comprising a hbrary, reading room and
scientific department, accommodation for leisure activities and
special interest groups, a hall for chamber music and amateur
dramatics, a self-service restaurant, a gymnasium, an open-air
stadium and the provision offieldsand courts for various sporting activities.

The specification for the first district clubs or People's

Houses was close to these Workers' Palace requirements. For
instance, the accommodation required at the Lenin House of
the People at Ivanovo-Voznesensk, for the design of which a
competition was held in 1924, comprised a theatre with 1,200
seats, an assembly hall for 400 people, a Lenin Museum, a central town library, a sports hall and club premises. Entries were
submitted by Grigory Barkhin, the Vesnins, Panteleimon Golosov and Parusnikov, Ilya Golosov, Rukhlyadev and Krinsky,
among others.
A series of competitions for the design of Workers' Clubs or
Palaces of Culture was held in 1924-25. Among the first to be
built v.'as the Moscow-Narva district House of Culture in Le- I
ningrad, by Gegeho and Krichevsky in 1925-27. I t included a
theatre and concert hah seating 1,900, cinema for 400, a library, a lecture room, several dozen rooms for club activides, a
sports hall etc. A h these were gathered into a compact symmetrical spatial composition.
The front elevation was made up of massive volumes aligned
along a smooth convex curve. A glass screen, divided at rhythmic intervals by mullions with a triangular section, provided
the centrepiece. This was fianked on either side by tall piers
housing the stairs, backed by neutrally conceived lateral blocks
with plain walls pierced by windows.
An Ah-Union Competition was held in 1927 for the design of
the House ofthe Worker in Kharkov, later built in accordance
with Dmitriev's plans, which had secured the first prize. This
building represented an elaborate cultural and educational
complex midway between the early conception ofthe Palace of
Labour and a district House of Culture. The central part ofthe
Palace's front elevation curved outwards. I t was generously
glazed, modulated by a fluted surface, and stood higher than
the lateral elements ofthe building which descended from the
centre in three separate steps.

Melnikov's clubs

Workers' Clubs serving the labour force of large industrial enterprises or the members of individual trade unions were much
in demand during the second half of the 1920s. Melnikov made
a major contribution to the planning ofthe buildings required
with designs for five such clubs built in Moscow - the Rusakov,

Gorky, Kauchuk, Frunze and Burevestnik Clubs at nearby Dulevo.

As an architect, he set great store by a functiona
al organization of the premises, but he nonethele
much trouble to produce an expressive exterior an
external composition ofthe building with the innov
ization ofits internal space. He was at pains to pn
greatest possible variety of uses of the building,
out a series of ingenious ways of transforming t]
putting them to a number of different purposes. I n
Club, for instance, each of the three balcony eh
their back rows suspended on projecting brack(
segregated from the rest ofthe main hall, which acc
a maximum audience of 1,500 people, thereby ti
into self-contained individual auditoria with a ca]
each. I n the Gorky Club, the hall could be divic
equal parts with a capacity of 500 people each,
movable partitions lodged in recesses in the side w;
ming pool was also designed under the floor of this ,i
not eventually built. The large viewing hah in the.
Club held tiers of seats along its sides, as well as in
use at sports events in the hall, which was lit fron'
stah seats were then removed and the hah was co:
the adjoining sports hah into a single interior unit
retractable partition. The semicircular, three-tien
Kauchuk Club was transformed into superimpo
means of a horizontal platform which could be rais
el of the first or second tier from the stalls, thereh
the upper from the lower part of the hah. The s
Club had a hah with 370 seats which could be
three longitudinal sections by partitions raised fro
the floor.

The imagination and inventiveness displayed

in composing these spatial organizations are also
The Rusakov Club has a trumpet-hke shape with 1
ing brackets. The Burevestnik Club represents ,
tower built on a cinquefoil ground plan. The Gorl
barrel-shaped auditorium wedged between two t
lar end blocks. The ground plan ofthe Kauchuli
sents a sector of a circle. The smaller Frunze Club
ing outline and its fagade overhangs an open terra
nikov's design for the Zuev Club, which was noi
consists of a number of intersecting vertical cylir

435

' Clubs as centres of

icialist culture

rs of Soviet power, a great deal of attento the cultural dimension of the Revolus an integral component of the plan to
/orkers' and Village Clubs - otherwise
luses' - which sprang up in those early
1 breeding ground for the disseminadon
hst culture. These clubs ranked as out;entres for mass agitadon, for the imtandards among workers and for the or:hroughout the populadon. The pro
le V l l l t h Party Congress in 1919 inanizing the most fruitful possible nets'.' No less than 7,000 People's Houses
eing in the first two years of Soviet rule,
jress stressed that clubs must become
^anda and the development of creativiJass'.^ As Workers' Clubs proliferated
dvate residences, four distinct types deart, depending on the kind of communiided to serve. There were domestic ones,
)mmunes; industrial ones, attached to
ional ones, which were offshoots of trade
;lubs, run by district or city councils.
most closely planned and numerically
ey originated from the design of comics such as the first Palaces of Labour
Ypically, the compeddon specificadon
ers' Palace in Petrograd in 1919 stated
uirement, first cahed into being by life
a district cultural educational centre',
hall for meetings and theatrical perfor5 3,000-4,000 people, a smah lecture
idy areas, a two-year People's Univer2 hall seadng 1,200 and lecture rooms
I art school, a school of music, an edumprising a library, reading room and
commodation for leisure activities and
I hall for chamber music and amateur
restaurant, a gymnasium, an open-air
n offieldsand courts for various sport-

Chapter 4/Workers' Clubs as centres of a new socialist culture

The specificadon for the first district clubs or People';

Houses was close to these Workers' Palace requirements. P q
mstance, the accommodadon required at the Lenin House o
the People at Ivanovo-Voznesensk, for the design of which i
compedtion was held in 1924, comprised a theatre with 1,201
seats, an assembly hall for 400 people, a Lenin Museum, a central town hbrary, a sports hall and club premises. Entries were
submitted by Grigory Barkhin, the Vesnins, Panteleimon Go>
losov and Parusnikov, Ilya Golosov, Rukhlyadev and Krinsky,
among others.
A series of competitions for the design of Workers' Clubs or
Palaces of Culture was held in 1924-25. Among the first to b |
built vv^as the Moscow-Narva district House of Culture in Leningrad, by Gegello and Krichevsky in 1925-27. I t included a
theatre and concert hall seating 1,900, cinema for 400, a library, a lecture room, several dozen rooms for club activities, a
sports hall etc. All these were gathered into a compact symmetrical spatial composition.
The front elevation was made up of massive volumes aligned
along a smooth convex curve. A glass screen, divided at rhythmic intervals by mulhons with a triangular section, provided
the centrepiece. This was flanked on either side by tah piers
housing the stairs, backed by neutrahy conceived lateral blocks
with plain walls pierced by windows.
An Ah-Union Competition was held in 1927 for the design of
the House ofthe Worker in Kharkov, later built in accordance
with Dmitriev's plans, which had secured the first prize. This
buflding represented an elaborate cultural and educadonal
complex midway between the early conception ofthe Palace of
Labour and a district House of Culture. The central part ofthe
Palace's front elevation curved outwards. I t was generously
glazed, modulated by a fluted surface, and stood higher than
the lateral elements of the buflding which descended from the
centre in three separate steps.

Melnikov's clubs

Workers' Clubs serving the labour force of large industrial enterprises or the members of individual trade unions were much
in demand during the second half of the 1920s. Melnikov made
a major contribution to the planning ofthe buildings required
with designs for flve such clubs built in Moscow - the Rusakov,

Gorky, Kauchuk, Frunze and Burevestnik Clubs - and for one

at nearby Dulevo.
As an architect, he set great store by a functional and rational organization of the premises, but he nonetheless also took
much trouble to produce an expressive exterior and to link the
external composition ofthe building with the innovative organization ofits internal space. He was at pains to provide for the
greatest possible variety of uses of the buflding, and worked
out a series of ingenious ways of transforming the halls and
putting them to a number of different purposes. I n the Rusakov
Club, for instance, each of the three balcony elements with
their back rows suspended on projecting brackets could be
segregated from the rest ofthe main hall, which accommodated
a maximum audience of 1,500 people, thereby turning them
into self-contained individual auditoria with a capacity of 180
each. I n the Gorky Club, the hall could be divided into two
equal parts with a capacity of 500 people each, by means of
movable partitions lodged in recesses in the side wahs. A swimming pool was also designed under the floor of this hah, but was
not eventually built. The large viewing hah in the Burevestnik
Club held tiers of seats along its sides, as well as in the stalls, for
use at sports events in the hah, which was lit from above. The
stall seats were then removed and the hall was combined with
the adjoining sports hah into a single interior unit by moving a
retractable partition. The semicircular, three-tiered hall ofthe
Kauchuk Club was transformed into superimposed units by
means of a horizontal platform which could be raised to the level ofthe first or second tier from the stalls, thereby separating
the upper from the lower part of the hah. The smah Frunze
Club had a hah with 370 seats which could be divided into
three longitudinal sections by partitions raised from recesses i n
the floor.
The imagination and inventiveness displayed by Melnikov
in composing these spatial organizations are also remarkable.
The Rusakov Club has a trumpet-like shape with three projecting brackets. The Burevestnik Club represents a four-storey
tower built on a cinquefoil ground plan. The Gorky Club has a
barrel-shaped auditorium wedged between two tall rectangular end blocks. The ground plan ofthe Kauchuk Club represents a sector of a circle. The smaher Frunze Club has a sweeping outline and its fagade overhangs an open terrace. And Melnikov's design for the Zuev Club, which was not carried out,
consists of a number of intersecting vertical cylinders.

The search for an aesthetic image of the Workers' Club

A number of different conceptions of the requisite image for a

Workers' Club were current during the 1920s.
Melnikov treated the club building as a single large volume
with a striking, usually symmetrical shape.
Ilya Golosov, on the other hand, did not try to collect the
various elements ofthe building into a unified and clearly outlined shape. He placed the main external accent ofthe building
on one or other of its component elements, deliberately designed on broad but simple lines, while scaling down and comphcating all the other components so as to subordinate them
visually to the main element. I n the Moscow Zuev Club, designed and built by him in 1927-28, the glazed cyhndrical
staircase cage intersects the horizontal parahelepiped formed
by the upper storey and thereby becomes the main element in a
complex and highly articulated composition. The means used
to single out one strongly designed component and subordinate
the remainder ofthe composition to it are even more explicit in
Ilya Golosov's design for a Palace of Culture in Stahngrad produced in conjunction with Mitelman in 1928. The huge windowless cyhnder ofthe main hah is contrasted with the rectangular volumes of various sizes and shapes which intersect it horizontally and vertically.
The followers ofthe Leningrad school of'Suprematist Constructivism' approached the image for a Workers' Club quite
differently. They constructed complex compositions consisting
of rectangular - usually flattened - volumes scored by horizontal runs of windows, often contrasted with the vertical rectangular mass of the theatre, as in Khidekel's designs for a
Workers' Club in 1926 and the Dubrovka power station club in
1930-31, as weh as designs emanating from Nikolsky's studio
in 1926-27.
Strict 'Functional Constructivists', on the other hand, preferred to use a pavilion lay-out in their designs for clubs, with
no special emphasis on any particular component. Andrei Burov, who designed a number of clubs for members of the food
industry trade unions in Moscow and Tver during 1927-28, introduced many novel features, such as complex compositions
in which the club and theatre were housed in separate, but interconnected blocks. Outwardly, Burov's clubs were characterized by a proliferation of galleries, balconies, loggias, openair terraces and pergolas.

Part Il/Social tasks of architecture

1166 Armchair for use in a club, 1920s.

The functional organization of interior space is even more

emphatically reflected in the exterior composition of dubs designed by Ginzburg and the Vesnins, such as the standard
Railwaymen's Clubs by Ginzburg in 1926, and the project by
Leomd Vesnin for the Textile Workers' Union in 1927 The
Workers' Clubs buflt in Baku and surrounding oil workers' settiements at the turn ofthe decade after designs by Alexander
and Leonid Vesnm adopted a pavihon lay-out. The individual
bufldings communicated with each other in accordance with
their functional role, and their outer appearance neatly reflected the proportions and shape ofthe individual interiors
The Vesnins, unlike Melnikov, made no attempt to impart a
well-defined and memorable image to club exteriors. Their designs were, on the contrary, asymmetrical and complex in composition, as though they were intent on fragmenting volumes
and shrinking their scale. This approach is well illustrated in
the House of the Association of Pre-Revolutionary Political Deportees, built in 1931-35 after their entry for a competition
which produced a number of other interesting designs, such as
those by Ilya Golosov, as wefl as Barshch, Vladimirov and
Zundblat. Mihutin's design in 1931 for a club and restaurant
laid out on a slope also conformed to Constructivist methods
and compositional concepts. Lamtsov, on the other hand, a
dedicated Rationalist, treated the same task quite differently in
1926 by desigmng a cyhndrical structure from which sectors
were shced out at various levels.

The large-scale club building programme

and attendant debates

The design and contruction of Workers' Clubs commissioned

by large industrial enterprises and craft trade unions got into
lull swing during the second half of the 1920s. These includedin Moscow, the Proletariat Metalworkers' Club, by Vladimirov in 1927-28; the Red Textde Workers' Club, by Rozanov in
1928; the Dzerzhinsky Building Workers' Club in 1928- later
the Rotfront Printing Workers' Club, by Pen in 1930; and the
Hammer and Sickle, by Mihnis in 1929-30; in Erevan the
Construction Workers' Club, by Alabyan, Kochar and Mazmanyan in 1929-31; i n Leningrad, the House of Culture ofthe
Leatherworkers' Union, by Mikhad Reizman i n 1929-31- in
Kramatorsk, the Workers' Theatre Club, by Dmitriev and

Grad in 1928-31; and in Kharkov, the Club ofthe Construe

don W^o^rkers' Union, by Malozemov, Milinis and Shteinberg
Work on the construction of clubs during the second half of
the 1920s greatly exceeded that involving other types of mass
cultural institutions, mainly because clubs had taken over and
incorporated the functions of a variety of educational estab
hshments and places of entertainment. The Workers' Club
started in early Soviet times as a centre for agitational and cui
tural educadonal work among the labouring masses. I t had
been an important instrument o f t h e cultural revolution and
the pohdcal education o f t h e workers, but by the end ofthe
1920s It had also accumulated a multiphcity of other funcdons
and organizadonal arrangements. The workers' developinginteflectual needs and the ever-growing complexity of urban life
outside working hours required a diversification of club functions. I f the entire range of needs arising among the members of
the pardcular mdustrial community that a club was intended
to serve was to be satisfied, the architect would have to provide
for every purpose in his design and introduce various methods
of transformmg the premises to meet the various needs Obviously, once the hmit of such adaptabflity had been reached,
any further extension o f t h e workers' interests could only bt
achieved by physically enlarging the premises. I n practice,
therefore, either the purposes to which a club could be put
would have to be restricted, or greater diversification would
have to be introduced and specialized accommodation made
available for general use, rather than for the benefit of a particular industrial community.
These contradictions - and many others - in the requirements set for Workers' Clubs came to hght when mass budding
work had already begun, during the second half of the 1920s.
An embittered debate broke out in periodicals in 1928 concerning the future of the Workers' Club which by then was undergoing a marked crisis of identity as a form of cultural workers'
orgamzadon. This further intensified arguments then current
about the architecture of the clubs. A series of suggestions
about design came up in discussion, such as those tabled by
Mihnis in 1928.
The difficulties experienced in setting requirements for new
types of pubhc buildings, such as clubs, also reflected more
general uncertainties affecting experimentation in the design of
socially innovative types of pubhc building and settiement. j

437
1167-70 Vinogradov. Furniture for peasant liouses armcliair and chairs, 1924.

of interior space is even more

;erior composition of clubs deesnins, such as the standard
rg in 1926, and the project by
A^orkers' Union in 1927. The
d surrounding oil workers' setde after designs by Alexander
ivilion lay-out. The individual
ach other in accordance with
Iter appearance neatly reflectthe individual interiors,
made no attempt to impart a
lge to club exteriors. Their deimetrical and complex in comtent on fragmenting volumes
approach is well illustrated in
e-Revolutionary Political Detheir entry for a competition
er interesting designs, such as
as Barshch, Vladimirov and
931 for a club and restaurant
ed to Gonstructivist methods
mtsov, on the other hand, a
; same task quite differently in
structure from which sectors

'orkers' Glubs commissioned

id craft trade unions got into
Dfthe 1920s. These included:
Iworkers' Glub, by Vladimi/orkers' Glub, by Rozanov in
Yorkers' Glub in 1928; later,
lub, by Pen in 1930; and the
in 1929-30; in Erevan, the
Alabyan, Kochar and Maz1, the House of Gulture of the
lah Reizman in 1929-31; in
tre Glub, by Dmitriev and

Grad in 1928-31; and in Kharkov, the Glub ofthe Gonstrucdon Workers' Union, by Malozemov, Mihnis and Shteinbere
in 1927-28.
Work on the construction of clubs during the second half of
the 1920s greatly exceeded that involving other types of mass I
cultural institutions, mainly because clubs had taken over and
incorporated the functions of a variety of educational estabB
hshments and places of entertainment. The Workers' Club I
started i n early Soviet times as a centre for agitational and cui-1
tural educational work among the labouring masses. I t had I
been an important instrument of the cultural revolution and I
the pohtical education of the workers, but by the end of the
1920s it had also accumulated a multiphcity of other funcdons
and organizational arrangements. The workers' developing intellectual needs and the ever-growing complexity of urban life
outside working hours required a diversification of club fundB
tions. I f the entire range of needs arising among the members of I
the particular industrial community that a club was intended
to serve was to be satisfied, the architect would have to provide '
for every purpose in his design and introduce various methods
of transforming the premises to meet the various needs. Obviously, once the hmit of such adaptabdity had been reached,
any further extension of the workers' interests could only be
achieved by physically enlarging the premises. I n pracdce,
therefore, either the purposes to which a club could be put
would have to be restricted, or greater diversification would |
have to be introduced and speciahzed accommodation made
avadable for general use, rather than for the benefit of a particular industrial community.
These contradictions - and many others - in the requirements set for Workers' Glubs came to light when mass building
work had already begun, during the second half of the 1920s.
A n embittered debate broke out in periodicals in 1928 concerning the future of the Workers' Glub which by then was undergoing a marked crisis of identity as a form of cultural workers'
organization. This further intensified arguments then current
about the architecture of the clubs. A series of suggestions
about design came up in discussion, such as those tabled by
Mihnis in 1928.
The difficulties experienced in setting requirements for new
types of public buildings, such as clubs, also reffected more
general uncertainties affecting experimentation in the design of
socially innovative types of pubhc building and settiement.

438
1171-73 Belogrud, Gompetition design for the Lenin
House of the People, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, 1925.
Elevation (1171). Plans of ground and first floors
(1172-73).

1174-75 Gegello and Krichevsky. The House of

Culture, Moscow-Narva District, Leningrad, 1925-27.
General'view (1174). Plan (1175).
1176 Trotsky. Competition design for the House of
Culture, Moscow-Narva District, Leningrad, 1924.
Perspective.

!
4

9 f

1 i I I I

- the Lenin
1925.
[loors

439
1174-75 Gegello and Krichevsky. The House of
nuZe
Moscow-Narva District, Leningrad, 1925-27.
Sneralview (1174). Plan (1175).
176 Trotsky. Gompetition design for the House ot
Culture, Moscow-Narva District, Leningrad, 1924.
Perspective.

1177-78 Dmhriev. The Palace of Workers, Kharkov,

1927-32. General view (1177). Plan of ground floor
(1178).

1179-80 Melnikov. Design for the Gorky Glub,

Moscow, 1927. Elevation (1179). Sections and general
lay-out (1180).

1181-82 Melnikov. The Gorky Club, Moscow.

Detail (1181). Interior of hah (1182).

1185-87 Melnikov, Design for the ICauchuk Club,

Moscow. Elevation (1185), Plans (1186-87).

9 Melnikov. The Kauchuk Club, Moscow.

Genet-alview (1188). Detail (1189).

'443
or the Kauchuk Chib,
,ns (1186-87).

t
1

89
e,;?view

i
i

I
i

Melnikov. The Kauchuk Club, Moscow.

(1188). Detail (1189).

193-95 Design for tlie Dulevo Club. Elevation

(1193). Plans of ground (1194) and first (1195) floors.
1196 Melnikov. Compeddon design for the Zuev
Club, 1927. Secdon.

1197 Melnikov. Compeddon design for the Zuev

Club, Moscow, 1927. Plan.

446
11981201 Ilya Golosov. Competition design for the
Zuev Glub, Moscow. Perspective (1198). Plan (1199).
Detail (1200) and general view (1201) ofthe completed
building.

447

-^r^Tn^^GoZZyZ^

The Palace of
S f a l L r a d , 1928. Perspective (1202). Plan

iesign for the

Plan (1199).
he completed

IT
ii

5 ^

t r r t T T ' j

1205-06 Khidekel. Design for the Dubrovsk Power

Station club, 1930-31. Perspective (1205). Model
(1206).
1207-08 Nikolsky, Beldovsky, V l a d i m i r Galperin
and Alexander Krestin. Design for a club with a hall for
500 spectators, 1926. Elevations, plans (1207). Model
(1208).

1 -

Jl
ill

rF
1

IL+J
L1

.1

-|

448
1209-10 Ginzburg. Competition design for a
standard railwaymen's club with 1,500 members, 1926.
Perspective (1209). Plan (1210).
1211 Andrei Burov. Design for a club, 1927.
Axonometric view.

1212-13 Andrei Burov. Design for the Club o f t h e

Union of Food Industry Workers, Moscow, 1928.
Perspecdve (1212). Axonometric view (1213).

1214 Vesnin brothers. The House o f t h e Association

Pre-Revolutionary Political Deportees, 1930-32.
1215 Ilya Golosov. Competition design.for the House of
the Association of Pre-Revolutionary Political
Deportees, Moscow, 1930. Model.
1216 Barshch, Vladimirov, Zundblat. Competition
design for the House of the Association of Pre-Revolutionary
Political Deportees, Moscow, 1930. Axonometric view.

448
1209-10 Ginzburg. Competition design for a
standard railwayman's club witli 1,500 members, 1926.
Perspective (1209). Plan (1210).
1211 Andrei Burov. Design for a d u b , 1927.
Axonometric view.

1212-13 Andrei Burov. Design for tlie Club o f t h e

Union of Food Industry Workers, Moscow, 1928.
Perspective (1212). Axonometric view (1213).

1214 Vesnin brothers. The House o f t h e Association

uf Pre-Revolutionary Political Deportees, 1930-32.
1215 Ilya Golosov. Competition design ,for the House of
the Association of Pre-Revolutionary Political
Deportees, Moscow, 1930. Model.
1216 Barshch, Vladimirov, Zundblat. Compedtion
design for the House of the Association of Pre-Revolutionary
Political Deportees, Moscow, 1930. Axonometric view.

1212-13 Andrei Burov. Design for tire Club ofthe

Union of Food Industry Workers, iV'Ioscow, 1928.
Perspecdve (1212). Axonometric view (1213).

1914 Vesnin brothers. The House o f t h e Association

f Pre-Revolutionary Political Deportees, 1930-32.
1215 Ilya Golosov. Competition design for the House of
he Association of Pre-Revolutionary Political
Deportees, Moscow, 1930. Model.
1216 Barshch, Vladimirov, Zundblat. Competition
I, for the House o f t h e Association of Pre-Revolutionary
Political Deportees, Moscow, 1930. Axonometric view.

1217 M i h u t i n . Design for a club and restaurant built

on sloping ground, 1931. Perspective.
1218 Lamtsov. Design for a club and restaurant,
Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio, 1926. Axonometric
view.
1219 Design for a village club, Vkhutein, Lissitzky's
studio. Model.

450
1220 Vladimirov. The Proletariat Club, Moscow,
1927-28.
1221 Gurev-Gurevich. Competition design for the
Metalworkers' Palace of Culture, Bezhitsa, near
Bryansk, 1927. Perspective.
1222 Mihnis. Design for the Hammer and Sickle
(Serp i Molot) Club, Moscow, 1929. Axonometric

1223-24 Mihnis. The Hammer and Sickle Club,

Moscow, 1929-33. General view (1223). Foypr
(1224).

-;;;r7^^M7mov,

MlUnis and Shteinberg.

w the Club o f t h e Union of Building Workers,
^ r l v 1927. Perspective (1225). View of completed
b u M n g : i 9 ^ 7 - 2 8 (1226).

451
1223-24 Milinis. The Hammer and Sickle Club,
Moscow, 1929-33. General view (1223) Foyer
(1224).

1925-26 Malozemov, Mihnis and Shteinberg.

for the Club of the Union of Building Workers,
^ r ^ k o v 1927 Perspective (1225). View of completed
b u i l d W 1927-28 (1226).

1227 Dmitriev and Grad. The Workers' Theatre

Club, Kramatorsk, 1928-31.
1228-29 Milinis. Design for the Building Workers'
Club, Vkhutein, Alexander Vesnin's studio, 1928.
Axonometric view (1228). First-floor plan (1229).

1232-33 Leonidov. Experimental design, Variant A ,

for a ' C l u b ofa New Social Type', 1928. First-fl oor plan.
Model (1232). Elevation (1233).

. Leonidov. Experimental design. Variant A, for

^'Club o f a New Social Type', 1928. Ground-floor

1235-36 Leonidov. Experimental design, Variant B,

for a 'Club o f a New Social Type', 1928. Ground-floor
plan (1235). First-floor plan, elevation (1236).

454
1237 A R U team comprising Krutilcov, Vitaly Lavrov,
Sergei Lopatin and Valentin Popov. Competition
design for the Proletarsky District Palace of Culture,
Moscow, 1930. Model.
1238 Leonidov. Competition design for the
Proletarsky District Palace of Culture, Moscow, 1930.
General elevation and plan.

,239-40 Leonidov. Competition design for the

letarsky District Palace of Culture, Moscow,
Sports area: elevation (1239). Plan (1240).

456
124344 Vesnin brotiiers. Design for the Proletarsliy
District Palace of Culture, Moscow, 1931. Model of
general lay-out (1243). Completed buildings: smah
theatre and club, 1931-37; elevation (1244).

1245 Vesnin brothers. The Proletarsky District

Palace of Culture, Moscow, 1931-37. Small theatre:
vestibule.
1246 Kornfeld. The Gorbunov Palace of Culture,
Moscow, 1930.

jVlany f a c t o r s w e r e a t w o r k . T h e s e i n c l u d e d a r a d i c a l c h a n g e
i n the n a t u r e o f s o c i a l d e m a n d , as p a r t o f t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a
new society; t h e u n s o l v e d p r o b l e m s o f s o c i a l i s t s e t t l e m e n t a n d
a new w a y o f life; the c o n f l i c t between various theoretical conceptions - a n d a t t e n d a n t m o d e l s o f s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n - o f u r ban life i n the f u t u r e . A l l this l e f t its m a r k o n the d e v e l o p m e n t o f
new types o f b u i l d i n g a n d , i n p a r t i c u l a r , b r o u g h t u n d u e a t t e n tion to questions o f 'social contacts' o u t o f w o r k i n g hours. I t
was t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o c o h e c t i v i z e b o t h c o n s u m p t i o n

and

leisure t h a t c a u s e d t h e c r e a t i o n o f s u c h n e w b u i l d i n g t y p e s d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d as H o u s i n g C o m m u n e s , c l u b s f o r w o r k e r s , m a s s
kitchens, m a s s t h e a t r e s , a n d p u b l i c b a t h s . T h e m a x i m a h s t demand for the c o l l e c t i v i z a t i o n o f every w o r k e r ' s entire leisure
t i m e , i m p l i c i t t o a g r e a t e r o r lesser e x t e n t i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s
for a h s u c h b u i l d i n g s , p l a y e d a p a r t i n p l u n g i n g a r c h i t e c t u r e i n to a state o f c r i s i s t o w a r d s t h e e n d o f t h i s p e r i o d .
Serious c o n t r a d i c t i o n s b e g a n t o e m e r g e b e t w e e n - t h e demands p u t t o t h e a r c h i t e c t a n d t h e a c t u a l , r a p i d l y c h a n g i n g l i v ing conditions. T h i s was m o s t l y the result o f a certain disregard
in experimental w o r k d u r i n g the

1920s o f t h e f a c t t h a t

the

worker - a n d his r e q u i r e m e n t s - h a d s w i t c h e d i n the briefest

possible i n t e r v a l o f t i m e f r o m t h e o l d c a p i t a l i s t

circumstances

to the n e w s o c i a h s t ones. N e w needs c o n s t a n t l y arose, a n d

m a n y designs w h i c h t h e i r a u t h o r s h a d r e g a r d e d as p o i n t e r s t o
the f u t u r e w e r e r a p i d l y p u t o u t o f d a t e f o r m o d e r n p u r p o s e s ,
despite t h e g e n u i n e v i r t u o s i t y o f t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l a n d a r t i s t i c
treatment. T h i s represents one o f the essential

contradictions

in Soviet a r c h i t e c t u r e d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d w h e n i t w a s b e c o m i n g
established.
Leonidov's designs w e r e o f special interest i n this context,
because d e s i g n i n g f o r t h e f u t u r e i n h i s t e r m s w a s n o t m e r e l y a
matter o f b o l d l y t a c k h n g f u n c t i o n a l a n d technical

problems

b u t , first a n d f o r e m o s t , o f p r o v i d i n g f o r c h a n g i n g h u m a n needs.

Leonidov's clubs

In

1926, L e o n i d o v h a d

s u b m i t t e d c o m p e t i t i o n designs f o r

standard W o r k e r s ' C l u b b u i l d i n g s to a c c o m m o d a t e

500 a n d

1,000 people, w h i c h d i f f e r e d h t t l e i n t h e d i s p o s i t i o n a n d a h o c a tion o f their premises, t h e i r l a y - o u t a n d spatial c o m p o s i t i o n ,

f r o m w h a t was c u s t o m a r y at t h a t t i m e .
%

1928, h o w e v e r , w h e n a l i v e l y d e b a t e d e v e l o p e d a b o u t t h e /

458
Part Il/Social tasks of architectu

Design of new pul

problems posed b
mass spectacle
and scientific disF
suggested a stylistic l i n k w i t h the o l d m o n a s t e r y , w h i l e those o f
A R U , c o m p r i s i n g K r u t i k o v , V i t a l y L a v r o v , Sergei L o p a t i n a n d
Valentin Popov; o f Asnova, w i t h Bykova, Korzhev, A n d r e i
K o r o b o v , Spassky a n d T u r k u s ; a n d o f V o p r a , w i t h S i m b i r t s e v
and Alexander Mashinsky, ah offered a modern treatment.

T h e design

finahy

a d o p t e d f o r t h e P r o l e t a r s k y D i s t r i c t Pa

ed o f t h r e e m a i n b l o c k s , o n e f o r c l u b p u r p o s e s , t h e o t h e r tvvo
s e r v i n g as t h e a t r e s , o f w h i c h o n e w a s s m a l l a n d c a l c u l a t e d for
a n a u d i e n c e o f 1,000 s p e c t a t o r s , w h f l e t h e o t h e r - w h i c h was

L e o n i d o v ' s design, o n b e h a l f o f Osa, attracted the greatest

a t t e n t i o n , a l t h o u g h he h a d substantially departed f r o m the
s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d c o n d i t i o n s . H e u s e d a l a r g e site o n w h i c h h e
proposed

t o c r e a t e a c u l t u r a l c o m p l e x f o r m i n g a n oasis o f

greenery a m i d t h r o b b i n g m o d e r n u r b a n life and, shielded f r o m

Its h u b b u b , w h e r e o n e m i g h t find s p i r i t u a l r e l a x a t i o n a f t e r a
day at w o r k .

n e v e r b u i l t - w a s t o h a v e h e l d 4 , 0 0 0 . T h e c l u b b l o c k w a s built
o n a T - s h a p e d g r o u n d p l a n , w i t h a n a u d i t o r i u m , h b r a r y , win
t e r g a r d e n , o b s e r v a t o r y , r e s t a u r a n t etc. A t

first-floor

level, the

c l u b b l o c k c o m m u n i c a t e d w i t h t h e s m a l l t h e a t r e ' s foyer, ]ij

f r o m t w o sides b y a b a y w i n d o w , t h r o u g h t h e e x h i b i t i o n hall
also l i t f r o m b o t h sides, a n d l e d i n t o a w i n t e r g a r d e n projecting
o n a s e m i c i r c u l a r p l a n o v e r t h e steep b a n k o f t h e M o s c o w River

T h e w i d e area o c c u p i e d b y the Palace o f C u l t u r e was d i -

T h e d e s i g n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f P a l a c e s o f C u l t u r e speeded

v i d e d i n t o f o u r s q u a r e sectors - o n e r e s e r v e d f o r s c i e n t i f i c r e -

u p c o n s i d e r a b l y i n t h e e a r l y 1930s. G r a n d i o s e c u l t u r a l com-

search, a n o t h e r f o r g r o u p activities, the t h i r d f o r p h y s i c a l c u l -

plexes w e r e p l a n n e d , a m o n g others, at V o r o n e z h , b y Kornfeld

ture a n d the f o u r t h f o r staging demonstrations. E a c h

sector

Z a l t s m a n a n d P a v e l B l o k h i n ; a t Z l a t o u s t , b y A r k a d y Arkin

h a d a l a y - o u t a n d m a i n b u i l d i n g o f its o w n : an extended three-

a n d M a s h i n s k y ; a n d a t S a m a r a , b y A r k i n . T h e r e w a s the Vasi-

storey b u i l d i n g i n the scientific research sector; a p y r a m i d -

l y O s t r o v P a l a c e o f C u l t u r e i n L e n i n g r a d , b y T r o t s k y a n d So-

s h a p e d g y m n a s i u m , flooded w i t h l i g h t f r o m a b o v e , i n t h e p h y s -

l o m o n K o z a k , a n d t h e G o r b u n o v P a l a c e o f C u l t u r e i n Moscow,

ical t r a i n i n g centre; a n d an afl-purpose a u d i t o r i u m on a circu-

b y K o r n f e l d . M a n y o f t h e designs p r o d u c e d at t h a t time w e r l

l a r g r o u n d p l a n r o o f e d b y a h e m i s p h e r i c a l glass d o m e , f o r

c a r r i e d o u t , b u t a s i g n i f i c a n t n u m b e r o f t h e m w e r e either

g r o u p a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s a u d i t o r i u m c o u l d be s p h t u p i n t o i n d i v i d -

' b e a u t i f i e d ' as a r e s u l t o f t h e r e o r i e n t a t i o n o f S o v i e t architec-

u a l s e c t i o n s a n d t h e seats r o t a t e d o r , i f so r e q u i r e d , s u n k i n t o

t u r e t h e n i n p r o g r e s s , o r , i f t h e y h a d b e e n d e s i g n e d i n a moder-

the

n i s t s p i r i t , s i m p l y p u t aside.

floor,

so as t o c l e a r t h e e n t i r e a r e a . S e v e r a l s t a g e a p r o n s

c o u l d be r a i s e d f r o m a c i r c u l a r p i t l o c a t e d a t t h e c e n t r e o f t h e

revolutionary feeling a n d

unprecec

workers, a c o m p l e x r e v o l u t i o n a r y p i
alteration o f m a n y t r a d i t i o n a l f o r m s
tion o f n e w p r i n c i p l e s o f mass a c t i o n
kinds o f mass spectacle,

theatre a

Mass spectacles s t a g e d i n c o n n e c t i o
popular celebrations h a d an impc

w o r k e r s ' l i v e s a m o n g s t t h e m a n y f(|
Mass a c t i v i t i e s -

c e r e m o n i a l mee^

dons, m a n i f e s t a t i o n s a n d o p e n - a i r f
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s o f t h e n e w so
set a course f o r c r e a t i v e e x p e r i m e n t ;
tre a n d i n t h e d e s i g n o f n e w b u i l d i i
T h e d i v e r s i t y a n d c o n s t a n t l y ch;
acitivities s p o n t a n e o u s l y

generatec

the c r e a t i o n o f a p h y s i c a l f r a m e w o i
t r u m s w e r e set u p i n t h e s q u a r e s >
g r o u n d s c r e a t e d f o r f u n e r a l process]'
assemblies a n d m e e t i n g s , a r r a n g e r
open i n t o t h e s t r e e t so t h a t c o l u m
m a r c h t h r o u g h t h e m , a n d so o n .

w o r k f o r t h e n e w f o r m s o f m a s s acti^

t r u m o r a p l a t f o r m . L e o n i d o v ' s e n t r y set off" a n a n i m a t e d de-

t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t o f S o v i e t a r c h i t e c t u r e as a w h o l e .

I n the e a r l y d a y s o f t h e S o v i e t r e g i r

O n e o f t h e first a t t e m p t s t o d e v e

h a l l a n d m o v e d t o a n y p a r t o f i t , so as t o p r o v i d e e i t h e r a ros-

bate e m b r a c i n g n o t only problems o f club design, b u t the f u -

New types of mass spectacle

l a c e o f C u l t u r e w a s p r o v i d e d b y t h e V e s n i n s i n 1 9 3 1 . I t consist"

1 KPSS v rezolyutsiyakh i resheniyakh s'ezdov, konferenlsn i plemmov TsK {The Communist

Party ofthe Soviet Union in the Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences andPlemm
oJ the Central Committee), Part I , Gospolitizdat (Moscow, 1954), p. 452
2 Ibid., p. 731.

s k u l p t a r k h i n 1919 o f a T e m p l e o f
tions. T h i s w a s d e s i g n e d as a g r a n
f o r m f o r ' e v e n t s ' , o r as a n a s s e m b l y
a p l a t f o r m stage, o r as a n o p e n - a i r c
ings, flanked b y a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l .
Mass staged spectacles to celebr

versary o f t h e O c t o b e r R e v o l u t i o n 1
the m o s t s p l e n d i d o f t h e m w a s t o be
dynskoe F i e l d i n h o n o u r o f t h e T h i
t e r n i n 1 9 2 1 . T h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f th(
b y M e y e r h o l d as stage d i r e c t o r . A h
a n d P o p o v a as p a i n t e r . E l a b o r a t e
tions w e r e p r e p a r e d a n d a g i t a t i o n s
at v a r i o u s h e i g h t s f r o m b a h o o n s .
M a s s events aXso l e f t t h e i r m a r k
rectors a n d d e s i g n e r s t r i e d t o n a n
a n d s p e c t a t o r b y r e m o v i n g t h e set

459

Design of new public arenas:

problems posed by Agit Art,
mass spectacle
and scientific displays

hitecture

p a r t i n g t o i t a t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l f u n c t i o n o f i t s o w n , so t h a t i t

'X

,c l i n k w i t h t h e o l d m o n a s t e r y , w h i l e t h o s e o f
K r u t i k o v , V i t a l y L a v r o v , Sergei L o p a t i n a n d
of Asnova, w i t h Bykova, K o r z h e v , A n d r e i
;Ld T u r k s s ; a n d o f V o p r a , w i t h Simbirtsev
[ a s h i n s k y , aU o f f e r e d a m o d e r n t r e a t m e n t .
;
t o n b e h a l f o f O s a , a t t r a c t e d t h e greates^
I

he h a d s u b s t a n t i a l l y d e p a r t e d f r o m the

New types of mass spectacle

The design finally adopted for the Proletarsky Distriet Pa.

The design mia y
, y
isi 1931. I t consist,
laee ofCnlture was provided by * V^^^^ ^^^
^^^^^
ed of three mam bloek^ ne for ein p P
^^^^^^^^^

d i e n c e c o u l d t h u s b e p l a c e d a l l r o u n d t h e stage, a n d t h e e n t i r e
Tn the e a r l y d a y s o f t h e S o v i e t r e g i m e , a m i d s t a g r e a t s u r g e o f
evolutionary feehng a n d unprecedented activity a m o n g the

^^'^^'^J^^'^Z.
''^JJ''
^"^ZTJ^

workers a c o m p l e x r e v o l u t i o n a r y p r o c e s s l e d t o t h e r e j e c t i o n o r

.erving as
whde the other - whieh .
alteration o f m a n y t r a d i t i o n a l f o r m s o f spectacle, the i n a u g u r a an andienee of
^he elnb bloek was bail,
t i o n o f n e w p r i n c i p l e s o f m a s s a c t i o n a n d t h e e m e r g e n c e o f fresh
never bnilt - was
an anditorinm, library, wi..
kinds o f mass s p e c t a c l e , t h e a t r e a n d v a r i e t y p e r f o r m a n c e s ^
on a T-shaped gronnd P'".
,evel, ,1,
Mass spectacles s t a g e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h p u b h c h o h d a y s a n d
.ergarden.observatry resn an etc^^^^
^,

i c o n d i t i o n s . H e u s e d a l a r g e site o n w h i c h h e
, t e a c u l t u r a l c o m p l e x f o r m i n g a n oasis ot
obbingldernurbanlifeand,s
r e o n e m i g h t find s p i r i t u a l r e l a x a t i o n a f t e r a

a o c c u p i e d b y the Palace o f C u l t u r e was d i .quare s e c t o r s - o n e reserved f o r scientific refor group activities, the t h i r d for physical cull ^ o r staging d e m o n s t r a t i o n s . E a c h sector

elnb block " ' " " " " ' ' " ' ' . " " V t h r n n g h the exhibition h.11,
also h t from b o t h sides, a n a

M o s c o w River,

ium

flooded

w i t h l i g h t from a b o v e , m t h e p h y s -

^^^^'^^.Z

a / r i r e f a b l y in the
plexes ere planned among o bers^at V

; T h i s a u d i t o r i u m c o u l d be spht u p m t o m d i v i d t h e seats r o t a t e d o r , i f so r e q u i r e d , s u n k i n t o

the

Zaltsman and Pavel Bl^^hm at Zla.onst y

and Mashinsky; and at Samara by Arkin. i n

y^

Mass a c t i v i t i e s -

ceremonial meetings, festival

demonstra-

characteristic features o f the n e w society, w h i c h i n m a n y w a y s

set a course f o r c r e a t i v e e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n , b o t h w i t h i n t h e t h e a -

^.TorS^C'^e-gnsprodn^^^^^^^^^
carried ont, bnt a

- " X t

ritrp;;:::^!;^^^^^^^
nist spird, simply put aside.

to clear the entire area. Several stage a p r o n

f r o m a circular p i t located at t h e centre o f the
d t a n y p a r t o f i t , so as t o p r o v i d e e i t h e r a r o s -

it

^ s l i e t archil

acitivities s p o n t a n e o u s l y g e n e r a t e d b y t h e w o r k e r s r e q m r e d
framework

f o r t h e m : speakers

ros-

t r u m s w e r e set u p i n t h e s q u a r e s a n d streets o f c i t i e s , b a c k grounds c r e a t e d f o r f u n e r a l p r o c e s s i o n s , v a s t h a l l s d e s i g n e d f o r

assembhes a n d m e e t i n g s , a r r a n g e m e n t s m a d e f o r t h e a t r e s t o
open i n t o t h e street so t h a t c o l u m n s o f d e m o n s t r a t o r s

could

m a r c h t h r o u g h t h e m , a n d so o n .
O n e o f t h e first a t t e m p t s t o d e v e l o p a n a r c h i t e c t u r a l

s k u l p t a r k h i n 1919 o f a T e m p l e o f C o m m u n i o n B e t w e e n N a flons. T h i s w a s d e s i g n e d as a g r a n d i o s e b u i l d i n g w i t h a p l a t -

, e n t o f S o v i e t a r c h i t e c t u r e as a w h o l e .

A l e x a n d e r V e s n i n , V i k t o r Shestakov a n d others.
T h i s a u t o n o m y o f t h e stage set, e n a b l i n g i t t o b e v i e w e d f r o m
a h sides a n d t o b e e r e c t e d i n a f l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , e v e n m

the

o p e n , e s p e c i a l l y w h e n t h e c o m p a n y w a s o n t o u r , w a s t h e n seen
n o t m e r e l y as a n e w a p p r o a c h t o s t a g e p r e s e n t a t i o n , b u t as a
m e a n s o f d e m o c r a t i z i n g t h e t h e a t r e a n d b r i n g i n g i t closer t o a
mass audience.
T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m o b i l e vehicles o f p r o p a g a n d a was a
m a t t e r o f special concern i n early Soviet days, w h e n A g i t trains
a n d b o a t s w e r e m u c h i n use. L a r g e t h e a t r e s w e r e fitted o u t i n -

w e r e also m o t o r i z e d A g i t t h e a t r e s , s u c h as t h e m o b f l e m o d e l
c r e a t e d b y B a b i c h e v i n 1922, w i t h a s e c t i o n a l f a c t o r y - m a d e
m e t a l f r a m e w h i c h c o u l d be assembled i n a c o u p l e o f h o u r s m a
s q u a r e , o r e v e n a field. T h i s s t r u c t u r e w a s i n t e n d e d f o r t h e a t r i c a l a n d v a r i e t y p e r f o r m a n c e s , b u t c o u l d also b e c o n v e r t e d i n t o
a circus r i n g , a sports c o u r t , a c i n e m a , a lecture r o s t r u m or a
s m a l l p l a t f o r m s u i t a b l e f o r d e b a t e s etc.
Soon after the Revolution, a large n e t w o r k o f amateur Prolet a r i a n Theatres developed w i t h i n the P r o l e t k u l t system, to coun-

frame-

work f o r the n e w f o r m s o f mass a c t i v i t y was the design i n Z h i v -

1 m . L e o n i d o v ' s e n t r y set o f f a n a n i m a t e d d e ;g n o t o n l y p r o b l e m s of c l u b design b u t the f u -

a n y s t a g e a t a l l , as i n t h e C o n s t m c t i v i s t d e s i g n s o f P o p o v a ,

side s p e c i a l A g i t b a r g e s , as i n O s i p o v ' s d e s i g n o f 1 9 2 1 . T h e r e

T h e diversity a n d constantly c h a n g i n g p a t t e r n o f t h e mass

the c r e a t i o n o f a p h y s i c a l

" ^ n d l h e r ; " ^ ^ ^

p e r f o r m a n c e c o u l d even be r e m o v e d i n t o the o p e n air w i t h o u t

workers' lives a m o n g s t the m a n y f o r m s o f p o h t i c a l a g i t a t i o n .

tre a n d i n t h e d e s i g n o f n e w b u i l d i n g s f o r i t .

.tre;' a n d an aU-purpose a u d i t o r i u m o n a circun r o o f e d b y a h e m i s p h e r i c a l glass d o m e , f o r

popular celebrations h a d a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t to p l a y m

tions m a n i f e s t a t i o n s a n d o p e n - a i r f e s t i v a l s - w e r e r e g a r d e d as

.d m a i n b u i l d i n g o f its o w n : a n extended three

, n the s c i e n t i f i c research sector; a p y r a m i d -

b e c a m e 'a m a c h i n e t o o l ' f o r the artist's p e r f o r m a n c e . T h e a u -

terbalance the ' o l d ' professional theatres, o f t e n t h o u g h t o f then

as s p e c i a l l y s e r v i n g t h e d i s p l a c e d f o r m e r r u l i n g classes. T h e
w o r k e r s also c o u n t e r e d t r a d i t i o n a l v a r i e t y p e r f o r m a n c e s w i t h
the n e w f o r m o f show p r o v i d e d b y the B l u e Blouse A g i t teams.

f o r m f o r ' e v e n t s ' , o r as a n a s s e m b l y o f s t r u c t u r e s p r o v i d e d w i t h
2 Ibid., p. 731.

a p l a t f o r m stage, o r as a n o p e n - a i r c o u r t l a i d o u t f o r l a r g e m e e t ings, flanked b y a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l , e n c l o s e d h a h .

Meyerhold: development of the mass action theatre

Mass staged spectacles t o c e l e b r a t e M a y D a y a n d t h e a n n i versary o f t h e O c t o b e r R e v o l u t i o n b e c a m e w i d e s p r e a d . O n e o f

the m o s t s p l e n d i d o f t h e m w a s t o be t h e c e l e b r a t i o n o n t h e K h o dynskoe F i e l d i n h o n o u r o f t h e T h i r d C o n g r e s s o f t h e C o m i n t e r n i n 1921. T h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e e v e n t w a s a r r a n g e d j o i n t l y
by M e y e r h o l d as stage d i r e c t o r , A l e x a n d e r V e s n i n as a r c h i t e c t
a n d P o p o v a as p a i n t e r . E l a b o r a t e t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l d e c o r a tions w e r e p r e p a r e d a n d a g i t a t i o n a l p l a c a r d s w e r e s u s p e n d e d
at v a r i o u s h e i g h t s f r o m b a l l o o n s .
M a s s events ^Iso l e f t t h e i r m a r k o n stage p r e s e n t a t i o n . D i rectors a n d designers t r i e d t o n a r r o w t h e g a p b e t w e e n a c t o r
and spectator b y r e m o v i n g t h e set f r o m t h e b o x stage a n d i m -

T h e P r o l e t a r i a n T h e a t r e s , w h i c h m a i n l y u s e d Palaces o f L a bour a n d W o r k e r s ' Clubs, influenced the lay-out o f t h e auditor i a i n such b u i l d i n g s . Social segregation i n t o stafls, boxes, circles, t i e r s a n d g a f l e r i e s , so c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e p a s t , w a s d o n e
a w a y w i t h , a n d t h e r e w a s n o d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n t h e s e a t i n g arrangements

provided i n the new k i n d o f hall.

Performances

w e r e n o l o n g e r a d d r e s s e d t o a n e h t e a u d i e n c e , as m t h e p a s t ,
b u t t o a b r o a d l a y e r o f t h e w o r k i n g p o p u l a t i o n . H e n c e t h e req u i r e m e n t for hafls a c c o m m o d a t i n g very large n u m b e r s of
spectators.

460
Part Il/Social tasks ofarchitecture

T h e n e e d f o r close c o n t a c t b e t w e e n t h e a u d i e n c e o f w o r k e r s
a n d the a m a t e u r actors i n the P r o l e t a r i a n Theatres or

the

m e m b e r s o f t h e B l u e B l o u s e t e a m s , as w e l l as a w i s h f o r a u -

w i t h M a y a k o v s k y , created a n e w f o r m o f A g i t spectacle which

t r a n s f o r m e d a t h e a t r i c a l p e r f o r m a n c e i n t o a p o l i t i c a l statement.

d i e n c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n , set a n e w s t a n d a r d f o r ease o f m u t u a l ac-

T h i s a p p r o a c h t o a t h e a t r i c a l p e r f o r m a n c e as a m a s s event

cess a n d closer p h y s i c a l p r o x i m i t y b e t w e e n s p e c t a t o r s a n d p e r -

posed n e w p r o b l e m s i n the spatial o r g a n i z a d o n o f productions

f o r m e r s t h a n i n the t r a d i t i o n a l theatre. T h i s n e w a p p r o a c h to

a n d t h e w a y s o f i n t e g r a d n g t h e i n t e r i o r o f a t h e a t r e w i t h the life

the spatial o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the a u d i t o r i u m was already appar-

o f t h e s q u a r e s a n d streets. I n h i s l e c t u r e ' T h e N e w T h e a t r e ' in

e n t d u r i n g t h e first h a l f o f t h e 1920s, i n t h e t r e a t m e n t , f o r i n -

1927, M e y e r h o l d a s s e r t e d t h a t n e w t h e a t r e b u i l d i n g s specially

stance, o f the large h a l l i n m a n y entries f o r the M o s c o w Palace

a d a p t e d t o t h e n e w k i n d s o f p e r f o r m a n c e m u s t be e r e c t e d . He

o f L a b o u r c o m p e t i t i o n i n 1922-23 a n d the M o s c o w - N a r v a Dis-

t h e n p u b l i s h e d a d e t a f l e d s p e c i f i c a t i o n f o r s u c h a m a s s action

t r i c t H o u s e o f C u l t u r e c o m p e t i t i o n i n L e n i n g r a d i n 1925.

b u i l d i n g i n 1929. T h i s i n c l u d e d a w h o l e series o f s p e c i f i c r&l

Requirements reflecting the democratization o f the theatre

were supplemented

quirements

concerning the s p a d a l o r g a n i z a d o n

and

equip-

i n t h e d e s i g n o f t h e a u d i t o r i u m b y de-

m e n t o f t h e n e w t h e a t r e m a x i m u m m e c h a n i z a t i o n a n d pro-

m a n d s arising f r o m c u r r e n t experiments i n the professional

j e c t i o n f a c i h d e s i n t h e h a h , a v e r y g r e a t i n c r e a s e i n i t s seating

t h e a t r e , s u c h as m a x i m a l m e c h a n i z a t i o n , m a i n l y t o e f f e c t r a p i d

capacity, the a b a n d o n m e n t

c h a n g e s o f scene, a n d t h e i n t r o d u c r i o n o f p r o j e c t i o n f a c i h t i e s .

' a b o l i t i o n ' o f t h e p r o s c e n i u m a r c h stage.

o f b a l c o n i e s a n d c i r c l e s a n d the

N e w basic specifications f o r theatre b u i l d i n g s were w o r k e d

M e y e r h o l d b e h e v e d t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n e w f o r m of

o u t i n t h e s e c o n d h a l f o f t h e 1920s o n t h e s t r e n g t h o f e x p e r i e n c e

t h e a t r e r e q u i r e d close c o f l a b o r a d o n b e t w e e n d i r e c t o r a n d ar-

a c q u i r e d i n the s t a g i n g o f mass events, the c r e a t i o n o f a m a t e u r

chitect. H i s w o r k w i t h Lissitzky i n 1 9 2 8 - 2 9 i n the production

t h e a t r e s , a n d t h e e x p e r i m e n t s o f i n n o v a t i v e d i r e c t o r s s u c h as

o f T r e t y a k o v ' s / Want a Child m a r k e d a n i m p o r t a n t stage i n the!

M e y e r h o l d , Eisenstein, T a i r o v a n d V a k h t a n g o v .

f o r m u l a t i o n o f n e w p r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n i n g t h e i n t e r i o r s p a t i a l or-

Meyerhold

deeply

i n f l u e n c e d the

architectural

require-

g a n i z a t i o n o f a t h e a t r e . D i r e c t o r a n d a r c h i t e c t j o i n t l y decided,

m e n t s set f o r t h e n e w t y p e o f m a s s a c t i o n t h e a t r e . H e s t i m u l a t -

i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e i r e x p e r i m e n t s w i t h t h e p r o d u c t i o n , radical-

ed the Creadon o f a n extensive n e t w o r k o f a m a t e u r p r o l e t a r i a n

l y t o r e s h a p e t h e i n t e r i o r o f t h e o l d t h e a t r e a n d t o set t h e stage

companies w h e n he was i n charge o f t h e T h e a t r e Section o f the

i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e h a l l w i t h t h e a u d i e n c e f a n n e d o u t i n ail

People's C o m m i s s a r i a t f o r E d u c a d o n d u r i n g the early years o f

amphitheatre round it.

S o v i e t r u l e . H e s a w t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r y t h e a t r e as a m a s s p o p u l a r

M e y e r h o l d d e v e l o p e d t h i s i d e a f u r t h e r w i t h t h e architects

s p e c t a c l e - a s p e c t a c u l a r m e e t i n g a c t e d o u t o n stage a m o n g a

M i k h a i l B a r k h i n a n d S e r g e i V a k h t a n g o v , first i n t h e adapta-

c r o w d o f w o r k e r s , s o l d i e r s a n d p e a s a n t s , as d e m o n s t r a t e d

by

d o n o f a n o l d t h e a t r e i n 1 9 3 0 - 3 1 , t h e n i n t h e d e s i g n f o r a new

Mayakovsky's

t h e a t r e i n 1 9 3 1 - 3 2 b a s e d o n h i s ' P r i n c i p l e s f o r t h e Construc-

h i s h i g h l y e f f e c d v e first p o h t i c a l p r o d u c d o n ,
Mystery-Bouffe.

tion o f a N e w Theatre'. These involved:

I n h i s w r i t i n g s u n d e r t h e g e n e r a l t i t l e o f October in the

Theatre,

(1)

M e y e r h o l d stated his belief t h a t the R e v o l u d o n w o u l d b r i n g

f o r t h a p u b h c t h e a t r e o f p o p u l a r a c t i o n . H e i n t r o d u c e d a series
o f n e w m e t h o d s a i m e d at c r e a t i n g a d i r e c t contact

tacular meedng. These methods,

(2)

between

a c t o r a n d a u d i e n c e , a n d c o n v e r t i n g a p e r f o r m a n c e i n t o a spec-

p r o m o t i n g a n a x o n o m e t r i c v i e w o f t h e a c t i o n b y seadng
the audience i n an

(3)

w h i c h affected both pro-

d u c d o n a n d t h e o r g a n i z a d o n o f s c e n i c space, i n v o l v e d d i s -

m e r g i n g t h e a u d i t o r i u m a n d t h e s c e n i c space, i n other
w o r d s d o i n g a w a y w i t h the p r o s c e n i u m a r c h ;

amphitheatre;

p r o v i d i n g a t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l p e r c e p d o n o f t h e a c t i o n by
t h e use o f a n a r e n a s t a g e ;

(4)

i n c l u d i n g w i t h i n t h e l a y - o u t o f t h e h a l l a l l e s s e n d a l servi-

c a r d i n g foodights, keeping househghts u p t h r o u g h o u t a per-

ces s u c h as d r e s s i n g r o o m s , t e c h n i c a l e q u i p m e n t a n d or-

f o r m a n c e , t r a n s f e r r i n g speech a n d a c t i o n i n t o the

chestra;

audience,

effecting a lack o f f o r m a l i t y between actors a n d spectators

o f t e n b y use o f i m p r o v i s a d o n - e r e c d n g a n d d r e s s i n g t h e set
i n f u l l v i e w o f t h e a u d i e n c e , a n d so o n . M e y e r h o l d , t o g e t h e r

(5)

a r r a n g i n g f o r access t o t h e stage b y m o t o r vehicles and

demonstrations.

T h e t h e a t r e was designed f o r a n audience o f 2,000.

1248 Istselenov. Design for an open-air auditorium

witli stage for performances, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919.
Plan. Perspective of the stage.
1249

Dombrovsky. Design for a combined open-air

auditorium and stage, Zhivskulptarkh, 1919. Plan.

Perspective.

whichJ

^een t h e a u d i e n c e o f w o r k e r s

w i t h M a y a k o v s k y , created a n e w f o r m o f A g i t spectacle

i'roletarian Theatres or

the

t r a n s f o r m e d a t h e a t r i c a l p e r f o r m a n c e i n t o a p o l i t i c a l state-

IS, as w e h as a w i s h for

au-

ment.

n d a r d f o r ease o f m u t u a l ac-

T h i s a p p r o a c h t o a t h e a t r i c a l p e r f o r m a n c e as a mass event

between spectators a n d per-

posed n e w p r o b l e m s i n the spatial o r g a n i z a t i o n o f productions^

;atre. T h i s new approach to

a n d t h e w a y s o f i n t e g r a t i n g t h e i n t e r i o r o f a t h e a t r e w i t h the life

l i t o r i u m was already appar-

o f t h e s q u a r e s a n d streets. I n h i s l e c t u r e ' T h e N e w T h e a t r e ' in I

!0s, i n t h e t r e a t m e n t , f o r i n -

1927, M e y e r h o l d a s s e r t e d t h a t n e w t h e a t r e b u i l d i n g s specially

itries f o r the M o s c o w Palace

a d a p t e d t o t h e n e w k i n d s o f p e r f o r m a n c e m u s t be erected. He I

a n d the M o s c o w - N a r v a D i s -

t h e n p u b l i s h e d a d e t a i l e d s p e c i f i c a t i o n f o r s u c h a mass action 1

n i n L e n i n g r a d i n 1925.

b u i l d i n g i n 1929. T h i s i n c l u d e d a w h o l e series o f specific r e - I

m o c r a t i z a t i o n o f the theatre

quirements

c o n c e r n i n g t h e s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d equip-

1 o f the a u d i t o r i u m b y de-

m e n t o f t h e n e w t h e a t r e m a x i m u m m e c h a n i z a t i o n a n d pro-

iriments i n the professional

j e c t i o n f a c i l i t i e s i n t h e h a h , a v e r y g r e a t i n c r e a s e i n i t s seating

zation, m a i n l y to effect r a p i d

capacity, the a b a n d o n m e n t

ction o f projection facdities.

' a b o l i t i o n ' o f t h e p r o s c e n i u m a r c h stage.

o f b a l c o n i e s a n d c i r c l e s a n d the 1

;atre b u i l d i n g s w e r e w o r k e d

M e y e r h o l d b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n e w f o r m of

)n the strength o f experience

t h e a t r e r e q u i r e d close c o l l a b o r a t i o n b e t w e e n d i r e c t o r a n d ar-

;nts, t h e c r e a t i o n o f a m a t e u r

chitect. H i s w o r k w i t h Lissitzky i n 1 9 2 8 - 2 9 i n the producdon

n n o v a t i v e d i r e c t o r s s u c h as

o f T r e t y a k o v ' s / Want a Child m a r k e d a n i m p o r t a n t stage i n the

d Vakhtangov.

f o r m u l a t i o n o f n e w p r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n i n g t h e i n t e r i o r s p a t i a l or-

the

architectural

require-

g a n i z a t i o n o f a t h e a t r e . D i r e c t o r a n d a r c h i t e c t j o i n t l y decided, I

action theatre. H e stimulat-

i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e i r e x p e r i m e n t s w i t h t h e p r o d u c t i o n , radical-

vvork o f a m a t e u r p r o l e t a r i a n

l y t o r e s h a p e t h e i n t e r i o r o f t h e o l d t h e a t r e a n d t o set t h e stage

o f t h e T h e a t r e Section o f t h e

i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e h a l l w i t h t h e a u d i e n c e f a n n e d o u t i n an

i o n d u r i n g the early years o f

amphitheatre round it.

r y t h e a t r e as a m a s s p o p u l a r

M e y e r h o l d d e v e l o p e d t h i s i d e a f u r t h e r w i t h t h e architects

a c t e d o u t o n stage a m o n g a

M i k h a i l B a r k h i n a n d S e r g e i V a k h t a n g o v , first i n t h e adapta-

a s a n t s , as d e m o n s t r a t e d

by

t i o n o f a n o l d t h e a t r e i n 1 9 3 0 - 3 1 , t h e n i n t h e d e s i g n f o r a new

Mayakovsky's

t h e a t r e i n 1 9 3 1 - 3 2 b a s e d o n h i s ' P r i n c i p l e s f o r t h e Construc-

production,

tion of a N e w Theatre'. These involved:

1 t i t l e o f October in the

Theatre,

(1)

he R e v o l u t i o n w o u l d b r i n g
; t i o n . H e i n t r o d u c e d a series
g a direct contact

w o r d s d o i n g a w a y w i t h the p r o s c e n i u m a r c h ;
(2)

between

5 a p e r f o r m a n c e i n t o a spec

p r o m o t i n g a n a x o n o m e t r i c v i e w o f t h e a c t i o n b y seating
t h e a u d i e n c e in a n

(3)

, w h i c h affected b o t h proscenic space, i n v o l v e d d i s -

m e r g i n g t h e a u d i t o r i u m a n d t h e s c e n i c space, i n other

amphitheatre;

p r o v i d i n g a t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n by
t h e use o f a n a r e n a s t a g e ;

(4)

i n c l u d i n g w i t h i n t h e l a y - o u t o f t h e hah

a l l e s s e n d a l servi-

ights u p t h r o u g h o u t a per-

ces s u c h as d r e s s i n g r o o m s , t e c h n i c a l e q u i p m e n t a n d or-

1 action i n t o the

chestra;

audience,

;en a c t o r s a n d s p e c t a t o r s
e c t i n g a n d d r e s s i n g t h e set
50 o n . M e y e r h o l d , t o g e t h e r

(5)

a r r a n g i n g f o r access t o t h e stage b y m o t o r vehicles and

demonstrations.

T h e t h e a t r e w a s d e s i g n e d f o r an a u d i e n c e o f 2,000.

462
1 2 5 0 - 5 2 Agit-Train, the Krasnyi Kazak (Red Cossack),
1920. Carriage decorated by Glazunov, Pomansky and
Sergei Tikhonov.

1253
1254

Babichev. A motorized Agit-Theatre, 1922.

A n Agit-Van, 1920.

1255 Zaonegin. Design for a wall-cinema with radio

installation and library/exhibition room, Vkhutein
Rodchenko's studio.

- , : ner, the Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star),

1256 Agn
S

Design for an Agit-Barge, 1921. Side view and

lay-out.

Caziik {Red Cossack),

l O V , Pomansky and

463
1253
1254

Babichev. A motorized Agit-Theatre, 1922

A n Agit-Van, 1920.

1255 Zaonegin. Design for a wall-cinema with radio

installation and library/exhibition room, Vkhutein
Rodchenko's studio.

J256 Agit-S'eamer, the Krasnaya Zvezda {Red Star),

1258-59
posters.

I257
Jay-out.

Design for an Agit-Barge, 1921. Side view and

Semenova. Sinyaya Bluza {Blue Blouse)

1260-61 Meyerhold and Lissitzky. Stage design for

I Want a Child, 1928-29.

1262-63 Meyerhold, Mikhail Barkhin and Sergei

Vakhtangov. Design for the Meyerhold Theatre,
Moscow, 1930-32. Perspective (1262). Axonometric
plan (1263).

fis Shchuko and Gelfreikh. Theatre, Rostov1264

_35, General view (1264). Plan (1265).
,-Don, 1930

1266-67 V
Massed Mus
1930-31. Pel
1268 Vlaso
Musical Perf
Model of auc

1262-63 Meyerhold, M i k h a i l Barkhin and Sergei

Vakhtangov. Design for the Meyerhold Theatre,
Moscow, 1930-32. Perspective (1262). Axonometric
plan (1263).

" T T ' S S h c h u k o and Gelfreikh. Theatre, Rostov^^Don,

1930-35. General view (1264). Plan (1265).

1 2 6 6 - 6 7 Vesnin brothers. Competition design for the

Massed Musical Performance Theatre, Kharkov,
1930-31. Perspective (1266). Plan (1267).
1268 Vlasov. Competition design for the Massed
Musical Performance Theatre, Kharkov, 1930-31.
Model of auditorium.

1269 Lyudvig. Competition design for tlie Massed

Musical Performance Theatre, Kharkov, 1930-31.
Perspective.
1270 Breuer. Competition design for the Massed
Musical Performance Theatre, Kharkov, 1930-31.
Perspective. Plan.

1271 Ilya Golosov. Design for a masss acdon theatre,

Ivanovo-Voznesensk, 1931. Perspecdve.
1272-73 Vlasov. Theatre, Ivanovo-Voznesensk,
1931-33. General view (1272). Plan (1273).

974 Grinberg. Design for a combined panorama,

planetarium and theatre, Novosibirsk, 1931. Model.

1271 Ilya Golosov, Design for a masss action tlieatre,

Ivanovo-Voznesensk, 1931. Perspective.
1272-73 Vlasov. Theatre, Ivanovo-Voznesensk,
1931-33. General view (1272). Plan (1273).

1277-79 Ginzburg. Competition design for a m u l d

purpose ('syntiietic') tlieatre, Sverdlovsk, 1932.
Model.

1280 Ginzburg. Compedtion design for a multipurpose ('synthetic') theatre, Sverdlovsk, 1932.
Model.

1281-82 Ilya Golosov. Competition design for a

multi-purpose ('synthetic') theatre, Sverdlovsk, 1932.
Perspective (1281). Section, diagram for
transformation o f t h e hall (1282).

1280 Ginzburg. Competition design for a multipurpose ('synthetic') theatre, Sverdlovsk, 1932.
Model.

_ : l o s o v . Competition design for a

^' I r p ^ e

('synthetic') theatre, Sverdlovsk, 1932.

Hvp (1281). Section, diagram for

1283-84

Ladovsky. Competition design for a multi-

purpose ('synthetic') theatre, Sverdlovsk, 1932. Model

(1283). Plan (1284).

470
1285 Ladovsky. Competition design for tire Theatre of
the Moscow District Soviet of Trade Unions (Mosps)
1932. Model.
1286 Melnikov. Competition design for the Mosps
Theatre, 1932. Perspective.

1
1287-88 Melnikov. Competition design for the
Mosps Theatre, 1932. Axonometric view (1287).
Section, plan, perspective (1288).

^ ^ " ; T 7 w n i r g . Competition design for the

f
:ov ch-Danchenko Theatre, Moscow, 1933.
SS lay-out (1289). Model (1290-91).

rf

472
1292 Ilya Golosov. Design for a standard circus, 1922
Elevation. Plan.
1 2 9 3 - 9 4 Minofcv and Boris Lopatin. Combined
circus and theatre, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, 1931-33.
Perspecdve drawing (1293). Completed buildine
(1294).

1 2 9 5 - 9 6 Krylova-Sokolova. Design for a circus

holding 3,000 spectators, Sverdlovsk, 1929 Elevation
(1295). Plan (1296).

. ii Barshch and Sinyavsky. Design for the

lm Moscow, 1927-29. Section (1297). Plan
Planetarium

1299-1300 Barshch and Sinyavsky. The

Planetarium, Moscow, 1927-29. Detail (1299).
General view (1300).

1303-05 Leonidov. Competidon design for a filn

factory (film studios), Moscow, 1927. Plan (1303).
General la,y-out (1304). Axonometric view (1305)'

1306 Panteleimon Golosov. Gompeddon design for a

film factory, Moscow, 1927. Perspecdve.
1307-08 Ilya Golosov. Competition design for a film
factory, Moscow, 1927. Elevation (1307). Axonometric
view (1308).

design for a cinema, Vkhutemas,

1309 J,f,;;,dio, 1926, Elevation. Section.

13
Vk
Pe
13
Se
13
cit
El

475
1306 Panteleimon Golosov, Competition design for a
fdm factory, Moscow, 1927, Perspecdve,
1307-08 Ilya Golosov, Competition design for a film
factory, Moscow, 1927, Elevation (1307). Axonometric
view (1308).

T , Kochar. Design for a cinema, Vkhutemas,

Ladovsky's studio, 1926. Elevadon. Section.

1310 Simbirtsev. Design for a film factory,

Vkhutemas, Alexander Vesnin's studio, 1927.
Perspective.
1311 Zaltsman. Design for a film village on the Black
Sea coast, Vkhutemas. Perspective.
1312 Zalesskaya. Design for a cinema on a restricted
city site, Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio, 1926.
Elevation. Plans. Sections.

476
1313 Balyan. Design for a cinema on a restricted city
site, Vlihutemas, Ladovsky's studio, 1926. Elevation.
General lay-out. Plans. Sections.
1314 Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio. Design for a
cinema on a restricted city site, 1926. Elevation.
Axonometric view. Plan. Sections. General lay-out.

1316 Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio. Design for a

cinema on a restricted city site, 1926. Axonometric
view. Sections. General lay-out. Plans.
1317-18 Kochar. Design for a cinema i n the
Armenian SSR, 1932-33. Model (1317). Plan (1318).

1315 Kalmykov. Cinema with two halls, 1933-34.

Axonometric plan.

1 !

or a cinema on a restricted city

sky's studio, 1926. Elevadon.
Sections.
ovsky's studio. Design for a
i t y site, 1926. Elevation.
1. Sections. General lay-out.
ma with two halls, 1933-34.

477
Chapter 5/Design of new public arenas

1316 Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio. Design for a

cinema on a restricted city site, 1926. Axonometric
view. Sections. General lay-out. Plans.
1317-18 Kochar. Design for a cinema i n the
Armenian SSR, 1932-33. Model (1317). Plan (1318).

There -was no stage of the conventional kind: no proscenium,

curtain, orchestra pit and nothing dividing the actor from the
spectator. The stage jutted out as an arena, -with two turntables
of different diameters. I t was intended to serve a multiphcity of
purposes, such as gymnasdc displays and sports meedngs - for
boxing, wresding, volleyball and diving (one of the turntables
could be lowered into the stage to form a diving pool) - as well
as circus shows and plays. Depending on the nature ofthe latter, addidonal seadng could be provided for 100-150 spectators by using part ofthe stage. Retractable balconies in the side
walls were used for by-play by the actors.
This design involved an entirely new arrangement of production facdides, including provision for a complete simultaneous film projection system on the floor, walls and ceihng of
the hall. Natural lighting could be introduced through glazed
roof lanterns provided with louvres, while specially constructed blinds could be used to exclude it. Special arrangements
were made to tune the hall's acoustics in accordance with the
locadon ofthe sound source, such as an actor. Monorails, with
electncally operated travelling hoists, made it possible to cover
every part of the hall mechanically, so that individual stage
platforms could be suspended anywhere in the hall and freely
moved about in it.
The budding's exterior reflected its internal functional organization, such as the amalgamation of auditorium and stage,
the amphitheatre of seats, further stressed by the successive
levels of the foyer overhanging each other on brackets. Construction began in 1932, and the basic structure ofthe hall conformed to the original design. When Soviet architecture
changed course, however, a competition was held for a new elevadon with the object of 'embellishing' its appearance. The
whole building later became a concert hall.

Competition for new types of tlieatre design, 1930-33

The basic specifications for the new type of building devoted to

the presentation of public spectacles - the mass action theatre had been fully formulated by the end ofthe 1920s. I t was to become, at the start of the next decade, the chief edifice in town
for every sort of purpose, from theatre to sports competitions,
meetings, lectures, gatherings, and so on. The demand for
adaptabihty, which was fundamental in the mass action thea-

tre, in fact helped to convert it into an all-purpose hall. Competitions were held in a number of large cities for the design of a
theatre destined to be the most important bmlding there, serving not only cultural display functions, but also used for the organization of mass political occasions.
The first such competition was for the design of an opera and
drama theatre at Rostov-on-Don i n 1930. Its specification provided for the combination in a single building of an auditorium
accommodating 2,500 people, a concert hah for 800, exhibition
galleries, a theatre museum, and premises for children. The design carried out in 1930-35 was by Shchuko and Gelfreikh.
The building was compact and rectangular. The hall itself was
designed as an amphitheatre with a wide proscenium arch and
a stage projecting well forward. The concert hall was placed
above the main foyer. The exterior effect derived from the contrast between the twin, free-standing tall glazed staircase cages
Hnked to the upper storeys ofthe theatre, at concert-hall level,
by the spans of gangways, and the vast, blind, white marblelined screen overhanging the glazed-in foyer.
The international competition to design a Massed Musical
Performance Theatre in Kharkov in 1930-31 attracted 142 entries, including ninety-one from abroad - the USA, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan and elswhere. According to the specifications, the stage and a hall accommodating 4,000 spectators
were to form part of a single spatial unit and provide, in addition to theatrical performances, for national festivals, meetings, sporting events and competitions, circus shows, dramatized Agit team events, demonstration marches, and so on.
Among the large number of original ideas and spatial inventions produced by this competition, the Vesnins' design secured the top award. I t included a horseshoe-shaped hall in
which the single amphitheatre and semicircular stage formed
part of a combined ovoid volume, the spectator capacity of
which could be varied from 2,000 to 6,000 places. The exterior
of the building reflected its inner structure and was treated in
large simple volumes. The oval hall, surrounded by a gallery
foyer, was roofed over by a flattened dome and contrasted by its
smooth curved oudine and generous glazing with the blind
rectangular screening wall of the box stage.
A competition was held in 1931 for the design of a mass action theatre at Ivanovo-Voznesensk. The specifications were
simdar to those ofthe Kharkov project and required a multipurpose building. The most interesting entry, that by Ilya Go-

478
Part Il/Social tasks of architecture

losov, offered in effect a general municipal hall with 2,750 seats

Amphitheatre and stage were designed for massed performances of various kinds and arranged so as to bring actors and
spectators into close contact. Mass demonstrations, army detachments and motor vehicles were able to cross the stage A
large open space fronted the theatre, and several speaker's rostrums overlooked it from the main fagade so that mass open-air
meetings could be conducted from them. Vlasov's design was
eventually adopted and carried out. I t involved a trapezoidal
hall with a capacity of 2,500 seats. A wide proscenium arch
helped to unite the auditorium and the stage, and a concert hall
with 500 seats was fitted into the ground floor

spanning the hall. The circular portion o f t h e stalls togeth

with the proscenium could be rotated through 180 in order ^
create an arena in the middle of the hall.
Ilya Golosov's and Ladovsky's entries for the SverdlovJ
competition were also of considerable interest. I n order t
make the hall as adaptable as possible for a variety of purpose!
Golosov designed a large stage, with a middle section consist'
mg of a mechanically operated catwalk reaching out into the
rectangular area of the stalls. Ladovsky, for his part, designed
the hall as a vast roofed stadium with a large central rectaneu
lar arena flanked by three fans of seats, two of them at either
end and the third facing a longer side.

A 'synthetic panorama and planetarium' theatre, with a hall

Competitions were held in 1932-33 for the design ofthe
to hold an audience of 3,000, was designed by Grinberg in Notheatre budding for Mosps, the Moscow District Soviet of
vosibirsk in 1931. Stage and auditorium were completely fused
Trade Umons, requiring a hall with 2,500 seats, all-purpose
mto one: a stage which reached far out into the hall was suruse, full convertibdity and mechanization; and for the Nemirorounded on three sides, as i n the Meyerhold Theatre by a
vich-Danchenko Theatre, also in Moscow, with a capacity of
raised fan of seats. The design incorporated a high degree of
1,600 seats. These competitions provided a culmination in the
mechanization both on stage and in the auditorium: a periquest for a new type of theatre. I n the first, designs by Lapheral proscenium was arranged on a movable ring along the
dovsky and, m particular, by Melnikov, proved ofthe greatest
perimeter of the auditorium; the stalls could be converted into
interest. The latter proposed a mechanically rotated, amphia circus ring, with some ofthe audience seated on the proscenitheatre-shaped auditorium to take advantage for production
um; the vast dome was to be used for the projection of fdmspurposes of three separate stages, located on the perimeter of
and so on. The construction ofthe theatre suffered a number of
the had, diffenng in size and shape and provided with a variety
long delays during which the original design was repeatedly
of transformation equipment. Ginzburg produced the most
modified by different architects, mainly as regarded its exterior
original entry for the second competition with a building comA competition for the design of a 'synthetic theatre' in Sverdprising two components - one, on a trapezium-shaped plan,
lovsk was launched in 1932. The building was to be the mass
containing the auditorium, foyer and stage, inserted into
cultural and educational centre for the capital ofthe Urals inanother, on a ring-shaped plan, housing the dressing rooms,
dustrial area. I t was intended to accommodate all types of
The four-year period, from 1930 to 1933, devoted to the
theatrical performance - drama, opera and ballet - concerts
elaboration of a new type of building designed to accommodate
and variety shows, as well as pohtical meetings. The specificathe mass action theatre represents a unique development in
tion required a theatre with 4,000 seats, which could be adapttwentieth-century architecture, both in the intensity ofthe ined for mass meetings with up to 8,000 participants; a cinema
novative work undertaken at that time and the multiphcity of
seatmg 1,000 spectators; a group of study and class rooms; and
original ideas bearing on the spatial organization and transforservice accommodation.
mation facdities planned into an all-purpose auditorium. Very
Ginzburg's design was placed first. Its most interesting feahttie of all this, however, was carried out. The theatre at Rosture was the main hall laid out on a trapezoid ground plan A
tov-on-Don was the only one to be built in accordance with its
well-judged organization ofthe space avadable enabled the arinitial design. The remainder of the successful entries were
chitect to restrict the dimensions ofthe hall and fan of seats to a
either abandoned or radicafly altered in the course of construcminimum, whde locating the spectators at the right distance
tion. This was partly due to the complex situation affecting
from the stage. The acoustic treatment was particularly succreative endeavour at that time in Soviet architecture as a
cessful owing to the skilled design o f t h e fining o f t h e dome
whole, but also to doubts about the very concept of mass ac-

tion which led during the first haff of the 1930s to a s

change in the specifications for theatrical buildings
eluded, among much else, a reduction i n the require
fhalls', re-estabhshment ofthe separation between
auditorium, the renewed use of tiers, balconies and st
theatres designed purely for purposes of dramatic

^^The circus, one ofthe most democratic forms of m.

cle with its open arena surrounded by seats, also con
the design of the standard mass action theatre (
1920s. Separate circus buildings were planned at thi
in Ilya Golosov's design i n 1922 for a model circus serted into a club complex - the round circus hall, fc
in Golosov's design for the Palace of Culture in Sti
1928. I n some cases, an afl-purpose hah for circus
performances was proposed, such as the circus builc
novo-Voznesensk buik in 1931-33, with Sergei Mii;
chitect and Boris Lopatin as engineer, which could z
as a cinema and a music hall. I t contained an arena
form stage, used alternately as performing and spe<l
depending on the type of show. The hall had a capa(
seats and an unusual ceiling, consisting of a hei
dome, fifty metres in diameter, supported by a vault
thirty-two semicircular wooden arches.

The planetarium: a scientific display

The traditional concept of the theatre was challei

the 1920s not only by various forms of mass actu
with a politically agitational flavour, but also by sc
cational displays, such as the planetarium.
The first planetarium was budt in Moscow in 19!
signs by Barshch and Sinyavsky. The auditoriun
seats on a circular ground plan. Its ferro-concre
dome, lined by a hemispherical screen, provide
structural element in the building's spatial compo
ofthe service accommodation was housed on the g
below the auditorium. A few outbuildings, on a si
relation to the inner cylindrical space containe
dome, were provided for special purposes. These si
with their imaginatively designed details - a wind
in a glazed cylindrical cage, a curved ferro-con(

;neral municipal hall with 2,750 seats,

were designed for massed performanarranged so as to bring actors and
:act. Mass demonstrations, army derides were able to cross the stage. A
he theatre, and several speaker's ros:he main fagade so that mass open-air
:ted from them. Vlasov's design was
arried out. I t involved a trapezoidal
,500 seats. A wide proscenium arch
ium and the stage, and a concert had
nto the ground floor,
and planetarium' theatre, with a hall
)0, was designed by Grinberg in No
d auditorium were completely fused
ached far out into the hall was suris in the Meyerhold Theatre, by a
;sign incorporated a high degree of
age and in the auditorium: a perianged on a movable ring along the
n; the stalls could be converted into
he audience seated on the proscenibe used for the projection of films;
1 ofthe theatre suffered a number of
the original design was repeatedly
:cts, mainly as regarded its exterior,
ign of a 'synthetic theatre' in Sverd'. The building was to be the mass
ntre for the capital ofthe Urals inded to accommodate ad types of
ama, opera and ballet - concerts
3 pohtical meetings. The specifica4,000 seats, which could be adaptip to 8,000 participants; a cinema
-oup of study and class rooms; and
iced first. Its most interesting fea'ut on a trapezoid ground plan. A
he space avadable enabled the arons of the hall and fan of seats to a
e spectators at the right distance
: treatment was particularly sucdesign of the lining of the dome

479
Chapter 5/Design of new public arenas

spanning the hall. The drcular portion o f t h e stalls togethe

with the proscenium could be rotated through 180 in order t,
create an arena in the middle of the had.
Ilya Golosov's and Ladovsky's entries for the SverdlovJ
competition were also of considerable interest. I n order tn
make the had as adaptable as possible for a variety of purposes
Golosov designed a large stage, with a middle section consist'
mg of a mechanically operated catwalk reaching out into the
rectangular area ofthe stalls. Ladovsky, for his part, designed
the hall as a vast roofod stadium with a large central rectaneu
lar arena flanked by three fans of seats, two of them at either
end and the third fadng a longer side.
Competitions were h d d in 1932-33 for the design ofthe
theatre building for Mosps, the Moscow District Soviet o|
I rade Umons, requiring a had with 2,500 seats, aU-purpose
use, fuH convertibifity and mechanization; and for the Nemirovich-Danchenko Theatre, also in Moscow, with a capadty of
I,bUU seats. These competitions provided a culmination in the
quest for a new type of theatre. I n the first, designs by Ladovsky and, in particular, by Mdnikov, proved ofthe greatest
interest. The latter proposed a mechanically rotated, amphitheatre-shaped auditorium to take advantage for production
purposes of three separate stages, located on the perimeter of
the hall, differing m size and shape and provided with a variety
of transformation equipment. Ginzburg produced the most
original entry for the second competition with a building com
prising two components - one, on a trapezium-shaped plan,
containing the auditorium, foyer and stage, inserted into
another, on a ring-shaped plan, housing the dressing rooms.
The four-year period, from 1930 to 1933, devoted to the
elaboration of a new type of building designed to accommodate
the mass action theatre represents a unique devdopment in
twentieth-century architecture, both in the intensity of the innovative work undertaken at that time and the multiphdty of
origmal ideas bearing on the spatial organization and transformation fadlities planned into an all-purpose auditorium. Very
httie of all this, however, was carried out. The theatre at Rostov-on-Don was the only one to be budt in accordance with its
initial design. The remainder of the successful entries were
either abandoned or radically altered in the course of construcJ
tion. This was pardy due to the complex situation affecting
creative endeavour at that time in Soviet architecture as a
whole, but also to doubts about the very concept of mass ac-

tion, which led during the first half of the 1930s to a substantial
change in the specifications for theatrical buildings. This included, among much else, a reduction in the required capacity
of halls, re-establishment ofthe separation between stage and
auditorium, the renewed use of tiers, balconies and stalls and of
theatres designed purely for purposes of dramatic performance.
The circus, one ofthe most democratic forms of mass spectacle with its open arena surrounded by seats, also contributed to
the design of the standard mass action theatre during the
1920s. Separate circus buildings were planned at this time - as
in Ilya Golosov's design in 1922 for a model circus - or were inserted into a club complex - the round circus had, for instance,
in Golosov's design for the Palace of Culture in Stalingrad in
1928. I n some cases, an all-purpose hah for circus and stage
performances was proposed, such as the circus building at Ivanovo-Voznesensk built in 1931-33, with Sergei Minofev as architect and Boris Lopatin as engineer, which could also be used
as a cinema and a music hah. I t contained an arena and a platform stage, used alternately as performing and spectator areas
depending on the type of show. The hall had a capacity of 3,000
seats and an unusual ceihng, consisting of a hemispherical
dome, fifty metres in diameter, supported by a vaulted frame of
thirty-two semicircular wooden arches.

The planetarium: a scientific display

The traditional concept of the theatre was challenged during

the 1920s not only by various forms of mass action spectacle
with a politicaUy agitational flavour, but also by scientific educational displays, such as the planetarium.
The first planetarium was built in Moscow in 1927-29 to designs by Barshch and Sinyavsky. The auditorium h d d 1,440
seats on a circular ground plan. Its ferro-concrete parabolic
dome, lined by a hemispherical screen, provided the main
structural element in the building's spatial composition. Most
ofthe service accommodation was housed on the ground floor,
below the auditorium. A few outbuddings, on a smah scale i n
relation to the inner cylindrical space contained under the
dome, were provided for special purposes. These small annexes
with their imaginatively designed detads - a winding staircase
in a glazed cyfindrical cage, a curved ferro-concrete canopy

over the entrance, round and elongated ferro-concrete pillars further underlined the massive proportions ofthe main budding.
The quest for a 'new type of scientific theatre' - the planetarium - went beyond its general architectural organization,
which had been functionally perfected abroad. The hemispherical screen made it possible to display the whole sky, but at some
discomfort to the spectator, who was kept facing in a single direction. Attempts were made to resolve this difficulty by experimenting with the shape ofthe auditorium and the dome. One
such experimental design was produced by Bunin i n Ladovsky's Vkhutemas studio in 1927, with a nearly-square had containing parafiel rows of seats and roofed by a cyfindrical vault
which ended in a half-dome at the front ofthe had on to which
the image ofthe starry sky was projected.

Experimental cinema designs

From the earhest days after the Revolution, tremendous importance was attached to the cinema as a new form of mass art.
A brilliant constellation of innovative directors - Kuleshov,
Dziga Vertov, Eisenstein, Pudovkin and Lovzhenko - gave Soviet films a leading position in the world.
Much attention was paid to providing the film industry with
modern equipment. A competition was held in 1927 for the design of a complex of film studios, a so-called 'film factory', in
Moscow, which attracted entries from Leonidov and Ilya Golosov among others. The film factory or film village as a new
type of modern structure was also studied during the 1920s in
Vkhutemas by Zaltsman and Simbirtsev among others.
Few cinemas were built during the 1920s, since Workers'
Clubs were adequate for the purpose. Nevertheless, the standard form for a film theatre was well studied, and certain improvements were made in the architectural specifications for its
design.
The most interesting of such designs produced during the
1920s came from Ladovsky's Vkhutemas studio. He set his students tasks such as that of fitting a film theatre into an awkwardly shaped plot within a heavily built-up area - a theme
developed i n designs by Zalesskaya and Oganes Balyan. Or, as
in a design by Kochar, the task might be that of spatially integrating whde functionally separating, within a single staircase

Part Il/Social tasks of architecture

cage, the streams of spectators entering and leaving a cinema

Three-had cinemas with a joint foyer were designed in
1927-29 m a number of Vkhutein studios, by Kalmykov Anatoly Kaplun and Leonid Pavlov among^ others. Two- and
three-hall cinemas with a single foyer made for a more efficient
use of both a budding's capacity and of its ancidary accommodation. Given equal seadng space, a cinema comprising two or
three halls required a much smaller foyer than its single-hall
equivalent.

Kalmykov designed a twin-hall cinema in 1933-34, with the

foyer on the ground floor of a two-storey budding on a square
ground plan and, on the upper floor, two bads reached by spj
ral ramps in their corners. Such twin-hall cinemas were built
after Kalmykov's designs in a number of towns during the
1930s. I n 1932-33,KochardesignedtwocinemasforArmenia
I n one of these, the streams of spectators leaving and enterins
were divided by the cloakroom, and the foyer rose in steps cor
responding to the rows of seats within the hall.

Development of communal s
and service systems

Problems and solutions

Two views emerged during the 1920s regarding

tion of a communal service system and the socia
There were those who considered it essential to n
densome daily domestic tasks from dwelling are
ize them as far as possible and put a distance betv\|
the consumer, who would then be served by dij
works centrahzed to a greater or lesser extent. O
that it was essential not only to centralize burdei
tic processes, but also to collectivize consumpt
cording to this view, success i n the struggle for d
tion ofthe way of life would be achieved, above al
ening communal undertakings directed either at
distribution.
The complexities of the doctrinal struggle for
life were overcome relatively easily in many area!
service, in which clear and well-defined organi
were achieved during these years by obeying th
nomic profitabihty. I n a number of other ca'
experiments continued right up to the early 19'
sive work was done on the development of new i
ings.
The centralization of baking, for instance, ca
lems whatsoever. Workers living not only in la
also in small towns and workers' settlements, g
baking their own bread and switched to buying
ery, because they saw this as a substantial easin
wife's task. The way of producing, distributing a
this foodstuff did not conflict with exisdng urban
The bread was produced i n bread factories or
through an extensive network of small shops am
home.
The relation between the network of commui
such traditional forms of domestic activity a;
laundry work was more complex. These time-c
onerous duties were regarded in the 1920s as t l
cles to the involvement of women in both produc
activity. Efforts were made from the earliest d
such work from the home. Communal kitchens
were set up in many communal houses, where (
would be able to prepare meals and wash linen
for her family by using communal equipment. S|

481

re

tators entering and leaving a cinema,

dth a joint foyer were designed in
'khutein studios, by Kalmykov, Ana1 Pavlov amon^ others. Two- and
single foyer made for a more efficient
pacity and of its ancidary accommoig space, a cinema comprising two or
ch smader foyer than its single-hall

K a l m y k o v designed a t w i n - h a d c i n e m a i n 1933-34 with ty.

foyer on the ground floor o f a two-storey b u d d i n g on'a squ
g r o u n d p l a n and, on the upper floor, two halls reLhed

Problems and solutions

'

ra ramps i n their corners. Such t w i n - h a d cinemas were buil

T r ' """^^
'^ ^ '-^^^

9321; K
K o c h a r designed t w o cinemas for Armenia
ty^Us. I nn 71932-33,
I n one of these, the streams of spectators leaving and

enteZ

were divided by the cloakroom, and the foyer rofe m steps

responding to the rows o f seats w i t h i n the had
^

Development of communal supply

and service systems

Two views emerged d u r i n g the 1920s regarding the organization of a c o m m u n a l service system and the sociahzadon o f hfe.
There were those w h o considered i t essential to remove a l l burdensome daily domestic tasks f r o m d w e l h n g areas, to centralize them as far as possible and p u t a distance between them and
the consumer, who w o u l d then be served by distributive networks centralized to a greater or lesser extent. Others beheved
that it was essential not only to centralize burdensome domestic processes, b u t also to collectivize consumption itself A c cording to this view, success i n the struggle for the reconstruction of the way of life w o u l d be achieved, above all, by strengthening communal undertakings directed either at p r o d u c t i o n or
distribution.
The complexities o f the d o c t r i n a l struggle for a new way o f
life were overcome relatively easily i n many areas of c o m m u n a l
service, i n w h i c h clear and well-defined organizational types
were achieved d u r i n g these years by obeying the laws o f economic p r o f i t a b i h t y . I n a number o f other cases, however,
experiments continued right u p to the early 1930s and intensive work was done on the development o f new types o f b u d d ings.
The centrahzation o f baking, for instance, caused no problems whatsoever. Workers l i v i n g not only i n large cities, b u t

zation', however, did little to reduce time and effort spent, and
practice gradually shifted from the concentration of certain domestic tasks in communal premises to the provision of services,
such as the communal supply of cooked food and the use of
mechanized laundries. Such facdities, however, developed unevenly. Not every kind of washing, for instance, could be done
in centralized mechanical laundries, and it thus became necessary to provide additional, self-service, laundry facilities within
the home. Moreover, the relatively low standards of living
prevalent among the majority of workers during this period did
not make the widespread construction of centralized mechanized laundries into an essential economic requirement.
The sociahzation of eating habits posed even greater problems. I t lightened the burden on the housewife, but also led to a
disruption in habits, especially when collectivization involved
communal eating. Those in favour of a radical 'reconstruction'
ofthe way of hfe looked to the collectivization of food preparation and consumption not merely as a matter of socializing one
of the most burdensome processes of domestic economy, but
also as a way of intensifiying 'social contacts' among the workers
in their free time. The economics of the first part of this process the preparation of food - required maximum mechanization
and concentration, while its second part consumption demanded, on the contrary, decentralization and closer contacts
with the consumer.

also i n small towns and workers' settlements, gladly stopped

baking their o w n bread and switched to b u y i n g i t f r o m a bakery, because they saw this as a substantial easing o f t h e house-

Mass bakeries

wife's task. T h e way of producing, d i s t r i b u t i n g and consuming

this foodstuflfdid not conflict w i t h existing u r b a n f a m i l y habits.
The bread was produced i n bread factories or bakeries, sold
through an extensive network o f small shops and consumed at
home.
The relation between the network o f c o m m u n a l supply and
such traditional forms o f domestic activity as cooking and
laundry work was more complex. These time-consuming and
onerous duties were regarded i n the 1920s as the m a i n obstacles to the involvement of women i n b o t h p r o d u c t i o n and social
activity. Efforts were made f r o m the earliest days to remove
such work f r o m the home. C o m m u n a l kitchens and laundries
Were set up i n many c o m m u n a l houses, where each housewife
Would be able to prepare meals and wash linen independently
for her f a m i l y by using c o m m u n a l equipment. Such 'collectivi-

From the earhest Soviet days, a rapidly growing demand for

bread established the objective preconditions for an intensive
development of the bread industry. The construction of mass
bakeries began in 1924, initially with German and American
equipment, later with locally adapted versions of these foreign
systems and, by the second half of the 1920s, with entirely Soviet
machinery, as in Marsakov's automatic bakeries. Mass bakeries were built in Moscow, Leningrad, Rostov-on-Don, Yaroslavl and other cities in the 1920s, and, by the end ofthe decade,
state and co-operative trade in bread products had virtually
captured the entire market in cities and forced the small private
baker out of business.
The rapid creation of a new bread industry solved many complicated problems. There was now no need to make special pro-

vision for baking in stoves and ranges in urban dwedings. One

ofthe most burdensome domestic tasks - bearing in mind that
many working famdies on the outskirts of cities and workers'
settlements baked their own bread - was industrialized. And
the centralization of this basic activity showed the vast superiority of communal as opposed to domestic production, by a
marked increase in productivity and a cheaper product.
The social requirement and the opportunity actuady to erect
buildings for the baking industry attracted many architects to
this area of design. Models for bakeries and baking factories, as
wed as grain stores connected with them, were developed not
only in design organizations, but also in higher educational
establishments, such as the Polytechnlcal Institute and
Vkhutemas. I n fact, the new approach required for the spatial
composition of such structures made them suitable subjects for
experiments in formal design.

buildings. Architectural specifications for them were on]

worked out later, and then used to design and construct sped 1
buildings for this purpose.
Ivanovo-Voznesensk and other textile towns in this Indus '
trial region offbred practical openings for the involvement If
women in production, because the gradual removal of men
who had made up the bulk ofthe textile labour force before the
Revolution, had already begun.
This was regarded at that time as part o f t h e liberation of
women from the yoke of domestic life and was accompanied by
the accelerated spread of a system of communal services, ineluding catering estabhshments.
Workers' canteens were already in operation in the industrial plants of Ivanovo-Voznesensk by the early 1920s. The
creation of a central mass kitchen was proposed in 1924. It was
to supply ready-made meals to all the catering establishments
within its network, as well as becoming the town's communal
eating centre.

Mass kitchens

Much attention was devoted in the 1920s to rationalizing the

design of individual family kitchens. The main answer to the
declared pohcy of liberating women from their domestic chores
was sought, however, in the widest possible development of
communal catering, not only at work, but within reach ofthe
home.
A network of communal workers' restaurants had already
been created by the first half of the 1920s in the main proletarian centres of the country. These were most widespread in Leningrad, where a well-developed system of communal restaurants had been set up during the NEP period with a total capacity of 100,000-120,000 meals a day. A communal restaurant
network of this sort consisted, as a rule, of small eating places
with no great mechanization of food preparation and a low level of productivity. There was thus a growing need for larger
and more highly mechanized communal catering establishments.
The first factory - or mass - kitchen in the country, opened
at Ivanovo-Voznesensk in 1925 and became the prototype for
this kind of building. As in the case of other pubhc institutions
developed at this time - communal houses, Palaces of Labour,
Houses of Soviets, Workers' Clubs and mass action theatres the new mass kitchens were first accommodated in existing

This first mass kitchen was housed in an existing building

adapted for the purpose, with the actual kitchen on the ground
floor and a restaurant with nearly 300 seats on the first, together with a hbrary and reading room. I t was equipped with food
processing machinery, refrigerators, lifts etc. Ready-made food
in special thermally insulated containers was distributed by
motor transport to eight works canteens linked with the mass
kitchen. The mass kitchen and the communal catering establishments connected with it provided some 10,000-12,000
meals daily, thus serving almost a quarter ofthe entire working
population ofthe town.
The success of the Ivanovo-Voznesensk mass kitchen
prompted a general move for the creation of such establishments in many other cities. The second mass kitchen in the
country opened i n Nizhny-Novgorod in May 1927, with a daily
capacity of 8,000 meals, and served a number of industrial
enterprises and schools. The third mass kitchen was inaugurated at Dnesprstroi in 1928 to a design by Viktor Vesnin, Nikolai
Kolli, Orlov and Sergei Mashkh. Mass kitchens proliferated in
subsequent years, with new estabhshments in Moscow, Dnepropetrovsk, Orekhovo-Zuevo, Stalingrad, Tver, Tashkent,
Shuya, Serpukhovo, Rostov-on-Don and elsewhere.
The mass kitchen designed by Dmitry Razov in the small
town of Shuya was a two-storey building with three restaurants, a snack bar and a tea room, serving 3,000 meals a day, as

well as supplying another 3,000 in thermal containers

bution points.
, , a t
More than ten mass kitchens were budt in Moscc
turn ofthe decade. These difi'ered in output, number c
and spatial composition. Those on Taktskaya Street,
Vilensky, and Upper Krasnoselskaya Street were sr
storey buildings on a circular ground plan. The mass
on the Leningrad Highway by Meshkov, and at Fili, M
three-storey buildings with a conspicuous main
placed on a corner. Three-storey buildings for this
were erected on the Buzheninovka, by Sergei Kurab
in Botkin Passage, with semicircular bow windows,;
four-storey mass kitchens on the Mozhaisk Highway
were.
Moscow mass kitchens were mainly budt as special
lie catering enterprises designed to serve a stated n
customers, as weU as providing convenience foods
for canteens attached to individual estabhshments.
An unusual type of mass kitchen was produced ,
grad, where four of these were built after designs by
young architects - Barutchev, Gdter, Meerzon an
chik. The Vyborg district mass kitchen consisted o f t
one for production, the other for consumption and i
pnsing three restaurants with 1,200 places, rest ro(
shop for convenience foods. The Narva district esta
was housed in a three-storey building of complex d|
sisting of two main elements: a mass kitchen, with a
semicircular glazed-in restaurant, and a departn
with a rhythmic pattern of paired bow windows. '
complex in fact provided a small shopping centre.
The mass kitchen buildings in Moscow, Leni:
many other towns were associated with shops, rathe
club premises, as had been the case i n Ivanovo-N
with its budt-in library and reading room.
Large three-storey mass kitchens with big restau:
terraces and rest rooms were built at Apsheron in B:
dashev and Useinov, and at Surakhany, by Senchi
Mass kitchens played an important part in th(
ment of a network of communal provisioning thro
country. During the period of the First Five Year
these estabhshments were built i n large numbers, i|
to improve communal services and involve women
tion work.

483
Chapter 6/Development of communal supply and service systems
ire

es and ranges in urban dwedings. One

domestic tasks - bearing in mind that
on the outskirts of cities and workers'
own bread - was industriahzed. And
s basic activity showed the vast supeopposed to domestic production, by a
luctivity and a cheaper product.
It and the opportunity actually to erect
industry attracted many architects to
ds for bakeries and baking factories, as
lected with them, were developed not
tions, but also in higher educational
is the Polytechnlcal Institute and
new approach required for the spatial
ctures made them suitable subjects for
esign.

oted i n the 1920s to rationalizing the

ily kitchens. The main answer to the
ing women from their domestic chores
I the widest possible development of
only at work, but within reach of the

aal workers' restaurants had already

half ofthe 1920s in the main proletay. These were most widespread in Le;veloped system of communal restauiring the NEP period with a total ca3 meals a day. A communal restaurant
isted, as a rule, of small eating places
ion of food preparation and a low lev
; was thus a growing need for larger
nized communal catering estabdshlass - kitchen in the country, opened
n 1925 and became the prototype for
n the case of other pubhc institutions
ommunal houses. Palaces of Labour,
:rs' Clubs and mass action theatres vere first accommodated in existing

buildings. Architectural specifications for them were only

worked out later, and then used to design and construct special
buildings for this purpose.
Ivanovo-Voznesensk and other textile towns in this industrial region offered practical openings for the involvement of
women in production, because the gradual removal of men
who had made up the bulk ofthe textde labour force before the:
Revolution, had already begun.
This was regarded at that time as part of the hberation of
women from the yoke of domestic life and was accompanied by
the accelerated spread of a system of communal services, including catering establishments.
Workers' canteens were already in operation in the industrial plants of Ivanovo-Voznesensk by the early 1920s. ThJ
creation of a central mass kitchen was proposed in 1924. I t was
to supply ready-made meals to all the catering estabhshments
within its network, as well as becoming the town's communal
eating centre.
This first mass kitchen was housed in an existing building
adapted for the purpose, with the actual kitchen on the ground
floor and a restaurant with nearly 300 seats on the first, together with a hbrary and reading room. I t was equipped with food
processing machinery, refrigerators, lifts etc. Ready-made food
in special thermally insulated containers was distributed by
motor transport to eight work.s canteens linked with the mass
kitchen. The mass kitchen and the communal catering establishments connected with it provided some 10,000-12,000
meals daily, thus serving almost a quarter of the entire working
population ofthe town.
The success of the Ivanovo-Voznesensk mass kitchen
prompted a general move for the creation of such estabhshments in many other cities. The second mass kitchen in the
country opened in Nizhny-Novgorod in May 1927, with a daily
capacity of 8,000 meals, and served a number of industrial
enterprises and schools. The third mass kitchen was inaugurated at Dnesprstroi in 1928 to a design by Viktor Vesnin, Nikolai
Kolh, Orlov and Sergei Maslikh. Mass kitchens proliferated in
subsequent years, with new estabhshments in Moscow, Dnepropetrovsk, Orekhovo-Zuevo, Stalingrad, Tver, Tashkent,
Shuya, Serpukhovo, Rostov-on-Don and elsewhere.
The mass kitchen designed by Dmitry Razov in the small
town of Shuya was a two-storey building with three restaurants, a snack bar and a tea room, serving 3,000 meals a day, as

well as supplying another 3,000 in thermal containers to distribution points.

More than ten mass kitchens were built in Moscow at the
turn ofthe decade. These differed in output, number of storeys
and spatial composition. Those on Taktskaya Street, by Boris
Vilensky, and Upper Krasnoselskaya Street were smad twostorey buddings on a circular ground plan. The mass kkchens
on the Leningrad Highway by Meshkov, and at Fdi, were large
three-storey buddings with a conspicuous main entrance
placed on a corner. Three-storey buildings for this purpose
were erected on the Buzheninovka, by Sergei Kurabtsev, and
in Botkin Passage, with semicircular bow windows, as weh as
four-storey mass kitchens on the Mozhaisk Highway and elsewere.
r J
u
Moscow mass kitchens were mainly buift as speciahzed public catering enterprises designed to serve a stated number of
customers, as well as providing convenience foods and meals
for canteens attached to individual estabhshments.
An unusual type of mass kitchen was produced in Leningrad, where four of these were budt after designs by a team of
young architects - Barutchev, Gilter, Meerzon and Rubanchik. The Vyborg district mass kitchen consisted of two blocks,
one for production, the other for consumption and sales comprising three restaurants with 1,200 places, rest rooms and a
shop for convenience foods. The Narva district estabfishment
was housed in a three-storey building of complex design consisting of two main elements: a mass kitchen, with a projecting
semicircular glazed-in restaurant, and a department store,
with a rhythmic pattern of paired bow windows. The whole
complex in fact provided a smafl shopping centre.
The mass kitchen buildings in Moscow, Leningrad and
many other towns were associated with shops, rather than with
club premises, as had been the case in Ivanovo-Voznesensk
with its budt-in library and reading room.
Large three-storey mass kitchens with big restaurants, open
terraces and rest rooms were budt at Apsheron in Baku, by Dadashev and Useinov, and at Surakhany, by Senchikhin.
Mass kitchens played an important part in the estabhshment of a network of communal provisioning throughout the
country. During the period ofthe First Five Year Plan, when
these establishments were built in large numbers, they helped
to improve communal services and involve women in production work.

But experience also brought to fight a number of contradictions implicit in the development of various forms of communal provisioning during this period. Mass kitchens were often
regarded as a social requirement with an impact of its own on
the pattern of urban life, rather than simply a communal service intended to promote the greatest possible centrahzation
and mechanization of food processing and the preparation of
meals for use in works canteens. I t was assumed that the cheap
food avadable from mass kitchens would gradually drive out
home cooking. They were regarded as a special variety of collective centres to which the famihes resident in a district would
resort - rooms for chddren were provided for instance - not only
to eat, but also to take their leisure in common in rest rooms
and hbrary reading rooms. The vast dimensions of restaurants,
with hundreds or even thousands of seats, were seen as a spatial
expression of the coUective spirit, while a large number of
workers eating in common was a form of'social contact'.
Experience was soon to show that in so far as a radical transformation ofthe domestic economy and the habit of coUective
eating were concerned, hopes vested in mass kitchens remained largely unfulfilled. The mass kitchen did not provide a
means of organizing communal eating at the place of residence.
Its basic role remained the provision of meals in works canteens as weU as i n restaurants located in communal centres or
in the vicinity of a concentration of institutions. Similar kitchens intended for the population of residential districts and
providing family meals proved not to be economically viable
and were soon closed. The consumer resorted to such forms of
communal service when they enabled him or her to save time
and effort, but rejected them when they turned into a kind of
ritual coUectivization of daily life, as i n the case of communal
meals in vast halls.

Department stores

During the period under review, large department stores became important as a form of communal service. They began to
be designed during the first half of the 1920s, when Vladimirov
made a proposal for a twelve-storey department store m 1923
and the Vesnins designed a seven-storey one in 1925.
The budding of department stores began in earnest during
the second half of the decade. Competitions were launched for

484
Part Il/Social tasks of architecture
i S

Nikolsky (?) Mass bakery, Lemngrad,

1927-28.

their design, such as that for a four-storey store at the Danifov

Market in Moscow in 1928, with entries by Nikolai Kodi, Alexander Boldyrev and others; and for a store, with restaurant attached, in the Bauman district of Moscow in 1928, with entries
by Milinis and others. Alternadvely, individual commissions
were issued: two department stores were built in Moscow in
1928-29 from designs by K i r d Yakovlev, one of six storeys on
Serpukhovo Gate Square, comprising four sales and two office
floors, the other on the Sushchevski Rampart, three storeys
high. Smader stores were built after a prototype or blueprint,
such as the two-storey department stores on Usacheva Street
and Greater Semenovsky Street in Moscow budt to a common
design by Vasily Ilyashev, with Solovev as engineer.
The department store budt on the Krasnaya Presnya in
Moscow after a design by the Vesnins i n 1927-28 was architecturally outstanding among these designs ofthe later 1920s. I t is
a smad three-storey building standing on a trapezoidal plot
and hemmed in on either side by adjacent buildings. No expansive spadal composition was possible in this case, and the Vesnins provided a front elevation consisting of a fully glazed bow
front in a ferro-concrete frame.

designed and constructed to provide a collective farm markes

irket
with features characteristic of trade in socialist condition^
where two forms of property exist, that ofthe people and thatoj
co-operatives.
Students in the Obmas at Vkhutemas were already at worJ
on the design of a town market in the early 1920s. The mostinl
teresting spatial organization of a market interior was proJ
duced by Volodko under Krinsky's direction.
A competition was held in 1926 for the design ofthe SmJ
lensk Market in Moscow. Its specifications required the crea-j
tion of large trading hafis, underground stores and a rational.
ized flow ofthe movement of goods and customers. The mosl
interesting designs were submitted by Ilya Golosov and by!
Ginzburg, with Vladimirov's participation.
I n the same year, Barshch and Sinyavsky produced two a l l
ternative versions of a joint diploma project in Alexander Vesl
nin's Vkhutemas studio for a Central Market in Moscow.
What they designed was in fact a modern city trading centre i i j
which the oval or horseshoe-shaped spread ofthe trading halls
contrasted with the vertical office blocks fronting the street.
The most interesting variant involved three rhythmically sited,]
twenty-storey blocks.

Markets
Municipal baths and swimming pools

A l l private trading was forbidden during the period of War

Communism. This ban was removed from smad private traders with the introduction of the NEP. This led to a revival of
market trading (initially by stallholders), an activity which
had prospered since time immemorial in the Sukharevsky
Market in Moscow. The New Sukharevsky Market, designed
in 1924 by Melnikov, consisted of a smad administrative stone
budding and many small shops rented out to private traders
and arranged stepwise as a continuous zigzag terrace.
Private trade was gradually squeezed out by state and cooperative commerce as the country's economy recovered.
Town markets increasingly became places where peasants - by
the late 1920s, mostly codective farmers - sold the fruits of their
labour without the intervention of private traders. Large trading complexes provided with modern equipment needed to be
designed and budt in order to serve both customers and vendors. A new type of trading complex gradually took shape during the 1920s as old markets were rebuilt, whde new ones were

Considerable interest attached to experimental designs of a

new type of municipal baths. These were equally the object of l
attempts to convert them into places of 'social contact' by imparting new social functions to them.
When 'buildings for washing purposes' were being developed in Petrograd during the early years of Soviet power, their
functional assignment was significantly enlarged. Communal
baths were treated as public buddings, fike the thermal establishments at spas. I t was suggested in December 1919 that one
ofthe basic types of'buildings for washing purposes' should be
a comprehensive thermal establishment with a swimming
pool, showers, baths and a sauna.
A competition was held in 1920 for the design ofthe first district municipal baths in Petrograd. Entries by Trotsky, Tverskoy, Buryshkin and Langbard offered grandiose pubhc sports
complexes where washing facilities were subordinated both
functionally and compositionally to such elements as a ceremo-

485
1321 Frantsuz. Design for a bakery, Vkhutemas, I l y a
Golosov's studio, 1923.
1322 Sobolev. Design for a mass bakery, Vkhutemas,
Alexander Vesnin's studio, 1925. Perspective.

)r a four-storey store at the Danilov

, with entries by Nikolai IColli, Alex
; and for a store, with restaurant atrict of Moscow in 1928, with entries
ernatively, individual commissions
2nt stores were built in Moscow in
Liril Yakovlev, one of six storeys on
:omprising four sales and two office
ashchevski Rampart, three storeys
)uilt after a prototype or blueprint,
artment stores on Usacheva Street
treet in Moscow built to a common
with Solovev as engineer,
juilt on the Krasnaya Presnya i n
le Vesnins in 192728 was architecthese designs ofthe later 1920s. I t i s
ing standing on a trapezoidal plot
ie by adjacent buildings. No expan,s possible in this case, and the Ves;ion consisting of a fully glazed bow
Lme.

designed and constructed to provide a collective farm market

with features characteristic of trade in socialist condidonj
where two forms of property exist, that ofthe people and that of
co-operatives.
Students in the Obmas at Vkhutemas were already at work
on the design of a town market in the early 1920s. The most interesting spatial organization of a market interior was produced by Volodko under Krinsky's direction.
A competition was held in 1926 for the design of the Smolensk Market in Moscow. Its specifications required the creation of large trading halls, underground stores and a rational
ized flow ofthe movement of goods and customers. The most
interesting designs were submitted by Ilya Golosov and by
Ginzburg, with Vladimirov's participation.
I n the same year, Barshch and Sinyavsky produced two alternative versions of a joint diploma project in Alexander Vesnin's Vkhutemas studio for a Central Market in Moscow,
What they designed was in fact a modern city trading centre in
which the oval or horseshoe-shaped spread of the trading halls
contrasted with the vertical office blocks fronting the street.
The most interesting variant involved three rhythmically sited
twenty-storey blocks.

Municipal baths and swimming pools

rbidden during the period of War

s removed from small private tradf the NEP. This led to a revival of
(y stallholders), an activity which
immemorial in the Sukharevsky
ew Sukharevsky Market, designed
5ted of a small administrative stone
hops rented out to private traders
continuous zigzag terrace,
ally squeezed out by state and core country's economy recovered,
became places where peasants - by
tive farmers sold the fruits of their
tion of private traders. Large trad;h modern equipment needed to be
to serve both customers and vend;omplex gradually took shape dur3 were rebuilt, while new ones were

Considerable interest attached to experimental designs of a

new type of municipal baths. These were equally the object of
attempts to convert them into places of 'social contact' by imparting new social functions to them.
When 'buildings for washing purposes' were being developed in Petrograd during the early years of Soviet power, their
functional assignment was significantly enlarged. Communal
baths were treated as pubhc buildings, like the thermal establishments at spas. I t was suggested in December 1919 that one
of the basic types of'buddings for washing purposes' should be
a comprehensive thermal establishment with a swimming
pool, showers, baths and a sauna.
A competition was held in 1920 for the design ofthe first district municipal baths in Petrograd. Entries by Trotsky, Tverskoy, Buryshkin and Langbard offered grandiose pubhc sports
complexes where washing facilities were subordinated both
functionally and compositionally to such elements as a ceremo-

1323 Lamtsov. Design for a grain store, Vkliutemas,

Obmas, Ladovsky's course, 1922.
1324 Korzhev. Design for a grain store, Vkhutemas,
Obmas, Ladovsky's course, 1922.

^ ^ ^ T M ^ k i t c h e n , Moscow.

488
1328

Razov. Mass kitchen, Shuya.

1329 Senchikhin. Mass kitchen, Surakhany, near

Balm.

ITyjT

'.

^T'

Z^,

rl"'
Maslikh. Mass kitchen at Dneprostroi, 1928. Dining
hall.

, Surakhany, near

1330 Viktor Vesnin, Nikolai K o l l i , Orlov and

Maslikh. Mass kitchen at Dneprostroi, 1928. Dining
hall.

1331 Barutchev, Gilter, Meerzon and Rubanchik.

Vyborg Mass Kitchen, Leningrad.
1332 Barutchev, Gilter, Meerzon and Rubanchik.
Mass kitchen, Narva Gate district, Leningrad.
1333 Barutchev, Gilter, Meerzon and Rubanchik.
Volodar Mass Kitchen, Leningrad.

490
1334 Vladimirov. Design for a department store,
M i g i , 1923. Elevation.

1335 Yakovlev. Department store, Serpukhovo Gate

Square, Moscow, 1928-29.
1336 Milinis. Competition design for a department
store, Bauman district, Moscow, 1928. Axonometric
view.

Illlllllfi
II nil nil
lliillllli

1338-39 Vesnin brc

Krasnaya Presnya, M
building (1338). Plan

department store,

1335 Yakovlev. Department store, Serpukhovo Gate

Square, Moscow, 1928-29.
1336 Milinis. Competition design for a department
store, Bauman district, Moscow, 1928. Axonometric
view.

" ^ P v e s n i n brothers. Design for a department store,

iLscoW, 1925. Perspective.

1338-39 Vesnin brothers. Department store,

Krasnaya Presnya, Moscow, 1927-28. Completed
building (1338). Plan (1339).

492
1340 Melnikov. The Novo-Sukharevsky Market,
Moscow, 1924.
1341-42 Ginzburg, w i t h Vladimirov. Competition
design for the Smolensky Market, Moscow, 1926.
Perspective (1341). Section (1342).

^ ^ - - - r r T Z T c o m p e t i t i o n design for the

Moscow, 1926. Perspective.
Smolensky ^
^
covered market,

'^'!;Set,

1346-4
design f
Alexanc

"""'"tiX^course,
1923. Inside view.
' ' t ' C F o m i n . Design for the Tushinsky Market,
Soscow, 1923. Perspective.

' 3

Tlva Golosov. Competition design for the

1343 liy ^^^^^^ Moscow, 1926. Perspective.
^ " . t v o l o d k o . Design for a covered market,
J344 v o .
1923, Inside view.
' ' ' " " " i v a n Fomin. Design for the Tishinsky Market,

l o w , 1923. P

:=

1346-47 Barshch and Sinyavsky. Variants of a

design for the Central Market, Moscow, Vkhutemas,
Alexander Vesnin's studio, 1926. Perspectives.

494
1348

Zaltsman. Design for public baths, Vkhutemas,

1349 Trotsky and Tverskoy. Competition design for

district baths, Petrograd, 1920.

1350-51 Nikolsky. Public baths, Smolny district

Leningrad, 1928. General views.

,2_54 Nikolsky. Pubhc baths complex, Moscowiarva district, Leningrad, 1928. General view (1352).
Plans (1353-54)

i . .
' '-t

1c

i 11

.Vkhutemas,
,n design for

mm

amBDoro s m q w a

^or^
^TT^
1350-51 Nikolsky: Pubhe baths, Smolny district
Leningrad, 1928. General views.

1. Design for public baths, Vkhutemas,

ind Tverskoy. Competition design for
etrograd, 1920.

1350-51 Nikolsky. Pubhc baths, Smolny district,

Leningrad, 1928. General views.

' K^l^Wcolsky. Public baths complex, Moscow'^^-vldistrict, Leningrad, 1928. General view (1352).

1355-56 Nikolsky. Experimental design for a pubhc

baths, 1928. Model (1355). Elevation, plans, section
(1356).

496
1357-59 Panin. Public baths, Proletarsky district,
Moscow, 1928-30. General view (1357). Detail (1358).
Interior (1359).

1360-61 Gundorov. Public baths, Bauman district,

Moscow, 1928-30. Detail (1360). Interior (1361).

nial entrance hall, a covered swimming pool and a g

um as well as open-air sports stadiums with stands fo

tors.
When the mass construcdon of communal buildings
its stride in the mid-1920s, architectural specificadons
he baths became more reahstic. Designs were prod
bathing estabhshments of various capacities, includi
standard models, which provided bath and shower cu
weU as pubhc facihties.
The extensive drive to provide pubhc baths at the ti
decade greatly contributed to the improvement of cc
services for the workers. The development of a new typ
lie baths conceived as a complex communal building
in progress. Designs produced in Vkhutemas and in N
Leningrad studio did much to estabhsh the architect
cifications involved.
The specifications for designs of public baths prcj
1926 by Zaltsman, Marmorshtein and others i n V I
closely approximated to those ofthe earlier thermal (
ments, in that the actual bathing facihties were suborcj
a group of sports premises, such as large swimming ]
gymnasiums.
The designs produced by Nikolsky in 1928 vividly
the gap between the economic reahties of that perioi
quest for new types of pubhc buildings. He design
baths for two districts of Leningrad, which were d
Those for the Smolny district were housed i n a t
building, with the bathing facihties arranged in a circu
round an inner courtyard, and an adjoining rectanj
dbule. The building for.the Moscow-Narva district ]
ed a complex spatial composition in which the simp!
of the low and wide rectangular component blocks
trasted with the convoluted feature at the angle ofthe
Nikolsky also produced an experimental sketch ai
for a public bathhouse designed for a daily intake oi
ers, as a spread-out single-storey circular building h(
baths and a large swimming pool at its centre, co'v
glass dome.

ths, Proletarsky district,

view (1357). Detail (1358).

Chapter 6/Development of communal supply and service systems

1360-61 Gundorov. Public baths, Bauman district,

Moscow, 1928-30. Detail (1360). Interior (1361).

nial entrance hall, a covered swimming pool and a gymnasium as wed as open-air sports stadiums with stands for spectaWhen the mass construction of communal buildings got into
its stride in the mid-1920s, architectural specificadons for publie baths became more reafisdc. Designs were produced for
bathing estabhshments of various capacities, including some
standard models, which provided bath and shower cubicles, as
well as pubhc facilities.
The extensive drive to provide public baths at the turn ofthe
decade greatly contributed to the improvement of communal
services for the workers. The development of a new type of pubhc baths conceived as a complex communal building was also
in progress. Designs produced in Vkhutemas and in Nikolsky's
Leningrad studio did much to establish the architectural specifications involved.
The specificadons for designs of public baths produced in
1926 by Zaltsman, Marmorshtein and others in Vkhutemas
closely approximated to those ofthe earlier thermal establishments, in that the actual bathing facihties were subordinated to
a group of sports premises, such as large swimming pools and
gymnasiums.
The designs produced by Nikolsky in 1928 vividly idustrate
the gap between the economic reahties of that period and the
quest for new types of pubhc buddings. He designed pubhc
baths for two districts of Leningrad, which were duly budt.
Those for the Smolny district were housed in a two-storey
building, with the bathing facihties arranged in a circular edifice
round an inner courtyard, and an adjoining rectangular vesdbule. The building for.the Moscow-Narva district represented a complex spatial composition in which the simple outhnes
of the low and wide rectangular component blocks were contrasted with the convoluted feature at the angle ofthe building.
Nikolsky also produced an experimental sketch at this time
for a public bathhouse designed for a daily intake of 4,000 users, as a spread-out single-storey circular building housing the
baths and a large swimming pool at its centre, covered by a
glass dome.

Thus, during the second half of the 1920s, a new type of

building combining bathing and sports facilities was being intensively investigated, while the design and construction of
public baths, as such, continued. The two concepts gradually
converged, and the experimental designs shed any sports facilities, such as gymnasiums, that were unconnected with swimming. The result provided architectural specifications for a
new type of municipal building - the public baths and swimming pool - on which the design of baths in various districts of
Moscow, for instance, was based.
Two designs answering to this new requirement and submitted in 1928 for a competition to build baths in a particular part
ofthe Zamoskvorechie district of Moscow are important i n this
connection. Nikolai Morozov's design provided for a three- and
four-storey L-shaped building, consisting of two adjoining
blocks and comprising: bathing accommodation for men and
women; 225 shower cubicles; a sports swimming pool for use
by 100 competitors and stands for 600 spectators; a section
with fifty individual baths; a radiation and hydrotherapy section; and a 'while-you-wait' laundry. A n open-air stadium was
laid out next to the baths. I n Dmitriev's design, the blocks
housing the baths and swimming pool were laid out along a single axis, as part of one long building on a rectangular plan.
Provision was made for a large adjacent playing field, as wed as
a sun roof, a doctor's surgery and physical training accommodation.
Several such combined pubhc baths and swimming pools
were built in Moscow. I n 1930 alone, two large estabhshments
were completed, one in the Proletarsky district, by Panin, and
the other in the Bauman district, by Nikolai Gundorov. The
latter, designed in 1928, was a two-storey brick building with
separate bathing sections for men and woman. Inserted between these were a swimming pool with spectator stands (part
of which were fitted into a h a l f rotunda at one end), changing
cubicles and a diving board.
Combined pubhc baths and swimming pools were also budt
in other cities, notable amongst them being that in Leningrad
o f t h e early 1930s, by Sergei Vasilkovsky.

498

Designing a new type of scliooi

The reconstruction ofthe entire educational system, including

secondary schools, specialized and higher educational establishments, began immediately after the October Revolution. I n
the studio headed by Zholtovsky in the Architectural A r t Department ofthe People's Commissariat for Education, specifications for model school buildings were prepared and design
competitions were launched, such as those for the Tolstoy
Memorial School at Yasnaya Polyana in 1919 and for the Labour School, with entries by Ilya Golosov and Krinsky, in
1920.
The concept ofthe so-called Labour School, with an experimental team-method of tuidon and a polytechnlcal approach,
was a new idea of this time. Here, programmes and types of
schools changed, as did the methodology of school work, from
class work to tutorials and a combination of study and labour.
A f i this was necessarily reflected in the design of school buildings.
As a rule, the schools budt during the second half of the
1920s were designed on a pavilion pattern and an asymmetrical ground plan. Individual blocks were often hnked at firstfloor level by covered gangways. The whole complex design
was also frequently surmounted by the small cupola of the
school's observatory, as though to mark its polytechnlcal character.
I n addition to ordinary education, the new school was intended to impart physical, labour and socio-pohtical training,
and therefore contained not just classrooms, but also laboratories, studies, workshops, a gymnasium, library, dining had, accommodation for pupils' associations and recreation halls, one
of which could be adapted for meedngs, shows and concerts.
Sports grounds, a garden and a vegetable plot adjoined the
school.
Ivan Rybchenko designed a model four-storey, ten-year
school in Moscow in which the experimental tutorial method
was to be apphed with a bias towards producdon work, for
which it provided carpentry and metal processing workshops,
figurative art and music studios, physics and biochemistry laboratories.
The following schools may be singled out among those built
at this time: in Leningrad, the schools in Stachek Street, by N i kolsky in 1926-27; Lesnoi Prospect, by Nikolsky and Vladimir

Galperin in 1930-32; Tkachei Street, by Simonov in 1928-29.

and i n Stachek Street again, by Igor Fomin in 1930; in Moscow, the schools in Rusakovsky Street, by Fedorov in 1928-29'
and Krymsky Square in 1930; and in Baku, the School Palace
by Tersakov in 1926-27.
Besides the design and construction of such mass models for
school buildings, architectural research was also being undertaken in connection with the proposed radical reconstruction of
family life and the apphcation of new principles to the spatial
organization of school buildings.
The first of these categories covered designs for Child Communes, with school, communal and dwelhng accommodation
such as that by Petr Pomazanov in 1930, and children's educational combines providing tuition for children of ah ages.
The second category was represented by the experimental
designs produced in 1926-28 in Nikolsky's studio, for a new
spatial treatment of school buildings. Instead of a multi-storey
building with classrooms ht by windows from the side, Nikolsky
offered a single-storey complex in which groups of classrooms
and wide recreational areas, also serving as passages, were lit
from above. The composition centred on the school hall, a
vaulted and symmetrically sited building. The groups of structures housing the canteen and kitchens, speciahzed workshops
and laboratories, were conceived as projections and functionally isolated from the rest of the complex.

Worl<ers' Preparatory Faculties,

fiigher education establishments
and technical schools

From its very start, the Soviet regime faced an acute shortage of
trained cadres, and this situation deteriorated even further
when industriahzation speeded up throughout the country
during the second half of the 1920s. I t was also essential to provide the offspring of workers and peasants with a specialized secondary and higher education, as part of the important social
task of creating a new working intelfigentsia. This problem
could only be resolved by a radical reconstruction of the entire
educational system. During the very first years fohowing the
Revolution, a wide network of Rabfaks, or Workers' Preparatory Faculties, had been created, in which workers and peasants
who had not received a secondary education were given inten-

sive preparation for entry into higher education establishments. Thus, for instance, the Izo or Fine Arts Department at
the Workers' Preparatory Faculty of the Arts, prepared students for entry into Vkhutemas. Many thousands of young
workers and peasants passed through these faculties, and by
the second half of the 1920s this was already altering the social
mix of students in higher education.
The design of higher education estabhshments, usually with
the inclusion of Workers' Preparatory Faculties, had begun in
earnest in the middle of that decade. Among the first such competitions was that held i n 1926 for the design of a university in
Minsk. The specifications required a complex comprising: a lecture block; blocks for individual faculties; a club block; a hostel
for university and Workers' Preparatory Faculty students. The
Constructivist designs by Ginzburg, Leonidov, Vladimirov
and Vasily Krasilnikov, and Vegman were among the most interesting entries.
The designs carried out in Vkhutemas in 1926-27 for a
Higher School of Art complex, including a teaching block, club
premises, and student hostel, were also noteworthy. These
were produced under the direction of two Rationalist leaders:
Ladovsky, for the designs by Krutikov, Glushchenko and Vitaly Lavrov, and Dokuchaev, for those by Varentsov and Gelfeld.
A comparison of the Constmctivist designs for Minsk University and those of the Rationalists for a Higher School of Art
reveals strikingly different approaches to composition: the neat
and functional efficiency ofthe ground plan and spatial organization in the former, and the search for a spatially expressive
solution which characterized the latter.
A competition was held in 1927 for the design of a Polytechnlcal Institute, with Workers' Preparatory Faculty attached, at
Ivanovo-Voznesensk. Ivan Fomin's design in his Proletarian
Classical style, typical of that period, was selected and later
carried out.
The design for a Higher Co-operative Institute in Moscow,
produced in 1929 in Nikolsky's studio, is very important in
terms of the search for a new spatial conception of an educational building. Just as i n his experimental design for a school,
Nikolsky proposed to accommodate laboratories and lecture
halls in a single-storey structure fit from above, rather than in a
"lulti-storey building. He saw a number of advantages in this
arrangement because it provided more easily for the functional

499

;il

QfGmm

ire educational system, including

d and higher educational estab' after the October Revolution. I n
sky in the Architectural A r t Deimissariat for Education, specifidings were prepared and design
. such as those for the Tolstoy
Polyana in 1919 and for the La
' Ilya Golosov and Krinsky, in
1 Labour School, with an experin and a polytechnlcal approach,
Here, programmes and types of
ethodology of school work, from
ombination of study and labour.
;ed in the design of school buildt during the second half of the
dion pattern and an asymmetri)locks were often linked at firstlys. The whole complex design
ted by the smah cupola of the
h to mark its polytechnlcal char-

acation, the new school was inour and socio-political training,

St classrooms, but also laboratomasium, library, dining hall, aciations and recreation halls, one
meetings, shows and concerts.
1 a vegetable plot adjoined the
a model four-storey, ten-year
e experimental tutorial method
1 towards production work, for
id metal processing workshops,
s, physics and biochemistry lale singled out among those built
ichools in Stachek Street, by N i pect, by Nikolsky and Vladimir

Chapter 7/Education and science

Galperin in 1930-32; Tkachei Street, by Simonov in 1928-29'

and i n Stachek Street again, by Igor Fomin in 1930; in Moscow, the schools in Rusakovsky Street, by Fedorov in 1928-29and Krymsky Square in 1930; and in Baku, the School Palace'
by Tersakov in 1926-27.
Besides the design and construction of such mass models for
school buildings, architectural research was also being undertaken in connecdon with the proposed radical reconstrucdon of
family life and the applicadon of new principles to the spatial
organization of school buddings.
The first of these categories covered designs for Chdd Communes, with school, communal and dwehing accommodation
such as that by Petr Pomazanov in 1930, and children's educational combines providing tuition for children of all ages.
The second category was represented by the experimental
designs produced in 1926-28 in Nikolsky's studio, for a new
spatial treatment of school buildings. Instead of a multi-storey
building with classrooms lit by windows from the side, Nikolsky
offered a single-storey complex in which groups of classrooms
and wide recreational areas, also serving as passages, were ht
from above. The composition centred on the school hall, a
vaulted and symmetrically sited building. The groups of structures housing the canteen and kitchens, specialized workshops
and laboratories, were conceived as projections and functionally isolated from the rest ofthe complex.

Workers' Preparatory Faculties,

higher education establishments
and technical schools

From its very start, the Soviet regime faced an acute shortage of
trained cadres, and this situation deteriorated even further
when industrialization speeded up throughout the country
during the second half of the 1920s. I t was also essential to provide the offspring of workers and peasants with a specialized secondary and higher education, as part of the important social
task of creating a new working intelligentsia. This problem
could only be resolved by a radical reconstruction ofthe entire
educational system. During the very first years following the
Revolution, a wide network of Rabfaks, or Workers' Preparatory Faculties, had been created, in which workers and peasants
who had not received a secondary education were given inten-

sive preparation for entry into higher education establishments. Thus, for instance, the Izo or Fine Arts Department at
the Workers' Preparatory Faculty of the Arts, prepared students for entry into Vkhutemas. Many thousands of young
workers and peasants passed through these faculties, and by
the second half of the 1920s this was already altering the social
mix of students in higher education.
The design of higher education estabhshments, usually with
the inclusion of Workers' Preparatory Faculties, had begun in
earnest in the middle of that decade. Among the first such competitions was that held in 1926 for the design of a university i n
Minsk. The specifications required a complex comprising: a lecture block; blocks for individual faculties; a club block; a hostel
for university and Workers' Preparatory Faculty students. The
Constructivist designs by Ginzburg, Leonidov, Vladimirov
and Vasily Krasilnikov, and Vegman were among the most interesting entries.
The designs carried out in Vkhutemas in 1926-27 for a
Higher School of Art complex, including a teaching block, club
premises, and student hostel, were also noteworthy. These
were produced under the direction of two Rationalist leaders:
Ladovsky, for the designs by Krutikov, Glushchenko and Vitaly Lavrov, and Dokuchaev, for those by Varentsov and Gelfeld.
A comparison ofthe Constmctivist designs for Minsk University and those ofthe Rationahsts for a Higher School of Art
reveals strikingly different approaches to composition: the neat
and functional efficiency ofthe ground plan and spatial organization in the former, and the search for a spatially expressive
solution which characterized the latter.
A competition was held in 1927 for the design of a Polytechnlcal Institute, with Workers' Preparatory Faculty attached, at
Ivanovo-Voznesensk. Ivan Fomin's design in his Proletarian
Classical style, typical of that period, was selected and later
carried out.
The design for a Higher Co-operative Institute in Moscow,
produced in 1929 in Nikolsky's studio, is very important i n
terms of the search for a new spatial conception of an educational building. Just as i n his experimental design for a school,
Nikolsky proposed to accommodate laboratories and lecture
halls in a single-storey structure lit from above, rather than in a
riulti-storey building. He saw a number of advantages in this
arrangement because it provided more easily for the functional

intercommunication and necessary grouping of individual premises, while top lighting was less distracting for the students
and more evenly spread.
I n 1930-31, Ginzburg headed a group of architects in the
design of a Trades Technical Combine for the training of quahfied cadres at the Chelyabinsk Tractor Factory. This complex
was made up of a number of separate blocks linked by enclosed
walkways: a single-storey production training block, a circular
lecture block, ringed by a corridor, with sectional lecture rooms
and a teachers' common room at the centre.

Libraries

Libraries were regarded in the 1920s as one ofthe most important factors in the cultural revolution, on the same level as
clubs and schools. Thousands of reading room cabins were
opened in villages, as well as 'Red Corner' leisure rooms, hbraries and reading rooms in towns and workers' settlements,
during the early years of Soviet power.
Libraries stood for access to knowledge, and to the cultural
achievements of the world at large, by broad sections of the
working population, and they were awarded a place of honour
among the socially new types of pubhc buildings then being designed. I t is thus not a matter of mere chance that the first task
set by Nikolsky to senior Obmas students i n Vkhutemas was to
design a library as one of a town's foremost social centres, complex in its composition and monumental in appearance. Proposals by Balikhin and Mochalov were amongst those resulting.
Work on a model city library continued in VkhutemasVkhutein over the years. The difficulty ofthe brief was gradually increased, and the library turned into an elaborate complex combining the functions of an institution serving cultural,
educational, scientific and study purposes. Hence the diploma
subject set in 1927 for a Lenin Institute of Librarianship in
Moscow, with designs by Leonidov and Viktor Pashkov.
A competition was held in 1928 for the design ofthe Lenin
Library in Moscow. The first prize went to the entry by Dmitry
Markov, Fridman and Fidman in which the multi-storey bookstore was symbohcally shaped in the form of an open book. The
Vesnins used a consistently functional approach in a paviliontype design in which superimposed specialized blocks were
linked by corridors and gangways. Nikolsky offered a different

Part Il/Social tasks of architecture

type of composition in the spirit of Suprematist Constructi

under the drrecdon of Alexander Kuznetsov, were adopted f I
the con truction of Tsagi, the Central Institute of A e ^ a !
Hydrodynamics, and o f t h e All-Union Electro-Tech nT , r ^
->tute^ The funcdonal specifications and a r S ^ ^ t l t u r T l l
applied m both cases reflect the technni ,
,
^oriJ
scientific aspects mvolved
P^^ucdon and
On the other hand, the specificadons for the Moscow Tn
tute of Invalids, buflt in accordance with a d e s i e n T P
k

'

Scientific establishments

The cuhural revolution and the reconstrucdon ofthe nadonal

estLIhtt'

a u n , v e . ^ chnic and a cural educational

Gmzburg attempted to reconcile all these varioo! 7

serve. He therefore dtstribnted blocks with different r J T ,

as.gnn.ents amid vege.adon and linked th m
:
closed gangways. The main block was presented sMe
, .
street, with a glazed screen supported rsL
r ^ t r^
I
Large scientific estabhshments were created

"'"""^
establishments b u i h i n the
la^Os the followmg are worthy of note: the Experimental Vete
rmary Inst.tnte in Moscow, by Vladimirov and v Z Z ^
,

,L
r
.,
"""""S"' ">e unbuilt designs were
hos for a Mtntng Instttu.e in Stalino by Sh,eiberg.':f I M
Durmg the second half of the 1920^ A^.irr
.raduatesofthcMoscowHigherill^^^^^^^^^^^^

.001
is of architecture

osition in the spirit of Suprematist Gonstructiontrasting juxtaposition of variously shaped par/vhhe Shchusev submitted an entry in the GonThe eclecdc Neo-GIassicist design by Shchuko
was adopted and its execution began in 1930.
on was also held in 1928 for the design of a block
rad Pubhc Library. Nikolsky provided the most
ry, with a round reading room as the basis ofthe

hments

volution and the reconstruction ofthe national

integrally linked with a quickening tempo of
which had virtuahy to be started from scratch
Great importance was attached to integrated
Dpment, from basic research to the most downations. The areas subject to the most rapid de
e those upon which expansion of the national
ided in industry, transport and agriculture,
ific estabhshments were created or greatly exV buddings began to be provided for them from
inwards. Among the first of these was the InstiRaw Materials in Moscow: a competition was
1925 and attracted entries from Ilya Golosov,
:^idman among others. The design ultimately
ctor Vesnin.
cond half of the 1920s, designs by groups of
Moscow Higher Technical Institute, M V T U ,

1920.

under the direction of Alexander Kuznetsov, were adopted f J

the construction of Tsagi, the Gentral Institute of Aero- and
Hydrodynamics, and o f t h e All-Union Electro-Technical !,
stitute. The functional specifications and architectural forms
apphed in both cases reflect the technological, production ancfl
scientific aspects involved.
On the other hand, the specifications for the Moscow Institute of Invahds, built in accordance with a design by Ginzburg
in 1931, were whofly different. The Institute was conceived as a
scientific estabhshment founded to devise methods of fitting
the disabled into employment. I t could be said to combine the
functions of a scientific research institute, a training workshop
a university clinic and a cultural educational establishment'
Ginzburg attempted to reconcfle all these various funcdons
whfle recognizing the importance of providing healthy working
conditions for the disabled whom the Institute was designed to
serve. He therefore distributed blocks with different functional
assignments amid vegetation and hnked them together by enclosed gangways. The main block was presented side-on to the
street, with a glazed screen supported by slender piflars.
Among the scientific research establishments buih in the
1920s the following are worthy of note: the Experimental Veterinary Institute in Moscow, by Vladimirov and Vorotyntseva;
and the Institute for Marxism-Leninism in Moscow by Ghernyshev, of 1926-27. Notable amongst the unbuflt designs were
those for a Mining Institute in Stahno by Shteinberg, of 1929,
and for an Institute for Industrial Safety in Moscow, by Milir
nis, of 1929.

1363 Nikolsky and Vladimir Galperin. School, Lesnoi

Prospect, Leningrad, 1930-32. Detail.
1364-65 Nikolsky. School, Stachek Street,
Leningrad, 1926-27. Detail (1364). Plan of ground
lloor (1365).

502
1366 Simonov. Scliool, Tliachei Street, Leningrad
1928-29.
'
1367 Igor Fomin. School, Stachek Street, Leningrad
1930.
^
1368 Fedorov. School, Rusakovsky Street Moscow
1928-29.

1369 School, Krymskaya Street, Moscow, 1930.

1370-71 Nikolsky. Experimental design for a singlestorey school, 1926-28. Model (1370). Plan, elevations
sections (1371).

1372 Ginzburg. Competition design for

University, 1926. Perspective.
1373 Vladimirov and Vasily Krasilniko
Competition design for Minsk University
Perspective.
1374 Vegman. Competition design for I
University, 1926. Perspective.

503
1369 School, Krymskaya Street, Moscow, 1930.
1370-71 Nikolsky. Experimental design for a singlestorey school, 1926-28. Model (1370). Plan, elevations
sections (1371).

1372 Ginzburg. Gompetition design for Minsk

University, 1926. Perspective.
1373 Vladimirov and Vasily Krasilnikov.
Competition design for Minsk University, 1926.
Perspective.
1374 Vegman. Competition design for Minsk
University, 1926. Perspective.

504
1375-76 Glushchenko. Design for a Higher A r t
College, Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio, 1926. Model
(1375). Axonometric view (1376).
1377 Vitaly Lavrov. Design for a Higher A r t College,
Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio, 1927. Axonometric

1378-79 Varentsov. Design for a Higher A r t Cohege,

Vkhutemas, Dokuchaev's studio, 1927. Model of
general lay-out (1378). Detail: perspective (1379).

Gelfeld. Design for a Higher A r t College,

' \
Dokuchaev's studio, 1927. Perspective.
^''1 Nikolsky, Danilyuk, Kapotsinsky and Khidekel.
^
e .. , Hieher Co-operative Institute, Moscow,
Pesign toi
' f a 2 'ourw-Gurevich. Design for the Veterinary
ILitute. Saratov, 1929-30.

){ IJ

Art
Model
College,
letric

1378-79 Varentsov. Design for a Higher A r t College,

Vkhutemas, Dokuchaev's studio, 1927. Model of
general lay-out (1378). Detail: perspective (1379).

^^Z^ZTrZZip^'^^

College,
1380 G d f t ' ^
studio, 1927. Perspective.
Vkhutemas DO
Kapotsinsky and Khidekel.
1381 N'kolsky. D ^ co-operative Institute, Moscow,
Design
'' " ^
- G u r e v i c h . Design for the Veterinary
LteSratov,
1929-30.

1383-85 Ginzburg, with Mihnis. Competition

design for the Polytechnical Institute, IvanovoVoznesensk, 1927. Perspective of complete site (1383).
M a m building: perspective (1384). Plan (1385).

1386-87 Ginzburg and others. Design for a

Vocational Technical School (Proftekh) complex
Chelyabinsk, 1930-31. M a i n building: perspective
(1386). General lay-out: axonometric view (1387).

1388 Ginzburg and others. Design for a Proftekh

Chelyabinsk, 1930-31. Left: gymnasium: elevadon
section, plan. Right: round building with lecture
theatre: elevadon, section, plan.

-"^TT^in.

Design for a library, Vkhutemas,

f f j y - s course, 1921. Plan.
LqO Mochalov. Design for a library, Vkhutemas,
7vsky's course, 1921. Plan.
qt Viktor Petrov. Design for the Lenin Institute of
Mo Moscow, Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's
Librariansmp,
studio, 1927. Model.

1392 Pa
Librarian
Perspecti'
1393 M
design fo]
Perspecti-

507
1392
for a
complex,
lerspective
iw (1387),

1388 Ginzburg and others. Design for a Proftekh,

Ghelyabinsk, 1930-31. Left: gymnasium: elevation,
section, plan. Right: round building w i t h lecture
theatre: elevation, section, plan.

-""'Tmiin

Design for a library, Vkhutemas,

I ' s course, 1921. Plan,

l^ron Sochalov. Design for a library, Vkhutemas,
13""
1921 Pla.n

^'''rSktoTpetrov. Design for the Lenin Institute of

n.hio Moscow, Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's
Librariansmp.
studio, 1927. Model.

Pashkov. Design for the Lenin Institute of

Librarianship, Moscow, Vkhutemas, 1927.

Perspective.
1393

Markov, Fridman and Fidman. Gompetition

design for the Lenin Library, Moscow, 1928.

Perspective.

1396-97 Vesnm brothers. Competition design for the

Lenm Library, Moscow, 1928. First version
perspective (1396). Plan (1397)

'T^f'^^^^DlskyZcompetition
design for the Lenin
, hrary Moscow, 1928. Perspective.
,,09 Shchusev. Competition design for the Lenm
ibrary, Moscow,
Moscow, 1928.
1928. Perspective.
Pers^
r'hrary
L'
.' Shchuko
cui,1.nnnd
1400
and GelfreikI
Gelfreikh. The Lenin Library.
Moscow, 1928-41.

1401-(
wing of
reading

509

s. Competition design for tlie

928. Second version:
of inner courtyard (1395).

1396-97 Vesnin brothers. Competition design for the

Lenin Library, Moscow, 1928. First version:
perspective (1396). Plan (1397).

-^^Tmols^yCompetition design for the Lenin

139* ^^ . .r.,w 1928. Perspective
L'^'''''^:;, husev Competition design for the Lenm
1399 ^''l

1928. Perspective,

'^'oo''Shchuko and Celfreikh. The Lenin Library,

Itscow, 1928-41.

1401-03 Nikolsky. Competition design for a new

wing ofthe PubUc Library, Leningrad, 1928. Interior of
reading room (1401). Plan (1402). Section (1403).

510
1404 Ilya Golosov. Competition design for the
Institute of Mineral Raw Materials, Moscow, 1925.
Perspective.
1405 Ginzburg. Competition design for the Institute
of Mineral Raw Materials, Moscovy, 1925.
Perspective.

1406-07 Viktor Vesnin. The Institute of Mineral

Raw Materials, Moscow, 1925-27. Details
(1406-07).

lign for the

VIoscow, 1925.
for the Institute
1925.

1406-07 Viktor Vesnin. The Institute of Mineral

Raw Materials, Moscow, 1925-27. Details
(1406-07).

: : r G i u z b u r g . Design for the Institute for Disabled

l"^"
ivfoscow, 1931. Axonometric view.
Veterans, m

1409-10 Ginzburg. Design for the Institute for

Disabled Veterans, Moscow, 1931. M a i n building;
elevation (1409). Perspective of inner courtyard
(1410).
.
1411 Chernyshev. The Institute for MarxismLeninism, Moscow, 1926-27.

512
1412 Milinis. Competition design for the Institute for
Industrial Safety, Moscow, 1929. Perspective.
1413-14 Shteinberg. The M i n i n g Institute, Stalino,
1929. Perspective (1413). Completed building: detail'
(1414).

Sport and leisyr

sports installations

The involvement of the broad masses i n sport became one of

the more important measures in the field of health and culture
undertaken by the Soviet regime during the earliest post-Revoludonary days.
The Programme for Universal Military Training ofthe Citizens of Soviet Russia, Vseobuch, did a great deal to bring sport
into the workers' daily life during the Civil War. This movement initiated by the workers and peasants for the creation of
armed detachments in factories, cities and villages to defend
the Proletarian Revolution, also created a large network of
playing fields and promoted the construction ofthe first sports
instahations.
The foundation stone ofthe All-Russian Sports Stadium was
laid in Moscow on the Lenin Hhls in 1920 at the instigation of
Nikolai Podvoisky, the Head of Vseobuch; this installation was
soon thereafter renamed International Red Stadium, known as
MKS. Specifications were prepared for the stadium, sketch designs were made, and monuments and statues were commissioned from sculptors.
A competition was launched i n March 1924 for the design of
the MKS, in which teams of students from Vkhutemas and the
Moscow Institute of Civ Engineers, Migi, were invited to take
part. This work was treated as an academic activity, with each
student engaged on a separate item forming part ofthe project
as a whole. Vkhutemas students were awarded prizes for two of
their collective entries and were commissioned to continue the
elaboration ofthe design under Ladovsky's direction.
The International Red Stadium was intended for All-Union
and international sports competitions, such as the workers'
equivalent of the Olympic Games, the Octobriads. I t was to
form a fully developed complex with sports, spectator, agitadonal and entertainment facihties, including a stadium, clubhouse, mass action theatre, landing stage, bath house, entrance
arch, kiosks, and sports hostel.
In 1924, a group of Vkhutemas students under Ladovsky's
dhection designed a number of items for the sports complex,
some of which were immediately erected, such as the entrance
arch, kiosks and an amphitheatre for open-air plays in summer. Ladovsky, with Krinsky and the students, produced a
detailed design for the actual stadium, set on a steep gradient
and dropping down to the river in terraces. A model ofthe sta-

513

Sport and leisure

sports nstallations

The involvement of the broad masses in sport became one of

the more important measures in the field of health and culture
undertaken by the Soviet regime during the earhest post-Revolutionary days.
ri^r^-The Programme for Universal Mditary Training ol the Citizens of Soviet Russia, Vseobuch, did a great deal to bring sport
into the workers' daily life during the Civil War. This movement, initiated by the workers and peasants for the creation of
armed detachments in factories, cities and villages to defend
the Proletarian Revolution, also created a large network of
playing fields and promoted the constiuction ofthe first sports
instahations.
The foundation stone ofthe All-Russian Sports Stadium was
laid in Moscow on the Lenin Hihs in 1920 at the instigation of
Nikolai Podvoisky, the Head of Vseobuch; this instahation was
soon thereafter renamed International Red Stadium, known as
MKS. Specifications were prepared for the stadium, sketch designs were made, and monuments and statues were commissioned from sculptors.
A competition was launched i n March 1924 for the design of
the MKS, in which teams of students from Vkhutemas and the
Moscow Institute of Civil Engineers, Migi, were invited to take
part. This work was tieated as an academic activity, with each
student engaged on a separate item forming part ofthe project
as a whole. Vkhutemas students were awarded prizes for two of
their collective entries and were commissioned to continue the
elaboration ofthe design under Ladovsky's direction.
The International Red Stadium was intended for All-Union
and international sports competitions, such as the workers'
equivalent ofthe Olympic Games, the Octobriads. I t was to
form a fully developed complex with sports, spectator, agitational and entertainment facilities, including a stadium, clubhouse, mass action theatre, landing stage, bath house, entrance
arch, kiosks, and sports hostel.
In 1924, a group of Vkhutemas students under Ladovsky's
direction designed a number of items for the sports complex,
some of which were immediately erected, such as the entrance
arch, kiosks and an amphitheatre for open-air plays in summer. Ladovsky, with Krinsky and the students, produced a
detahed design for the actual stadium, set on a steep gradient
and dropping down to the river in terraces. A model ofthe sta-

dium was shown at the Paris International Exhibition in 1925.

The M K S competition was the first occasion on which Asnova
members worked together on a practical project. Among the
designs produced in Ladovsky's Vkhutemas studio in the
course of several years, the sports hostel by Krutikov and Valentin Popov, the clubhouse by Turkus and the mass action
theatre by Lamtsov deserve special mention. The M K S theme
was also set for diploma purposes in Ladovsky's studio, and
Korzhev's work on the stands represented an important original contribution in this category.
Stadia began to be built throughout the country during the
second half of the 1920s. They usually comprised an open-air
playing field with surrounding stands and a clubhouse. Examples of typical stadia built in Leningrad from designs produced
in Nikolsky's studio were the Red Sports International Stadium i n 1927 and the Red Putilov Factory Worker Stadium in
1928. The most interesting work done in Nikolsky's studio concerned variations in the shape and structure of stands. Original
types of ferro-concrete stands were designed, as well as a stand
buik on alluvial sand. The latter was designed for the bowlshaped stadium on Krestovsky Island in Leningrad during
1932-34, and was ultimately buht with some alterations.
The two sports complexes of the Dynamo Society in Moscow, by Langman and Lazar Cherikover, and Leningrad, by
Oleg Lyalin and Yakov Svirsky, stand out by their size among
stadia buht towards the end ofthe 1920s.
I n addition to fully developed sports complexes, individual
types of sports installations were also developed during the
1920s. Their design frequently included an original treatment
ofthe roof area, with complex and expressive spatial compositions, such as the design for the Red Khamovniki clubhouse in
Moscow, by Lamtsov and Viktor Petrov in 1928, and that of a
swimming pool, by Mikhail Minkus in 1929.
The beginning and end ofthe 1920s were marked by the design of large sports complexes of international significance.
The first of these was the International Red Stadium, the second was the All-Union Physical Training Combine in Moscow. The preliminary round of the competition to design the
latter was held in 1931-32. The stadium and stands holding
120,000 places were intended for international Spartakiad
Games and displays of the country's own sporting achievements. The most interesting among the four entries were probably the two submitted by teams of students from the Moscow

o f v a rT
direction
of Ilya Golosov^In these designs, the main stands served both
the central stadmm and the mass display field, as likewise
could the stands round the footbah field through gaps along
either its width or its length.
^ ^
aiong

Parks of Culture and Leisure

From the earhest years ofthe Soviet regime, the parks, gardens
and squares that had previously been privately ow;ed wer
hrown open to ah citizens. As public parks were laid out, and
club and sports complexes were organized, a new type of u ban
arnemtygraduallytookshape,theParkofCultureandLlre
Experiments carried out i n the Gentral Park of Gulture and
Leisure in Moscow, which became a sort of laboratory for this
purpose, provided a basis for the elaboration of specification
and functional planning methods for other parks of the ^ew
^ype elsewhere. A large tract along both bank's ofthe M o s L w
River was set aside, including the area ofthe 1923 Agricultural
Ex ibition, the Neskuchny Garden, the Lenin Hills L t z b
niki. I t was thought that such a park must include a sports
a r e ^ r Z r ' ^ ' r " ^ " '

^"

Diploma tasks were set in Vkhutein in 1929 with the Park of

Culture and Leisure in Moscow as an object. Two ofthe main
problems encountered were those of convenient communicadons with the v a r i o . . districts of Moscow and the organic^ egrationofvarious instahations into thenatural environment A
system of entrances convenientiy connecting the park with the
Chy at large had to be provided, as weh as an entry arch fo^ h
"

I n Mazmanyan's design, from Ladovsky's studio, a ceremonial route flanked by stands led the group visitor to n unuseight plan The visitor approaching the park by this 'archramp gradually climbed higher and h i g h e r L d attained a pan
T

;Y

ky's s Z i o
two s

f:''''^''^ '

- s o l u t i o n s of
-

P-duced in Ladov-

- - P o s i d o n hinges on the contrast between

wo structural complexes, the first being the sports area in

Luzhniki, at the park's lowest point, the second at its culminl-

tion on the Lenin Hihs, in the club area. The chhdren's viha.e
are variously mterpreted. Three age groups - babies
tn^T
and schoolchfldren - were to be p L ^ d e d ^ L .
the same studio, designed the park crche as a sort of h
cloakroom a long low block where the parents entennrt
park would hand over their babies. The L d e r g a r t e r i n t i
design were arranged so that each smah group of children
an area of its own to play in.
icn tiau

A;:r;arS

A competition was held in 1931 for the actual design ofthe

Moscow Gentral Park of Gulture and Leisure, as a link in h
omplex Cham ofthe city's parks. The entries concentratTd o
a search for the most rational ways of zoning the park ar a J
der exisdng circumstances. Designs by Melnikov and Gi
burg provided the most elegant solutions
Melnikov centred his composition on Luzhniki and divided
the semicircular area there into sectors or functional zon^
which converged towards the main entrance and fanned o u t "
the direcdon ofthe river. The Neskuchny Garden and the mass

o veget ti,

^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^

J.S

Ginzburg s approach to zoning was difl-erent. He divided the

park mto a series of strips which hugged the curves ofthe r i v .
loweiT
of entrances on the perimeter ofthe park alowed the visitor easy access to the functional zone of his or her
choice by way of transverse aheys.

Rest homes

Before the Revolution, the vast majority ofthe working population had no opportunity to use holiday resorts or rest homes.
From the very first years of Soviet power, holiday resorts were
put at the disposal of workers and peasants. A new way of using
these and other leisure centres was gradually developed and
perfected. The provision of rest homes by trade unions, large
undertakings, ministries and other organizations, together
with greatly reduced fares subsidized by social insurance, became widespread. Former country houses and palaces, boarding houses and hotels were re-equipped for this purpose, in ad- .
didon to the construction of new accommodation in leisure ^
centres.
One ofthe first competitions for the wholesale development
of a rest zone was held in 1926 for the construction ofthe SochiMatsesta resort. Avraam Zilbert's design deserves to be

singled out among the entries submitted. 1

carrying galleries and terraces - of five e.
dwelling blocks, sited along the contours (
the communal services block comprising a
ponent.
In 1928, Vkhutein students were set thi
day Hotel', comprising 200 bedrooms an
rooms. I n Alexander Vesnin's studio, A
complex set task by linking a high part of t
sea via an extended hotel block which spa:
the shore, while the residential quarter d(
along a sloping corridor. Nikolai Sokolo\
the natural environment by scattering
cabins of various sizes, suitable for one,
and raised on a central pillar surrounded
stairs, amid the surrounding vegetation. Ii
Bunin suggested the construction of a pern
accompanied by temporary living acconj
cinity.
The Green Gity mentioned earlier, for
was held in Moscow i n 1930, was intende(
an unusual idea for a workers' recupera
above, Ginzburg and Barshch departed f n
and treated Green Gity as part of a linear i
design also contained many interesting su
ganization of leisure, such as stadia, touri
Ladovsky designed Green Gity as a cit)
living, an extensive holiday resort for M
axis of his plan was the motorway linking
cow. The individual leisure districts woul
motorway by access roads forming close(
planning pattern and basic principle of
design are reminiscent of a tree, with the m
and the access roads as the branches. A rai
hotel, department store etc, were sited ne;
whfle rest homes, a winter camp with tou:
dren's vihage and other installations
around the area.
Melnikov conceived Green Gity as a cii
sure, implying flrst and foremost the rad
the main form of rest. I n his design, the Gr(
closed within a ring of main transport roi
sectors of forest, fields, gardens and vege

51,')
Ghapter 8/Sport and leisure

istruction Institute, Asi, under tiie direction

n tiiese designs, the main stands served both
im and the mass display field, as likewise
round the football field through gaps along
its length.

.eisure

'ears of the Soviet regime, the parks, gardens

had previously been privately owned were
citizens. As pubhc parks were laid out, and
nplexes were organized, a new type of urban
took shape, the Park of Culture and Leisure,
rried out in the Central Park of Culture and
r, which became a sort of laboratory for this
a basis for the elaboration of specifications
nning methods for other parks of the new
arge tract along both banks ofthe Moscow
, including the area of the 1923 Agricultural
ikuchny Garden, the Lenin Hills and Luzhtit that such a park must include a sports
ntonment, club premises, an art exhibition
ihage, pubhc eating places and quiet areas,
ere set in Vkhutein in 1929 with the Park of
e in Moscow as an object. Two of the main
red were those of convenient communicaus districts of Moscow and the organic inteistallations into the natural environment. A
conveniently connecting the park with the
36 provided, as well as an entry arch for the
ed bodies of visitors for official celebrations

5 design, from Ladovsky's studio, a cere1 by stands led the group visitor to an unusdesigned as a wide ramp on a figure-ofitor approaching the park by this 'archibed higher and higher and attained a pan^hole park by following the convolutions of
ikaya's design - also produced in Ladovmposition hinges on the contrast between
alexes, the first being the sports area in
i's lowest point, the second at its culmina-

tion on the Lenin Hihs, in the club area. The children's villages
are variously interpreted. Three age groups - babies, toddlers
and schoolchhdren - were to be provided for. Alabyan, fro,
the same studio, designed the park crche as a sort of human
cloakroom: a long low block where the parents entering the
park would hand over their babies. The kindergartens in this
design were arranged so that each small group of chdren had
an area ofits own to play in.
A competition was held in 1931 for the actual design ofthe
Moscow Central Park of Culture and Leisure, as a hnk in the
complex chain of the city's parks. The entries concentrated on
a search for the most rational ways of zoning the park area under existing circumstances. Designs by Melnikov and Ginzburg provided the most elegant solutions.
Melnikov centred his composition on Luzhniki and divided
the semicircular area there into sectors or functional zones
which converged towards the main entrance and fanned out in
the direction ofthe river. The Neskuchny Garden and the mass
of vegetation on the Lenin Hills were reserved for quiet leisure.
Ginzburg's approach to zoning was different. He divided the
park into a series of strips which hugged the curves ofthe river.
The large number of entrances on the perimeter ofthe park allowed the visitor easy access to the functional zone of his or her
choice by way of transverse alleys.

Rest homes

Before the Revolution, the vast majority ofthe working populadon had no opportunity to use holiday resorts or rest homes.
From the very first years of Soviet power, hohday resorts were
put at the disposal of workers and peasants. A new way of using
these and other leisure centres was gradually developed and
perfected. The provision of rest homes by trade unions, large
undertakings, ministries and other organizations, together
with greatly reduced fares subsidized by social insurance, became widespread. Former country houses and palaces, boarding houses and hotels were re-equipped for this purpose, in addition to the construction of new accommodation in leisure
centres.
One ofthe first competitions for the wholesale development
of a rest zone was held in 1926 for the construction ofthe SochiMatsesta resort. Avraam Zhbert's design deserves to be

inded out among the entries submitted. I n it, the butt ends 'arrying gaheries and terraces - of five elongated two-storey
dwelhng blocks, sited along the contours ofthe ground, faced
the communal services block comprising a tall six-storey com928, Vkhutein students were set the subject o f ' A Hohday Hotel', comprising 200 bedrooms and a group of pubhc
rooms I n Alexander Vesnin's studio, Afanasev solved this
complex set task by linking a high part ofthe shorehne with the
sea via an extended hotel block which spanned the gradient of
the shore, while the residential quarter descended in terraces
along a sloping corridor. Nikolai Sokolov's design preserved
the natural environment by scattering circular residential
cabins of various sizes, suitable for one, two or three guests,
and raised on a centtal pihar surrounded by a spiral flight of
stairs, amid the surrounding vegetation. I n Ladovsky's studio,
Bunin suggested the construction of a permanent service centre
accompanied by temporary living accommodation in its v i cinity.
..
The Green Gity mentioned earlier, for which a competition
was held in Moscow in 1930, was intended not as a city but as
an unusual idea for a workers' recuperation area. As noted
above, Ginzburg and Barshch departed from the specifications
and treated Green City as part of a hnear settiement. But their
design also contained many interesting suggestions for the organization of leisure, such as stadia, tourist pavflions etc.
Ladovsky designed Green Gity as a city of rest and sociahst
living, an extensive holiday resort for Moscow workers. The
axis of his plan was the motorway hnking the resort with Moscow. The individual leisure districts would be linked with the
motorway by access roads forming closed loops. The overah
planning pattern and basic principle of development in his
design are reminiscent of a tree, with the motorway as the ttunk
and the access roads as the branches. A railway station, central
hotel, department store etc, were sited near the planning axis,
while rest homes, a winter camp with tourist pavihons, a chhdren's vhlage and other installations would be scattered
around the area.
Melnikov conceived Green Gity as a city of rationahzed leisure, implying first and foremost the rationalization of sleep,
the main form of rest. I n his design, the Green Gity area was enclosed within a ring of main transport routes and divided into
sectors of forest, fields, gardens and vegetable plots, a zoo, a

children's village and a social area, at the centre of which stood

an Institute of Man. The visitors relaxing among the greenery
had at thefr disposal mobile restaurants, hbraries and sports
instahations. Various estabhshments were included, such as a
railway station, a spa, hotels and tourist pavilion. But Melnikov chiefly concenttated on the sleeping accommodation. The
dwehing blocks were equipped so as to enhance the quality of
sleep, with specially designed beds, controlled pressure and
composition of the air, piped music etc.
Fridman's design tieated Green City as a forest resort. Most
of the installations in it were to be assembled from standard
components, with dwehing units linked to each other in long
chains.
Ladovsky's design won, and he was commissioned to develop the settiement. I n addition, ah four competitors were
enabled to test the dwehing units they had designed in fullscale models. The working design and constiuction ofthe project began in 1930-31 with the production ofa scale model, the
laying ofthe road and initial construction ofa number of installations, but was then wound up at the end of the second townplanning debate.
During the period under review the following buildings
erected were of special interest: the sanatoria in Matsesta by
Shchusev, of 1926-35, i n Sochi by Miron Merzhanov, of
1931-33, and in Barvikha by Boris lofan, of 1929-34; also the
rest house of Lake Sevan by Kochar and Mazmanyan, of
1934-35.
The development of new forms of pubhc building during this
period mirrored the complex and inherently contradictory
course of development of new pubhc, administiative, educational and other estabhshments and the search for new kinds of
mass cultural work, for education and for communal provision
for leisure. Particular types of institution came to the fore at
successive stages of this evolution, and thefr requirements were
then embodied in architectural specifications for the new types
of buildings needed, foflowed by their design and constiuction.
Such new institutions, however, often substantially altered
their original characte) as practices changed. I n some cases
they simply proved unvjable, or, having fulfilled thefr intended
function, were replaced by others at the next stage of progress.
A f l this was equally reflected in the search for new types of
pubhc buildings, in changes in the specifications for them and

516
Part Il/Social tasks of architecture
^ r T I d o v s k y with Krinsky and others. Design for
It International Red Stadium, Moscow, 1924-25.

in changing attitudes to certain types ofstructures. These consideradons obtained with particular force in those areas of architecture where the development of new types of buddings
was most intense, such as that of Palaces of Labour, Houses of
Soviets, Workers' Clubs, mass action theatres, mass kitchens,
swimming baths, labour schools. Workers' Preparatory Facul-

^"T'TUAUS.
Booths at the International Red Stadium,
ow Ladovsky's course, 1924. View as built.
Valentin Popov. Design for the competitors'
quarters. International Red Stadium, Moscow,
'"'dovsky's course, 1924. Axonometric drawing.

ties and rest homes. These researches and experiments in the

development of new types of public building played an impor
tant part in the establishment ofthe world's first sociahst architecture. They helped to introduce a new culture into everyday
life, and they laid a firm foundation for the further evolution of
this area of architecture in the Soviet Union.

517
hitecture

' ,s Ladovsky, with Krinsky and others. Design for

It International Red Stadium, Moscow, 1924-25.
^"^iTTurkus. Booths at the International Red Stadium
Ifscow Ladovsky's comse, 1924. View as built.
7 l 7 Valentin Popov. Design for the competitors'
quarters, International Red Stadium, Moscow,
L dovsky's course, 1924. Axonometric drawing.

les to certain types ofstructures. Tiiese conid witii particular force in those areas of arhe development of new types of buildings
uch as that of Palaces of Labour, Houses of
niubsj mass action theatres, mass kitchens,
ibour schools. Workers' Preparatory Facul-

ties and rest homes. These researches and experiments in the

development of new types of public budding played an important part in the establishment ofthe world's first sociahst architecture. They helped to introduce a new culture into everyday
life, and they laid a firm foundation for the further evolution of
this area of architecture in the Soviet Union.

1418 Turkus. Design for a sports club at the

International Red Stadium, Moscow, Ladovsky's
course, 1924. Elevation.
1419-20 Nikolai K o l h . Design for a stadium on the
Vorobev Hihs, Moscow, 1922. Stadium elevation
(1419). General lay-out, details (1420).

1421-23 Korzhev. Design for the International Red

Stadium, Moscow, Vkhutemas, Ladovsky's studio,
1925-26. Stands: perspective (1421). General lay-out
(1422). Section (1423).

1424 Korzhev. Design for the International Red

Stadium, Moscow, Vkutemas, Ladovsky's studio,
1925. Axonometric view.
1425 Lamtsov. Design for an open-air massed
performance theatre, at the International Red Stadium
Moscow, Ladovsky's course, 1924. Elevations. Plan.
Section.

Lissitzky. Design for a yacht club, Moscow,

Jg25*r26'Axonometric view (1426) Section (1427).

sign for the International Red

utemas, Ladovsky's studio,
:ctive (1421). General lay-out

313
1424 Korzhev. Design for the International Red
Stadium, Moscow, Vkutemas, Ladovsky's studio,
1925. Axonometric view.
1425 Lamtsov. Design for an open-air massed
performance theatre, at the International Red Stadium
Moscow, Ladovsky's course, 1924. Elevations. Plan.
Section.

^^r'^T^Jssitzky. Design for a yacht club, M o s;cow.

.
[ J 26- Axonometric view (1426). Section (1427)

1428-29 Nikolsky. The Red Sports International

Stadium, Leningrad, 1927. Detail of stand (1428). Club
(1429).

1430-31 Metlin. Aviakhim Palace of Sport, Moscow,

1932-35. General view (1430). Ground-floor plan
(1431).

1433 Nikolsky. Design for a new spectator stand.

Section.

1432 Nikolsky. Design for a stadium on ICrestovsky

Island, Leningrad, 1932-34. Perspective.

1434 Nikolsky. Design for the Krasny Putilovets

Stadium, Leningrad. Perspecdve of stands.

" ^ r ' r ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a n d Cherikover. The Dynamo

I Lm

Moscow, 1928. Detail.

fi 37 Lyalin and Svirsky. The Dynamo Stadium,

i S n p a d , 1928. Details.

1 Palace of Sport, Moscow,

0). Ground-floor plan
i stadium on Krestovsky
Perspective.

1433 Nikolsky. Design for a new spectator stand.

Section.
1434 Nikolsky. Design for the Krasny Putilovets
Stadium, Leningrad. Perspective of stands.

"TT'^Z^^ZZ^d Cherikover. The

km

Dynamo

Moscow, 1928. Detail,

^'te 37 Lyalin and Svirsky. The Dynamo Stadium,

leningrad, 1928. Details.

522
1441-43 Mazmanyan. Design for a Parli of Gulture
and Leisure, Moscow, Vkhutein, Ladovsky's studio,
1929. Approach (1441). General lay-out (1442)
Pavilion (1443).

^77^45 Zhirov. Design for a Park of Gulture and

1

Moscow, Vkhutein, 1929. Diagram of outer

(1444)- Perspective: spectator stands, suspension

3vay(I445).

ign for a Park of Culture

tein, Ladovsky's studio,
eral lay-out (1442).

^ - ^ T ' ^ ^ T w l e ^ for a Park of Culture and

^
Moscow, Vkhutein, 1929. Diagram of outer
n444) Perspective-, spectator stands, suspension

:iay(1445).

1446 Melnikov. Competidon design for the

Park of Culture and Leisure, Moscow, 1931.
lay-out.
1447 Ginzburg. Competition design for the
Park of Culture and Leisure, Moscow, 1931.
lay-out: functional allocation of areas.

Central
General
Central
General

')24

1448 Zilbert. Design for the development ofthe SochiMatsesta resort, 1926. Elevadon.
1449 Afanasev. Design for a holiday hotel, Vkhutein,
Alexander Vesnin's studio, 1928. Elevation.
1450 Zundblat. Design for a hohday hotel, Vkhutein,
Alexander Vesnin's studio, 1928. Elevation.

525
1451-52 Nikolai Sokolov. Design for a holiday hotel,
Vkhutein, Alexander Vesnin's studio, 1928. Pavilions:
axonometric view (1451). Elevations, plans (1452).
1453 Bunin. Design for a holiday hotel, Vkhutein,
Ladovsky's studio, 1928. Model.

1454-56 Ladovsky. Competition design for Gre

City, 1930. General lay-out (1454). Gentral hotel:
perspective (1455), Ground-floor plan (1456).

K7-60 Ladovsky. Competition design for Green

1930 Railway station and assembly rooms:
trie view (1457). 'Wigwam' cabin for two
tourists: model (1458). Section (1459). Plan (1460).

527
dovsky. Competition design for Green
;neral lay-out (1454). Central hotel:
455), Ground-floor plan (1456).

^77^60 Ladovsky, Competition design for Green

1930 Railway station and assembly rooms:
metric view (1457). 'Wigwam' cabin for two
'ourlstT: model (1458). Section (1459). Plan (1460).

1461-63 Melnikov. Competition design for Green

City, 1930. General lay-out (1461). Hotel: interior of a
room (1462). Plans, sections (1463).

529
iompetition design for Green
out (1461). Hotel: interior of a
tions (1463).

1464-66
City, 1930

nAAHMP0BAHl4E

TEPPHTOPMH

!1 '

,111

. 3 E A E H b m rOPOA

Melnikov. Competition design for Green

1467-68 Melnikov. Competition design for Green

City, 1930. Staff quarters: ground-and first-floor plans,
section, elevation (1467). Tourist accommodation:
'Sun Sonata' bedroom wing: elevation (1468).

1469 Fridman. Competition design for Green City,

1930. General lay-out.

1470-73 Fridman. Competition design for Green

City, 1930. Hotel constructed with standard dwelling
units for one district: plan (1470). Hotel for another
district: plan (1471). Section (1472). Model (1473).

Kalmykov Design for tourist accommodation,

City, Ladovsky's studio, 1931. Model,
' ^ ' f c " Kao'lun. Design for a conservatory. Green City,
[fdovskysstudto, 1931. Model.

in design for Green Gity,

1470-73 Fridman. Gompetition design for Green

City, 1930. Hotel constructed with standard dwelling
units for one district: plan (1470). Hotel for another
district: plan (1471). Section (1472). Model (1473).

Kalmykov. Design for tourist accommodation,

en City, Ladovsky's studio, 1931. Model.
^475 Kap'lun. Design for a conservatory. Green City,
Ladovsky's studio, 1931. Model.

1476-77 Barshch and Ginzburg. Competition design

for Green City, 1930. Summer and winter tourist
accommodation.

532
1478 Alexander and Leonid Vesnin. The Gorny
Vozdukh (Mountain Air) Sanatorium, Matsesta,
1928-31.
1479 Shchusev. Sanatorium, Matsesta, 1926-35.
Detail.
1480

Merzhanov. Sanatorium, Sochi, 1931-32.

Masters
and trends:

1481-82 Boris lofan. Sanatorium, Barvikha,

1929-34. General view (1481). Plan (1482).
1483 Kochar and Mazmanyan. Rest home, Lake
Sevan, the Armenian SSR, 1934-35. Detail.

Diographies,
statements,
manifestos

Part

New architecture and its trends

ning and development of new towns, such as Magnitogorsk

Thenew Soviet architecture ofthe 1920s .s often treated rn the

A v t o s t r o i and Kuznetsk, as well as designs for the r e b u i l d i n g of

a number of Moscow squares m 1931.

"n-

'

and even domestic - architec.nral press as a rather

phous phenomenon devoid o f any clear-cnt ddferences

I n the Constructivist designs, the compositional means em-

C e e n T n d M d n a l trends. Sneh an approach makes n tmpos-

ployed d e a r l y revealed Classicist attitudes. There was of

rt describe the Soviet architects of that per.od object.vely^

ulstnoqulstionofanydirectanalogy.ltwasamatt^^^^^^

" A t a ce tain stage of its development, every creat.ve trend

proach to the d i s t r i b u t i o n of bmldings m space and the means

I c e s " theoretical credo as well as a specific system of arns-

rdeX

o composing an orderly composition

n d methods. T h i s needs m be stressed m tbe pres

' t ca e beeaose the existence of stylistic systems has nsnally

soatial composition of single buildings.

y been - c o g n i z e d w i t h i n the traditionalist S o v e , archrtec:

ented representatives of RationaUsm and Constructivism,

M e l n i k o v and Leonidov.
^ntireWvalB o t h produced designs that were entirely novel, entirely va
i d !s works of art and devoid of any association w i t h the past^
Nevertheless despite the modernity and exqmsite quahty of
l7onlT^.siJs,
a Classicist underlay is clearly perceptfl^le
n t h e m w h i c h IS, also present, incidentally, i n the w o r k of
M i l s v a n der Rohe, b u t absent f r o m the works of M e l n i k o v
Classicism also underlay I l y a Golosov's creative concept
and i n particular his theory o f t h e construction - ^ h i ^ e c t u ^ a l
orgamsms. Hence Golosov's Constructivist, rather t h a n Ra
tionalistpositioninthemid-1920s.Hewasmnosensebyi^^^^^^

hauhosewbofav^

" i

d that i t was necessary to develop any s p e c f m system of

c C

bional means and methods and insisted on the predom-

T a ' p l e of a creatrve approach, sneh as the psychoanalyur a l or the Functional M e t h o d .

N v * theless i t was inevitable that the differences m aes bet

ic conceptions and methods of design between, say,

fafonal

i m and C o n s t m c t i v i s m shonld be reflected m therr manner o f

TaTng a spatial composifion, i n their a t f i t n d e to part.cu ar

Tapes and details, and m the speciflc artistic means and meth-

"%:rt*r

and C o s t r c t i v , s t

, o t e d i n earfler chapters clearly demonstrate * a

either case are exemplified i n the o u t p u t of two o f t h e most tal-

rlassicist N e o - A r m e n i a n schools, and so on.

' T h e differences between the creative methods employed m

1 trends of this fime. sneh as tbe Neo-Rena.ssance, Prole-

'Tstrn

the whole complex^

Classidst t r a d i t i o n is also perceptible i n the rules apphed to the

" de p h

the styhsric m f i t y o f t h e new archrtectore as sneh - works by the

nation a radical reformer o f t h e methods and means of architec

Tr

I n his analysis o f t h e properties of various geomemc vo-

umes for instance, he came to the conclusion that certam soh

supporters o t e a c h o f these trends display different f o r m a l and

d r s u c h as a vertical half-cylinder, a quarter-sphere e c, cou d

aesthetic characteristics.
n^^irism
Both Rationalists and Constructivists rejected Glassiasm
and genuinely made no use of t r a d i t i o n a l forms m their w o r L
Nevertheless, a comparison o f t h e means they employed m the
spatial composition of buildings and larger complexes undemably suggests that the Gonstructivists were more closely tied to
tradition T h e geometrical orderUness of their compositions
points to the indirect influence of Classicist aesthetic concepts.
This inherited strand is obvious i n the works of most leading
Constructivists - Alexander V e s n i n , Leonidov, A n d r e i B u r o v
and others - even though they themselves were unaware of i t .

n t ; be used for architectural purposes on their o w n and needed

This is clearly shown by comparing the entries o^Os^L^onstructivists w i t h those of Rationalists f r o m Asnova and A R U ,
in competitions such as those for the Proletarsky D i s t r i c t Palace of Culture, the A l l - U n i o n Palace o f t h e A r t s , the Palace ol
Soviets i n Moscow, the theatre i n K h a r k o v , and for the p l a n -

to b e ' s u p p o r t e d ' by other volumes. H e also identified a group

of negatwe volumes', such as a reversed p y r a m i d , an ehrpsoid
e c w h i c h , i n his o p i m o n , were counterindicatedfor architectuI 'purposes. Even when designing genuinely innovative, b o l d y shaped dynamic compositions, Golosov observed certam
general principles m the construction of a r c h i t e c t u r a l ^ r g a
msms w h i c h were similarly basic i n Classical terms^ T h i s set
GTo ov's o u t p u t i n early Soviet years apart from the experi-

^ i T o f Ladovsky and K r m s k y , w h o were intent ori wide^^^^^^^^

the frontiers of w h a t was ' p e r m i s s i b l e ' m composition. I t also

t lTL

difference between his w o r k and that of M e l n i k o v

X t f u s e d to acknowledge the existence of 'negative s p - ^

forms' i n architectme and w o u l d select any shape and rotate
t h r o u g h space, regardless of accepted practice.

336
Part I l l / M a s t e r s and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

T h e creative positions of Rationahsts and Gonstructivists

Gonstructivism, like Functionahsm as a whole, had to pass

differed as m u c h i n matters o f f o r m as they d i d i n the f i e l d of

through an intermediate stage on the way to formulating its

spatial composition. T h e Gonstructivists p r i m a r i l y rejected all

vision o f t h e new architecture. Its l i n k w i t h Classicist aesthetic

o u t w a r d t r a d i t i o n a l forms and practices. T h e y j u s t i f i e d the

principles, indirect though this m i g h t have been, made it the

new forms w h i c h they introduced by their constructional and

more acceptable anti-traditional trend, despite its outright rejec-

f u n c t i o n a l efficiency. T h e Rationahsts, on the other hand, may

tion o f t h e Classical concept. I t smashed the stereotypes, but took

have p l u m b e d deeper layers o f t h e Glassicist aesthetic concept

some m i n i m a l account of the c o n t i n u i t y demanded by whatever

by their rejection of compositional principles inherited f r o m

m i g h t prove psychologically acceptable to the p u b h c at large.

the past. T h e y looked for renewal i n terms of a h u m a n sense of

space and f o r m as such, on the level o f universal perceptual
rules.

I n their attack on stereotypes, the Rationahsts probably

touched upon deeper layers o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l l y accepted view.
T h e y may have f o u n d i t d i f f i c u l t to compete w i t h the Gonstruc-

W h i l e the Gonstructivists rejected t r a d i t i o n a l forms, they

tivists d u r i n g the early stage o f the new architecture's evolu-

equally preserved m u c h o f the essence of Glassicist artistic

tion, but their creative concept included m u c h that gave their

principles. T h e inevitable result was the development of a

movement greater potential significance i n restructuring for-

characteristically Gonstructivist compositional system,

m a l t r a d i t i o n a l attitudes.

and

even a f o r m of near-Gonstructivist stylization - the Construc-

A f l this, o f course, demands more detailed analysis. But the

tive Style. This situation was equally characteristic of Euro-

evidence adduced i n the present volume shows that Rationahst

pean Functionahsm as a whole. Its new forms and methods

artistic achievements - w h i c h had not received adequate atten-

were j u s t as quickly stereotyped, b o t h generally and w i t h i n i n -

tion u n t i l recently - were not inferior to those o f t h e Constructi-

d i v i d u a l trends such as the Bauhaus style, Le Corbusier's Five

vists i n significance, artistic value and potential for the future.

Principles, the Mies School, and so on.

Experiments

by Soviet architects

underwent

a marked

T h e Rationalist conception, on the other hand, offered a far

change of course d u r i n g the period under review here. A t the

more open artistic approach, i n that i t seemed to lack those

beginning o f t h e 1920s, when the quest for innovation involved

identifiably Glassicist ingredients w h i c h made for formaliza-

an embittered struggle against t r a d i t i o n a l architecture, the

t i o n and stylization. I n i t i a l l y , the struggle of the new architec-

broad stream o f new forms and compositional methods pre-

ture against t r a d i t i o n was chiefly a matter of elaborating a new

vented any statement of a single styhstic direction for the new

f o r m and style. I n fact, many innovative architects believed

architecture. As the various innovative trends converged, how-

that the unprecedentedly f u n c t i o n a l nature of buildings was a

ever, i t was not external differences i n style, but deeper aspects

crucial factor i n the development of such a style. T h e Rational-

w h i c h clearly divided Rationalists f r o m Gonstructivists, such '

ists, however, never regarded questions o f style as central - a

as their attitudes to space, to rules governing f o r m and to sys-

position shared by Frank L l o y d W r i g h t , whose views were

tems of composition. T h i s was p a r t i c u l a r y well iflustrated by

close to theirs. Ladovsky treated the development of f o r m , not

the different approaches to the spadal organizadon of town-

as the mere outcome of the r a p i d contemporary evolution of

p l a n n i n g complexes i n designs by Osa, Asnova and A R U

f u n c t i o n a l and purely u t i h t a r i a n structural considerations, b u t

teams early i n the 1930s.

as the product of m u c h less transitory h u m a n inspirations and

perceptions i n , f o r instance, the realm of space. Given such an
approach, actual forms h a d no decisive significance. T h e Rationahsts may be said to have broken t h r o u g h the styhstic outer
surface, w h i c h was i n dispute at that time between the supporters of t r a d i t i o n a l and novel forms, and to have penetrated
r i g h t d o w n to the u n d e r l y i n g psychological

requirements.

T h e i r concern was w i t h the relationship between architectural

forms and h u m a n perception.

T h e development and organizational patterns of various innovative groups and associations d u r i n g the 1920s were not
merely a reflection of the existence o f various trends and
schools w i t h i n the new architecture. T h e y were also connected
w i t h r a p i d changes i n the country as a whole and the statement
of new requirements corresponding to various stages i n the
development

o f the new society. T h u s Symbolist Realism

reflected the revolutionary upsurge d u r i n g the era of War

C o m m u n i s m and the C i v i l W a r ; Rationalism was largely con-

1484 Asnova team comprising Balikhin, Borisovsky,

Krinsky, Viktor Petrov and Tikhomirova. Competition
design for an All-Union Palace of the Arts, Moscow,
1930. Model of one design variant.
1485 Group of architects under the direction of
Andrei Burov, Osa. Competition design for an A l l U n i o n Palace o f t h e Arts, Moscow, 1930. Axonometric
view.

;nds: biographies, statements, manifestos

)sitions o f Rationalists and Gonstructivists

Gonstructivism, like Functionalism as a whole, had to pass

ri matters of f o r m as they d i d i n the f i e l d of

through an intermediate stage on the way to f o r m u l a t i n g its

a. T h e Gonstructivists p r i m a r i l y rejected all

vision o f t h e new architecture. Its link w i t h Glassicist aesthetic

d forms and practices. T h e y j u s t i f i e d the

principles, indirect though this m i g h t have been, made i t the

hey introduced by their constructional and

more acceptable anti-traditional trend, despite its outright rejec-

y. T h e Rationahsts, on the other h a n d , may

tion o f t h e Glassical concept. I t smashed the stereotypes, but took

3er layers of the Glassicist aesthetic concept

some m i n i m a l account of the c o n t i n u i t y demanded by whatever

of compositional principles inherited f r o m

m i g h t prove psychologically acceptable to the pubhc at large.

:ed for renewal i n terms of a h u m a n sense of

such, on the level of universal perceptual

I n their attack on stereotypes, the Rationahsts probably

touched u p o n deeper layers o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l l y accepted view.
T h e y may have f o u n d i t d i f f i c u l t to compete w i t h the Gonstruc-

tructivists rejected t r a d i t i o n a l forms, they

tivists d u r i n g the early stage o f the new architecture's evolu-

m u c h of the essence o f Glassicist artistic

tion, but their creative concept included m u c h that gave their

v i t a b l e result was the development o f a

movement greater potential significance i n restructuring for-

Constructivist compositional system,

m a l t r a d i t i o n a l attitudes.

and

-Gonstructivist stylization - the Gonstrucaation was equally characteristic o f Euro1 as a whole. Its new forms and methods
stereotyped, b o t h generally and w i t h i n i n 1 as the Bauhaus style, Le Gorbusier's Five
5 School, and so on.
.onception, on the other hand, offered a f a r

A U this, o f course, demands more detailed analysis. But the

evidence adduced i n the present volume shows that Rationalist
artistic achievements - w h i c h had not received adequate attention u n t i l recently - were not inferior to those o f t h e Gonstructivists i n significance, artistic value and potential for the future.
Experiments

by Soviet architects

underwent

a marked

change o f course d u r i n g the period under review here. A t the

approach, i n that i t seemed to lack those

beginning o f t h e 1920s, when the quest for innovation involved

Lst ingredients w h i c h made for formahza-

an embittered struggle against t r a d i t i o n a l architecture, the

I n i t i a l l y , the struggle o f the new architec-

broad stream of new forms and compositional methods pre-

n was chieffy a matter of elaborating a new

vented any statement o f a single stylistic direction for the new

fact, many innovative architects beheved

architecture. As the various innovative trends converged, how-

itedly f u n c t i o n a l nature of buildings was a

ever, I t was not external differences i n style, but deeper aspects

development of such a style. T h e Rational-

w h i c h clearly d i v i d e d Rationalists f r o m Gonstructivists, such

regarded questions of style as central - a

as their attitudes to space, to rules governing f o r m and to sys-

Frank L l o y d W r i g h t , whose views were

tems of composition. T h i s was p a r t i c u l a r y well illustrated by

vsky treated the development of f o r m , not

the different approaches to the spatial organization of town-

e o f the r a p i d contemporary evolution o f

p l a n n i n g complexes i n designs by Osa, Asnova and A R U

y u t i l i t a r i a n structural considerations, but

teams early i n the 1930s.

ch less transitory h u m a n inspirations and

[Stance, the realm of space. Given such an
ms had no decisive significance. T h e Ra1 to have broken through the stylistic outer
1 dispute at that time between the suppornd novel forms, and to have penetrated
underlying psychological requirements,
i t h the relationship between architectural
rception.

T h e development and organizational patterns of various innovative groups and associations d u r i n g the 1920s were not
merely a reflection o f the existence of various trends and
schools w i t h i n the new architecture. T h e y were also connected
w i t h r a p i d changes i n the country as a whole and the statement
of new requirements corresponding to various stages i n the
development

o f the new society. Thus Symbohst Reahsm

reflected the revolutionary upsurge d u r i n g the era of War

G o m m u n i s m and the C i v i l W a r ; Rationalism was largely con-

rrSr"

1486 Osa team comprising Leonidov (leader), Ermilov,

1488-89 Melnikov Dpsi,.n fn,
.
Ivan K u z m i n and Nikola: Pavlov. Design for the planmng Arbat Squa!^ Moscow
Lspec
and development of Serpukhovo Gate Square, Moscow,
Generallay-out (HSoT'
^"^P^""'^
1931. Axonometric view of the general lay-out.
1487 A R U team comprising Ladovsky (leader),
lokheles, Kalmykov and Fridman. Design for the
reconstruction of Trubnaya Square, Moscow, 1931.
Axonometric view o f t h e general lay-out.

1490 Asnova and Vopra teams comprising Alimov,

Bunin and Dolganov. Designs for the reconstruction of
l l i c h Gate Square, Moscow, 1931.

ng Leonidov (leader), Ermilov,

1488-89 Melnikov. Design for the reconstruction of
Pavlov. Design for the planning Arbat Square, Moscow, 1931. Perspective (1488).
khovo Gate Square, Moscow,
General lay-out (1489).
f the general lay-out.
iing Ladovsky (leader),
'ridman. Design for the
a Square, Moscow, 1931.
eneral lay-out.

A K U team comprising Kalmykov and K a p l u n .

Gompetition design for a cultural, residential and
sports complex, Krasnaya Presnya, Moscow 1932
Model.

1493 Asnova team comprising Bolbashevsky,

Borisovsky, Varentsov and Gelfeld. Gompetition
design for a zoo, Leningrad, 1931.

1494 Barutchev, for the Leningrad s e c t i o r i ^ ^ ^ ^

Competition design for a zoo, Leningrad, 193]
'Pavilion of M a n ' .

1492 Mosproekt team comprising Komarova and

other Constructivists. Competition design for a
cultural, residential and sports complex, Krasnaya
Presnya, Moscow, 1932. Model.

nected w i t h the peiriod when questions

sional competence became p a r a m o u n t ;
shape d u r i n g the transition to actual cons
development of new types of buildings. A

ing the First Five Year Plan, when the ch:

build new towns, and V o p r a arose i n co
intensive role f o r ideology i n dealing w i d
of architecture.
The different innovative trends am
therefore be regarded as merely produc
artistic views, since their sequence was
mined by the evolution o f t h e new a r c h i t
successive stages i n the development of
ment were marked by the f o u n d i n g of ncA
these loudly rejected the positions taken
sors, yet included i n its o w n acts of f a i t h
held earher. Osa certainly rehed u p o n t l

by Asnova; A R U was i n a direct hne of S'

ter and drew u p o n Constructivist achie'l
tive part of V o p r a ' s behefs incorporated
alism and Constructivism.

The continuous thread o f general p |

one group to the next was often disguise
cine polemics between these schools. T
of Moscow, the centre where the m a i n tr
of Vkhutemas i n particular. I n other
movement estabhshed itself more or

trend arising i n Moscow was simply regj

innovation so far. T h i s does m u c h to
popularity o f each successive groupinj
that, as i n Moscow, the statements of pr;
these groupings secured their greatest
dents and young architects.
T h e new architecture constantly ext
the country. I f Asnova v i r t u a l l y i n c h
A R U had a branch i n L e n i n g r a d and (
grad, Tomsk, K h a r k o v , K i e v , K a z a n , S
and Baku, so that architects there came
vism w i t h the new architecture as a
against eclecticism and stylization, rati
merely one among other innovative trei
of V o p r a outside Moscow, since i t car
strife between Rationalists and Cons

Lig Kalmykov and Kaplun.

iltural, residential and
'resnya, Moscow, 1932.

1493 Asnova team comprising Bolbashevsky,

Borisovsky, Varentsov and Gelfeld. Gompetition
design for a zoo. Leningrad, 1931.

1494 Barutchev, for the Leningrad section of A R U

Competition design for a zoo. Leningrad, 193]
'PaviHon of M a n ' .

541
Chapter 1/New architecture and its trends

iprising Komarova and

jetition design for a
irts complex, Krasnaya
)del.

nected w i t h the period when questions of cadres and professional competence became paramount; Constructivism took
shape d u r i n g the transition to actual construction w o r k and the
development of new types of buildings. A R U was founded during the First Five Year Plan, when the chief requirement was to
build new towns, and V o p r a arose i n connection w i t h a more
intensive role for ideology i n dealing w i t h the artistic problems
of architecture.
The different innovative trends and schools should not
therefore be regarded as merely products of new and o r i g i n a l
artistic views, since their sequence was to some extent determined by the evolution o f t h e new architecture as a whole. T h e
successive stages i n the development of the innovative movement were marked by the f o u n d i n g of new associations. Each of
these loudly rejected the positions taken up by their predecessors, yet included i n its o w n acts of f a i t h many o f t h e principles
held earher. Osa certainly rehed u p o n the experience acquired
by Asnova; A R U was i n a direct hne of succession f r o m the latter and drew upon Constructivist achievements, and the positive part of Vopra's behefs incorporated many tenets of Radonahsm and Constructivism.
The continuous thread of general principles leading f r o m
one group to the next was often disguised by the bitter internecine polemics between these schools. T h i s was especially true
of Moscow, the centre where the m a i n trends were f o r m e d , and
of Vkhutemas i n particular. I n other cities, where the new
movement estabhshed itself more or less slowly, each new
trend arising i n Moscow was simply regarded as the sum of all
innovadon so far. T h i s does m u c h to explain the m o u n t i n g
popularity of each successive grouping. I t should be added
that, as i n Moscow, the statements of principle emanating f r q m
these groupings secured their greatest response among students and young architects.
The new architecture constantly extended its reach w i t h i n
the country. I f Asnova v i r t u a l l y included only Muscovites,
A R U had a branch i n L e n i n g r a d and Osa branches i n L e n i n grad, Tomsk, K h a r k o v , K i e v , K a z a n , Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk
and Baku, so that architects there came to i d e n t i f y Constructivism w i t h the new architecture as a whole i n the struggle
against eclecticism and stylization, rather then regarding i t as
merely one among other innovative trends. T h e same was true
of V o p r a outside Moscow, since i t came i n t o being when the
strife between Rationalists and Constructivists had

already

prepared the ground for the conversion of most architects to the

innovative movement. T h i s goes a long way to account f o r the
reputation widely gained by V o p r a throughout the country,
even t h o u g h i t had no set of creative principles of its o w n , as opposed to Asnova, Osa and A R U . Local branches of V o p r a were
founded i n the republics and many cities. They were most effective wherever conditions f a v o u r i n g the i n t r o d u c t i o n of i n novative trends had only appeared late i n the 1920s, i n other
words, wherever V o p r a represented the first and only new architectural trend.
I n L e n i n g r a d , w i t h its well-established Classical t r a d i t i o n
rooted i n its architectural practice and schools, only small
branches of Osa and A R U estabhshed themselves, i n the former
case consisting of Nikolsky's group, and i n the latter of B a r u t chev, Gilter, Meerzon and Rubanchik. T h e local branch of V o pra, on the other hand, called L o v o p r a , based i n the L e n i n g r a d
I n s t i t u t e of C i v i l Engineers,

numbered

more than

thirty

members, and was i n fact the most i n f l u e n t i a l of the local i n novative groups i n the f i g h t against t r a d i t i o n a l i s m .
T h e process of consolidation among innovative architects is
w e l l illustrated by the A r m e n i a n O p r a , the first local innovative organization, w h i c h embraced all those w h o favoured the
new architecture. Y o u n g architects coming home after grad u a t i n g f r o m Vkhutemas had studied under the leaders of
Rationalism and Constructivism, Ladovsky and Alexander
Vesnin. T h e y set up a single innovative organization w i t h
g u i d i n g principles derived f r o m all the experience acquired so
far i n the f i g h t for the new architecture.
T h e emergence of more t h a n one innovative trend i n Soviet
architecture d u r i n g the 1920s was i n itself a m a j o r achievement
i n terms of twentieth-century architecture w o r l d w i d e . T h e estabhshment of any school or trend is an extremely complex
process w h i c h makes m a j o r demands on the creative energy of
its founders and temporarily limits the c o n t r i b u t i o n made by
its most active supporters to actual construction w o r k . Once i t
has f o u n d its shape, however, such a school comes to promote
architectural progress and exerts a strong, though often only i n direct influence on all creative w o r k throughout the profession.
T h e very fact o f t h e emergence i n Soviet architecture of trends
such as Rationalism and Constructivism represents a most i m portant development i n its o w n right. I t is not by chance that
the principles advanced by these schools still attract the attent i o n of b o t h Soviet and foreign architects after so many years.

I l l / M a s t e r s and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

because, seen i n perspective, their influence on the development o f contemporary architecture becomes ever more clear.
T h i s upsurge o f creative schools and trends also cafled i n t o
bemg a particular k i n d of architect, i n w h o m the roles of artist,
teacher and theoretician were combined. Architects possessed
o f a v i v i d creative talent and a passionately polemical and prom o t i o n a l pen were typical o f t h e 1920s. V i r t u a l l y a f l the m a j o r
mnovative architects w h o took a hand i n establishing Soviet architecture were also theoreticians and spent m u c h time elabor a t i n g statements o f their positions. T h i s creative debate was
generally conducted on a h i g h intellectual level. A V e s n i n
Ladovsky, Lissitzky, M e l n i k o v , L Golosov, Leonidov, and Ginzb u r g raised the whole level o f debate about artistic problems
and thereby helped to lessen the gap between innovative experiment and design as a whole. I t was i m p o r t a n t i n this context
that the m a i n theoreticians o f t h e new movement should also
have been the leaders o f t h e innovative trends. T h e y challenged
traditionahst concepts not only w i t h theoretical statements
but also by their o w n h i g h l y distinguished artistic output.

Soviet architecture o f this period is only n o w becoming the

subject of deeper analysis. M u c h remains to be elicited and pub
hshed, m u c h w f l l require reassessment and reinterpretation
A n y objective appreciation of m a n y aspects o f Soviet architec'
ture i n the 1920s w f l l call for j u s t as m u c h painstaking study as
the elucidation of h i t h e r t o u n k n o w n facts, since a difficult and
ambiguous p r o b l e m underhes every i m p o r t a n t contemporary
architectural phenomenon, be i t artistic, social, functionally
constructive or o f some other k i n d .
Works that consciously pose or address problems are invariably o f t h e utmost importance i n terms o f architectural progress, regardless of whether they were projects, or were actually b u f l t . T h e presence of that p r o b l e m imparts a special quahty
to an architectural object, injects a potential charge into it
often makes i t polemical, but i n v a r i a b l y compels attention, especially i f the p r o b l e m concerned is stated sharply, boldly
topically and w i t h a certain level o f universality. A n d i t can
safely be said o f Soviet architecture at that time that i t was, by
Its nature, replete w i t h problems.

543
biographies, statements, manifestos

pective, their influence on the developy architecture becomes ever more clear,
ative schools and trends also called i n t o
1 o f architect, i n w h o m the roles of artist,
an were combined. Architects possessed
I t and a passionately polemical and pro-

i c a l o f the 1920s. V i r t u a l l y a f l the m a j o r

/ho took a hand i n establishing Soviet areoreticians and spent m u c h time elaboleir positions. T h i s creative debate was
>n a h i g h intellectual level. A . Vesnin,
elnikov, L Golosov, Leonidov, and Ginzlevel o f debate about artistic problems
;ssen the gap between innovative experi-

vhole. I t was i m p o r t a n t i n this context

;ians o f t h e new movement should also
'the innovative trends. They chaflenged
not only w i t h theoretical statements,
lighly distinguished artistic output.

Soviet architecture o f this period is only now becoming the

subject ofdeeper analysis. M u c h remains to be elicited and pubhshed, m u c h w i f l require reassessment and reinterpretation

The leaders of the new direction

Ladovsky (1881-1941)

Nikolai A l e x a n d r o v i c h Ladovsky was the ideologist and ac-

A n y objective appreciation o f m a n y aspects o f Soviet architec

knowledged leader of Rationalism i n Soviet architecture. H e

ture i n the 1920s w i l l call for j u s t as m u c h painstaking study as

had for many years engaged i n architectural design, even be-

the elucidation o f hitherto u n k n o w n facts, since a difficult and

fore receiving f o r m a l t r a i n i n g i n this field. H e entered the M o s -

ambiguous p r o b l e m underhes every i m p o r t a n t contemporary

cow College of Paindng, Sculpture and Architecture i n 1914

architectural phenomenon, be i t artistic, social, functionally

and graduated w i t h a d i p l o m a o f A r t i s t Architect.

constructive or of some other k i n d .

I n 1918-22, he came under the direct influence of Z h o l -

W o r k s that consciously pose or address problems are invari-

tovsky and Cub'o-Futurism. H e was a member of Zhivskulptarkh

ably o f the utmost importance i n terms o f architectural pro-

in 1919-20 and took part i n I n k h u k as a member o f t h e W o r k -

gress, regardless of whether they were projects, or were actual-

ing Group for Objective Analysis, as H e a d of the W o r k i n g

ly b u f l t . T h e presence of that p r o b l e m imparts a special quality

Group of Architects and member o f t h e Presidium. H e headed

to an architectural object, injects a potendal charge into i t

Asnova f r o m 1923, and A R U f r o m 1928. F r o m 1920, he was a

often makes i t polemical, but i n v a r i a b l y compels attendon, es-

professor, first at V k h u t e m a s - V k h u t e i n , then at V a s i , A s i and

pecially i f the p r o b l e m concerned is stated sharply, boldly,

M a i - the architectural institutes w h i c h were derived consecu-

topicafly and w i t h a certain level o f universahty. A n d i t can

tively f r o m the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Faculty of V k h u t e i n . H e develop-

safely be said of Soviet architecture at that dme that i t was, by

ed and apphed a psychoanalytical teaching method, first at

its nature, replete w i t h problems.

Obmas and then, f r o m 1923, i n the Spatial Smdies Kontsentr

T h e m a j o r part of Ladovsky's designs remained on the

d r a w i n g board. A m o n g those carried out were a housing block
i n G o r k y Street i n Moscow i n 1928-30, as well as the Krasnye
V o r o t a (Red Gates) station b u i l d i n g and the Dzerzhinsky Stat i o n o n the Moscow M e t r o i n 1934-35.
Ladovsky seldom went i n t o p r i n t as the theoretician of Rationalism,

although some unpubhshed minutes of meetings at

Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h and I n k h u k containing speeches by h i m have

survived. H e briefly summarized the principles of Rationalism
i n articles pubhshed i n 1926 and at other times. N o r d i d L a dovsky leave a comprehensive account ot his psychoanalytical
method, t h o u g h m a n y o f t h e principles involved were publicized i n the w r i t i n g s of colleagues and students, such as D o k u chaev, K r i n s k y , Lamtsov, T u r k u s and others, a l l o f w h o m
stressed Ladovsky's leading p a r t i n elaborating this method.
H i s t o w n - p l a n n i n g ideas were summarized i n articles w h i c h he
pubhshed i n the late 1920s and early 1930s, as well as i n v a r i ous A R U statements and documents.

of the Vkhutemas Basic Section, and also set up a PsychoTechnical Research L a b o r a t o r y at V k h u t e i n i n 1927. I n addi-

Ladovsky's

writings

tion, he evolved the t o w n - p l a n n i n g concept of a dynamically

Extracts from speeches at Zhivskulptarkh

developing city.
I n 1919-20, he produced a series of sketch projects i n p u r -

in 1919

suit of an image for such new b u i l d i n g types as a c o m m u n a l

house and a T e m p l e of C o m m u n i o n Between Nations, and engaged i n f o r m a l and aesthetic experiment. I n 1924-25, he
headed a team of students f o r the design o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Red Stadium and also designed a dwelhng complex i n Moscow
made up of standard three-pronged sections. H e took p a r t i n
many competitions, such as those for the design o f t h e Soviet
pavilion at the 1925 Paris I n t e r n a t i o n a l E x h i b i t i o n , i n 1924, for
the Smolensk M a r k e t i n Moscow i n 1926, the Columbus M o n ument i n Santo D o m i n g o i n 1929, a theatre i n Sverdlovsk i n
1931, the Palace of Soviets i n Moscow i n 1931-32, the Moscow
District Soviet of T r a d e U n i o n s Theatre i n 1932, and many
others.
The most interesting of Ladovsky's t o w n - p l a n n i n g works i n cluded designs for the K o s t i n o settiement i n 1927 and f o r

meetings

' A r c h k e c t u r e is an art operating w i t h space. Sculpture is an art

operating w i t h f o r m . '
' W h e n an architect is contemplating any p r o b l e m of b u i l d ing, he must i n i t i a l l y organize only space, disregarding material's or construction, and only start to t h i n k about these later:
this makes w o r k easier, and the results w i l l be neater and better.'
' A l t h o u g h space figures i n a l l aspects of art, architecture
alone makes i t possible to read space correctly.
Construction only plays a p a r t i n architecture i n so f a r as i t
defines the concept of space. A constructor's basic principle is
to invest a m i n i m u m of materials and achieve m a x i m u m results. T h i s has n o t h i n g i n c o m m o n w i t h art and can only satisfy
the requirements o f architecture by chance.'
' F o r m may exist independently of material, since the existence of abstract f o r m is possible.'

Green C i t y i n 1930, a model project for a developing city i n

' T h e visual effect o f weight is influenced not only by f o r m ,

1930, a design for the reconstruction of T r u b n a y a Square i n

b u t by everyday experience. I f we produce identical forms b y

Moscow i n 1931 and a competition entry for redesigning M o s -

means of t w o different materials, we w i f l not achieve the same

cow i n 1932.

effect,of weight.'

a a i t I l l / M a s t e r s and trends: biograph

les, statements, manifestos

I t must be stressed that architecture as arr art hves i n accordance w u h

laws of

its o w n . T h i s becomes clearly evident when

an architect does not live by u t i h t a r i a n laws '

' A fagade must not merely result f r o m a b u i l d i n g ' s inner content, but have its o w n inherent value.'

and r
f " ^';^h^'-^"serve first the spadal quality
and then the sculptural f o r m . I t is i n this order of their subord^
nation that I acknowledge their synthesis w i t h i n architecture!'
( G N I M A , R.Ia.l644)

' H o w should forms be combined, and w h a t forms should be

Extracts from the minutes ofthe Inkhuk

regarded as simple and p r i m a r y ? . . . an elementary f o r m

w i l l be such t h a t a spectator cannot subdivide i t '
'One must start from the simplest f o r m , a rectangle, f o r in
s ance, and then introduce one that is

less p l a i n .

A cube or par-

allelepiped m a y serve as examples o f a clear f o r m , since they

consist o f simpler forms . . . the transition to simpler, clear y

ment, but a c o n j u n c t i o n o f such forms results i n movement

T h e c o m b i n a t i o n of clearly legible r i g h t forms produces clearly
expressed movement. N o n - r i g h t forms are readily legible i n so
f a r as they approximate to r i g h t ones.'

m so

' T h e cube provides an example o f a readily legible f o r m

since, when we approach i t from one side, and see o n l y

twoTf

On
r th r
''''''' '^'^^'^^ - - h o i
O n he other h a n d , i f we similarly observe a c r u m p l e d f o r m we
w o u l d not perceive the f o r m o f the v o l u m e as a whole.'

Aesthetics)',

1926

'Architectural rationahty, j u s t hke technical rational

based on an economic principle. T h e difference betweer

Group

is that technical r a t i o n a l i t y is the economy of labour and

Definition

of technical

construction

rials in creating an appropriate structure, while archite

'Techmcal

construction is the c o n j u n c d o n o f shaped material ele

structure's spatial and f u n c t i o n a l properties. A synth

ments m accordance w i t h a definite design scheme a i m d at

these two rationalities w i t h i n a single structure constituf

rationality is economy o f psychic energy i n perception

achieving an effect o f force.

A n ideal technical construcdon should comprise(a)

' A f o r m depicted i n art differs from a f o r m i n everyday hfe by

nios easily perceived. A r i g h t f o r m does not g e n e r a t e : : : : !

(Under the Banner of Rationalist

1921

(b)

being more clearly and definitely perceptible. R i g h t forms are

'Foundations for the Construction of a Theory of Architecture

for Objective Analysis,

readable forms w i l l be easier i n architecture, since architectu e

was not subjected to i m i t a t i v e art - to n a t u r a l i s m - w h i c h had a
tremendous place i n the fields o f sculpture and p a i n t i n g . W
now face the task of creating that c o n j u n c t i o n o f easily readaW
forms w h i c h w i n secure the expression o f m a x i m u m m o v t

Working

Extracts from an article on

tio-Architecture. . . .
The architect constructs a f o r m , i n t r o d u c i n g elements

moments; these t r a n s f o r m the [words missing S. K h . - M . ] o f the forces operating. T h e y serve as a relay
p o i n t along their hne o f m o t i o n

are not technological or u t i h t a r i a n i n the strict sense ari

tension (of the material elements); this must be near

breaking p o i n t (this also determines the p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e
parts);

nological requirement - to find his direction in space. . . .

molecular forces o f the material, w h i c h must be used i n

getting the image resulting from, the perception of real perspectivt

be regarded as " a r c h i t e c t u r a l m o t i f s " . These " m o t i f s " n'

rational i n an architectural sense and serve man's highes
The w o r k o f an architect on the geometrical expressi
of a f o r m , w h i c h we always perceive i n perspective, coni

(c)

the direction o f their greatest c o m p a t i b i l i t y

as possible to the image conceived in the design. . . .

m Tr/' ""^^^"^'^ ^

- d no

material left over.'

' T h e m a i n feature of a consfrucdon is that i t should not con-

Could-one ahow an architect engaged i n construi

form to be ignorant o f how i t w o u l d be perceived by a

tor? Such a dereliction w o u l d i m p l y a total lack of princi!

tain surplus materials or elements. T h e chief distinguishing

the patent lack o f any mastery whatsoever i n the field

m a r k o f a composition is hierarchy and s u b o r d i n a t i o n . '

metrical expressiveness. I t is essential to assert that the

( I n k h u k archive)
Extracts from the minutes of

Inkhuk's

Working Group of Architects,

1921

tural geometric aspect of a material form should be treated in sm.

that the spectator actually sees its geometrical configuration
extent the case concerned demands

to i

this.'

{Izvestiya Asnova [Asnova Nevus], Moscow, 1926, p

( Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h archive)
T h e task that faces us is the study o f t h e elements, quahties
Note appended to the design of a communal house m 1920
'Technology performs marvels.
Marvels must be performed i n architecture
T h e marvels o f t h e Ancients were b u i l t by the slave labour o f
the masses and their m a i n component is the a m o u n t o f labour
T h e marvels o f modern times soaring i n space w i l l be con-

:r:rotr^-"'-^^^---~

and properties o f architecture. . . . T h e most i m p o r t a n t ele-

From an article entitled 'The Psycho-Technical

ments . n architecture are space, construction, f o r m , and the

for Architecture (Posing the Question)',

rest o l I t s elements merely f o l l o w these '

Laboratory

1926

'The architect must be aware, even i f only i n an eler

' I a m surprised that members o f t h e group should stih ask

way, of the laws o f perception a n d the means o f achie

questions such as: " W h y is the study o f space a matter o f first

impact, so that he may have at his disposal w h e n practi

Pnonty?

unique

craft everything that modern science can offer. A m o n g

concern, yet architecture does not undertake its study and

ences w h i c h assist i n the development of architecture, a

makes poor use o f i t . '

gap w i l l be filled by the stiff new science o f psycho-1

. . . The q u a l i t y o f space is architecture's

( I n k h u k archive)

ogy-. . .
The works that I - and subsequently also m y coUe

have produced i n V k h u t e m a s since 1920 i n the realm <

tecture have been checked by psycho-technical means

545
Chapter 2/Tlie leaders o f t h e new direction
ids: biographies, statements, manifestos

help to establish architectural principles on the basis

ed that architecture as an art hves i n accorts o w n . T h i s becomes clearly evident when
3t live by u t i l i t a r i a n laws.'

Paindng i n architecture must serve first the spadal quahty,

and then the sculptural f o r m . I t is i n this order of their subordi-

Foundations for the Construction of a Theory of Architecture

nation that I acknowledge their synthesis w i t h i n architecture.'

(Under the Banner of Rationalist Aesthetics) , 192b

)t merely result f r o m a building's inner con-

( G N I M A , R. I a . l 6 4 4 )

vn inherent value.'
ns be combined, and w h a t forms should be

Extracts from the minutes of the Inkhuk Working Group

for Objective Analysis, 1921

ipectator cannot subdivide i t . '

Definition

of technical constmction

i-om the simplest f o r m , a rectangle, for i n -

/e as examples o f a clear f o r m , since they

irms . . . the transition to simpler, clearly
)e easier i n architecture, since architecture
imitative art - to naturalism - w h i c h had a

is that technical r a t i o n a l i t y is the economy of labour and mateationahty is economy of psychic energy m perception o f t h e

of an agreed terminology, even among specialists, could be re-

achieving an effect o f force.

tio-Architecture. . . .

A n ideal technical construcdon should comprise:

(a)

(b)

(c)

The architect constructs a f o r m , i n t r o d u c m g elements w h i c h

'The Application

and Measurement of Aptitude for Spatial

p o i n t along their line o f m o d o n ;

rational i n an architectural sense and serve m a n s highest tech-

1929

tension ( o f t h e material elements); this must be near

breaking p o i n t (this also determines the p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e
parts);

nological requirement - to find his direction in space. . . .

of a f o r m , w h i c h we always perceive i n perspective, consists in

molecular forces o f the material, w h i c h must be used in

fea'ture o f t h e contemporary architect's activity that he organ-

getting the image resulting from the perception of real perspective as near
as possible to the image conceived in the design
Gould-one aUow an architect engaged i n constructing a

izes the perception of space and spatial forms. I n other words,

The work of an architect on the geometrical expressiveness

' T h e m a i n feature of a construction is that i t should not con-

tor^ Such a dereliction w o u l d i m p l y a t o t a l lack of prmciple and

ate to right ones.'

tain surplus materials or elements. T h e chief distinguishing

the patent lack o f any mastery whatsoever m the field o f geo-

S an example o f a readily legible f o r m

m a r k o f a composition is hierarchy and subordination.'

metrical expressiveness. I t is essential to assert that the architec-

( I n k h u k archive)

)ach i t f r o m one side, and see only two o f

form to be ignorant of how i t w o u l d be perceived by a specta-

we similarly observe a c r u m p l e d f o r m , we

Extracts from the minutes of

Inkhuk's

le f o r m o f t h e volume as a whole.'

Working Group of Architects, 1921

extent the case concerned demands this.'

[Izvestiya Asnova [Asnova News], Moscow, 1926, p p . 3 - 5 )

' T h e task that faces us is the study o f the elements, quahties

and properdes o f architecture

T h e most i m p o r t a n t ele-

ments i n architecture are space, construcdon, f o r m , and the

Laboratory

tect i t was essential first and foremost to define i t as the basic

it was necessary to formulate i n a concrete and scientific way

w h a t is broadly defined nowadays by the concept of an architectural (i.e.spatial) composition.'
(Arkhitektura

^7,/. / i

i Vkhutein [Architecture arid the Vkhutein],

N o . 1, January 1929, p. 5)

Extract from a lecture given at a conference

of Vkhutein graduates, 1929
T f an architect is to provide for an i n d i v i d u a l ' s feelings, he

pended more economically, that an i n d i v i d u a l chiefly devotes

his feehngs to spatial entities, to spatial objects. I t is on this

' I a m surprised that members o f t h e group should stih ask

way, o f t h e laws of perception and the means o f achieving an

questions such as: " W h y is the study o f space a matter of first

impact, so that he may have at his disposal w h e n practising his

p r i o r i t y ? " . . . T h e quahty o f space is architecture's unique

aain component is the amount of labour,

concern, yet architecture does not undertake its study and

dern dmes soaring i n space w i l l be con-

makes poor use o f i t . '

gap w i n be filled by the stiU new science of psycho-technol-

( I n k h u k archive)

An establishing those features w h i c h define the concept of ar./.t-

for Architecture (Posing the Question)', 1926

craft everything that modern science can offer. A m o n g the sciences which assist i n the development of architecture, a serious

n d , and their chief component w i l l be the

Composition',

must provide for t h e m i n such a way that these feehngs are exFrom an article entitled 'The Psycho-Technical

'The architect must be aware, even ff only i n an elementary

rest o f its elements merely f o l l o w these.'

ofthe Theory of Union to the Investigation

tural geometric aspect of a material form shoidd be treated in such a way

that the spectator actually sees its geometrical configuration to whatever

we clearly perceive the f o r m as a whole,

Ancients were b u i l t by the slave labour o f

article

be regarded as "architectural m o t i f s " . These " m o t i f s ' must be

. N o n - r i g h t forms are readily legible i n so

erformed i n architecture.

Extract from Ladovsky's preface to Krutikov's

are not technological or u t i l i t a r i a n i n the strict sense and may

i e a r l y legible right forms produces clearly

5 marvels.

{Izvestiya Asnova, Moscow, 192b)

S. K h . - M . ] o f t h e forces operadng. T h e y serve as a relay

there must be no excess materials or elements, and no

material left over.'

ign of a communal house in 1920

moved by such a laboratory!'

material moments; these transform the [words missing -

the direction o f their greatest compatibility;

(d)

H o w many misunderstandings i n the evaluation of the quality o f architectural work, w h i c h are attributable to the absence

hese two rationahties w i t h i n a single structure constitutes Ra-

d. A right f o r m does not generate move-

( Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h archive)

nical laboratory for the study o f questions of rational architec-

Is i n creating an appropriate structure, while architectura

ments i n accordance w i t h a definite design scheme aimed at

n art differs f r o m a f o r m i n everyday life by

d o n o f such forms results i n movement,

w o u l d be the organization w i t h i n " A s n o v a " of a psycho-techis

ructure's spatial and f u n c t i o n a l properdes. A synthesis o f

cure the expression o f m a x i m u m move

nd definitely perceptible. R i g h t forms are

ist aesthetics.
.
.
T h e most correct approach to the resolution of this question

'Technical construction is the c o n j u n c d o n o f shaped material ele-

1 the fields o f sculpture and p a i n t i n g . W e

rearing that conjunction of easily readable

Architectural r a t i o n a l i t y , j u s t like technical rationality

oirational-

baled on an economic principle. T h e difference between t h e m

and p r i m a r y ? . . . an elementary f o r m . . .

-oduce one that is less plain. A cube or par-

V^tracts from an article on

ogy. . . .
The works that I - and subsequently also m y colleagues -

the material o f architecture. T h e sculp-

have produced i n Vkhutemas since 1920 i n the realm of archi-

ure must serve the spadahty.

tecture have been checked by psycho-technical means and w d l

particular level that the organization of his psychic energy

takes place i n accordance w i t h the principle of economy of per
''''''''

{Sovremennaya arkhitektura [Contemporary Architecture]

1929, N o . 4 , p . l 4 4 )

Extract from an article on

'"Historical" and "Socialist"

Moscow', 1930

' T h e concept o f a town's g r o w t h cannot be reduced to mere

terms o f t h e mechanical increase of its territory, o f t h e w i d t h o f

I t s thoroughfares, the height o f its buildings etc. G r o w t h must
be regarded as organic and representing an organism that is
not j u s t quantitatively, but also quahtatively different at various stages m its development. . . .
j
T h e radial-concentric f o r m of city p l a n has many supporters
m t o w n - p l a n n i n g hterature w o r l d w i d e . I t is therefore essential
to examme i t i n greater detail. T h e medievel f o r t i f i e d t o w n

considerations conflict w i t h i t , inevitably distort i t and there

Extractfrom an article on 'The Planning q

fore make i t impossible to i m p l e m e n t . . . . O n the other hand'

in a Higher Educational

g r o w t h as a whole makes provision f o r the g r o w t h of its differ

'The significance o f p l a n n i n g as a s

ent component organs w i t h t h d r various roles w i t h i n a single"

economic d m e and space system

rather slowly being recognized by or

I f one were to assume a total h a r m o n i z a t i o n o f f o r m i e if

H o w a r d s garden city, U n w i n ' s system o f satdlite towns and

m d i v i d u a l rings were to represent different organs - areas des

Le Gorbusier's proposals for replanning Paris, a l l these p l a n -

ignated for p a r t i c u l a r purposes - the g r o w t h of any one of them

n i n g compositions may be i n d u d e d i n a single category of static

w o u l d s p d l the decay o f another. I f , on the other hand one

forms, despite the apparent differences i n f o r m and purpose be-

were to abandon the difference o f f u n c t i o n a l assignmem be-

tween them. . . . T h e g r a f t i n g o f these systems on to g r o w i n g

tween the various rings and accept their f u n c t i o n a l uniformity

and active dties must inevitably provoke unhealthy symptoms

a centripetal force w o u l d develop - all dse being equal - on the

i n their g r o w t h .

strength o f the economics inherent i n the d y n a m i c geometrical

A spedfic indication of t h d r mechanical nature is that these

systems are only capable o f m a k i n g sense d u r i n g a m i n i m a l
space o f time i f they are f u h y implemented, while i n the very
next m o m e n t o f t h d r g r o w t h i t w i h become necessary to de-

Establishment'

one must decribe the g r o w t h o f a d t y as organic when I

prmciple. This can be represented as an i n w a r d pressure ofthe

rings upon each other towards the centre, while the central cird e s tendency to grow w o u l d thus encounter the vast and insurmountable resistance o f the rings.

. . . I n our country, i n the era of

architectural associations

continue

from the p a r t i c u l a r to the general,

town, as our foreign colleagues are .
order of sodety. W e cannot regard ir
thing b u t particles o f a city as a wh(
therefore restructure their organiz;

from city to b u f l d i n g , n o t the other |

Our builders and ideologists are i
structural w i t h social types of dwefli
tical i n social terms, or o f a dispara
flats or hostels w i t h different degree

centre, which tends to develop naturally

be accommodated i n skyscrapers j i

m t o a system, f r o m a r u d i m e n t a r y system to another

in a horizontal direction, encounters a resistance by the rings which it

type of k n o w n structure - blocks, a:|

more elaborate one etc. W h i l e " s t a t i c " factors predominated

finds hard to surmount and the resolution o f t h e most fundamental

grouped pavihons consisting o f s

over dynamic ones i n medieval times, i.e. given a r d a t i v e l y

factor m the hfe of a d t y - the dialectic process of its g r o w t h - i s

bedrooms collected r o u n d the comi

complex cluster.

stroy them. I n short, they do not provide f o r g r o w t h f r o m a

cdl

. . . m ring planning ...the

ty. . .

slow tempo o f life and an inadequate sense o f t h e passage o f

not catered for by b u f l d i n g on such a p l a n , since growth is im-

time, the radial-concentric system m i g h t have been capable o f

possible w i t h o u t causing the collapse o f surrounding - and it

m a m t a m i n g its place f o r p l a n n i n g purposes for a while, b u t as

must be assumed, equally live - organs o f the d t y . . .

capitalism developed and grew, i t broke d o w n everywhere'

. . . I t was replaced by the g r i d system of p l a n n i n g as art expression o f fluidity, a sort o f ceasdess territorial conveyor b d t
w h i c h was more suited to the needs o f capitahsm and o f mechamcal, rather than organic g r o w t h . T h e most extreme expression o f this fluidity is the concept o f t h e linear d t y . These
p l a n n i n g structures w i f l inevitably prove to be weak organisms
because they represent an expression of utmost d y n a m i s m and'
reduce three-dimensional space to a single measure by stressing their hnear quahty. Yet modern material culture and technology make i t possible to solve town-planning tasks i n three
dimensions by stressing " h o r i z o n t a l t w o - d i m e n s i o n a h t y "
. . . the geometric character o f the d r c u l a r territory reflects
I t s spatiafly stadc quality, whfle the physical nature of its structure only aflows w i t h i n i t an increase i n density at best

sectoral system of g r o w t h m i g h t seem to be feasible i n terms o f

radial-concentric p l a n n i n g , but essendal dynamic geometrical

I t should be stressed that a d w e f l

cial order can be the more easily aci

., . . T h e centre of a d t y must be able to g r o w not only i n the

diverse structural kinds, although (

t h i r d dimension, upwards, b u t equafly i n a horizontal direc-

arise. B u t any such a difference w o i

tion, progressively outwards. Therefore, the centre of a city must

the pattern o f daily life, rather tha

consist of an axial line, not a static point. B y breaking open the rings

social aims pursued. . . .

and bending them out into the shape o f a horseshoe, we shall

A worker's life and habits are fa

make I t possible f o r the centre, as w d l as the corresponding

structure than m i g h t appear at firs

ramifications o f the f o r m e r rings, to grow. T h e centre w i f l be-

age, physique, psychology, senih

come fan-shaped. Such a shape is more appropriate for a centre

quire different, rather than ident:

since, as the city grows, and as its dynamic increases and its or-

this imphes alternatives, most easi;

gamzabon becomes more complex, the centre w f l l not be

bination o f a l l k n o w n - or recent)

hemmed m , but be able instead to d e v d o p w i t h i n the area of

ture, than by an a r i d , functiona.

the fan. I n this construction, the entire d t y and its centre repre-

limitation and the c r a m m i n g of th<

sent a k m d o f stream w h i c h g r a d u a f l y widens.'

to unbending frameworks devisee

{Stroitelstvo Moskvy [Moscow Construction], 1930,

N o . 1, pp. 17-20)

of a designer or ideologist.'
{Sovetskaya a;

547
Chapter 2/The leaders o f t h e new direction

trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

hanical increase of its territory, o f t h e w i d t h o f

i , the height o f its buildings etc. G r o w t h must
)rganic and representing an organism that is
tively, but also quahtatively different at v a r i -

development. . . .
icentric form, of city p l a n has many supporters
I literature w o r l d w i d e . I t is therefore essential
greater detail. T h e medievel f o r t i f i e d t o w n ,
1 city, U n w i n ' s system o f satelhte towns and
roposals for replanning Paris, a l l these plan

s may be included i n a single category o f static

apparent differences i n f o r m and purpose beThe g r a f t i n g o f these systems on to g r o w i n g
rust inevitably provoke unhealthy symptoms
ation o f their mechanical nature is that these
capable o f m a k i n g sense d u r i n g a m i n i m a l

;ey are f u h y implemented, while i n the very

considerations conflict w i t h i t , inevitably distort i t and there

Extract from an article on 'The Planning of Avtostroi and Magnitogorsk

fore make i t impossible to implement. . . . O n the other hand

in a Higher Educational

g r o w t h as a whole makes provision f o r the g r o w t h of its diffbr-

'The significance o f p l a n n i n g as a separate disciphne is only

ent component organs w i t h their various roles w i t h i n a single

rather slowly being recognized by our architectural c o m m u n i -

economic time and space system. . . .

I f one were to assume a total harmonization o f f o r m , i e if

;m, f r o m a r u d i m e n t a r y system to another

e etc. W h i l e "static" factors predominated
s i n medieval times, i.e. given a relatively
and an inadequate sense o f the passage o f
ncentric system m i g h t have been capable o f
ce for p l a n n i n g purposes f o r a while, but, as
ed and grew, i t broke d o w n everywhere.
:ed by the g r i d system of p l a n n i n g as art exa sort o f ceaseless territorial conveyor belt
dted to the needs o f capitahsm and o f mean organic g r o w t h . T h e most extreme exdity is the concept o f the hnear city. These
w i l l inevitably prove to be weak organisms,
ent an expression of utmost d y n a m i s m and
sional space to a single measure by stressity. Yet modern material culture and techlible to solve t o w n - p l a n n i n g tasks i n three
smg " h o r i z o n t a l two-dimensionality".

hin i t an increase i n density at best . . . A

o w t h m i g h t seem to be feasible i n terms o f
m n i n g , but essendal dynamic geometrical

I n our country, i n the era o f t h e b u i l d i n g of socialism,

architectural associations continue to structure their w o r k

ignated for particular purposes - the g r o w t h of any one of theni

from the particular to the general, f r o m the b u i l d i n g to the

w o u l d spefl the decay o f another. I f , on the other hand

one

town as our foreign cofleagues are obliged to do i n a capitalist

were to abandon the difference o f f u n c t i o n a l assignmem be-

order of society. W e cannot regard i n d i v i d u a l buildings as any-

tween the various rings and accept their f u n c t i o n a l uniformity

thing but particles o f a city as a whole. O u r associations must

a centripetal force w o u l d develop - a l l else being equal - on the

therefore restructure their organizational w o r k and proceed

strength o f t h e economics inherent i n the d y n a m i c geometrical

from city to b u i l d i n g , not the other way about. . . .

principle. T h i s can be represented as an i n w a r d pressure ofthe

O u r builders and ideologists are mistaken w h e n they equate

rings u p o n each other towards the centre, while the central cir-

structural w i t h social types of dwellings. Dweflings either iden-

cle's tendency to g r o w w o u l d thus encounter the vast and in-

tical i n social terms, or o f a disparate k i n d , such as i n d i v i d u a l

surmountable resistance o f t h e rings.

flats or hostels w i t h different degrees o f communalizabon, may

centre, which tends to develop naturally

be accommodated i n skyscrapers j u s t as well as i n any other

m a horizontal direction, encounters a resistance by the rings which it

type of k n o w n structure - blocks, axial buildings w i t h spurs or

finds hard to surmount and the resolution o f t h e most fundamental

grouped pavihons consisting o f separate, spatially discrete

factor i n the life of a city - the dialectic process of its g r o w t h - i s

bedrooms coflected r o u n d the c o m m u n a l accommodation m a

not catered for by b u i l d i n g on such a p l a n , since g r o w t h is im-

complex cluster.

in

ring planning ...the

possible w i t h o u t causing the collapse o f surrounding - and, it

must be assumed, equally live - organs o f the city. . . .

I t should be stressed that a dwelhng for a more developed social order can be the more easily accommodated i n buildings of

., . . T h e centre o f a city must be able to grow not only i n the

diverse structural kinds, although differences w o u l d , of course,

t h i r d dimension, upwards, but equally i n a horizontal direc-

arise. B u t any such a difference w o u l d involve slight nuances i n

tion, progressively outwards. Therefore, the centre of a city must

the pattern of daily life, rather t h a n a difference i n the central

consist of an axial line, not a static point. B y breaking open the rings

social aims pursued. . . .

and bending them out i n t o the shape o f a horseshoe, we shall

A worker's life and habits are far more comphcated i n their

make i t possible for the centre, as well as the corresponding

structure than m i g h t appear at first sight. Differences i n trade,

ramifications o f the f o r m e r rings, to grow. T h e centre w i h be-

age, physique, psychology, senihty, disablement etc, a l l re-

come fan-shaped. Such a shape is more appropriate for a centre

quire different, rather than identical forms o f dwelling. A n d

since, as the city grows, and as its dynamic increases and its or-

this implies alternatives, most easily provided by the free com-

ganization becomes more complex, the centre w f l l not be

bination o f a l l k n o w n - or recently invented - types o f struc-

hemmed i n , but be able instead to develop w i t h i n the area of

ture, than by an a r i d , f u n c t i o n a l l y formahstic, self-imposed

the fan. I n this construction, the entire city and its centre repre-

hmitation and the c r a m m i n g o f t h e intricate organism of life i n -

sent a k i n d o f stream w h i c h gradually widens.'

: character o f the circular territory reflects

;ality, whfle the physical nature of its struc-

'

m d i v i d u a l rings were to represent different organs - arels des-

tieir g r o w t h i t w i l l become necessary to deort, they do not provide f o r g r o w t h f r o m a

Establishment'

one must decribe the g r o w t h o f a city as organic when it

[Stroitelstvo Moskvy [Moscow Construction], 1930,

No. 1, pp. 17-20)

to unbending frameworks devised by the meagre i m a g i n a t i o n

of a designer or ideologist.'
[Sovetskaya arkhitektura [Soviet Architecture],
1931, Nos. 1-2, p p . 21-24)

Alexander Vesnin (1883-1959)

Alexander A l e x a n d r o v i c h V e s n i n was the leader of Constructiv i s m i n Soviet architecture. H e was b o r n and spent his childhood i n the ancient Russian t o w n of Yurevets on the V o l g a . H e
graduated f r o m the Moscow Practical Academy and entered
the Petersburg I n s t i t u t e of C i v f l Engineers f r o m w h i c h he graduated i n 1912. W i t h his elder brothers, L e o n i d and V i k t o r , he
produced a number of architectural projects before the Revolution

several o f w h i c h were carried out. Those designs w h i c h

used the t r a d i t i o n o f Russian Classicism displayed great mastery, w h i l e the V e s n i n brothers were less successful w h e n they
w o r k e d i n other styles.
W e f l before the R e v o l u t i o n , Alexander V e s n i n became seriously involved i n p a i n t i n g , at the same time as he was studying and doing architectural w o r k . I n p a i n t i n g , he studied first
under K o n s t a n t i n Y u o n and E . T s i o n g l i n s k y i n 1907-11, and
then under V l a d i m i r T a d i n i n 1912-13. H e painted the ceilmg
o f t h e Sirotkin House i n N i z h n y - N o v g o r o d i n 1915.
D u r i n g the early Soviet years, Alexander V e s n i n w o r k e d as
a Cubist and abstract painter, and also as a theatrical designer.
H e took p a r t i n the exhibitions o f t h e L e f t Federation of A r t i s t Painters and the T r a d e U n i o n o f Artist-Painters, b o t h held i n
1918; he showed i n the First State E x h i b i t i o n o f Suprematist
and N o n - O b j e c t i v e P a i n t i n g i n 1919 and i n the Constructivist
Painters' show, ' 5 X 5 = 2 5 ' , i n 1921 i n Moscow, as w e f l as m a
travelling e x h i b i t i o n o f painters from the Russian Republic
that went to A m s t e r d a m , Venice and Rome i n 1922. As a theatr i c a l designer he worked on sets for the M a l y Theatre: The Road
to Glory ^nd The Marriage of Figaro in 1919, The Government Inspector and sketches for Oliver Cromwell i n 1920; for the K a m e r n y
Theatre he d i d L'Annonce faite a Mane i n 1920, sketches for Romeo andfuliet

i n 1921, Phedre i n 1922 and The Man who was Thurs-

day i n 1923; and, for the Children's Theatre, Adalmina's

Pearl m

1921. H e designed the decorations for the K r e m l i n and Red

Square on the first M a y D a y holiday after the Revolution, i n
1918 and - j o i n t l y w i t h Popova - the mass display on the K h o dynskoe Field i n Moscow i n 1921. H e also illustrated books. I n
1921, Alexander V e s n i n became a professor at V k h u t e m a s ,
where he first taught p a i n t i n g and d r a w i n g , and later headed
an architectural studio. H e was active at I n k h u k d u r m g
1921-24 and i n the A r c h i t e c t u r a l G r o u p o f L e f
Alexander V e s n i n was permanent chairman o f the C o n -

Part I l l / M a s t e r s and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

1
Structivists' U n i o n o f Contemporary Architects, Osa, f r o m
1925 to 1931, and chief editor of their periodical Sovremennaya
arkhitektura

[Contemporaiy

Architecture).

F r o m 1923, he d i d a

great deal of architectural w o r k i n collaboradon w i t h either one

or both o f h i s brothers. T h e i r p r i n c i p a l designs d u r i n g the period 1923-34 were: a Palace of L a b o u r , 1923; the

Leningradskaya

Pravda and Arkos buildings and an a i r c r a f t hangar i n 1924; a

telegraph office i n 1925; a department store at K r a s n a y a Presna i n 1927, w h i c h was carried out; the L e n i n L i b r a r y , 1928;
H o u s i n g Communes for Stalingrad and Kuznetsk i n 1 9 2 9 - 3 0 ;
Workers' Clubs i n B a k u i n 1928-32, w h i c h were carried out; a
theatre i n K h a r k o v , 1930; the Palace o f C u l t u r e i n Moscow i n
1931-37, w h i c h was carried out; the Palace o f Soviets i n M o s cow, 1931-32; and the People's Commissariat for Heavy I n dustry i n Moscow, 1934.

the task of architecture, b u t that i t was an inevitable result o f

Since the construction o f any object is a matter o f t h e stron?

bonding o f the m a i n elements o f plasticity (material, colour
line, surface, texture . . .) the artist must treat their study as his
first p r i o r i t y .

work the conception of w h i c h moved the spectator. A f u n c -

^i^nal f o r m , developed to perfection, w o u l d necessarily also be

*^rfect for the spectator - as is an aircraft, for instance. T h e i n -

I regard a l l these elements as materialized energy endowed

'Ttive element w o u l d undoubtedly d i m i n i s h as time went by.

w i t h dynamic qualities (movement, tension, weight, speed

N I Brunov asked where the borderiine lay between w h a t

. . .) to be efficiently regulated by the artist.

was and was not art, ff an aircraft was to be regarded as art.

A. A . V e s n i n considered the difference to be purely qualita-

Just as every part of an engine represents an active force, essential to the f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e given system and embodied in
the appropriate shape and material, and these may not be wil-

^'"^The architect's task is to organize space for a particular f o r m

f u l l y altered w i t h o u t damaging the w o r k i n g o f the entire sys[Iz istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury

tem, so i n every object constructed by an artist each component

gg. Dokumenty i materialy

element represents a materialized force and cannot be dis-

[From the History of Soviet Architecture,

carded or altered w i t h o u t i m p e d i n g the efficient functioning of

one o f t h e design studios w h i c h were set up at that time by the

Moscow Soviet and soon afterwards transferred, first to the
People's Commissariat for Heavy I n d u s t r y , then to the People's Commissariat for the O i l I n d u s t r y .
D u r i n g the 1930s, Alexander Vesnin took an active part i n
aesthedc and professional debates but thereafter gradually

1926-1932.

Documents and papers],

the given system, i . e. the object.

I n 1933, Alexander V e s n i n and his brother V i k t o r took over

1926-1932

Moscow, 1970, p p . 113-14)

The modern engineer has created works of genius: the bridge,

the steam locomotive, the aircraft, the crane. . . .
T h e modern artist must produce objects equal to them in
strength, tension and potential, as organizing principles in
terms o f their psycho-physiological impact on h u m a n con^^^ousness.'

( I n k h u k archive)

w i t h d r e w f r o m acdve contribudons to theory and pracdce.

Extracts from a speech made at the debate

in the Union of Soviet Architects
on the subject of 'Creative Tasks
of Soviet Architecture and the Problem
ofthe Architectural Heritage', 1933

Alexander Vesnin's

writings

'Credo' - April 1922

' T h e tempo o f modern dmes is quick and d y n a m i c ; its r h y t h m
is clear, accurate, straight-lined and mathematical. Materials
and efficiency determine the make-up of an object produced by
the modern artist.
I t does not matter whether the object concerned is both efficient and useful - such as an engineering construction or a
household article - or merely efficient, such as a laboratory
project aimed at resolving problems posed by the new modern
f o r m . Every real object produced by the modern artist must
play its p a r t i n life as an active force to organize the i n d i v i d u a l ' s
consciousness, exert a psycho-physiological effect u p o n h i m
and p r o m p t h i m to energetic activity.
Clearly, objects p r o d u c d by a modern artist must be pure
constructions, freed o f all representational baffast and devised
m accordance w i t h a direct geometric curve and the principle
of economy o f m a x i m u m effect.

Extracts from the minutes of the Subsection of Modern Art,

Spi, Rakhn (Spatial Art Section,

'

The lecturer said that Brunelleschi made creative use of

Russian Academy for Artistic Science), 19 March 1929

Classicism, yet we k n o w that Brunelleschi introduced R o m a n

Classicism and that we must therefore also make creative use of

capitals and cornices i n t o architecture unaltered. T h a t was

' I n t r o d u c t i o n by A . A . V e s n i n on
" T h e Tasks o f M o d e r n A r c h i t e c t u r e "

perfectly natural at the time. . . .

Nowadays, however, the w o r d " t o use" should be chucked

A . A . V e s n i n pointed out that the architect must engage i n the

out and replaced by the w o r d " t o assimUate", i.e. to under-

active construction of the new life and share i n the formulation

stand and surpass. B u t this certainly does not mean " t o appro-

of original architectural requirements, rather than accept their

priate", as is now said and done. . . .

finished statement. T h e new life demands a new presentation,

W h a t should one gather f r o m the history of architecture.

and this is only possible i f new materials and the latest techni-

First and foremost, one should be aware o f t h e essence of archi-

cal data are used. . . .

tecture, i . e. o f that basic feature w h i c h is pecuhar to architec-

N . I . B r u n o v asked A . A . Vesnin about the extent to which

ture. I n this, the organization of life and l i v i n g processes comes

the architect takes account of sensation and the extent to which

first. Architectonics come second, i.e. the laws o f structuring

architecture is dependent u p o n technology.

space, and one must investigate how these develop and gradu

A . A . V e s n i n explained that the basic task o f architecture is

to organize a new hfe, while technology is a means o f carrying
this out. There can be no organization i f antiquated technology
is used. As to "sensation", he remarked that i t d i d not enter in-

ally change. . . .

. .

Secondly - concerning f o r m and content . . . the v i t a l processes of life emer i n t o architecture, the task of orgamzmg lite
i t s d f and, on the other hand, so does ideological content.

549
Chapter 2/The leaders of the new direction

ds: biographies, statements, manifestos

of Contemporary Architects, Osa, f r o m

chief editor o f their periodical Sovremennaya
porary Architecture).

F r o m 1923, he d i d a

ictural work i n collaboration w i t h either one

irs. T h e i r p r i n c i p a l designs d u r i n g the periPalace of L a b o u r , 1923; the

Leningradskaya

uildings and an aircraft hangar i n 1924; a

925; a department store at Krasnaya Pres-

-vas carried out; the L e n i n L i b r a r y , 1928;

s f o r Stalingrad and Kuznetsk i n 1 9 2 9 - 3 0 ;

laku i n 1928-32, w h i c h were carried out; a
1930; the Palace o f C u l t u r e i n M o s c o w i n
; carried out; the Palace o f Soviets i n M o s the People's Commissariat for Heavy I n 1934.
;r Vesnin and his brother V i k t o r took over
dios w h i c h were set up at that time by the
soon afterwards transferred, first to the
iat for Heavy I n d u s t r y , then to the Peobr the O i l I n d u s t r y .
Alexander V e s n i n took an active p a r t i n

Since the construcdon of any object is a matter o f t h e stron?

bonding o f the m a i n elements o f plasdcity (material, colour
hne, surface, texture . . .) the ardst must treat their study as his
first p r i o r i t y .

to the task of architecture, b u t that i t was an inevitable resuft o f

I regard a l l these elements as materialized energy endowed

tuitive element w o u l d undoubtedly d i m i n i s h as time went by.

w i t h d y n a m i c qualifies (movement, tension, weight, speed

N . I . B r u n o v asked where the borderhne lay between w h a t

. . .) to be efficiendy regulated by the artist.

sendal to the f u n c t i o n i n g o f the given system and embodied in

tive. . . .
,
r
The archftect's task is to organize space for a particular f o r m

f u l l y altered w i t h o u t damaging the w o r k i n g o f t h e entire sys-

of life.'

tem, so i n every object constructed by an ardst each component

carded or altered w i t h o u t i m p e d i n g the efficient functioning of

strength, tension and potendal, as organizing principles in

terms o f their psycho-physiological i m p a c t on h u m a n con( I n k h u k archive)

i psycho-physiological effect upon h i m

ergedc activity.
)ducd by a modern ardst must be pure
all representadonal ballast and devised
lirect geometric curve and the p r i n c i p l e
i m effect.

need a dialectic understanding o f its development, we need to

understand i t ideologically and artistically. W e may i n this way
approach one o f t h e basic problems o f t h e new architecture.
T h e second lesson that the architectural heritages teaches us
is the u n i t y o f architecture w i t h technology . . .'
{Arkhitektura SSSR [Architecture of the U S S R ] ,
1 9 3 3 , N o s . 3 - 4 , pp. 14-15)

Extracts from an article entitled

'The Problem of the Interior', 1934
' T h e p l a n is the basis and f o u n d a t i o n o f every architectural design. B u t we have become accustomed to m a k i n g no artifical
distinctions i n design w o r k and to carrying out the processes of
analysis and synthesis simuftaneously. T h e consideration of

Extracts from a speech made at the debate

the g r o u n d p l a n , elevation, axonometric and perspective de-

in the Union of Soviet Architects

signs a l l take place i n parallel; i n other words, an integrated

on the subject of 'Creative

process o f creating an architectural image is at w o r k . T h i s

Tasks

of Soviet Architecture and the Problem

method o f w o r k has not always been practised. T h e architects

ofthe Architectural Heritage', 1933

o f t h e o l d school - indeed m a n y do this even now - divided up

Extracts from the minutes ofthe Subsection of Modern Art,

Spi, Rakhn (Spatial Art Sectioti,

" . . . T h e lecturer said that Brunelleschi made creative use o f

Russian Academy for Artistic Science), 19 March 1929

Classicism, yet we k n o w that Bruneffeschi introduced R o m a n

ine the make-up of an object produced by

ct produced by the modern ardst must

Moscow, 1970, pp. 113-14)

T h e modern ardst must produce objects equal to them in

' I n t r o d u c t i o n by A . A . Vesnin on

n acdve force to organize the i n d i v i d u a l ' s

1926-1932.

Documents and papers'],

T h e modern engineer has created works of genius: the bridge,

the steam locomodve, the aircraft, the crane

. . . W e are concerned w i t h elements o f f o r m to m a t c h our

content . . . since we incorporate life itself i n our content, we

1926-1932

gg. Dokumenty i materialy

[From the History of Soviet Architecture,

the given system, i . e. the object.

" T h e Tasks o f M o d e r n A r c h i t e c t u r e "

ving problems posed by the new modern

{Iz istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury

element represents a materialized force and cannot be dis-

aight-lined and mathemadcal. Materials

r merely efiicient, such as a laboratory

was and was not art, i f an aircraft was to be regarded as art.

the appropriate shape and material, and these may not be wil-

n times is quick and dynamic; its r h y t h m

ch as an engineering construcdon or a

perfect for the spectator - as is an aircraft, for instance. T h e i n -

A . A . V e s n i n considered the difference to be purely quahta-

; contributions to theory and pracdce.

A'hether the object concerned is both effi-

tional f o r m , developed to perfection, w o u l d necessarily also be

Just as every p a r t of an engine represents an acdve force, es-

isional debates but thereafter gradually

ings

any work the conception of w h i c h moved the spectator. A f u n c -

W h a t therefore is form? I t is space so organized i n a material

that i t lends substance to the given content.

Classicism and that we must therefore also make creative use o f

capitals and cornices i n t o architecture unaltered. T h a t was
perfectly n a t u r a l at the time. . . .
Nowadays, however, the w o r d " t o use" should be chucked

A . A . V e s n i n pointed out that the architect must engage i n the

out and replaced by the w o r d " t o assimilate", i.e. to under-

acdve construcdon o f the new life and share i n the formuladon

stand and surpass. B u t this certainly does not mean " t o appro-

of original architectural requirements, rather than accept their

priate", as is now said and done. . . .

their w o r k mechanically. T h e p l a n came first, then sections,

elevations, a model, axonometry and then, at last, perspective,
w h i c h often b r o u g h t to light a l l the mistakes inherent i n that architectural conception. O u r o w n practice has convinced us
that an organically integrated synthetic method of design, from
i n i t i a l sketch plans to overah perspectives, is the most rational,
economic and artistically f r u i t f u l approach. . . .
B o t h Western and Soviet modern architecture have i n t r o duced i m p o r t a n t changes i n the field of design w o r k . I have i n
m i n d the principle of so-cahed free p l a n n i n g , when an architect

finished statement. T h e new life demands a new presentation,

W h a t should one gather from the history of architecture?

and this is only possible i f new materials and the latest techni-

First and foremost, one should be aware of the essence of archi-

strength o f t h e everyday intellectual and social requirements of

tecture, i.e. of that basic feature w h i c h is peculiar to architec-

N . I . B r u n o v asked A . A . V e s n i n about the extent to which

h u m a n beings. . . . F i n a l l y , the system of interior organization

ture. I n this, the organization of hfe and l i v i n g processes comes

the architect takes account of sensation and the extent to which

i n accordance w i t h the principle o f "free-fiowing spaces" pro-

first. Architectonics come second, i.e. the laws of s t r u c t u r i n g

architecture is dependent upon technology.

duces a certain illusion of compositional variations w i t h i n a

space, and one must investigate how these develop and gradu-

structure, thereby increasing both its artistic expressiveness

ally change. . . .

and its f u n c t i o n a l efficiency.

cal data are used. . . .

A . A . Vesnin explained that the basic task o f architecture is

resolves the organization o f interior space purely on the

to organize a new life, while technology is a means o f carrying

Secondly - concerning f o r m and content . . . the v i t a l pro-

this out. There can be no organization i f antiquated technology

U s i n g the t e r m " f u n c t i o n " or " f u n c t i o n a l i s m " as frequently

cesses of life enter i n t o architecture, the task o f organizing life

is used. As to "sensation", he remarked that i t d i d not enter in-

as I do, I begin to fear that I w i l l be misunderstood. M o d e r n

itseff and, on the other hand, so does ideological content.

Part I l l / M a s t e r s and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

Functionalism i n architecture has never claimed the t w o deplorable teachings w h i c h their opponents lay at its door. I t has
never pretended to have invented new principles unprecedented i n architectural practice. A l l true masters and architects o f

i t y of technical execution, either i n reality or on paper, and the

labour i n its place. Those comrades, however, w h o dii

quality o f t h e architectural treatment is ignored.

agree w i t h them, myself included, did not fight against this

Symbolism is often substituted for imagery i n architecture '

{Literaturnaya gazeta [Literary Gazette]

all countries i n a l l ages have always given thought to the effi-

N o . 135 (45), 8 October 1934)

cient resolution o f f u n c t i o n a l tasks. W e have also never said

tion actively enough. B u t we never allowed the slogan " A w a )

A r t " to appear i n our j o u r n a l . . . .
Constructivism must constantly develop and move forward.

{Arkhitekturnaya g

that the f u n c t i o n of a structure, i n the n a r r o w sense o f t h e w o r d ,

must govern ah other architectural considerations, i . e. the u n i -

at a Moscow-wide

role as a decorative element w i t h i n the general conception of a

of architects in February 1936

must not neglect to the point of insensitivity the f u n c t i o n a l purpose of buildings, since they are being erected for l i v i n g h u m a n
beings w i t h practical - even i f exceedingly complex - intellectual, social and h v i n g requirements. T h u s F u n c d o n a l i s m is, i n
essence, no more than the rebirth o f t h e i m m e m o r i a l p r i m a c y o f
f u n c t i o n i n architecture as opposed to scholastic, decorative
academicism, now apphed t o the significantly enlarged and
more complex operational base o f modern m a n - the citizen o f
a sociahst country. . . .'
{Arkhitektura SSSR,

1934, N o . 7, p p . 3 - 4 )

Extracts from an article entitled

'Debatable Questions', 1934
' A certain confusion m a y be observed at present among many
Soviet architects . . .
Something quite absurd has happened to the assimilation o f
the architectural heritage. T h e m a j o r i t y of architects approach
the heritage as though i t was a layette p u t by i n a t r u n k . Each
one o f them pulls whatever he fancies f r o m i t and sticks i t i n t o
his design. . . .

N o . 13 (85), 3 M a r c h

Extracts from a speech

ty o f composition o f its image, its artistic purpose or even its

street, a square, or a city. We have merely maintained that one

..

convention
Melnikov (1890-1974)

' T h e p r o b l e m of f o r m is one o f t h e basic elements i n every sort

of art, while F o r m a h s m is a definitely negative phenomenon

Konstantin Stepanovich M e l n i k o v was b o r n i n Mosco\

against w h i c h i t is essential to struggle. Yet these t w o concepts

tered the General Educational Section o f t h e Goffege o f ]

are very often confused w i t h each other.

ing, Sculpture and Architecture and, on completing

W e are searching for new forms. T h i s search must start from

course, continued his education, first i n the Goffege's Pa

the content of hfe and take account o f the f u n c t i o n a l aspect, as

Section and then i n that for Architecture, f r o m w h i c h he g

weff as of perception etc. A H this is part o f t h e c o n t e n t . . . The

ated i n 1917.

content is not simply a u t i l i t a r i a n f u n c t i o n , and functions of an

I n early Soviet years, M e l n i k o v worked i n the Moscc

ideological order also have their share i n i t . . . .

viet's architectural studio and c o n t r i b u t e d to the Architej

A few words about simphcity and s i m p h f i c a t i o n or vulgarization. These two concepts are often confused. Simphcity is a
great achievement, i t is our ideal. . . .

Department o f the People's Gommissariat for Educati(

I t w o u l d point to the Parthenon as a good example o f sim-

tion's Presidium. H e was a professor i n the A r c h i t e c t u

phcity. I t is b o t h exceptionally simple, and richly loaded with

1920-21, he was one o f t h e organizers of an Architects' S

in the U n i o n of A r t Workers and became a member o f thi
culty of Vkhutemas f r o m 1921 to 1924.

content. T h e n I w o u l d point to Bruneffeschi's Pazzi Ghapel

I n 1922-23, M e l n i k o v took p a r t i n three m a j o r archite

[Mordvinov: ' A n d to Le Gorbusier on the Myasnitskaya?']. ' And

events o f t h e early years o f t h e decade, w i t h entries for a :

to L e Gorbusier on the Myasnitskaya. I consider that a number

of Labour and a dwelling complex competition, and tht

o f Le Gorbusier's works are on a level w i t h those of Bruneffeschi.

cow exhibition's M a k h o r k a pavihon. H i s design o f t h e

A n u m b e r o f the Gonstructivist propositions on which we

phagus i n the L e n i n M a u s o l e u m was executed i n 1924,

have been w o r k i n g remain true even now. . . . First and fore-

that of the Novo-Sukharevsky M a r k e t i n the same yei

most, the organic nature of architecture. W e set ourselves the task of

that o f t h e Soviet pavUion at the Paris I n t e r n a t i o n a l E x k

discovering forms w h i c h derived f r o m the f u n c t i o n o f the

in 1925. M e l n i k o v was one o f t h e acknowledged leaders

T h e fight against vulgarization often comes d o w n to a fight

materials and the structure. This proposition remains vahd,

new direction. H e was active as a contributor to compe

against serious, simple and shapely architectural Gonstructi-

but i t needs to be developed, since, at an early stage, although

and carried out numerous commissions. Five clubs, fc

vism, and, moreover, w h a t is described as Gonstructivism has

functions meant both utilitarian and ideogicalfunctions

n o t h i n g i n c o m m o n w i t h i t as a f o r m o f architecture. T h e very

theless gave priority to utilitarian

great achievements o f Soviet architecture . . . and uninspired

trash are l u m p e d together and described as " G o n s t r u c t i v i s m " ,
"boxes" and " v u l g a r i z a t i o n " .
A r c h i t e c t u r a l opulence is taken to mean neither opulence o f
content, nor the opulence of simple, shapely forms, but a meaningless, disjointed pffing-on o f d e t a s .
T h e fight for q u a l i t y often comes d o w n to a fight f o r the qual-

to us, we never-

functions.

The questfor a new socialist model w h i c h was to develop into the

rages and his o w n house were b u i l t f r o m his designs. F

duced an experimental design for garages i n Paris i n
competition entries for the Leningradskaya

Pravda b u i l t

quest for a new image, also stands. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , there also

Moscow i n 1924; for the Golumbus M o n u m e n t i n San

remains

mingo i n 1929; f o r Green Gity i n 1930; for the Moscow C

the struggle against eclecticism. . . . There remains the struggle

for the incorporation ofthe latest achievements of building technology

Park of Gulture and Leisure, the Moscow District Sc

I n the past, some of our comrades, though admittedly a mi-

Trade Unions Theatre and the Palace o f Nations (a cc

n o r i t y o f them, definitely deviated i n matters o f art. They

proposal i n the Palace o f L a b o u r competition) i n 1931;

claimed that art was a vestige o f t h e past and promoted artistic

Ministry of Heavy I n d u s t r y i n Moscow i n 1934; and oth

551
Chapter 2/The leaders of the new direction
ids: biographies, statements, manifestos

irchitecture has never claimed the t w o de-

i t y o f technical execution, either i n reality or on paper, and the

labour i n its place. Those comrades, however, w h o d i d not

w h i c h their opponents lay at its door. I t has

q u a l i t y o f t h e architectural treatment is ignored. . . .

agree w i t h them, myself included, did not fight against this devia-

have invented new principles unprecedent-

Symbolism is often substituted for imagery i n architecture.'

practice. A l l true masters and architects o f

{Literaturnaya gazeta [Literary Gazette],

ages have always given thought to the effi-

N o . 135 (45), 8 October 1934)

tion actively enough. B u t we never allowed the slogan " A w a y w i t h

A r t " to appear i n our j o u r n a l . . . .
Constructivism must constantly develop and move forward.
{Arkhitekturnaya

f u n c t i o n a l tasks. We have also never said

a structure, i n the n a r r o w sense o f t h e w o r d ,
er architectural considerations, i . e. the u n i j f its image, its artistic purpose or even its
; element w i t h i n the general conception o f a

. . .'
gazeta,

N o . 13 (85), 3 M a r c h 1936)

I n 1933-38, M e l n i k o v headed one o f t h e Moscow Soviet's

and the development o f the Kotelnicheskaya and GoncharMelnikov (1890-1974)

naya Embankments i n Moscow i n 1934. H e was also teaching

K o n s t a n d n Stepanovich M e l n i k o v was b o r n i n Moscow, en-

ince they are being erected for l i v i n g h u m a n

against w h i c h i t is essential to struggle. Y e t these two concepts

tered the General E d u c a d o n a l Section o f t h e College o f Paint-

:al even i f exceedingly complex intellec-

are very often confused w i t h each other. . . .

ing

Sculpture and Architecture and, on compledng this

ng requirements. Thus Functionahsm is, i n

W e are searching for new forms. T h i s search must start from

course, continued his education, first i n the College's P a i n d n g

lan the rebirth o f t h e i m m e m o r i a l p r i m a c y o f

the content of life and take account o f the f u n c t i o n a l aspect, as

Section and then i n that for Architecture, from w h i c h he gradu-

cture as opposed to scholastic, decorative

well as of perception etc. A l l this is part o f the c o n t e n t . . . The

ated i n 1917.

applied to the significantly enlarged and

content is not simply a u t i h t a r i a n f u n c t i o n , and functions of an

1934

himself as belonging to any particular trend.

among t h e m those for a Palace o f C u l t u r e i n Tashkent i n 1933

convention

o f art, while F o r m a l i s m is a definitely negative phenomenon

de entitled

m a r k e d l y i n d i v i d u a l approach, however, he d i d not regard

at a Moscow-wide

of architects in February 1936

the point of insensitivity the f u n c t i o n a l pur-

1934, N o . 7, p p . 3 - 4 )

he even j o i n e d Asnova for a while. As an archhect w i t h a

architectural studios where he produced a number o f designs,

' T h e p r o b l e m o f f o r m is one o f t h e basic elements i n every sort

{Arkhitektura SSSR,

bat Square i n Moscow.

H i s artistic position was close to that o f t h e Rationalists, and

Extracts from a speech

a city. W e have merely maintained that one

ational base o f modern m a n - the citizen o f

1931, M e l n i k o v p u t f o r w a r d a proposal for redesigning the A r -

ideological order also have their share i n i t . . . .

I n early Soviet years, M e l n i k o v w o r k e d i n the Moscow Soviet's architectural studio and contributed to the A r c h i t e c t u r a l

d u r i n g this period at the M o s c o w A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e . T o wards the end o f t h e 1930s, M e l n i k o v carried out a number o f
commissions and devoted m u c h attention to p a i n t i n g .
I n subsequent years, M e l n i k o v was m a i n l y engaged m
teaching, b u t also took part i n some competitions, such as that
for a Palace o f Soviets i n 1958 and a chhdren's cinema on the
A r b a t i n Moscow i n 1967.
Melnikov's

writings

A few words about simplicity and simplification or vulgar-

Department o f t h e People's Commissariat for Education. I n

ization. These t w o concepts are often confused. Simplicity is a

1920-21, he was one o f t h e organizers of an Architects' Secdon

Extracts from an article entitled

great achievement, i t is our ideal. . . .

in the U n i o n of A r t Workers and became a member o f t h e Sec-

'The Delineation of a Design', 1933

tion's Presidium. H e was a professor i n the Architecture Fa-

'There is no obligatory sequence whatsoever for the creative

culty o f Vkhutemas f r o m 1921 to 1924.

processes apphed i n the i n i t i a l stage of work on any design.

I t w o u l d point to the Parthenon as a good example o f simplicity. I t is b o t h exceptionally simple, and richly loaded with
content. T h e n I w o u l d point to Brunelleschi's Pazzi Chapel

I n 1922-23, M e l n i k o v took part i n three m a j o r architectural

V e r y m u c h depends on i n t u i t i o n and w h a t is sthl broadly

[Mordvinov: ' A n d to Le Corbusier on the Myasnitskaya?']. ' A n d

events o f t h e early years o f t h e decade, w i t h entries f o r a Palace

k n o w n as "creative i m a g i n a t i o n " . N o w o r k of any k i n d is possi-

to Le Corbusier on the Myasnitskaya. I consider that a number

of Labour and a dwelling complex competition, and the M o s -

ble, o f course, on the conception o f any structure w i t h o u t some

of Le Corbusier's works are on a level w i t h those of Brunelleschi.

cow exhibition's M a k h o r k a pavilion. H i s design o f t h e sarco-

p r e l i m i n a r y study o f t h e technical and economic features o f t h e

:ritage. T h e m a j o r i t y of architects approach

A number o f the Constructivist propositions on which we

phagus i n the L e n i n M a u s o l e u m was executed i n 1924, as was

task i n hand. B u t every now and again the spatial treatment

rgh i t was a layette p u t by i n a t r u n k . Each

have been w o r k i n g remain true even now. . . . First and fore-

that o f the Novo-Sukharevsky M a r k e t i n the same year and

and composition take shape i n the architect's m i n d before the

'hatever he fancies f r o m i t and sticks i t i n t o

most, the organic nature of architecture. W e set ourselves the task of

that o f t h e Soviet p a v i l i o n at the Paris I n t e r n a t i o n a l E x h i b i t i o n

detailed w o r k on the economic and technical considerations

discovering forms w h i c h derived f r o m the f u n c t i o n of the

in 1925. M e l n i k o v was one o f t h e acknowledged leaders o f t h e

materials and the structure. T h i s proposition remains valid,

new direction. H e was active as a c o n t r i b u t o r to competitions

i p l e and shapely architectural C o n s t r u c t i -

b u t i t needs to be developed, since, at an early stage, although

and carried out numerous commissions. Five clubs, f o u r ga-

;r, w h a t is described as Constructivism has

functions meant both utilitarian and ideogical functions to us, we never-

rages and his o w n house were b u i l t from his designs. H e pro-

I w i t h i t as a f o r m o f architecture. T h e very

theless gave priority to utilitarian

duced an experimental design for garages i n Paris i n 1925;

n may be observed at present among m a n y

absurd has happened to the assimhation o f

t vulgarization often comes d o w n to a fight

functions.

competition entries for the Leningradskaya

Pravda b u i l d i n g i n

; o f Soviet architecture . . . and uninspired

The questfor a new socialist model w h i c h was to develop into the

igether and described as " C o n s t r u c t i v i s m " ,

quest for a new image, also stands. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , there also

Moscow i n 1924; for the C o l u m b u s M o n u m e n t i n Santo D o -

arization".

veradiins the struggle against eclecticism. . . . There remains the struggle

mingo i n 1929; for Green Gity i n 1930; for the Moscow Gentral

ulence is taken to mean neither opulence o f

for the incorporation of the latest achievements of building technology. .

Park of Gulture and Leisure, the Moscow District Soviet of

I n the past, some o f our comrades, though admittedly a mi-

Trade Unions Theatre and the Palace o f Nations (a counter-

j i l i n g - o n o f details.

n o r i t y o f them, definitely deviated i n matters o f art. They

proposal i n the Palace o f L a b o u r competition) i n 1931; for the

hty often comes d o w n to a fight for the qual-

claimed that art was a vestige o f the past and promoted artisti

Ministry of Heavy I n d u s t r y i n Moscow i n 1934; and others. I n

hence of simple, shapely forms, b u t a mean-

has started. . . .
_
W h e n one is considering a design, ideas dart about i n the
constant search for a solution. M u c h has repeatedly to be reconsidered as diametrically opposite possibihties are rejected.
Personally, I make no use of drawings and sketches of any k i n d
i n the course of my w o r k . N o t only have I no urge to do so, b u t I
regard i t as simply unnecessary, and even counterproductive.
A d r a w i n g hampers the free play of ideas by p r o m o t m g a
ready-made

tieatment

i n graphic f o r m , even though the m m d

may have rejected i t . D r a w i n g s hamper me p a r t i c u l a r l y at the

i n i t i a l stage o f w o r k on a design. A h purely technical - as op-

552
Part I l l / M a s t e r s and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

posed to compositional - sketches are another matter: they are

both usehil and unavoidable i n the architect's w o r k .
I have never had occasion to study any p a t t e r n books or

Extracts from an article entitled

Extracts from an article on 'The Principles of Architectural

'The Assimilation

1936

of New

Materials

in Architecture', 1934

'Architectural creativity is an extremely complex process, a

manuals, or pay special attention to other people's constructions. T h e true architect has no need for this at a l l , even w h e n
he sets out to satisfy a particular stylistic canon. Nevertheless,
since every architect has studied at a p a r t i c u l a r school, has

Creativity',

T t is not necessary to demonstrate that the latest building

nthesis o f art, science and technology, i n v o l v i n g b o t h the

materials and structures influence the emergence of new styles

' I r d c i p a t i o n o f a large number o f anciflary workers, and

of architectural construction. So m u c h is obvious. . . .

workers i n construction, w h o i m p l e m e n t the designer's conception and the quality and selection of b u i l d i n g materials. . .

been trained i n particular tastes and has favourite masters, i t is

Ferro-concrete is a material w h i c h has been tried out i n the

entirely n a t u r a l that i n the course o f his creative activity he

most varied contextes. A caveat of a different sort must, howev-

As we see i t , the retarding principle i n architecture de-

should, often quite unconsciously, be d r a w n to the classics or

er, be entered here: this b u i l d i n g material has not as yet been

rives from the fact that certain architectural forms produced b^j

the influence o f his contemporaries. I t is appropriate at this

f u l l y mastered. I am convinced that i t holds a m u l t i t u d e of pos-

historial evolution and subject to the laws of permanence, ar<

p o i n t to examine t w o closely connected, b u t m u t a l l y i n c o m -

sibilities and a great power o f architectural expression, which

so exquisite that they hold their o w n f u r t h e r development cap

patible concepts: the " r e l a t e d " and the " i m i t a t e d " . A master

our master builders still need to discover i n this most flexible of

may be so f a m i l i a r w i t h the culture of f o r m e r centuries that he

b u i l d i n g materials. . . .

^ ' ' ' o n l y the genuine talent o f a design artist endows his w o r k

quite u n f a i l i n g l y - one describes i t as acting organically - be-

I a m aware that an opinion is current among architects ac-

with the right to live. Y e t among us architects, the number C:

comes the bearer o f t h e stylistic traditions of many generations.

c o r d i n g to w h i c h we should, for all intents and purposes, have

works of compilation - some of w h i c h are f o r m a l l y b r f l h a n t

T h a t is the quintessence o f any culture, and i t is therefore u n -

the leading and controlling part reserved to us i n the produc-

has reached enormous proportions. As we see i t , these work

derstandable that any master may see himself as a " r e l a t i o n " o f

tion of b u i l d i n g materials and structural components. I am not

w i f l soon be deprived o f their value by life itseff. . . .

some classical or even closely contemporary artist. A n " i m i t a -

convinced that this opinion is correct. I n the light o f economic

O n l y that architect w i l l be w o r t h y of our era w h o can encon

tor" is something else again. H e merely copies mechanically

and technological circumstances, and bearing i n m i n d the re-

pass this great era of heroic struggle for the b u i l d i n g o f sociaj

and produces pale reflections, i m p o t e n t tracings of w h a t he has

quirements o f our b u i l d i n g work, the construction industry it-

ism and is w i l l i n g and able to strive for genuine creativity. Gr|

either never perceived or never studied.

self must manufacture and market on a mass scale the requisite

en a talented architect, genuine creativity is destined to create^

types o f b u i l d i n g materials and structural components. I t is

new era i n the evolution o f arehhectural art. I t must provic

merely up to the architect to make skilled and artistically effec-

humanity w i t h monuments w h i c h w i f l make i t possible to a

tive use o f t h e m . '

predate the heroism o f our time.

T h e most p a i n f u l stage of the creative process is p r o v i d e d by

the final touches to a design. H o w is one to picture to oneself
the f u t u r e structure i n its n a t u r a l environment, so as to decide

{Arkhitektura SSSR,

1934, N o . 4, p. 37)

I t is essential to study the laws of p r o p o r t i o n and compoi

whether i t m a y not need some alterations or additions ? H o w e v -

tion embodied i n Greek temples, and the entire architectm

er exquisitely a d r a w i n g is executed, i t never satisfies the architect. A model provides an even more imperfect rendering of nature. T h a t is w h y I regard i t as obligatory that the architect
should share i n every stage o f the construction f r o m his design

Extract from the article on 'The First Place for Architecture', 1934
' T h a t w h i c h is described as architecture is majestic. The loud
language of granite i n architecture arouses a m i l l e n n i a l echo i n
the people's hearts. A r c h i t e c t u r a l forms send f o r t h a great

I should like to say a few words about the architect's collaborators . . . T h o u g h an architect's assistant may not act purely
as a technical collaborator, his basic tasks w i l l still be the elabo-

experience accumulated by h u m a n i t y i n the course of previo

eras.
.
,
But fr w o u l d be as u n t o w a r d to ahow an architect whose o.
put is characterless to approach actual b u i l d i n g work, as d is
see a painter unskifled i n d r a w i n g . '

clamour f r o m one century to the next and preserve the fresh-

{Raboty arkhitekturnykh

ness and glory of their times. T h e value of architecture lies i n its

bold creadons.'

{Stroitelstvo Moskvy,

1934, N o . 1, p.9)

r a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l details, estimates etc. I n fact, one some-

mastersk

[The Output of Architectural

Studi,

Gollected Articles, v o l . 2, Studio N o . 7 , p p . 3 -

dmes wonders w h a t to do w i t h oneself w h i l e most i m p o r t a n t

compositional details are being elaborated - how one is to w o r k
h a n d i n h a n d w i t h an assistant. . . Even w h e n an assistant i m proves u p o n i n d i v i d u a l compositional details i n a design, he

Extract from an article entitled 'The Creative Mood of the Architect',

1934

Leonidov (1902-59)

m a y very often pervert the architect's basic idea. A n assistant

' I regard i t as extremely i m p o r t a n t for an architect to be capa-

Ivan I h c h Leonidov was b o r n at the V l a s i k h farmstead m l :

must have a p a r t i c u l a r l y congenial nature, i f he is to carry out

ble not only o f designing i n his studio, b u t o f carrying out his

Province, as the son o f a forester. H e spent his childhood i n

j o i n t creative w o r k w i t h an architect.'

design on the b u i l d i n g site.'

country; was apprenticed to an icon painter; entered, lirst.

[Arkhitektura

SSSR,

1933, N o . 5, p. 35)

{Arkhitektura SSSR,

1934, N o . 9, p. 10)

Free A r t Studios i n T v e r i n 1920 and then the Moscow V k h

553
nds: biographies, statements, manifestos

Ghapter 2/The leaders of the new direcdon

Dnal - sketches are another matter: they are

Extracts from an article entitled

avoidable i n the architect's work,

'The Assimilation

d occasion to study any pattern books or

of New

Extracts from an article on 'The Principles of Architectural

Creativity',

mas i n 1921, where he j o i n e d the Faculty of Painting, and later

that o f Architecture i n Alexander Vesnin's studio.

Materials

1936

in Architecture', 1934

)ecial attendon to other people's construc-

Leonidov designed competition entries f r o m 1925: for an i m -

'Architectural creativity is an extremely complex process, a

proved peasant h u t and dwelhngs at Ivanovo-Voznesensk i n

utect has no need for this at a l l , even w h e n

' I t is not necessary to demonstrate that the latest buflding

synthesis o f art, science and technology, involving b o t h the

1925, and for a university i n M i n s k , as well as for model

y a pardcular stylisdc canon. Nevertheless,

materials and structures influence the emergence of new styles

participation o f a large number o f anciflary workers, and

W o r k e r s ' Glubs w i t h 500 and 1,000 members, i n 1926. W h i l e

ct has studied at a pardcular school, has

of architectural construction. So m u c h is obvious. . . .

workers i n construction, w h o i m p l e m e n t the designer's concep-

still a student, he j o i n e d the Gonstructivist organization, Osa,

don and the q u a l i t y and selection of b u i l d i n g materials. . .

and contributed to their periodical SA. H i s 1927 d i p l o m a de-

i c u l a r tastes and has favourite masters, i t is

Ferro-concrete is a material w h i c h has been tried out i n the

d i n the course o f his creadve activity he

most varied contextes. A caveat o f a different sort must, howev-

. . . As we see i t , the retarding p r i n c i p l e i n architecture de-

sign f o r a L e n i n I n s t i t u t e represents an i m p o r t a n t l a n d m a r k i n

unconsciously, be d r a w n to the classics or

er, be entered here: this b u i l d i n g material has not as yet been

rives f r o m the fact that certain architectural forms produced by

the evolution o f Gonstructivism. A f t e r graduation, he re-

contemporaries. I t is appropriate at this

f u l l y mastered. I a m convinced that i t holds a m u l t i t u d e of pos-

historial evolution and subject to the laws of permanence, are

m a i n e d at V k h u t e m a s as a postgraduate student, where he also

vo closely connected, but m u t a h y incom

sibhities and a great power o f architectural expression, which

so exquisite that they hold their o w n f u r t h e r development cap-

w o r k e d as an assistant i n Alexander Vesnin's studio. Soon

e " r e l a t e d " and the " i m i t a t e d " . A master

our master builders stifl need to discover i n this most flexible of

b u i l d i n g materials. . . .

tive. . . .

afterwards, he headed a studio o f his o w n i n the A r c h i t e c t u r a l

v i t h the culture of former centuries that he

O n l y the genuine talent o f a design artist endows his works

me describes i t as acdng organically - be-

I a m aware that an o p i n i o n is current among architects ac-

:he stylisdc traditions of many generations,

c o r d i n g to w h i c h we should, for a l l intents and purposes, have

ence o f any culture, and i t is therefore u n -

the leading and controhing p a r t reserved to us i n the produc-

ly master m a y see himself as a " r e l a t i o n " o f

tion of b u f l d i n g materials and structural components. I am not

:n closely contemporary artist. A n " i m i t a -

convinced that this o p i n i o n is correct. I n the light of economic

se again. H e merely copies mechanically

and technological circumstances, and bearing i n m i n d the re-

flections, impotent tracings of w h a t he has

quirements o f our b u i l d i n g work, the construction industry it-

;d or never studied.

self must manufacture and market on a mass scale the requisite

stage o f t h e creative process is p r o v i d e d by

types o f b u f l d i n g materials and structural components. I t is

1 design. H o w is one to picture to oneself

merely up to the architect to make skifled and artistically effec-

n its n a t u r a l environment, so as to decide

tive use o f t h e m . '

[Arkhitektura

SSSR,

1934, N o . 4, p. 37)

with the r i g h t to live. Y e t among us architects, the number o f

1927 to 1930. H e was active i n Osa, debated and produced

has reached enormous proportions. As we see i t , these works

experimental designs and competition entries, many o f t h e lat-

whl soon be deprived o f their value by life itself

ter on b e h a f l o f Osa, i n c l u d i n g a film factory i n Moscow, a so-

O n l y that architect w i h be w o r t h y of our era w h o can encom-

cially new type o f club, a Government House, i n A l m a - A t a and

pass this great era of heroic struggle for the b u i l d i n g o f social-

a Tsentrosoyuz b u i l d i n g i n Moscow, i n 1928; a House o f I n -

ism and is w f l l i n g and able to strive for genuine creativity. G i v -

dustry i n Moscow, i n 1 9 2 9 - 3 0 ; the Golumbus M o n u m e n t , i n

en a talented architect, genuine creativity is destined to create a

1929; a sociahst settiement for the Magnitogorsk I n d u s t r i a l

new era i n the evolution o f architectural art. I t must provide

Gombine, and the Palace o f Gulture i n Moscow, i n 1930.

humanity w i t h monuments w h i c h w i l l make i t possible to apI t is essential to study the laws o f p r o p o r t i o n and composition embodied i n Greek temples, and the entire architectural

Extract from the article on 'The First Place for Architecture', 1934

experience accumulated by h u m a n i t y i n the course of previous

' T h a t w h i c h is described as architecture is majestic. The loud

eras.

language of granite i n architecture arouses a m i f l e n n i a l echo in

But i t w o u l d be as u n t o w a r d to aflow an architect whose out-

' a few words about the architect's collab-

the people's hearts. A r c h i t e c t u r a l forms send f o r t h a great

put is characterless to approach actual b u f l d i n g work, as i t is to

n architect's assistant m a y not act purely

clamour f r o m one century to the next and preserve the fresh-

see a painter unskilled i n d r a w i n g . '

rator, his basic tasks w f l l stfll be the elabo-

ness and glory of their times. T h e value of architecture hes i n its

ietafls, estimates etc. I n fact, one some-

bold creations.'

[Raboty arkhitekturnykh

1934, N o . 1, p. 9)

to do w i t h oneself while most i m p o r t a n t

lal compositional details i n a design, he

:t the architect's basic idea. A n assistant
rly congenial nature, i f he is to carry out
t h an architect.'
[Arkhitektura

SSSR,

1933, N o . 5, p . 35)

teaching.
D u r i n g the early 1930s, Leonidov w o r k e d i n various design

[The Output of Architectural

I g a r k a and on designs for Serpukhovo Gate Square i n M o s cow, for the reconstruction o f Moscow, for the Pravda newspaper's club etc. H e produced one o f his best works i n the design

masterskikh
Studios],

Gollected Articles, v o l . 2, Studio N o . 7, p p . 3 - 4 )

for the People's Gommissariat for Heavy I n d u s t r y i n Moscow,

i n 1934.
D u r i n g the second h a f f o f the 1930s, he worked on designs for
the K l y u c h i k i dwelling complex near N i z h n y T a g i l , the A r t e k

are being elaborated - how one is to w o r k

assistant. . . Even when an assistant i m -

i n the course o f w h i c h his experimental designs were

subjected to devastating criticism and he was forced to give up

organizations on the p l a n n i n g and construction o f t h e t o w n o f

y stage o f the construction f r o m his de

[Stroitelstvo Moskvy,

A t the end o f 1930, V o p r a set off a debate about ' L e o n i d o v ism',

preciate the heroism o f our time.

ing is executed, i t never satisfies the archiregard i t as obligatory that the architect

Leonidov's most active and f r u i t f u l years extended f r o m

works o f compflation - some o f w h i c h are f o r m a l l y b r i l h a n t -

;ed some alterations or additions ? H o w e v :s an even more imperfect rendering of na-

Faculty.

Extract from an article entitled 'The Creative Mood of the Architect',

1934

Pioneers' G a m p , the Usole settiement i n the U r a l s , and on a

Leonidov (1902-59)

n u m b e r of interiors.
I n the post-war period, Leonidov overcame the creative cri-

' I regard i t as extremely i m p o r t a n t for an architect to be capable not only o f designing i n his studio, but o f carrying out his
design on the b u f l d i n g site.'
[Arkhitektura

SSSR,

1934, N o . 9, p. 10)

I v a n I h c h Leonidov was b o r n at the V l a s i k h farmstead i n T v e r

sis w h i c h had fettered his artistic i m a g i n a t i o n over several

Province, as the son o f a forester. H e spent his childhood i n the

years, and sketched out a number o f designs w h i c h bear w i t -

country; was apprenticed to an icon painter; entered, first, the

ness to a renewed creative drive, i n c l u d i n g designs for a t o w n o f

Free A r t Studios i n T v e r i n 1920 and then the Moscow V k h u t e -

the f u t u r e . Sun Town; a U n i t e d Nations b u f l d i n g ; a Palace o f

554
Part I l l / M a s t e r s and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

rest f r o m one k i n d o f w o r k is possible by engagin

Soviets; a Moscow W o r l d E x h i b i t i o n ; a F o r u m o f A r t s , and

w h i c h is to solve the problems o f interplanetary communica-

various others.

tions by means o f the latest achievements o f science and tech-

(rest f r o m " p h y s i c a l " work by engaging, for exam]

nology: the demonstration area for the latter is provided by the

t a l " w o r k ) . A person's w o r k i n g day, c u l t u r a l deve

airfield and the surrounding terrain, as well as by a part o f t h e

leisure can only be organized on the basis o f t h e p i

sea; (5) a hall for w o r l d scientific and technological congresses

hour.

organized by means o f radio.'

Question: H o w soon w i h economic and technolo|

Leonidov's

writings

'A Note Concerning the Problem of the Monument',

1929,

about the Columbus Monument design

{Sovremennaja arkhitektura,

1929, N o . 4, p. 148)

stances ahow such clubs to be buht?

Answer: T o d a y . O n l y sceptics and conservatives

'Aim:
T h e nations i n their milhons must be i n f o r m e d about the great

Extracts from the lecture 'The Socially New Type of Club'

tradition can ignore the scientific-technical facts a

m a n o f action and his historic part i n the development of m o d -

given at the First Congress of Osa, 1929

today, and f a h to understand that w i t h their h e l i

work desired can be organized. Those w h o do n

ern culture.
'. . . T h e culturally educational work o f t h e trade unions must

than their o w n noses, w h o suggest that the c u h u

provide an extensive service to meet the direct requirements

should be carried out i n the old-fashioned way,

and needs o f the w o r k i n g masses, by creating c u l t u r a l living

should be tilled w i t h a wooden p l o u g h instead of

conditions w h i c h ensure comprehensive educative develop-

that the masses should be inoculated w i t h e n t f i

ment for the workers, and organizing c u l t u r a l leisure and en-

dustrialization t h r o u g h " a r t " , whhe industriahzj

Means:

tertainment for them. I n this connection, the c u l t u r a l educa-

mented i n the h a n d i c r a f t w a y - only such w o u l d i

T h i s a i m cannot be kept to a " m o n u m e n t " restricted i n its

tional work of the trade unions must genuinely cover the widest

means o f c u l t u r a l organization as cloud-cuckoo-

means o f logical impact and its small radius o f action.

masses o f t h e w o r k i n g class, eliminate vestiges of apolitical attitudes

Question: D o y o u take into account the effect of,

and restrictive culture-mongering, reshape its method from the start and

nisms, and how is one to manage w i t h your glass j

actually take first place in the whole work o f t h e trade unions.

how w i l l people shield themselves there againi

T h e m o n u m e n t must act as a condenser o f a l l the achievements of w o r l d w i d e progress, a site for the dissemination of i n f o r m a t i o n about the life and deeds o f t h e m a n of action and the
f l o w o f w o r l d history.

T h e present day, w i t h its u n l i m i t e d scientific and technological progress, makes i t possible to provide both f o r the a i m and
for the means o f i m p l e m e n t i n g i t i n universal terms.
Radio and pictures carried by radio over a distance, an air
and sea p o r t condense the movement o f universal culture.
Radio, radio pictures, an air and sea port, the cinema, a m u -

. . . T h e trade unions must find their support among the

most conscious, leading strata of w o r k i n g men and women and
carry on active systematic w o r k to develop the elements of the
new way o f life.

light?
'
Answer: C l i m a t i c conditions must, o f course, be i
make-up o f walls, and one cannot mindlessly t r

. . . I n order to involve strata o f workers w h o are not so far

what has been done for Moscow.

Question: H o w is one to account for the identic:

role of the m a n of action and the achievements of universal pro-

being catered for, i t is essential not to restrict cultural work within

you introduce for different functions, otherwis

gress.

the framework

themselves, the workshops, workers' barracks and hostels, and

thetic f o r m a l considerations?
Ahswer: T h e question indicates that the person \

m e m o r a b i l i a connected w i t h C o l u m b u s ' life, as well as his

workers' settlements, as well as setting up c u l t u r a l educational

marily interested i n outer f o r m , i n tasting rather

body b r o u g h t f r o m the " s h r i n e " , are kept.

work i n the countryside i n those places where industrial

izing. Such a question is appropriate wherever t

workers and seasonal workers are congregated, while closely

for ideahst architecture "as an a r t " , while we

l i n k i n g this w i t h the whole mass political and propagandist

w i t h f o r m as a corollary o f t h e organization an(

w o r k o f the Party.'

terdependence o f the workers and structural

seum etc, are means for i n f o r m i n g the w o r l d about the life and

T h e museum is the centre o f the monument, where a l l the

Construction:
T h e large area o f the museum is covered by reinforced glass.
Bearing i n m i n d the nature o f a t r o p i c a l climate, and the purpose o f t h e museum, a p o w e r f u l j e t o f air is released i n place o f
walls, thereby p r o v i d i n g the requisite insuladon. O n hot days,
an artificial stream of air also passes over the r o o f T h e chapel is
covered by a glass dome surrounded by a spiral r a m p w h i c h
enables one to look into i t f r o m every angle.
T h e scientific laboratories represent the b r a i n o f the m o n u -

of the clubs, b u t to develop i t w i t h i n the enterprises

{Sovremennaja arkhitektura,

1929, N o . 3, pp. 103, 108, 110)

One should consider and criticze the methods

Extracts from Leonidov's answers to questions put to him

ganizations, not the f o r m .

Question: W h a t is this - a piece of fiction or a d

about his lecture devoted to 'A Socially New Type of Club'

Answer: T h a t depends on the degree of under

at the First Osa Congress, 1929

are those for w h o m Soviet power is not power, b

'Question: W i l l the worker rest i n your club?

tion.
Question: W h a t size o f she should be set aside 1

ment, where its p l a n of w o r k is processed. W e have: (1) the Ra-

Answer: T h e worker w i l l rest i n the club, at the sanatorium, the

dio Centre; (2) the F i l m D e p a r t m e n t ; (3) the Observatory; (4)

rest house and i n his o w n dwelling. There is no such thing as

the I n s t i t u t e for Interplanetary C o m m u n i c a t i o n s , the task o f

absolute rest. Whatever a person does, tires h i m . B u t relative

Answer: T h e hygienic and operational considei

in the organization o f a club require first and

5,55
Chapter 2/The leaders o f t h e new direction

s: biographies, statements, manifestos

World E x h i b i d o n ; a F o r u m o f A r t s , and

Problem of the Monument',

1929,

mument design

w h i c h is to solve the problems o f interplanetary communica-

rest f r o m one k i n d o f w o r k is possible by engaging i n another

w e f l shielded f r o m d i r t and dust (a park, the outskirts o f a city

dons by means o f t h e latest achievements o f science and tech-

(rest f r o m " p h y s i c a l " work by engaging, for example, i n " m e n -

etc). I t is therefore clear that the more r o o m , the better. T h e

nology: the demonstradon area for the latter is provided by the

t a l " w o r k ) . A person's w o r k i n g day, c u l t u r a l development and

m i n i m u m area is t w o hectares. . . .

airfield and the s u r r o u n d i n g terrain, as weh as by a part o f t h e

leisure can only beorganized on the basis o f t h e processes of la-

Question: D o y o u take into account the effect of light on an i n d i -

sea; (5) a hah f o r w o r l d sciendfic and technological congresses

bour.

vidual's psychology?

organized by means o f r a d i o . '

Question: H o w soon w i l l economic and technological c i r c u m -

Answer: L i g h t undoubtedly influences an i n d i v i d u a l ' s psychol-

stances allow such clubs to be built?

ogy and the whole question is h o w to switch f r o m the uncon-

Answer: T o d a y . O n l y sceptics and conservatives and lovers o f

scious play o f light to scientifically i n f o r m e d w o r k w i t h hght.

{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1929, N o . 4, p. 148)

nillions must be i n f o r m e d about the great

Extracts from the lecture 'The Socially New Type of Club'

i historic part i n the development of m o d -

given at the First Congress of Osa, 1929

ust act as a condenser o f a l l the achieve-

'. . . T h e culturally educadonal w o r k o f t h e trade unions must

rogress, a site for the disseminadon of i n -

provide an extensive service to meet the direct requirements

ife and deeds o f the m a n of action and the

and needs o f the w o r k i n g masses, by creating cultural living

tradition can ignore the scientific-technical facts avahable to us

Question: H o w do y o u organize an i n d i v i d u a l ' s emotions?

today, and f a i l to understand that w i t h their help any c u l t u r a l

Answer: Emotions and feehngs are by no means abstractions i n -

work desired can be organized. Those w h o do not see f u r t h e r

capable o f scientific analysis, and the organization o f emotions

than their o w n noses, w h o suggest that the cultural revolution

and feelings is p r i m a r i l y the organization of h u m a n conscious-

should be carried out i n the old-fashioned way, that the l a n d

ness.

should be tilled w i t h a wooden p l o u g h instead o f a tractor and

Question: D o you see any need at a l l to organize visual percep-

that the masses should be inoculated w i t h enthusiasm for i n -

tions?

tertainment for them. I n this connecdon, the cultural educa-

dustrialization t h r o u g h " a r t " , while industrialization is imple-

Answer: I t is not a matter o f organizing visual perceptions, b u t

d o n a l w o r k o f t h e trade unions must genuinely cover the widest

mented i n the h a n d i c r a f t way - only such w o u l d regard today's

o f t h e general organization of h u m a n consciousness. T h e eye is

let and its small radius o f acdon.

masses o f t h e w o r k i n g class, eliminate vestiges of apolitical attitudes

means o f c u l t u r a l organization as cloud-cuckoo-land.

an accurate mechanism w h i c h transmits the visual image to

i t h its u n l i m i t e d sciendfic and technolog-

and restrictive culture-mongering,

Question: D o y o u take into account the effect o f light on orga-

consciousness. T h e negative and positive nuances o f assess-

nisms, and how is one to manage w i t h your glass walls i n B a k u :

ment of visual perceptions depend u p o n the i n d i v i d u a l and so-

how w i h people shield themselves there against strong sun-

cial class experience o f that consciousness.'

condidons w h i c h ensure comprehensive educative development for the workers, and organizing cultural leisure and enkept to a " m o n u m e n t " restricted i n its

possible to provide both for the a i m and

ementing i t i n universal terms.
carried by radio over a distance, an air

reshape its method from the start and

actually take first place in the whole work o f the trade unions.
. . . T h e trade unions must find their support among the
most conscious, leading strata of w o r k i n g men and women and

the movement o f universal culture,

carry on acdve systematic work to develop the elements o f t h e

es, an air and sea port, the cinema, a m u -

new way o f life.

5r i n f o r m i n g the w o r l d about the life and

in and the achievements of universal pro
: centre o f the monument, where a l l the

. . . I n order to involve strata o f workers who are not so far

being catered for, i t is essential not to restrict cultural work within
the framework

ofthe clubs, b u t to develop i t w i t h i n the enterprises

themselves, the workshops, workers' barracks and hostels, and

light?

Extract from the explanatory note attached to the design

what has been done for Moscow.

for a Palace of Culture, 1930

Question: H o w is one to account for the identical forms w h i c h

you introduce for different functions, otherwise t h a n by aesthetic f o r m a l considerations?
Answer: T h e question indicates that the person p u t t i n g i t is p r i -

workers' settlements, as well as setdng up cultural educadonal

e "shrine", are kept.

work i n the countryside i n those places where industrial

marily interested i n outer f o r m , i n tasting rather t h a n i n organ-

workers and seasonal workers are congregated, while closely

izing. Such a question is appropriate wherever there is concern

l i n k i n g this w i t h the whole mass political and propagandist

for ideahst architecture "as an a r t " , while we are concerned

w o r k o f the Party.'

w i t h f o r m as a corollary o f t h e organization and f u n c t i o n a l i n -

ature o f a tropical chmate, and the purp o w e r f u l j e t of air is released i n place o f

{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1929, N o . 3, pp. 103, 108, 110)

ir also passes over the r o o f T h e chapel is

Extracts from Leonidov's answers to questions put to him

ne surrounded by a spiral r a m p w h i c h

about his lecture devoted to 'A Socially New Type of Club'

o i t f r o m every angle,

at the First Osa Congress, 1929

dories represent the b r a i n o f the m o n u w o r k is processed. We have: (1) the Ra

n D e p a r t m e n t ; (3) the Observatory; (4)
ilanetary Communicadons, the task o f

terdependence o f the workers and structural considerations.

One should consider and criticze the methods o f cultural or-

i g the requisite insulation. O n hot days,

1929, N o . 3, pp. 110-11)

make-up o f walls, and one cannot mindlessly transfer to B a k u

d w i t h C o l u m b u s ' life, as weh as his

museum is covered by reinforced glass,

{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

Answer: C l i m a t i c conditions must, o f course, be reflected i n the

ganizations, not the f o r m .

Question: W h a t is this - a piece o f fiction or a design?

'(1) T o i m p a r t a definite sense of purpose to a l l cultural work. T o

create the conditions for a h u n d r e d percent coverage of workers
by polytechnic and pohtical education. (2) T o produce a clear
sense of organization p r o m o t i n g the manifestation of initiative and
self-help among those workers visiting the Palace. (3) T o make
the Palace of C u l t u r e not only a location for concentrated mass
c u l t u r a l w o r k and leisure, b u t also the directing centre o f cultural
w o r k i n the entire working-class d i s t r i c t . . . (5) T o apply to the
f u l f i l m e n t o f these socio-pohtical tasks the most powerful resources
of science and technology, and novel ways of conducting mass cultural
work.'

{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1930, N o . 5, p.4)

Answer: T h a t depends on the degree o f understanding: there

are those for w h o m Soviet power is not power, b u t a piece o f fic-

Extract from the explanatory note attached to the entry

'Question: W i h the worker rest i n your club?

tion.

for the House of Industry

Answer: T h e worker w i l l rest i n the club, at the sanatorium, the

Question: W h a t size o f site should be set aside for your club?

rest house and i n his o w n dwelling. There is no such thing as

Answer: T h e hygienic and operational considerations involved

T n our conditions, every new structure is a step towards social-

absolute rest. Whatever a person does, tires h i m . B u t relative

in the organization o f a club require first and foremost a site

ism and must meet the new conditions o f w o r k and everyday

competition

556
Part I l l / M a s t e r s and trends: biograph:
les, statements, manifestos

life^ A n archkect Who disregards these conditions is a conser^^^

W o r k is not a regrettable necessity, but a sense of purpose i n

Extract from the explanatory note attached to the competition

entry for a design ofthe People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry
{Narkomtyazhprom), 1934

Architects make an extremely ponderous use of such z

vellously flexible and expressive b u f l d i n g material as fern
crete. . .

W o r k as a physical and psychological condidon must be to

tally organized.
Indices ofthe new organization of buildings
Organized work, work and physical t r a i n i n g exercises, light
air, organized rest and food, heightened v i t a l i t y
Indices of the old organization of buildings

'

Confined courtyards, lack o f vistas, pokey rooms, lack o f adequate v e n t i l a d o n and light, barrack-like corridors. Absence o f
p l a n n i n g organizadon. Nervousness, piles, lowered v i t a h t y , lo
wered p r o d u c t i v i t y . '
^'
{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1930, N o . 4, p . 1)

' U n t h now the K r e m l i n and the C h u r c h of St Basil have served

The architect should not approach b u f l d i n g techi

a the architectural centre o f Moscow. N a t u r a l l y , the erection

from a n a r r o w l y structural p o i n t o f view. H e must f a m i

o f a new grandiose b u i l d i n g on Red Square w i l l i n its t u r n frfluencethepartplayedbyindividualmonumentsmthegeneal

effect o f this central complex o f Moscow

himself i n a philosophical sense - i f one may use such

technology. H e must create new forms and structures f n

I consider that the architecture o f t h e K r e m l i n and St Basil

mus be subordinated to the architecture o f t h e House o f X
N a r k o m t y a z h p r o m and that the N K T P b u i l d i n g should itself
occupy the central position i n the city

requires definite boldness i n the search for new forms. B

wifl also i n itself suggest new means of resolving the spati
general styhstic tasks facing the archhect. . . .

T h e architecture o f Red Square and the K r e m h n is delicate

The p r o d u c t i o n o f b u i l d i n g materials a n d structur

ments must involve the close co-operation o f t h e archit<

permLib"

must act as a consultant or even control this branch o f '

k s u c h an m s t r u m e n t takes the lead and surpasses a l l the oth

attached to the design for a socialist settlement at the

Magnitogorsk Industrial Combine, 1930

material concerned. T h i s is an elementary creative need

and majestic music. T h e m t r o d u c t i o n i n t o this symphony of an

nstrument of vast size and p o w e r f u l sound is only

Extracts from the explanatory note

pression i n this context - w i t h the potentialities o f br

buddmgs m the ensemble by its architectural quahty

dustry. . . .
I t is essential to clarify the question of standardized p
don of i n d i v i d u a l structural elements and large b u i l d i n

' A socialist setdement is not the old r a n d o m accumulation o f

should provide the basis o f t h e N K T P House composition but

ponents. Some designers also have i n m i n d the mass p

u r b a n districts and barracks, divorced f r o m nature, hapha

mstead, simplicity, strictness, harmonious

tion of large " a r t i s t i c " b u i l d i n g components. T h i s is a ty

zardly^tied to industry, r o b b i n g people o f their v i t a l i ; y by

dynamism'and

wealth of meamng. T h e historical patterns must be subordinated for purposes of composition to this outstanding object in

A sociahst settlement is a carefully thought-out organization

of i n d u s t r y and agriculture, culture and leisure - o f e'verythmg
that informs h u m a n consciousness and life

accordance w i t h the principle o f artistic contrast.' ^

{Arkhitektura SSSR,

1934, N o . 10, p. 14)

T h e technology o f b u d d i n g materials and structural elements

P i v l d fTr
^ P - P ^ ^ d - 1 1 dep r i v e d o f hght and i n d i v i d u a l leisure, divorced f r o m nature
but as a means o f organizing small communities i n w h i c h one
personahty is not lost among a thousand others but, instead

ca"
tr'T."'
cate W l A people (proceeding

^
from

a smah

^
c o m m u n i t y to larger

ones). Habitats surrounded by gardens, sports grounds and

s w i m m i n g pools w h i c h dispense w i t h the need to arrange rest
homes outside the city. Habitats m w h i c h work, leisure and
culture are organically l i n k e d . '
{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1930, N o . 3, p . 1)

Plastics w i l l undoubtedly come to occupy i n f u t u r e

of honour among our latest b u i l d i n g materials. Plasth
unhmited opportunities for the widespread and skilfu:
new materials and one can boldly assert that they will

Extracts from an article entitled 'The Architect's Palette', 1934

A habitat should be conceived not as a k i n d of masonry h o l d -

eclectic approach to arehhectural problems. . . .

s one o f t h e decisive factors - together w i t h the social condidons o f everyday life - w h i c h determines the style and general
composition o f an architectural construction
Everybody knows that is was our Functionalists who first
formulated

this statement w i t h f u h clarity. B u t i t is appropriate

to p o m t i n this connection to a cardinal sin committed by con-

part j u s t as revolutionary as that of ferro-concrete at an

time. . . .
The colour treatment o f fagades, i n c l u d i n g , o f coursi
buflt of concrete - either by colour rendering or some oth
of protective material - is obhgatory. T h e colour, hi
should not disguise the b u i l d i n g material by overiayini

should stiess its features, so that they may achieve the {

possible effect.'

{Arkhitektura SSSR,

temporary archietects, both i n the U S S R and i n the West.

Extracts from a speech given at the All-Moscow

T h e i r approach to the latest b u i l d i n g materials has been purely

February 1936

mechanical. T h e y started exclusively f r o m a p r i m i t i v e view of

the everyday f u n c t i o n a l purpose o f a stiucture, w i t h o u t turning
creatively to the new organization of h u m a n i t y i n terms of function and way o f life, and this led to a certain u t h i t a r i a n i s m in
heir design solutions. T h e artistic - and even, to some extent,
technological - potential o f the latest b u i l d i n g materials has
not been f u l l y understood

1934, N o . 4, pp.
Conference of A

T have been tagged w i t h a number o f "isms" - I am,

structivist, and a Formahst, and a Schematist, and s<
fact, I have been a Constructivist a l l along, and have wi
the Constructivist G r o u p . . . .
There is enormous confusion concerning creative i
A n architect's w o r k i n g method is p r i m a r i l y the metfr
artist, and there is no standard for the method o f an ar

557
Chapter 2/The leaders of the new direction
biographies, statements, manifestos

disregards tiiese condidons is a conservattable necessity, b u t a sense of purpose i n

day I achieved a splendid ground p l a n , and t o m o r r o w I w i l l

Extract from the explanatory note attached to the competition
entry for a design ofthe People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry
[Narkomtyazhprom), 1934

Architects make an extremely ponderous use o f such a marvehously flexible and expressive b u i l d i n g material as ferro-con-

way
T h e architect should not approach b u i l d i n g technology

and psychological condidon must be to-

' U n t i l now the K r e m l i n and the C h u r c h of St Basil have served

as the architectural centre o f Moscow. N a t u r a l l y , the erection

zation of buildings

o f a new, grandiose b m l d i n g on Red Square w i l l i n its t u r n i n -

k and physical t r a i n i n g exercises, hght,

1 food, heightened vitality.
ation of buildings

fluence the part played by i n d i v i d u a l monuments i n the general

lack o f vistas, pokey rooms, lack o f ade-

must be subordinated to the architecture o f t h e House o f t h e

light, barrack-like corridors. Absence o f

N a r k o m t y a z h p r o m and that the N K T P b u d d i n g should itself

, Nervousness, phes, lowered v i t a l i t y , lo-

occupy the central position i n the city.

f r o m a n a r r o w l y structural point o f view. H e must f a m i h a n z e

h i m s e f l i n a philosophical sense - flone may use such an expression i n this context - w i t h the potentialities o f b u i l d m g
technology. H e must create new forms and stiuctures f r o m the

effect o f this central complex o f Moscow.

I consider that the architecture o f t h e K r e m h n and St Bash

achieve a splendid elevation to go w i t h this plan, or the other

about.

. . . I do everything i n m y power to make things real and concrete.

. . . One should beheve i n socialism - and i t is h a r d l y a f a u l t
to d r e a m a littie i n this connection.'
{Arkhitekturnaya gazeta. N o . 13 (85), 3 M a r c h 1936)

material concerned. T h i s is an elementary creative need w h i c h

requires defimte boldness i n the search f o r new forms. B u t this
w f l l also i n itself suggest new means of resolving the spatial and
general stylistic tasks facing the architect

Lissitzky (1890-1941)

T h e p r o d u c t i o n of b u i l d i n g materials and s t i u c t u r a l ele-

Lazar M a r k o v i c h Lissitsky was one o f t h e most diversely gifted

and majestic music. T h e i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o this symphony of an

ments must involve the close co-operation o f t h e architect. H e

artists o f t h e twentieth century, w h o made m a j o r contributions

i n s t r u m e n t o f vast size and p o w e r f u l sound is only permissible

must act as a consultant or even control this branch o f our i n -

to architecture, p a i n t i n g , theatre design, photomontage, i n -

tory note

i f such an instrument takes the lead and surpasses ah the other

dustry. . . .

dustrial design, book p r o d u c t i o n and exhibition design. H e

2 socialist settlement at the

buildings i n the ensemble by its architectural quality.

T h e architecture o f Red Square and the K r e m h n is delicate

vremennaya arkhitektura,

1930, N o . 4, p. 1)

Combine, 1930
is not the old r a n d o m accumuladon o f
rracks, divorced f r o m nature, hapha, r o b b i n g people o f their v i t a l i t y by its

ure, culture and leisure - of everything

nsciousness and life,

I t is essential to clarify the question of standardized produc-

studied at the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Faculty o f t h e H i g h e r T e c h m c a l

Neither p o m p nor overblown tawdriness i n details and forms

tion o f i n d i v i d u a l structural elements and large b u i l d i n g com-

School i n D a r m s t a d t , 1909-14, and at the Riga Polytechnical

should provide the basis o f t h e N K T P House composition, but,

ponents. Some designers also have i n m i n d the mass produc-

Institute, 1915-18; was one o f t h e founders of U n o v i s ; taught

instead, simplicity, strictness,

tion of large " a r t i s t i c " b u i l d i n g components. T h i s is a typically

at the Free State A r t Studios, S G K h M , 1919-20; and was a

eclectic approach to architectural problems

member o f the Moscow I n k h u k i n 1921.

harmonious

dynamism'and

wealth o f meaning. T h e historical patterns must be subordinated for purposes of composition to this outstanding object, i n
accordance w i t h the p r i n c i p l e o f artistic contrast.'

; is a carefully thought-out organization

{Arkhitektura SSSR,

1934, N o . 10, p. 14)

Extracts from an article entitled 'The Architect's Palette', 1934

cted on the basis o f t h e foremost social' T h e technology o f b u h d i n g materials and structural elements
anceived not as a k i n d of masonry h o l d -

IS one o f the decisive factors - together w i t h the social condi-

1, where thousands o f people dweh de-

tions of everyday hfe - w h i c h determines the style and general

ividual leisure, divorced f r o m nature,

composition o f an architectural construction.

Plastics w i f l undoubtedly come to occupy i n f u t u r e a place

of honour among our latest b u i l d i n g materials. Plastics open
unhmited opportunities for the widespread and skilful use o f

Suprematists - w i t h his series ofProun paintings and drawings

new materials and one can boldly assert that they w i f l play a

i n 1919-24. H e lived i n Germany and underwent medical

part j u s t as revolutionary as that of ferro-concrete at an eariier

tieatment

time. . . .

artistic links w i t h the U S S R and promoted Soviet art - m par-

T h e colour tieatment of fagades, i n c l u d i n g , o f course, those

Gonstructivist work. H e was i n close contact w i t h a

n u m b e r o f European architects and artists, was a member o f

of protective material - is obhgatory. T h e colour, however,

the D u t c h De Stijl group, a co-founder o f the periodical

should not disguise the b u f l d i n g material by overiaying it, b u t

Veshch/Objet/Gegenstand,]omtly

should stiess its features, so that they may achieve the greatest

1922 as w e f l as of ABC, j o i n t l y w i t h M a r t Stam and Hans

possible effect.'

Schmidt, i n Z r i c h , 1924, and he represented Asnova abroad-.

Everybody knows that is was our Functionahsts who first

mong a thousand others but, instead,

f o r m u l a t e d this statement w i t h f u l l clarity. B u t i t is appropriate

evelop to the utmost and to c o m m u n i -

to point i n this connection to a cardinal sin committed by con-

ding f r o m a smah c o m m u n i t y to larger

temporary archietects, both i n the U S S R and i n the West.

Extracts from a speech given at the All-Moscow

ided by gardens, sports grounds and

T h e i r approach to the latest b u i l d i n g materials has been purely

February 1936

lispense w i t h the need to arrange rest

mechanical. T h e y started exclusively f r o m a p r i m i t i v e view of

' I have been tagged w i t h a number of " i s m s " - I a m a C o n -

Habitats i n w h i c h work, leisure and

the everyday f u n c t i o n a l purpose o f a structure, w i t h o u t t u r n i n g

stiuctivist, and a Formahst, and a Schematist, and so on. I n

inked.'

creatively to the new organization of h u m a n i t y i n terms of func-

fact, I have been a Constructivist a l l along, and have worked i n

tion and way o f life, and this led to a certain utihtarianism i n

the Constructivist G r o u p . . . .

1930, N o . 3, p. 1)

ticular,

i n Switzerland d u r i n g 1921-25, b u t m a i n t a i n e d his

buflt of concrete - either by colour rendering or some other f o r m

izing smah communities i n w h i c h one

mennaya arkhitektura,

Lissitzky was i n s t r u m e n t a l i n the incorporation i n t o architecture o f t h e achievements o f Leftist painters - p r i n c i p a l l y the'

{Arkhitektura SSSR,

1934, N o . 4, pp.'32-33)
Conference of Architects,

w i t h I l y a Ehrenburg, m Beriin,

D u r i n g the early Soviet years. A g i t a t i o n a l A r t played an i m p o r t a n t part i n Lissitzky's output, w e l l - k n o w n examples being
the poster Cleave the Whites with the Red Wedge o f 1919, and the
L e n i n T r i b u n e o f 1920-24.
I n 1923-24, he w o r k e d on problems o f t h e vertical zoning ot
a city area i n his designs f o r 'horizontal skyscrapers' i n M o s cow.

their design solutions. T h e artistic - and even, to some extent,

There is enormous confusion concerning creative method.

technological - potential o f the latest b u i l d i n g materials has

A n architect's w o r k i n g method is p r i m a r i l y the method of an

A f t e r r e t u r n i n g f r o m abroad, Lissitzky was active, b o t h crea-

not been f u l l y understood. . . .

artist, and there is no standard for the method of an artist. T o -

tively - w i t h designs for a yacht club i n 1923 and the House of I n -

Part n i / M a s t e r s and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

dustry i n 1930, among others - and editorially, on behalf of Asnova - w i t h the p u b l i c a d o n of one issue of Izvestiya Asnova {Asnova News) i n 1926, together w i t h Ladovsky. H e took part i n architectural compeddons, w i t h designs for the House of Textiles
in Moscow, 1925, dwelling complexes i n Ivanovo-Voznesensk,
1926, and the Pravda newspaper complex i n Moscow, 1930. H e
taught the design o f multi-purpose f u r n i t u r e and

buht-in

equipment for standard d w e l h n g units at V k h u t e m a s - V k h u tein i n 1925-30, and introduced a n u m b e r o f radical innovations i n exhibition design at Soviet pavihons abroad, i n Cologne i n 1928, and L e i p z i g and Dresden i n 1930, at the A h - U n ion Polygraphic E x h i b i t i o n i n Moscow i n 1927, and others. H e
also contributed to the interior spatial organization of theatres,
producing, for examples, the design for I Want a Child at the
M e y e r h o l d Theatre i n 1928-29. H e perfected a m e t h o d of visual and spatial book design w i t h Skaz o dvukh kvadratakh {The Tale
of Two Squares), 1922, Dlya golosa {For the Voice), 1923, and Khoroshol {Good!), 1927, by Mayakovsky, i n the periodical SSSR na
stroike {USSR on the Building Site), 1932-40, and other pubhcations.

4. W e have investigated the first stages o f our construction

confined to two dimensions, and f o u n d that i t is j u s t as sohd

Extracts from an article entitled 'The Catastrophe of Architecture

1921

and resistant as the E a r t h . One may construct here as one

w o u l d do i n three-dimensional space and the tension offerees

'We now stand on the road leading the artist to direct pa

between individual parts must therefore equally be brought into

pation i n the creation of a material culture.

balance. T h e conjunction o f the resultants of i n d i v i d u a l forces

Architecture has always been an art w h i c h i m p a r t e d r

manifests itself i n a novel way i n the Proun. W e have seen that

rial substance to the culture o f an era. W h a t is afoot i n o i

the plane o f the Proun ceases to be a p a i n t i n g and becomes a

structure w h i c h one must contemplate i n the r o u n d f r o m every
side, examine f r o m above and investigate f r o m below. I t follows that the only axis of the p a i n t i n g perpendicular to the horizon has been destroyed. As we circle around, we spiral i n wards i n t o space.
U n t i l now, we projected space directly on to the plane.
T h r o u g h the Proun, we are p u t i n the position of h a v i n g to effect
our escape f r o m this plane of projection. W e have set the Proun
m m o t i o n and have thereby acquired a m u l t i p h c i t y o f axes of
projection; we stand among them and push them asunder. As
we stand w i t h i n this f r a m e w o r k , so we must begin to define
it. . . .

chitecture . . . ?
Ever since our h v i n g , n a t u r a l , creative activity has
stuffed i n t o academic hothouses, ah that was t r u l y creativ
bypassed these musty boxes. Y e t those w h o f o u n d canva
clay a constraint a n d went on to create structures, f o u n d t
selves captives i n the incantatory r i n g o f an infinite numl
bookish teachings, w i t h w h i c h the sohdly estabhshed p
sors crammed t h e m and, slowly b u t surely, bottied u
whole creative urge o f their apprentices. A n d thus moi
grew up among us, w a l k i n g encyclopedias of afl bygone c
ries. . . .
B u t then fresh winds began to b l o w i n the West. . . .
. . . a new image o f t h e new bourgeois, caphahst world,

Lissitzky's

writings

Extracts from theses for the Prouns (From Painting to Architecture'),

'Not universal illusions, but universal reality

10. T h e Proun is virile, d y n a m i c a l l y active. T h e Proun moves

f r o m one stage to the next, along a hne, towards perfection.
T h e Proun leads to the genesis o f t h e f u t u r e , i t attracts a new
plane, then switches to the m o d e l l i n g of space and beyond this
to the construction of a f l forms of life i n the widest sense o f t h e
word.

into being v i a the image o f i t s city. W h e n imperialist caphi

gan to tread on the corns o f i t s younger brother - the peti\

geois-the

taste for nature and p h i l a n t h r o p y was b o r n . I r

don, Ebenezer H o w a r d invented the "garden c i t y " ,

comfortable houses on the outskirts where those for

there was no r o o m at the centre m i g h t seek their salvatioij

T h e Proun alters the accustomed forms o f art and leaves the

picture to the individuahst, a scarcely perceived phenomenon,
w h o sitting i n f r o n t of his easel i n a closed studio starts and finishes i t alone.

German K r u p p s and their peers seized u p o n this splendic

the capitalist imperialist city, w i t h its stock exchange at i

mastery over space) w i t h the aid of an economic construction o f

T h e f u t u r e life is the ferro-concrete f o u n d a t i o n o f communism for a l l the peoples o f the w o r l d . W i t h the aid o f t h e Proun,
the integrated city commune i n w h i c h a l l h u m a n i t y is to dweh
w i l l be erected on this f o u n d a t i o n .

the material used. T h e role o f t h e Proun is a staged m o t i o n along

A n d so the Proun passes on beyond the p a i n t i n g and its

the p a t h o f concrete creativity, and not the demonstration, ex-

They are now t r y i n g to devise a standard single-

painter on one side, the machine and the engineer on the other,

planation or popularization o f life.

and strides out armed w i t h new elements for the creation o f a

1. Proun is w h a t we cahed the station on the way to the construct i o n o f a new f o r m . . . . F r o m being a copyist, the artist becomes
a constructor of the forms o f a new w o r l d of objects. T h i s w o r l d
IS not b u i l t i n competition w i t h the engineer. T h e paths o f art
have not yet crossed the paths o f science.
2. A Proun is a creative s t r u c t u r i n g of f o r m (proceeding f r o m

T h e Proun's p a t h does not lead t h r o u g h the n a r r o w and f r a g -

new space, articulates i t by means o f elements o f 1, 2 and 3 d i -

mented i n d i v i d u a l scientific disciplines - the constructor con-

mensions and constructs a new, m u l t i f a r i o u s , b u t integrated

centrates ah these w i t h i n his experimental experience.

image o f our nature.'

T h e Proun's p a t h is not at ah the inconsequential p a t h of i n d i v i d u a l scientific disciphnes, theories and systems, b u t the
clear p a t h o f influence acknowledged - o f reahty. .

and began to phflanthropize their workers w i t h such col

Such are the worlds whence the w i n d w a f t e d us our
corpses, w h o are now preparing to force on communist 1
tre (the C i t y ) and, swept away to the fringes f r o m w h
breeze blows, its m a n u f a c t u r i n g back alleys, its p h f l a n t
htde houses for the " w o r k i n g " classes, and so f o r t h and

worker's house.
. . . B u t do we need this? D o we need a separate house
own . . .
. . . w o u l d l a b o u r i n g Russia be content w i t h this? . .
I t now turns out, however, that our venerable ones i'
gaged i n the art o f architecture, whfle a l l the rest is j u s t
of b u i l d i n g . L e t the builders b u f l d , let t h e m p u t up th(
body o f a factory or a popular d w e l h n g and the artist-arc

559
Chapter 2/The leaders o f t h e new direction
biographies, statements, manifestos

w i h then come along w i t h the powder and make-up and wigs

Extracts from an article entitled 'The Catastrophe of Architecture',

g Others - and editoriahy, on behalf of As-

4. W e have investigated the first stages o f our construction,

:ation of one issue o Izvestiya Asnova {Asno-

confined to two dimensions, and f o u n d that i t is j u s t as solid

sther w i t h Ladovsky. H e took p a r t i n ar-

and resistant as the E a r t h . One m a y construct here as one

)ns, w i t h designs for the House of Textiles

w o u l d do i n three-dimensional space and the tension o f forces

'We now stand on the road leading the artist to direct p a r d c i -

elling complexes i n Ivanovo-Voznesensk,

between individual parts must therefore equally be brought into

padon i n the creation o f a material culture.

lewspaper complex i n Moscow, 1930. H e

balance. T h e c o n j u n c t i o n o f the resultants o f i n d i v i d u a l forces

Architecture has always been an art w h i c h i m p a r t e d mate-

f multi-purpose f u r n i t u r e and

and beards appropriate to style, i n order to plaster and powder

1921

the builder's inartistic product.

the sound body o f a structure? . . .

built-in

manifests itself i n a novel w a y i n the Proun. W e have seen that

rial substance to the culture o f an era. W h a t is afoot i n our ar-

i r d dwelling units at V k h u t e m a s - V k h u -

the plane o f the Proun ceases to be a p a i n t i n g and becomes a

chitecture . . . ?

introduced a number o f radical innova-

structure w h i c h one must contemplate i n the r o u n d f r o m every

Ever since our hving, n a t u r a l , creative activity has been

;sign at Soviet pavilions abroad, i n Go-

side, examine f r o m above and investigate f r o m below. I t fol-

stufi-ed i n t o academic hothouses, a l l that was t r u l y creative has

[pzig and Dresden i n 1930, at the A l l - U n -

lows that the only axis o f t h e p a i n t i n g perpendicular to the ho-

bypassed these musty boxes. Y e t those who f o u n d canvas and

bition i n Moscow i n 1927, and others. H e

rizon has been destroyed. As we circle around, we spiral i n -

clay a constraint and went on to create structures, f o u n d them-

e interior spatial organization of theatres,

wards into space.

selves captives i n the incantatory r i n g o f an i n f i n i t e number o f

. . . Is not architecture i n these circumstances a parasite on

A n d yet life is crying out for creators. Where can we expect

t h e m to come from i n the art o f construction, that field w h i c h
faces the tremendous task of reconstructing the entire body o f
life i n accordance w i t h the new content that is being created
J."';^^,
{Gazeta'Izo\\'1\,^o.\)
Extracts from the periodical Merz,

1924

T t is more t h a n E N O U G H , this constant

)les, the design for / Want a Child at the

U n t i l now, we projected space directly on to the plane.

bookish teachings, w i t h w h i c h the solidly established profes-

MAGHINE

11928-29. H e perfected a method of visu-

T h r o u g h the Proun, we are p u t i n the position of having to effect

sors crammed t h e m and, slowly b u t surely, b o t d e d u p the

MAGHINE

sign w i t h Skaz o dvukh kvadratakh (The Tale

our escape f r o m this plane of projection. W e have set the Proun

whole creative urge o f their apprentices. A n d thus monsters

Dlya golosa {For the Voice), 1923, and Kho-

i n m o t i o n and have thereby acquired a m u l t i p l i c i t y o f axes of

grew u p among us, w a l k i n g encyclopedias of ah bygone centu

ly Mayakovsky, i n the periodical SSSR na

projection; we stand among them and push them asunder. As

t h a n a brush, and a very p r i m i t i v e one at that, w i t h w h i c h the

aiding Site), 1932-40, and other pubhca-

we stand w i t h i n this f r a m e w o r k , so we must begin to define

ries. . . .
. , TAr
B u t then fresh winds began to b l o w m the West. . . .
a new image o f t h e new bourgeois, capitalist w o r l d came

canvas o f t h e w o r l d ' s picture is being pamted. . . .

it. . . .
10. T h e Proun is virile, d y n a m i c a l l y active. T h e Proun moves
f r o m one stage to the next, along a line, towards perfection.
T h e Proun leads to the genesis o f t h e f u t u r e , i t attracts a new

into being v i a the image o f i t s city. W h e n imperialist capital began to tread on the corns o f frs younger brother - the pet.t bourgeois - the taste for nature and p h h a n t h r o p y was b o r n I n L o n -

I t w o u l d be a total waste of time, to p u t i t m h d l y , to t r y to

prove nowadays that, given the existence o f t h e typewriter, i t is
no longer necessary to w r i t e i n one's o w n blood w i t h a goose
q u i h T r y i n g to prove nowadays that the task of any creativity,
i n c l u d i n g art, is not representation, b u t a f f i r m a t i o n , is also a

plane, then switches to the m o d e l l i n g of space and beyond this

don

to the construction o f all forms o f life i n the widest sense o f t h e

comfortable houses on the outskfrts where those for w h o m

word.

there was no r o o m at the centre m i g h t seek thefr salvation. T h e

T h e machine has not divorced us from nature. W e have dis-

T h e Proun alters the accustomed forms o f art and leaves the

German K r u p p s and thefr peers seized u p o n this splendid idea,

led the station on the way to the construc-

picture to the individuahst, a scarcely perceived phenomenon,

and began to philanthropize thefr workers w i t h such colonies.

covered by means o f i t a new, previously unsuspected nature.

M o d e r n art has reached the same conclusions as m o d e r n science by entirely i n t u i t i v e and independent means.

. F r o m being a copyist, the artist becomes

w h o sitting i n f r o n t of his easel i n a closed studio starts and fin-

he Prouns ('From Painting to Architecture'),

but universal reality

rms o f a new w o r l d of objects. T h i s w o r l d

ishes i t alone.

Ebenezer H o w a r d invented the "garden city , smah,

as soon as one comes to modern art. T h e machine is no more

Such are the worlds whence the w i n d w a f t e d us our l i v i n g

corpses, w h o are now preparing to force on commumst Russia

T h e f u t u r e life is the ferro-concrete f o u n d a t i o n o f commu-

the capitalist imperialist city, w i t h its stock exchange at its cen-

:he paths o f science.

n i s m for a l l the peoples o f t h e w o r l d . W i t h the aid o f the Proun,

tre (the Gity) and, swept away to the fringes f r o m where no

i v e s t r u c t u r i n g of f o r m (proceeding f r o m

the integrated city commune i n w h i c h all h u m a n i t y is to dwell

breeze blows, its m a n u f a c t u r i n g back aheys, its p h i l a n t h r o p i c

i t h the aid of an economic construction o f

w i l l be erected on this f o u n d a t i o n .

little houses for the " w o r k i n g " classes, and so f o r t h and so on.

ition w i t h the engineer. T h e paths o f art

total waste o f time.

A n d i n so d o i n g b o t h have reached the same f o r m u l a :

E V E R Y F O R M IS T H E P E T R I F I E D S N A P S H O T O F A
PROGESS. T H E R E F O R E , A W O R K I S A S T A T I O N I N
E V O L U T I O N A N D N O T ITS PETRIFIED A I M .
W e acknowledge works w h i c h embrace a system, b u t a system that has become manifest i n the course o f p r o d u c t i o n , not

A n d so the Proun passes on beyond the p a i n t i n g and its

They are now t r y i n g to devise a standard smgle-family

reativity, and not the demonstration, ex-

painter on one side, the machine and the engineer on the other,

zation o f life.

and strides out armed w i t h new elements for the creation of a

worker's house.
. . . B u t do we need this? D o we need a separate house of our

before i t . . . .
^
i
O u r w o r k is no philosophy, nor a system o f n a t u r a l science,

es not lead t h r o u g h the n a r r o w and f r a g -

new space, articulates i t by means o f elements o f 1, 2 and 3 d i -

i t is a b r a n c h of nature and only as such can i t become an object

entific disciplines - the constructor con-

mensions and constructs a new, m u l t i f a r i o u s , b u t integrated

own...
. . . w o u l d l a b o u r i n g Russia be content w i t h this? . . .

; role o f t h e Proun is a staged m o t i o n along

h i n his experimental experience,

image o f our nature.'

I t now turns out, however, that our venerable ones are en-

not at ah the inconsequential p a t h of i n -

gaged i n the art o f architecture, while ah the rest is j u s t the art

ciplines, theories and systems, b u t the

of building. L e t the builders b u i l d , let t h e m p u t u p the l i v m g

; acknowledged - o f reality. . . .

body o f a factory or a popular dwelling and the artist-architects

of cognition.'

{Merz, Hanover, A p r i l / J u l y 1924, N o . 8/9)

biographies, statements, manifestos

Extract from a letter to J.J. P. Oud, 1925

Extract from the article 'The Film of El's Life up to 1926'

I am convinced that art arises wherever we least anticipate it I

go to the utmost pams to think out and make use of every aspect
ofthe funcdons, constraints, material possibhides etc, but I only expenence sadsfacdon if a work results which surprises me
when I am confronted by it. I beheve that ah my organs

kl

wn i7i7 T: T""''
own I f I

- -

^^^^.^ .^^^ J ^^^^^ ^^^^^^

nd r^^t
, r
- -bstance
and material. In this way, a reahty will be created which wil
hold no ambiguity for anyone.'

cobbler tomorrow.
Extracts from an article entitled 'Americanism and European
Architecture', 1925

The words "America" and "Amencan" are hnked in the Old

ontr^'T' T

m
f-ething extra-perfect,
radonal, efficient and universal. Ah these are concepts alien to
the old artists of Europe
Our era has invented a new material - concrete. A house can
be poured from it like a statue in bronze. It has some drawbacks, however, for housing purposes. At present, work is in
handeverywhereonthedevelopmentofne^
b hght, easily processed, thermally insuldng etc. And, in this
Europe is beginning to outstrip America. It is in the soludon to
^at-:: f "
T
T
creadon of a new form also resides. .

The picture canvas has become too narrow for me

The cirde o colour-harmony epicures has become too narrow
for me, and I created the Proun as a transfer station from painZ
ing to architecture. I have treated the canvas and the wood
pane as sites on which my structural ideas would meet with the
sma lest number of obstacles laid across their path. I have used
. Proun.

AmtlT'i^'" T

practical ideas from

seff he t'
T
^h^^' ^^-Pe - t s itd f the target of meedng more than the demands of economy
efficiency and hygiene. European architects are convinced t h l ;
by designing and organizing the house afresh they will be sharing m the process of organizing a new, more conscious way of
We have had occasions to meet in Europe a number of excdent masters of the new architecture and discover how difficult
heir situation IS. They are surrounded by a chauvinist, rea ona individualistic society which regards as ahen and h tile hese mternadonally minded, cheerfully active and collec::^ro
people. That is why they follow with such attendon the progress of our life, and ah bdieve that the future belongs, not to the USA, but to the USSR.
{Krasnaya niva [The Red Cornfield], 1925,

No. 49, pp. 1188-89)

Brufe'^Titf''''^'-''^'^'^'
TyP^Sraf Fotograf
Ennrlerungen,
Brufe Schriften. Ubergeben von Sophie Lissitzky-Kuppers [El
LusiL
Painter, Architect, Typographer, Photographer. Reminiscences, Letted;
Writings. Related hy Sophie

Lissitzky-Kuppers],

Dresden, 1976, p. 329)

Extracts from an article entitled 'The Culture ofthe Habitat',

1926

'Salons, hahs, boudoirs, drawing rooms . . . ah have been

sweptawayandahthatisleftis
gardly, cramped living space is already beginning to grow into
the new Soviet habitat. Forms of dwdhng are the material expression of essentials ofthe new way of life, and they demand
our attention. Let it be understood that the habitat, its p l L
and rts organization, represent the basic cdl out of which
houses are formed - houses which in their turn form streets and
squares, m other words the dty as a whole. This is growth in
the direction of "large architecture". But "smah architecture"

etulr
r
f the habitat, its interior
eqmpment, its furmture. . . . the present time does not merely
T

tated for the present by the need for economy. The ne

family, with factually equal rights for husband and
cords the wife far more rights than merely those of n
cook, and imposes more obligations on her, which, in
new requirements in terms of habitat. . . .
. . . Our basic task is to plan the habitat so that th
equipment and furniture are built-in together with d
as a single entity . . . All the kitchen equipment . . .
boards, partitions, folding tables, beds-all this canqr
ly be built as part of interior space. Such a task req
joint efforts of an architect and a designer of domesti
ment.'
{Stroitelnayapromyshlennost
[Buildings
1926, N o . l l , pp

" " ' ^ ^ ^ ^

demand, it cries out for a new type of lodging, for new equip
ment, for new furmture.
The fundamentals of our way of hfe are as follows: equalizadon ofthe requirements of ah layers ofthe population; a standard amount of living space; and the new Soviet family. Equahzation of requirements is the starting point in the daboration of
a standard dwehing, as opposed to bourgeois countries where
nd
^ T " ' " "^P^^* of requirements. The standard
and he defimte hmits demand inventiveness directed at rationahzation, planning and equipment. A modern lodging
must be designed like the very best modern suitcase, taking in
to account ah the necessities which must find a place in it, and
making use of every cubic centimetie - all dse apart, this is die-

Extracts from the Asnova slogans, 1926

'Our grandmothers believed that the Earth was the

the universe and that Man was the measure of all tlj
Learn to see what is in front of your eyes. Man is tl;
measure and architecture must be measured by ard
{Izvestiya Asnova, Moscow, 1'
Extracts from an article on 'The Architecture ofthe Steel
and Ferro-Concrete Framework',

1926

'Functionalism, Constructivism, Horizontalism and

ism . . . such are the slogans round which architecturd
revolves today. Construction by means of new mated
and ferro-concrete - has resulted in horizontal and v
ticulation ofthe skeleton ofa house. This skeleton hi
from the new requirements set for a modern house
novel functions. . . .
The plan and its system, that is what determines
outcome. Let us take note of the most characterist
of a modern plan, which is the proportion betwi
and white; the proportion between the total section
walls, supports and partitions and the area of living s
more modern the plan, the smaher this fraction wi.
thus that we come right to the heart ofthe new metfi:
struction. . . .
And so, the unchallenged master of modernity neer - has created the steel and ferro-concrete frame
chitecture, the master craft that is at present stih h

561
Chapter 2/The leaders of the new direction
ds: biographies, statements, manifestos

h i n d m o d e r n i t y , must take on such constiuction. N o t h i n g

) J.J. p. Oud, 1925

tated for the present by the need for economy. T h e new Soviet

Extract from the article 'The Film of El's Life up to 1926'

,t art arises wlierever we least anticipate i t . I

'. . . Proun. T h e picture canvas has become too n a r r o w f o r me.

IS to t h i n k out and make use of every aspect

cords ihe wife far more rights t h a n merely those of nurse and

T h e circle o f colour-harmony epicures has become too narrow

straints, material possibihties etc, b u t I on-

cook, and imposes more obligations on her, w h i c h , m t u r n , set

for me, and I created the Proun as a transfer stadon f r o m paint-

new requirements i n terms o f habitat. . . .

ction i f a w o r k results w h i c h surprises me

ing to architecture. I have treated the canvas and the wood

O u r basic task is to plan the habitat so that the b u l k o f

panel as sites on w h i c h m y structural ideas w o u l d meet w i t h the

orrectly on course than m y b r a i n is on its

equipment and f u r n i t u r e are b u i l t - i n together w i t h the house,

smallest number of obstacles l a i d across their p a t h . I have used

lis conviction, I w o u l d rather become a

as a single entity . . . A l l the kitchen equipment . . . the cup-

the black-and-white scale ( w i t h red highlights) as substance

boards, partitions, f o l d i n g tables, beds - ah this can quite simp-

and material. I n this way, a reality w i l l be created w h i c h w i h

ly be b u i l t as part o f interior space. Such a task requires the

h o l d no a m b i g u i t y f o r anyone.'

ioint eff-orts of an architect and a designer o f domestic equip-

{El Lissitzky.
;a" and " A m e r i c a n " are hnked i n the O l d

Maler, Architekt,

Typograf

Fotograf

Erinnerungen,

Briefe, Schriften. Ubergeben von Sophie Lissitzky-Kuppers

[El Lissitzky.

Writings. Related by Sophie

d universal. A l l these are concepts alien to

Our

architecture must b r i n g f o r t h its o w n masters. Expe-

work. . . .

-ru

+ 1

Here we still regard as novelty designs on paper. T h e steel

and ferro-concrete framework predominates m t h e m , b u t i t is a
graphic rather than a m a t e r i a l framework, and therefore practice alone w h l succeed i n p r o v i d i n g us w i t h genuine criteri3.

{Stroitelnaya promyshlennost [Building Industry],

1926,No.ll,pp.877-81)

W e are faced w f r h the task of creating spatial architecture

Letters,

Lissitzky-Kuppers],

and not only touched by the hands, as i n sculpture, b u t among

Dresden, 1976, p . 329)

ope. . . .
ted a new material - concrete. A house can

whole series o f other, no less i m p o r t a n t conditions.

w h i c h is not only seen by the eye f r o m a distance, as m p a i n t i n g ,

Painter, Architect, Typographer, Photographer. Reminiscences,

i t h the n o t i o n o f something extra-perfect,

!r.Pnt '

not result from a single stiucture. T h a t w o u l d necessitate a

rience creates masters. Experience creates actual b u i l d i n g

ed by i t . I beheve that ah m y organs taken

e entitled 'Americanism and European

comes i n t o the w o r l d o f i t s o w n accord, and architecture w i h

f a m i l y w i t h factually equal rights for husband and wife, ac-

Extracts from an article entitled 'The Culture of the Habitat',

1926

w h i c h people live and move - an architecture o f space and

Extracts from the Asnova slogans, 1926

'Our

time. T o this end, steel and ferro-concrete frames m a y provide

grandmothers believed that the E a r t h was the centre o f

us w i t h excellent tools.'
{Stroitelnaya promyshlennost,

the universe and that M a n was the measure of all things . .

ke a statue i n bronze. I t has some d r a w -

1926, N o . 1, p p . 5 9 - 6 3 )

'Salons, halls, boudoirs, d r a w i n g rooms . . . a l l have been

Learn to see w h a t is i n f r o n t o f your eyes. M a n is the tahor s

the development of new materials that w i l l

swept away and a l l that is left is bare l i v i n g space. B u t this nig-

ssed, thermahy i n s u l d n g etc. A n d , i n this,

gardly, cramped l i v i n g space is already beginning to grow into

measure and architecture must be measured by a^ehiteeture

{Izvestiya Asnova, Moscow, 1926, p . )

Ilya Golosov (1883-1945)

to outstrip A m e r i c a . I t is i n the solution to

the new Soviet habitat. Forms o f d w e l h n g are the material exExtracts from an article on 'The Architecture ofthe Steel

I l y a A l e x a n d r o v i c h Golosov was b o r n i n Moscow as the son o f

housing purposes. A t present, w o r k is i n

e centre o f gravity o f w o r k devoted to the

pression o f essentials o f t h e new way o f hfe, and they demand

our attention. L e t i t be understood that the habitat, its plan

m also resides. . . .
organizadonal and practical ideas f r o m
;s and refines them. I n this, Europe sets i t dng more than the demands o f economy,
e. European architects are convinced that
m i z i n g the house afresh they w h l be sharDrganizing a new, more conscious way o f
ions to meet i n Europe a number of excel-

and Ferro-Concrete Framework',

a priest. A f t e r leaving school, he entered the M o s c o w Stroga-

1926

and its organization, represent the basic cell out o f w h i c h

nov I n d u s t r i a l A r t Cohege and then, i n 1907, the Moscow C o l -

houses are f o r m e d - houses w h i c h i n their t u r n f o r m streets and

'Functionahsm, Constructivism, H o r i z o n t a h s m and V e r t i c a l -

squares, i n other words the city as a whole. T h i s is g r o w t h i n

ism

the direction o f "large architecture". B u t " s m a l l architecture"

revolves today. Construction by means of new materials - steel

also develops f r o m the organization o f the habitat, its interior

and ferro-concrete - has resulted i n horizontal and vertical ar-

equipment, its f u r n i t u r e . . . . the present time does not merely

ticulation

demand, i t cries out for a new type o f lodging, for new equip-

f r o m the new requirements set for a modern house, from its

ment, for new f u r n i t u r e .

novel functions. .

lege o f Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, f r o m w h i c h he

. such are the slogans r o u n d w h i c h architectural thought

graduated i n 1912 as an architect. As a student and immediately after graduation, he w o r k e d as an assistant for a n u m b e r o f

o f t h e skeleton o f a house. T h i s skeleton has evolved

architects and artists, surveyed architectural monuments and

was engaged i n book p r o d u c t i o n . Private houses i n K i r z h a c h
and Moscow were b u i h to his designs i n 1912 and 1913 respectively. D u r i n g the First W o r l d W a r , he b u i f t various structures

T h e fundamentals of our way of life are as fohows: equaliza-

T h e p l a n and its system, that is w h a t determmes the t o t a l

ey are surrounded by a chauvinist, reac-

t i o n o f t h e requirements of all layers o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n ; a stand-

outcome. L e t us take note o f t h e most characteristic feature

D u r i n g the first years after the Revolution, he w o r k e d m the

ic society w h i c h regards as ahen and hos-

ard amount of l i v i n g space; and the new Soviet f a m i l y . E q u a l i -

of a modern p l a n , w h i c h is the p r o p o r t i o n between black

architectural studio o f t h e Moscow Soviet and taught b o t h at

d l y m i n d e d , cheerfully active and cohec-

zation of requirements is the starting p o i n t i n the elaboration of

and w h i t e ; the p r o p o r t i o n between the total sectional area of

the Moscow Polytechnical I n s t h u t e and at V k h u t e m a s . I n

. T h a t is w h y they follow w i t h such atten-

a standard dwelling, as opposed to bourgeois countries where

wahs, supports and partitions and the area of l i v m g space. 1 he

1918-19

ur life, and ah beheve that the f u t u r e be-

total anarchy prevails i n respect of requirements. T h e standard

more modern the p l a n , the smaher this fraction w i h be. I t is

mode, such as a hospital and c r e m a t o r i u m i n Moscow and a

V, but to the USSR.

and the definite l i m i t s demand inventiveness directed at ra-

thus that we come r i g h t to the heart o f t h e new method o f con

Leo Tolstoy M e m o r i a l School at Yasnaya Polyana. I n the early

tionalization,

struction. . . .

w architecture and discover h o w d i f f i c u l t

{Krasnaya niva [The Red Cornfield], 1925,

N o . 49, p p . 1188-89)

p l a n n i n g and equipment. A modern lodging

for use b y the army's rearguard forces.

he produced a number of designs i n the Classical

1920s Golosov adopted Symbohst R o m a n t i c i s m , developed a

m u s t be designed like the very best modern suitcase, taking i n -

A n d so, the unchallenged master o f m o d e r n i t y - the engi-

novel theory concerning the construction of architectural orga-

to account ah the necessities w h i c h must find a place i n i t , and

neer - has created the steel and ferro-concrete f r a m e w o r k . A r -

nisms and i n t i o d u c e d a new method of t u i t i o n i n the V k h u t e -

m a k i n g use of every cubic centimetre - a l l else apart, this is dic-

chitecture, the master craft that is at present still lagging be-

Part I l l / M a s t e r s and trends: biographies, statements, manifesto

mas studio whichi he j o i n t l y directed w i t h M e l n i k o v . T h e most

Ilya Golosov's writings

plex o f them) bearing the i m p r i n t o f a particula

characteristic o f his experimental designs and compeddon entries produced i n 1920-24 included those for a bakery, a radio
stadon, an observatory, a workshop w i t h water p u m p ; for the
Ostankino stud, the Palace of L a b o u r i n Moscow, the Far Eastern pavilion at the 1923 E x h i b i d o n and for the Soviet pavhion
at the Paris E x h i b i d o n , as weh as for the Arkos and Leningrad-

character derived f r o m its inner meaning.'

Extracts from manuscripts dating from the early 1920s

'Mass is a phenomenon the chief property of whi

'Architecture, like every science, must have firm principles of

its o w n . . . . I t abounds w i t h laws concealed f r o m us u n t i l now.
G o m m o n sense demands that these laws be elicited and
obeyed.'

skaya Pravda buildings.

I n the mid-1920s, Golosov switched to Gonstructivism and
went on to produce, u n t i l the early 1930s, a large number o f
outline sketches and competidon designs - m a n y of w h i c h w o n
prizes and were carried o u t - f o r buddings and complexes of various kinds. A m o n g these were office buildings, such as the
House o f Textiles i n 1925, the Elektrobank and Rusgertorg
buildings i n 1926, the House o f M d i t a r y I n d u s t r y Trusts i n
1929 and the House of Industry i n Sverdlovsk i n 1931; Palaces o f
L a b o u r like that for Rostov-on-Don i n 1925; Workers' Glubs
and Houses of Gulture, for M o s c o w i n 1927-29 and Stahngrad
m 1928; c o m m u n a l houses and dwelling combines for Moscow
i n 1927-28, Ivanovo-Voznesensk i n 1929-32 and Stalingrad
i n 1930, Houses o f Soviets for Bryansk i n 1924, K h a b a r o v s k i n
1928-30, Rostov-on-Don i n 1930 and Elista i n 1928-32; and
mass action theatres, notably for Ivanovo-Voznesensk i n 1931,
Sverdlovsk i n 1932 and Moscow i n 1933.
F r o m 1933; Golosov headed one o f t h e M o s c o w Soviet's architectural studios. D u r i n g the first h a l f o f the 1930s, he took
p a r t i n debates about the creative orientation o f Soviet architecture, and criticized both Gonstructivism and the direct apphcation o f Glassicism. H e made increasing use o f t r a d i t i o n a l
forms i n his designs d a t i n g f r o m the 1930s, such as those f o r :
the Palace o f Soviets i n 1932; d w e l l i n g houses i n Moscow on
Yauza Boulevard i n 1933-35 and Kalyaevskaya Street i n 1936;
the Tass b u h d i n g i n 1934; the House o f t h e Book i n 1934; the
Moscow T r a d e U n i o n H i g h School i n 1938; and a dwelling
house i n G o r k y i n 1936.
D u r i n g the Second W o r l d W a r , Golosov designed a large
n u m b e r o f m e m o r i a l structures, such as graves, mausoleums,
pantheons and arches. D u r i n g the last years o f his life, he
worked h a r d on a m a j o r book, Osnovy sovremennoi

arkhitekturnoi

kompozitsii

Composition),

{Foundations

of Modern

w h i c h he never completed.

Architectural

' A r c h i t e c t u r a l f o r m cannot be achieved t h r o u g h knowledge

alone. Sensitivity and artistic i n t u i t i o n must also be present.
Yet artistic i n t u i t i o n develops t h r o u g h knowledge.'

indep

form. . . .
F o r m is the expression of essence-the meaning
lar object. I t marks out the h m i t o f a phenomenon
ral f o r m is the expression o f architectural though
' W h e n one analyses architectural mass and foi
not help giving one o f t h e highest priorities i n t e n

' I n t u i t i o n is a capital that is accumulated gradually, b u t can

be spent at one go.'

tion to the principle o f movement.

I n every mass or f o r m a correlation offerees ex

' W h e n composing a group o f structures, or a single structure, i t is essential to distinguish mass f r o m f o r m

weightiness . . . i t can be contemplated

principle is always present i n one shape or anoth

we w i h

One o f t h e m a i n conditions governing meaninf

assume the former term to cover any volume o f t h e most r u d i -

tion i n architecture is an understanding o f t h e pre

mentary k i n d , devoid of any inner meaning; i n other words, not

configurations of masses or forms employed, i n re'

resulting from any particular subjective architectural idea.

repose or movement, and inherent i n them i n acc

their nature.
. Every structure as a whole has a dominar

A n architectural mass as such is w i t h o u t content and is not

the expression of a p a r t i c u l a r idea - i t is therefore totally free i n
the forms i t adopts and bears no responsibhity f o r t h e m .
W e shall contemplate every architectural structure i n terms
of both mass and f o r m , w i t h o u t confusing these t w o concepts.

movement o f i t s o w n .
. . . i t is essential to postulate i n this context ti

must be understood, not as a change of location,.

W h e n considering an architectural structure f r o m the point

of view of mass, we must w h o l l y p u t aside its conception, thereby freeing ourselves from the responsibility o f i m p i n g i n g on
its subjective f o r m , and approach i t f r o m a p u r e l y objective
angle, w i t h o u t any direct reference to its i n d i v i d u a l conception.

conjunction of movement w i t h a static scale, i .

I n other words, the "architectural mass" is the most rudimentary

single structure brings together a very large nu:

three-dimensional form, carrying no subjective inner architectural mean-

ings and is sited apart and entirely independen

ing whatsoever and quite independent from such a meaning.

I f mass carries no inner meaning, bears no responsibihty towards the latter and is w h o l l y independent, the opposite is true

which embodies clearly expressed movement ii

seen as strictly s t a t i c '
' T h e m a j o r i t y o f m o n u m e n t a l buildings m u
movement and the concept o f total repose can o
i n very rare cases - i t is permissible only i n thosi

'Achieving that h a r m o n y among masses v.

present i n every structure means achieving b a r n
movements.'

of f o r m : i t is dependent upon and responsible to the meaning

'There is no h m i t to the number of ways i n w l

w h i c h has brought i t into existence. W h e n we perceive a f o r m ,

be used - each o f i t s surfaces can provide the bas

we experience the inner meaning.

f o r m . A p r i s m is less adaptable i n terms o f posi

There can be no architectural f o r m w i t h o u t a definite meaning, since i f a f o r m lacks meaning i t must simply be described as
an architectural mass and, conversely, i f an architectural mass
is invested w i t h a definite meaning, i t ceases to be a mass and
becomes a f o r m . . . .

sided p r i s m cannot adopt a prone position, b

Gonsequentiy, any architectural structure can be regarded

Repose i n a n t i q u i t y - movement i n modern

as a mass defining its position i n space and a f o r m (or a com-

T h e need to subordinate architecture to a

w o u l d lack an area of adequate size. A cylinder i

to an eight-sided p r i s m . A p y r a m i d is dep
number o f i t s faces.'
' L i f e - the w o r l d rotates faster and faster. .

563
Chapter 2/The leaders of the new direction

liographies, statements, manifestos

ntly directed w i t i i M e l n i k o v . T l i e most

Ilya Golosov's

writings

plex o f them) bearing the i m p r i n t o f a particular f u n c t i o n a l

fcrimental designs and compeddon en24 included those for a bakery, a radio
, a workshop w i t h water p u m p ; for the
ace of L a b o u r i n Moscow, the Far EastE x h i b i t i o n and for the Soviet p a v i l i o n
as well as for the Arkos and Leningrad-

character derived f r o m its inner meaning.'

Extracts from manuscripts dating from the early 1920s

'Mass is a phenomenon the chief property of w h i c h is power,

'Architecture, like every science, must have firm principles o f
Its o w n . . . . I t abounds w i t h laws concealed f r o m us u n t i l now.
C o m m o n sense demands that these laws be elicited and
obeyed.'
' A r c h i t e c t u r a l f o r m cannot be achieved t h r o u g h knowledge

ilosov switched to Constructivism and

t h the early 1930s, a large number o f

i p e d d o n designs - m a n y of w h i c h w o n
u t - f o r buildings and complexes o f v a ;se were office buildings, such as the

)25, the Elektrobank and Rusgertorg

i o u s e o f M i l i t a r y I n d u s t r y Trusts i n
dustry i n Sverdlovsk i n 1931; Palaces o f
itov-on-Don i n 1925; Workers' Clubs
ar Moscow i n 1927-29 and Stalingrad
es and d w e l h n g combines for M o s c o w

iznesensk i n 1929-32 and Stalingrad

:s for Bryansk i n 1924, K h a b a r o v s k i n

1 i n 1930 and Elista i n 1928-32; and

ably f o r Ivanovo-Voznesensk i n 1931,

VIoscow i n 1933.
eaded one o f t h e Moscow Soviet's arng the first h a l f o f the 1930s, he took
; creadve orientation o f Soviet archit h Constructivism and the direct aple made increasing use o f t r a d i t i o n a l
i g f r o m the 1930s, such as those f o r :
932; dwelling houses i n Moscow on
-35 and Kalyaevskaya Street i n 1936;
; the House o f t h e Book i n 1934; the
igh School i n 1938; and a dwelling

alone. Sensitivity and artistic i n t u i t i o n must also be present.

Yet artistic i n t u i t i o n develops t h r o u g h knowledge.'

' W h e n composing a group o f structures, or a single strucwe w i h

assume the former t e r m to cover any volume o f t h e most r u d i mentary k i n d , devoid of any inner meaning; i n other words, not
resulting f r o m any particular subjective architectural idea.
A n architectural mass as such is w i t h o u t content and is not
the expression of a p a r t i c u l a r idea - i t is therefore totally free i n
the forms i t adopts and bears no responsibility for them.
W e shall contemplate every architectural structure i n terms

:tures, such as graves, mausoleums,

>uring the last years o f his life, he
)ook, Osnovy sovremennoi

arkhitekturnoi

f Modern

Composition),

Architectural

F o r m is the expression of essence - the meaning o f a p a r t i c u lar object. I t marks out the l i m i t o f a phenomenon. A r c h i t e c t u ral f o r m is the expression o f architectural thought.'
' W h e n one analyses architectural mass and f o r m , one cantion to the p r i n c i p l e o f movement.
I n every mass or f o r m a correlation offerees expressing this
principle is always present i n one shape or another. . . .
One o f t h e m a i n conditions governing m e a n i n g f u l composi-

w h i c h i t is expressed indicates the w o r t h o f a piece o f architecture.

I n terms o f expression, architecture has perceptibly shifted
i n recent years f r o m detailed forms to general masses.
O u r era is gradually destroying an eariier concern for detahs
and history. L i f e requires construction, the artistic creation of
that w h i c h is complete and i n d i v i d u a l - m a i n l y the construct i o n o f interrelated masses.
T h e value o f this very k i n d o f construction abolishes nowadays any more thorough study o f a structure's details as a starti n g p o i n t for architectural composition.
T h e r h y t h m of masses - that is where compositional innovat i o n i n architecture finds its start.'

tion i n architecture is an understanding o f t h e properties o f t h e

' W h e n composing any group of separate structures hnked by

configurations of masses or forms employed, i n relation to their

a c o m m o n purpose, the architect is at liberty, w i t h i n the h m i t s

repose or movement, and inherent i n them i n accordance w i t h

o f a r a t i o n a l treatment, to choose any particular general com-

their nature.

position to cover ah the structures.'

(Tsgah [Gentral State A r c h i v e for L i t e r a t u r e

Every structure as a whole has a d o m i n a n t direction o f

and A r t ] , Fond 1979, Schedule I )

movement o f i t s o w n .

of both mass and f o r m , w i t h o u t confusing these two concepts.

. . . i t is essential to postulate i n this context that movement

Extracts from a notebook entitled Ideas, Statements, Aphorisms, 1920s

W h e n considering an architectural structure f r o m the point

must be understood, not as a change of location, b u t . . . as the

o f view of mass, we must w h o l l y p u t aside its conception, there-

conjunction o f movement w i t h a static scale, i.e. a structure

' T h e creative drive, crushed by the majesty and beauty of Glas-

by freeing ourselves from the responsibhity o f i m p i n g i n g on

which embodies clearly expressed movement is nevertheless

sicism, can create n o t h i n g new.'

its subjective f o r m , and approach i t f r o m a purely objective

seen as strictly s t a t i c '

angle, w i t h o u t any direct reference to its i n d i v i d u a l conception.

' T h e m a j o r i t y o f m o n u m e n t a l buddings must incorporate

movement and the concept o f total repose can only be apphed

'General architectural composition devoid o f principle cannot be redeemed by any embelhshments, by any exquisite details.'

I n other words, the "architectural mass" is the most rudimentary

i n very rare cases - i t is permissible only i n those cases w h e n a

three-dimensional form, carrying no subjective inner architectural mean-

single structure brings together a very large number of b m l d -

els resemble an adaptation o f Procrustus' bed to the h u m a n

ing whatsoever and quite independent from such a meaning

ings and is sited apart and entirely independently.'

frame.'

I f mass carries no inner meaning, bears no responsibihty to-

'Achieving that h a r m o n y among masses w h i c h must be

wards the latter and is w h o l l y independent, the opposite is true

present i n every structure means achieving h a r m o n y among all

of f o r m : i t is dependent u p o n and responsible to the meaning

movements.'

w h i c h has brought i t i n t o existence. W h e n we perceive a form,

)rld W a r , Golosov designed a large

form. . . .

not help giving one o f t h e highest priorities i n terms o f percep-

' I n t u i t i o n is a capital that is accumulated gradually, b u t can

be spent at one go.'

ture, i t is essential to distinguish mass f r o m f o r m

weightiness . . . i t can be contemplated independently o f

r h y t h m becomes ever more obvious and the brilhance w i t h

'There is no h m i t to the n u m b e r of ways i n w h i c h a cube can

we experience the inner meaning.

be used - each o f i t s surfaces can provide the basis for the whole

There can be no architectural f o r m w i t h o u t a definite meaning, since i f a f o r m lacks meaning i t must simply be described as
an architectural mass and, conversely, fran architectural mass
IS invested w i t h a definite meaning, i t ceases to be a mass and
becomes a f o r m . . . .

f o r m . A p r i s m is less adaptable i n terms o f position. A n eight-

Consequentiy, any architectural structure can be regarded

as a mass d e f i n i n g its position i n space and a f o r m (or a com-

sided p r i s m cannot adopt a prone position, because its base

would lack an area of adequate size. A cylinder is similar i n this
to an eight-sided p r i s m . A p y r a m i d is dependent on the
number o f i t s faces.'
' L i f e - the w o r l d rotates faster and faster. . . .
Repose i n a n t i q u i t y - movement i n modern times.
T h e need to subordinate architecture to a clearly marked

' T h e m o d e r n reproductions o f Classical architectural m o d -

'Plastic q u a l i t y is among the basic requirements of an architectural b u i l d i n g . '

'Repetition is f u n d a m e n t a l i n art.'
'Size (scale) can suppress w o r t h . '
' T h e confusion, mystique and vagueness o f t h e theory about
a golden mean i n architecture are features w h i c h f o r b i d one to
accept fr unquestioningly. O n the contrary, everything i n d i cates that such a theory fetters l i v i n g creative forces.'
' N a t u r e abhors a v a c u u m . I n architecture, as i n all manifestations o f life, gaps, empty spaces ask to be fihed: an architect
must therefore learn to . . . see these gaps so as to fill t h e m . '
( I l y a Golosov archive)

564
Part I l l / M a s t e r s and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

X First Moscow Architects' Studio (Work Guild),

1919.

Extracts from a lecture entitled 'The New Ways to Architecture',

December 1922

Extracts from an article entitled 'The Large Architectural

1933

'. . . T h e architect must be free o f style i n the o l d , historical

'. . . Architecture is one o f the most complex forms of art.

meaning o f this t e r m , and must himself create a style resulting

f r o m an architectural f o r m that matches the meaning or purpose (idea) o f the object.

Form',

. . . W h e n I set to w o r k on a design, I tackle the volumes, the

elevation and the p l a n j o i n t l y , rather than mechanically distinguishing between them. Starting f r o m a general conception of

G u i d i n g rules and laws must be p r o v i d e d f o r this purpose so

as to make i t easier i n each particular case for the architect to
pick the r i g h t p a t h towards a soludon o f t h e given ardsdcally
creative task. . . .

the task, I move to the composition of a plan.

. . . Every architect must give thought to the connection be- 1
tween the volumetric solution and the h a n d l i n g o f t h e ground
plan, w h i l e taking account o f the f u n c t i o n a l purpose o f the

. . . I t is essendal to lay d o w n only constant principles, that

are irrefutable, true and i m m u t a b l e .

structure and its general social and aesthetic conception.

I always start on a design by m a k i n g a close study o f the

There are very m a n y such principles, and these principles,

technological and economic particulars of the task. This very

which have an absolute intrinsic value, are certainly equally

often even happens at the expense o f a certain "impressive"

valid for Classical architecture and for the architecture o f our

quality i n the design, w h i c h , on the other hand, becomes con-

time. A h the rest is a matter of i n t u i t i v e creativity and cannot

siderably more reahstic. Generally speaking, the constant revi-

be confined to the hard-and-fast f r a m e w o r k o f law.

sion o f i n d i v i d u a l parts of the design is inevitable. A n d this is

T h e first and i m m u t a b l e law of architectural ardsdc construction is the law o f artistic necessity.

where the p r e l i m i n a r y sketch or d r a w i n g plays a colossal part.

T h e d r a w i n g gives concrete expression to the i n d i v i d u a l

Other extremely useful laws are those w h i c h concern spadal

positions and the interrelations o f architectural masses; the
p r o p o r t i o n a l artistic relation o f volumes; artistic perception;
the expression o f t h e psychological effect of artistic-architectur a l masses and f o r m s ; the independence of certain phenomena;
and m a n y other laws.

stages of an architect's w o r k and informs h i m of the correctness

or otherwise o f the treatment applied.
A d r a w i n g is especially necessary and profitable at the i n i t i a l
stage of design w o r k . . . . T o an architect, the a b i l i t y to draw
matches the ability to assemble. A n architect w h o is not skhled
i n d r a w i n g w i h never be able to compose.'

There are certain given n a t u r a l effects over w h i c h the artist

{Arkhitektura SSSR,

1933, N o . 5, p. 34)

has no control whatsoever, since he is only i n a position to make

a certain use of their actuality, such as, for example, the effect of
horizontal and vertical, l i g h t and shade etc. There are p r i n c i Ginzburg (1892-1946)

ples w h i c h can only be assessed i n objective artistic terms.

Every w o r k o f art must manifest the artist's i n d i v i d u a h t y ,
but such manifestation w i h only be j u s t i f i e d and artistically

Moisei Yakovlevich G i n z b u r g was b o r n i n M i n s k as the son of

m e a n i n g f u l i f i t expresses an objective value, since an u n k n o w n

an architect. H e graduated f r o m the M i l a n Academy of Arts i n

q u a n t i t y can only be determined by means o f a k n o w n q u a n t i -

1914 and the Riga Polytechnical Institute i n 1917; carried out

ty. T h i s obliges us to adopt laws w i t h an absolute value that

his design f o r a private house i n Evpatoriya and investigated

constantly and i m m u t a b l y u n d e r p i n every w o r k o f art.'

T a t a r national architecture i n 1 9 1 7 - 2 1 ; taught at Vkhutemas

{Iz istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury 1917-1925

gg.

Materialy i dokumenty, Moscow, 1963, p. 29)

f r o m 1921 and became professor of A r c h i t e c t u r a l H i s t o r y and

o f t h e Theory o f A r c h i t e c t u r a l Composition there f r o m 1923.
Simultaneously, he taught at the Moscow Institute of C i v h Engineers - M i g i , later M V T U - and was confirmed as a f u h
member o f t h e Russian Academy of A r t i s t i c Sciences - Rakhn.
D u r i n g the first h a l f o f t h e 1920s, he worked on problems of
architectural composition, as i n his book Ritm v arkhitekture

Senior master builder: Zholtovsky (20).

Chief master: Shchusev (24).
Masters (architects): Ilya Golosov (4),
Panteleimon Golosov (9), Dombrovsky (17),
Dokuchaev (11), Istselenov (13),
Korshunov (28), Ladovsky (12),
Melnikov (3), Norvert (26),
Alexander Polyakov (10), Rukhlyadev (14),
Chernyshev (2).
Assistants (students): Abramova (27),
Altgauzen (22), Danilova (25),
Nikolai Kolh (1), Sergei Lavrov (7),
Markuze (21), Nikolai Morozov (8).
Consultants, guests and others: Sakulin (5),
Kryukov (15), Surzhenkov (16),
Ivan Efimov (18), Tatyana KoUi (19),
Sidorov (23), Simonovich-Efimova (29).

565
tatements, manifestos

First Moscow Architects' Studio (Work Guild),

1919.

New Ways to Architecture',

o f style i n the o l d , historical

i m s e l f create a style resuldng

Extracts from an article entitled 'The Large Architectural

1933

Form'

'. . . Architecture is one of the most complex forms o f art

. . . W h e n I set to w o r k on a design, I tackle the volumes, the

matches the meaning or pur

elevation and the plan j o i n t l y , rather than mechanically distin-

e p r o v i d e d f o r this purpose so

guishing between them. Starting f r o m a general conception of

:ular case f o r the architect to

iition o f the given ardsdcahy

the task, I move to the composition o f a plan.

. . . Every architect must give thought to the connection between the volumetric solution and the h a n d h n g o f t h e ground
plan, w h i l e taking account o f the f u n c t i o n a l purpose o f the

)nly constant principles, that

Die.

structure and its general social and aesthetic conception.

I always start on a design by m a k i n g a close study o f the

iciples, and these principles,

value, are certainly equahy
id for the architecture o f our
tuidve creadvity and cannot

technological and economic particulars o f t h e task. This very

often even happens at the expense o f a certain "impressive"
q u a l i t y i n the design, w h i c h , on the other hand, becomes considerably more reahstic. Generally speaking, the constant revi-

ramework of law. . . .

sion o f i n d i v i d u a l parts of the design is inevitable. A n d this is

)f architectural ardsdc con-

where the p r e l i m i n a r y sketch or d r a w i n g plays a colossal part.

ssity.

T h e d r a w i n g gives concrete expression to the i n d i v i d u a l

those w h i c h concern spatial

f architectural masses; the
Dlumes; artistic perception;
effect of ardsdc-architectulence of certain phenomena;

stages of an architect's w o r k and informs h i m of the correctness

or otherwise o f the treatment apphed.
A d r a w i n g is especiahy necessary and profitable at the initial
stage of design w o r k . . . . T o an architect, the abhity to draw
matches the a b i h t y to assemble. A n architect w h o is not skhled
m d r a w i n g w i l l never be able to compose.'

effects over w h i c h the artist

{Arkhitektura

is only i n a posidon to make

SSSR,

1933, N o . 5, p. 34)

as, for example, the effect of

hade etc. There are p r i n c i Ginzburg (1892-1946)

objective artistic terms,

t the ardst's i n d i v i d u a l i t y ,
3e j u s t i f i e d and ardsdcally

Moisei Yakovlevich G i n z b u r g was born i n M i n s k as the son of

ve value, since an u n k n o w n

an architect. H e graduated from the M h a n Academy of Arts i n

' means of a k n o w n q u a n t i -

1914 and the Riga Polytechnical I n s t h u t e i n 1917; carried out

d t h an absolute value that

his design for a private house i n Evpatoriya and investigated

n every w o r k o f art.'

T a t a r national architecture i n 1 9 1 7 - 2 1 ; taught at Vkhutemas

gg.

f r o m 1921 and became professor of A r c h i t e c t u r a l H i s t o r y and

lenty, Moscow, 1963, p. 29)

o f t h e T h e o r y o f A r c h i t e c t u r a l Gomposition there f r o m 1923.

oi arkhitektury 1917-1925

Simultaneously, he taught at the Moscow Institute of Givh Engineers - M i g i , later M V T U - and was confirmed as a f u h
member o f t h e Russian Academy of A r t i s t i c Sciences - Rakhn.
D u r i n g the first h a l f of the 1920s, he worked on problems of
architectural composition, as i n his book Ritm v arkhitekture

Senior master builder: Zholtovsky (20).

Chief master: Shchusev (24).
Masters (architects): Ilya Golosov (4),
Panteleimon Golosov (9), Dombrovsky (17),
Dokuchaev (11), Istselenov (13),
Korshunov (28), Ladovsky (12),
Melnikov (3), Norvert (26),
Alexander Polyakov (10), Rukhlyadev (14),
Chernyshev (2).
Assistants (students): Abramova (27),
Altgauzen (22), Danilova (25),
Nikolai Kolh (1), Sergei Lavrov (7),
Markuze (21), Nikolai Morozov (8).
Consultants, guests and others: Sakuhn (5),
Kryukov (15), Surzhenkov (16),
Ivan Efimov (18), Tatyana K o l h (19),
Sidorov (23), Simonovich-Efimova (29).

T..

Jh-.

5G(>
2 T a t l i n (right), with his pupils Meerzon (left) and
Shapiro who worked on the model of the Moimment to the
Third International, 1920.
3 Sculptors' Guild, 1920. From left to right, standing:
a model, Dokuchaev (architect), Danilova and
Markuze (students), Ilya Golosov and Ladovsky
(architects); seated: Rukhlyadev (architect), Korolev
(sculptor), Abramova (student), M a p u (architect).

4 Rodchenko and Stepanova, 1922.

5 The sculptor Korolev.

6 Unovis, Vitebsk, 1922. Fn

Chervinka, Malevich, Rayak
Yudin, Magarill; seated: V e l
Chashnik, Khidekel.
7 Ginkhuk Formal-Theored
right, standing: Malevich, E n
seated: Leporskaya, unknowi

4 Rodchenko and Stepanova, 1922.

5 The sculptor Korolev.

6 Unovis, Vitebsk, 1922. From left to right, standing:

Chervinka, Malevich, Rayak, Khaya ICogan, Suetin,
Yudin, Magarill; seated: Veksler, Ermolaeva,
Chashnik, Khidekel.
7 Ginkhuk Formal-Theoretical Section. From left to
right, standing: Malevich, Ermolaeva, Rozhdestvensky;
seated: Leporskaya, unknown, Yudin.

12 Lissitzky (centre), w i t h the architect Varentsov

(left), at the Moscow Polygraphic Exhibition.
13 Young teachers of the Vkhutemas Basic Course at
work on the elaboration of research methods. From left
to right: Turkus, Korzhev, Lamtsov.

569
12 Lissitzky (centre), with the architect Varentsov
(left), at the Moscow Polygraphic Exhibition.
13 Young teachers o f t h e Vkhutemas Basic Course at
work on the elaboration of research methods. From left
to right; Turkus, Korzhev, Lamtsov.

14 Vkhutein, Ladovsky's studio, 1929. From left to

right: Fedulov, Lalaev, Ladovsky, Revyakin,
Grinshpun, Kalmykov.
15 Lecture room o f t h e 'Space' discipline, Basic
Section, Vkhutemas. From left to right: (Turkus),
Balikhin, Krinsky.

18 Viktor Vesnin.

19 Barslich.
20 Andrei Burov.

21 Teaciiers and graduates, M i g i , 1924. From left to

right: Ghebotareva, Leonid Vesnin, Vorotyntseva,
Ginzburg, Ilina, Vasily Krasilnikov, Franketti (artist),
Vladimirov.
22 Osa Executive at the Vesnins' dacha. From left to
right: Leonid Vesnin, Alexander Vesnin, Ginzburg,
Vladimirov (behind), Barshch, unknown,
Vorotyntseva, Slavina (seated), Gan, Vegman.

572
23 A group of Constructivists. From left to right,
standing: Vegman, Kornfeld, unknown, Lisagor;
seated: Pasternak, Ginzburg, Nikolaev.

25

First Osa Conference:

24 Builders o f t h e Dnepropetrovsk Power Station,

Dneproges. From left to right: Orlov, Nikolai K o l l i ,
Oskolkov (engineer), Andrievsky.

unknown (1), Krasilnikov (?),

Chizhikova (3), Vegman (4), Gaken (5),
Terekhin (6), unknown (7), Dyadin (8),
Raisky (9), unknown (10 and 11),
Kholostenko (12), Malts (13), Nikolai Sokolov (H
Milinis (15), Nikolai K u z m i n (16), Orlov (17),
Malozemov (18), unknown (19 and 20),
Khiger (21), unknown (22 and 23),
Nikolsky (24), Gurev-Gurevich (25), Novitsky (26
Gan (27), Ginzburg (28), Alexander Vesnin (29)',
Prokhorov (engineer) (30), Viktor Vesnin (31),
Barshch (32), Shilov (33), Khidekel (34),
unknown (35 and 36), Shtivel (37),
Nappelbaum (38), Leonidov (39), Yalovkin (40).

573

From left to right,

nknown, Lisagor;
aev.
Power Station,
lov, Nikolai IColli,

25 First Osa Conference;

unknown (1), Krasilnikov (?),

Chizhikova (3), Vegman (4), Gaken (5),
Terekhin (6), unknown (7), Dyadin (8),
Raisky (9), unknown (10 and 11),
Kholostenko (12), Malts (13), Nikolai Sokolov (14),
Milinis (15), Nikolai K u z m i n (16), Orlov (17),
Malozemov (18), unknown (19 and 20),
Khiger (21), unknown (22 and 23),
Nikolsky (24), Gurev-Gurevich (25), Novitsky (26),
Gan (27), Ginzburg (28), Alexander Vesnin (29)',
Prokhorov (engineer) (30), Viktor Vesnin (31),
Barshch (32), Shilov (33), Khidekel (34),
unknown (35 and 36), Shtivel (37),
Nappelbaum (38), Leonidov (39), Yalovkin (40).

574
26
27

Caricature of Zholtovsky by Vlasov, 1928.

Caricature of Ivan Fomin by Arkady Arkin.

pE

3 A e , h H T o r 5TAS|CttDC5-jl

i ^/-f-"

A)l.^

T A T D 5 B y>r-jliTrcopfy>a;)

5^
/-cl
7-

28

Lyudvig.

29 Ivan Fomin.
30 Melnikov.

ll
32

f
Leonidov.

33
34

Leonid Vesnin.
Nikolsky.

35 A group of M V T U graduates i n architecture, 1925-26.

From left to right: Gennady Movchan, Meilman, Vagrasin,
Vladimir Movchan, Nikolaev, Fisenko, Nikolai Morozov,'
Konstandn Sokolov, Kapterev.
36 Architects and engineers of Tekstilproekt, 1929-30.
From left to right: Zaltsman, unknown, Gladkov, Bulychov,
Yurgenson, unknown, Pavel Blokhin, Sergei Vakhtangov,'
Mikhail Barkhin, Lobov, Mikhail Kuznetsov.

37

Shchus

38
39

Tamanyan.
Mazmanyan.

577
40

Young Armenian arcliitects; Kocliar, Alabyan,

Safaryan.
41 Group of architects keeping warm at a M a y Day
demonstration, 1930, by playing ' H o t Hands'
(Shuchka). The striker is the former Vopra leader, the
victim being the former Osa leader.

From left to right; Shkvarikov, Krinsky, Ladovsky,

Turkus, Mordvinov, Ghaldymov, Alexander Vesnin.

578
42 The architectural studio that worked on the Palace
of Soviets design. Left to right: Tsiperovich (standing);
seated on a bench: Polyadsky, Yakov Popov, Boris
lofan, Baransky, Fedorovsky (artist), Olga lofan (wife
of Boris), unknown, Mitkovitser (sculptor); Gelfeld,
Adrianov (sitting on the ground)..

44 Khidekel.
.
,
,
45 Section for Socialist Construction under the
RSFSR State Plan. From left to right, standing:
Savinov, Pasternak; seated: Afanasev, Ginzburg,
Barshch, Nikolai Sokolov.

580
49 Ginzburg (left) and Milinis (right) with model and
drawings of the Government House, Alma-Ata.
50 Top to bottom: Barshch, Sinyavsky, Nikolai
Sokolov, on the dome o f t h e Moscow Planetarium.

Chapter 2/The leaders o f t h e new direction

s (right) with model and

louse, Alma-Ata.
Mnyavsky, Nikolai
'oscow Planetarium.

iRhythm m Architecture) o f 1923. H e was active i n the struggle for

the new architecture i n editorial articles f o r the periodical Ar-

H i s m a j o r theoretical w o r k dealing w i t h architectural creat i v i t y also remained unfinished.

khitektura i n 1923 and i n his book Stil i epokha [Style and Epoch) i n
1924. H e was one o f t h e organizers of Osa i n 1925 and j o i n t editor of their periodical Sovremennaya arkhitektura [Contemporary Architecture) -SA-in

1926-30. D u r i n g 1926-27, he p u b l i s h e d m

SA a series of articles on theory i n w h i c h he set out and p r o m o t ed the f u n d a m e n t a l positions of the F u n c t i o n a l M e t h o d - the
creative statement of Gonstructivist tenets.
' D u r i n g the years 1928-32, G i n z b u r g headed a team o f architects whose a i m was to study the p r o b l e m o f a scientific organization o f t h e way of life and o f t h e standardization o f h o u s ing T h e team produced designs for new types o f economic, rationally planned dwelling units and houses provided w i t h comm u n a l services. G i n z b u r g later summarized his conclusions
f r o m this w o r k i n his book Zhishche

[Habitat),

published m

1934. D u r i n g the 1930s, G i n z b u r g went deeply into problems

of sociahst settiement and district p l a n n i n g , p r o d u c i n g designs

Ginzburg's

writings

Extracts from R i t m v arkhitekture (Moscow, 1923)

' T h e history o f styles as conceived u n t i l quhe recently was
merely a history o f the evolution of architectural f o r m . T h e
compositional methods w h i c h went i n t o the construction of act u a l monuments were left i n the background. Y e t , here too, the
characteristics of these laws of composition must be ehcited i f a
style is to be f u l l y understood.' (pp. 71-72)
' T h e history of styles, hke every other history, is objective. I t
does not recognize the existence o f "better" or "worse" styles.
A style u l t i m a t e l y works itself to death. . . . A new i n f l u x of
creative power is needed i n order to start afresh
Y e t w h a t is dead w i h not rise again. I d e n t i c a l problems endlessly gain i n complexity, the methods for their soludon

such as that f o r Green Gity i n 1930, the p l a n n i n g o f t h e Gher-

change. . . . A n d the task of modern architecture is, o f course,

nikov i n d u s t r i a l district i n 1931 and the regional p l a n m n g o f

to discover those f o r m a l elements and those laws governing

the southern shore o f t h e Grimea i n 1935-37.

their c o m b i n a t i o n t h r o u g h w h i c h the r h y t h m i c beat of our dme

T h r o u g h o u t the twenties and thirties, G i n z b u r g produced a

large number o f competition entries, i n c l u d i n g the Palace o f
L a b o u r i n 1922-23, the House o f Texthes i n 1925 and the O r gametal House i n 1926, i n Moscow; the House o f Soviets m
M a k h a c h k a l a i n 1926; a H o u s i n g Gommune i n 1927 and the

w i h be revealed.' (p. 116)

Extract from an article entitled 'The Old and the New', 1923
' W e can distinguish t w o d r i v i n g principles whenever a new
style makes its appearance: the law of continuity, w h i c h reinforces

Government House i n A l m a - A t a i n 1 9 2 7 - 3 1 , w h i c h was car-

our artistic i n v e n t i o n and i m a g i n a t i o n , while economizing our

tied out; a theatre i n Sverdlovsk i n 1931; the Palace of Soviets

creative ability and energy, and the law of independence o f t h e new

i n 1932, the Nemirovich-Danchenko Theatre i n 1933, the N a r -

idea, w h i c h finds its support i n the new life that emerges

k o m t y a z h p r o m b u i l d i n g i n 1934 and the Izvestiya combine i n

a r o u n d the artist and w h i c h imparts to the w o r k the edge of

1936, a l l i n Moscow. A n apartment house was b u i l t i n Moscow

novelty and that feeling for r h y t h m o f modern times w i t h o u t

i n 1926-27, and three experimental c o m m u n a l houses o f a

w h i c h art simply ceases to be art.'

[Arkhitektura,

transitional type were erected i n Moscow and Sverdlovsk i n

1923, Nos. 3 - 5 , p. 3)

1928-29 to designs by G i n z b u r g . I n 1935-37, G i n z b u r g

headed the team w h i c h constructed a sanatorium complex m
Kislovodsk.
Towards the end o f t h e 1930s, G i n z b u r g was i n charge o f
work on a m u l t i - v o l u m e General History of Architecture at the
USSR Academy of Architecture. D u r i n g the war, he dealt w i t h
the standardization and industriahzation of b u h d i n g w o r k . T o wards the end of his life, he started on the reconstruction of Sebastopol and t w o sanatoriums, at Kislovodsk and Oreanda i n
the Grimea, w h i c h were not completed u n t i l after his death.

Extract from an article entitled 'The Aesthetics ofthe Present', 1923

' I f before the war and the R e v o l u t i o n we could stih hope for
success i n searching out ah kinds o f Renaissances and Classicisms, the last few years have, o f course, made us clearly aware
o f t h e obvious t r u t h that going f o r w a r d is easier i f one also looks
ahead However half-baked, confused and far-fetched architect u r a l ideas among the y o u n g may be, they nevertheless relentlessly p o i n t to the fact that some very marked change has taken

Chapter 2/The leaders of the new direction

1 trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

modern times the w o r k i n g class has promoted to first place

place: i n d u s t r i a l architecture, w h i c h is more closely related to

e w h i c h , whether i t be good or bad, is certainly

has been labour because i t represents the m a i n ingredient of life

the sources of modern perception o f f o r m , must exert its i n f l u -

still inchoate explorations o f young art.'

for this element, its u n i f y i n g feature. . . . T h u s the m a i n prob-

ence on the architecture of dwelhngs, w h i c h is dominated to a

lems w h i c h come to the fore today concern those architectural

greater extent by t r a d i t i o n and inertia.' (p. 134)

ture o f h u m a n emotion and its attendant

{Arkhitektura,

aes-

1923, Nos. 1-2, pp. 3 - 4 )

1 i epokha (Moscow, 1924)

dices and bias, analyses every aspect o f his task and its special
features, reduces its component elements, groups these by
f u n c t i o n and organizes his solution i n accordance w i t h these
factors. . . .

organisms w h i c h involve the concept o f labour the workers'

'Dealing w i t h everyday matters i n close c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h

As a result, we observe i n the o u t p u t o f modern architects

house and the house of work - and the m u l t i p l i c i t y o f problems

the foreman and the constructor, an architect cannot help

the emergence of an entirely new, largely asymmetrical k i n d of

they pose.

catching then methods of working. L i k e them, his a i m w i U be a

plan. . . .

A n d the logical conclusion to be d r a w n f r o m this i n the light

clear-cut solution of a task embodying particular data and par-

. . . O n l y f u n c t i o n a l architectural t h i n k i n g rigorously fixes

for modern artists: boldness i n experimenta-

of a study o f history, is that the significance o f these problems

ticular unknowns, rather than the u n b r i d l e d fantasy o f an i m -

spatial organization at the start of work. . . . I t is f r o m this that

:he quest for novelty, j o y i n creative discovery;

w i l l outgrow their i n i t i a l solution and w i l l provide the basic ele-

material conception. T h e architect w i f l then come to regard

the modern architect p r i n c i p a l l y proceeds. I t forces h i m to de-

ments of a new generally apphcable style.' (pp. 7 7 - 8 0 )

himself wo^ as a decorator, but as an organizer of life. T h e spiritual

velop his idea outwards from w i t h i n , and not the other way

energy and creative i m a g i n a t i o n thus released w i l l not, how-

about, as was the practice i n periods of eclecticism.'

[Sovremennaya arkhitektura, N o . 1, p p . 1-3)

eked by the creativity o f past centuries, clearly

/ p a t h that leads to victory, provided only that

e movement, and determination shines brighth are carried to the shore by a wave that does

T h e p r o b l e m o f t h e workers' house was posed by life long be-

ever, desert his work b u t w i l l merely be directed into another

fore the war. . . .

leets the needs o f our time,

Even at these early stages, we encounter the spirit of collecti-

way o f art i n ad the best phases of h u m a n i t y ' s

vism, a sweeping increase in architectural scale which favours

at, of course, is w h a t i t should be today.' (p. 12)

and energetic statements. W e have no concrete idea o f w h a t the

m o f an architectural style arises i n answer to a

workers' house o f the f u t u r e w i l l be like, but one can foreted

)f problems - those o space and those of volume,

w i t h o u t m u c h fear o f being proved w r o n g that i t is precisely

: the treatment o f t h e same task f r o m inside and

these quahties, derived f r o m the characteristics o f t h e workers'

lapidary

channel, w i t h i m a g i n a t i o n t u r n i n g into inventiveness

In

this way, subconscious, impulsive creativity will come to be replaced by a clear and distinct organizational method.' (pp. 141-42)

82)

Front

of Modern Architecture', 1926

' M o d e r n Soviet architecture, at least such of i t as is grouped

Extracts from an article entitled 'New Methods of Architectural

Thought', 1926

around our p e r i o d i c a l . . . does not contain any n i h i l i s m whatsoever and does not, under any circumstances, reject the requirements o f f o r m a l expressiveness. I t is, however, entirely

dwelling as such, w h i c h w i l l provide its essentials.' (pp.80 and

to the assessment of a work o f art or an entire

Extract from an article on 'The International

'Instead o f t h e old system o f architectural w o r k , i n w h i c h the

based u p o n the f u n c t i o n a l aspects of a b u i l d i n g as a whole, and

of its constituent elements. O u r line on modern architecture is

(history, i.e. i n its relation to the environment

' Q u i t e apart f r o m a speculative perception o f the laws o f

ground p l a n , construction and outer aspect o f a b u i l d i n g were

it i n t o being, another method of objective as-

statics and mechanics, every i n d i v i d u a l has a purely i n t u i t i v e

constantly at war w i t h each other and the architect was, i n so

based on the principle that a finished work of architecture, j u s t

understanding o f these laws. . . .

far as he was able, the arbiter of all these unresolved conflicts,

as any other genuinely modern object, is not a b u d d i n g or an

the foremost feature o f new architectural creativity is its single,

object comprising some sort o f aesthetic additive, but a con-

[n genetic terms, aimed at establishing the signifQomenon for the f u r t h e r development o f that

T h u s , on the strength o f our perceptual experience and psy-

olution o f the process as a whole.' (p. 24)

chological features, the constructive system also generates another sys-

undivided, integrated drive forward,

i n the course o f w h i c h the task

crete task, organized i n a rational and planned way, the very

: i n d i c a t i o n o f the creative impotence o f our

tem, self-contained but derivedfrom and dependent upon constructions in

is evolved organically and w h i c h represents the creative pro-

method of organization of w h i c h provides its m a x i m u m poten-

:d by the very notion o f m a k i n g new city dis-

the world of form

cess f r o m start to flnish. . . .

t i a l o f expression.'

the style of old existing ones, however f o r m a l l y

(pp. 112 and 114)

strictly speaking, a system o f aesthetics.'

T h e q u a l i t y of a modern architect's work is radically altered

aight be. T h i s is a notion w h i c h has established

' W h e n a new stylistic i d i o m makes its appearance and its

by the fact that he does not regard his activity as the f u l f i l m e n t

r i n the minds f the best architects o f t h e last

new elements are f o r m u l a t e d , there is clearly no need for ex-

of i n d i v i d u a l commissions, b u t as a matter o f establishing ar-

often forced them to subordinate entire city

traneous accretions whatever is new most often arises f r o m a

chitectural standards governing the p r o d u c t i o n o f new dwefl-

stricts to the f o r m a l features o f some group o f

constructive or practical requirement w i t h o u t any decorative

ings and cities, and of constantly perfecting these stand-

ier monuments, instead of subordinating them

addition. Later, decorative elements gradually appear, at first

ards

eahty o f that city, something that lies entirely

w i t h o u t d i s r u p t i n g the organic life o f the m o n u m e n t con-

lution provided by the a r c h i t e c t - f o r a dwefling, a club, a facto-

lal features o f any particular style.' (p. 27)

cerned, u n t i l their abundance oversteps these limits and turns

ry - is perceived by us as the invention o f an entirely new m o d -

"iably, a new culture is brought i n t o being by

into a self-involved interplay o f decorative elements. Tlie youth

el, appropriate to its task and suitable for reproduction i n

Dn the stage of history of a new nation, ethnicity

of a new style is mainly constructive, its maturity is organic and its decay

whatever numbers the State may require. T h i s deflects the ar-

decorative.' (pp. 119 and 120)

chitect's energy at the outset from hankering after i n d i v i d u a l

1 of artistic organism are most representative o f

istory or, more accurately, of every active creant of life w h i c h the new active social element of

As socialism is currently being b u d t up, every new so-

'. . . i f d u r i n g the last century, when life meant something

and idiosyncratic treatment, and directs i t towards the i m -

different, the m a i n architectural objects were the dwehing and

provement o f his standard and the refinement and m a x i m u m

the p u b l i c b u i l d i n g w h i c h exerted an influence on i n d u s t r i a l ar-

standardization o f a l l his details. . . .

T h e new architect, free f r o m a l l vestiges o f t h e past, p r e j u -

chitecture, a diametrically opposite phenomenon is now taking

[Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1925, N o . 2, p. 44)

Extracts from an article on 'The Functional Method and Form', 1926

' T h e F u n c t i o n a l M e t h o d , correctly understood, requires f r o m
the modern architect, i n every case w i t h o u t exception, a mater i a l presentation arising from the new conditions of life.
I f an atavistic f o r m ultimately results f r o m the architect's
w o r k , the Functional M e t h o d must have been incorrectly applied and the solution is f a u l t y i n some respect.
. . . I t should be most categorically stated that the Functional approach does n o t . . . abrogate the highly i m p o r t a n t task o f
architectural presentation. I t merely establishes the laws o f
such presentation, and forces the architect to look for i t i n those
elements that are f u n c t i o n a l l y j u s t i f i e d , by removing h i m from

584
Part Ill/Masters and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

the realm o f unrelated aesthetic additions and derivation, to

the organization o f t h e purely architectural task Itself and the

Extract from an article entitled 'Constructivism as a Method of Laboratory and Educational Work', 1927

f o r m a l use o f a l l the practical and structural opportunities

w h i c h are always avadable w i t h i n any architectural project.'
{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1926, N o . 4 , p p . 8 9 and 91)

' A n y study o f the elements o f architecture involves a danger

that certain forms m a y be canonized and pass i n t o the architect's vocabulary for everyday use. Constructivism wages war

Extract from an article on 'The National

ofthe Peoples of the USSR', 1926

Architecture

against this phenomenon and treats the basic elements o f architecture as material that is constantly changing i n accordance w i t h the changing conditions o f t h e generation o f f o r m . '
{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

'The F u n c t i o n a l M e t h o d , correcdy apphed, should also provide

1927, N o . 6, p. 165)

an answer to the question o f a national image o f architecture.

A d the conditions d e t e r m i n i n g the contemporary image o f t h e
N a t i o n a l Soviet Republics must be taken i n t o account: (1) the
conditions determining the character o f t h e secular way of life
and chmate, a character w h i c h defines the i n d i v i d u a l national
image o f a repubhc; (2) the conditions determining the new social structure, the new ways of life . . . and the achievements o f
modern technology, ad of w h i c h are common to and alike i n the
U S S R as a whole, and define the g r o w t h o f t h e U n i o n - w i d e forces o f sociahsm under construction.
A correct solution can only be arrived at by taking both categories o f conditions i n t o account.

Extracts from a lecture entitled 'Constructivism in Architecture'

1928

i n 1912. H e went to I t a l y !
chitectural monuments, t
assistant to the architects
helped to design and erec
val (now T a l i n n ) and els

i n g the Revolution, N i k (
b u i l d i n g o f civilian struc
sumed his teaching worl
and also engaged i n pra(

A t the start o f t h e 1921

F u t u r i s m and Zhivskulp
Executive Committee br
A f t e r 1926, Nikolsky v

' T h e theory o f C o n s t r u c t i v i s m m a y be subdivided i n t o three

of an architectural des

parts: the C o n s t m c t i v i s t attitude to the aim, to the means and to

something like a Lening|

the/orm

the a i m , i n so far as we are concerned, is the abso-

experimental and comp

lute forceful d e m o l i t i o n o f old concepts. T h i s is usually a pro-

such as a t r a m stop, a ha

grammed process w i t h i n w h i c h the architect must display his

t o r i u m , a cinema w i t h di'

creative abihty. . . . O u r a i m is not, i n fact, the execution o f a

sified as examples o f Su]

commission, as such, b u t w o r k i n g together w i t h the proletariat

D u r i n g the 1920s, N i

on the tasks involved i n the b u d d i n g o f a new existence, o f a

development o f models 1

new way o f hfe. . . . technology is for us no more t h a n a means

the housing field he d i d

F r o m this p o i n t of view, of course, the revival of old architec-

w h i c h we press i n t o service. . . . A l l the achievements o f mod-

m u n a l facilities he d i d b

t u r a l forms o f decoration appropriate to one or another o f t h e

ern science must be subordinated to our work, must be tied i n

of p u b l i c buildings he d

national styles cannot be j u s t i f i e d i n any way.'

{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1926, Nos. 5 - 6 , pp. 113-14)

Extracts from an article entitled 'Purpose in Modern

1927

Architecture'

to this w o r k for a new social a i m by the new architect. . . . A

tional establishments ar

f a i r l y widely held o p i n i o n is current that Constructivism repre-

jects actually executed i:

sents artistic n i h i l i s m and is the rejection of f o r m , an u n w d h n g -

i n Ushakov Street, sch(

ness to take account o f f o r m . I n reahty, however. Constructi-

dwellings on T r a k t o r S

vism is a w o r k i n g method for searching out the most rehable

factory and the shipbud

and correct p a t h to a new f o r m , w h i c h most closely corresponds

Sportintern and Krasn^

' F u n c t i o n a l architecture could not exist w i t h o u t a clearly and

newly stated purpose.

u n f o l d i n g o f t h e social a i m . F o r m , i n so far as we are concerned,

among t h e m that for thi

T h i s purpose, w h i c h is often only conveyed by a single w o r d

must constantiy be sought and newly defined each t i m e by an

i n 1925, a c o m m u n a l ho

a i m that is clear and bears the i m p r i n t o f t h e Revolution.'

i n 1927, the Tsentroso)

- factory, club, d w e l h n g etc - must first be carefully analysed

by the architect, and then given substance and broken d o w n
m t o a system o f clear production and domestic processes.

to the new social content. . . . we approach f o r m t h r o u g h the '

{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1928, N o . 5, p. 145)

H i s m a i n work d u r i r
Nikolsky (1884-1953)

ones are connected w i t h dwedings and p u b l i c buddings.

. . . m fact, d u r i n g the construction of socialism, socially domestic processes must, o f course, be treated w i t h as m u c h care
and attention as p r o d u c t i o n processes.'
{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1927, N o . 1, pp. 4 - 5 )

Moscow i n 1928, a pub)

first r o u n d o f the Palac

Production or labour processes are usuady associated i n our

minds w i t h a factory or i n d u s t r i a l plant, while socially domestic

Nikolsky took part

spectators at the p o i n t j
part o f a large Park o f (

Alexander Sergeevich Nikolsky was born i n Saratov, the son of

D u r i n g the war, he w

a doctor. H e completed his secondary-modern education in

m i l i t a r y targets i n Len

1902 i n Petersburg and entered the Petersburg I n s t i t u t e o f C i v d

that city at war and de

Engineers, f r o m the A r c h f t e c t u r a l Section of w h i c h he graduated

monuments and arches

Chapter 2/The leaders ofthe new direction

Is: biographies, statements, manifestos

:ed aesthetic additions and derivation, to

;he purely architectural task i t s e l f and the

Extract from an article entitled 'Constructivism as a Method of Laboratory and Educational Work', 1927

le practical and structural opportunities

' A n y study o f the elements o f architecture involves a danger

ya arkhitektura,

that certain forms may be canonized and pass i n t o the architect's vocabulary for everyday use. Constructivism wages war
against this phenomenon and treats the basic elements o f ar-

on 'The National

Architecture

^SR', 1926

chitecture as material that is constantly changing i n accordance w i t h the changing conditions o f the generation o f f o r m . '
{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

hod, correctly apphed, should also provide

1927, N o . 6, p. 165)

;stion o f a national image o f architecture,

determining the contemporary image o f t h e
rbhcs must be taken i n t o account: (1) the
ng the character o f t h e secular way of life
cter w h i c h defines the i n d i v i d u a l national
Y) the conditions determining the new soV ways of life . . . and the achievements o f
ill of w h i c h are c o m m o n to and alike i n the
i define the g r o w t h of the U n i o n - w i d e forr construction.

chitectural monuments, then taught at the Institute and, as an

D u r i n g the 1930s and the post-war years, Nikolsky was very

active i n the U n i o n o f Soviet Architects.

assistant to the architects Vasily Kosyakov and Alexei B u b y r ,

ailable w i t h i n any architectural project.'

1926, N o . 4 , pp.89 and 91)

i n 1912. H e went to I t a l y for a year after graduation to study ar-

helped to design and erect various buddings i n Petersburg, Re-

writings

v a l (now T a h n n ) and elsewhere. D u r i n g the first years follow-

Extract from a lecture on the new construction of schools,

i n g the Revolution, Nikolsky was engaged i n the design and

given at the First Conference of Osa, 1928

b u i l d i n g o f civilian structures on the railways. I n 1920, he resumed his teaching w o r k at the I n s t i t u t e o f C i v d Engineers,
and also engaged i n practical w o r k .
A t the start o f t h e 1920s, Nikolsky was influenced by CuboF u t u r i s m and Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h , as i n his design for a D i s t r i c t

Extracts from a lecture entitled 'Constructivism in Architecture',

1928

Executive Committee b u i l d i n g i n 1921.

' T h e theory o f C o n s t r u c t i v i s m may be subdivided into three

of an architectural design studio, whose members f o r m e d

parts: the C o n s t m c t i v i s t attitude to the aim, to the means and to

something hke a L e n i n g r a d branch o f Osa. A whole series o f

the form.

. . . the a i m , i n so far as we are concerned, is the abso-

experimental and competition designs were produced here,

A f t e r 1926, Nikolsky went on teaching, b u t also took charge

lute forceful demohtion o f old concepts. T h i s is usually a pro-

such as a t r a m stop, a h a l l for p u b l i c meetings, a club, a crema-

g r a m m e d process w i t h i n w h i c h the architect must display his

t o r i u m , a cinema w i t h d i n i n g h a l l etc, a l l of w h i c h may be clas-

creative abdity

sified as examples o f Suprematist Constructivism.

O u r a i m is not, i n fact, the execution o f a

Nikolsky's

commission, as such, but w o r k i n g together w i t h the proletariat

D u r i n g the 1920s, Nikolsky was m u c h concerned w i t h the

'As one o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t factors i n the country's economic

life, the construction of schools and c u l t u r a l educational estabhshments, i n c l u d i n g clubs, adult education and pre-school i n stitutions, is very closely conditioned by the present economic
situation and the availability of funds. Together, these w i f l determine the direction w h i c h b u i l d i n g for c u l t u r a l purposes is to
take i n the immediate f u t u r e . I t must be carried out i n the most
closely planned and r i g i d l y economical fashion.
I n this connection, and i n view o f the l i m i t e d resources at
present adocated by the State for the needs o f national education, the rationahzation o f a model school b u i l d i n g and a design calculated to b r i n g i t up to modern requirements acquire
special significance, starting f r o m the p l a n n i n g and construc-

;an only be arrived at by taking b o t h cate-

on the tasks involved i n the b u i l d i n g o f a new existence, o f a

development o f models f o r socially new types o f structures. I n

tion o f t h e b u i l d i n g itself and ending w i t h the provision of spe-

i t o account.

new way o f life. . . . technology is for us no more than a means

the housing field he d i d a H o u s i n g C o m m u n e . Amongst com-

cial equipment.'

dew, of course, the revival of old architec-

w h i c h we press i n t o service

A l l the achievements o f m o d -

m u n a l facihties he d i d baths and a s w i m m i n g pool; i n the field

don appropriate to one or another o f the

ern science must be subordinated to our w o r k , must be tied i n

of pubhc buildings he designed clubs, schools, higher educa-

t be j u s t i f i e d i n any way.'

to this w o r k for a new social a i m by the new architect. . . . A

tional estabhshments and sports complexes. A m o n g s t his pro-

arkhitektura,

f a i r l y widely held o p i n i o n is current that Constructivism repre-

jects actually executed i n L e n i n g r a d were baths i n Lesnoe and

sents artistic n i h i h s m and is the rejection of f o r m , an u n w i d i n g -

i n Ushakov Street, schools i n Lesnoe and i n Stachek Street,

1926, Nos. 5 - 6 , p p . 113-14)

entitled 'Purpose in Modern

Architecture',

xre could not exist w i t h o u t a clearly and

ness to take account o f f o r m . I n reality, however. Constructi-

dweflings on T r a k t o r Street, clubs for the K r a s n y Putilovets

vism is a w o r k i n g method for searching out the most rehable

factory and the s h i p b u i l d i n g wharfs, and stadia for the K r a s n y

and correct p a t h to a new f o r m , w h i c h most closely corresponds

Sportintern and K r a s n y Putilovets.

to the new social content. . . . we approach f o r m t h r o u g h the

Nikolsky took part i n a large number o f competitions,

u n f o l d i n g o f t h e social a i m . F o r m , i n so far as we are concerned,

among them that for the Central Telegraph Office i n Moscow

h is often only conveyed by a single w o r d

must constantly be sought and newly defined each time by an

in 1925, a c o m m u n a l house for workers - an Osa competition -

ng etc - must first be carefully analysed

a i m that is clear and bears the i m p r i n t o f t h e R e v o l u t i o n . '

i n 1927, the Tsentrosoyuz b u i l d i n g and the L e n i n L i b r a r y i n

{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

Moscow i n 1928, a p u b l i c l i b r a r y i n L e n i n g r a d i n 1928 and the

then given substance and broken d o w n

1928, N o . 5, p. 145)

production and domestic processes,

first r o u n d o f t h e Palace of Soviets i n 1931.

processes are usually associated i n our

)r i n d u s t r i a l plant, while socially domestic

H i s m a i n work d u r i n g the 1930s was a stadium for 100,000

Nikolsky (1884-1953)

th dwellings and public buildings,

l e construction of socialism, socially doof course, be treated w i t h as m u c h care
iction processes.'
mnaya arkhitektura,

1927, N o . 1, p p . 4 - 5 )

spectators at the p o i n t o f Krestovsky Island i n L e n i n g r a d , as

part o f a large Park o f C u f t u r e and Leisure complex.

Alexander Sergeevich Nikolsky was b o r n i n Saratov, the son of

D u r i n g the war, he worked on the camouflage of a number of

a doctor. H e completed his secondary-modern education i n

m i l i t a r y targets i n L e n i n g r a d , prepared a set o f drawings o f

1902 i n Petersburg and entered the Petersburg I n s t i t u t e of C i v d

that city at war and designed a number o f memorials such as

Engineers, f r o m the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Section of w h i c h he graduated

monuments and arches.

{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1928, N o . 4, p. 114)

Extracts from an article on 'Natural Lighting for Interiors', 1929

' T h e question o f t h e n a t u r a l l i g h t i n g of interior premises i n a
multi-storey b u i l d i n g , except for i n d u s t r i a l purposes, had u n t i l
n o w raised no questions and was resolved by the- only means
possible, w i t h the openings situated i n the lateral outer walls. I f
the nature o f the premises required m u c h hght, the w i n d o w
space was increased, and vice-versa. As to the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f
the apertures a d m k t i n g hght, this has followed the set pattern
inherited f r o m the brick w a l l .
. . . I have posed the question o f a rational d i s t r i b u t i o n o f
l i g h t i n g areas to suit the needs o f one f o r m o f inner space or
another. T h e attempt to secure an equal a m o u n t o f light by
means o f a smaller, more r a t i o n a l l y distributed area o f h g h t i n g
takes the p r o b l e m somewhat f u r t h e r , since i t involves not only
r a t i o n a l i t y , b u t economy i n the use o f n a t u r a l light.
w o r k on the study and rationahzation of n a t u r a l l i g h t i n g
should not be restricted to the multi-storey structure w i t h its
obligatory h g h t i n g t h r o u g h lateral outer walls.

Part Ill/Masters and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

O n the assumption that the ideal method o f d l u m i n a t i o n o f

mterior space is overhead h g h t i n g , a critical study of this possib d i t y must be made i n connection w i t h the use of muld-storeybuddmgs.'

{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1929, N o . 2, p. 57)

even occurred and that, as a result, the losses were too high.

'Economy is the first w o r d inscribed on t

B u t i t is beyond question that the a i m and the p l a n of campaign

ner. Economy is the direct meaning o f t h e w

were correct, that the tactics, generahy speaking, met the needs

the means o f expression e t c '

o f t h e situation and that the m o r a l spirit o f fighters and com-

'As a doctor w h o examines, auscultates i

manders was beyond reproach. T h a t is w h y , as I see i t , these

patient i n an attempt to discover any weak s]

honourable positions and glorious battiefields should be re-

to strengthen w h a t is debihtated, cure w h a t

'Factors i n architectural work such as b u d d i n g materials,

spected, the size and significance o f the losses should not be

whatever is incurable, so I - having receive

structural elements, questions o f cost, engineering and techno-

exaggerated, and w h a t has been conquered should be favour-

the organism o f a b u d d i n g for soundness: 11

logical considerations, p u b l i c health requirements and func-

ably assessed.

there are not some sick or ailing places, and

tional domestic instadations have been subjected to some study

I n short, the architectural trends o f t h e post-Revolutionary

era were quite predictably conditioned by economic, social and
technological changes.

quirement may not be dictated by decadent

Extracts from an article 'About the Works from My Studio', 1934

and their treatment has, one way and another, been p u t on a

scientific f o u n d a t i o n . Architecture as a spatial art, on the other

healthy, traditions. I n a w o r d , I take the taS

prove i t to the best o f m y abihty.'

hand, i n terms of f o r m and proportions, as an art u n i t i n g a l l its

T h e struggle o f " L e f t i s t architecture" against epigonist ape-

' L i f e calls u p o n the architect to take a c

component parts i n a harmonious whole, has not yet become a

ing, eclecticism and the uncritical adoption of Classical models

part i n its reshaping, to assist i n the b i r t h of

subject for scientific study. . . .

from West and East was equally predictable and correct.

ings. I t drives architecture f o r w a r d , i n hot

A theory o f architecture must be created, an architectual

g r a m m a r must be f o r m u l a t e d .
Everybody needs such a g r a m m a r b o o k as a matter o f basic
i n f o r m a t i o n . Yet for us as architects, this is not a case of k n o w l edge but i n t u i t i o n . A systematic g r a m m a r is the key to a readi n g o f the past and the f u t u r e . . . .

W h a t was, however, w h o l l y incorrect was the indiscriminate

ogy, science and social ideas w h i c h have ah

rejection o f art i n general, together w i t h the architecture o f t h e

(Quoted by A . A . O l i n his essay ' T h e Cre

past, as being ideologically hostile and technologically outdat-

N i k o l s k y ' , i n Tvorcheskieproblemy

ed forms o f art. . . .

Problems of Soviet Architecture], Leningrad,

sovetskoi

A certain reaction against vulgarization, joyless schematicism and other y o u t h f u l sins is psychologically understandable. B u t when as a result o f such reaction we are presented

. . . T h e social and economic circumstances i n w h i c h we live

provide a l l the prerequisites for the development o f a new architectural style. . . .

w i t h a series o f designs and buildings that are overloaded, ex-

. . . I w o u l d like to dwell . . . on the study o f t h e p r o b l e m o f

decorative, a serious architect can only be moved to regret,

V i k t o r A l e x a n d r o v i c h V e s n i n was b o r n i n ^

n a t u r a l l i g h t i n g of premises and the changes i n the exterior as-

even i f the "beauteousness" of these buildings continues to i m -

ated f r o m the Moscow Practical Academy!

pect o f a b u d d i n g connected w i t h this. This w o r k revealed to

press the pubhc at large for some time to come.'

the Petersburg I n s t i t u t e of C i v i l Engineei,

me w h a t architectural innovations, what unexpected and varied

cessively pompous, eclectic, pseudo-monumental and pseudo-

{Arkhitektura SSSR,

1935, N o . 4, p. 52)

possibilities, w h a t a broadening o f t h e creative range can open

before an architect who is free and liberates himself from the g r i p

ofArchitecture],

1934, Nos. 1-2, p p . 9 2 - 9 3 )

Extracts from an article entitled 'Creative Report', 1935

' W e are experiencing years of historical transition i n the evolution of our architectural thought and practice.
O n looking back now one m i g h t , of course, claim that the positions taken up were not ideal, the standard of equipment was
poor, there was no wholesale co-ordination between the operations of i n d i v i d u a l units, that i n t e r n a l frictions and quarrels

whole series
of architectural designs during

Extracts from notes written at various times

o f traditions o f every k i n d . '

{Akademiya arkhitektury [Academy

Viktor Vesnin (1882-1950)

' A modern artist may not take an " h e f r " unto himself. The
modern architect must b r i n g f o r t h his own children, not take
them on temporary lease. Thus, for instance, a House o f C u l ture must grow out o f t h e demands o f modern life, and not out
o f t h e rejigging o f a,gambling club and an I m p e r i a l Theatre '
(1933)

i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h his brothers Alexande

ing the First W o r l d W a r and the early yea
tion, he worked m a i n l y o n his o w n and spe(
i n i n d u s t r i a l architecture, w i t h designs fo
i n K i n e s h m a and T a m b o v Province i n :
chemical factory near Moscow i n 1916, the
the Great K i n e s h m a T o m n a factory i n ]
phosphate factory at Chernorechensk

' T h e architect must be capable o f finding his way w i t h o u t

d i f f i c u l t y i n a l l social, political, economic and technical questions o f t h e present time. He must f u l l y take i n t o account territorial, climatic, ethnographic and other conditions i n each i n d i v i d u a l case. T h e architect must make use of all the opportunities offered to h i m by modern science and technology.' (1933)

ir

Province i n 1918-19, the sulphuric acid f

1920-22, and the rosin and turpentine fa
1922-24. Features characteristic of Ration
most p r o m i n e n t i n these works by V i k t o r V
not only influenced some o f t h e designs fc,
dertaken j o i n t l y by the three brothers be
but represented one o f t h e sources o f Cor

ends: biographies, statements, manifestos

tion tliat tiie ideal method o f i l l u m i n a d o n o f

/erhead h g h d n g , a critical study of this possiie i n connection w i t h the use of multi-storey{Sovremenmja

arkhitektura,

1929, N o . 2, p. 57)

icle 'About the Works from My Studio', 1934

Cliapter 2/The leaders of the new direction

even occurred and that, as a result, the losses were too high.

'Economy is the first w o r d inscribed on the architect's ban-

B u t i t is beyond question that the a i m and the plan of campaign

ner. Economy is the direct meaning o f t h e w o r d - economy i n

were correct, that the tactics, generally speaking, met the needs

the means o f expression e t c '

V i k t o r V e s n i n began to teach at the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Section o f

the Moscow H i g h e r Technical Institute - M V T U - i n 1923,
where, together w i t h Alexander Kuznetsov, he decisively i n f l u -

o f t h e situation and that the m o r a l spirit o f fighters and com-

'As a doctor w h o examines, auscultates and investigates a

manders was beyond reproach. T h a t is w h y , as I see i t , these

patient i n an attempt to discover any weak spots, entirely so as

honourable positions and glorious battlefields should be re-

enced the f o r m a t i o n o f a Soviet school o f i n d u s t r i a l architecture.

to strengthen w h a t is debilitated, cure w h a t is sick and remove

V e s n i n worked i n close collaboration w i t h his brothers i n

:ectural work such as b u i l d i n g materials,

spected, the size and significance o f t h e losses should not be

whatever is incurable, so I - having received a theme - check

1923-24, but also produced a number o f i n d i v i d u a l designs

s, questions o f cost, engineering and techno-

exaggerated, and w h a t has been conquered should be favour-

the organism of a b u i l d i n g f o r soundness: I look to see whether

d u r i n g this period, among w h i c h the most interesting of those

ons, p u b l i c health requirements and f u n c -

ably assessed.

there are not some sick or aihng places, and whether some re-

actually b u i l t were the Institute o f M i n e r a l Raw Materials i n

tallations have been subjected to some study

quirement may not be dictated by decadent, and therefore u n -

M o s c o w i n 1925-28, the A g r i c u l t u r a l Bank i n Ivanovo-Vozne-

healthy, traditions. I n a w o r d , I take the task i n hand and i m -

sensk i n

in. Architecture as a spatial art, on the other

I n short, the architectural trends o f t h e post-Revolutionary

era were quite predictably conditioned by economic, social and
technological changes.

prove i t to the best of m y a b i l i t y . '

1929-30, i n coflaboration w i t h N i k o l a i K o l h , Georgy O r l o v

)rm and proportions, as an art u n i t i n g ad its

T h e struggle o f " L e f t i s t architecture" against epigonist ape-

' L i f e calls upon the architect to take a creative and active

1 a harmonious whole, has not yet become a

ing, eclecticism and the u n c r i t i c a l adoption of Classical models

part i n its reshaping, to assist i n the b i r t h of new types of b u d d -

I n the 1930s and 1940s, V i k t o r Vesnin took a leading part i n

c study. . . .

f r o m West and East was equally predictable and correct.

ings. I t drives architecture f o r w a r d , i n hot pursuit o f technol-

f o u n d i n g the U n i o n o f Soviet Architects and f u r t h e r i n g archi-

litecture must be created, an architectual

ogy, science and social ideas w h i c h have ad forged ahead o f i t . '

tectural science. H e also came to the fore as a p r o m i n e n t social

(Quoted by A . A . O l i n his essay ' T h e Creative Views of A . S.

and official personality. F r o m 1932 onwards, he was c h a i r m a n

N i k o l s k y ' , i n Tvorcheskie problemy sovetskoi arkhitektury

[Creative

o f t h e O r g a n i z i n g Committee, and then chief secretary, o f t h e

r us as architects, this is not a case of k n o w l -

W h a t was, however, w h o l l y incorrect was the indiscriminate

rejection of art i n general, together w i t h the architecture o f t h e
past, as being ideologically hostile and technologically outdated forms o f art.

Problems of Soviet Architecture], L e n i n g r a d , 1956, pp. 85-106)

U n i o n of Soviet Architects, as wefl as one o f the organizers -

A systematic g r a m m a r is the key to a read-

A certain reaction against vulgarization, joyless schemati-

It has, one way and another, been p u t on a

formulated.
s such a grammarbook as a matter o f basic

the f u t u r e . . . .

cism and other y o u t h f u l sins is psychologically understand-

d economic circumstances i n w h i c h we live

able. B u t when as a result o f such reaction we are presented

equisites for the development o f a new ar-

w i t h a series o f designs and buildings that are overloaded, ex-

remises and the changes i n the exterior as-

even i f the "beauteousness" of these buddings continues to i m -

ated f r o m the Moscow Practical Academy, and i n 1912 f r o m

onnected w i t h this. T h i s work revealed to

press the pubhc at large for some time to come.'

the Petersburg I n s t i t u t e of C i v d Engineers. H e worked on a

broadening o f the creative range can open

o is free and hberates himself f r o m the g r i p
^kind.'
'demiya arkhitektury [Academy of Architecture],
1934, Nos. 1-2, pp. 9 2 - 9 3 )

entitled 'Creative Report', 1935

; years of historical transition i n the evoluiral thought and practice. . . .

ow one m i g h t , of course, claim that the ponot ideal, the standard of equipment was
lolesale co-ordination between the operanits, that i n t e r n a l frictions and quarrels

whole series of architectural designs d u r i n g the years 1908-14,

in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h his brothers Alexander and L e o n i d . D u r -

Extracts from notes written at various times

' A modern artist may not take an " h e i r " unto himself. T h e
modern architect must b r i n g f o r t h his o w n children, not take
them on temporary lease. T h u s , for instance, a House o f C u l ture must grow out o f the demands of modern life, and not out
o f t h e rejigging o f a g a m b h n g club and an I m p e r i a l Theatre '
(1933)
' T h e architect must be capable o f finding his way w i t h o u t
d i f i i c u l t y i n all social, pohtical, economic and technical questions o f t h e present time. He must f u l l y take i n t o account territorial, chmatic, ethnographic and other conditions i n each i n d i v i d u a l case. T h e architect must make use of all the o p p o r t u n ities ofibred to h i m by modern science and technology.' (1933)

station i n

writings

Extract from a speech made at the discussion

V i k t o r A l e x a n d r o v i c h Vesnin was b o r n i n Yurevets and gradu-

1935, N o . 4, p. 52)

power

and Sergei Andrievsky.

Viktor Vesnin's

Viktor Vesnin (1882-1950)

decorative, a serious architect can only be moved to regret,

SSSR,

the Dneproges

tecture o f t h e USSR.

o dwell . . . on the study o f t h e p r o b l e m o f

{Arkhitektura

and

a n d the first president i n 1938-49 - o f t h e Academy o f A r c h i -

cessively pompous, eclectic, pseudo-monumental and pseudo-

innovations, w h a t unexpected and varied

1926-27

i n g the First W o r l d W a r and the early years after the Revolution, he worked m a i n l y on his o w n and speciahzed increasingly
i n i n d u s t r i a l architecture, w i t h designs for chemical factories
i n K i n e s h m a and T a m b o v Province i n 1915, the Zhilevsky
chemical factory near Moscow i n 1916, the b u i l d i n g complex of

ofthe competition entries for Dneproges, 1929

' I belong to that trend and that group w h i c h considers i t impossible to d r a w a line between architectural and engineering elements i n a structure. I n this case, f o r m is no more than a byproduct, and i f we w o r k on the f o r m at all, i t is only i n the sense
of c l a r i f y i n g and perfecting i t i n processing the data w h i c h provides us w i t h the basic, f u n c t i o n a l solution. . . .'
(Quoted by A . G . C h i n y a k o v , i n Bratya Vesniny
[The Vesnin Brothers], Moscow, 1970, p. 124)

the Great K i n e s h m a T o m n a factory i n 1916-17, the superphosphate factory at Chernorechensk

i n Nizhny-Novgorod

Concerning the Functional

Method

Province i n 1918-19, the sulphuric acid factory i n Saratov i n

1920-22, and the rosin and turpentine factory i n V a k h t a n i n
1922-24. Features characteristic of Rational Architecture were
most prominent i n these works by V i k t o r V e s n i n , and this trend

' T h e widely used o l d method of phased and fragmented design,

deahng first w i t h the p l a n , then the vertical section and,

finally,

the elevation and perspective, is basically unsound.'

not only influenced some o f the designs for civil buddings un-

' T h e connection between a l l the elements of a design is indis-

dertaken j o i n t l y by the three brothers before the Revolution,

soluble, and any alteration of one of these i n v a r i a b l y involves

but represented one o f t h e sources o f Constructivism.

the alteration of another. . . .

Part Ill/Masters and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

Every w o r k o f arcliitecture is three-dimensional and one

H e j o i n e d the W o r k i n g G r o u p for Objective Analysis at the end

must therefore t r a i n oneself to design by w o r k i n g on the p l a n ,

of 1920 and the W o r k i n g G r o u p of Architects of I n k h u k early i n

sections, elevations and perspective simultaneously, i n paradel

1921. H e headed the U n i t e d Leftist Studios - Obmas - i n

and m u k d a t e r a d y . One must teach onesekto t h i n k not about

Vkhutemas, j o i n t l y w i t h Ladovsky and Dokuchaev. A f t e r the

separate projections and parts, b u t globally, about the struc-

restructuring o f Vkhutemas i n 1923 and the creation o f t h e

and Composition, and the Distinguishing

Basic Section - the I n t r o d u c t o r y Course - K r i n s k y was i n

ry-April

charge o f t h e general teaching o f ' S p a c e ' as a subject. K r i n s k y ,

'As distinct f r o m the architect, the en

together w i t h Lamtsov and T u r k u s , summarized his experi-

i n its unprocessed f o r m and only sets

ences i n teaching this disciphne i n a vc\2sm2i\-Elementy

when he devises a structure.'

ture as a whole.'

(Ghinyakov, op. cit. p. 90)

Extract from an article 'The Language of the Epoch', 1932

' T h e language o f Classical forms, however perfect the latter
may be, is the language o f the past and cannot be used to express the present.'
{Sovetskoe iskusstvo [Soviet Art], 15 M a r c h 1932)
From a speech made at a discussion on art in May 1934

turno-prostranstvennoi kompozitsii

gan " I m p e r m i s s i b l e " to " E v e r y t h i n g is a h o w e d " . T h e transition f r o m ultra-rationahsm to ultra-non-rationalism has been
too sharp, and yet, as I see i t , the m a j o r i t y o f architects have
gone d o w n this p a t h o f unbounded Decorativism. I describe
this as . . . "Shchusism", and i t is, i n m y opinion, a very dangerous phenomenon, maybe even more dangerous t h a n Retrospectivism. . . .
I t is said that richness is needed i n architecture. Yes, r i c h -

Extracts from the minutes of the Inkhuk H

Analysis:

a discussion of 'The Analysis of

Fi

1921

' A Greek temple is a stone constru

pubhshed i n 1934. H i s teaching w o r k extended

tecture perpetrates a lie when i t uses i

over more than h a l f a century, u n t i l 1971, b r i d g i n g the succes-

construction. Such architecture disfi^

sive transformations o f Vkhutemas i n t o V k h u t e i n , V a s i and

sence o f the material.'

the Moscow A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e .
' T o o r a p i d a transition was made i n architecture f r o m the slo-

writings

Architectural-Spatial

Composition),

(Elements of

arkhitek-

Krinsky's

'Construction - i n the sense o f the

D u r i n g the early Soviet years, K r i n s k y produced a series o f

ing - incorporates material. I regard

competition entries and experimental designs w h i c h reflected

tion as one that involves the configure

Symbohst Romanticist tendencies: a c r e m a t o r i u m , a kiosk, a

combination and arrangement o f su]

temple o f t h e new cult, a T e m p l e of C o m m u n i o n Between N a -

sition. T h e c o n j u n c t i o n and directie

tions, a c o m m u n a l house and a speaker's p l a t f o r m .

hand, represents construction.'

D u r i n g the 1920s and early 1930s, K r i n s k y , apart f r o m

'There can be no merging o f techi

teaching, also turned out a large n u m b e r o f designs, some i n

artistic construction, i n the sense of 3

coflaboration w i t h Rukhlyadev, such as those for the sky-

tion, or o f an integration of the latte.

scraper of the Supreme Soviet for the N a t i o n a l E c o n o m y - V e -

A variety o f aims is obvious.

ness is indeed necessary. B u t w h a t we are being offered is not a

senkha - i n 1922-23; the Arkos b u i l d i n g i n Moscow, the Soviet

richness o f our o w n . I t is the richness o f t h e merchant's taste.

pavihon i n Paris, the L e n i n House o f the People i n Ivanovo-

W h y do we f i n d this richness alien? I t is richness w i t h o u t r i g -

Voznesensk and the House o f Soviets i n Bryansk, ad i n 1924;

T h e constructive principle can b(

our, not b u d t on a h a r d f o u n d a t i o n . I t is a nauseating richness,

the M a u s o l e u m to L e n i n and the Heroes o f t h e Revolution i n

the essence o f design. I n p a i n t i n g , (i

the richness o f make-believe.'

Odessa i n 1925; a sports arena i n 1928; the C o l u m b u s M o n u -

path to l i b e r a t i o n f r o m representati

ment i n Santo D o m i n g o i n 1929; the Palace o f A r t s , as a

tion for the basic answer: that is w h y

member of the Asnova team, i n 1930; and the Palace o f Soviets

composition f r o m construction i n pi

{Arkhitektura SSSR,

1934, N o . 6, p. 6)

i n 1931, both o f t h e latter i n Moscow.

Krinsky (1890-1971)

T h e m a i n principle o f constructio
and u t i l i t a r i a n things is economy.

I n architecture, construction is in

D u r i n g the 1930s, i n line w i t h the general orientation o f So-

nical and mechanical basis - the very

viet architecture at that period, K r i n s k y made great use o f

'Construction imphes a moveme

Classical architectural forms i n his designs, such as that for the

w h i c h is schematically expressed by

V l a d i m i r Fedorovich K r i n s k y was b o r n i n Ryazan. A f t e r com-

Komsomolskaya M e t r o Station, w i t h Rukhlyadev, and the

itself a bare construction and every

pleting his secondary education i n Petersburg he studied first

locks on the Moscow-Volga Canal.

forms, w h e n each o f these is repres

at the A r t School o f t h e Society for the P r o m o t i o n o f t h e A r t s ,

then at the Petersburg A c a d e m y o f A r t s , i n i t i a l l y as a painter
and later as an architect, i n 1910-17.
I n 1918, K r i n s k y worked i n the Directorate for the Restora-

As one o f t h e leaders o f Rationahsm i n the 1920s, K r i n s k y

structive configuration.

made an i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e theo-

A system o f configuration involve

retical tenets of this trend at the time of its genesis i n the I n k h u k

tween the elements o f a constructie.

W o r k i n g G r o u p o f Architects.

A r c h i t e c t u r a l construction reh(

tion of Yaroslavl. I n 1919, he j o i n e d Zholtovsky's architectural

stress and balance w h i c h , w i t h i n a s

studio at the People's Commissariat f o r Education and became

teraction o f that construction's coi

a member o f S i n s k u l p t a r k h - Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h at the same time.

589
Chapter 2/The leaders ofthe new direction

is: biographies, statements, manifestos

rchitecture is three-dimensional and one

H e j o i n e d the W o r k i n g G r o u p for Objective Analysis at the end

I oneself to design by w o r k i n g on the p l a n ,

of 1920 and the W o r k i n g G r o u p of Architects of I n k h u k early i n

m d perspective simultaneously, i n parallel

1921. H e headed the U n i t e d Leftist Studios - Obmas - i n

Jne must teach oneself to t h i n k not about

Vkhutemas, j o i n t l y w i t h Ladovsky and Dokuchaev. A f t e r the

and parts, but globally, about the struc(Chinyakov, op. cit. p. 90)
'The Language of the Epoch', 1932

restructuring o f Vkhutemas i n 1923 and the creadon o f t h e

Basic Section - the I n t r o d u c t o r y Course - K r i n s k y was i n

Krinsky's

Extract from a lecture to the Inkhuk Working Group of Architects on 'The

writings

Path of Architecture', May 1921

Extracts from the minutes of the Inkhuk Working Group for
Analysis:

a discussion of 'The Analysis ofthe Concepts of Construction

and Composition, and the Distinguishing

ry-April

Objective

Factor Between Them', Janua-

1921

ception of i t is impossible w i t h o u t understanding the logic of its

treatment.

together w i t h L a m t s o v and T u r k u s , summarized his experi-

i n its unprocessed f o r m and only sets himself a u t i l i t a r i a n task

when he devises a structure.'

lage o f the past and cannot be used to ex-

turno-prostranstvennoi kompozitsii
Composition),

(Elements of

arkhitek-

Architectural-Spatial

' A Greek temple is a stone construction and modern architecture perpetrates a lie w h e n i t uses the proportions o f a stone

There is no need to demonstrate that the perception of a par-

construction. Such architecture disfigures and destroys the es-

ticular structure is inseparable f r o m an awareness of its techni-

sence o f t h e material.'

cal efliciency and of its appropriateness and reality at t h a t mo-

over more t h a n h a l f a century, u n t d 1971, b r i d g i n g the successive transformations o f Vkhutemas i n t o V k h u t e i n , V a s i and

the Moscow A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e .

t i o n , is the architectural idea. . . .

'Construction - i n the sense o f t h e configuration o f a b u d d -

ment. A disturbance of the h a r m o n y between the perception o f

D u r i n g the early Soviet years, K r i n s k y produced a series o f

ing - incorporates material. I regard a well-defined construc-

i t as a pure f o r m and the perception of it as a dwelling, w h e n the

competition entries and experimental designs w h i c h reflected

tion as one that involves the configuration as a whole, while the

latter is absent, makes for unreahty and leads to a purely aes-

Symbohst Romanticist tendencies: a crematorium, a kiosk, a

combination and arrangement o f supports represents compo-

thetic perception w h i c h is no more than superficial or, as the

temple o f t h e new cult, a T e m p l e o f C o m m u n i o n Between N a -

sition. T h e c o n j u n c t i o n and direction o f forces, on the other

saying goes, f o r m a l . W e cannot f u l l y perceive the architectural

hand, represents construction.'

concept as an answer i n this case, because one o f t h e essential

" to " E v e r y t h i n g is a l l o w e d " . T h e transinahsm to ultra-non-rationalism has been

LS I see i t , the m a j o r i t y o f architects have
I o f unbounded Decorativism. I describe

tions, a c o m m u n a l house and a speaker's p l a t f o r m .

Ti", and i t is, i n m y opinion, a very danger-

D u r i n g the 1920s and early 1930s, K r i n s k y , apart f r o m

laybe even more dangerous t h a n Retro-

'There can be no merging o f technical, i.e. u t i l i t a r i a n , w i t h

teaching, also turned out a large number o f designs, some i n

artistic construction, i n the sense o f any theoretical subordina-

ness is needed i n architecture. Yes, r i c h -

scraper o f t h e Supreme Soviet for the N a t i o n a l Economy - Ve-

coUaboration w i t h Rukhlyadev, such as those for the skyi r y . B u t w h a t we are being offered is not a

senkha - i n 1922-23; the Arkos b u i l d i n g i n Moscow, the Soviet

I t is the richness o f t h e merchant's taste,

p a v d i o n i n Paris, the L e n i n House o f the People i n Ivanovo-

s richness alien? I t is richness w i t h o u t r i g -

Voznesensk and the House o f Soviets i n Bryansk, a l l i n 1924;

rd f o u n d a t i o n . I t is a nauseadng richness,

the M a u s o l e u m to L e n i n and the Heroes o f t h e Revolution i n

believe.'

Odessa i n 1925; a sports arena i n 1928; the Columbus M o n u 1934, N o . 6, p. 6)

W h a t is basic i n architecture, as i n creativity and i n percep-

pubhshed i n 1934. H i s teaching work extended

on was made i n architecture f r o m the slo-

{Arkhitektura SSSR,

As to architecture, there is no need to demonstrate that per-

'As distinct f r o m the archftect, the engineer only uses material

ences i n teaching this discipline i n a m a n u a l - Elementy

a discussion on art in May 1934

w h a t could be more h u m a n i n m a n than thought . . .

charge o f t h e general teaching of'Space' as a subject. K r i n s k y ,

lassical forms, however perfect the latter

'.tslioe iskusstvo [Soviet Art], 15 M a r c h 1932)

'Since art differs f r o m nature by the fact that ft is o f " m a n " ,

ment i n Santo D o m i n g o i n 1929; the Palace o f A r t s , as a

member of the Asnova team, i n 1930; and the Palace of Soviets
i n 1931, both o f the latter i n Moscow.
D u r i n g the 1930s, i n line w i t h the general orientation o f Soviet architecture at that period, K r i n s k y made great use o f
Classical architectural forms i n his designs, such as that for the

K r i n s k y was b o r n i n Ryazan. A f t e r com-

Komsomolskaya M e t r o Station, w i t h Rukhlyadev, and the

education i n Petersburg he studied first

locks on the M o s c o w - V o l g a Canal.

lie Society for the Promotion o f t h e A r t s ,

As one o f t h e leaders o f Rationalism i n the 1920s, K r i n s k y

g Academy o f A r t s , i n i t i a l l y as a painter

made an i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e theo-

ect, i n 1910-17.

retical tenets of this trend at the time of its genesis i n the I n k h u k

orked i n the Directorate f o r the Restora-

W o r k i n g G r o u p o f Architects.

tion, or o f an integration o f t h e latter i n t o the former.

A variety o f aims is obvious.
T h e m a i n p r i n c i p l e o f construction i n m a k i n g b o t h abstract
and u t d i t a r i a n things is economy.
T h e constructive principle can be traced i n composition as
the essence o f design. I n p a i n t i n g , composition lies along the
path to liberation f r o m representation and turns to construction for the basic answer: that is w h y i t is so d i f f i c u f t to separate
composition f r o m construction i n p a i n t i n g (and sculpture).
I n architecture, construction is inevitably present as a technical and mechanical basis - the very basis o f composition.'
'Construction imphes a movement o f force, or a direction,
w h i c h is schematically expressed by lines. A system of hnes is i n
itself a bare construction and every system o f planes or spatial
forms, w h e n each o f these is represented i n m o t i o n , is a constructive configuration.
A system o f configuration involves the law of interaction between the elements o f a construction.

919, h e j o i n e d Zholtovsky's architectural

A r c h i t e c t u r a l construction rehes upon physical laws o f

Commissariat for Educadon and became

stress and balance w h i c h , w i t h i n a structure, determine the i n -

itarkh-Zhivskulptarkh at the same time.

teraction o f that construction's components w i t h each other.

( I n k h u k archive)

conditions o f this answer is missing. . . .

A n d so architecture always has a l i v i n g theme. L i v i n g architecture consists i n creating the present: A n d the architect has one
weapon i n this creative act

-form.

F o r m is' usually described as u t i h t a r i a n i f its purpose is to

f u l f i l a given practical purpose. I t is said that the construction
engineer's concept is material and that he resorts to a u t i h t a r i a n f o r m , as opposed to the architect, whose ideals are a matter
of a r t and w h o employs artistic f o r m . . . .
W e cannot conceive o f a u t d i t a r i a n f o r m w h i c h w o u l d allow
no latitude f o r its treatment as aform. I n the m a j o r i t y o f cases, an
i n f i n i t y o f means is avadable for altering the given, w h o l l y u t d i t a r i a n treatment one way or another i n terms of f o r m . I n other
words, every utilitarian treatment is also a treatment of form.
I t could hardly be otherwise, since we i m p a r t f o r m to everyt h i n g that we do. M a n finds his way about i n the " e x t e r n a l "
w o r l d o w i n g to f o r m . I t w o u l d be impossible to create a n y t h i n g
w i t h o u t f o r m u l a t i n g i t , because we could otherwise not understand i t .
O u r understanding of f o r m depends upon some of its particular quahties. . . . L i n e , plane and geometrical surface - such
as a sphere, a cyhnder or a cone - are eternal. T h e y represent
the laws o f our thought i n perception. T h e means o f

finding

one's direction i n the w o r l d consist o f an order o f perception

590
Part Ill/Masters and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

w h i c h we establish. T h a t is w h y we say that there is no purely util-

Extract from Krinsky's

'Credo', December 1921^

itarian form and w i l l n a t u r a l l y talk only about real form.

...

Is any preconceived idea, determined i n advance, i n

fact, possible as part o f t h e search for an answer, before the conditions o f the task are k n o w n and, consequentiy, before the
theme has been stated?
A h these aesthetic axioms and preconceptions entering into
modern architecture are generally abstract and unreal,

since

they exist outside real tasks, so i t is n a t u r a l that they should

deal w i t h abstract, extra-utilitarian f o r m i n general. T h i s f o r m
is defined as h a v i n g only one purpose - its i m p a c t on a h u m a n
being. We have seen that real f o r m also has an impact, since we
w o u l d otherwise not perceive it. B u t abstract f o r m has n o t h i n g
besides its impact. W e also know, however, that, j u s t as art, its
i m p a c t is achieved solely by its " m e a n i n g " , i . e. i n terms o f
thought and content. Meaningless beauty is air, sun, whatever
animals may perceive. A r t is h u m a n . W h a t then is resolved by
an abstract f o r m ? I t i n d u b i t a b l y has only one a i m : the p r o b l e m
o f t h e perception o f f o r m i n architecture, sculpture and painting comes d o w n to a perception o f space. T h e a i m o f abstract
f o r m is purely theoretical. I t is the theory of f o r m i n generahzed
terms. The scientific discipline is to think in space. One cannot apply
abstract f o r m to reahty, or utdize i t . A cube, a cylinder or a
cone are not forms, but concepts by means of w h i c h we resolve
a given f o r m . T h i s is not a predetermined idea. I t is our way o f
speculating about real space. Yet every abstract f o r m resolved
represents a f o r m u l a t i o n of our experience of space. A n d we are
thus forced to recognize that there can be no predetermined
idea before a set architectural task has been resolved and its
conditions have been studied.
I t m a y happen that an abstract f o r m appears to be i m p a i r e d
by practical application, b u t this only goes to show that the

villages, streets, squares and cities. . . . W H A T

' A r t escapes f r o m the b h n d alley o f aestheticism as f r o m those

W H A T cities? One cannot retreat f r o m this into th

of h u m a n i s m and romanticism, by ceasing to be an end i n itself

T h e other basic question w h i c h architecture stil

F o r m is an invention, not a cult. Its value is proved i n action.

I n this respect, we proceed f r o m the basic laws of c

rejection of art, is already a sign of health; b u t pure u t i l i t a r i a n -

tion, f r o m the operation of our eyesight, f r o m our met

ism is no way out either; w i t h it, darkness sets i n again, and the

derstanding, and flnd our w a y about the space that

concept o f bare efliciency is equally meaningless.

A straight line and a plane; f u r t h e r , the regular ar

nected w i t h architecture, assuming that the latter includes the

of planes and hnes - a v o l u m e ; f u r t h e r , systems of

whole cycle o f spatial problems connected w i t h the organiza-

arrangements o f particular distances - r h y t h m .

t i o n o f t h e space that surrounds us. T h i s is, o f course, factually

indistinguishable f r o m w h a t we call b u i l d i n g work, f r o m architecture as a technique.
T h e architecture w h i c h was and is cultivated i n academies,
and is labehed as art, is also lodged i n the b l i n d adey of aestheticism.
I f we t r y to establish w h a t leads to this dead end, we shall en-

architect's sole a i m . '

( I n k h u k archive)

Questions of f o r m must be w o r k e d out architectu:

cannot be excluded f r o m technology. Mastering
w i t h o u t mastering f o r m w o u l d mean always reman
to t r a d i t i o n . Pure u t i l i t a r i a n i s m cannot be establish

tecture's g u i d i n g thought: that w o u l d amount to a;

fiction

practice, b o t h o f w h i c h originate f r o m the Renaissance.

shrugged off d u r i n g the resolution of u t i h t a r i a n task!

as pure art. A n assertion that questions of fj

We must assert that the Renaissance style, as i t has been al-

ply t h a t the existing f o r m was accepted as axioma'

lowed to develop over the years t h r o u g h inertia, is a brake and

one was i n the grip o f the identical o l d aestheticisi

an enemy to architecture, i n so far as i t represents an active fac-

T h e theory of abstract f o r m is for consideratior

tor w i t h i n i t .

pline o f spatial t h i n k i n g and points to the way of

T h e Renaissance style can be no more t h a n decoration, and

is at best mere romanticism.

problems.

T h e roots o f architecture are lost i n its case. As manifestations of architecture, the Classical and Renaissance styl es are
fetishes.
I t seems to m a n y people that by destroying these fetishes we
also destroy the very essence o f architecture, and deprive it of
ad they value most. A n d one often runs across the honest

the chicken or the egg. I m p a r t i n g f o r m to real hfe - that is the

I n parallel w i t h this, come the essentials of m a t e r

ration - theoretical mechanics and construction.

counter the m a i n stream o f academic t r a i n i n g and b u d d i n g

query: " B u t what, then, is l e f t ? "

the u t i l i t a r i a n purpose, is hke arguing about w h a t came first,

us. . . .

I leave aside, as far as possible, everything that is not con-

task has not been solved correctly. A n answer obviously results

answer. A n d to debate w h a t leads the architect to select an an-

is - H O W is a l l this to be done?

T h e abandonment of aestheticism, even i f it involves a total

f r o m the conditions, and conditions cannot be made to fit the

swer, whether i t is art, i . e. f o r m , or material considerations, i . e.

schools, factories, railway stations, power stations

W h a t is casual and temporary has become fundamental,

w h a t is basic has been lost. Beauty as a cuft o f times past, as a
k i n d o f eternal value, is a fog that must be dispersed for good,
and only by dispersing i t w i l l we emerge f r o m our dead end,
and our field o f action w i l l become enormous.
We must inevitably be a b i t b a r b a r i a n : the work o f fine adj u s t m e n t lies before f u t u r e generations, while now is the time
for basic questions. W e are left w i t h m u c h to do, our tasks grow
immeasurably and life itself dictates them to us. Dwelhngs,

.j91
Chapter 2/The leaders of the new direction

ids: biographies, statements, manifestos

T h a t is w h y we say that there is no purely util-

Extract from Krinsky's

'Credo', December 1921^

1 n a t u r a l l y talk only about real form.

schools, factories, r a i l w a y stations, power stations, gardens,

villages, streets, squares and cides. . . . W H A T

factories,

onceived idea, determined i n advance, i n

' A r t escapes f r o m the b l i n d alley o f aestheticism as f r o m those

t of the search for an answer, before the con-

of h u m a n i s m and r o m a n t i c i s m , by ceasing to be an end i n itself.

are k n o w n and, consequently, before the

F o r m is an invention, not a cult. Its value is proved i n action.

ted?

T h e abandonment o f aestheticism, even i f it involves a total

I n this respect, we proceed f r o m the basic laws of our percep-

ic axioms and preconceptions entering i n t o

rejection of art, is already a sign of health; b u t pure u t d i t a r i a n -

tion, f r o m the operation of our eyesight, f r o m our methods of un-

re are generally abstract and unreal,

ism is no w a y out either; w i t h i t , darkness sets i n again, and the

derstanding, and find our way about the space that surrounds

since

eal tasks, so i t is n a t u r a l that they should

concept o f bare efliciency is equally meaningless.

W H A T cities? One cannot retreat f r o m this into the past.

T h e other basic question w h i c h architecture still harbours
is - H O W is a l l this to be done?

I leave aside, as far as possible, everything that is not con-

A straight hne and a plane; f u r t h e r , the regular arrangement

; only one purpose - its impact on a h u m a n

nected w i t h architecture, assuming that the latter includes the

of planes and lines - a volume; f u r t h e r , systems of sequential

1 that real f o r m also has an impact, since we

whole cycle o f spatial problems connected w i t h the organiza-

t perceive i t . B u t abstract f o r m has n o t h i n g

t i o n o f t h e space that surrounds us. T h i s is, of course, factually

\N& also know, however, that, j u s t as art, its

indistinguishable f r o m w h a t we call b u i l d i n g work, f r o m architecture as a technique.

arrangements o f p a r t i c u l a r distances - r h y t h m .
I n parallel w i t h this, come the essentials of material configur a t i o n - theoretical mechanics and construction.
Questions of f o r m must be w o r k e d out architecturally. F o r m

t. Meaningless beauty is air, sun, whatever

T h e architecture w h i c h was and is cultivated i n academies,

cannot be excluded f r o m technology. M a s t e r i n g technology

ve. A r t is h u m a n . W h a t then is resolved by

and is labefled as art, is also lodged i n the b l i n d alley of aesthet-

w i t h o u t mastering f o r m w o u l d mean always r e m a i n i n g a slave

; i n d u b i t a b l y has only one a i m : the p r o b l e m

icism.

to t r a d i t i o n . Pure u t d i t a r i a n i s m cannot be established as archi-

f o r m i n architecture, sculpture and paint-

I f we t r y to establish w h a t leads to this dead end, we shall en-

a perception o f space. T h e a i m o f abstract

counter the m a i n stream o f academic t r a i n i n g and b u i l d i n g

fiction

etical. I t is the theory of f o r m i n generalized

practice, both o f w h i c h originate f r o m the Renaissance.

shrugged oflFduring the resolution of u t i h t a r i a n tasks w o u l d i m -

iiscipline is to think in space. One cannot apply

We must assert that the Renaissance style, as i t has been al-

ality, or utilize i t . A cube, a cylinder or a

lowed to develop over the years t h r o u g h inertia, is a brake and

but concepts by means of w h i c h we resolve

an enemy to architecture, i n so far as i t represents an active fac-

s not a predetermined idea. I t is our way o f

tor w i t h i n i t .

eal space. Y e t every abstract f o r m resolved

i t i o n of our experience of space. A n d we are

^nize that there can be no predetermined

T h e Renaissance style can be no more than decoration, and

is at best mere r o m a n t i c i s m .
T h e roots o f architecture are lost i n its case. As manifesta-

chitectural task has been resolved and its

tions o f architecture, the Classical and Renaissance styles are

;n studied.

fetishes.

at an abstra:ct f o r m appears to be i m p a i r e d

I t seems to m a n y people that by destroying these fetishes we

i t i o n , but this only goes to show that the

also destroy the very essence o f architecture, and deprive i t o f

Ived correctly. A n answer obviously results

all they value most. A n d one often runs across the honest

, and conditions cannot be made to fit the

query: " B u t w h a t , then, is l e f t ? "

ite w h a t leads the architect to select an an-

W h a t is casual and temporary has become f u n d a m e n t a l ,

rt, i . e. f o r m , or material considerations, i . e.

w h a t is basic has been lost. Beauty as a cult o f times past, as a

ose, is like arguing about w h a t came first,

k i n d o f eternal value, is a fog that must be dispersed for good,

5g. I m p a r t i n g f o r m to real life - that is the

and only by dispersing i t w i l l we emerge f r o m our dead end,

( I n k h u k archive)

and our field o f action w i l l become enormous.

W e must i n e v i t a b l y be a b i t b a r b a r i a n : the w o r k of fine adj u s t m e n t hes before f u t u r e generations, whde now is the time
f o r basic quesdons. W e are left w i t h m u c h to do, our tasks grow
immeasurably and hfe itself dictates them to us. Dwellings,

life as a whole this is no more t h a n laboratory activity for the

f o r m u l a t i o n o f our spatial impressions.
I n the last resort, the sole material of architectural composition is our spatial experience.'

( I n k h u k archive)

us. . . .

extra-utilitarian f o r m i n general. T h i s f o r m

solely by its " m e a n i n g " , i.e. i n terms o f

Abstract solutions o f f o r m are self-sufficient, b u t i n terms o f

tecture's g u i d i n g thought: that w o u l d amount to as m u c h o f a

as pure art. A n assertion that questions o f f o r m can be

ply that the existing f o r m was accepted as axiomatic, i.e that

one was i n the grip o f t h e identical old aestheticism.
T h e theory of abstract f o r m is for consideration as a discipline o f spatial t h i n k i n g and points to the way o f solving real
problems.

' Author's note. This refers to the Tsentrosoyuz building in Moscow erected to a design
by Le Corbusier. The question by Mordvinov was 'ominous', because this budding
had recently been sharply censured in the press, while it was highly praised by
Alexander Vesnin in an article specially devoted to its architectural merits. Vesnin described it as 'the best building put up in Moscow during the last century'. He wrote
that 'the functional aspect of this design has been treated impeccably', and that a
characteristic feature of this work by Le Corbusier was 'exceptional clarity of architectural thought, neatness in the construction of masses and volumes, purity ofthe
proportions, the clarity of interrelation between all elements, whether through constrast or subtie nuance, thetightnessofthe scale ofthe building as a whole and its
individual parts, its light, yet monumental quality, its architectural unity and strict
simplicity. . . . (Alexander Vesnin, 'Lightness, Harmony, Clarity', Arkhitektura SSR,
1934, No. 12, p. 9)
,^
2 These theses were written by Lissitzky in 1920 and published in De Sttjl (Jnnt,
1922) No V/6. A typescript in German, signed by Lissitzky, which has survived in the
Inkhuk archive, differs somewhat from the published version. Thus, as opposed to the
latter the typescript includes a number of explanatory subtities, such as 'From Painting to' Architecture', the theses are numbered, the penultimate paragraph is missing
from the published text which also contains 'with the aid ofthe elements of all measurements' instead of'by means of elements of 1, 2 and 3 dimensions' etc.
3 This document, which has survived in the Inkhuk archive, may be regarded as
Krinsky's personal statement of faith although it bears no title.

592
Architectural associations of the
direction

new

Working Group of Arcliitects In Inkliuk

Set up i n M a r c l i 1921. Members o f t h e group were Ladovsky,
Alexander E f i m o v , K r i n s k y , Alexander Petrov, Dokuchaev
and M a p u .
Extracts from the 'Programme of the Working Group of Architects',
1921
'(1) T h e W o r k i n g G r o u p of Architects is engaged i n the analysis and synthesis o f the elements o f architecture as means of
expression.
(2) T h e G r o u p considers the chief, basic elements of architecture to be: space, f o r m and construction.
(3) Its secondary elements and means of expression are recognized as: mass, weight, volume, colour, proportions, movement and r h y t h m .

engineers Loleit and K u z m i n . T h e leader o f Asnova was L a -

. Students attending senior courses a

dovsky. Other members included Bolbashevsky, Borisovsky,

estabhshments may only become Candida

Budo, B u n i n , Bykova, Varentsov, V o l o d k o , Gelfeld, Zaless-

Students i n their last year at highe

kaya, K o r z h e v , K r u g l o v a , K r u t i k o v , V i t a l y L a v r o v , Lamtsov,

lishments may become ordinary members

Lissitzky, M e l n i k o v , V i k t o r Petrov, V a l e n t i n Popov, Prokhor-

T h e activities of Asnova are managed

ova, Silchenkov, Spassky, T r a v i n , T u r k u s and others. T h e first

a the general meeting of members,

and only issue of Izvestiya Asnova, edited by Lissitzky and L a -

b the A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o u n c i l ,

dovsky, appeared i n 1926. Ladovsky left Asnova w i t h a group

c the Directorate,

of his fodowers i n 1928, when B a h k h i n became its leader. I t be-

d the A u d i t i n g Commission.

came a sector of M o v a n o i n M a y 1930 and its 'ProgrammaticIdeological Position' was published i n 1931. Asnova was dissolved i n 1932, along w i t h all other groupings.

Extracts from the 'Constitution of Asnova',

nova.
T o conduct its activities, the Architecl

1923

Directorate consisting of: the chairman,

'(1) Asnova pursues the a i m o f u n i t i n g Rationalist architects,

(4) Since the essence o f architectural solutions comes d o w n

and workers of a like m i n d i n the field of architecture and con-

to an ordered sequence of spatial quantities, the p r o b l e m o f t h e

struction, w i t h the intention of raising architecture as an art to

space used by architects as their material is by f a r the most i m -

a level m a t c h i n g the present state o f b o t h technology and sci-

portant of its basic problems, and is therefore subject to investi-

ence. . . .

gation by the W o r k i n g G r o u p first and foremost.

(2) I n accordance w i t h its aims, the a c t i v i t y of Asnova is d i -

(5) Subsequent tasks w i h be: f o r m and construction; a l l the

r e m a i n i n g elements o f architecture w i h f o l l o w later.

. T h e general meeting consists of hoi

candidate members. . . .
T h e A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o u n c i l consists of|

vided i n t o (a) w o r k w i t h i n the Association, where an exchange

of i n f o r m a t i o n and experience takes place t h r o u g h lectures, pa-

(8) T h e psychology o f perception to w h i c h the means o f ar-

pers, debates, seminars, the organization of courses and

chitectural expression u l t i m a t e l y appeal cannot be overlooked

schools etc; (b) w o r k outside the Association: a consultations

i n the Group's research w o r k .

concerning various questions o f architecture, t o w n p l a n n i n g

(9) T h e G r o u p does not lay d o w n as permanent any one

and construction i n general: b the d r a f t i n g o f architectural

and a secretary.'

(Fror

Extracts from the slogans and statements publ;.

nova,1926
' T h e U S S R is the builder of a new way
T h e U S S R is the collector of class ener
classless society.
T h e U S S R also sets new tasks for a n

T h e U S S R represents rationahzed la:

ence and h i g h l y developed technology.

method o f research, on the assumption that - given the f u n d a -

structural designs, estimates, costings etc: c the directing of ar-

Asnova considers that its f o u n d a t i o n ij

mental proposition that the means o f architectural expression

chitectural b u i l d i n g w o r k on site i n accordance w i t h the tasks

ment i n architecture o f t h e principles ol

are, i n essence, means o f affecting i n d i v i d u a l perception - all

f o r m u l a t e d i n para. 1 o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n : d the area of activity

possible methods and their combined use w i h be equally apph-

covers the city o f Moscow. . . .

cable and necessary for the investigation o f t h e means of architecture.'

( I n k h u k archive)

Asnova: Association of New Architects

(4) T h e membership o f Asnova consists of:

a honorary members,

ence.
Asnova considers that i n order to mo'

b ordinary members,

f o r w a r d , the present, strategic moment r

c candidate members.

tive labour on the part of architectura

H o n o r a r y members are elected t h r o u g h secret ballot by a

Asnova gradually came together i n the course o f t h e develop-

Asnova considers i t urgent that a:

armed w i t h the latest equipment and n

h a n d and the l a b o u r i n g masses of const:

General M e e t i n g f r o m individuals w h o may prove useful to

practical w o r k of today w i l l culminate

Asnova by their activities. . . .

tomorrow.

ment o f Z h i v s k u l p t a r k h ( 1 9 1 9 - 2 0 ) , Obmas (1920-23) and the

O n l y those individuals may become o r d i n a r y members who

W o r k i n g G r o u p of Architects i n I n k h u k (1921-23). Its consti-

Asnova, bearing i n m i n d the rate of r

by their ideology and activity support the Rationahst A r c h i -

t u t i o n was registered on 23 J u l y 1923 and its founders were

every passing day confronts the architei

tects and possess a scientific qualification equivalent to a com-

Ladovsky,

cal organisms, considers that i n the exii|

pleted education at higher technical or art college, and suffi-

i m p o r t a n t to establish generally applic

cient practical experience. . . .

tecture and r i d i t of atrophying forms.

Dokuchaev,

Krinsky,

Rukhlyadev,

Alexander

E f i m o v , F i d m a n , M o c h a l o v and B a h k h i n , together w i t h the

593
liitectural associations o f the

Chapter 3/Architectural associations ofthe new direction

new

[litects in lnl<tiul<

engineers Loleit and K u z m i n . T h e leader of Asnova was L a dovsky. O t h e r members included Bolbashevsky, Borisovsky,

921. Members o f t h e group were Ladovsky,

K r i n s k y , Alexander Petrov,

Students attending senior courses at higher educational

estabhshments may only become candidate members. . . .

Budo, B u n i n , Bykova, Varentsov, V o l o d k o , Gelfeld, Zaless-

Students i n their last year at higher educational estab-

Asnova is w o r k i n g on the establishment of a precise and

scientific terminology i n contemporary architecture, as i t considers that this w o u l d offer substantial means for its improve-

Dokuchaev

kaya, K o r z h e v , K r u g l o v a , K r u t i k o v , V i t a l y L a v r o v , Lamtsov,

T h e activities of Asnova are managed b y :

For w h o m is Asnova working?

Architects',

ova, Silchenkov, Spassky, T r a v i n , T u r k u s and others. T h e first

a the general meeting o f members,

Asnova is w o r k i n g f o r the mass w h i c h demands:

and only issue o f Izvestiya Asnova, edited by Lissitzky and L a -

b the A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o u n c i l ,

a standard architecture, on a par w i t h a motorcar or a shoe;

dovsky, appeared i n 1926. Ladovsky left Asnova w i t h a group

c the Directorate,

b more f r o m the habitat t h a n the bare equipment required

3roup of Architects is engaged i n the analy-

of his fodowers i n 1928, when B a l i k h i n became its leader. I t be-

if the elements o f architecture as means of

d the A u d i t i n g Commission.

came a sector o f M o v a n o i n M a y 1930 and its 'Programmatic-

Lissitzky, M e l n i k o v , V i k t o r Petrov, V a l e n t i n Popov, Prokhorogramme ofthe Working Group of

Ideological Position' was published i n 1931. Asnova was dis;onsiders the chief, basic elements o f archif o r m and construction.

solved i n 1932, along w i t h all other groupings.

;nce o f architectural solutions comes d o w n

nee of spatial quantities, the p r o b l e m o f t h e
tects as their material is by f a r the most i m iroblems, and is therefore subject to investii n g G r o u p first and foremost,
isks w i n be: f o r m and construction; all the
of architecture w i d follow later,
gy of perception to w h i c h the means o f arDn u l t i m a t e l y appeal cannot be overlooked
irch w o r k .

1923

'(1) Asnova pursues the a i m of u n i t i n g Rationahst architects,

and workers o f a hke m i n d i n the field of architecture and construction, w i t h the i n t e n t i o n of raising architecture as an art to
a level m a t c h i n g the present state of both technology and science. . . .
(2) I n accordance w i t h its aims, the a c t i v i t y of Asnova is d i vided i n t o (a) w o r k w i t h i n the Association, where an exchange
of i n f o r m a t i o n and experience takes place t h r o u g h lectures, papers, debates, seminars, the organization o f courses and
schools etc; (b) w o r k outside the Association: a consultations
and construction i n general: b the d r a f t i n g of architectural

on the assumption that - given the f u n d a -

structural designs, estimates, costings etc: c the directing of ar-

that the means o f architectural expression

chitectural b u d d i n g w o r k on site i n accordance w i t h the tasks

ns o f affecting i n d i v i d u a l perception - all

f o r m u l a t e d i n para. 1 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n : dtht

d their combined use w i d be equally apph-

covers the city o f Moscow. . . .

for the investigation o f t h e means of archi( I n k h u k archive)

area of activity

(4) T h e membership o f Asnova consists o f

a honorary members,

k h ( 1 9 1 9 - 2 0 ) , Obmas (1920-23) and the

rchitects i n I n k h u k (1921-23). Its consti-

anarchy.
All engineers w h o require technical structures w h i c h come u p
to the level of art.
All builders of all that is new, whose paths cross that of archi-

Extracts from the slogans and statements published in Izvestiya As-

tecture.'

{Izvestiya Asnova, Moscow, 1926, p . 1)

nova, 1926
'The U S S R is the builder of a new way of life.

Extracts from the 'Programmatic-Ideological

T h e U S S R is the collector of class energy for the b u d d i n g of a

classless society.

Asnova

Sector', 1931
'. . . T h e architecture o f t h e epoch of proletarian dictatorship

T h e U S S R also sets new tasks for architecture.

must be a p o w e r f u l productive-economic and cultural-ideolog-

T h e U S S R represents rationahzed labour i n u n i t y w i t h science and h i g h l y developed technology.

ical factor i n the b u d d i n g of socialism.

. . . B y actively revolutionizing and shaping the psychology

Asnova considers that fts f o u n d a t i o n is the material embodiment i n architecture o f t h e principles o f t h e USSR.
Asnova considers i t urgent that architecture

Position ofthe

and ideology o f the proletarian masses, architecture must i n tensify their creative initiative and activity on the p a t h to so-

should be

ciahst construction by creating an environment favourable to

armed w i t h the latest equipment and methods of modern sci-

creative activity. Such a view of architecture obliges one, when

ence.

engaged i n the resolution of concrete tasks of sociahst construction, not to be content to serve the process of p r o d u c t i o n and or-

f o r w a r d , the present, strategic moment requires m u t u a l l y crea-

dinary life by elementary p l a n n i n g i n space, and not to allow

H o n o r a r y members are elected t h r o u g h secret ballot by a

tive labour on the p a r t of architectural producers on the one

material spatial f o r m to serve i n a purely passive way, b u t to

General M e e t i n g f r o m individuals w h o may prove useful to

hand and the l a b o u r i n g masses of consumers on the other. T h e

create - by the f u l l c o n j u n c t i o n of artistic and spatially plastic

Asnova by their activities. . . .

practical w o r k of today w i d culminate i n a theoretical system

qualities and images - a p o w e r f u l organizing stimulus for the

tomorrow.

ideology o f t h e masses. . . .

c candidate members.

me together i n the course o f the develop-

( F r o m Nikolsky's archive)

increasing volume of construction, w h i c h is threatened by

Asnova considers that i n order to move modern architecture

b o r d i n a r y members,
lew Architects

W h o works i n Asnova?
All architects w h o recognize their responsibdity towards the

Directorate consisting o f the chairman, t w o of his colleagues

and a secretary.'

c f r o m architecture, a rational j u s t i f i c a t i o n of its features;

d craftsmanship, not dilettantism.

candidate members. . . .

T o conduct its activities, the A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o u n c elects a

concerning various questions o f architecture, t o w n p l a n n i n g

Iocs not lay d o w n as permanent any one

T h e general meeting consists of honorary, ordinary and

nova.
Extracts from the 'Constitution of Asnova',

ment.

f o r the f u l f i l m e n t of n a t u r a l needs;

T h e A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o u n c i l consists of the members of As-

f elements and means of expression are reweight, volume, colour, proportions, move-

hshments may become ordinary members of Asnova. . . .

O n l y those individuals may become ordinary members who

by their ideology and activity support the Rationahst A r c h i -

Asnova, bearing i n m i n d the rate of modern invention, w h e n

1 on 23 J u l y 1923 and its founders were

tects and possess a scientific quahfication equivalent to a com-

every passing day confronts the architect w i t h new technologi-

set by the reconstruction of p r o d u c t i v i t y and everyday life,

lev,

pleted education at higher technical or art cohege, and suffi-

cal organisms, considers that i n the existing situation i t is most

must provide a dialectical synthesis o f t h e economic, technical,

cient practical experience. . . .

i m p o r t a n t to estabhsh generally applicable principles i n archi-

plastic and ideological factors. . . .

Krinsky,

Rukhlyadev,

Alexander

Dchalov and B a l i k h i n , together w i t h the

tecture and r i d i t of a t r o p h y i n g forms.

Proletarian architecture, when i t is resolving the tasks

594
Part Ill/Masters and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

. . . T h e plastic and ideological expressiveness o f architecture should not be regarded as an external a d d i t i o n , an orna-

gation o f adopting a particular type o f composition as a solu-

Extracts from the statement ofthe Osa group

t i o n based on principle i n each actual case;

to the Administrative

Section ofthe Moscow Soviet,

February 1926

ment or a l u x u r y w h i c h may or m a y not be permissible depend-

(6) d y n a m i s m as a plastic feature, whereby the higher de-

ing on economic circumstances: proletarian architecture must

grees o f ideological expressiveness can be achieved and active

'

be penetrated through and through by plastic and ideological ex-

orientation can be i m p a r t e d to an architectural complex;

i n existence, w i l l unite architects and p r o d u c d o n v

the proposed organization, as distinct f r o m ti

pressiveness i n a l l conditions and i n every concrete situation;

(7) tension as the apex o f plastic activity, to stimulate crea-

w h o m they are linked, on the L e f t F r o n t of archil

its plastic and ideological efiect must be organicady grounded

tive activity and arouse a feeling o f cheerfulness, clarity, assu-

T h e U n i o n proposes to resolve and implement

i n the c o n j u n c t i o n o f the essential parts o f an architectural

rance, strength and j o y ;

whole.

w i t h constructive clarity, logical simphcity and fui|

(8) deliberate asymmetry as a p r i n c i p l e o f composition, on

vance, all the architectural constructional prob

N o quahty is absolute, no model is supreme, and no stand-

the strength o f w h i c h the supreme u n i t y o f a complex o f archi-

f r o m the present dmes, the features o f sociahst co

ard achieves utmost excehence, b u t the highest quahty must be

tectural objects can be achieved i n f u l l accordance w i t h the i m -

the Republic and the general tempo o f t h e country

attained by a perfect organization o f a l l that the architecture

petus and scale o f the processes o f socialist p r o d u c t i o n ;

conveys i n the given concrete conditions and situation.

(9) a deliberate organic synthesis of architecture w i t h figura-

. . . as p a r t o f the resolution o f any concrete task, the class

tive sculpture and p a i n t i n g , aimed at i n t e n s i f y i n g the plastic

ideological f u n c t i o n o f architecture must be organically incor-

and ideological power o f expression of architecture, so as to fill

porated on equal terms i n t o the complex o f conditions deter-

i t w i t h images o f revolutionary struggle and construction.

m i n i n g the architectural f o r m .
The features of proletarian architecture

life.

. . . the U n i o n o f Contemporary Architects pij

elude i n its membership not only professional a|

also individuals closely connected w i t h b u d d i n
and united w i t h us by a c o m m o n ideology

T h e degree of principle and fullness of treatment supplied by

'

{Iz istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury

the set of features enumerated above, together w i t h the clarity,

Dokumenty i materialy, Moscov

novelty, grandeur and w i s d o m o f the compositional approach,

Socialist p l a n n i n g determines the completeness o f t h e dialecti-

determine the fullness and force o f the proletarian architec-

Extract from Osa's statement to the Art

cal synthesis i n terms of economics, technology, plasticity, and

ture's ideological power o f expression.'

Chief Administration for Science,

ideology. I n its t u r n , this synthesis determines the highest de-

[Sovetskaya arkhitektura,

1931-32, Nos. 1-2, pp. 4 6 - 4 7 )

Department,

People's Commissariat for Education, 1926

gree o f integradon o f ah the elements o f proletarian architec'. . . we t h i n k i t necessary to point to the f o d o w i

ture.

differences.

T h e plastic expression o f this general u n i t y is produced by

the f o l l o w i n g considerations:

T h e Moscow A r c h i t e c t u r a l Society includes

Osa: Union of Contemporary Arcliitects

(1) the u n i t y o f plasdc f o r m and productive functions, i.e.

of architects w i t h diverse ideologies and, for d

f o r m r a t i o n a l l y determines the productive or domestic process,

Osa was founded at the end o f 1925, w i t h Alexander Vesnin as

ideology o f modern architecture essendal for t h

organicady corresponds to i t and supports i t psychologically;

chairman, G i n z b u r g and V i k t o r Vesnin as deputy chairmen,

sociahst tasks cannot be f o r m u l a t e d w i t h i n i t

(2) the u n i t y o f t h e plastic features o f f o r m and the techno-

and O r l o v as secretary. T h e membership o f Osa included

clarity.

logical construction f r o m w h i c h the construction gains expres-

Barshch, A n d r e i B u r o v , V e g m a n , L e o n i d Vesnin, V l a d i m i r o v ,

Osa brings together people closely b o u n d by

sion. T h e construction becomes a factor o f a p o w e r f u l class

Gan, I l y a Golosov, N i k o l a i K r a s i l n i k o v , K o m a r o v a , Leonidov,

ogy and conducts collective-theoretical scientif

ideological impact;

Loleit, Nikolsky, Nikolaev, N i k o l a i Sokolov, Sobolev, Fisenko,

practical w o r k on a weh-defined plane i n a stru

Kholostenko, K h i g e r , Y a l o v k i n and others.

ertia and survivals f r o m the past.

(3) the plastic u n i t y o f a l l the elements o f the architectural

ensemble, f r o m i n d i v i d u a l structures to .the complex of a socialist city;
(4) an active plasdc connection between architectural f o r m
and its environment (architecture and n a t u r e ) ;
(5) the organic conformity of the architectural form's plastic
features w i t h the f o r m o f pedestrian traffic passing by and the

T h e periodical Sovremennaya arkhitektura

was pubhshed by

Asnova is the u n i o n of a small group of archit

Osa f r o m 1926 to 1930, w i t h Alexander Vesnin and G i n z b u r g

nite ideology, the essence o f w h i c h is the quest

as editors.
T h e First Osa Conference was held i n A p r i l 1928.

f o r m i n purely aesthetic terms.

Osa collectively resolves, and implements

T h e First Osa Congress was held i n M a y 1929.

new architectural f o r m f u n c t i o n a l l y derived ft

I n 1930, Osa became a sector o f M o v a n o , was reorganized

of a given structure, its materials, construction

nature of i n d i v i d u a l perception of architectural f o r m , as weh as

as Sass Sektor A r k h i t e k t o r o v Sotsialisticheskogo Stroitelstva

uction conditions, and thereby responds to t h

the position and role o f such f o r m w i t h i n the general system o f

(Sector of Architects for Socialist Construction) - and was dis-

set by the socialist development o f t h e countr;

the architectural ensemble concerned. T h i s imposes the obli-

solved i n 1932.

{Iz istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury .

595
aphies, statements, manifestos

;oIogical expressiveness o f architec;d as an external addition, an ornay or may not be permissible dependnces: proletarian architecture must
ough by plastic and ideological exins and i n every concrete situation;
ifFect must be organically grounded
essential parts o f an architectural

Cliapter 3/Architectural associations ofthe new direction

gation o f adopting a particular type o f composition as a solu-

Extracts from the statement of the Osa group

t i o n based on p r i n c i p l e i n each actual case;

to the Administrative

(6) d y n a m i s m as a plastic feature, whereby the higher de-

nce, but the highest q u a l i t y must be

nzation o f a l l that the architecture
;te conditions and situation,
don o f any concrete task, the class
itecture must be organically incoro the complex o f conditions deterrm.
itecture

aomics, technology, plasticity, and

nthesis determines the highest de

orientation can be i m p a r t e d to an architectural complex;

(7) tension as the apex o f plastic activity, to stimulate creative activity and arouse a feeling o f cheerfulness, clarity, assu-

October produced as decisive, as categorical a revolutionary

'. . . the proposed organization, as distinct f r o m those already
i n existence, w i l l unite architects and p r o d u c t i o n workers, w i t h
w h o m they are linked, on the L e f t F r o n t of architecture.

the strength of w h i c h the supreme u n i t y o f a complex o f architectural objects can be achieved i n f u l l accordance w i t h the i m petus and scale o f t h e processes o f socialist p r o d u c t i o n ;
(9) a deliberate organic synthesis of architecture w i t h figura-

w i t h constructive clarity, logical simphcity and f u n c t i o n a l rele-

Once i t had abolished private property, the Revolution

the Republic and the general tempo o f t h e country's productive

w o r k , w o r k on the f o r m u l a t i o n o f new models, new architectu-

life.

ral organisms, new complexes and sets o f buildings, instead o f

and ideological power o f expression of architecture, so as to fill

It w i t h images o f revolutionary struggle and construction.

also individuals closely connected w i t h b u i l d i n g p r o d u c t i o n

and united w i t h us by a c o m m o n ideology. . . .'
{Iz istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury 1926-1932

the set of features enumerated above, together w i t h the clarity,

this general u n i t y is produced by

Osa: Union of Contemporary Arcliitects
r m and productive functions, i.e.
t and supports i t psychologically;
: features o f f o r m and the technoi c h the construction gains express e s a factor o f a p o w e r f u l class

Dokumenty i materialy, Moscow, 1970, p. 68)

uctures to .the complex of a socialiction between architectural f o r m

cture and nature);
o f t h e architectural form's plastic
estrian traffic passing by and the
>n of architectural f o r m , as well as
b r m w i t h i n the general system o f
)ncerned. T h i s imposes the obh-

Chief Administration for

Department,

Science,

T h e periodical Sovremennaya arkhitektura was published by

Osa f r o m 1926 to 1930, w i t h Alexander Vesnin and G i n z b u r g
as editors.
T h e First Osa Conference was held i n A p r d 1928.
T h e First Osa Congress was held i n M a y 1929.
I n 1930, Osa became a sector o f M o v a n o , was reorganized
as Sass - Sektor A r k h i t e k t o r o v Sotsialisticheskogo Stroitelstva
(Sector of Architects for Socialist Construction) - and was dissolved i n 1932.

w h i l e the generally positive and creative trends i n t r o -

duced by October brought f o r t h the idea o f Constructivism as

the ornamental and decorative varieties o f old art.
T h e first phase i n the development of architectural C o n -

'. . . we t h i n k i t necessary to point to the f o l l o w i n g substantial

October culture as a whole. Its cutting edge was set to the

differences.

struggle against layers o f inertia and atavism, and to the de-

T h e Moscow A r c h i t e c t u r a l Society includes a large number

sociahst tasks cannot be f o r m u l a t e d w i t h i n i t w i t h sufficient

Kholostenko, K h i g e r , Y a l o v k i n and others.

tiements,

structivism was negative, i n hne w i t h the i n i t i a l stage o f post-

chairman, G i n z b u r g and V i k t o r Vesnin as deputy chairmen,

G a n , I l y a Golosov, N i k o l a i K r a s i l n i k o v , K o m a r o v a , Leonidov,

T h e a b o l i t i o n of private ownership of l a n d provided the w i d -

People's Commissariat for Education, 1926

ideology o f modern architecture essential for the expression o f

Barshch, A n d r e i B u r o v , V e g m a n , L e o n i d Vesnin, V l a d i m i r o v ,

tionary customer.

an idea o f hfe-building and life-organizing labour, i n place o f

Extract from Osa's statement to the Art

Osa was founded at the end o f 1925, w i t h Alexander Vesnin as

Loleit, Nikolsky, Nikolaev, N i k o l a i Sokolov, Sobolev, Fisenko,'

the elements o f the architectural

gg.

of architects w i t h diverse ideologies and, for this reason, the

and O r l o v as secretary. T h e membership o f Osa included

the n a r r o w l y i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c tasks dictated by the pre-Revolu-

est possible opportunities for the new p l a n n i n g of cities and set-

determine the fudness and force o f the proletarian architec1931-32, Nos. 1-2, pp. 4 6 - 4 7 )

ciples o f pre-Revolutionary architecture.

threw open to Soviet architects prospects of grandiose planned

clude i n its membership not only professional architects, b u t

[Sovetskqya arkhitektura,

was destined to demohsh by its very nature the outdated p r i n -

f r o m the present times, the features of sociahst construction i n

tive sculpture and p a i n t i n g , aimed at i n t e n s i f y i n g the plastic

ture's ideological power o f expression.'

T h e October Revolution embodied the significance of a new

vance, a l l the architectural constructional problems arising

. . . the U n i o n of Contemporary Architects proposes to i n -

T h e degree of principle and fullness of treatment supphed by

change as i n architecture.
historical phenomenon o f unprecedented sweep and scale and

T h e U n i o n proposes to resolve and implement collectively,

rance, strength and j o y ;

; elements o f proletarian architec-

.le productive or domestic process,

'There is no other field o f artistic labour i n w h i c h the events o f

February 1926

novelty, grandeur and w i s d o m o f the compositional approach,'

es the completeness o f t h e dialecti-

Section of the Moscow Soviet,

grees o f ideological expressiveness can be achieved and active

(8) deliberate asymmetry as a p r i n c i p l e o f composition, on

IO model is supreme, and no stand-

Editorial on The Tenth Anniversary of October', 1927

struction o f surviving traditions, whose tendrils were greedily

grasping at the shoots o f innovative thought.
T h e second, positive phase o f Constructivism - i n parallel
w i t h the economic g r o w t h of the Soviet U n i o n and the constructive phase o f our entire national economy - has already

clarity.
Osa brings together people closely b o u n d by a single ideology and conducts collective-theoretical scientific research and
practical work on a wed-defined plane i n a struggle against i n ertia and survivals f r o m the past.
Asnova is the u n i o n of a small group of architects w i t h a definite ideology, the essence o f w h i c h is the quest for an abstract
f o r m i n purely aesthetic terms.
Osa collectively resolves, and implements i n practice, the
new architectural f o r m f u n c t i o n a l l y derived f r o m the purpose
of a given structure, its materials, construction and other p r o d uction conditions, and thereby responds to the concrete tasks
set by the socialist development o f t h e country.'
{Iz istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury . . ., op. cit., p. 69)

clearly left its mark on the movement's creative activity, by

c l a r i f y i n g f o r i t the purposive involvement of the Soviet architect in the
establishment

of the social condensers of our era, an involvement

w h i c h sets our Constructivism apart f r o m a l l Leftist trends and

groupings i n Western Europe and A m e r i c a .
f n step w i t h the sweeping increase i n the rate of construction
work i n the Soviet U n i o n , Constructivism is opening up for itself,
on the tenth anniversary of October, prospects o f strenuous
work i n connection w i t h the creation of a high level of new architectural culture on the basis of this socio-public purposefulness, covering i n
equal measure questions o f art and questions o f u t i l i t a r i a n
technology, so as to solve them monistically, by the total fusion of
new content and new form. T h i s tenth anniversary must become

Part Ill/Masters and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

the date m a r k i n g the complete l i q u i d a t i o n of pre-Revolutionary

account being taken of the USSR's special economic features.

ments of kinship between our w o r k and the area o f activity o f l

eclecticism and retrospectivism, the date o f t h e intensive devel-

I n matters o f f o r m , we equally categorically reject:

most progressive architects of the West i n w h i c h the high

opment o f genuinely new construction w h i c h w i l l make use of

(1) the ignorant attitude o f builders and engineers alien to

achievements of w o r l d science and technology have taken

all the grandiose opportunities that the October Revolution offers i t . '

{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1927, N o s . 4 - 5 , p. 111)

Extracts from the resolutions concerning the reports

questions o f t h e socially artistic q u a l i t y o f architecture;

feet, and our complete divergence w i t h regard to the purposive i

(2) the u n p r i n c i p l e d eclecticism o f t h e "decorators" of archi-

proach of our architecture, a divergence w h i c h manifests m

tecture, who clothe every k i n d of architectural social content i n

vividly the whole difference between the bourgeois social str

the garb of ready-made styles f r o m the past;

ture o f t h e capitalist West and the new social relationships i

(3) abstract forays i n t o new f o r m divorced f r o m the social

of the Ideological Section adopted at the First Osa Conference,

April 1928

purpose of architecture and any realistic means o f execution;

' T h e First Conference of the U n i o n of Contemporary A r c h i -

look on the w o r l d by means o f decorative architectural f o r m ;

proletarian country engaged i n b u i l d i n g sociahsm.'

{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1928, N o . 3, p .

(4) naive dilettantism seeking to refiect one or another outResolution concerning the report ofthe Osa Section for the Plannini

tects stresses its complete u n a n i m i t y and adopts the ideological

(5) w o r k i n the so-cahed "new style", using the elements of

position and p r o d u c t i o n programme of Constructivism i n ar-

the new architecture as means of " c o n t e m p o r i z i n g " and p r e t t i -

'The First Conference of the U n i o n of Contemporary A r

chitecture.

f y i n g essentially outdated structures.

tects takes note o f t h e imperative need in connection with the de

Housing, 1928

. . . Constructivism evolves methodological ways and means

W e set against ah this the organic g r o w t h of Soviet architec-

and construction of new housing to change f r o m i n d i v i d u a l flat

of social-artistic labour, and creates new manifestations of i t to

ture, w h i c h arises f r o m the specific features peculiar to the new

new c o m m u n a l dwelhngs w i t h a clear d i s t r i b u t i o n of indij

counter aspects of idealistic art surviving f r o m the past and

social model and the technically perfected methods of b u i l d i n g

prevaihng even now.

production.

. . . we, as Constructivists, contrast the passive execution of

W e resolve questions concerned w i t h the effect - ideological,

a commission on the basis of old pre-October types of architec-

emotional etc - u p o n the user, not by the a d d i t i o n of decorative

ture w i t h the study o f the socially domestic and productive

elements, but b y :

m u t u a l reladonships of the post-October era, and of their ac-

(1) the very system governing the structuring o f t h e new so-

tive embodiment i n a series of new types o f architecture on the

cial model, the clarity of the articulation of social domestic

basis o f comprehensively planned sociahst construction.

functions o f various kinds and the general sense o f purpose of

W e set the new type o f c o m m u n a l dwelling, the new type o f

the entire architectural organism;

club. Palace of L a b o u r , Executive Committee b u d d i n g , factory

(2) the highest standard of q u a l i t y of all elements and struc-

etc, w h i c h are to become the conductors and condensers of so-

t u r a l parts w i t h o u t any exception, as required by their social

cialist culture, against the pre-Revoludonary types of the " i n -

and technical purposes;

ual and communahzed functions, aimed at the greatest pc

ble communahzation and collectivization of the processf
everyday life.
I n the course of this w o r k , the new architect must take c
account o f t h e need to raise the social quahty o f t h e housinf

tended to promote the organization and progress of the j

way of live, b u t also o f t h e need for the lowest possible co
housing, its f u r t h e r reduction by all avadable means, anc
improvement of its efficiency.
I n terms o f t h e p l a n n i n g o f populated areas, we set ag;

the chaotic, r a n d o m b u i l d i n g w o r k i n cities, and against th,

of p l a n n i n g i n accordance w i t h predetermined schemes

vestment p r o p e r t y " , the private house, the " N o b l e Assembly"

(3) the employment of all the specific features of various ele-

b u i l d i n g etc, w h i c h resulted f r o m pre-Revolutionary social,

ments of architecture, such as plane, volume, spatial relation-

economic and technological conditions, but serve to this day as

ship, scale, texture, light etc, w h i l e treating one or other of their

a basis for the architecture that is being erected i n the USSR.

properties, not as a self-sufficient abstract value, b u t as a con-

Against the passive use of old, archaic materials, structures

tinuously variable q u a n t i t y , resolved anew i n each case, de-

ment. W e contemplate the p l a n n i n g o f a new city only b)

and methods of construction, w h i c h arose i n the circumstances

pending on one or other of the conditions governing the aim,

ing account o f ah the factors bearing on a city's characte:

of a socio-economic system that is now defunct i n our terms;

purpose and concrete possibilities o f execution involved.

role, o f t h e c o m m i t m e n t to the sociahst reconstruction c

rived f r o m a graphic starting point, or f r o m long since outd

ways of life, the thorough study of a city's functions, not m
static condition, b u t i n terms of a city i n m o t i o n , i n its dial,
taking account of its m a x i m u m possibihties of f u r t h e r dev

w h i c h were the heritage of our pre-Revoludonary destitution

Against the w o r k by architects i n the N a t i o n a l Repubhcs of

and inertia and w h i c h now hamper the rate and q u a l i t y o f the

the Soviet U n i o n w h i c h amounts to resurrecting the national

that w d l ensure elasticity and the possibihty o f t h e most

new socialist culture's g r o w t h , we set the determined conquest

styles o f t h e o l d bourgeois culture, we advance w o r k that is d i -

less changes i n p l a n n i n g b o t h o f t h e city as a whole and ol

o f our backwardness; the active and scientific acquisition of all

rected at creating a socially new architecture, taking account of

the achievements of w o r l d w i d e technology i n the field of the la-

the national habits of life, and climatic, technical and economic conditions

vidual buildings.'
{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

test materials, structures, mechanization and standardization

in the individual republics, on the basis of a radical transformation

of b u i l d i n g p r o d u c t i o n ; and the planned i n t r o d u c t i o n o f all

of social class relationships.

these achievements i n t o our everyday b u i l d i n g practice, due

As to questions of new architecture i n the West, we note ele-

country and of w o r k on the selection of materials and struc

1928, N o . 4, p

597
Chapter 3/Architectural associations ofthe new direction

ds: biographies, statements, manifestos

; complete l i q u i d a t i o n of pre-Revolutionary

account being taken o f t h e USSR's special economic features.

ments of kinship between our w o r k and the area o f activity o f t h e

Dspectivism, the date of the intensive devel-

I n matters o f f o r m , we equally categorically reject:

most progressive architects o f the West i n w h i c h the highest

y new construction w h i c h w i l l make use o f

(1) the ignorant attitude o f builders and engineers alien to

achievements o f w o r l d science and technology have taken ef-

portunities that the October Revolution oflennaja arkhitektura,

1927, Nos.45, p. I l l )

utions concerning the reports

on adopted at the First Osa Conference,

a Creative-methodological;

(2) the u n p r i n c i p l e d eclecticism of the "decorators" of archi-

proach o f our architecture, a divergence w h i c h manifests most

b Design;

tecture, w h o clothe every k i n d of architectural social content i n

v i v i d l y the whole difference between the bourgeois social struc-

c Constructional-technological;

the garb o f ready-made styles f r o m the past;

ture o f t h e capitalist West and the new social relationships i n a

d Sociahst settlement.

(3) abstract forays i n t o new f o r m divorced f r o m the social

proletarian country engaged i n b u i l d i n g sociahsm.'

{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

1928, N o . 3, p. 78)

look on the w o r l d by means o f decorative architectural f o r m ;

plete u n a n i m i t y and adopts the ideological

(5) w o r k i n the so-called "new style", using the elements of

;tion programme o f Constructivism i n ar-

the new architecture as means of " c o n t e m p o r i z i n g " and p r e t t i f y i n g essentially outdated structures.

tn evolves methodological ways and means

W e set against a l l this the organic g r o w t h o f Soviet architec-

)ur, and creates new manifestations of i t to

ture, w h i c h arises f r o m the specific features peculiar to the new

dealistic art surviving f r o m the past and

social model and the technically perfected methods of b u d d i n g

production.

of the socially domestic and productive

W e resolve questions concerned w i t h the effect - ideological,

emotional etc - u p o n the user, not b y the a d d i t i o n of decorative
elements, but b y :

s o f the post-October era, and o f their ac-

(1) the very system governing the s t r u c t u r i n g o f t h e new so-

a series of new types of architecture on the

cial model, the clarity o f the a r t i c u l a t i o n o f social domestic

ively planned sociahst construction,

functions o f various kinds and the general sense o f purpose of

pe o f c o m m u n a l dwehing, the new type o f

the entire architectural organism;

basis of old pre-October types of architec-

ar, Executive Committee b u i l d i n g , factory

(2) the highest standard of quahty of all elements and struc-

ome the conductors and condensers o f so-

t u r a l parts w i t h o u t any exception, as required by their social

st the pre-Revolutionary types o f t h e " i n -

and technical purposes;

the private house, the " N o b l e A s s e m b l y "

(3) the employment of all the specific features of various ele-

resulted f r o m pre-Revolutionary social,

ments o f architecture, such as plane, volume, spatial relation-

)logical conditions, but serve to this day as

ship, scale, texture, hght etc, w h i l e treating one or other of their

ecture that is being erected i n the USSR,

properties, not as a self-sufficient abstract value, but as a con-

'e use o f old, archaic materials, structures

tinuously variable q u a n t i t y , resolved anew i n each case, de-

x u c t i o n , w h i c h arose i n the circumstances

pending on one or other o f the conditions governing the aim,

system that is now defunct i n our terms;

purpose and concrete possibdities o f execution involved.

;age o f our pre-Revolutionary destitution

Against the w o r k by architects i n the N a t i o n a l Repubhcs of

h n o w hamper the rate and quahty o f t h e

the Soviet U n i o n w h i c h amounts to resurrecting the national

s g r o w t h , we set the determined conquest

styles o f the o l d bourgeois culture, we advance w o r k that is d i -

; the active and scientific acquisition of ad

rected at creating a socially new architecture, taking account of

vorldwide technology i n the field of the la-

the national habits of life, and climatic, technical and economic conditions

ures, mechanization and standardization

in the individual republics, on the basis of a radical transformation

on; and the planned i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a l l

of social class relationships.

nto our everyday b u i l d i n g practice, due

As to questions o f new architecture i n the West, we note ele-

T h e six years d u r i n g w h i c h Osa has been i n existence have

tested the v i a b i h t y o f these slogans and shown w h a t was correct, and w h a t was incorrect i n them. . . .

(4) naive dilettantism seeking to reflect one or another out-

uctivists, contrast the passive execution o f

'. . . (2) T h e Osa slogans were directed along f o u r lines:

fect, and our complete divergence w i t h regard to the purposive ap-

questions o f the socially artistic q u a l i t y o f architecture;

purpose o f architecture and any realistic means o f execution;

ice o f the U n i o n o f Contemporary A r c h i -

Extracts from the Sass theses A t a N e w Stage, 1931

Resolution concerning the report ofthe Osa Section for the Planning of

(4) I t is however as clear to Osa as ever that an architectural

construction must result from the study o f t h e processes of eve-

Housing, 1928
' T h e First Conference o f the U n i o n o f Contemporary A r c h i tects takes note o f t h e imperative need in connection with the design
and construction of new housing to change from i n d i v i d u a l flats to
new c o m m u n a l dweflings w i t h a clear d i s t r i b u t i o n o f i n d i v i d ual and communahzed functions, aimed at the greatest possible communahzation and coflectivization o f the processes o f
everyday life.
I n the course o f this w o r k , the new architect must take close
account o f t h e need to raise the social q u a l i t y o f t h e housing i n tended to promote the organization and progress o f the new
way o f live, b u t also o f t h e need for the lowest possible cost o f
housing, its f u r t h e r reduction by afl avadable means, and the
improvement o f its efficiency.
I n terms o f t h e p l a n n i n g o f populated areas, we set against
the chaotic, r a n d o m b u i l d i n g w o r k i n cities, and against the act
of p l a n n i n g i n accordance w i t h predetermined schemes derived f r o m a graphic starting p o i n t , or f r o m long since outdated
ways of life, the t h o r o u g h study of a city's functions, not i n their
static condition, b u t i n terms of a city i n m o t i o n , i n its dialectic,
taking account of its m a x i m u m possibdities of f u r t h e r development. W e contemplate the p l a n n i n g o f a new city only by tak-

ryday life; social and p r o d u c t i o n processes; the technological

and static properties o f b u i l d i n g materials; the means of b u i l d i n g p r o d u c t i o n i n the context of the economy o f t h e reconstruct i o n p e r i o d ; and the sociahst reorganization of p r o d u c t i o n and
the way o f hfe i n the given economy.
T h e new content of architecture must derive f r o m and be determined b y the socialist reorganization of p r o d u c t i o n , culture
and the way of life. T h e new f o r m of architecture, being the outcome o f t h e spatial reorganization o f social processes, must derive f r o m and be determined by a switch f r o m the existing
method o f b u i l d i n g to a standardization and t y p i f i c a t i o n o f
buildings w h i c h w o u l d make i t possible to go over f r o m seasonal construction w o r k to mechanized

assembly

a l l year

round. . . .
(5) Osa considers that the slogan o f t h e Party and w o r k i n g
class: " T o catch up w i t h and overtake i n a technological-econ o m i c respect the leading capitahst countries" can only be f u l filled given the greatest possible use of engineering i n architecture and the provision o f a modern scientific technological basis f o r the latter. . . .
(6) Osa is against the view o f architecture as " a n art o f i m -

i n g account o f all the factors bearing on a city's character and

ages" propagated by V o p r a and A K h R ; Osa is for architecture

role, o f the c o m m i t m e n t to the socialist reconstruction o f the

as organized scientific activity. . . .

country and of w o r k on the selection of materials and structures

(8) I n the field o f architectural design, Osa has fought, on

that w d l ensure elasticity and the possibdity o f the most pain-

the basis o f the F u n c t i o n a l M e t h o d , for socially new types o f

less changes i n p l a n n i n g both o f t h e city as a whole and of i n d i -

buildings, for new economic principles governing design i n a f l

v i d u a l buildings.'
{Sovremennaya arkhitektura,

aspects of b u i l d i n g w o r k and for the most r a p i d possible recon1928, N o . 4, p . 123)

struction o f t h e way o f life i n accordance w i t h sociahst p r i n c i ples:

a for an economic d w e l l i n g corresponding to the new socialist
conditions and forms o f labour, leisure and everyday life;

rt Ill/Masters and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

b for new p u b l i c buildings m a x i m a l l y conducive to the organization and intensification o f the activity o f the l a b o u r i n g
masses and their level o f culture;
c for a socialist type of i n d u s t r i a l b u i l d i n g that w i l l provide the
workers w i t h the m a x i m u m facilities i n both p r o d u c t i o n and
sanitary respects, and the proletariat w i t h the m a x i m u m
scope for creativity, initiative and self-help;
d for the sociahst p l a n n i n g of population settiement on the basis o f M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t theory.
(14) Osa, w h i c h regards questions o f socialist settiement as
f u n d a m e n t a l i n the conditions o f t h e reconstruction period, advances the f o h o w i n g propositions.
D u r i n g the pre-reconstruction period, when i t was a matter
of re-estabhshing the wrecked economy, i t was obviously not
possible to raise questions concerning a new location for industry, or sociahst settiement, or socialist aspects o f economy and
service i n general . . .
(15) the reconstruction period set entirely new tasks to the
architect intent on fighting for the b u d d i n g o f sociahsm.
T h e task had now become no less than the creation of an integrated
system of socialist settlement which would contribute to the greatest possible development of the productive forces of society - to the building of socialism . . .

A f u l l y developed system o f socialist settlement implies the

creation and f u l l operation of the entire system of network services . . .

first task of sociahst settiement w i d be a drive for the complete

ehmination o f i n d i v i d u a l private domestic arrangements and
servicing, as being the most backward and p r i m i t i v e - and
hence an unproductive waste o f h u m a n energy.
T h e socialist dwelling may remain an i n d i v i d u a l dwelling,
but i t must not represent an individual domestic economy.'
(Sovetskaya arkhitektura,

1931, Nos. 1-2, pp. 97-101)

b
c
d
e
f

communications network - post, telegraph and radio;

network o f dwellings;
food supply network;
pubhc health network;
sewage network;

g consumer goods d i s t r i b u t i o n network;

h socialist education network - childrens' and pre-school services;
i network o f polytechnlcal eduaction;
j c u l t u r a l and socio-political service network;
k physical t r a i n i n g and tourist service network;
1 medical service network - surgeries, hospitals, sanatoriums
and spas.

velopment i n our country is beginning to have an increasing

effect on the growth of towns.
T h e essential characteristic d e t e r m i n i n g the character o f t h e
modern t o w n is the intensive growth of its dynamism.

. ..

(2) T h e basic features of a town in the socialist system, w h i c h differentiate i t f r o m the theoretical and practical conceptions
chiefly current i n the West, derive f r o m the determination to
destroy all social inequality w i t h i n the p o p u l a t i o n ; the s i m p l i f i cation and u l t i m a t e w i t h e r i n g away o f the class structure of society; the nationalization o f land and the e l i m i n a t i o n i n this
connection o f l a n d rents and opportunities for speculation i n

ARU: Union of Arcliitect-Planners

land, a l l o f w h i c h t h r o w open a broad p a t h to the rational replanning and development o f existing towns. . . .

T h e first organizational meeting of A R U at w h i c h i t adopted its

First Declaration, was held on 7 November 1928, w i t h L a dovsky as chairman, plus F r i d m a n , G r i n b e r g and Glushchenko. W h e n pubhshed, the Declaration listed as founders o f
ARU:

Ladovsky, F r i d m a n , Zazersky, V i t a l y L a v r o v , Glush-

chenko, G r i n b e r g , K r u t i k o v , Sergei L o p a t i n , Saishnikov, Sathe economist Z h m u d s k y . Other members o f A R U were: Barutchev, Gilter, G r i n s h p u n , l o s i f D l u g a c h , Evgeny lokheles,
K a l m y k o v , K a p l u n , Meerzon, Osipov, V a l e n t i n Popov, R u -

(38) a l l aspects o f economic and c u l t u r a l supply must, o f

course, be included i n the system o f p u b l i c service networks
w i t h m an area. T h e f o l l o w i n g are essential:
a road and transport network;

1928

' (1) T h e general rate of socialist construction and economic de(48) I n ad these links o f the habitat system, the basic and

k u h n , the p u b l i c health physicians Nekrasov and K o v a l e v , and

(36) the basic feature o f t h e sociahst economic servicing o f
dwellings is the network, district, non-domestic character o f such
service . . .

Extracts from the First Declaration of ARU,

banchik, Alexander Shevtsov and others.

A c c o r d i n g to the A R U C o n s t i t u t i o n , members o f t h e group

(3) I n connection w i t h this, i t has now become necessary to

pay particular attention to the architectural side of new construction and development.
. . . M o d e r n m a n is consistently obliged to operate w i t h i n an
architectural environment. T h e architectural structures o f a
city, quite freely perceived, w i l l have a direct impact on the
feelings o f a "consumer" o f architecture and call f o r t h specific
perceptions o f the surrounding w o r l d by their aspect and
forms. The Soviet State, which puts planned regulation first among its
activities, must use such architecture as a powerful means for

organizing

the psyche of the masses.

A definite direction must be i m p a r t e d to the impact of archi-

had to have a higher education course i n architecture or con-

tectural objects f r o m the very start i n p l a n n i n g inhabited local-

struction to their credit. A temporary Presidium of A R U , w i t h

ities.

Ladovsky as chairman and V i t a l y L a v r o v as secretary' was

(4) Architecture, understood as a single spatial c o n t i n u u m ,

f o r m e d i n December 1928, and 'Rules for C o n d u c t i n g W o r k i n

must resolve not merely the task of designing i n d i v i d u a l struc-

A R U on the D r a f t i n g of Commissioned Designs and Participa-

tures, b u t connect a l l groups o f structures i n t o a single spatial

tion i n Paid and U n p a i d Competitions' - w h i c h provided,

system w i t h i n w h i c h the i n d i v i d u a l structures represent no

among a l l else, for internal competitions to develop design

more t h a n parts of a more general architectural entity. Such an

ideas - were also d r a w n up then. T h e Permanent Directorate of

interpretation o f t o w n p l a n n i n g provides the only reliable

A R U was elected i n October 1929 w i t h Ladovsky as chairman,

starting point for dealing w i t h architectural tasks as systems

and F r i d m a n and Zazersky, as well as V i t a l y L a v r o v f r o m

designed to produce a psychological and ideological impact on

A p r d 1930 onwards, as his deputies. F r o m August 1930, A R U

the social u n i t y o f a city. These considerations make i t neces-

became a sector o f M o v a n o . T h e Second Declaration o f A R U

sary, when d e f i n i n g a particular architectural task for the de-

was adopted and pubhshed i n 1931. There was also an A R U

sign of an i n d i v i d u a l structure, first to resolve the more general

group i n L e n i n g r a d . A l o n g w i t h all other groupings, A R U was

task of architecturally systematizing

dissolved i n 1932.

the urban entity.

(5) . . . The Union of Architect-Planners

(ARU) sets itself the task

Chapter 3/Architectural associations of the new direction

s: biographies, statements, manifestos

Idings m a x i m a l l y conducive to the organi-

A f u l l y developed system o f socialist settlement implies the

ification o f the activity o f the l a b o u r i n g

creation and f u l l operation of the entire system of network serv-

evel o f culture;

ices . . .

of industrial b u i l d i n g that w i l l provide the

(48) I n a l l these links o f the habitat system, the basic and

l a x i m u m facilities i n both p r o d u c t i o n and

first task o f socialist settlement w i l l be a drive for the complete

and the proletariat w i t h the m a x i m u m

elimination o f i n d i v i d u a l private domestic arrangements and

initiative and self-help;

servicing, as being the most backward and p r i m i t i v e - and

inning of population settlement on the balinist theory. . . .

hence an unproductive waste o f h u m a n energy.

T h e socialist dwelling may remain an i n d i v i d u a l dwelling,

egards questions o f socialist settlement as

b u t i t must not represent an individual domestic economy.'

auditions o f t h e reconstruction period, ad-

{Sovetskaya arkhitektura,

1931, Nos. 1-2, p p . 97-101)

propositions.

of stimulating social concern for the problems of planning cities.

Extracts from the First Declaration of ARU, 1928

' (1) T h e general rate of socialist construction and economic de-

ing i n i t i a l questions for comprehensive theoretical and practi-

velopment i n our country is beginning to have an increasing

cal study:
a the p l a n n i n g and architectural design o f cities as a social

efiect on the growth of towns.

T h e essential characteristic determining the character o f t h e
modern t o w n is the intensive growth of its dynamism.

(2) T h e basic features offltown in the socialist system, w h i c h differentiate i t f r o m the theoretical and practical conceptions
chiefly current i n the West, derive from the determination to
destroy a l l social inequality w i t h i n the p o p u l a t i o n ; the s i m p l i f i -

;onstruction period, when i t was a matter

ciety; the nationalization o f l a n d and the e l i m i n a t i o n i n this

I wrecked economy, i t was obviously not

connection o f l a n d rents and opportunities for speculation i n

ARU: Union of Architect-Planners

ment, or socialist aspects o f economy and

land, a l l o f w h i c h t h r o w open a broad p a t h to the rational rep l a n n i n g and development o f existing towns. . . .

T h e first organizational meeting of A R U at w h i c h i t adopted its

(3) I n connection w i t h this, i t has now become necessary to

ction period set entirely new tasks to the

First Declaration, was held on 7 November 1928, w i t h L a -

pay particular attention to the architectural side of new construc-

ghting for the b u i l d i n g o f socialism. . . .

dovsky as chairman, plus F r i d m a n , G r i n b e r g and Glushchen-

tion and development.

become 7io less than the creation of an integrated

ko. W h e n published, the Declaration listed as founders o f

lent which would contribute to the

ARU:

greatestpossi-

architectural environment. T h e architectural structures o f a

chenko, G r i n b e r g , K r u t i k o v , Sergei L o p a t i n , Saishnikov, Sa-

city, quite freely perceived, w d l have a direct impact on the

k u l i n , the p u b l i c health physicians Nekrasov and K o v a l e v , and

feelings o f a "consumer" o f architecture and cad f o r t h specific

ure o f the socialist economic servicing o f

the economist Z h m u d s k y . O t h e r members o f A R U were: Ba-

perceptions o f the surrounding w o r l d by their aspect and

ork, district, non-domestic character o f such

rutchev, Gilter, G r i n s h p u n , l o s i f D l u g a c h , Evgeny lokheles,

forms. The Soviet State, which puts planned regulation first among its

K a l m y k o v , K a p l u n , Meerzon, Osipov, V a l e n t i n Popov, R u -

activities, must use such architecture as a powerful means for

' economic and c u l t u r a l supply must, o f

banchik, Alexander Shevtsov and others.

the psyche of the masses.

in the system o f public service networks

A c c o r d i n g to the A R U C o n s t i t u t i o n , members o f t h e group

following are essential:

had to have a higher education course i n architecture or con-

t network;

struction to their credit. A temporary Presidium of A R U , w i t h

etwork post, telegraph and radio;

Ladovsky as c h a i r m a n and V i t a l y L a v r o v as secretary, was

gs;
rk;

f o r m e d i n December 1928, and 'Rules for C o n d u c t i n g W o r k i n

ork;

t i o n i n Paid and U n p a i d Competitions' w h i c h provided,

A R U on the D r a f t i n g of Commissioned Designs and Participaamong a l l else, for i n t e r n a l competitions to develop design

stribution network;

ideas - were also d r a w n up then. T h e Permanent Directorate of

network - childrens' and pre-school serv-

A R U was elected i n October 1929 w i t h Ladovsky as chairman,

and F r i d m a n and Zazersky, as well as V i t a l y L a v r o v f r o m

mical eduaction;

A p r d 1930 onwards, as his deputies. F r o m August 1930, A R U

j o l i t i c a l service network;

became a sector o f M o v a n o . T h e Second Declaration o f A R U

nd tourist service network;

was adopted and published i n 1931. There was also an A R U

work - surgeries, hospitals, sanatoriums

group i n L e n i n g r a d . A l o n g w i t h all other groupings, A R U was

dissolved i n 1932.

organizational f o r m of b r i n g i n g architecture to life, i n connection w i t h the elaboration of modern principles for the
regulation o f f o r m i n architectural p l a n n i n g ;
c the general concept o f t h e spatial design o f a city and its l i n kage w i t h the architecture o f i n d i v i d u a l structures;
d the need to create a speciahzed higher educational estabhshment for the study o f t h e entire body o f questions connected
w i t h t o w n p l a n n i n g , and a comprehensive statement o f a i m
for the organization o f a city i n a socialist system;
e the development and organization of existing courses concerned w i t h t o w n p l a n n i n g i n specialized higher educational
estabhshments and the i n t r o d u c t i o n of a course on u r b a n i s m
i n non-speciahst establishments;

M o d e r n m a n is consistently obliged to operate w i t h i n an

Ladovsky, F r i d m a n , Zazersky, V i t a l y L a v r o v , Glush-

'oductive forces of society to the building of so-

and psychological factor i n the education o f t h e masses;

b the p l a n n i n g and architectural design of cities as the p r i m e

...

cation and u l t i m a t e w i t h e r i n g away o f t h e class structure of so-

tions concerning a new location for indus-

...

(6) . . . A R U considers i t essential to put f o r w a r d the follow-

f the creation of a special organ for the statement and f o r m u l a tion of theoretical problems and for i n f o r m a t i o n concerning
practical t o w n - p l a n n i n g w o r k i n the USSR, Western Europe
and A m e r i c a . '
{Arkhitektura

i Vkhutein [Architecture and Vkhutein],

First Issue, J a n u a r y 1929, p. 8)

organizing

A definite direction must be i m p a r t e d to the i m p a c t of architectural objects f r o m the very start i n p l a n n i n g inhabited localities.

Extracts from the Second Declaration of ARU,

1931

'(1) . . . I n the conditions o f sociahst construction, the work ot

(4) Architecture, understood as a single spatial c o n t i n u u m ,

architectural organizations w h i c h treat i n d i v i d u a l structures

must resolve not merely the task o f designing i n d i v i d u a l struc-

as parts of a whole is appropriate. A R U is the first architectural

tures, but connect a l l groups of structures i n t o a single spatial

u n i o n organized i n accordance w i t h this principle.

system w i t h i n w h i c h the i n d i v i d u a l structures represent no

(2) . . . T h e correct resolution of modern tasks o f sociahst

more than parts of a more general architectural entity. Such an

settiement can be achieved on the basis o f t h e scientific study o f

interpretation o f t o w n p l a n n i n g provides the only rehable

questions connected w i t h u r b a n construction.

starting point for deahng w i t h architectural tasks as systems

(4) A R U regards t o w n p l a n n i n g as a scientific discipline the

designed to produce a psychological and ideological i m p a c t on

aim of w h i c h is to discover the general rules governing the or-

the social u n i t y o f a city. These considerations make i t neces-

ganization o f h u m a n settlements i n the diff'erent forms and de-

sary, when d e f i n i n g a particular architectural task for the de-

velopments they adopt, and to establish laws on the strength o f

sign o f an i n d i v i d u a l structure, first to resolve the more general

w h i c h planned forecasting o f t h e processes leading to thefr for-

task of architecturally systematizing the urban entity.

(5) . . . The Union of Architect-Planners (ARU) sets itsef the task

m a t i o n w o u l d become possible, and the r a n d o m nature of this

rt Ill/Masters and trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

process w o u l d be overcome, 1. e. i t w o u l d be switched to the

rads o f socialist p l a n n i n g .

quence, first place must be given to the social h u m a n being i n

Extracts from the Vopra Declaration, 1929

his f u l l , modern, class concreteness. One may provisionally d i f

. . . A d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e paths o f development o f sociahst settiement

must be based on a dialectic consideration o f the fac-

tors acting as town-generating principles, while d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g

between these factors i n the light o f conditions operating at
each particular place and time. . . .
(5) A R U regards as incorrect attempts to define the development of a city i n terms of the application and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f
a single organizational f o r m o f settiement, since a solution o f
the p r o b l e m o f socialist settiements cannot be based exclusively on a single particular principle.
A R U considers i t essential to differentiate between varieties
of settiements by h i g h l i g h t i n g the specific features peculiar to a
given variety and to proceed f r o m the c o m b i n a t i o n o f factors

ferentiate, w i t h i n the whole set of questions w h i c h an architect-

' A t a l l stages o f class society, architecture has served the inter-

planner is called upon to consider, between those concerning

ests o f t h e r u h n g classes. . . .

spatial organization, and those concerning spatial composi-

T h e architecture o f t h e capitalist era is characterized by de-

tion. I t has to be stressed that the first category o f questions

corativeness and a recourse to complacent f o r m a l i s m and tech-

need not be resolved by the architect acting as a specialist,

nicism.

whde the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of an architect is essential i n the case o f

I n the USSR, i n conditions of proletarian revolution and the

the second category of questions. T h e degree of p r i o r i t y of these

b u i l d i n g of socialism, architecture still remains i n the groove o f

two categories varies i n each actual case. I n one case, questions

bourgeois art: Constructivism, F o r m a l i s m and, especially, ec-

of the organization o f space m a y be placed first. I n another,

lecticism are currently the d o m i n a t i n g tendencies i n architec-

questions relevant to the second category may be o f decisive

ture. These trends, identical w i t h the same trends i n the capi-

significance. B u t i n either case, both these principles must be

tahst West, have altered their o u t w a r d appearance and adapt-

considered as part o f a complex and not i n isolation.'

ed themselves to our circumstances under the i m p a c t o f our

{Sovetskaya arkhitektura,

that determine each i n d i v i d u a l variety o f settiement.

A R U stresses the differential significance of inhabited locahties and the need for a differentiated approach to the s t i m u l i
and opportunities for their development; and considers that i t
is necessary to create organisms that are flexible i n social and
spatial terms, capable o f evolutionary g r o w t h w i t h i n the limits
of the given social system and capable o f orderly reconstruction.
I n accordance w i t h this stated position, i t is opportune to
raise the question o f t h e typological classification o f inhabited
locahties. O n its o w n , the t y p i f i c a t i o n and f a b r i c a t i o n of single
dweflings, or even separate dwelhng complexes or districts,

1931, Nos. 1-2, p. 19-20)

A t the same time, proletarian architecture is arising f r o m the

economic foundations o f t h e transitional period. . . .
Vopra: All-Union Proletarian Architects' Association

cism was especially widespread i n the architecture o f t h e peri-

Baburov, Vlasov, Elegont D e r y a b i n , N i k o l a i Zapletin, Zas-

od o f mercantile i n d u s t r i a l capital. . . .

lavsky, Z i l b e r t , Ivanov, Kozelkov, K o c h a r , Alexander K r e -

W e reject F o r m a l i s m i n architecture, w h i c h made its ap-

stin, K r y u k o v , M i k h a d K u p o v s k y , M a z m a n y a n , Matsa, M i k -

pearance d u r i n g the period o f developed i n d u s t r i a l capita-

hadov, M o r d v i n o v , Polyakov, T e r e k h i n , Simbirtsev, G r i g o r y

lism. . . . F o r m a l i s m was the consequence of a collision between

Solodovnik and A v r a a m Faifel. Its directorate comprised M a t -

the psycho-ideology and habits o f t h e petit-bourgeois intelligent-

sa as chairman, Zaslavsky as deputy chairman, Baburov as se-

sia w i t h the monopohstic tendencies o f the period o f financial

tioris, cannot b r i n g about a radical solution o f t h e question o f

yabin.

a n i n h a b i t e d location - no account being taken o f t h e quahtative differences i n the structure o f such an i n h a b i t e d locahty,
w h i c h depend upon the n u m b e r of elements of w h i c h the locahty is composed.
(6) T h e Soviet State, w h i c h sets planned regulation as the
chief cornerstone of its activity, must also use architecture as a
p o w e r f u l means f o r the psycho-ideological organization o f t h e
masses. . . .
(7) . . . A R U considers that among the questions w h i c h an
architect has to resolve i n a particular order of p r i o r i t y and se-

capitalism. . . .
W e recognize the positive historical role o f Constructivism

the rationahzation of planning, i n view o f t h e flawed character

the question is resolved starting f r o m the particular - a house

subject themselves to Classical canons and schemas. Eclecti-

signed by, as founder members, A l a b y a n , D m i t r y Babenkov,

cretary, as wefl as Kozelkov, M o r d v i n o v , Simbirtsev and Der-

taken i n isolation, or a district - and proceeding to the general -

W e reject eclectic architecture and the methods o f t h e eclectics, w h o mechanically copy the o l d architecture and b h n d l y

V o p r a was organized i n 1929 and published a declaration

carried out i n a n u m b e r o f design and construction organiza-

o f t h e method apphed to the w o r k . A c c o r d i n g to this method,

reahty, but have remained essentially alien to i t .

Vopra's largest organization was located i n Moscow, where

(as indeed o f Formalism) i n the process o f overcoming eclecti-

i t numbered forty-nine members i n 1930, while local branches

cism and the mindless apphcation o f technological routine, i n

were set up i n the U k r a i n e , Georgia, A r m e n i a , L e n i n g r a d and

the p r o m o t i o n of questions concerning the rationahzation, me-

Tomsk. V o p r a teams took part i n many open competitions

chanization and standardization of construction, i n propagan-

d u r i n g the period 1 9 3 0 - 3 1 . Documents emanating f r o m V o -

dizing i n d u s t r i a l technology etc. B u t we note at the same time

p r a sharply criticized the Osa Constructivists, the Asnova Ra-

that, i n the conditions prevading i n the USSR, though C o n -

tionalist

'Formalists' and the eclecticists and stylizers i n M a o ,

structivism achieved positive results i n terms o f the critique

ad o f whose w o r k was regarded as f a i h n g to meet the class re-

of eclecticism and pre-industrial forms o f architecture, i t has

quirements o f the proletariat.

nevertheless proved unable i n its o w n theory and practice

V o p r a was dissolved i n 1932.

to go beyond mere Leftist m o u t h i n g and " r e v o l u t i o n a r y "

clichs.
We reject Constructivism, w h i c h has arisen on the basis o f fi-

601

trends: biographies, statements, manifestos

Chapter 3/Architectural associations of the new direction

le overcome, i.e. i t w o u l d be switched to the

planning.
)n o f t h e paths o f development o f sociahst setbased on a dialectic consideration o f t h e facm-generating principles, while d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g
LCtors i n the h g h t o f conditions operating at
)Iaee and time. . . .
ds as incorrect attempts to define the developsrms o f t h e apphcation and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f
tional f o r m o f settiement, since a solution o f
ciahst settiements cannot be based exclusiveticular principle.
5 i t essential to differentiate between varieties
bighhghting the specific features peculiar to a
to proceed f r o m the combination o f factors

quence, first place must be given to the social h u m a n being i n

ferentiate, w i t h i n the whole set of questions w h i c h an architectplanner is called upon to consider, between those concerning
spatial organization, and those concerning spatial composition. I t has to be stressed that the first category o f questions
need not be resolved by the architect acting as a specialist,
while the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of an architect is essential i n the case ofthe second category of questions. T h e degree of p r i o r i t y of these

I system and capable o f orderly reconstrucivith this stated position, i t is opportune to

o f t h e typological classification o f i n h a b i t e d
A'n, the t y p i f i c a t i o n and fabrication of single

r a district - and proceeding to the general on - no account being taken o f t h e qualitabe structure o f such an inhabited locality,
the number of elements of w h i c h the locahtate, w h i c h sets planned regulation as the
its activity, must also use architecture as a
the psycho-ideological organization o f t h e
siders that among the questions w h i c h an
Ive i n a p a r t i c u l a r order of p r i o r i t y and se-

tecture and to saddle the proletariat w i t h an architecture u n connected w i t h class, such as could only be realized i n the con-

I n the USSR, i n conditions of proletarian revolution and the

ditions o f a communist society. W e consider that i n the period

b u i l d i n g of socialism, architecture still remains i n the groove o f

of the dictatorship o f t h e proletariat and the struggle for the soclass i n its content and f o r m , that i t m u s t . . . participate i n the

ture. These trends, identical w i t h the same trends i n the capi-

class struggle on the side o f the fighting proletariat by a l l the

significance. B u t i n either case, both these principles must be

tahst West, have altered their o u t w a r d appearance and adapt-

means at its disposal. . . .

considered as part o f a complex and not i n isolation.'

{Sovetskaya arkhitektura,

1931, Nos. 1-2, p. 19-20)

ed themselves to our circumstances under the i m p a c t o f our

reality, b u t have remained essentially alien to i t .
A t the same time, proletarian architecture is arising f r o m the
economic foundations o f t h e transitional period. . . .

Vopra: All-Union Proletarian Architects' Association

We consider that proletarian architecture must develop its

theory and practice on the basis of an application o f t h e method
of dialectical materialism. . . .
We are i n favour of a proletarian class architecture, of a con-

We reject eclectic architecture and the methods o f t h e eclec-

structively and f o r m a l l y integrated art w h i c h shows v i t a l i t y

tics, w h o mechanically copy the o l d architecture and b l i n d l y

and organizes the w i l l o f t h e masses for struggle and labour. W e

V o p r a was organized i n 1929 and published a declaration

subject themselves to Classical canons and schemas. Eclecti-

are against a divorce o f f o r m f r o m content and f o r m f r o m con-

signed by, as founder members, A l a b y a n , D m i t r y Babenkov

cism was especially widespread i n the architecture o f t h e peri-

struction: we are i n favour of their organic unity. For us, f o r m is

Baburov, Vlasov, Elegont D e r y a b i n , N i k o l a i Z a p l e t i n Zas-

od o f mercantile i n d u s t r i a l capital. . . .

not a canon, nor an abstract symbol or construction - not an

lavsky, Z i l b e r t , I v a n o v , Kozelkov, K o c h a r , Alexander K r e stin, K r y u k o v , M i k h a d K u p o v s k y , M a z m a n y a n , Matsa, M i k hailov, M o r d v i n o v , Polyakov, T e r e k h i n , Simbirtsev, G r i g o r y

Solodovnik and A v r a a m Faifel. Its directorate comprised M a t cretary, as wed as K o z e l k o v , M o r d v i n o v , Simbirtsev and Der-

lived starting f r o m the particular - a house

corativeness and a recourse to complacent f o r m a l i s m and technicism.

questions relevant to the second category may be o f decisive

sa as chairman, Zaslavsky as deputy chairman, B a b u r o v as se-

led to the work. A c c o r d i n g to this method,

We reject every sort of attempt to b l u r the class role of archi-

cialist rearrangement o f t h e w o r l d , architecture must belong to

imber o f design and construction organizaof planning, i n view o f t h e flawed character

m i n e d the nature o f this architecture. . . .

T h e architecture o f t h e capitalist era is characterized by de-

lecticism are currently the d o m i n a t i n g tendencies i n architec-

I separate dwelling complexes or districts,

r about a radical solution o f t h e question o f

rationalization and p o w e r f u l i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n - have deter-

bourgeois art: Constructivism, F o r m a l i s m and, especially, ec-

for their development; and considers that i t

able of evolutionary g r o w t h w i t h i n the l i m i t s

' A t ad stages o f class society, architecture has served the interests o f t h e r u l i n g classes. . . .

two categories varies i n each actual case. I n one case, questions

le differential significance of inhabited locali-

ate organisms that are flexible i n social and

nancial capital. T h e f u n d a m e n t a l features of monopolistic capitalism - a bias i n favour o f capitahst planned arrangements,

o f t h e organization o f space may be placed first. I n another,

ch i n d i v i d u a l variety o f settiement.
for a differentiated approach to the s t i m u h

Extracts from the Vopra Declaration, 1929

his f u l l , modern, class concreteness. One may provisionafly d i f

yabin.

We reject F o r m a l i s m i n architecture, w h i c h made its ap-

aim i n itself, b u t the means o f expressing a concrete signifl-

pearance d u r i n g the period o f developed i n d u s t r i a l capita-

cance. A n architect must, however, achieve f o r m a l , composi-

lism. . . . Formahsm was the consequence of a collision between

tional and constructional mastery. W e are i n favour o f assimi-

the psycho-ideology and habits o f the petit-bourgeois intelligent-

l a t i o n o f the culture o f the past, b u t on the basis o f M a r x i s t

sia w i t h the monopolistic tendencies o f the period o f f i n a n c i a l

methods o f analysis and o f the critical use o f historical expe-

capitalism. . . .

rience i n the process of creating a proletarian architecture; not

We recognize the positive historical role o f Constructivism

its i m i t a t i o n or mechanical copying as i n eclecticism. W e are i n

V o p r a ' s largest organization was located i n Moscow, where

(as indeed o f Formalism) i n the process o f overcoming eclecti-

favour o f the dialectical use o f historial experience i n the pro-

it numbered forty-nine members i n 1930, while local branches

cism and the mindless application o f technological routine, i n

cess o f creating a proletarian architecture. W e are i n favour

were set u p i n the U k r a i n e , Georgia, A r m e n i a , L e n i n g r a d and

the p r o m o t i o n of questions concerning the rationalization, me-

of a dialectial use and application to architectural creativity

Tomsk. V o p r a teams took part i n many open competitions

chanization and standardization of construction, i n propagan-

of all achievements o f modern science bearing on f o r m , colour

d u r i n g the period 1 9 3 0 - 3 1 . Documents emanating f r o m V o -

dizing i n d u s t r i a l technology etc. B u t we note at the same time

etc.

pra sharply criticized the Osa Constructivists, the Asnova Ra-

that, i n the conditions prevailing i n the USSR, though C o n -

A n d so our method i n architecture is based u p o n a compre-

tionahst 'Formahsts' and the eclecticists and stylizers i n M a o ,

structivism achieved positive results i n terms o f the critique

hensive view o f t h e object of architecture, u p o n t a k i n g account

all o f whose w o r k was regarded as f a i h n g to meet the class re-

of eclecticism and pre-industrial forms o f architecture, i t has

quirements o f the proletariat.

of the largest possible number o f elements w h i c h make up ar-

nevertheless proved unable i n its o w n theory and practice

chitecture i n their interconnections, contradictions and recip-

to go beyond mere Leftist m o u t h i n g and " r e v o l u t i o n a r y "

rocal effects u p o n each other, i n social-economic, emotional-

clichs.

ideological, constructive-technical and other terms.'

V o p r a was dissolved i n 1932.

We reject Constructivism, w h i c h has arisen on the basis o f fi-

{Stroitelstvo Moskvy,

1929, N o . 8, p p . 25-26)

602
Bibliography

Abbreviations

M. = MocKBa
rir. = neTporpan
JI. = JleHHHrpafl
"AA" = "AKafleMHH apxHTeKTypbi" (xypnaji)
"AJI" = "ApxHTeKTypa JleHHHrpafla" (sKypnan)
"ApxCCCP" = ApxHTCKTypa CCCP (xypHaji)
"AK" = "ApxHTeKTypnaa KOMnosHiiHH" (copHHK)
"BX" = "BpHrana xyfloacHHKOB" (xypHaji)
"BKA" = "BecTHHK KoMMyHHCTHHecKoii aKafleMHH"
"BCA" = "Bonpocbi coBpeMeHHoii apxHTeKTypbi"
(cSopHHK)
"FUJI"
= "Fopon H AepeBHH" (xypnaji)
"flH" = "fleKopaxHBHoe HCKyccTBO CCCP" (>KypHan)
" X H " = "3CH3Hb HCKyccTBa" (raseTa-acypHaji)
"H3B." = "HsBecTHH" (rascTa)
"HH" = "H3o6pa3HTenbHoe HCKyccxBo" (xypnaji)
"Hc" = "HcKyccTBo" (acypHajibi, raaexa)
"HBM" = "HcKyecTBO b Maccbi" (jKypnaji)
" K f l " = "KoMMyHajibHoeflejio"(xypHaji)
"KX" = "KoMMynajibHoe xosancTBo" (xypnaji)
"KH" = "KpacHaa HaBa" (scypnaji)
"JIHH" = "JlHTepaTypa h HCKyccTBo" (jKypnaji)
"HHP" = "HeiaTb h peeojiiotiHa" (acypnaji)
"Hp" = "HpaBfla" (raseTa)
"HTHA" = "HpojieMbi TeopHH h hctophh apxHTCKTypbl" (cSopHHK)
"PHK" = "PeB0jiK)AH5i H KyjibTypa" (jKypnaji)
"CoBCT.A" = "CoBCTCKaa apxHTOKTypa" (xypnajr,
cSopHHK)
"CH" = "CoseTCKoe HCKyccTBo" (acypnaji)
"CA" = "CoBpeMCHHaa apxHTCKxypa" (xypnaji)
"Ct" = "CxpoHTejib" (xypnaji)
"CH" = "CTpoHTe.nbHaH npoMbirajieHHOCTb"
(jKypnaji)
"CM" = "CTpoHTejibCTBo MocKBbi" (jKypnaji)
"Tb" = "TBop'iecTBo" (acypnaji)
"T3" = "TexHHHecKaa acTexHKa" (jKypnaji)
"X2K" = "XyflOJKecTBCHHaa 5KH3Hb" (xypnaji)
"XKO" = "XyfloacecTBeHHO-KOHCTpyKTopcKoe
oSpasoBaHHe" (cSopHHK)
" 3 X " = "SKOHOMHMecKaa 5KH3Hb" (raseTa)

Publications in Russian

ApaMOBa A.HacjieflHe BXYTEMACa. "AH", Ns 4,

1964.
A6paMo6a A. BXYTEMAC - BXYTEHH (1918
1930). B kh: "MocKOBCKoe Bbicniee xyflo>KecTBeHHo-npoMbimjieHHoe ynnjiHine (SbiBiuee CxporaHOBCKoe) 1825-1965", M., 1965.
ApaMOBa A. TaTjiHH. "AH",
2, 1966.
ASpawoBa A. 2 CTenSepr 2. "AH", JVs 9, 1965.
A6paMCKHH H. 3to 6bijio b BHTecKe. "Hc", Ni 10,
1964.
ABepHHiteB H. Tpamm^ hjih peBOJiKmna b npHKJiaflHOM HCKyccTBC. "Hc" (ra3eTa), Na 3, 1 (|)eBpajia
1919r.
ArHTaDiHOHHO-MaccoBoe HCKyccTBO nepBbix jieT
OKTapa. MaTepHajiM h HccjienoBaHna. M.,
1917.
AflacKHHa H. JI. JlrooBb HonoBa. HyTb cTaHOBjieHHa
xyfloxHHKa-KOHCTpyKTopa. "TexHHHecKaa acTeTHKa", 1978. JVb 11.
AhSHKOBHH C. AoMa-KOMMyHM MOCKOBCKOfi Koonepa^HH. "CM", Ns 12, 1929.
AH3HK0BHH C. VoHee KoonepaTHBHoe iKHjiHmnoe
cTpoHTejicTBo. "CH", N<> 2, 1929.
Akcchob H. O HauiHx xjie6o3aBOHax. "PHK",
No 15, 1929.
AjiaSan K. O paSoTe OHPA ApMCHKH. "Cobct. A",
Wi! 1-2, 1931.
AncKcaHflpoB n., XaH-MaroMeHOB C. HBan JleoHHflOB. M., 1971.
Ahtohob. p. A.M. PoflieHKo. "T3", Ns 2, 1967.
Ahtohob p. O.K 80-jieTHK) BapBapbi CTenaHOBoii.
"AH", 1975, Ns 7.
AmapoBa. AoM-KOMMyna. "PHK", Ns 1, 1930.
ApaHOBHH A. ApxHTCKTypHbie npo6jieMbi paSoiepo
KJiya. "CH", .Ns 8, 1930.
ApaHOBHH A. Mojionaa apxHTCKxypa. "CH", 8-9,
1926.
ApaHOBHH A. CoBpeMCHHaa MOCKOBCKaa apxHTeKTypa. "CH", Ns 8, 1927.
ApaHOBHH A. AecaTb jieT HCKyccTBa. "Kpacnaa
HoBb", JVo 11, 1927.
ApaHOBira A- KoHCTpyKTopa BnyTpeHHero o6opyflOBaHHa. "CH", Ns 4, 1929.

A[pBaTOB] E. OBemecTBJieHHaa yxonHa, "Jlecj)",

Ns 1, 1923.
ApsaTOB B. Ha nyxax k npojieTapcicoMy HCKyccTBy.
"HHP", Ns 1, 1922.
ApsaTOB B. HcKyccTBO h Knaccbi, M.-Hr., 1923.
ApBaTOB B. HcKyccTBO h npoMbiniJieHHOCTf,. "JKH",
4 HMJia 1925 r.
ApsaTOB B. HcKyccTBO h npoH3BOflCTBO. M., 1926.
ApsaTOB B. 05 a^HTa^HOHHOM H npOH3BOflCTBeHHOM
HCKyccTse. M., 1930.
ApKHH A. BeinHoe HCKyccTso. "XX", Ns 4-5, 1920.
ApKHH A. Hepsbie marH Hamen apxHTeKTypw.
"KH", Ns 44, 1926.
ApKHH A. B noHCKax hoboh apxHTeKTypbi. "Hp",
14HK)jia 1928 r.
ApKHH A- "ScTBTHKa bcihh" h Hauia xyfloxecTseHHaa KyjibTypa (K npojieMe npoH3BOflCTBeHHoro
HCKyccTsa). "HHP", Ns 4, 1929.
ApKHH A. CTpoHTejibCTBO H "MoSejitHaa npo6jieMa".
"CM", Ns 10, 1929.
ApKHH A. Hpo6jieMa mbScjihfljianoMos-KOMMyH.
"CM", Ns 12, 1929.
ApKHH A. ApxHTOKTypHaa nponeMa HaoHepo
Kjiya. "BX",M. 2-3, 1931.
ApKHH A. HcKyCCTSO SblTOBOH seuiH. M., 1932.
"ApxHTCKTypa". EjKeMecaiHHK MAO. Ns 1-2, 3-5,
1923.
ApxHTeKTypa. PaSoTbi apxHTeKTypnoro (JiaKyjibTCTa
BXYTEMACa. 1920-1927. M., 1927.
"ApxHTeKTypa h BXYTEHH", sbin. 1, M., 1929.
ApxHTeKTypa CCCP. "Bceo6H;aa HCTopna apxHTeKTypbi", TOM 12, M., 1975.
ApxHTeKTypHbiH <|)aKyjibTeT AKaflCMHH xyflOH<ecTs.
C6opHHKH K0MH03H^H0HHbIX paSOT CTyflCHTOB.
J^Ts 1,JI., 1929; JI., 1936.
AcKapOS HI. A- CpeflHea3HaTCKHH K0HCTpyKTHBH3M.
"CTpoHTejibCTBo H apxHTeKTypa y36eKHCTaHa",
1975, Ns 2.
Acc B., 3HHOBbeB H. h pp. ApxHTeicTop Pyflnes.
M., 1963.
AcTacJjbesa M. Hepsbifi cobctckhh HJian BojibinoH
MocKSbi. "HayKa a acH3Hb", Ns 5, 1967.
AcTa4)beBa M. Hjian Bojibnioro apocjiasjia 1918
1923 rr. "ApxCCCP", Ns 1, 1969.
AcTac})beBa-AJiyraH M. Hepsbie cxeinbi coi(HajiHCTHlecKoro paccejicHHa s CCCP. "ApxCCCP",
Ns 6, 1970.

BeHflepos B. AoMa hjih paSo'iH

AcTa4)beBa-AnyraH M. HpoeKT paoHHOH nnaHHMocKOBCKoro coseTa paSoHn
poBKH AnniepoHCKoro nojiyocTpoBa.
KpacHoapMeftcKHX nenyTaTOS
"ApxCCCP",
10, 1971.
flOMa. "CM", Ko 3, 1926.
AcTa4)besa-AJiyraH M. Hepsaa cejibCK0X03aHCTBepe3y6oB H.K. sonpocy npo6
seHHaa. "Apx.CCCP", 1974, Ns 1.
THHecKoro ropoaa. "CM", Ks
AcTa4)beBa-AJiyra^ M. O KonaenuHH ropona s coBecHHH A. TsopiecKHe nyxH cc
seTCKOH apxHTCKType KOH^a 20-x roflos. C6.
Typbi H npoJieMbi apxHTeKTi
"npoJieMbi TeopHH coseTCKOH apxHTeKTypw",
"ApxCCCP", Ns 3-4, 1933.
Ns2, M., 1975, HHHHTHA.
BecHHH A. Hpo6jieMa HHTepbe
B.B. Hepsbi KoHKypc MocKOscKoro CoBeTa na
Ns 7, 1934.
npoeKT paSoiero noma. "CH", Ns 4, 1926.
BecHHH A. CnopHbie sonpocbi.
BaSHHesa H. PaS^jaK-HCKyccTS. "ah", 7, 1965.
3eTa", Ns 135, 8 0KTa6pa 19
BanHXHH B. Carney HCKyccTs s npaKTHKe cobctckhx
BecHHH A. H BecHHH B. TsopH
apxHxeKTopoB. "ApxCCCP", Ns 7, 1935.
"ApxCCCP", 4, 1935.
BaJiHXHH B. ApxHTeKTypa paoHHX jkhjibix komBecHHH B. a3WK anoxH. "CH"
nneKCOB MocKSbi. "AA", Ns 1-2, 1935.
BecHHH A. HB. HpeAHOCbijiKH
BapyTTOB A. APY s neHHHrpane. C6. "CoseT. A",
ropoAOB. "3aC", Ns 281, 6 ff
Ns 18, M., 1969.
BecHHHbi A. H JI. HpoeKT nnai
BapxHH r. ApxHTeKTypa TeaTpa. M., 1947.
He^Ka. "CA", Ns 3, 1930.
BapxHH r. PaSoHHii noM h paSoiHH nocenoK-cafl. M., BeTpoB A. (ApKHH AO Cerofli
1922.
TCKType H CTpOHTejIbCTSe.
BapxHH r. K Bonpocy npoeKTHposaHHa KJiySos.
1926 r.
"CH", Ns 5, 1930.
BeTpos A. HyTH hoboh apxHT
BapxHH M. TeaTpy-HosaTopy Hosyio apxHTeKTypy.
Ns 4, 1924.
"CM", Ns 2, 1932.
"Ben;b" (MexAynaponHoe o6
Bapm M., H Bp. MarHHToropbie. "CA" Ns 1-2, 1930.
ro HCKyccTsa). HoA penaKi;i
Bapm M., rHH35ypr M. SejieHbift ropofl MocKSbi.
H. 3peH5ypra. BepjiHH, Ns
"CA", Ns 1-2, 1930.
BoJiKOB-JIaHHT JI. AjieKcaHAp
BepHa^KHH JI. MocKsa 6yAymero. HyTH h cpeACTsa
cJ)OTorpa(|)HpyeT, cnopnT. N
coo6meHHa. M., 1922
BojibKeHHiTeHH B. 3cTeTHKa
BHHKOsa H. ArHTHoesfla. "AH", 3, 1965.
HOH apxHTCKTypbi. "Hc", 3
EarnaHos H (^eAOCOs). OpraHHuna CTpoHTenHMX
BoJIb4)eH30H r. K0JIJieKTHBH(
pa6oMHX PoccHH HflpyrHxcTpaH. M., 1919.
HOMHiecKaH i;ejiecoo6pa3Hi
BorycnoBCKHH C. CnHaa 6ny3a. "KH", Ns 47, 1926.
1930.
BopHcosa E., KaxnaH T. PyccKaa apxHTeKTypa kohBonpocbi cospeMeHHoro jkhji
aa XIX - Hanana XX seKa. M., 1971.
jieHHoro cTpoHTejibCTsa (T
BpHK O. XynoxHHK H KoMMyna. "HH", Ks 1, 1919.
K0H4)epeH^HH, C03SaHH0H ]
BpHK O. Ot KapTHHbi k CHTuy. "He^i", Ns 2(6), 1924.
MocKse 5-10 Maa 1925r.).j
ByHHH A., TypKyc M. Pa6oTa ceKTopa ACHOBA.
BopOHOB
H. K HCTOpHH COBf
"CoseT. A"Ns 1-2, 1931.
Ns 10, 1967.
Eypos A. 05 apxHTeKType. M., 1960.
Bcecoio3Haa cejibCK0X03aHCT
Bypos B. Hoaaa nepesna. "Ct", NS 6, 1923.
CTaTeii) "EHA", N'^ 5, 192:
EblKOS B. KoHCTaHTHH MejlbHHKOB H TeoprHH
BXYTEMACKA [E. CeMe
^OJIb^. C5. "CoseT. A",
18, M., 1968.
Ka. "JIED", JVb 4, 1923.
BbiKosa r.A- Annpe Ojib.H., 1976.
BbiroACKHH JI. PauHonajiHsai
BblJIHHKHH H. H np. HcTOpHH COSeTCKOH apXHTOKKo 1(96), 1929.
Typbi 1917-1958. M., 1962.
BbirOACKilH M. npoSjicMH "
B.K. OTieTHaa sbiCTasKa apxHTCKTypHoro 4)a(ropOACKOe CTpOHTejIbCTB
KyjibTBTa BXYTEMAC, "CH", 6-7, 1926.
BbiroACKHH JI. CTpyKTypa h
B.K. BTopoii KOHKypc MocKOscKoro CoseTa P.K. h
Koro ropoAa. "PHK", Ns 1
K. A- Ha npoeKT noMa-KOMinyHbi. "CH", J^e 5, 1926. BwApHH. Hepsbiii a Pocchh
BapcT (CTenaHOsa B.). O paoTax KoncTpyKTHMapTa 1917r.". "KX", Ko
SHCTCKOH MOJiOAexH. "JIEO", Ns 2, 1923.
"ra3eTa tjjyTypHCTOs". MapT
BapcT. PaoHHH KJiy6. KoncTpyKTHSHCT A.M. PorEajiaAxesa T. 06jihk hcjiob
leHKO. "CA", Ns 1, 1926.
1977, Ns 11.
Berman T. YKpyneHHoe XHnbe. "CA", Ns 1,
Fan A. KoHCTpyKTHBH3M. Ti
1927.
Fan A. OaKTW 3a nac. "CA
BejiHxos JI. O HJiaHHpoBKe H 3acTpoHKe Hosbix roFan A. HosoMy TeaTpy - hc
poflOB H paSonHX nocejiKOS. "KA", ^- 2. 1930.
Ns 3, 1927.
BejibMaH B. AoM-KOMMyna. "CA", 4, 1929.

603
Publications in Russian

Publications in Russian

A[pBaTOB] B. OaemecTBjienHaa yTonna, "Jlec})",

Ns 1, 1923.
ApaaTOB B. Ha nyTax k npojieTapcKOMy HCKyccTay.
"HHP", Ns 1, 1922.
ASpaMOBa A. HacjieflHe BXYTEMACa " f l H " N4
ApaaToa B. HcKyccTBO h KJiaccbi, M.-Hr., 1923.
1964.
ApaaTOB B. HcKyccTBO h npoMbinijieHHocTb. "XH",
A6paMo6a A. BXYTEMAC - BXYTEHH (1918
4 Hiojia 1925 r.
1930). B kh: "Mockobckoc Bbicniee xyfloxecTApaaTOB B. HcKyccTBo h npoH3BOflCTBo. M., 1926.
BeHHO-npoMbiuijieHHoe ynHjiHnje (SbiBinee CxpoApaaTOB B. 06 arHTai(HOHHOM n npoHsaoflcTBeHHOM
raHOBCKoe) 1825-1965", M., 1965.
HCKyccTBe. M., 1930.
A6paMOBa A. TaxjiHH. "QH", JYe 2, 1966.
ApKHH fl. Bemnoe ncKyccTao. "XX", Ns 4-5, 1920.
ASpaMOBa A. 2 CxeHSepr 2. "flH", Jvf 9, 1965.
ApKHH fl. Hepabie inarn nanien apxHTeKTypw.
AepaMcicHH H. 3to Sbijio b BHTe6cKe. "He", M> 10
"KH", Ns 44, 1926.
1964.
ApKHH fl. B noHCKax hoboh apxHTeKTypbi. "Hp",
ABepHH^eB H. TpaflHi^na hjih peBOJIK)^HH b npnKJian14Hiojia 1928r.
HOM HCKyccTBe. "Hc" (raaeTa), Ns 3, 1 AeBpajia
ApKHH fl. "3cTeTnKa aeI^H" h nama xyAoxecTBen1919r.
naa KyjibTypa (K npoSjieine npoH3aoflCTBeHHoro
ArHTai<HOHHO-MaccoBoe ncKyccxBO nepawx jibt
HCKyccTBa). "HHP", jNfe 4, 1929.
OKTHpa. MaTepnajibi h nccjieflOBaHHH. M.,
ApKHH fl.CTpoHTejibCTaoH"Me6ejibHaanpo5jieMa".
1917.
"CM", Ns 10, 1929.
AflacKHHa H. JI. JIio6oBb Honosa. HyTb cTaHOBJieHna
ApKHH fl. HpojieMa MeejinfljiaflOMoa-KOMMyn.
xynoacHHKa-KOHCTpyKTopa. "TexHinecKaH acTe"CM", Ns 12, 1929.
THKa", 1978. Ns 11,
ApKHH fl. ApxHTeKTypnaa npojieMa na6onepo
Ah3hkobh^ C.floMa-KOMMynbimockobckoh KooneKJiy6a. "BX", Jsr? 2-3, 1931.
pa^HH. "CM", Ns 12, 1929.
ApKHH fl. HcKyCCTBO 6bIT0BOH BeiB(H. M., 1932.
Ah3Hkobhh C. PaSoiee KoonepaTHBnoe acHJinmnoe
"ApxHTOKTypa". ExeinecannHK MAO. Ns 1-2, 3-5
1923.
cTpoHxencTBo. "CH", Ns 2, 1929.
ApxHTeKTypa. PaSoTbi apxHTeKTypHoro (|)aKyjibTeTa
AKcenoB H. O HaniHx xjieQosaBOAax. "PHK"
BXYTEMACa. 1920-1927. M., 1927.
Ns 15, 1929.
"ApxHTeKTypa H BXYTEHH", abin. 1, M., 1929.
AjiaHH K. O paoxe OHPA ApmenHH. "Cobct A"
ApxHTOKTypa CCCP. "Bceon^aa ncTopHa apxHNs 1-2, 1931.
TCKTypbi", TOM 12, M., 1975.
AjieKcanflpoB H., Xan-MaroMenoB C. Hsan JleoApxHTeKTypHbiH (jjaKyjibTCT AKafleMHH xyfloxecTB.
HHflOB. M., 1971.
C6opHHKH K0MnO3HUH0HHbrX paOT CTyfleHTOB.
Ahtohob. P. A.M. PoflHeHKo. "T3", Ns 2, 1967.
JVa 1,JI., 1929; JI., 1936.
Ahtohob P.O.K 80-jieTHio Bapaapbi CTenanoBon
AcKapoa Ul.fl. CpeflneasHaTCKHH K0HCTpyKTHBH3M.
"flH", 1975, Ns 1.
"CTpoHTeubCTBO H apxHTBKTypa YseKHCTana",
Anqapoaa.floM-KOMMyna."PHK", Ns 1, 1930.
1975, Ni 2.
Apanoani fl. ApxHTeKTypnbie Hpojiewbi pa6o<iepo
Acc B., SnHOBbeB H. n np. ApxHTeKTop Pyflnea.
M., 1963.
KJiySa. "CH", Ns 8, 1930.
AcTatjjbeaa M. Hepaun coaeTCKHH njiaH BojibUioii
ApanoBHi fl. Mojionaa apxHTeKTypa. "CH", Jvf 8-9
MocKBbi. "HayKa h acHSHb", Ns 5, 1967.
1926.
ApaHOBHH fl. CoapeMeHnaa MocKoacKaa apxHTeKAcTacJjbeaa M. Hjian Eonbinoro Hpocjiaajia 1918
Typa. "CH", Ns 8, 1927.
1923rr. "ApxCCCP", Ns 1, 1969.
ApanoBHHfl.flecHTbjieT HCKyccxaa. "Kpacnaa
AcTa(|)beBa-fljiyraH M. Hepaaie cxeMbi coi(HajiHCTHHoBb", jvr 11, 1927.
necKoro paccejienna a CCCP. "ApxCCCP",
ApaHoan-q fl. KoHCTpyKTopa BHyxpeHHero o6opyNs 6, 1970.
floaanHH. "CH", Ns 4, 1929.

AcTaelibeaa-fljiyrai M. HpoeKT paHOHHoft njiaHHpoBKH AnniepoHCKoro nojiyocTposa.

"ApxCCCP", >rs 10, 1971.
AcTacJibeaa-fljiyraM M. Hepaaa cejibcKoxo3HHCTBennaa. "Apx.CCCP", 1974, Ns 1.
AcTatJjbeaa-fljiyran M. O KOH^e^^HH ropofla a coaeTCKo apxHTBKType KOH^a 20-x rofloa. C5.
"npo6jieMbi TeopHH cobctckoh apxHTeKTypbi",
Ns 2, M., 1975, HHHHTHA.
B.B. HepabiH KoHKypc Mockobckoto CoaeTa Ha
npoeKT paoqero noMa. "CH", Ns 4, 1926.
BaenHeaa H. PaStJiaK-HCKyccTB. "sn", K 7, 1965.
BajiHXHH B. CHHTes HCKyccTa a npaKTHKe coaeTCKHX
apxHTeKTopoB. "ApxCCCP", Ns 7, 1935.
BajiHXHH B. ApxHTCKTypa pa6oHHX jkhjibix komHJieKcoB MocKBbi. "AA", Ws 1-2, 1935.
BapyTiea A. APY a Jlennnrpafle. C6. "CoaeT. A",
Ns 18, M., 1969.
BapxHH F. ApxHTeKTypa TeaTpa. M., 1947.
BapxHH r. PaonHftflOMn paSonnii nocejioK-cafl. M.,
1922.
BapxHH F. K Bonpocy npoeKTHpoaaHna KJiy6oB.
"CH", Ns 5, 1930.
BapxHH M. TeaTpy-HoaaTopy Hoayro apxHTBKTypy.
"CM", Ns 2, 1932.
Bapm M., H Bp. Mamnxoropbie. "CA" Ns 1-2, 1930.
Bapn; M., FHH36ypr M. SejieHbiii ropofl MocKaai.
"CA", Ns 1-2, 1930.
BepHa^KHH Jl. MocKaa yflymero. HyTH a cpcflCTBa
coo5meHHa. M., 1922
BnOHKoaa H. ArnTnoesfla. "flH", Ns 3, 1965.
BarflaHoa H (Oeflocoa). OpraHmjHa CTpoHTejiHbix
pa6oiHX PoccHH H npyrnx CTpan. M., 1919.
BorycjioacKHH C. Cnnaa Sjiysa. "KH", Ns 47, 1926.
Bopncoaa E., Kaacflan T. PyccKaa apxHTeicTypa koh^a XIX - Hanajia XX aeKa. M., 1971.
BpHK O. XyfloacHHK H KoMMyna. "HH", Ns 1, 1919.
BpHK O. Ot KapTHHbi k cHTuy. "Het})", Ns 2(6), 1924.
ByHHH A., TypKyc M. Pa6oTa ceKTopa ACHOBA.
"CoaeT. A"Ns 1-2, 1931.
Bypoa A. OS apxHTeKType. M., 1960.
BypoB B. Hoaaaflepeena."Ct", NS 6, 1923.
BbiKOB B. KoHCTaHTHH MejlbHHKOB H FeoprHH
Fonbu. C6. "CoBCT. A", Ns 18, M., 1968.
BbiKoaa F.fl. Anflpeit Ojib.JI., 1976.
BblJIHHKHH H. Hflp.HcTOpHH COBeTCKOH apxHTeKTypbi 1917-1958. M., 1962.
B.K. OxHCTHaa aaiCTaaKa apxHTeKTypHoro (3paKyjibTeTa BXYTEMAC, "CH", Ns 6-7, 1926.
B.K. BTopoH KOHKypc MocKoacKoro CoaeTa P.K. h
K.fl. Ha npoeKTflOMa-KOMMyHbi."CH", J^s 5, 1926.
BapcT (CTenaHoaa B.). O paSoTax KOHCTpyKTHBHCTCKO MOJIOflejKH. "JIE3>", J^2 2, 1923.
BapcT. PaonnH KJiy6. KoncTpyKTHancT A.M. PoflqeHKO. "CA", Ns 1, 1926.
BerMan F. YKpynemioe acHJiae. "CA", J^s 1,
1927.
BejiHxoa JI. O njiannpoBKe h 3acTpoHKe noabix ropofloa H paoHHX nocejiKoa. "Kfl", Ns 2, 1930.
BejibMaH B.floM-KOMMyna."CA", Ns 4, 1929.

BeHflepoa B.floMaflJiapa6oHHX. Hepebiii KOHKypc

MocKOacKoro coaeTa paonnx, KpecTbHHCKHX H
KpacHoapMCHCKHxflenyTaToaHa npoeKT paSonero
flOMa. "CM", Ns 3, 1926.
Bepe3y6oB H. K. aonpocy npoJieMe co^HaJIHCTHMecKoro ropofla. "CM", J^a 1, 1930.
BecHHH A. TaopiecKHe nyTH cobctckoh apxHTeKTypbi H npoJieMW apxHTeKTypHoro Hacjieflcxaa.
"ApxCCCP", J>J 3-4, 1933.
BeCHHH A. npo6jieMa HHTepaepa. "ApxCCCP",
Ns 7, 1934.
BecHHH A. CnopHbie aonpocbi. "HHTepaTypnaa ra3eTa", Ns 135, 8 oKTapa 1934r.
BecHHH A. H BecHHH B. TaopnecKHH oTieT.
"ApxCCCP", J^fa 4, 1935.
BecHHH B.fl3biKanoxH. "CH", 15 MapTa, 1932r.
BecHHH A. hB. npeflHOCbiJiKHCTpoHTenbCTaaHOBbix
ropofloa. "3X", Ns 281, 6fleKapa1929r.
BecHHHbi A. H Jl. HpoeKT njianHpoaKn ropofla Ky3He^Ka. "CA", Ns 3, 1930.
BeTpoB A. (ApKHH fl.) CeroflHaniHHHflenba apxHTeKType H cTpoHTejibCTae. "H3b.", NS 108, 13 Maa
1926r.
BeTpOB A. HyTH HOBOH apXHTOKTypbl. "HpH3bIB",
Ns 4, 1924.
"Ben^b" (MeacflynapoflHoe o6o3peHHe coapeMeHHOro HCKyccTaa). Hon peflaKi(HeH 3jib JlncHitKoro n
H. 3peH6ypra. BepjiHH, Ns 1-3, 1922r.
BojiKoa-HaHHT JI. AneKcanflp HoflneHKo pncyeT,
t})OTorpa(|)HpyeT, cnopHT. M., 1968.
BojIbKeHUITeHH B. 3cTeTHKa ManiHH H KOnCTpyKTHBHO apxHTeKTypbi. "Hc", 3-4, 1929.
BoJibc{)eH30H r. KojiJieKTHBHoe xHJiHuie H ero aKOHOMHiecKaa ^eJIecoo6pa3HOCTb. "CH", Ns 6-7,
1930.
Bonpocbi coapeMCHHoro acnnHmnoro H npoMbimjienHoro cTpoHTejibCTaa (Tpyflbi BcecoKJsnoH
KOH(|)epeHitHH, cosaaHHOH FocnnaHOM CCCP a
MocKae 5-10 Maa 1925r.). M., 1926.
BopoHoa H. K ncTopHH coBeTCKoroflHsanHa."T3",
Ns 10, 1967.
Bcecoi03Haa cenbCK0X03aiiCTaeHHaa awcTaaKa (pan
CTaTeii) "FHfl", Ns 5, 1923.
BXYTEMACKA [E. CeMCHoaa]. Heaaa MeTatjinsHKa. "HEO", JVs 4, 1923.
BbiroflCKHH JI. Pa^HOHaJIH3a^Ha XHjiHina. "Kfl",
Ns 1(96), 1929.
BbiroACKHit M. HpoJieMbi "Bojibinoft Mockbw"
(FopoflCKoe cTpoHTejibCTBo). "CM", Ns 2, 1929.
BbiroflCKHH JI. CTpyKTypa h njian co^HaJIHCTHHecKoro ropofla. "PHK", Ns 13-14, 1930.
BbiflpHH. HepabiH a Pocchh ropofl-cafl "flpyxa 1
MapTa 1917r.". "KX", Ns 13, 1922.
"FaseTa 4)yTypHCT0B". MapT, 1918r. (OflHH abraycK).
Fajiaflxeaa F. 06jihk qejioaeKa peaojiiouHH. "flH",
1977, J^9 11.
Fan A. KoHCTpyKTHaH3M. Taepb, 1922.
Fan A. OaKTU aa nac. "CA", Ns 2, 1926.
Fan A. HoaoMy TeaTpy - noaoe 3flaHHe. "CA",
Ns 3, 1927.

Fan A. Hto TaKoe K0HCTpyKTHBH3M. "CA", Ns 3,

1928.
FacTea A. BoccTanne KyjibTypbi. XapbKoa, 1923.
FB03flea A. KoHCTpyKTHBH3M H npeoflOJieHHe TeaTpajibHo acTCTHKH PeHcccaHca. "XH", J* 1, 1924.
FerejiJio A. H3 TBopnecoro onbixa. JI., 1962.
FejibMan H. MnoroKBapTnpHbieflOMahjih paSome
nocejiKH? "KX", Ns 14, 1922.
FejibMan H. CTOHMocTb paoqero nocejiKa-cafl.
"KX", J^r 15-16, 1922.
FepHHK K). ApXHTBKTOp KoHCTaHTHH MejlbHHKOB.
"ApxCCCP", Ns 8, 1966.
FHH36ypr M. Phtm a apxHTeKType. M., 1922.
FHH36ypr M. Cthjib h anoxa. M., 1924.
rHH36ypr M. Hoawe MeTOflbi apxHTCKTypnoro
MbiniJieHHa. "CA" Ns 1, 1926.
FHH36ypr M. MexflynapoflnbiH (j)poHT coapeMeHHoft
apxHTOKTypbi. "CA", Ns 2, 1926.
FHHsSypr M. ^ynKiinonajibHbiii MeTOfl h dpopua.
"CA",NsA, 1926.
FHH36ypr M. HaunonajibHaa apxHTeKTypa Hapofloa
CCCP. "CA",>r2 5-6, 1926.
rHH36ypr M. Hejieaaa ycTanoaKa a coapeMeHHofi
apxHTCKType. "CA", Ns 1, 1927.
rHH36ypr M. Htoth h nepcneKTHBbi. "CA", Ns 4-5,
1927.
FHH36ypr M. Hocjie-OKTapbCKaa apxHTeKTypa.
"HcKpa",J* 11, 1927.
FHHSypr M. KoHCTpyKTHBH3M KaK MeTOfl jiaSopaTopHOH H neflarorniecKOH paoTbi. "CA", J^Ta 6,
1927.
FHH36ypr M. KoHCTpyKTHBH3M a apxHTeKType.
"CA",K2 5, 1928.
FHH36ypr M. O 3aflanax coapeMeHHOH apxHTCKTypai
(cofloKJiafl HaflHcnyTea KoMaKafleMnn). B c6.
"HcKyccTBO a CCCP h saflann xyfloacnHKoa". M.,
1928.
FHHSypr M. HpoJieMbi ranmanm acHnba. "CA"
Ns 1, 1929.
FHHsSypr M. HaeT a apxHTeKType. "CA", Ns 2, 1929.
FHH36ypr M. CouHajincTHnecKoe paccejienne.
"3X", J* 282, 7fleKaSpa1929r.
FHH36ypr M. CoiinaJincTHHecKaa peKoncTpyKitna
cyntecTBytomnx ropofloa. "PHK", Ns 1, 1930.
FHH35ypr M. Otbbt Jle Kop5K>3be. "CA", J^s 1-2,
1930.
FHH35ypr M. SejieHbifi ropofl - co3flaHHe ycjioBHH
fljia pac^BeTa jiimhocth. "HBM", Ns 6, 1930.
FHH36ypr M. Ohbit paiioHHOH njiaHnpoBKn.
"CoaeT.A.", JVb 4, 1933.
FHH36ypr M. XnJiHme. M., 1934.
rHH36yprM., BecnnH B., BecHHH A. HpoSneMW coapeMeHHOH apxHTCKTypbi (TBopnecKaa fleKJiapa^Ha). "ApxCCCP", Ns 2, 1935.
FHH36ypr M. TaopnecKHH OTHeT. "ApxCCCP", J^a 5,
1935.
FoJiocoB H. MoH TBopnecKHH nyTb. "ApxCCCP",
Ns 1, 1933.
FoJiocoB H. O ojibHiOH apxHTCKTypHoft (jjopMe.
"ApxCCCP", Ns 5, 1933.

Publications in Russian

rojiocoB H. TBopnecKHH O T I B T . "ApxCCCP", M 4,

floKyqaea H. KoHKypc Ha njiannpoBKy MarHHTOHjibHH JI. ApxHTeKTypa Jlennnrpafla sa 20 jiex

ropcKa. "CM", K<> 4, 1930.
rojibfleH6epr n.,flojiraHOBB. npoSneMa xmoro
"AJI", Wa 1, 1937.
floMa-KOMMynbi.
MaTepnajibi
KOHKypcoB:
BcecoioaKBapxajia. npenHcjioBHe B. CeMCHOBa. M.-JI., 1931.
HjibHH
M. BecHHHw. M., 1960.
Horo MexayaoacKoro KOHKypca Ha CTyfleniecKHH
^OJIt^MaH A. Co^HaIIHCTHHecKaa nepecTpoHKa
Hoc})aHB.TaopHecKHHorqeT. "ApxCCCP", W 6 1935
flOM-KOMMyny.
KoHKypca
JlenHHrpaflCKoro
coaeTa
SbiTa. HoBbifl SbiT H HOBbie HHflycTpm. "Hp"
HcKyccTBo a npoH3BOflCTBe. CSopHHK Wa 1,'m. 1921
HaflOMa-KOMMyHbifljiapaSoqHx. JI., 1931
2 aHBapa 1930.
"HcKyccTao KoMMynw" - raseTa.fleKaSpa1918r flOMpoBCKHH
C.
PaOTbl
HO
njiaHHpoBKC
T
Spoc^opBH^ r. CxaHOBJieHHe apxHTeKTypM coaeTCKoro
anpeji, 1919.
Jiaajia. "Kfl", JVb 5-6, 1923.
XapbKOBa. "Apx.CCCP", 1974, Ws 5.
K
aonpocy o ropoflax-caflax". "Kfl", Ns 1(4) 1923
EanaTOAmeaa
H.
JleTonnca
anoxH.
M H H C K , 1969
^opaH^ r. K Hcrop TBopqecKHx caaaeit apxHxeKaCafloaa JI. CoaeTCKnit OTfleji na MexflynapoflHoA
K npoSjiewe CTpoHTejiacTaa co^HaJIHCTH>^ecKoro
Topoa JleHHHrpafla H nepBoii CT0JIH^bI YKpaKHbi.
BbicTaBKefleKopaTHBHoroHCKyccTaa H npoMbimropofla. M., 1930.
"Bonpocbi coaeTCKoro H3o6pa3HTejibHoro ncKycJieHHocTH a HapHxe 1925r. "T3",
10, 1966
KasaKoaa H. 0(})opMjieHHe KpacHOH njion,aflH a
cTaa H apxHTeKTypbi", JVb 3, M., 1976.
XaflOBa JI. JlMoab Honoaa. "T3", Wa 11, 1967
MocKae 1 Maa 1918r. "ApxCCCP", W 5 1967
ropHbiii C. njiannpoBKa ropofloa. M., 1931.
aCaAoaa JI. O Teopnn coeeTCKoroflH3aHHa20-x rofloa.
Kasycb H. Hepaaie apxHTeKTypHO-npoeKTHwe MacropHMii C. Co^HaJIHCTH1ecKaa peKoncTpyKHHa
B c6. "Bonpocbi TexKHqecKoij acTeTHKH" M 1968
TepcKHeCoBeTCKOHPoccHH.es. "IITHA".M 1973
MocKBbi. M., 1931.
Xasoaa JI. BXYTEMAC-BXYTEHH (cTpanHubi
KanMWKOB B. ApxHreKTypHo-njiaHnpoaoHHwe npoSTopofla-caflbi. "Kfl", Wb 3, 1922.
JieMw CpeflHeii A3HH. "HjiannpoBKa H CTpoHHCTOpHH). "flH"JV!> 11, 1970.
rpHHepr A. CTpoHTejibcTBo npaBHTejibCTaennbix
TejibCTBo ropofloa", Wa 2, 1935.
Xafloaa JI. A. CoaeTCKHH OTfleji Ha MexnyHapoflHo
3flaHHH. "Cn", JVb 8-9, 1930.
KaHflHHCKHH B. O C^eHHHeCKOH KOMnOSHUHH "HH"
BbicTaaKefleKopaTnanoroHCKyccTaa H npoMbnurypeaim C. OfloMax-KOMMynax."KX", N> 1, 1922.
Wa 1, 1919.
JieHHOCTH a HapHxe a 1925 ro^y. "TexHH^ecKaa
flaBHfloann B. Bonpocw njiaHnpoaaHHa'HOBHx roKaHflHHCKHH. MajieHbKHe cTaTeKH no SOJIBUIHM B O acTeTHKa", 1976, Ns 10.
pofloa. M., 1934.
npocaM. 1. O TOHKe. 2. O J I H H H H . "He" (rasexa)
Xafloaa JI. A. K awcTaaKe B.E. TaTjinna-oflHoro H3
Wa3HWa4, 1919.
flaaHflOBOT JI. O renepanbHOM njiane 3ejieHoro
ocHoaonojioxHHKoa coaeTCKon U I K O J I M flH3aHHa.
KaHflHHCKHH. O "BejiHKoit Y T O H H H " , "XX", Wa 3,
ropofla. "PHK", JVs 9-10, 1930.
"TexHHHecKaa acTeTHKa", 1977, JVa 6.
XafloaaJI.A. "TpHyHa JleHHHa". "T3" 1977 JVo 9
flBopei( CoBeTOB. Bcecoio3HbiH KOHKypc. M., 1933.
Kap. M. H3flepeaan MeTajijia (na awcTaaKe flnfleKnapaqna 06-beflHHeHHa Mojioflwx apxHTCKTopoa XojiToacKHH H. Tpaflm,HH HaposHoro HCKyccTaa "
njioMHwx paSoT cxyfleHxoa BXYTEHHa") "KX"
"CA", JV9 1, 1928.
^
"CH", We 11, 5 MapTa 1937.
Wa 7-8, 1929.
'
flcKJiapaqna OteflHHeHna apxHTeKTopoa-yp6aXojiTOBCKHii H. BocnHTaHHe MacTepa apxHTeKTypti
KapjiHK
JI.
Kapo
AjiaSaH.
Epeaan,
1966.
HHCTOB. "ApxHxeKTypa H BXYTEHH" awn 1
ApxHTeKTypnaa raaeTa". HioHb 1937.
Kapjicen T. CxpoHTejibHWH Maxepnaji a coapeMeH1929.
'
.
XojiTOBCKHH H. KnaccHKa H aKJieKTHKa. "CTpoHHOH apxHxcKxype. "CA", Wa 6, 1929.
fleK;Iapa^Ha (BTopaa) Oe-bcsHHCHHa apxHTeKTopoaTejibHaa ra3eTa", 4 MapTa 1940r.
KapnHHCKHii. Hopa noflyMaxb o paSowM XHJiHn,e
ypSaHHCTOB. "CoaeT.A.", JMb 1-2, 1931.
XyKOB K. Anapen Bypoa. C6. "CoaeT.A.", Wa 18,-M.,
fleKJIapa^Ha BcepoccHHCKoro oSmecTaa npojieiap"CT", Wa 9, 1923.
CKHX apXHTCKTOpOB. "CM", Ns 8, 1929.
Kappa A. ApxnxeKxypa xeaxpa. KoHKypc na npoeKx
Xypasnea A., Xan-MaroMefloa C. HojiaeKa coBeTCKOH
fleKJIapa^Ha Bcecowanoro apxHTeKTypnoro nayqxeaxpa MOCHC. "CM", Wa 7, 1932.
apxHTeKTypbi. M., 1967.
Horo o6mecTBa. "CA", JVs 3, 1930.
Kappa
A., C M H P H O B B. Hoawe KJiySw M O C K B W
3a HOBoe XHjiHme. CopnHK noj, pej,aKimeH K). JlaflecaTb paoHHx KflySoa MocKBbi. M., 1932.
"CM". Wa 11, 1929.
pyna
a
B.
Bejioycoaa,
M.,
1930.
flHKancKHH M. HocTpoHKa ropofloB, H X njian H KpaKaTajior HepaoH awcxaaKH coapeMennoH apxHTeKSaabOMan A. TaopnecTao H.B. XoOToacKoro
coTa. Hr., 1915.
Typw. M., 1927.
^ m""!* ^ ' "P"^"""^" coapeMeHHbix ropoflOB.
"Apx.CCCP.", Wa 5, 1940.
KaytJjMaH C.BjiaflHMHp AjieKceeaHH IflyKo. M., 1946
3ejieHKo A. HpoJieMa cTpoHTejiacTaa coi^HajiHCTHKeHJiHHa JI. Hoaaa apxHTeKTypa H KyjibTypa X H floKynaea H. CoapeinenHaa pyccKaa apxHTeKTypa
Jinma. "CH", Wa 4, 1928.
lecKHx
ropofloa.
"CM",
W
a
1,
1930.
"KH", JVs 14, 1925.
KepxeH^eB H. K H O B O H KyjibType. Hr., 1921.
"^^930
^
^"^"^
enHxamuHx
J
I
B
T
.
"PHK",
W
a
1,
floKynaea H. ApxHTeKTypa paQonero XHjiama n
KepxeH^eB B.HcKyccTBo na yJIH^e. "Ta", Wa 3, 1918.
3ejieHKo A. BocnHTaHHe H opasoaaHHe a coima6biT. "CH" JMo 3, 1926.
KnpHHeHKO E. ^epop KlexTejib. M., 1973.
Ji
H
CTHnecKOM
ropoAe
(niKOjie
coimajiHCTHnecKOH
floKynaes H. ApxHTeKTypa n njiannpoBKa roponoa
KnySw MeTartJiHCToa. HpoeKTw (Trnioawe H yraepxXH3HH). "PHK", Wa 1, 1930.
"CH", M> 6, 1926.
flcHHwe K nocTpoHKe a 1928 rofly). M., 1928
3ejieHKo A. OpraHH3aipia HHTaHHa a coitna/iHCTHHecKMHTa, BHJieHCKHH. CTpOHTejIbCTBO (})a6pHK-KyX0Hb
floKynaea H. ApxHTeKTypa H TexnnKa. "CH"
KOM ropoae. "PHK", Wa 2, 1930.
H cTOJioBwx. "CM", Wa 6, 1929.
JVs 8-9, 1926.
3e;iHHCKHH K. Hfleojioma H sapa^n C O B C T C K O H apxHfloKyqaea H. ApxHTeKTypa H nama uiKojia. "CH"
KnaTfl
B. Topofla-caflw a eaaan c XHjiHn<HbiM B O TeKTypw. "Jletj)", Ns 3(7), 1925.
JVo 2, 1927.
npocoM.
nr., 1917.
HaammKHH A. O paxMepax KaapTajioa a H O B B K njiafloKynaes H. CoapeMeHnaa pyccKaa apxHTOKTypa H
KoBejibMan T.M. TaopnecTao HHxenepa B F HIvHHpoBKax.
"CH",
W
a
12,
1929.
sanaflHbie napajijiejiH. "CH", JVa i H JVs 2, 1927.
xoaa. M., 1961.
y
H3 HCTopHH coaeTCKOH apxHTeKTypbi 1917-1925 rr.
floKynaes H. HporpaMina Kypca O C H O B HCKyccTaa
KoaxynE.*.
HHoaejiHXHHa
A.B.
"YxecH3
6yi,yn<ero"
floKyMBHTw H MaTepnajibi. M., 1963.
apxHTeKTypbi. "C6opHHK MaTepnajioa no xy(ApxHxcKxypHwe (jjanxasHH BejieMnpa XJICSHHH3 HCTopHH coaeTCKOH apxHTOKTypbi 1926-1932rr.
floxecTaeHHOMy o6pa3oaaHHio". M., 1927.
Koaa). "TexHHHecKaa acxexHKa", 1976, Wa 5-6.
floKyMeHTM H MaTepnajiw. TaopnecKne oSieiiHfloKynaea H. XnjiHnfHoe CTpoHTejibcTBo n apxHKoxaHWH H. PaSoiee XHJiHn?e H SWX. M., 1924
HeHHa. M., 1970.
TeKTypa. "CH", JVo 3, 1928.
KoKKHHaKH H. Bjinanne co^HaJIbHwx Hflen' coaexfloKynaea H. KoHKypcna "floM npoMbnujiennocTH"
HKOHHHKoa A., XaH-MaroMeAOB C, niaiker A CocKoii apxHxeKxypw na xaopqecTao sapySexnan
"CM", Ks 3, 1930.
BCTCKaa apxHTeKTypa BHepa, ceroflHa, sasxpa. M.,
apxHTeKTopoB a MexaoeHHbm nepnofl CS
"HTHA" M., 1973.
'

KoKKHHaKH H. K aonpocy o asaHMOcaasax coaeTCKHx

H 3apySexHbix apxHTeKTopoa a 1920-1930-e roflbi.
"Bonpocw coaeTCKoro H3o6pa3HxejibHoro HCKyccTaa H apxHxeKxypw", Wa 3, M., 1976.
KojiJiH H. JleHHHCKHH HJiaH MOHyMeHxajibHOH nponaraHflbi. "Apx.CCCP", Wa 4, 1967.
KojibROB M. 3ejieHbiH ropofl. "PHK", Wa 2, 1930.
Kojibuoaa H. HporpaMMa -fleKJiapai^HaXyfloxecTaeHHO-npoH3aoflCTaeHHOH K O M H C C H H npn BCHX
PCOCP. "T3", Wa 10, 1967.
KoMapoaa JI., KpacHJibHHKoa H. MeTOfl Hccjiefloaanna 4)opMoo6pa3oaaHHa coopyxeHna. "CA",
Wa 5, 1929.
KoMapoaa JI. lOnoocTb BXYTEMACa.
"Apx.CCCP", 1977, Wa 3.
KoHKypcw 1923-1916rr. MAO. M., 1926.
Kopxea. M., MyHu; JI. KaKHM SyfleT HeHTpajibHwft
napK KyjibTypw H OTflwxa. "CM", Wa 12, 1931.
KopH(})ejibfl H. KoH4)epeH^Ha ao BXYTEMACa.
"CA", Wa 5-6, 1927.
KopHcJiejibfl a. HoawcHTb KyjibTypy KJiyScTpoHTCJibCTBa. "PHK", Wa 11, 1930.
KopHc[)ejibfl 3. ApxHTCKTypa coacTCKHx oSmecxaeHHMx 3flaHHH. "AA", Wa 4, 1935.
KoTJiapeaCKHH C. OTflejIbHWiiflOMHKH J I H KOMMyHHCTiwecKoe oSmexHTne. "CT", Wa 1, 1925.
KpacHJibHHKoa H. HpoSjieMw coapeMeHHOH apxHxeKxypw. "CA", Wa 6, 1928.
KpacHH F. OS apxHxeKxypHOM otJjopMJiennH MyHHiHnajibHoro XHJiHmnoro cxponxejibcxaa. "CM",
Wa 11, 1928.
KpHHCKHH B. Haiajio cxaHoajieHHa coiinajiHCTHnecKOH apxHxeKxypw. "MocnpoeKxoaeii"
(rasexa), Wa 20 H Wa 22, 1967.
KpHHCKHH B. B03HHKH0BeHHe H XH3Hb AcCO^HaI^HH
HOBWX apxHXCKXopoa. CS. "Coaex. A.", Wa 18,
M., 1969.
KpHHCKHH B. Onwx oSyqeHHa K O M H O S H I I H H . CS.
"AK", M., 1970.
KpHHCKHH B. CoflOKJiafl npeflcxaanxejia npocxpaHcxaenHoro K0H^e^xpa (ocnoBHoe oxflejieHHe
BXYTEMACa). "XKO", CS. 2, M., 1970.
KpHHCKHH B., JIaMi;oB H., TypKyc M. 3jieMeHxbi
apxHxeKxypHO-npocxpaHCxaenHOH K0Mno3imHH.
M.-JI., 1934.
KpyncKaa H. Fopofla Syflymero. "KoMCOMOJibCKaa
npaafla", We 289, 15fleKaSpa1929r.
KpyxHKOB r. ApxHxeKxypnaa nayiHO-HccjiefloaaxejibCKaa jiaSopaxopna npn apxnxeKxypHOM (|)aKyjibxexe MocKoacKoro Bwcmero xyflyxecxaeHHoxexHHHecKoro HHCXHxyxa. "CH", We 5, 1928.
KpyxHKoa F. Bonpocw npocxpancxaeHnoH opraHH3a^HH KyjibTypHoro KOMHHaTa H Hoaoro Teaxpa.
"CH", We 10, 1930.
KpyxHKOB F. aonpocy oSmecxaeHHo-npocxpaHCTBeHHOH opraHHsaiHH nocejienna nocjiefloaaxejibHO
coi(HajiHCTHHecKoro THna. Fopofl-KOMMyna AaTOcxpoH. "Coaex.A.", We 1-2, 1931.
KysbMHH H. O paSoqeM xnjinmHOM cxponxejibcxae. "CA", Wa 3, 1928.

Ky3bMHH H. npo
"CA", Wa 3, IS
KyHHHM.OS YH<
Kymnep E. Opra
Wa3,1932. '
Jlaapoa B. ApxHi
poflOB CCCP.'
flaapoB B. YiacT
xejibcxae Mocc
Jlaapoa B. Hs no
(j)aKyjibxexa B:
Jlaapoa B. Fopoj]
Jlaapoa B. Onwx
XHJiHHia. "CM
Jlaapoa B. A B T O C
"CM", We 4, 1<
Jlaapoa B. OS-be;
(APY). "CoaeJlaapoa B., Hono
ropofloa a ycjic
We 4, 1931.
Jlaapoa B., Hono
"CM", We 11-]
JlarancKHH E. By
1923.
JIaflHHCKHH A. Ci
CaepfljioacK-N
JlaflOBCKHii H. 0(
xeKxypw (nofl;
acxexHKH). "H;
JIafloacKHH H. M
a MocKae. "CI
JIafloacKHH H. H]
"KocxHHo", "(
JIaflOBCKHH H. Ml
jiHCTHHecKaa.'
JIafloacKHH H. Fc
SwTa. "CM", J;
JIaflOBCKHH. Hjiai
ropcKa B ayae.
JIaMqoB H. Pasai
TypHO K O M H O :
JIapHH K). KojiJiei
ropoflax. "PHI
JIapHH K). 3a H0
JIapHH K). X H J I H I
nepHOfl. "BKLA
JIapHH K). Xyfloxi
JleoHHfloa H. HHC
JleoHHflOB H. Hpi
THna. "CA", W
JleoHHflOB H. 3ai
"CA", Wa 4, 19.
JteoHHfloa H. flat
flBop^ax Kyjib
JleoHHflOB H. floi
1930.
JleoHHflOB H. Hpi
jienna npn Mai
THieCKOM KOM(

Publications in Russian

H oTieT. "ApxCCCP", N> 4,

iHOB B. IIpoJieMa XHJioro
HeB.CeMeHoaa. M.-JI., 1931.
iTHHecKaa nepecTpoKa
HOBbie HHflyCXpHH. "lip",
; apxHTeKTypi.1 coBeTCKoro
:P", 1974, Ns 5.
opiecKHx cBase apxHTeKnepBOH CTOJIHl(bI YKpaHKbl.
0 H3o6pa3HTejibHoro HCKyc, JVa 3, M., 1976.
1 ropofloB. M., 1931.
necKaa peKOHCTpyKi(Ha
3, 1922.
>CTBo npaBHTenbCTBeHHbix
5, 1930.
MMynax. "KX", Ns 1, 1922.
njiaHHpoBaHHa H O B B I X ronbHOM njiane Sejienoro
-10, 1930.
[03HHH KOHKypc. M., 1933.
Ha MOJIOflblX apXHTeKTOpOB.
[Ha apxHTeKTopoB-ypSaSH BXYTEHH", Bbin. 1,

j-beflHHeHHa apXHTCKTOpOBL",JVo 1-2, 1931.

Koro omecTBa npoaeTap2M",
8, 1929.
"o apxHTeKTypHoro Hayn, JVs 3, 1930.
MocKBbi. M., 1932.
[a ropoflOB, HX njian H KpaM COBpCMeHKblX ropoHOB.
aa pyccKaa apxHTeKTypa.
pa paSoHero acHnnma H

3a H HJiaHHpOBKa ropoflOB.
3a H TexHHKa. "CH",
)a H Haiua niKOJia. "CH",
ia pyccKaa apxHTeKTypa H
'CH", JVs 1 H Ks 2, 1927.
Kypca ocHOB HCKyccTBa
[K MaTepnajiOB no xyBaHHKj". M., 1927.
CTpOHTejIbCTBO H apXH528.
'flOM npOMbiniJieHHOCTH".

floKynaes H. KoHKypc Ha njiannpoBKy MarnnToHjibHH JI. ApxHTeKTypa Jlennnrpafla 3a 20 jieT.

ropcKa. "CM", Ws 4, 1930.
"AJI", Ws 1, 1937.
floMa-KOMMyHbi. MaTepHajibi KOHKypcoa: Bcecows- HjibHH M. BecHHHbi. M., 1960.
noro MeacayaoacKoro KOHKypca na CTyflennecKHH
Ho4)aHB.TaopHecKHHOT<ieT. "ApxCCCP", Ws 6,1935.
flOM-KOMMyny. KoHKypca JlenHnrpaflCKoro coaeTa HcKyccTBO a npoHsaoflcTae. CSopHHK Ws 1, M. 1921.
Ha HOMa-KOMMynbifljiapaSonnx. JI., 1931.
"HcKyccTBo KoMMyHbi" -raseTa.fleKaSpt1918r. floMpoacKHH C. PaoTbi no njiannpoBKe r. apocanpeji, 1919.
Jiaajia. "Kfl", Ws 5-6, 1923.
K aonpocy o ropoflax-canax". "Kfl", Ws 1(4), 1923.
EajiaTonmeaa H. JleTonncb anoxH. M H H C K , 1969.
K npoSjieMe CTpoHTejibCTBa co^HaJIHCTHHecKo^o
Xafloaa JI. CoaeTCKHH oTfleji na Me>KflyHapoj(HOH
ropona. M., 1930.
BbicTaBKe neKopaTHBHoro ncKyccTaa H npoMbimKasaKoaa H. OtJjopMJienne KpacHoil njiomaAH a
JICHHOCTH a HapHxe 1925 r. "T3", Ws 10, 1966.
MocKae 1 Maa 1918r. "ApxCCCP", Ws 5, 1967.
XaflOBa JI. JlroSoBb Honoaa. "T3", Ws 11, 1967.
Kasycb H. Hepaaie apxHTCKTypno-npoeKTHbie MacXafloaa JI. O Teopna coaeTCKoro anaaHna 20-x rofloa.
TepcKHe CoaeTCKOH PoccHH. CS. "HTHA". M., 1973.
B c6. "Bonpocbi TexHHnecKofi acTeTHKH". M., 1968.
KajiMbiKOB B. ApxHTeKTypno-iDianHpoaonHbie npoSXafloaa JI. BXYTEMAC-BXYTEHH (cTpaHH^bI
jieMbi Cpeflneii A S H H . "HjiannpoBKa H cTponHCTOpHH). " f l j l " Ws 11, 1970.
TejibCTBO ropofloa", Ws 2, 1935.
Xafloaa JI. A. CoaeTCKHH oTfleji na MexnynaponnoH
KaHflHHCKHH B. O CIjenHHeCKOH K0Mn03HI(HH. "HH"
BbicTaBKefleKopaTHBHoroHCKyccTaa n npoMbiinWs 1, 1919.
JieHHOCTH B Hapnxe a 1925 rofly. "TexmraecKaa
KaHflHHCKHH. MajienbKHe cTaTeftKH no SojibiuHM aoacTCTHKa", 1976, Ws 10.
npocaM. 1. O TOHKe. 2. O J I H H H H . "He" (raseTa).
XafloBa JI. A. K aaicTaaKe B.E. TaTJinna-oAHoro H3
WS3HWS4,
1919.
ocHoaonojioxHHKoa C O B C T C K O H I U K O J I M HHaaima.
KaHflHHCKHH. O "BejiHKOH Y T O H H H " , "XK", W 3
"TexHHHecKaa acTeTHKa", 1977, Ws 6.
1920.
Xafloaa JI. A. "Tpneyna JleHHHa". "T3", 1977. Ws 9.
Kap. M. H3flepeaaH MeTajiJia (na aaicTaaKe A H aCojiTOBCKHii H. TpaflimHH HapoflHoro ncKyccTaa.
njioMHbix paSoT cTyflenToa BXYTEHHa), "KX"
"CH", We 11, 5 MapTa 1937.
Ws 7-8, 1929.
XojiToacKHH H. BocnHTaHHe MacTepa apxHTeKTypai.
KapjiHK JI. Kapo AjiaSan. Epeaan, 1966.
"ApxHTeKTypnaa raaeTa". HioHb 1937.
KapjiceH r. CTpoHTejibHbiH MaTepnaji a coapeMenXojiToacKHH H. KnaccHKa H aKJieKTHKa. "CTponnoii apxHTeKType. "CA", Ws 6, 1929.
Tejibnaa raaeTa", 4 MapTa 1940r.
KapnHHCKHii. Hopa noflyMaTb o paSoieM acnjinnie.
XyKOB K. Anflpe Bypoa. C6. "CoaeT.A." W<> 18 M
"CT", WS 9, 1923.
1969.
Kappa A. ApxHTeKTypa TeaTpa. KonKypc na npoeKT
aCypaajiea A., Xan-MaroMeaoa C. HojiaeKa coaeTCKofi
TeaTpa MOCHC. "CM", Ws 7, 1932.
apxHTCKTypbi. M., 1967.
Kappa A., C M H P H O B B. Hoaaie KJiySw M O C K B H .
3a noaoe acnjinme. CSopnnK noH pe^aKipieH K). Jla"CM". Ws 11, 1929.
pyna H B. Bejioycoaa, M., 1930.
KaTajior Hepaoii aaicTaaKH coapeMeHHoii apxHTeK3ajibaMaH A. TaopnecTBo H.B. X O J I T O B C K O F O .
Typw. M., 1927.
"Apx.CCCP.", Ws 5, 1940.
Kay4)Man C.BjiaflHMnp AjieKceeann IflyKO. M., 1946.
3ejieHKO A. HpojieMa CTpoHTejibCTaa coifliajiHCTHKeiijiHna JI. Hoaaa apxHTeKTypa n KyjibTypa acHlecKHx ropofloa. "CM", Ws 1, 1930.
mm.a. "CH", Ws 4, 1928.
3ejieHKo A. Topofl ejiHacanmnx JieT. "PHK", Ws 1
KepaceHi^ea H. K H O B O H KyjibType. Hr., 1921.
1930.
Kep>KeH^eB B.HcKyccTao na yjinrte. "Ta", Ws 3, 1918.
3ejieHKo A. BocnHTaHHe H oSpaaoaaHHe a coipiaK H P H H C H K O E. <I)eflop lIIexTejib. M., 1973.
jiHCTHnecKOM ropofle (niKOJie coipiajiHCTiraecKOH
KjiySw MeTajiJiHCTOB. HpoeKTbi (THnoawe H yraepxXH3HH). "PHK", Ws 1, 1930.
fleHHwe K nocTpoHKe a 1928 rofly). M., 1928.
3ejieHK0 A. Oprainiaaipia nHTaima a co^HaJIHCT^MecKMHTa, BHJiencKHH. CTpoHTenbCTao (j3aSpHK-KyxoHb
KOM ropofle. "PHK", We 2, 1930.
H CTOJIOBWX. "CM", We 6, 1929.
3ejiHHCKHH K. Hfleojiorna H saflann coaeTCKofi apxHKHaT^ B. Topofla-caflw a caasH c amjiHmHWM aoTeKTypw. "Jle^", Ws 3(7), 1925.
npocoM. Hr., 1917.
HaanHUKHH A. O paxMepax KaapTanoB a Hoaaix njiaKoaejibMaH P.M. TaopneeTBO HHxeHepa B.F. IllyHHpoBKax. "CH", Ws 12, 1929.
xoaa. M., 1961.
H3 HCTOpHH coaeTCKOH apXHTOKTypbl 1917-1925 IT.
KoBTyn E. <I>. H HoaejiHxnna A. B. " Y T B C H3 Syflymero"
floKyMeHTbi H MaTepnajibi. M., 1963.
(ApxHTeKTypnwe (j)aHTa3HH BejieMnpa XjieSnnH3 HCTopHH coaeTCKOH apxHTeKTypbi 1926-1932rr.
Kosa). "TexHHHecKaa acTCTHKa", 1976, Ws 5-6.
floKyMCHTbi H MaTepnajibi. TBopnecKHe o6T.enH- KoxanwH H. PaSoqee jKHjinme H SWT. M., 1924.
nenna. M., 1970.
KoKKHHaKH H. Bjinanne coiinajianbix Hflen coaeTH K O H H H K O B a., Xan-MaroMeflOB C, nianxeT A. CoCKoii apxHTCKTypw na TaopnecTao 3apy6eXHbix
apxHTeKTOpoa a MeacaoenHbm nepnofl. CS.
aeTCKaa apxHTCKTypa aiepa, ceroffHa, saaTpa. M
"HTHA" M., 1973.
1967.

KoKKHHaKH H. K aonpocy o asaHMOcaasax coaeTCKHX

H aapySeacHbix apxnreKTopoa B 1920-1930-e roflbi.
"Bonpocw coaeTCKoro HSoSpaanTejibnoro HCKycCTaa H apxHTeKTypw", Ws 3, M., 1976.
KojiJiH H. HenHHCKHH njian MOHyMenTajibnoH nponaraHflw. "Apx.CCCP", Ws 4, 1967.
KoJIb^OB M. 3ejieHbi ropofl. "PHK", Ws 2, 1930.
KoJIb^oaa H. HporpaMMa -fleKJIapa^HaXyfloacecTBeHHo-npoHSBOflCTBenHOH KOMHCCHH npn BCHX
PC<>CP. "T3", Ws 10, 1967.
KoMapoBa JI., KpacnnbHHKoa H. MeTOfl nccjiefloaanna (JiopMOoSpasoaaHna coopyxenHa. "CA",
Ws 5, 1929.
KoMapoaa R. lOnoocTb BXYTEMACa.
"Apx.CCCP", 1977, Ws 3.
KoHKypcw 1923-1916rr. MAO. M., 1926.
Kopxea. M., MyH^ JI. KaKHM SyfleT HenTpajianwH
napK KyjibTypw H oTflwxa. "CM", Ws 12, 1931.
KopH(})ejibfl a. KoH(J)epeH^Ha ao BXYTEMACa.
"CA",We5-6, 1927.
KopH4)ejibfl a. HoBbicHTb KynbTypy KJiyScTpoHTejibCTBa. "PHK", Ws 11, 1930.
KopH4)ejibfl fl. ApxHTeKTypa coaeTCKHx oSmecTaennwx sflannH. "AA", Ws 4, 1935.
KoTnapeaCKHH C. OTflejIbHWHflOMHKH J I H KOMMyHHCTHHecKoe oSmeacHTHe. "CT", WS 1, 1925.
KpacHJibHHKoa H. HpoSjieMW coapeMeHHOH apxHTeKTypw. "CA", Ws 6, 1928.
KpaCHH r. OS apXHTBKTypHOM 0tf)0pMJieHHH MyHHMnnajibHoro XHJinniHoro cTpoHTejibCTaa. "CM",
Ws 11, 1928.
KpHHCKH B. Hanajio cTanoajienna coanajincTHnecKoii apxHTeKTypw. "MocnpoeKToaeii"
(raaeTa), Ws 20 H Ws 22, 1967.
KpHHCKHH B. BosHHKHoaeHHe H a{H3Hb AecoaHai(HH
Hoawx apxHTeKTopoa. CS. "CoaeT.A.", Ws 18,
M., 1969.
KpHHCKHH B. OnwT oSyneHHa KOMno3Hi?HH. CS.
"AK", M., 1970.
KpHHCKHft B. CoflOKJiafl npeflCTaaHTCJia npocTpancTaeHHoro KOH^enTpa (ocnoanoe oTflejienne
BXYTEMACa). "XKO", CS. 2, M., 1970.
KpHHCKHH B., JIaM^oa H., TypKyc M. 3jieMeHTW
apxHTeKTypHO-npocTpanCTBeHHoii K0M^03H^HH.
M.-JI., 1934.
KpyncKaa H. Topofla Syflymero. "KoMCOMOJiacKaa
npaafla", Ws 289, 15fleKaSpa1929r.
KpyTHKoa r. ApxHTeKTypnaa naynno-nccjiefloaaTBJibCKaa jiaSopaTopna npn apxHTeKTypnoM cjjaKyjibTCTe MocKoacKoro Bwcmero xyflyacecTaeHHOTexnnnecKoro HHCTHTyTa. "CH", Ws 5, 1928.
KpyTHKoa F. Bonpocw npocTpancTaeHHoii opranHaapHH KyjibTypnoro KOMSnnaTa H noaoro TeaTpa.
"CH", Ws 10, 1930.
KpyTHKoa F. aonpocy oSniecTaenHO-npocTpaHCTaeHHofi opraHH3a^HH nocejienna nocjiefloaaTejibHO
coi(HajiHCTHnecKoro Tnna. Fopofl-KOMMyna AaTOCTpoii. "CoaeT.A.", Ws 1-2, 1931.
KysbMHH H. O paSoieM XHJinmnoM CTpoHTejibCTae. "CA", Ws 3, 1928.

JIeoHH^oa H. HajiHTpa apxHTeKTopa. "Apx.CCCP",

KysbMHH H. HpoSneMa nayMHoii orpaHH3a^HH SwTa.
Ws 4, 1934.
"CA", Ws 3, 1930.
JlepMan H., OpHflMan fl. HpHnaHnw njiaHHpoBKH
Kynnn M.06 Ynoance. "He", BHTCSCK, We 2-3, 1921.
coiinajiHCTHHecKoro ropofla. "CM", Ws 8, 1929.
Kymnep B. OprannsaTopw nponcaoflCTaa. "JIEO",
JIHCH^KH. KaTacTpotJja apxHTeKTyw. FaseTa
Ws 3, 1932.
"H30", Ws 1, 1921.
Jlaapoa B. ApxHTCKTypa na awcTaaKe ncKyccTa naJIHeH^KHH 3JI. AMepHKaHH3M B eaponecjioH apxHpoflOB CCCP. "CH", Ws 11, 1927.
TeKType. "KH",Ws49, 1925.
flaapoB B. YnacTHe ACHOBA a acHJinmnoM cTpoHJ I H C H U K H . ApxHTeKTypa xejieanoH n xejieaoTCJibCTae MoccoaeTa. "CM", Ws 1, 1928.
SeTOHHO paMW. "CH" Ws 1, 1926.
Jlaapoa B. Ha nocjieflHHx paSoT ApxHTeKTypnoro
J I H C H I I K H 3jib. CepHa neSocKpeSoafljiaMocKaai.
(jjaKyjibTCTa BXYTEHHA. "CM", Ws 10, 1928.
"HaaecTHa ACHOBA", Ws 1. M., 1926.
Jlaapoa B. Fopofl-nnnna. "CH", Ws 6-7, 1928.
JIHCHL(KH JI. KyjibTypa acnjiba. "CH", We 12, 1926.
Jlaapoa B. OnwT HJiannpoaKH KOJiJieKTnaHoro
JIHCHI;KH. HflOJIbI n HflOJIOnOKJIOHHHKH. "CH",
jKHJinma. "CM", Ws 7, 1929.
Ws 11-12, 1928.
Jlaapoa B. AaTOCTpo - coitHanncTHnecKHH ropofl.
J I H C H U K H j i . OopyM co^HaJIHCTKqeeKOH MocKaai.
"CM", Ws 4, 1930.
"Apx.CCCP", Ws 10, 1934.
Jlaapoa B. OSteflHHHe apxHTeKTopoa-ypSanHCToa
JIoSanoB
B. XyfloxecTaennwe rpynnnpoBKH aa
(APY). "CoaeT.A.", cS. Ws 18, M., 1969.
nocneflHHe 25 jieT. M., 1930.
Jlaapoa B., Honoa B. K npoSneMe peKOHCTpyK^HH
JloSoa. MeSejib (})aKyjibTeTa no oSpaSoTKe flepeaa
ropoflOB a ycjiOBHax Cpeflnen Aann. "CoaeT.A.",
H MeTanjia BXYTEHHa. "CM", Ws 10, 1929.
Ws4, 1931.
JIonnaTO
A., A.4>. JIojiJieT. M., 1969.
Jlaapoa B., Honoa B. 15 J I B T njiannpoBKH ropofloa.
JlynanapcKH A. HpoMbimjiennocTb H ncKyccTao.
"CM", Ws 11-12, 1932.
"2KH", Ws 44, 6 HoaSpa 1923.
narancKHH E. Byflymnii HeTporpafl. "KH", Ws 35,
JlynanapcKH A. O SwTe. M.-JI., 1927.
1923.
JlynaHapcKHH A. ApxHTeKTypnoe otJjopMJicHHe coHaflHHCKHH A. CTanflapTHoe amjicTpoHTejibCTao.
^HaJIHCTHHecKHX ropoflOB. "PHK", Ws 1, 1930.
CaepfljiOBCK-MocKaa, 1932.
JlyHanapcKH A. Peib o npojieTapcKo apxHTCKType.
flafloacKHH H. OcHoaai nocTpoenna TeopHH apxn"Apx.CCCP", Ws 8, 1934.
TCKTypw (nofl anaKOM paqHonajiHCTiPiecKOH
JlyxManoB H. HpoSjieMa MeSejiH. "PHK", Ws 13-14,
acTBTHKH). "HaaecTHa ACHOBA", M., 1926.
1930.
JIafloacKHH H. MeacflyHapoflHwii KpacHWH CTaflnoH
JlyxManoa H. ApxHTeKTypa KJiySa. M., 1930.
B MocKBe. "CH", Ws 4, 1927.
JIwSHMOBa F. HoHCKH noawx T H H O B acHJiHuja a eoHaflOBCKHH H. HpoeKT HJianHpoBKH TpyflKOMMynai
aeTCKOH apxHTeKType 20-x rofloa. CS. "BCA",
"KocTHHo", "CM", We 7, 1929.
Ws 1, M., 1962.
JlaflOBCKHii H. MocKaa "HCTopHnecKaa" n co^HaJlaxoa B. CoaeTCKHH peKJiaMnw njiaKaT. M., 1970.
jiHCTHHecKaa. "CM", We 1, 1930.
Maaaea A. HpaaflHHK H caMOfleaTejianocTb (MaccoJlaflOBCKH H. Fopofl OTflWxa H coqnajiHCTHiecKoro
awe peBOJIK^^HOHHwe npaaflHHKH 20-x rofloa).
SwTa. "CM", Ws 3, 1930.
"flH", Ws 11, 1966.
JlaflOBCKH. HjiaHHpoBKa AaTOCTpoa H MarnHTOMaaManan M. O Ha^HOHaJIbHOH (j)opMe. "Ha pySexe
ropcKa a ayae. "CoaeT.A.", Ws 1-2, 1931.
BOCTOKa", TSnnHCH, 1929.
JIaM^oa H. PaaaHTHe MeTOfla HayneHHa apxHTeKMajieani K. O H O B W X cncTCMax a ncKyccTae.
Typno K 0 M ^ 0 3 H ^ H H . CS. "AK", M., 1970.
BHTeScK, 15 HOJia 1919.
JIapHH TO. KojineKTHBHaaipa SbiTa a cymecTayiomHX
Majieann K. OT CeaannaflocynpeMaTnaMa. M., 1920.
ropoflax. "PHK", Ws 7, 1930.
Majieann K. CynpeMaTHaM. YHOBHC, BHTBSCK,
JIapHH K). 3a noaoe aouinme. M., 1930.
15fleKaSpa,1920.
Jlapnn K). aCnnHmHWH aonpoc a peKoncTyKTHanwH
Majieani K. Y H O B H C . "He", BHTeScK, Ws 1, 1921.
nepHOfl. "BKA", We 2-3, 1931.
MaaesHH K. Bor He CKHnyT (HcKyccTBO. HepKoaa,
napnnlO. XyfloaaiHKHfleT a SWT. "BX", Ws 1(8), 1932.
OaSpHKa). YHOBHC, BHTCSCK, 1922.
JleoHHflOB H. HncTHTyT JlenHHa. "CA", Ws 4-5, 1927.
MapKOBHHKOB H. BjiaroycTpocTBO naeejieHHbix
HeoHHflOB H. HpoeKT KJiySa Hoaoro coiiHajianoro
MecT H cxeMa nx npnpoflHOH KpacoTW. "Kfl", Ws 2,
THna. "CA", Ws 3, 1929.
1923.
JleoHHflOB H. 3anHCKa K npoSjieMe naMaTHHKa.
MapKOBHHKOB H.floM-KOMMynaa npomjioM, na"CA", Ws 4, 1929.
cToameM H SyflymeM. "CH", Ws 1, 1930.
JleoHHfloa H. flaopeii KyjibTypw. KflHCKyccHHo
MapKOBHHKoa H. HaannpoaKa H SjiaroycTpoHCTao
flaop^ax KyjibTypbi. "CA", Ws 5, 1930.
nocejiKOB. M., 1931.
JleoHHfloa H. floM npoMwmjiennocTH. "CA", Ws 4,
Map^ JI. FycTaa Kaymc. "T3", Ws 1, 1968.
1930.
Mapi; JI. HponefleaTHnecKHH Kyne BXYTEMACaJleoHHfloa H. HpoeKT coi;HajiHCTHnecKoro pacceBXYTEHHa (ocnoanoe oTflejieHHe). "T3",
jienna npn MarnHToropcKOM xHMHKO-MCTajiJiypWs 2, 4, 12-1968, Ws 4-1969.
rimecKOM KOMSnnaTe. "CA", Ws 3, 1930.

MacTepa coBeTCKoii apxHTeKTyti 06 apxHTeKType.

HHKOJIbCKHH A. EcTecTBeHHoe ocBemeHHe BHyTpenTOM I H II, M., HaflaTejibCTBo "HeKyccTBo", 1975.
HaCKOBCKHH B. UlKOJIbHOe CTpOHTejIbCTBO JleHHHH H X noMemeHHH. "CA", Ws 2, 1929.
Ma^a H. O KoncTpyKTHBHSMe (HcTopHKO-xyfloxecTrpafla. "Apx.CCCP", Ws 6, 1933.
HHKOJIbCKHH A. H3 paOT MOBH' MaCTepcKOH "AA"
BHHbie 3aMeTKH). "Hc", W 8, 1971.
HacTepnaK A. yp6anH3M. "CA", Ws 1, 1926.
Ws 1-2, 1934.
Ma^HHCKHH B. PaSoHHH nocejioK. M., 1925.
HacTepnaK A. Hyrn K cTaHflapTy. "CA", Ws 2, 1927.
HHKOJIbCKHH
A. TBOpneCKHH OTHCT "Apx CCCP"
Meflepxojibfl B. CTaTbH, nnctMa, peiH, ecenbi T
HacTepnaK A. Hosbie (JjopMW coBpeMennoro'xHJiba
Ws 4, 1935.
I-H, M., 1968.
'
"CA", Ws 4-5, 1927.
HoBH^KHH n . HpojieMa npojieTapcKoro cTHJia.
MejlbHHKOB E. Bopnc MnxanjiosHq Hotjian
HacTepnaK A. HoBwe co^HaJIbHwe Tnnw JKHJinma
HpoSa cHJi Ha BwcTaBKe npocKToaflBop^aCo"Apx.CCCP", JS9 5, 1971.
BCTOB. "BX", Ws 3(10) 1932.
"CM", Ws 5, 1929.

MejlbHHKOB K. FopOfl pa^HOHaJIH3H^poBaHHO^O

H0BH^KHH H. CTpOHTejIbCTBO C0^HaJIH3Ma H CTHJIb
HacTepnaK A. Cnopw o yflymeM ropofla. "CA"
oTflbixa. "CM", JV9 3. 1930.
coBpeMHHOH apxHTeKTypw. "HHP", Ws 2, 1928.
Ws 1-2, 1930.
MejlbHHKOB K. 04)opMjieHHe npocKTa
HoBH^KHH n . FercMOHa apxHTCKTypw. "PHK"
HeTpoB
A. OnwT nocTpoHKH ropoflOB-caflOB B 3ana"Apx.CCCP", No 5, 1933.
Ws 7, 1928.
flHOH
CnHpH. "Kfl", JVs 1(4), 1923.
MejlbHHKOB K. ApXHTCKTyHOe OCBOeHHe H O B U X
O naMaTHHKe B.H. JleHHHy. Jl., 1924.
HeTpoB B. ACHOBA 3a 8 JieT.'"CoBeT. A" W 1-2
MaxepHajioB. "Apx.CCCP", N> 4, 1934.
1931.
. -i A
O HJiaHHpoBKe eo^HaJ^HCTH1ecKoro ropofla (flncKycMejlbHHKOB K. CTpoHTejlbCTBO H apXHTCKTOp C6
HeTpoB B. HaMaTHHKH MOHyMeHTajibnon nponacHaB KoMaKafleMHH). "BKA", Ws 42, 1930.
"AK", M., 1970.
ranflw. "Apx.CCCP", Ws 3, 1970.
O co^HaJIHeTH1ecKOH njiannpoBKe paccejienna (TeMecTHOB A. HojiHTexHHKqecKOH HiKOJie npojieHeiKOBCKHH
H. BcecoK)3Haa cejibcKoxosaHCTBennaa
3HcbifloKJiaflaccKipiH co^HaJIHCTHnecKoro pacTapcKyio apxHTeKTypy. "CM", Wb 11, 1930.
BwcTaBKa B ee apxHTeKTynbixflocTHxennax"CT"
cejieHHa). "CA", Ws 6, 1930.
MeniKOB A. Paoiee scHJinme H Meejib "CM"
Ws 10, 1923.
O c-be3fle ApxHTCKTypHoro nofloTflejia H30 HKH.
H H J I H B C K H H B. CTpoHTejibCTBo 6anb B Jlennnrpafle
Wo 10, 1929.
"HcKyccTBO KoMMyHw", 2 MapTa 1919r.
"AJI", Ws 4, 1940.
MeinepaKOB. O eoipianHCTHHecKHx ropoflax. M., 1931.
Hjian paoT ApxHTeKTypnoro OTflejia HKH " X X "
063opfleaTejibHocTHOxflejia HsopasHTejibHwx
M H J I H H H C H. OpraHH3a^HH padoTbi KJiySa H O B O T O
Ws 1, 1919.
HCKyccTB. HapoflHWH KOMHccapnaT no npocsecoi<HajibHoro THna. "CA", N> 3, 1929.
no3flHeeB A. OnwT nocTpoiiKHflOMOB-KOMMynH
meHHK). HeTepypr, 1919 H 1920.
M H J I M T H H H. Co^ropofl. HpojieMa CTpoHTejibcTBa
05meCTB0 apXHTCKTOpOB XyflOXHHKOB. EjKerOflHHK
OpraHH3a^HH B HHX XH3HH XHJIHHIHOH Koonepacoi;HajiHCTOTiecKHx ropoflOB. M., 1930.
Jl., Bwn. 12-1927, Bwn. 13-1930, B W H 14-1935.
^HeH.
"Kfl", Ws 4, 1930.
M H J I I O T H H H. HporpaMMa npooKTHpoBaHHa floMOB
OrnHCKaa Jl. XyfloxHHK-arHTaTop (F. Kjiynnc)
HojiaKOB A. XapaKTep cTpoHTejibCTaa 6yflynieH
nepexoflHoro Tnna. . . " C O B B T . A . " , W 1-2, 1931.
"flH", Ws 5, 1971.
^
M O C K B W . "XX", MapT-anpejib 1920.
M H J I I O T H H H. Co^HaJIHCTHHecKaa njiannpoBKa ropoOjieHHKOB H. KyjibTypa H WT KOMMynw "HjiaMa
HocTanoBjieHHe l[K BKn(5) "O paOTe no nepeflOB H HOBoe jKHJibe. "CM", W 6, 1931.
CTpoHKe 6wTa". (HocTanoBjieHne npHnaxo 16 Maa
peBOJIIo^HH". "PHK", Ws 4, 1930.
MHHKyc M., HeKapesa H. >OMHH. M., 1953.
1930r.). "Hp", Ws 146, 29 Maa 1930.
OjiTapxeBCKHH
B.
Hepsaa
cejibCKoxoaaHCTBeHnaa
MnpepB. OyKjioHaxBrpaflocTpoHTejibCTBe. "KIT"
HocTanoBJienHe BcepoccHcKoro IJeHTpanbHoro
BbicTaBKa B MocKBe. "ExeroflHHK HncTHTyTa
Wl. 11, 1929.
'
HenojiHHTejibHoro KoMHTeTa n CoaeTa HapoflHwx
HCTOpHH HCKycCTB 1956". M., 1957.
MnxaHJioB A. FpynHnpoBKH coBeTCKo apxHTeKTyKoMHccapoa PC<I>CP "06 ycTpoficTae nacejienOjib r. TBopqecTBo A.C. HnKokcKoro. C6. "Tsoppw. M.-JI., 1932.
H M X MecT PC0CP". (HocTaHOBjieHHe). "Hsa "
MHxaJioB fl. HoBbiH ropofl. M.-JI., 1931.
lecKHe npoSjicMw apxHTeKTybi". M.-JI., 1956.
Ws 233, 23 aarycTa 1932r.
MopflBHHOB A. CTpOHTeJIbCTBO H O B W X TOpOflOB
OpjioB F. Bojibinoe Sanopoxbe "Apx CCCP"
HocTanoBjienne HK BKH(6) o nepecTpoHKe J I H T B Ws 3-4, 1933.
"JIHH", Wo 1, 1930.
OcHnoB H. OCA H ACHOBA. "HBM" W. 7(15)
paTypHO-xyflojKecTBennwx opranH3a^HH (23
MopflBHHOB A. JleoHHflOBmHHa H ee Bpefl "HBM"
1930.
- y ->>'
anpejia 1932r.). "Hp", Ws 114, 24 anpejia 1932r.
OxHTOBHn M. Co^HaJIHCTHHecKHH cnoco6 paccejiHHa
Wo 12(20), 19.30.
"HpOjieMW HCTOpHH COBeTCKOH apXHTBKTypbl",
H CO^HaJIHCTHqeCKHH THn XHJIba. "BKA"
MopflBHHOB A. HaniH saflaiH. " C O B B T . A " W 1-2
CopHHK nayiHbix TpyfloB.
Ws 35-36, 1929.
1931.
PeflaKTop
CO. Xan-MaroMefloB. M., Wo 1-1975
OxHTOBHM M. K npojieMe ropofla. "CA" W 4
MocKOBCKoe apxHTCKTypnoKe o6mecTBo (MAG).
Ws 2-1976, Ws 3-1977, Ws 4-1978.
1929.
' ' '
ExeroflHHK. B W H . 5, M., 1928; B W H . 6, M., 1930.
HpojieMw co^HaJIHCTH'IecKOH nepenjiaHHpoBKH
OxHTOBHq M. He ropofl, a H O B B I H T H H paccejienHa
MocTaKOB A. HpojieTapcKOMy CTyflennecTBy nosoe
MoeKBw. "KX", Ws 13-14, 1931.
"3X",
W
s
282,
7
fleKaSpa
1929.
XHJibe. "CM", Ws 1, 1931.
HporpaMMw
OcnoBHoro oTflejienna BXYTEMACaOXHTOBHH M. SaMCTKH HO TeopHH paccejicHHa
MypHHaE.TKaHHJIio6oBHHonoBOH. "flH",Wo8,1967.
BXYTEHHa. C6. "XKO", Ws 2, M., 1970.
"CA", Ws 1, 1930.
MbicjiHH B. Heu H KaK XHBeT ACHOBA. " C O B C T A"
HporpaMMHo-HfleojiopHiecKaa ycTanoBKa ceKTopa
0TOBHi M. OT nero rnneT ropofl? "CM", Ws 1,
Ws 1-2, 1931.
ACHOBA. "CoaeT.A" Ws 1-2, 1931.
HesHaMOB A. Hpo3-pa6oTbi A. JlasHHCKoro
HysHc F. HyTH HOBoro paccejienna. "CM", Ws 1,1930.
OXHTOBHH M. C0^HaJIH3M ropofla (OTBBT T. HepHa)
"JIE$", Ws 3(7), 1925.
Hy3Hc F. Co^HaJIHCTHnecKHH MarnHToropcK (na
"PHK", Ws 3, 1930.
HeKpacoB A. Hyrn apxHTeKTybi. "HHP", Ws 4, 1928.
nyTH pemenHa npojieMw). "PHK", Ws 1, 1930.
OxHTOBHi M. "MapKCHCTCKaa" 3amHTa KOMMynajibHHKanopoB. A B T O C T P O H . "PHK", Ws 1, 1930.'
Hyanc F. O H O B O M cnocoe paccejinna "PHK"
Horo co^HaJIH3Ma, "CA", Ws 5, 1930
HHKojiaeB H. OnbiTHaa nocTpoHKa cTyflenqecKoro
Ws 7, 1930.
OmenKOB F., H.B. X O J I T O B C K H H ! HpoeKTW H H O C T poHKH. M., 1955.
flOMa-KOMMyHw. "CM", Ws 7, 1930.
HyMnancKHH Jl. OKTa6pbCKHe TopxecTBa n xyfloxHHKojiaea H. 06 apxHTeKTypnoM JIH^e coBCTCKoro
HHKH HeTporpafla. "HjiaMa", Ws 35, 1919.
HaBejiHxnna A. ApxHTeKxypnoeflBHxenHeB HcTpoHynHH H. HcKyccTBo n npojieTapnaT "HH" W 1
saBofla. "AA", Ws 1-2, 1935.
rpafle-Jlennnrpafle B 1920-e roflw n MacTepcKaa
1919.
A.C. HHKOjibcKoro. C6. "ApxHTeKTypa" Wo 1
HHKOJIbCKHH A.floKJiaflO HOBOM UIKOJIbHOM CTpOHHyHHH H. HaMSTKHK IH HHTepHa^HonaJIa. HpoeKT
JIHCH. Jl., 1965.
yt' ' - ,
TejibCTBe Ha I - H K0H(j3epeH^HH OCA "CA" W 4
xyfl. B. TaTjinna. Hr., 1920.
1928.
' " '

Hynnn H. TaTann Hr., 1921.

PaoTbi apxHTCKTypnbix MacTepcKHX. T. I - I I , M.,
1936.
Paoiee jKHJinmnooe CTpoHTejibCTBO. AaaoM
npoeKToa. M., 1924.
PaoHHe XHanma (npHMepnwe). Jl., 1924.
Pasaaji BXYTEMACa.floKJiaflnaasanncKa njienoa
HHXYKA. "flEO", Ws 4, 1924.
Panx fl. K aonpocy o ropoflax-caflaxflnaPC<I>CP.
"CT", Ws 1, 4, 7, 1923.
PaKHTHH B. O T X H B O H H C H K apxHTeKType. C6. "AK",
M., 1970.
PaKHTHHa E. JIiooBb Honoaa. HcKyccTBO H Mann(JjecTbi. B c6. "XyfloacHHK, c^eHa, aKpan", M., 1975.
Pe3o^IO^Ha HjienyMa HK BKH(5) "O M O C K O B C K O M
ropoflCKOM xosancTBe n o pasaHTHH ropoflCKoro
xosatcTBa CCCP". (15 Hiona 1931r.).
"HP", Ws 165, 17 HKJHa 1931r.
Pe30Jiioi(Ha noflOKJiaflaMHfleoaomnecKOH ceKipiH,
npmiaTaa na nepaoii Kon^jepeniHH OCA. "CA",
Ws 3, 1928.
PesojiK^na noflOKJiaflyacHJinmno-njiaHnpoaonoH
ceK^HH OCA. "CA", Ws 4, 1928.
Pe3oaK)^Ha CACCo "jieonnfloainjiHe". "CoaeT.A.",
Ws 1-2, 1931.
Pe30JiK)UHa ceK^HH H30 HncTHTyTa JIHfl KoMaKafleMHH noflOKJianyT . Mopflannoaa o MejiKOypacyasnoM nanpaaaennH a apxHTCKType, npnnaTaa
20.XH-1930r. " C O B C T . A . " , WS 1-2,

1931.

Po3en6epr A. (|)Hnoco(f)Ha apxHTeKTypw. Hr., 1923.

Pomnn Jl. <I>yHK^Hona^H3M - ne nam C T H J I . "HBM",
Ws 6(14), 1930.
PyaoKe B. FpaflOCTpoHTejibHwe npojieMW a KpacnoM HeTporpafle. "CTpoHTeabCTBO n apxHTeKTypa
JleHHHrpaaa", Ws 1, 1967.
Pyxjiaflea A., K P H H C K H H B. 06 HfleoaornneeKOH
BwpaxHTejibHOCTH B apxHTBKType. KoHKypcflaop1(3 KJibTypw Coioosa MeTajiJincTOB a MocKae.
"CoaeT.A", Ws 1-2, 1931.
PaeyniHH A. Hs HCTopnn coaeTCKoro acHJinma. C6.
"CoBBT.A", Ws 17, M., 1967.
PasaHLiea H. HcKyccTao coaeTCKoro BWCTaaonnoro
ancaMaa 1917-1970. M., 1976.
Ca6coBHn Jl. CCCP nepes 15 jieT. FnnoTesa nocTpoenna coiiHajiHSMa B CCCP. M., 1929.
CacoBHn Jl. Fopofla yflymero n onprannaailHa cortHaanCTHiecKoro SaiTa. M., 1929.
CaScoann Jl. CoiinajiHCTHnecKne ropofla. M., 1930.
Ca6coBHH Jl. Hoawe nyTH a cTpoHTejiacTae ropofloa.
"CM", Ws 1, 1930.
Ca6coBHH Jl. HoneMy M W floaxnw n M O X B M CTpoHTb
cou;HajiHCTHiecKHe ropofla. "PHK", Ws 1, 1930.
Ca6coaHn Jl. O npoeKTnpoaanHH J K H J I M X K O M 6 H naToa. "CA", Ws 3, 1930.
Capabanoa fl. AjieKceH BacnJibeaHH BaHHeB xyfloacnnK, TeopeTHK, neflaror. M., 1974.
CeMauiKO H. HpoJieMa cTpoHTejibCTaa coanajincTHnecKoro ropofla saflann coiiHajianoH rnrHenbi.
"PHK", Ws 1, 1930.
CeMenoB B. BjiafloycTpoiicTao ropofloc. M., 1912.

CeMenoa B. O
CeMenoB B. K
CTajiHnrpafl
CeMenoa B. K
"CM", Ws 8CeMenoaa E.B
"Yienwe sa
Bwn. 184,1
CHflopnna E.E^
HeKOTopwe'
"npoHsaoflc
BHHHT3"
Ws 11, M., 1,
CnflopHHa E. I
HOCTH 20-x
HHH. "Tpyfli
aCTBTHKa"),
CHflOpOB A. B
CHM6Hpi(eB B
TapcKHX apj
"CoBeT. A"!
C M H P H O B B. IS

1930.
CMHpHoaa O.,
Ws 18, M., ]
CMypoaa H.B
nporpecca i
KHX Koni(en
aa XX aa. (
CoaeTCKaa ap
CoaeTCKoe nc
KyMCHTW. ^
CoKonoa H. (
TeMa;Kypc
CoKoaoa H.B
CoiiHaaHCTHH
CTHHeCKHH
lecKOH AK;
CnpaaonnHKi
CTenaHoa B.
CTenanoaa B
fleacfla. "J
CTpHraaea A
TajibHoro K
CTpnraaea A
B.H.HeHH]
CTpnrajiea A
Typnaa cjjo;
CT.[pHraJieB^
H H K H " . "fll

CTpnraaea A
1971.
CTpnrajiea A
M H " . "Apx
CTpnrajiea A
"Apx.CCC
CTpnraaea A
naiHonajia
coaeTCKori
TeKTypw"

Publications in Russian

HHKOJIbCKHH A . EcTecTBCHHoe ocBcmeHHe BHyTpCH-

HHx HOMemeHHH. "CA", JVs 2, 1929.

HacKOBCKHH B. IIlKOabHoe CTpoHTejibCTBO Jlennn-

rpafla. "Apx.CCCP", Ws 6, 1933.

HHKOJIbCKHH A . H3 p a 6 0 T M O C H MaCTepCKOH. " A A " ,

H a c T e p n a K A . Y p d a n n s M . " C A " , Ws 1, 1926.

JV 1-2, 1934.
HHKOJIbCKHH A. TBOpneCKHH O T H C T . "ApX.CCCP",
Nk 4, 1935.
HoBHiiKHH H. HpoJiCMa npojieTapcKoro C T H J I H .
Hpo6a CHji Ha BbicTaaKe npocKTOBflsopaaCo-

A. Hyrn K CTanflapTy. "CA", Ws 2, 1927.

H a c T e p n a K A. H o B b i e cJjopMbi c o a p e M e n H o r o x n j i b a .
"CA", Ws 4-5, 1927.
H a c T C p n a K A. Hosbie c o u n a a b n b i e T H H M acHJiHina.
"CM", Ws 5, 1929.
H a c T e p n a K A. Cnopbi o SyflymeM ropofla. "CA",
Ws 1-2, 1930.
H e T p o B A. G n b i T nocTpoHKH ropoflOB-caflOB B 3anaflHoii C H 6 H P H . " K f l " , Ws 1(4), 1923.
H e T p o B B. ACHGBA 3a 8 jieT. " C o a e T . A " , Ws 1-2,
1931.
H e T p o a B. HaMaTHHKn MonyMenTajianoH npona-

B C T O B . "EX",

HOBHIIKHH

H.

JV 3(10)

1932.

C0I(HaiIH3Ma H CTHJIb
apxHTBKTypbi. "HHP", Jvfs 2, 1928.

CTpOHTCJIbCTBO

coBpeMHHOH

HoBHiiKHH n . FereMOHH apxHTCKTypbi. "PHK",

7, 1928.
O HaMaTHHKe B . H . JleHHHy. JI., 1924.
O HjiaHHpoBKe coiiHajiHCTHHecKoro ropofla (flHCKyc-

CHa B KoMaKafleMHH). " B K A " , JVb 42, 1930.

ranflbi. "Apx.CCCP", Ws 3, 1970.

O coi<HajiHCTH'qecKOH njiannpoBKe p a c c e j i e n n a ( T O 3ncbi flOKaafla ceKLinn coqnajiHCTHnecKoro p a c c e j i e n n a ) . " C A " , JVs 6, 1930.

O cbesfle

ApxHTCKTypnoro

noflOTflejia H 3 0 H K H .

" H c K y c c T B O K o M M y n b i " , 2 mapTa 1919r.

063op fleaxejibHOCTH O x f l e j i a H a o p a s H T e j i b n b i x
HCKyccTB. HapoflHbiH KOMHccapnaT no npocBemennio. HeTepSypr, 1919 n 1920.
OSmecTBO apxHTeKTopoB xyfloacHHKOB. EaceroflHHK.

JI., Bbni. 12-1927, Bbin. 13-1930, B M H 14-1935.

OrnncKaa JI. XyfloaoiHK-arHTaTop (P. Kjiyu;He).
"AH", JVs 5, 1971.
GjieHHHKOB H . KyjibTypa H SMT KOMinynbi "Hjiama
p e s o n K m n n " . "PHK", JVs 4, 1930.
O j i x a p x e B C K H H B. Hepsaa cejibCKoxosaHCTBennaa
BbicTaBKa B M o c K B e . "EaceroflHHK H n c T H T y T a

HCTopnn HCKyccTB 1956". M., 1957.

Ojib r . T a o p i e c T B o A. C. HnKOJibCKoro. C6. "TbopHecKHe n p o j i e M b i apxHxeKTybi". M.-JI., 1956.
OpjiOB F. Boabnioe Sanopoxbe. "Apx.CCCP",
JVs 3-4, 1933.
GcnnoB H . GCA H ACHGBA. " H B M " , JVs 7(15),
1930.
GxHTOBHH M. Coi;HajiHCTHnecKHH enoco6 paceejiHHa
n coi(HajiHCTHneeKHH x n n acnjiba. " B K A " ,

JVs 35-36, 1929.

H e i K o a c K H H H . B c e c o K J s n a a ceabCKOXOsaHCTaennaa

BbicTaBKa a ee apxHTeKTynaixflocTHxennax."Cx",
Ws 10, 1923.
H n a a a c K H H B. CTpoHTejibCTBO Sanb B Jlennnrpafle.
" A n " , Ws 4, 1940.
Haan paoT A p x H T e K T y p n o r o OTflejia HKH. "X)K",
Ws 1, 1919.
H o s f l H e c B A. G n b i T H O C T P O H K H aoMoa-KOMMyn n
opraHH3ai(Hn a nnx x n a n n X H a n m n o H K o o n e p a meA. " K f l " , Ws 4, 1930.
H o a a K O B A. X a p a K T e p cxpoHTeabCTaa 6yflyiu:eH
MocKBbi. "X)K", MapT-anpeab 1920.

HK BKH(6) "G paoTe no nepecxpoHKe 6bixa". ( H o c T a n o a a e n H e npnnaTo 16 Maa

1930r.). "Hp", Ws 146, 29 Maa 1930.
H o c T a n o a n e n H e B c e p o c c n n C K O r o HenTpananoro
H e n o n n H T e a b H o r o K O M H T C T B H C o a e T a Hapoflnwx
K o M H C c a p o a PC$CP "G6 y c x p o n c x a e n a c e j i e n Hbix MecT PCOCP". ( H o c T a n o a a e H H e ) . "Hsa.",
Ws 233, 23 aarycxa 1932r.
H o c T a n o a a e n n e HK BKH() o nepecTpoHKe anTepaTypno-xyfloxcecTaennbix opranH3ai;HH (23
anpeaa 1932r.). "Hp", Ws 114, 24 anpena 1932r.
"HpoSneMbi n c T o p n n coaeTCKOH apxHTeKTypw",
C6opnHK naynnbix TpyflOB.
HocTaHoaaeHHe

PeflaKTop C G . Xan-MarOMeflOB. M., Ws 1-1975,

G x H T O B H i M . K n p o j i e M e ropofla. " C A " , Ws 4,

1929.
GxHTOBHH

HacTepnaK

Ws 2-1976, Ws 3-1977, Ws 4-1978.

coi(HaaHCTHnecKOH n e p e n a a n n p O B K H
M O C K B W . "KX", Ws 13-14, 1931.
HporpaMMW Gcnoanoro OTfleaenna BXYTEMACaBXYTEHHa. C6. " X K G " , Ws 2, M., 1970.
HpoaeMW

M. He ropofl, a H O B M H

THH

paccejienna.

" 3 X " , JVs 282, 7 flCKaSpa 1929.

M . S a i n e x K H no TeopHH p a c c e j i e n n a .
"CA", JVs 1, 1930.
GxHTOBHH M. GT lero rHncT ropofl? "CM", JVs 1,
1930.
G x H T O B n n M. Coi(HanH3M ropofla ( O T B C T T . Hepna).
"PHK", Ws 3, 1930.
GxHTOBHH M. " M a p K C H C T C K a a " aamHTa KOMMynajibGXHTOBHI

Horo coiiHajiH3Ma, "CA", Ws 5, 1930.

GmenKOB F., H.B. J K O J I T O B C K H H . HpoeKTbi n

poHKH. M . , 1955.

HOCT-

H a B e a n x H H a A . A p x H T e K T y p n o e flBnacenne B HeTpo-

rpafle-JIennnrpafle B 1920-e roflbi n MacTepcKaa

A . C . H n K o j i b C K o r o . C6. " A p x H T O K x y p a " , Ws 1,

JIHCH. JI., 1965.

HporpaMMHO-HfleoaopHHecKaa y c T a n o B K a c e K T o p a

ACHGBA. " C o a e T . A " Ws 1-2, 1931.

HysHC F. H y T H n o a o r o p a c c e a e n n a . "CM", Ws 1, 1930.

Hy3nc F. Coi(HaaHCTHneCKHH M a r n H T o r o p c K (na

nyTH penieHHa npo6aeMbi). "PHK", Ws 1, 1930.
HysHC F. G HOBOM cnocoSe paccennna. "PHK",
Ws 7, 1930.
HyMiiancKHH JI. GKTapacKHe TopxecTaa n xyflOJK-

HHKH

HeTporpafla. "HaaMa",

Ws 35, 1919.

HyHHH H . H c K y c c T B O H n p o a e T a p n a x . " H H " , Ws 1,

1919.
Hynnn H. HaMaTHHK I I I HnTepna^HOHaaa.
xyfl. B. T a T a n n a . Hr., 1920.

HpoeKT

HyHHH H . TaTann Hr., 1921.

Pa6oTbi apxHTeKTypnwx MacTepcKHx. T. I - I I , M.,
1936.
Pa6onee X H a n m n o o e cTpoHTcabCTao. AaaSoM
npoeKToa. M . , 1924.
Paonne xnanma (npHMepnwe). JI., 1924.
Pasaaa BXYTEMACa. floKaaflHaa aanncKa ^aenoa
H H X Y K A . " f l E O " , Ws 4, 1924.
Paiix H. K aonpocy o ropoflax-caflax flaa PC$CP.
"CT", Ws 1, 4, 7, 1923.
PaKHXHHB. GxXHBOHHCHKapxHxeKxype. C6. "AK",
M., 1970.
PaKHXHna E. JlajSoab Honoaa. HcKyecxao n Mannf})ecxw. B c6. "XyfloxHHK, cuena, aKpan", M., 1975.
PesoaiouHa HaenyMa H K BKn(6) "G M O C K O B C K O M
ropoflCKOM xosaiicxae n o pasaHXHH ropoflCKoro
xosaiicxaa CCCP". (15 Hiona 1931r.).
"HP", Ws 165, 17 HKjna 1931r.
Pe3oaIo^na noflOKnaflaMHfleoaornHecKon ceKunn,
npHHHxaa na nepBOH KontJjepenaHH GCA. "CA",
Ws 3, 1928.
PesoaioaHa noflOKaaflyxamnmHO-naanHpoBoqoH
ceK^HH GCA. "CA", Ws 4, 1928.
Pe3oaIO^HaCACCo "aeonnflOBmnne". "Coaex.A.",
Ws 1-2, 1931.
Pe3oaIo^Ha ceK^HH H3G Hncxnxyxa JIHH KoMaxaaeMHH noflOKnaflyx. MopflanHoaa o MenKo6ypxyasHOM nanpaaaenHH a apxHxeKType, npnHaTaa
20.XII-1930r. "CoaeT. A.", Ws 1-2, 1931.
PosenSepr A. (|)Haoco4)Ha apxHTeKTypw. Hr., 1923.^^
PomnH JI. OynKUHOHaansM - ne nam C T H B . " H B M " ,
Ws 6(14), 1930.
Pyxxe B. FpaflocTpoHTeabHwe npoaeMW B KpacnoM HeTporpafle. "CTpoHTeaacTao H apxHTCKTypa
Jlennnrpafla", Ws 1, 1967.
Pyxaaflee A., KpnncKHH B. G6 HfleoaorHnecKoii
BbipaxHTeabHocTH B apxHTeKType. KonKypc flaop^a HibTypw Coiooaa MeTaaancToa a MocKae.
"CoBeT.A",Ws 1-2, 1931.
PaeyniHH A. H3 ncTopHH C O B C T C K O T O xnanma. C6.
"CoaeT.A", Ws 17, M., 1967.
Pa3an^eB H . HcKyccTBO coaeTCKoro awcTaaoHHoro
ancaMaa 1917-1970. M., 1976.
CaScoann H. CCCP nepes 15 aex. Fnnoxesa nocxpoenna coi(HaaH3Ma B CCCP. M., 1929.
Ca6coBHH JI. Fopofla Syflymero H o^praHH3a^Ha coi;HaaHCTHnecKoro 6wTa. M., 1929.
CaQcoaHH JI. CoiinaancTHHecKHe ropofla. M . , 1930.
Cacoann n . Hoawe nyxn a cxpoHxeaacxae ropofloa.
"CM", Ws 1, 1930.
CacoBnn Jl. HoqeMy MbifloaxHWn M O X B M cxponxb
co^HaaHCXHnecKHe ropofla. "PHK", Ws 1, 1930.
CacOBHn JI. O npoeKXHpoBaHHH xnawx K O M H naxoa. "CA", Ws 3, 1930.
Capa6banoBfl.AaeKcen BacHabeann EaHHea xyflOXHHK, xeopexHK, neflaror. M., 1974.
CeMauiKO H . HpoBaeMa cxponxeabcxaa coqHaaHCXHnecKoro ropofla saflaiH coiinaaaHoii rHrnenw.
"PHK", Ws 1, 1930.
CeMBHOB B. BaafloycxpoHCxao ropofloc. M., 1912.

C e M e n o a B . G ropofle-cafle. " K X " , Ws 8-9, 1922.

CeMenoa

B. K cxpoHxeaacxay

co^HaancxHnecKoro

CxaanHxpafla. " K f l " , Ws 2, 1930.

B. K a K naannpoBaxa n cxpoHXb M o c K a y .
Ws 8-9, 1932.
C e M e n o e a E. BXYTEMAC, JIEO, M a a K o a c K H H .
" Y n e H w e sanHCKH TapxycKoro y n n a e p c H x e x a " .
B w n . 184, Tapxy, 1966.

CeMCHOB

"CM",

CnflopHHa E.B. K a c x e x H K e ^e^ecoo6pa3HocxH. ^

^eHnocxHWx opHeHTa^ni^
"nponsBOflCTBeHHHKOB" 20-x r o f l o a . "Tpyflw
B H H H T 3 " ( c e p n a "TexnnnecKaa acTCTHKa"),
Ws 11, M., 1975.

HeKOXopwe acneKxw

CHflopHHa E.B. G5 o p a s e acTCTHKH ^e^ecoo6pa3Hocxn 20-x r o f l o a , c x n a e H acxexnnecKOM c o s n a -

HHH. "Tpyflw B H H H T 3 " ( c e p n a " T e x H H i e c K a a

acxexHKa"), Ws 17, M., 1978.
CHflopoB A . BopH3 flaHHaoann Kopoaea. M., 1934.
CHM6npu;ea B. B c e p o c c H H C K o e o S m e c T B o n p o a e TapcKHX apxHTBKTopoa (BGHPA). C6.
" C o a e T . A " , Ws 18, M . , 1969.
CMHpnOB

B. Momnaa 5aHa-6acceHH. "CM",

Ws 6,

1930.
C M H p n o a a G . BaaflHMnp C e M e n o a . C6. " C o a e T . A " ,

Ws 18, M., 1969.

CMypoaa H.BsanMOcaaaa

naynno-TexHHHecKoro

n p o r p e c c a H n p o ^ e c c a (|)opMHpoaaHHa acTCTHnec-

KHx Kon^e^^H^^ a apxHTeKType KOH^a X I X H nanaaa X X B B . C6. " H T H A " , M., 1973.
C o a e T C K a a apxHTCKTypa 3a 50 a e T . M., 1968.
C o a e T C K o e HCKyccTao sa 15 acT. M a T e p n a a w n floKyMenTw. M . , 1933.
CoKoaoa
TeMa:

H. G n a i T a p x H T e K T y p n o r o Mbiniaenna.
KypopTnaa rocTHnniia. "Ca", Ws 3, 1929.'

C o K o a o B H . I f l y c e a . M . , 1952.

Co^HaaHCTHnecKHH cnoco6 p a c c e a e n n a H c o u n a a n -

cTHHecKHii

a KoMTviynHCTH" B K A " , Ws 37-38, 1930.

Tnn X H a a a (ancKyecna

necKoii AKaaeMHH).

C n p a a o n n H K n o x n a H n j p o M y CTpoHTeaacTay. M . , 1925.
C T e n a n o a B. A . E . B e a o r p y a . n . , 1939.
C T e n a n o a a B. K O C T H J M c e r o a n a m n e r o a n a - n p o s o -

flexfla. "HSO", Ws 2, 1923.

Cxpnraaea A . Y H C X O K O B c o a e x c K o r o MOHyMenx a a b H o r o n c K y c c x a a . " f l H " , Ws 4, 1968.
C x p n r a a e a A . H e p a a i e a p x H x e K x y p n w e naMaxHHKH

B.H.JIennny.

"Apx.CCCP",

Ws 4, 1969.

C x p H r a a e a A . H a a c T n n e c K H e n c K y c c T a a n apxHTeK-

x y p n a a (j)opMa. C6. " A K " , M . , 1969.

C T . [ p H r a a e a ] A . " K o M y npoaeTapnaxcxaanxnaMax-

HHKH". " f l H " , Ws 11, 1969.

CxpHraaea A . JIH^a Kpacnoii naomaflH. " f l H " , Ws 1,
1971.
Cxpnraaes A . Hs ncxopHH "nponaranflbi naflnnca-

MH". "Apx.CCCP", Ws 8, 1972.

C x p H r a a e a A . H a a n A a e K c a H f l p o a H H CJJOMHH.

"Apx.CCCP", Ws 2, 1972.
C T p n r a a e a A . G H p o e K x e "HaMaxHrnca H I H n T e p -

Ha^Honaaa" xyfloxnHKa B. Taxanna. "Bonpocw

c o e e x c K o r o H3o5pa3Hxeabnoro HCKyccxaa H a p x H x e K x y p w " , Wa 1, M . , 1973.

Cxpnraaea A. A. K ncxopHn npoeKTHpoaanna flepeaaHHoro MaasoaeaB.H. JleHnna. "Apx.CCCP",

1974, Ws 2.
CTpHraaea A. A. HaMaTHHK r e p o a M peaoaroann na
MapcoaoM noae. "Bonpocw coaeTCKoro nsopasHTeabHoro ncKyccTsa H apxHTCKTypw", Ws 2, M., 1975.
CTpnraaea A. A. K HCTopHH BosnnKHoaanHa aennncKoro naana MonyMenTaaanoH nponaranflbi (MapTanpea, 1918 rofla). "Bonpocw coaeTCKoro H S O p a s H T e a b H o r o ncKyccxaa n apxHxeKxypai", Ws 3,
M., 1976.
Cxpyraaea A. A. 1918-1919: nepawe naMaxHHKH a
Hexporpafle. " f l H " , 1978, Ws 5.
Cxpnxenoaa T. Hs ncxopHH coaexcKoro KocxroMa.
M., 1972.
CxpyMHann C. HpoaeMa coanaancTHnecKHX ropofloa. "Haanoaoe xosaHCTBo", Ws 5, 1930.
CbicHH A . BanxaHUine saaann rocyflapcTaa a fleae
osflopoaaenHa ropofloa "KX", Ws 7, 1921.
Ctesfl no osflopoaaeHHio HaceaenHwx M C C T . "KX",
Ws 1, 1921.
TaManan A . TaopnecKHH OTieT. "Apx.CCCP", Ws 5,
1935.
TapaSyKHH H , OT Moab6epTa K Mauinne. M., 1923.
Tacaaoa. B. HpoMeTeft nan Gp(})eH. M., 1967.
TaTapHHoa E. flaa KOHKypca na aoM HeHTpocoiosa.
"CM", Ws 11, 1928.
TaTapHHoa E. HpoaeMW niKoabnoro cTpoHT e a b c T a a . " C H " , Ws 6, 1929.

TayT Bpyno. Cxponxeaaexao n apxnxeKxypa noao

M O C K B W ; " C M " , Wa 4, 1929.

TesHSH CACC. - Ha H O B O M axane. "Coaex.A",

Ws 1-2, 1931.
Tnnoawe npoeKxw n KOHCTpyKu.Hn xHanmHoro cTpon-TeaacTaa, peKOMCHayeMwe na 1930r. M . , 1929.
THHoawe npoeKTW paoiHx Kayoa. M., 1928.
ToacxoH B. ApxHxeKxypa (raaaa a pasaeae "CoaexcKoe HCKyccxao"). "Bceo5n;aa Hcxopna ncK y c c T a , T. X I , KHHra aTopaa, M., 1966.
TonopKoa A . TaxHHHecKHH 6wT H coapeMennoe
HCKyccTao..M., 1929.
TpeTbaKoa H : Feoprnii Foab^. M., 1969.
TpeTbHKoa C. ScTexHHecKoe sarnHaanne Kay6a.
"PHK'.', Ws 11, 1928.
Tpoi(KHH H . TaopnecKHHii oTieT. "Apx.CCCP",
Ws4, 1935.
Tpyaai Hepaoro Bcecowsnoro c-aesaa no rpaxaancKOMy n HHxenepnoMy cTpoHTeabcTay. M . , 1928.
^nannnoa A. CosflaTeaa nepaoro a P O C C H H flOMaKOMMynw. "Apx.CCCP", 1977, Ws 12.
$ O M H H H. PeKOHCTpyK^Ha KaaccnKn. O CTHae namen
anoxH. " C H " , Wa 43, 20 ceHTa6pa 1933 r.
OoMHH H. HpHH^HnbI TaopnecKOH pa6oTW apxHXCKxypHOH MacxepcKOH Wa 3. " A A " , Ws 1-2, 1934.
OoMHH H . Hpoxna cJiexnmHsaqnn Maxepnaaa.
"Apx.CCCP", Ws 4, 1934.
OpnflManfl.floM-KOMMynaH B H KsapTaa-KOMMyna.
"CM", Ws 12, 1929.
<I>pHflManfl.Co^HaaHCTH^ecKHH aecnoft K y p o p T .
"CM", Ws 3, 1930.

608
Publications i n Russian

X a s a H O B a B. K

Publications in ottier languages

HCTOPHH COBCTCKOH

apxHTeKTypbi

Xan-MaroMeaoB C. O. y H C T O K O B coaeTCKoro AHaaima.

nepBbix HocJIepeBOJno^HOHHMx JieT. C6. " B C A " ,

M e T a j i a o o p a a T b a a i o m H H (JjaKyaaTeT

W 1, M . , 1962.

BXYTEMACa (BXYTEHHa). " T e x H H i e c K a a

X a s a n o B a B. H e K O T o p b i e Bonpocbi CHHTeaa HCKyccTB

B COBeTCKOH apxHTeKType nepBbix nocjiepeBOJiioqnoHHbix neT. C6. " B C A " , W 2, M . , 1963.
O K T a S p a . 1917-1925. M . , 1970.
W? 2, (5 neKapa) 1927.
TenbcTBO (jjaSpHK-KyxoHb). "PHK", N 3-4,

1928.

X a H - M a r o M e f l o B C. O pojiH apxHTeKTopa a nepeycTpoiicTBe 6biTa. "Apx.CCCP", Ma 1, 1958.

X a H - M a r o M e f l O B C , M . S . F H H s S y p r . ( K 70-jieTHioco
BHS p o x f l e H H a ) . "Apx.CCCP", Ws 10,

1962.

XaH-MaroMCAOB C. Haan Jleominoa. C6. " C o a e T . A " ,

Ws 16, M . , 1964.
THBHSina. " f l H " , Ws 9,

1964.

T o p n a BXYTEHHa (1927-1930). " T e x H H a e c K a a

acTBTHKa", 1978, Ws 1.

TBKTop. "Hefleaa", Ws 7, 6-12 tjjeapaaa 1966 r.

Xan-MaroMenoa C. K a y S a i c e r o f l n a H a n e p a . " f l H "

" f l H " , Ws 2,

1962.

a H H r p a a . "PHK", Ws 1, 1930.

1966.

Xnrep P. K a o n p o c y o 6 H a e o a o r n H KoncTpyKTHBHSMa

Ws 11, 1967.

1928.

P. KoncTpyKTHBHSM a apxHTBKType. "PHK",

1929.

1933.

X n r B p P. T a o p i e c T B O 6p. B e c n n n b i x . "Apx.CCCP",
1933.

P. A p x H T B K T o p H . A . Foaocoa. "Apx.CCCP"

XHTBP

Ws 1, 1933.

X a H - M a r o M e f l O B C. H H K o a a f i JlaMoaCKHH. C6.
" C o a e T . A " , Ws 18,

1969.

"Teaxp", Ws 3,

1969.

X a H - M a r o M e n o a C , H . A . MnaiOTHH (1889-1942).
" X H a n m H o e CTpoHTeaacTBo", Ws 11, 1969.
Xan-MaroMefloa C. T a o p H e c K H e Teienna coaeTCKoii
apxHTCKTypw 1917-1932. C6. " T e o p e T H n e c K n e
n p o S a e M b i coaeTCKoii apxHTeKTypai", aara. I I ,
1970.

"Apx.CCCP", Ws 9,

1934.

3ai<Ha a "Hai(H0HaaaH0M nyxe". " f l H " , Ws 8, 1970.

X a H - M a r o M e s o B C , M . a . E H H s e y p r . M . , 1972.
Xan-MaroMeAOB C. Maasoaefl JleHHHa ( n c T o p n a
cosAaHHa H a p x H T e K T y p a ) . M . , 1972.
" f l H " , Ws 1, 1973.
H

apxHTCKTyp-

HonaaHHpoaoiHbie H O H C K H THua p a S o i e r o K a y S a a
2 0 - 30-x r r . H H X SHaneHHe A a a coapeineHHOH n p a K H

x y f l o x e c T a c H H a a caMoaeaTeaa-

HocTb", 1974, Ws 5.

CCCP", Ws 1, 1935.

TBopnecKHx xeieHHii coaeTCKoii apxHTCKTypbi. M . ,

1974.
X a H - M a r o M e a o a C. O. Hai(HOHaaHoe H HHTepai(HOHaabHoe a coapeMeHHOH apxHTCKType. B eS.
"HHTepHai<HOHaabHoe H HaiiHonaabHoe a H C K y c c T B e " , M . , 1974.

P. FnHsBypr (nyTb TBopBTHKa

MacTBpa). C6.

" C O B B T . A " , Ws 15, M . , 1963.

c6. " S o a i e c T B o " . Ws 1(20), M . , 1975.

X a H - M a r o M e a o a C. O. Mysen K p a c H o n M O C K B M
(flnnaoMHbie n p o e K T w eanHCTaeHHoro a a i n y c K a
M H F H ) . " f l H " , Ws 9,

X n r B p . P. PoMaHTHKo-CHMBoaHnecKHB noHCKH a c o -

1976.

Ber-

gen 1967
Vladimir

Tatlin,

Architecture

Moderna Museet, Stockholm 1968

Design,

No. 12, London 1965

uivante,

Art in Revolution.

1926-33

Soviet Art and Design since 1917, Hayward

Prokofieva, S.O. Khan-Magomedov, G . A .

Shvidkovsky, Kenneth Frampton, Edward Wright,
Edward Braun)
Barr, A . H . 'Notes on Russian Architecture', The Arts,

Barucki, Tadeusz 'Architektura ma-rzn',

Architektura,

No. 12, Warsaw 1972

BaugUde, No. 2, 1933

IflyKO B. T a o p n e c K H H
1935.

Bliznakov, M i l k a 'The Rationalist Movement i n Soviet

OT^BT.

"Apx.CCCP", Wa 6,
1919.

1924.

IflycBB A . H p o 6 a 6 M b i H O B O H M o c K a a i . " C H " , Ws 3,

1925.
OTHBT.

"Apx.CCCP", Ws 4

1922.

M.,

1917-1932

(Authors: S.O. K h a n -

don 1971
Das neue Frankfurt,

B. H a e e a A a e n i n H . C5. " C o a e T . A " , W 18,

Vol.47, 1948

No. 6, 7 (1931)

De Feo, V i t t o r i o URSS
1929.

K). T a M a n a n . M . , 1950.
1969.

in the USSR

Magomedov, V . Khazanova, V . Rakitin, A . Chin-

'Constructivism', Art News,

O aoMB KyabTypbi Tpyaamnxca. " C A "

BOHPA H OCA. "CA", Ws 5,

Zodiac,

No. 1, M i l a n 1957

V . N . Beloussov). Edited by O. A. Shvidkovsky, Lon-

flHKOBCKHH M . KoMMyna CTa TpHAu;aTH Tpex. 1929.

flcHeana

Bourgeois, Victor 'Saint au constructivisme'.

yakov, G. Gerchuk, M . G . Barkhin, V . V . Kyrilov,

1928.

flaoBKHH

Studies,

No. 7-8, December 1972

Building

BBpann.
Ws 3,

chitectural Record, New York, September 1949

Architecture in the 1920s', 20'* Century

I f l y c e a A . H e p B H a a n n p o B K a M o c K a a i . " X X " , JI.,

Foaocoa). C6. " C o a e T . A " , Ws 19, M . , 1970.

architettura

1917-1936,

Rome

1963
De Michelis, M . , Pasini, E. La citta sovietica

1925-1937,

Venice 1976
Domus, ]u[y

1933

Ehrenbourg, Ilya ' E i n E n t w u r f Tatlins',

Friihlicht,

No. 3, Magdeburg 1929

X a e e n H K O B H., C M H P H O B M . Poanna n e p a a i x Co"Apx.CCCP", Wa 9, 1971.

X o a o c T B H K o E. Ha (JjpoHTe yKpanncKOH apxHTCKTypbi. "HHP", Ws 12,

1929.

Exposition

Internationale

demes, URSS
Paris 1925

des Arts Dcoratifs et Industriels

CTpanCTBBHHOH CpBABl". CoBpBMBHHaa HpaKTHKa,

noA pBAaKi<HeH C O . X a n - M a r o M B A o a a . M . , 1978
BHHHT3.

tectural Design,

London, November 1966

Gabo, N a u m ' O n Constructive Realism',

Yearbook,

COBPEMBHHOH

apxHTCKTypai.

HepHHXoa fl. K o n c T p y K i ^ n a apxHTBKTypnaix M

Goldzamt, Edmund 'Nowatorskie koncepcje architek-

fl. A p x H T B K T y p n a i B c[)aHTa3HH. M . ,

(K

nocTanoBKB ao-

Russian

Art

London 1962

Iszelenof, N . 'Die Architektur i n Russland',

Friihlicht,

Junghanns, K u r t 'Die Beziehungen zwischen deutschen und sowjetischen Architekten i n den Jahren

n p o c a ) . "PHK", Ws 1, 1930.
Hepna H . Ha sBMaio! ( O T B B T O x H T o a n n y ,
C a 6 c o B H n a ) . "PHK", Ws 7,

Gray, Camilla The Great Experiment:

No. 3, Magdeburg 1922

1933.
Hepna H . FopoAa coi(HaaH3Ma

No. 9-10,

Warsaw 1962

1863-1922,

JI., 1931.

Architects'

1952

tury ZSSR lat 1920-tych', Architektura,

H B p n n x o B 3 . Ocnoaai
JI., 1930.

Mp-

(catalogue), M u s e des Arts Dcoratifs,

Frampton, Kenneth 'The Work of El Lissitzky', Archi-

" X y f l o X B C T B B n n a i B npoSaBMbi npeAMBTHO-npo-

ManiHHHbix dpopu.

No. 8, 1932

Blake, Peter 'The Soviet Architecture Purge', The Ar-

flpaaoa

1973.

d'aujourd'hui.

mepBaKOB B. floM KOMMynaabHoro THna. " C M ' ' , Ws 3

1929.

BBTCKOH apxHTBKType ABaA^aTbIx roAOB (Haaa

X n a e K B a a JI. Fopoa 6yaym6ro. C6. " A p x H T e K T y p a " .

Soviets', L'Architecture

N o . l , 1929

flBaTBaanocTn O T A B a a n3o6-

p a s H T e a a n b i x n c K y c c T a H a p K O M n p o c a . " H H " , W 1

flaoBKHH

X n r B p P. 0 6 i q B C T B o coapBMBnnaix apxHTBKTopoa

HBPHHXOB

Xan-MaroMeaoB C. O. J I H C H I ( K H H H apxHTCKTypa. B

S p e n S y p r H . A a c B - T a K n ona BBpTHTca. M o c K a a -

T B o p i B C K n e nopTpBTai, n c T o p n a . C 6 o p n H K T B 3 H c o a

Xan-MaroMeaoB C O . T e o p e T H i e c K H e KOHi;eni(HH

BoaK)^nH. " K X " , Ws 13, 14, 15-16, 1922.

3 H r e a b H.K). BopHC H o t j j a n . M . , 1978.

BBTOB

X a H - M a r o M C A o a C O . Coi;HaabHbie

KOMMynncTHHBCKOH p e -

Xnrep P. H p o e K T H p o B a n n e jKHannia. M . , 1935.

JIHCH, JI.,

XaH-MaroineAoa C. H p o e K T " a c T a i o m e r o r o p o A a " .

IIIanoc6Bpr H . flanxBHHe a n o a a s y ycTponcTaa

I I l T e p e n B p r fl. O T H B T

Agache, A l f r e d 'L'Urbanisme et I'architecture chez les

Gallery, London 1971 (Authors: Camilla Gray-

X H T B P P. A p x H T B K T o p K . C M e a a n n K o a . "Apx.

(OCA). C6. " C O B B T . A " , WS 18, M . , 1969.

Xan-MaroMefloa C. H o a a T o p c K n e H O H C K H H c T n a n -

1970.

IIlKaoBCKHH B. H p o c T p a n o c T B O acnaonncH n cynpe-

CBBTB

Sowjstische

1917 bis 1932, Dresden 1973

Architectural

U l K a o a c K H i i B. O (j)aKTypB H KOHTppeabetJiB. " X H " ,

IflycBB A. T a o p n a c K H H
1935.

XHTBP

1929.

U l H i u a o E. Y a n ^ a ^ p e a o a i o i i n n . " f l H " , Ws 3,

IflycBB A. M o c K a a SyaymBro. " K H " , Wa 17,

Xnrep P. M a c T e p a M o a o a o n apxHTOKTypai ( A . B a a e o a , H.JIeonnaoa, M.Bapm, M . C H H a a c K H H ) .

X a H - M a r o M e f l o a C. BcHOMHHTe o6 3TOM npoeKTe.

HOH apxHTBKypnoH Mbican. "HHP", Ws 9,

1919.

Xnrep P. H y T n apxHTBKTypnon Maican 1917-1932.

Ws 3-4,

XaH-MaroMefloa C. Kiiy6bi JleoHHfloaa. " f l H " ,

JIaM^oa H. O n y r a x pa3BHTHa coapcMen-

ropoAoa- c a a o a a

Zurich-Basel 1924-28

Andersen, Troels Moderne russisk kunst 1910-1930,

MaTHCTBi. "Hc" ( r a s B T a ) , Ws 8, 5 c e n T a S p a 1919.

X B B C H H T . K a K Mai cTpoHM coi;HaaHCTH'iecKHH C T a -

M.,

1927.

Ws 587, 20 oKTa6pa 1920 r .

X a p a x H B B H . HaMHTH xyaoacHHKa 3ab JlHCHU,Koro.

XHTBP

T y p e . " K p a c n a a H O B B " , WS 8,

UlecTaKOB C. B o a a n i a a M o c K a a . M . , 1925.

Ws 19-20,

X a H - M a r o M C A o a C. KoHCTaHTHH MeabHHKoa, a p x n -

THKH. "Kay6

1978.

B coapeMeHHOH apxHTBKTypB. "CA", Ws 3,

X a H - M a r o M e f l O B C. TpaflHi(HH H ypoKH KOHCTpyK-

l U a a a a n n <l>., JIaM^oB H . O a e a o f i cjjpasB a apxHTBKniaaaBHH

X a H - M a r o M C A o a C. O. H c H x o T e x H H i e c K a a aaopa-

X a a a T O B A . Eme o6 oSmecTBenHOM nnTannH (cTpon-

M.,

acTBTHKa", 1978, Ws 5-6.

zum Bauen,

Architektur

HnnaKOB A. BpaTaa BBCHHHbi. M . , 1970.

H y x a K H . H c K y c c T a o 6biTa. "CA", Ws 1, 1927.

XaH-MaroMBAOB C. O. X n a c K y a a H T a p x . " f l H " , Ws 5,

X a j i a T O B A . 0 6 omecTBennoM nnTannn. "PHK",

Ws 9,

acTBTHKa", 1977, Ws 3-5.

XaH-MaroMeAoa C. O.A. PoAneuKO. H y T b xyAOJKHH-

ABC-Beitrdge

Afanasjew, K y r i l l N . Ideen - Projekte - Bauten.

A " , Ws 18, M . , 1969.

Ka B npoHaaoflcTBeHHoe n c K y c c T a o . " T e x H H i e c K a a

X a s a n o B a B. 3. C o B e T C K a a a p x n x e K T y p a nepnbix J I C T

H n n a K o a A . J I B K o p S i o s a e n BecHHnbi, C6. " C O B B T

1930.

KPHTHKB

1917 bis 1933', Wissenschaftliche

boldt-Universitdt

Zeitschrift

der Hum-

zu Berlin, V o l . 16, No. 3, 1967

Bruno Taut 1880-1938,

Berlin 1970

Publications in otiier languages

leTCKOH apXHTCKTyptl
HHbix JieT. C6. " B C A " ,
npocfai cHHTeaa HeKyccTB
nepBbix nocjiepeBOJiio', W2 2, M . , 1963.
pxHTBKTypa nepBbix Jiex
, 1970.
lOM nHTannn. " P H K " ,
jennoM nnTannn (cTpon. " P H K " , K 3 - 4 , 1928.
apxnTeKTopa B nepeycT;P", M 1, 1958.
iH36ypr. ( K 70-jieTnio co
CP", Ke 10, 1962.
onnnoB. C6. "CoBeT.A",
in H ypOKH KOHCTpyK4.
ITHH MejibnnKOB, apxn1-12 (JjespajiH 1966 r.
xrojina n Biepa. " A H " ,
leonnflOBa. " A H " ,
H JlaAOBCKHH. C6.
iTe o6 3TOM npoeKTe.
(1889-1942).
Bo",K2 11, 1969.
Kne Teienna coeeTCKon
C6. "TeopeTHnecKHe
iTeKTypbi", Bbin. I I ,

;HJHOTHH

icKHe noHCKH H CTnjin/xe". " A H " , K 8, 1970.

inaypr. M . , 1972.
in Jlennna (ncTopna
M . , 1972.
"aeTatomero ropofla".
labHbie H apxHxeKTypxnna paoHero Kay6a B
!(aa coBpeinennoH npaK!HHaa caMOfleaxeab'xnnecKHe Koni(eni(Hn
CKOH apxnxeKxypbi. M . ,
)Haanoe n HnTepai;H0ixnTOKType. B c6.
mnonaabnoe B H C , K H H H apxnxeKxypa. B
M . , 1975.
I KpacnoH M O C K B B I

ncxBennoro BbinycKa

Xan-MaroMeflOB C. O. Y H C X O K O B coBCxcKoro flnsaflna.

MexaaaoopaaTbBaiomnH cJjaKyabxex
B X Y T E M A C a ( B X Y T E H H a ) . "TexnnqecKaa
acxexHKa", 1977, N 3 - 5 .
Xan-MaroMefloB C . O . A . PoflnenKO. Hyxb xyfloacnnKa B npoH3BOflcxBenHoe ncKyccxBo. "TexnaiecKaa
scxexHKa", 1978, JVb 5 - 6 .
Xan-MaroMefloB C. O. XnBCKyabnxapx. " A H " , JVb 5,
1978.
Xan-MaroMBflOB C. O. HcHxoxexnnnecKaa aaopaxopna B X Y T E H H a (1927-1930). "TexnnnecKaa
acxexHKa", 1978, JV 1.
Xapflacnes H . HaMaxn xyflojKnnKa 3 a b JlnenuiKoro.
" A H " , JV 2, 1962.
XBecnn T. KaK M M cxponM coi;HaancTH<iecKHH Cxaannrpafl. " P H K " , Na 1, 1930.
Xnrep P. K Bonpocy o6 nfleoaornn KoncxpyKxnBHSMa
B coBpeMennoH apxnxeKxype. "CA", JV 3, 1928.
Xnrep P. KoncxpyKXHBH3M B apxnxcKxype. " P H K " ,
Ks 1 9 - 2 0 , 1929.
Xnrep P. Hyxn apxnxeKxypnon MMcan 1917-1932.
M . , 1933.
Xnrep P. TBopnecxBo 6p. Becnnnbix. "Apx.CCCP",
Ml 3 - 4 , 1933.
Xnrep P. ApxnxeKxop H . A . Foaocoa. "Apx.CCCP",
Xs 1, 1933.
Xnrep P. Macxepa Moaoflon apxnxcKxypbi ( A . B aacoB, H.JIeonnfloa, M . B a p m , M.CnnaacKnn).
"Apx.CCCP", M 9, 1934.
Xnrep P. HpoeKxnpoaanne jKnanma. M . ; 1935.
Xnrep P. ApxnxeKxop K . C. MeaannKoa. "Apx.
CCCP", Ns 1, 1935.
Xnrep P. FnHsypr (nyxa xeopexnKa n Macxepa). C6.
"Coaex.A", Ns 15, M . , 1963.
Xnrep P. Omecxao coBpeMennaix apxnxeKxopoa
( O C A ) . C6. "Coaex.A", Ns 18, M . , 1969.
Xnrep. P. PoManxHKo-cHMaoaHHecKne noncKn a coaexcKOH apxnxeKxype flBaai(axbix rofloa (Haaa
FoaocoB). C6. "Coaex. A " , Ns 19, M . , 1970.
XnaeKeab Jl. Fopofl yflymero. C6. "ApxnxeKxypa".
J I H C H , Jl., 1973.
XaennKOB H . , CMnpnoa M . Poflnna nepaarx Coaexoa "Apx.CCCP", N> 9, 1971.
XoaocxenKO E. H a i|)ponxe yKpanncKon apxnxcKxypbi. " H H P " , JVs 12, 1929.
"Xyaoxecxaennaie npoSaCMbi npeaMexno-npocxpancxaennoH cpeaai". CoepeMennaa npaKxnKa,
xBopnecKne nopxpexai, ncxopna. C6opHHKTe3ncoa
noa peaaK^neH C O . Xan-MarOMeaoaa. M . , 1978,
BHHHT3.
Hepnnxoa 3 . Ocnoaai coapeMennon apxnxeKxypai.
Jl., 1930.
HepnnxoB fl. KoncxpyKi^na apxnxeKxypnbix M
Mamnnnbix cjjopM. Jl., 1931.
Hepnnxoa fl. ApxnxeKxypnaie (Jianxasnn. M . ,
1933.
Hepna H . Fopoaa coiinaansMa (K nocxanoBKe aonpoca). " P H K " , JV 1, 1930.
Hepna H . Ha 3eMaio! (oxaex OxHToanny, KpnxnKa
CaScoan^a). " P H K " , Ns 7, 1930.

HnnaKoa A . Jle Kop6i03aen Becnnnai, C6. "Coaex.

A " , JVo 18, M . , 1969.
HnnaKOB A . Bpaxba Becnnnbi. M . , 1970.
HyjKaK H . HcKyccxao 6bixa. " C A " , Ns 1, 1927.
Ulaaaann O., JlaMi^oa H . O aeaon cj)pa3e a apxnxeKxype. "Kpacnaa noaa", Ns 8, 1927.
lUajiaann <!>., JIaMi(OB H . O nyxax pasanrna coBpeMenHo apxnxeKypnoH Maican. " H H P " , Ns 9, 1929.
KlecxaKoa C. Boaamaa MocKaa. M . , 1925.
lUninao B . Yani(bi peBoaiou;HH. " A H " , Ns 3, 1970.
UlKaoacKHH B . O 4>aKxype n Konxppeaae4)e. "3CH",
Ns 587, 20 OKxapa 1920 r.
UlKaoBCKnii B . Hpocxpanocxao acnaonncH n cynpeMaxHcxai. " H c " (raaexa), Ns 8, 5 cenxapa 1919.
IlIanocSepr H . Aanacenne a noaasy ycTponcxaa
ropoaoa- caflOB a caexe KOMMyHHCxnnecKOH peaoaK)^nn. " K X " , Ns 13, 14, 15-16, 1922.
I l l x e p e n e p r A . Oxnex o fleaxeaanocxn Oxaeaa naopa3nxeaaHbixHCKyccxBHapKOMnpoca. " H H " , JV 1,
1919.
lAepSaKoa B . AOMKOMMynaaanoroxnna. " C M " , Ns 3,
1929.
lAyKO B . TaopnecKHH oxnex. " A p x . C C C P " , Ns 6,
1935.
lAycea A.HepenaaHHpoBKaMoeKBM. "X5K", Jl., 1919.
lAycea A . MocKaa y a y m e r o . " K H " , Ns 17, 1924.
mycea A . H p o a e M a i Hoaon M O C K B M . " C H " , Ns 3,
1925.
lAycea A . TaopnecKHH oxnex. " A p x . C C C P " , Ns 4,
1935.
Snreaa H . K ) . Bopnc Hocjian. M . , 1978.
3pen6ypr H . A ace-xaKH OHa aepxnxca. MocKaaBepann. 1922.
flaoBKHH <I>. O aoMe Kyaaxypai xpyaamnxca. " C A " ,
K 3, 1928.
flaoBKHH <I>. B O H P A H O C A . " C A " , Ns 5, 1929.
flHKoacKHH M . KoMMyna cxa xpHfli(axH xpex. 1929.
flpaaoa K). TaManan. M . , 1950.
flcneann B . Haaea A j i e n i n n . C6. "Coaex.A", Ns 18,
M . , 1969.

ABC-Beitrdge zum Bauen, Zurich-Basel 1924-28

Afanasjew, K y r i l l N . Ideen - Projekte - Bauten. Sowjetische
Architektur 1917 bis 1932, Dresden 1973
Agache, Alfred 'L'Urbanisme et I'architecture chez les
Soviets', L'Arcliitecture d'aujourd'hui, No. 8, 1932
Andersen, Troels Moderne russisk kunst 1910-1930, Bergen 1967
Vladimir Tatlin, Moderna Museet, Stockholm 1968
Architectural Design, No. 12, London 1965
Architecture uivante, 1926-33
Art in Revolution. Soviet Art and Design since 1917, Hayward
Gallery, London 1971 (Authors; Camilla GrayProkofieva, S.O. Khan-Magomedov, G . A .
Shvidkovsky, Kenneth Frampton, Edward Wright,
Edward Braun)
Barr, A . H . 'Notes on Russian Architecture', The Arts,
N o . l , 1929
Barucki, Tadeusz 'Architektura ma-rzn', Architektura,
No. 12, Warsaw 1972
Baugilde, No. 2, 1933
Blake, Peter 'The Soviet Architecture Purge', The Architectural Record, New York, September 1949
Bliznakov, Milka 'The Rationalist Movement in Soviet
Architecture in the 1920s', 20"' Century Studies,
No. 7-8, December 1972
Bourgeois, Victor 'Saint au constructivisme', Zodiac,
No. 1, M i l a n 1957
Building in the USSR 1917-1932 (Authors; S.O. KhanMagomedov, V . Khazanova, V . Rakitin, A. Chinyakov, G. Gerchuk, M . G . Barkhin, V . V . Kyrilov,
V . N . Beloussov). Edited by O. A. Shvidkovsky, London 1971
'Constructivism', ^rCA^ewf, Vol.47, 1948
Das neue Frankfurt, No. 6, 7 (1931)
De Feo, Vittorio URSS architettura 1917-1936, Rome
1963
De Michelis, M . , Pasini, E. La citta sovietica 1925-1937,
Venice 1976
Domus,]n\y 1933
Ehrenbourg, Ilya 'Ein Entwurf Tatlins', Fmhlicht,
No. 3, Magdeburg 1929
Exposition Internationale des Arts Dcoratifs et Industriels Mpdernes, URSS (catalogue), Muse des Arts Dcoratifs,
Paris 1925
Frampton, Kenneth 'The Work of El Lissitzky', Architectural Design, London, November 1966
Gabo, Naum ' O n Constructive Realism', Architects'
Yearbook, 1952
Goldzamt, Edmund 'Nowatorskie koncepcje architektury ZSSR lat 1920-tych', Architektura, No.9-10,
Warsaw 1962
Gray, Camilla The Great Experiment: Russian Art
1863-1922, London 1962
Iszelenof, N . 'Die Architektur in Russland', Friihliclit,
No. 3, Magdeburg 1922
Junghanns, K u r t 'Die Beziehungen zwischen deutschen und sowjetischen Architekten in den Jahren
1917 bis 1933', Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Hum.boldt-Universitdt zu Berlin, V o l . 16, No. 3, 1967
Bruno Taut 1880-1938, Berlin 1970

Kallai, Ernst 'Konstruktivismus', JaArAwc/; derjungen

Kunst, Leipzig 1924
Khan-Magomedov, Selim G. 'Sovtska architektura
dvacatych let', Architektura SSR, No. 8, Prague
1967
'Nikolaj Ladovskij', Lotus intemational, No. 20, Venice
1978
Kopp, Anatole Ville et revolution. Architecture et urbanisme
sovitiques des annes vingt. Paris 1967; published i n
English as Town and Revolution. Soviet Architecture and
City Planning 1917-35, London 1970
Kroha, J i n 'Dnesni stav sovetsk bytov pohtiky', Zem
sovety, No. 7-8, 1935
L'Archltecture d'aujourd'hui, 1931-32
La costruzione della ciftd sovietica, Padua 1970
Lissitzky, El 'Architektur der SSSR', Kunstblatt, Berlin,
February, 1925
Russland. Die Rekonstruktion der Architektur in der Sowjetunion, Vienna 1930; published in English as Russia:
An Architecture for World Revolution, London 1970
Lissitzky-Kiippers, Sophie El Lissitzky, Erinnerungen,
Briefe, Schriften, Dresden 1967; published in English
as El Lissitzky. Life, Letters, Texts, London 1968
Lunaeharsky, Anatoli 'Die Revolution und die Kunst',
Dresden 1974 ( = Fundus-Bcher No.6)
Lurgat, A n d r 'L'Archltecture en URSS', Bulletin de
L'Union des Architectes, Paris 1938
Mendelsohn, Erich Russland, Europa, Amerika, Berlin
1929
Nakov, Andrei B. Alexandra Exter, Galerie Jean Chauvelin, Paris 1972
Pilewski, L . 'Neuer Wohnungsbau in der Sowjetunion',
Die Form, No. 3, 1932
Quilici, Vieri L'architettura del costruttivismo, Bari 1969
Citta Tussa e citta sovietica, M i l a n 1976
Radovic, Ranko 'Revolucionarna architektura revolucionarne Rusije', Architektura, Urbanizam, No. 5, Belgrade 1965
Rickey, George Constructivism. Origins and Evolution, New
York 1969
Schmidt, Hans Beitrdge zur Architektur 1924-1964, Berlin
1965
Schnaidt, Claude Hannes Meyer. Bauten, Projekte und
Schriften, Teufen A R 1965
Senkevitch, A. Soviet Architecture 1917-1962. A Bibliographical Guide to Source Material, University Press of
Virginia, Charlottesville 1974
Shadowa, Larissa A. Suche und Experiment. Aus der Gescliichte der russischen und sowjetischen Kunst zwischen 1910
und 1930, Dresden 1978; published in English as
Zhadova, Larissa A. Malevich: Suprematism and Revolution in Russian Art 1910-1930, London 1978
Socialismo, citta, architettura URSS 1917-1937, Rome 1971
Starr, F. 'Melnikov', Arcliitectural Design, London, July
1969
Stawba, 1930-31
Teige, Karel 'Kolektivm' byt na z a p a d a v SSSR',
MagazinDP, No. 2, 1934
Voyce, A. 'Contemporary Soviet Architecture', American Magazine of Art, V o l . 28, 1935

Wasmuth Monatshefte fr Baukunst, No. 3, 1929

Wise Ciobotaru, Gillian ' A r t on the Street', Studio International, London, October 1972
Wright, Frank Lloyd 'Architecture and Life in the
USSR', The Architectural Record, New York, October
1937
Za socialislckou architektura, Prague 1933

610
Additional bibliography to the English edition

Architettura nel paese dei Soviet 1917-1933, Exhibition catalogue, Electa, M i l a n 1982
Arlcfcitehtuurin Vallanliumous - Revolution in Architecture,
catalogue of an exhibition on the Vesnin brothers,
w i t h article by Manina; Museum of Finnish Architecture, Helsinki 1985
Bann, Stephen (ed) The Tradition of Constructivism,
Thames and Hudson Documents of Modern A r t
series, London 1974
Barron, Stephanie and Tuchman, Maurice (eds) The
Avant-Garde in Russia 1910-1930: Neui Perspectives,
Exhibition catalogue, M I T Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 1980
Bas, Roel 'Narkomfin', O: ontwerp, onderzoelt, onderwijs,
T H Delft, Delft, No. 6, winter 1984, pp.49-56
Braun, Edward, translator and editor Meyerhold on Tlieatre, Methuen, London 1969
Ceccaldi, Paolo La costruzione della citta sovietica contemporanea 19291931, translations of Soviet source material with introduction by Ceccaldi; GoUano, PollisMarsillio, Padua 1970
Chernikhov, Andrei 'Artist, Show us your World . . .
lakov Chernikhov 1889-1951', Architectural Design,
1983, N o . 5 - 6 , pp. 64-72
Cohen, Jean-Louis, De Michehs, M . , and Tafuri, M .
(eds) Les Avant-gardes el I'Etat: URSS 1917-1978 La
ville. L'archilecture. Articles by Tafuri, De Michelis,
Cohen, Cooke, Khan-Magomedov, Khlebnikov,
Gorvich, Borngraber, Kopp, Quilici, Gutnov; Editions I'Equerre, Paris 1979. Also pubhshed by Officina Edizioni, Rome as URSS 1917-1978 La citta.
L'architettura. Parallel texts in French and Italian.
Cohen, Jean-Louis 'Le Corbusier and the Mystique of
the USSR', Oppositions, No. 23, winter 1981,
pp.84-121
Cooke, Catherine 'Russian Responses to the Garden
City Idea', Architectural Review, ]unit 1978,
pp.353-63
'Form is a Function, x: The Development o f t h e
Constmctivist Architects' Design Method', Architectural Design, 1983, No. 5-6, pp.34-49
'Moscow Map-Guide 1900-1930', ibid, pp.81-96
'Fedor Gsipovich Shekhtel: A n Architect and his
Clients in Turn-of-the-century Moscow', Architectural
Association Files, No.5, January 1984, pp.3-31
Fantasy and Construction: lakov Chernikliov's Approach to
Architectural Design, Academy Editions, London & St
Martin's Press, New York 1984
The Town of Socialism: from Reformers and Constructivists
to a Systems View of the Soviet Cily, Academy Editions,
London 1986
CunHffe, Antonia 'The Competition for the Palace of
Soviets in Moscow, 1931-1933', Architectural Association Quarterly, V o l . 11, No. 2, 1979, pp.36-48
Edhoffer, Lisl and Bos, Lilian 'Twee Vesnin-elubs', 0:
ontwerp, onderzoek, onderwijs, T H Delft, Delft, No. 5,
summer 1983, pp.38-53
Elliott, David (ed) Alexander Rodchenko, Exhibition catalogue with articles by Lavrentiev, Milner, Nakov,
Bojko, Harrison, Chichagova, Gassner; Museum of

Index of names

Modern A r t , Gxford 1979

Mayakovsky: Twenty Years of Work, Exhibition catalogue with article by Efimova; Museum of Modern
Art, Oxford 1982
Arl into Production: Soviet Textiles, Fashion and Ceramics
1917-1935, Exhibition catalogue with articles by
Andreeva, Filatov, Strizhenova; Museum of Modern
A r t , Gxford 1984
Fitzpatrick, Sheila The Commissariat of Enlightenment; Soviet Organization of Education and the Arts under Lunaeharsky, Cambridge University Press 1970
Galerie Gmurzynska Von der Fldclie zum Raum: Russland
1916-24 - From Surface lo Space: Russia 1916-24. Articles by Bowlt, Bojko, Kovtun, Lamac; Galerie
Gmurzynska, Cologne 1974
Von der Malerei zum Design: Russische konslruktivislische
Kunst der Zwanziger fahre - From Painting to Design:
Russian Conslruclivisl Arl of the Twenties, Galerie
Gmurzynska, Cologne 1981
Ginzburg, Moisei Style and Epoch. Translated, with i n troduction, by Anatole Senkevitch, Oppositions
Books & M I T Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
1982
Gozak, Andrei and Leonidov, Andrei Ivan Leonidov,
Academy Editions, London 1987
Hruza, J i r i and Kroha, J i r i Sovetska Architektonicka
Avantgarda, Odeon, Prague 1973
Institute ofArchitecture, Venice Revue VH, No. 7-8,
1972, Editions Esselier, Paris 1972
Jung, K a r i n Carmen and Worbs, Dietrich 'Die Brder
Vesnin und ihre konstruktivistische Architekturkonzeption'. Werk, Bauen -I- Wohnen, A p r i l 1985,
pp.8-11,62
Karginov, German Rodchenko, Thames and Hudson,
London 1979
Khan-Magomedov, S.O. Alexander Rodchenko, Thames
and Hudson, London, 1986
Kirichenko, Evgeniia 'Theoretical Attitudes to Architecture in Russia 1830s-1910s', Architectural Association Quarterly, V o l . 11, No. 2, 1979, pp.9-23
Kokkinaki, Irina 'The First Exhibition of Modern Architecture in Moscow', Architectural Design, 1983,
No. 5-6, pp.50-59
Kopp, Anatole Changer la vie. Changer la ville. De la vie
nouvelle auxproblmes urbains: URSS 1917-1932, Union
Gnrale d'Editions, Collection 10-18, Paris 1975
A rchitecture etmode de vie. Textes des annes vingt en URSS,
Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 1979
Constructivist Architecture in the USSR, Academy Editions, London & St Martin's Press, New York 1985
Los, Peter 'Planetarium A4oskou', 0: ontwerp, onderzoek,
onderwijs, T H Delft, Delft, No. 6, winter 1984,
pp.45-48
M i l i u t i n , Nikolai A., Sotsgorod: The Construction of Socialist Cities. Translated by Arthur Sprague, edited
w i t h introduction by George Collins and William
Alex; M I T Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1975
Milner, John Vladimir Tatlin and the Russian Avant-Garde,
Yale University Press, New Haven and London
1983

Molema, Jan, de Soeter, Hans and Schwering, Nico.

'Tweemaal Melnikov: Woonhuis Melnikov; Rusakov Club', 0: ontwerp, onderzoek, onderwijs, T H Delft,
Delft, iNo.3, 1982, pp.27-48
Palmblom, Frits Doel enmrmaak in hel Konslruktivisme:
8 projekten voor morning - en sledebouw, OSA 1926-30,
Sunschrift 142, SUN, Nijmegen 1979
Paris-Moscou 1900-1930, Exhibition catalogue with articles by Martin, Sarabianov, lavorskaia, Guidot,
Strigalev, Cohen, Khazanova, Chvidkovski, A n dreeva, Weill, Babourina, Christout, Pojarskaia,
Fauchereau, Boudnik, lakimova, Kelkel, Pronina,
Karaganov, Martinez, Lavrentiev; Centre Georges
Pompidou, Paris 1979. Gn the Moscow showing of
this exhibition, see 'Moscow Notes: The Exhibition
Moscow-Paris 1900-1930 at the Pushkin Fine Arts
Museum, Moscow', Architectural Design, 1981,
No. 10-11, pp. 72-79
Rudenstine, Angelica Zander (ed) Russian Avant-Garde
Art: The George Costakis Collection, with articles by
Starr, Costakis, Rakitin, Bowlt; Thames and H u d son, London and Abrams, New York 1981
Samona, Alberto (ed) II Palazzo dei Soviet 1931-1933,
with articles by Samona, Gregotti, Quihci; Officina
Edizioni, Rome 1976
Senkevitch, Anatole 'Aspects of Spatial Form and
Perceptual Psychology in Soviet Architecture o f t h e
1920s', VIA-6, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1983,
pp.79-115
Starr, S. Frederick 'Writings on the Modern Movement
in Russia', Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, summer 1971, pp. 170-78
'GSA: The Union of Contemporary Architects', in
George Gibian and H . W. Tjalsma (eds), Russian
Modernism: Culture and the Avant-Garde 1900-1930, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London 1976,
pp. 188-208
'The Revival and Schism of Urban Planning in
Twentieth Century Russia', in Michael H a m m (ed).
The City in Russian History, Kentucky 1976,
pp.222-42
Melnikov, Solo Architect in a Mass Society, Princeton
1978
Toca, Antonio 'Revolutionary Pedagogy: The Moscow
Vkhutemas 1920-30', aH-. Architecture + Urbanism,
Tokyo.June 1985, pp.19-26
Zhadova, Larissa A. (ed) Tatlin, with articles by Simonov, Strigalev, Sarabianov, Zhadova, Kostin,
Sirkina; Corvina K i a d , Budapest 1984; English
translation, Thames and Hudson, London 1987

The following abbreviations have been used:

arch. - architect (This concept covers the following
diploma classifications: architect, architect-artist
and civil engineer)
art. - artist
eng. - engineer
eng.-art. - engineer-artist
grad. - graduate
A K h - Academy of Arts
A p i - Azerbaidzhan Polytechnlcal Institute (Architecture and Building Faculty, founded in 1920)
Egu - Erevan State University (included an Architecture Section in its Technical Faculty)
First S G K h M - First Free State A r t Studios in Moscow
(formed in 1918 f r o m the Stroganov Industrial A r t
College - Skhpu)
I v p i - Ivanovo-Voznesensk Polytechnlcal Institute
(formed in 1918 from the Riga Polytechnlcal Institute - R P I - evacuated to Moscow)
Khisi - Kharkov Institute of Constructional Engineers
(founded in 1930)
K h k h i - Kharkov A r t Institute (formed in 1927 from
the Kharkov A r t Technical College - Khkht)
K h k h t - Kharkov A r t Technical College (formed in
1921 from the Kharkov A r t College)
K k h i - Kiev A r t Institute (Architecture Faculty
founded in 1924)
Lakh - Leningrad Academy of Arts (formerly Petrograd Academy of Arts - Pakh)
Ligi - Leningrad Institute of Civil Engineers (formerly
Petrograd Institute of Civil Engineers - Pigi)
Liiks - Leningrad Institute of Communal-Construction
Engineers (formed f r o m Ligi in 1931)
M a i (Markhi) - Moscow Architectural Institute
(formed in 1933 from Vasi)
M G U - Moscow State University
M i g i - Moscow Institute of Civil Engineers (formed i n
1922 from the Moscow Polytechnlcal Institute MPI)
M P I - Moscow Polytechnlcal Institute (formed in 1918
from the Polytechnlcal Institute for Women)
Muzhvz - Moscow College of Painting, Sculpture, and
Architecture (founded in 1832 and formed in 1918 into the Second Free State A r t Studios - S G K h M )
M V T U - Moscow Higher Technical Institute (Architecture Faculty)
G i i i - Odessa Institute for Figurative A r t (formed from
the Odessa A r t Institute)
Okhi - Odessa A r t Institute (formed in 1922 from the
Higher A r t College - Okhu)
O k h u - O d e s s a A r t College, founded in 1889, 1918-20
known as the Higher A r t College
Pakh - Petersburg (later Petrograd) Academy of Arts
(founded in 1757)
PI - Polytechnlcal Institute
Pigi - Petersburg (later Petrograd) Institute of Civil
Engineers (founded 1832)
Piips - Petersburg Institute of Communications Engi-

R P I - Riga Polytechni
and included a Buih
Second PPI - Second '.
tute
Skhpu Stroganov fh
(founded 1825)
Vasi - Higher Institut
struction, Moscow (
the Vkhutein Archil
V k h p i - Vitebsk Artis
1921-23 from the V
Vkhutein - Higher St;|
Moscow (formed inl
tistic Technical StU;
Vkhutemas - Higher i
Moscow (formed as
tween the First and
SGKhM)

Note; Numbers in ita

tra tions.
The document referer
documentary section
Abramova, S.V., arcl
Abrosimov, Pavel V a
Lakh, 1928 709, 9
Adrianov, M i k h a i l V '
Vkhutein, 1930 I i
Afanasev, K i r i l l Niko!
Vkhutein, 1930 1,
Aizikovich, Samuil Y
grad. Pigi, 1910
Alabyan, Karo Seme.
Vkhutein, 1929 5'
436, 514, 600; 689Aleshin, Pavel Fedor
gi, 1904 and Pakh,
825-28, 1057, 1058
Alexandrov, Pavel A
Vkhutein, 1930 !
Alimov, Alexander S
Vkhutein, 1930 j
Altgauzen, Erika PaDoc. 1
Altman, Natan Isae\
1907, and studied
Andreev, Fedor Niki
Andreev, Nikolai Ar;
grad. Muzhvz, 19i
Andreev, Petr Nikifc
275
Andrievsky, Sergei C
M V T U , 1927 51
Anichkin, M . , arch.
Antonov, I . , arch.
A r k i n , Arkady Efim
Vkhutemas until
301, 315; Doc. 27
Arkin, David Efimo
262

610
Additional bibliograpliy to the English edition

Architettura nel paese dei Soviet 1917-1933, Exhibition catalogue, Electa, M i l a n 1982
Arlclcitehtuurin Vallanlcumous - Revolution in Architecture,
catalogue of an exhibition on the Vesnin brothers,
with article by Manina; Museum of Finnish Architecture, Helsinki 1985
Bann, Stephen (ed) Tlie Tradition of Constructivism,
Thames and Hudson Documents of Modern Art
series, London 1974
Barron, Stephanie and Tuchman, Maurice (eds) The
Avant-Garde in Russia 1910-1930: New Perspectives,
Exhibition catalogue, M I T Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 1980
Bas, Roel 'Narkomfin', O: ontwerp, onderzoek, onderwijs,
T H Delft, Delft, No. 6, winter 1984, pp.49-56
Braun, Edward, translator and editor Meyerhold on Theatre, Methuen, London 1969
Ceccaldi, Paolo La costruzione della citta sovietica contemporanea 19291931, translations of Soviet source material with introduction by Ceccaldi; CoUano, PollisMarsillio, Padua 1970
Chernikhov, Andrei 'Artist, Show us your World . . .
lakov Chernikhov 1889-1951', Architectural Design,
1983, No. 5-6, pp. 64-72
Cohen, Jean-Louis, De Michelis, M . , and Tafuri, M .
(eds) Les Avant-gardes el I'Elal: URSS 1917-1978 La
ville. L'archilecture. Articles by Tafuri, De Michelis,
Cohen, Cooke, Khan-Magomedov, Khlebnikov,
Gorvich, Borngraber, Kopp, Quilici, Gutnov; Editions I'Equerre, Paris 1979. Also published by Gfficina Edizioni, Rome as URSS 1917-1978 La citta.
L'architettura. Parallel texts in French and Italian.
Cohen, Jean-Louis 'Le Corbusier and the Mystique of
the USSR', Oppositions, No. 23, winter 1981,
pp.84-121
Cooke, Catherine 'Russian Responses to the Garden
City Idea', Architectural Review, ]une. 1978,
pp.353-63
'Form is a Function, x: The Development o f t h e
Constmctivist Architects' Design Method', Architectural Design, 1983, No. 5-6, pp.34-49
'Moscow Map-Guide 1900-1930', ibid, pp.81-96
'Fedor Gsipovich Shekhtel: A n Architect and his
Clients in Turn-of-the-century Moscow', Architectural
Association Files, No.5, January 1984, p p . 3 - 3 1
Fantasy and Construction: lakov Chernikliov's Approach lo
Architectural Design, Academy Editions, London & St
Martin's Press, New York 1984
The Town of Socialism: from Reformers and Constructivists
to a Systems View of the Soviet City, Academy Editions,
-London 1986
Cunlifie, Antonia 'The Competition for the Palace of
Soviets in Moscow, \93\-l933',
Architectural Association Quarterly, V o l . 11, No. 2, 1979, pp.36-48
Edhoffer, Lisl and Bos, Lilian 'Twee Vesnin-elubs', 0:
ontwerp, onderzoek, onderwijs, T H Delft, Delft, No. 5,
summer 1983, pp.38-53
Elliott, David (ed) Alexander Rodchenko, Exhibition catalogue with articles by Lavrentiev, Milner, Nakov,
Bojko, Harrison, Chichagova, Gassner; Museum of

Index of names

Modern A r t , Gxford 1979

Mayakovsky: Twenty Years of Work, Exhibition catalogue with article by Efimova; Museum of Modern
Art, Oxford 1982
Arl into Production: Soviet Textiles, Fashion and Ceramics
1917-1935, Exhibition catalogue with articles by
Andreeva, Filatov, Strizhenova; Museum of Modern
A r t , Gxford 1984
Fitzpatrick, Sheila The Commissariat of Enlightenment; Soviet Organization of Education and the Arts under Lunaeharsky, Cambridge University Press 1970
Galerie Gmurzynska Von der Fldche zum Raum: Russland
1916-24 - From Surface lo Space: Russia 1916-24. Articles by Bowlt, Bojko, Kovtun, Lamac; Galerie
Gmurzynska, Cologne 1974
Von der Malerei zum Design: Russische konstruktivistische
Kunst der Zwanziger fahre - From Painting to Design:
Russian Constructivist A rt of the Twenties, Galerie
Gmurzynska, Cologne 1981
Ginzburg, Moisei Style and Epoch. Translated, with i n troduction, by Anatole Senkevitch, Oppositions
Books & M I T Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
1982
Gozak, Andrei and Leonidov, Andrei Ivan Leonidov,
Academy Editions, London 1987
Hruza, J i r i and Kroha, J i r i Sovetska Architektonicka
Avantgarda, Odeon, Prague 1973
Institute ofArchitecture, Venice Revue VH, No. 7-8,
1972, Editions Esselier, Paris 1972
Jung, K a r i n Carmen and Worbs, Dietrich 'Die Brder
Vesnin und ihre konstruktivistische Architekturkonzeption', Werk, Bauen + Wohnen, A p r i l 1985,
pp.8-11,62
Karginov, German Rodchenko, Thames and Hudson,
London 1979
Khan-Magomedov, S.O. Alexander Rodchenko, Thames
and Hudson, London, 1986
Kirichenko, Evgeniia 'Theoretical Attitudes to Architecture in Russia 1830s-1910s', Architectural Association Quarterly, V o l . 11, No. 2, 1979, pp.9-23
Kokkinaki, Irina 'The First Exhibition of Modern Architecture in Moscow', Architectural Design, 1983,
No. 5-6, pp.50-59
Kopp, Anatole Changer la vie. Changer la ville. De la vie
nouvelle aux problmes urbains: URSS 1917-1932, Union
Gnrale d'Editions, Collection 10-18, Paris 1975
Archileclure et mode de vie. Textes des annes vingt en URSS,
Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 1979
Constructivist Architecture in the USSR, Academy Editions, London & St Martin's Press, New York 1985
Los, Peter 'Planetarium Moskou', 0: ontwerp, onderzoek,
onderwijs, T H Delft, Delft, No. 6, winter 1984,
pp.45-48
M i l i u t i n , Nikolai A., Sotsgorod: The Construction of Socialist Cities. Translated by Arthur Sprague, edited
with introduction by George Collins and William
Alex; M I T Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1975
Milner, John Vladimir Tatlin and the Russian Avant-Garde,
Yale University Press, New Haven and London
1983

Molema, Jan, de Soeter, Hans and Schwering, Nico

'Tweemaal Melnikov: Woonhuis Melnikov; Rusakov Club', 0: ontwerp, onderzoek, onderwijs, T H Delft,
Delft, iNo.3, 1982, pp.27-48
Palmblom, Frits Doel eniermaak in hel Konslruktivisme:
8 projekten voor woming ~ en sledebouw, OSA 1926-30,
Sunschrift 142, SUN, Nijmegen 1979
Paris-Moscou 1900-1930, Exhibition catalogue with articles by M a r t i n , Sarabianov, lavorskaia, Guidot,
Strigalev, Cohen, Khazanova, Chvidkovski, A n dreeva, Weill, Babourina, Christout, Pojarskaia,
Fauchereau, Boudnik, lakimova, Kelkel, Pronina,
Karaganov, Martinez, Lavrentiev; Centre Georges
Pompidou, Paris 1979. On the Moscow showing of
this exhibition, see 'Moscow Notes: The Exhibition
Moscow-Paris 1900-1930 at the Pushkin Fine Arts
Museum, Moscow', Architectural Design, 1981,
No. 10-11, pp. 72-79
Rudenstine, Angelica Zander (ed) Russian Avant-Garde
Art: The George Costakis Collection, with articles by
Starr, Costakis, Rakitin, Bowlt; Thames and H u d son, London and Abrams, New York 1981
Samona, Alberto (ed) // Palazzo dei Soviet 1931-1933,
with articles by Samona, Gregotti, Quihci; Officina
Edizioni, Rome 1976
Senkevitch, Anatole 'Aspects of Spatial Form and
Perceptual Psychology in Soviet Architecture of the
1920s', VlA-6, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1983,
pp.79-115
Starr, S. Frederick 'Writings on the Modern Movement
in Russia',Journa/ of the Society of Architectural Historians, summer 1971, pp. 170-78
'OSA: The Union of Contemporary Architects', in
George Gibian and H . W. Tjalsma (eds), Russian
Modernism: Culture and the Avant-Garde 1900-1930, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London 1976,
pp. 188-208
'The Revival and Schism of Urban Planning in
Twentieth Century Russia', in iVIichael H a m m (ed).
The City in Russian History, Kentucky 1976,
pp.222-42
Melnikov, Solo Architect in a Mass Society, Princeton
1978
Toca, Antonio 'Revolutionary Pedagogy: The Moscow
Vkhutemas 1920-30', a-I-Architecture + Urbanism,
Tokyo, June 1985, pp.19-26
Zhadova, Larissa A. (ed) Tatlin, with articles by Simonov, Strigalev, Sarabianov, Zhadova, Kostin,
Sirkina; Corvina Kiad, Budapest 1984; English
translation, Thames and Hudson, London 1987

The following abbreviations have been used:

arch. - architect (This concept covers the following
diploma classifications: architect, architect-artist
and civil engineer)
art. - artist
eng. - engineer
eng.-art. - engineer-artist
grad. - graduate
A K h - Academy of Arts
A p i - Azerbaidzhan Polytechnlcal Institute (Architecture and Building Faculty, founded in 1920)
Egu - Erevan State University (included an Architecture Section in its Technical Faculty)
First S G K h M - First Free State A r t Studios in Moscow
(formed in 1918 from the Stroganov Industrial A r t
College - Skhpu)
I v p i - Ivanovo-Voznesensk Polytechnlcal Institute
(formed in 1918 from the Riga Polytechnlcal Institute - RPI - evacuated to Moscow)
Khisi - Kharkov Institute of Constructional Engineers
(founded m 1930)
K h k h i - Kharkov A r t Institute (formed in 1927 from
the Kharkov A r t Technical College - Khkht)
Khkht - Kharkov A r t Technical College (formed in
1921 from the Kharkov A r t College)
K k h i - Kiev A r t Institute (Architecture Faculty
founded in 1924)
Lakh - Leningrad Academy of Arts (formeriy Petrograd Academy of Arts - Pakh)
Ligi - Leningrad Institute of Civil Engineers (formeriy
Petrograd Institute of Civil Engineers - Pigi)
Liiks - Leningrad Institute of Communal-Construction
Engineers (formed from Ligi in 1931)
M a i (Markhi) - Moscow Architectural Institute
(formed in 1933 f r o m Vasi)
M G U - Moscow State University
M i g i - Moscow Institute of Civil Engineers (formed i n
1922 from the Moscow Polytechnlcal Institute MPI)
M P I - Moscow Polytechnlcal Institute (formed in 1918
from the Polytechnlcal Institute for Women)
Muzhvz - Moscow College of Painting, Sculpture, and
Architecture (founded in 1832 and formed in 1918 into the Second Free State A r t Studios - S G K h M )
M V T U - Moscow Higher Technical Institute (Architecture Faculty)
O h i - Odessa Institute for Figurative A r t (formed from
the Odessa A r t Institute)
Okhi - Odessa A r t Institute (formed in 1922 from the
Higher Art College - Okhu)
Okhu - Odessa A r t College, founded in 1889, 1918-20
known as the Higher A r t College
P a k h - Petersburg (later Petrograd) Academy of Arts
(founded in 1757)
PI - Polytechnlcal Institute
Pigi - Petersburg (later Petrograd) Institute of Civil
Engineers (founded 1832)
Piips - Petersburg Institute of Communications Engineers

RPI - Riga Polytechni

and included a Builc
Second PPI - Second 1
tute
Skhpu Stroganov In
(founded 1825)
Vasi - Higher Institut
struction, Moscow (
the Vkhutein Archil
V k h p i - Vitebsk Artis
1921-23 from the V
Vkhutein - Higher St;
Moscow (formed in'
tistic Technical StU|
Vkhutemas - Higher [
Moscow (formed as
tween the First and
SGKhM)

Note: Numbers in ita

tra tions.
The document referei
documentary section
Abramova, S.V., arcl
Abrosimov, Pavel V a
Lakh, 1928 709, S,
Adrianov, M i k h a i l V
Vkhutein, 1930 1
Afanasev, K i r i l l Niko!
Vkhutein, 1930 1,
Aizikovich, Samuil Y
grad. Pigi, 1910 '
Alabyan, Karo Seme
Vkhutein, 1929 5i
436, 514, 600; 689Aleshin, Pavel Fedor
gi, 1904 and Pakh,
825-28, 1057, 1058
Alexandrov, Pavel A
Vkhutein, 1930 :
Alimov, Alexander S
Vkhutein, 1930 ,
Altgauzen, Erika PaDoc. 1
Altman, Natan Isae\
1907, and studied
Andreev, Fedor Niki
Andreev, Nikolai Ar
grad. Muzhvz, 19
Andreev, Petr Nikifc
275
Andrievsky, Sergei C
M V T U , 1927 51
Anichkin, M . , arch.
Antonov, I . , arch.
A r k i n , Arkady Efim
Vkhutemas until
301, 315; Doc. 27
Arkin, David Efimo
262

Index of names

the English edition

917-1933, Exhibition ca
}
levolution in Architecture,
3n the Vesnin brothers,
useum of Finnish Archition of Constructivism,
ments of Modern A r t
nan, Maurice (eds) The
1930: New Perspectives,
' Press, Cambridge,
twerp, onilerioek, onderwijs,
ter 1984, pp.49-56
A zAlor Meyerhold on Tliea)
della citta sovietica contemons of Soviet source mateleccaldi; Collano, Pollisjhow us your World . . .
)51', Architectural Design,
ehs, M . , and T a f u r i , M .
tat: URSS 1917-1978 La
by T a f u r i , De Michelis,
omedov, Khlebnikov,
p, Quilici, Gutnov; Edi
. Also published by Gf'RSS 1917-1978 La citta.
in French and Italian,
asier and the Mystique of
.23, winter 1981,
.espouses to the Garden
iew, Jane 1978,
le Development o f t h e
Design Method', Architec, pp.34-49
1-1930', ibid, pp.81-96
I: A n Architect and his
:ury Moscow', Architectural
aary 1984, pp.3-31
'cov Chernikhov's Approach to
ny Editions, London & St
1984
Reformers and Constructivists
t City, Academy Editions,
petition for the Palace of
1933', Arcliitectural Associa1979, pp.36-48
~i 'Twee Vesnin-elubs', 0:
, T H Delft, Delft, No. 5,
Rodchenko, Exhibition caivrentlev, Milner, Nakov,
Dva, Gassner; Museum of

Modern A r t , Oxford 1979

Mayakovsky: Twenty Years of Work, Exhibition catalogue with article by Efimova; Museum of Modern
Art, Oxford 1982
Art into Production: Soviet Textiles, Fashion and Ceramics
1917-1935, Exhibition catalogue w i t h articles by
Andreeva, Filatov, Strizhenova; Museum of Modern
Art, Oxford 1984
Fitzpatrick, Sheila The Commissariat of Enlightenment; Soviet Organization of Education and the Arts under Lunaeharsky, Cambridge University Press 1970
Galerie Gmurzynska Von der Fldche zum Raum: Russland
1916-24 - From Surface to Space: Russia 1916-24. A r ticles by Bowlt, Bojko, Kovtun, Lamac; Galerie
Gmurzynska, Cologne 1974
Von der Malerei zum Design: Russische konstruktivistische
Kunst der Zwanziger Jahre - From Painting to Design:
Russian Constructivist Art of the Twenties, Galerie
Gmurzynska, Cologne 1981
Ginzburg, Moisei Style and Epoch. Translated, with introduction, by Anatole Senkevitch, Oppositions
Books & M I T Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
1982
Gozak, Andrei and Leonidov, Andrei Ivan Leonidov,
Academy Edidons, London 1987
Hruza, J i r i and Kroha, J i r i Sovetska Architektonicka
Avantgarda, Odeon, Prague 1973
Institute ofArchitecture, Venice Revue VH, No. 7-8,
1972, Editions Esselier, Paris 1972
Jung, K a r i n Carmen and Worbs, Dietrieh 'Die Brder
Vesnin und ihre konstruktivistische Architekturkonzeption', Werk, Bauen -I- Wohnen, A p r i l 1985,
pp.8-11, 62
Karginov, German Rodchenko, Thames and Hudson,
London 1979
Khan-Magomedov, S.O. Alexander Rodchenko, Thames
and Hudson, London, 1986
Kirichenko, Evgeniia 'Theoretical Attitudes to Architecture i n Russia 1830s-1910s', Architectural Association Quarterly, V o l . 11, No. 2, 1979, pp.9-23
Kokkinaki, Irina 'The First Exhibition of Modern A r chitecture i n Moscow', Architectural Design, 1983,
N o . 5 - 6 , pp.50-59
Kopp, Anatole Changer la vie. Changer la ville. De la vie
nouvelle aux problmes urbains: URSS 1917-1932, Union
Gnrale d'Editions, Collection 10-18, Paris 1975
Architecture el mode de vie. Textes des annes vingt en URSS,
Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 1979
Constructivist Architecture in the USSR, Academy Editions, London & St Martin's Press, New York 1985
Los, Peter 'Planetarium Moskou', 0: ontwerp, onderzoek,
onderwijs, T H Delft, Delft, No. 6, winter 1984,
pp.45-48
M i l i u t i n , Nikolai A., Sotsgorod: The Construction of Socialist Cities. Translated by Arthur Sprague, edited
with introduction by George Collins and William
Alex; M I T Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1975
Milner, John Vladimir Tatlin and the Russian Avant-Garde,
Yale University Press, New Haven and London
1983

Molema, Jan, de Soeter, Hans and Schwering, Nieo.

'Tweemaal Melnikov: Woonhuis Melnikov; Rusakov Club', 0: ontwerp, onderzoek, onderwijs, T H Delft,
Delft, No. 3, 1982, pp.27-48
Palmblom, Frits Doel en .vermaak in hel Konstruktivisme:
8 projekten voor woming - en sledebouw, OSA 1926-30,
Sunschrift 142, S U N , Nijmegen 1979
Paris-Moscou 1900-1930, Exhibition catalogue with articles by M a r t i n , Sarabianov, lavorskaia, Guidot,
Strigalev, Cohen, Khazanova, Chvidkovski, A n dreeva, Weill, Babourina, Christout, Pojarskaia,
Fauchereau, Boudnik, lakimova, Kelkel, Pronina,
Karaganov, Martinez, Lavrentiev; Centre Georges
Pompidou, Paris 1979. O n the Moscow showing of
this exhibition, see 'Moscow Notes: The Exhibition
Moscow-Paris 1900-1930 at the Pushkin Fine Arts
Museum, Moscow', Architectural Design, 1981,
No. 10-11, pp. 72-79
Rudenstine, Angelica Zander (ed) Russian Avant-Garde
Art: The George Costakis Collection, with articles by
Starr, Costakis, Rakitin, Bowlt; Thames and H u d son, London and Abrams, New York 1981
Samona, Alberto (ed) II Palazzo dei Soviet 1931-1933,
w i t h articles by Samona, Gregotti, Quilici; Officina
Edizioni, Rome 1976
Senkevitch, Anatole 'Aspects of Spatial Form and
Perceptual Psychology in Soviet Architecture of the
1920s', VIA-6, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1983,
pp.79-115
Starr, S. Frederick 'Writings on the Modern Movement
in Russia', yowraa/ of the Society of Architectural Historians, summer 1971, pp.170-78
'OSA; The Union of Contemporary Architects', in
George Gibian and H . W. Tjalsma (eds), Russian
Modernism: Culture and the A vanl- Garde 1900-1930, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London 1976,
pp. 188-208
'The Revival and Schism of Urban Planning in
Twentieth Century Russia', i n Michael H a m m (ed).
The City in Russian Histoiy, Kentucky 1976,
pp.222-42
Melnikov, Solo Architect in a Mass Society, Princeton
1978
Toca, Antonio 'Revolutionary Pedagogy; The Moscow
Vkhutemas 1920-30', a + ; Architecture -I- Urbanism,
Tokyo, June 1985, pp.19-26
Zhadova, Larissa A. (ed) Tatlin, with articles by Simonov, Strigalev, Sarabianov, Zhadova, Kostin,
Sirkina; Corvina Kiad, Budapest 1984; English
translation, Thames and Hudson, London 1987

The following abbreviations have been used:

arch. - architect (This concept covers the following
diploma classifications: architect, architect-artist
and civil engineer)
art. - artist
eng. - engineer
eng.-art. - engineer-artist
grad. - graduate
A K h - Academy of Arts
A p i - Azerbaidzhan Polytechnlcal Institute (Architecture and Building Faculty, founded in 1920)
Egu - Erevan State University (included an Architecture Section i n its Technical Faculty)
First S G K h M - First Free State A r t Studios in Moscow
(formed in 1918 from the Stroganov Industrial A r t
College - Skhpu)
I v p i - Ivanovo-Voznesensk Polytechnlcal Institute
(formed in 1918 from the Riga Polytechnlcal Institute - R P I - evacuated to Moscow)
K h i s i - Kharkov Institute of Constructional Engineers
(founded i n 1930)
K h k h i - Kharkov A r t Institute (formed i n 1927 from
the Kharkov A r t Technical College - Khkht)
K h k h t - Kharkov A r t Technical College (formed m
1921 from the Kharkov A r t College)
K k h i - Kiev A r t Institute (Architecture Faculty
founded i n 1924)
Lakh - Leningrad Academy of Arts (formerly Petrograd Academy of Arts - Pakh)
Ligi - Leningrad Institute of Civil Engineers (formerly
Petrograd Institute of Civil Engineers - Pigi)
Liiks - Leningrad Institute of Communal-Construction
Engineers (formed from Ligi in 1931)
M a i (Markhi) - Moscow Architectural Institute
(formed in 1933 from Vasi)
M G U - Moscow State University
M i g i - Moscow Institute of Civil Engineers (formed in
1922 from the Moscow Polytechnlcal I n s t i t u t e MPI-'ivIoscow Polytechnieal Institute (formed in 1918
from the Polytechnlcal Institute for Women)
Muzhvz - Moscow College of Painting, Sculpture, and
Architecture (founded in 1832 and formed in 1918 into the Second Free State A r t Studios - S G K h M )
M V T U - Moscow Higher Technical Institute (Architecture Faculty)
G i n - Odessa Institute for Figurative A r t (formed from
the Odessa A r t Institute)
Okhi - Odessa A r t Institute (formed i n 1922 from the
Higher A r t College - Okhu)
O k h u - O d e s s a A r t College, founded i n 1889, 1918-20
known as the Higher A r t CoUege
Pakh - Petersburg (later Petrograd) Academy of Arts
(founded in 1757)
PI - Polytechnlcal Institute
Pigi - Petersburg (later Petrograd) Institute of Civil
Engineers (founded 1832)
Piips - Petersburg Institute of Communications Engineers

RPI - Riga Polytechnlcal Institute (founded i n 1896,

and included a Building and Architecture Faculty)
Second PPI - Second Petrograd Polytechnlcal Institute

Arvatov, Boris Ignatevich, 1896-1940, Uterary critic

and art historian 69, 70, 146-48
Asplund, Erik Gunnar, 1885-1940, arch. 200
Astafeva, Margarita losifovna, born 1937, arch., grad.
M a r k h i , 1967

10

Skhpu - Stroganov Industrial A r t College, Moscow

(founded 1825)
Vasi - Higher Institute for Architecture and Construction, Moscow (founded i n 1930 on the basis of
the Vkhutein Architectural Faculty)
V k h p i - V i t e b s k Artistic Practical Institute (formed in
1921-23 f r o m the Vitebsk A r t Studios)
Vkhutein - Higher State Artistic Technical Institute,
Moscow (formed i n 1927 from the Higher State A r tistic Technical Studios (Vkhutemas) i n Moscow)
Vkhutemas - Higher State Artistic Technical Studios,
Moscow (formed as a result o f t h e merger I n 1920 between the First and Second Free State A r t Studios SGKhM)
Note: Numbers in itahcs refer to captions to the illustrations.
The document references are to photographs i n the
documentary section (pp. 565-80).
Abramova, S.V., arch., grad. M P I Doc. 1, 3
Abrosimov, Pavel Vasilevich, 1900-61, arch., grad.
Lakh, 1928
709,999
Adrianov, Mikhail Vasilevich, born 1907, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 Doc. 42
Afanasev, K i r i l l Nikolaevich, born 1909, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 10, 404, 515; 1153, 1449; Doc. 45
Aizikovich, Samuil Yakovlevich, 1882-1963, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1910 344;
Alabyan, Karo Semenovich, 1897-1959, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 237, 258, 260, 262, 263, 402, 403,
436, 514, 600; 689-94, 1101, 1130, 1131; Doc. 40
Aleshin Pavel Fedorovich, 1881-1961, arch., grad. Pigi, 1904 and Pakh, 1917 258, 334, 400; 677, 678,
825-28, 1057, 1058
Alexandrov, Pavel Alexeevich, 1909-68, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 10; 1103
Alimov, Alexander Sergeevich, born 1903, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 1490
Altgauzen, Erika Pavlovna, arch., grad. M P I , 1921
Doc. 1
Altman, Natan Isaevich, 1889-1970, art., grad. Okhu,
1907, and studied in Paris, 1910-11 14, 75; 197
Andreev, Fedor Nikiforovich, arch. 102, 104; 276
Andreev, Nikolai Andreevich, 1873-1932, sculptor,
grad. Muzhvz, 1901

278; 730

Andreev, Petr Nikiforovich, arch., grad. M P I , 1921

275
Andrievsky, Sergei Grigorevich, born 1898, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1927 587; 512, 831, 832; Doc. 24
Anichkin, M . , arch. 394
Antonov, I . , arch. 334; 823, 824
A r k i n Arkady Efimovich, born 1904, arch., studied at
Vkhutemas until 1927, grad. Lakh, 1931

8,11,458;

301, 315; Doc. 27

Arkin, David Efimovich, 1899-1957, art historian
262

Babenkov, Dmitry Evgenevich, born 1899, arch., grad.

M V T U , 1926 600
Babichev, Alexei Vasilevich, 1887-1963, sculptor,
grad. Muzhvz, 1912 11, 66, 69, 72, 459; 123, 157,
158, 165, 166, 1253
Baburov, Viktor, Venyaminovich, 1903-77, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1930 237, 600
Baev, Nikolai Georgievich, 1878-1953, arch., grad.
Pigi, 1901 240; 645
Balikhin, Viktor Stepanovich, 1893-1953, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1924 11, 71, 72, 108, 141, 143-45, 260,
262, 263, 402, 499, 592; 376, 377, 390-92, 1389, 1484;
Doc. 15
Balyan, Oganes Mkrtichevich, 1895-1933, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 479; 1313
Baranov, Nikolai Varfolomeevich, born 1909, arch.,
grad. Liiks, 1931 334; 9S5
Baransky, Alexander Ivanovich, 1890-1965, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1918 Doc. 42
Barkhin, Grigory Borisovich, 1880-1969, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1907 274, 400, 403, 434; 1136, 1137
Barkhin, Mikhail Grigorevich, born 1906, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1929 1136, 1137, 1262, 1263; Doc. 36
Barshch, Mikhail Gsipovich (losifovich), 1904-76,
arch., grad. Vkhutemas, 1926 8, 11, 70, 193, 335,
347 348 389,392,404,436,479,484,515,594;
843-51, 853, 854, 955-57, 1045-48, 1138, 1140, 1141,
1216,1297-1300,1346,1347,1476,1477;
Doc. 19,22,25,
45, 50
Barutchev, Armen Konstantinovich, 1904-66, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1928

279, 483, 541, 598; 1331-33,

1494
Behne Adolf, 1885-1948, art historian 144
Beldovsky, Ivan Kornehevich, 1894-1976, arch., grad.
Ligi, 1924 613-18, 1207, 1208
Belelyubsky, Nikolai ApoUonovich, 1845-1922, eng.,
grad. Piips, 1867 20
Belogrud, Andrei Evgenevich, 1875-1933, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1910 23, 74, 141, 275, 345; 174-79, 915-17,
1171-73
Benois, Alexander Nikolaevich, 1870-1960, art. 19
Benois, Leonty Nikolaevich, 1856-1928, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1879 21
Benoit-Lvy, Georges, 1880-1971, propagandist and
builder of garden cities 337
Beseda, Nikolai Sergeevich, born 1901, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928 402; 1100
Blokhin Boris Nikolaevich, 1896-1972, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1918 335, 397;
966, 967
Blokhin, Pavel Nikolaevich, 1900-66, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1927 458; Doe. 36
Bocharov, Yury Petrovich, born 1926, arch., grad.
M a r k h i , 1951 8, 10
Bolbashevsky, Ivan Vladimirovich, 1897-1975, arch.,

612
Index of names

grad. Vkhutein, 1929 592; 388, 389,1493

Boldyrev, Alexander Konstandnovich, 1889-1971,
arch., grad. Pigi, 1914 484
Borisovsky, Georgy Borisovich, born 1907, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1930 8, 144, 592; 1484, 1493
Breuer, Marcel, 1902-81, arch. 1270
Brik, Gsip Maximovich, 1888-1945, writer and literary
critic 69, 70, 146-48, 193
Brining, Roman Evgenevich, 1904-66, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1928 334
Brunelleschi, Fihppo, 1337-1446, arch. 549, 550
Brunov, Nikolai Ivanovich, 1898-1971, architectural
historian 548, 549
Bruny, Lev Alexandrovich, 1894-1948, art., followed
private courses, then studied at Pakh, 1910-11, and
Paris, i912 64
Brzhostovsky, Valerian Pavlovich, 1888-1944, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1915
518,519
Bubyr, Alexei Fedorovich, 1876-1919, arch., grad.
Pigi, in eariy 1900s 585
Budo, Petr Vladimirovich, 1903-42, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 144, 402, 592; 390-92
Bulychov, Gavrila Georgievich, eng. Doc. 36
Bunin, Andrei Vladimirovich, 1905-77, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 8, 11, 144, 257, 283, 396, 479, 515,
592; 388, 389, 674, 675, 802, 803,1037,1038,1301, 1302,
1453, 1490
Bunyatov (Bunyatyan), Nikolai Gavrilovich,
1884-1943, arch., grad. Pakh, 1914 240; 643
Burlyuk, David Davidovich, 1882-1967, art. and
poet 61,62
Burlyuk, Nikolai Davidovich, 1890-1920, art. and
poet 61
Burlyuk, Vladimir Davidovich, 1886-1917, art. 61
Burov, Andrei Konstantinovich, 1900-57, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1925 193, 262, 397, 404, 435, 535, 594;
505-08, 1211-13, 1485; Doc. 20
Burov, Ivan Georgievich, born 1890, grad. Skhpu,
1915
518,519
Buryshkin, David Petrovich (Peisakhovich),
1890-1959, arch., grad. Pakh, 1916 75, 343, 484;
1050
Bykov, Zakhar Nikolaevich, born 1898, eng.-art., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 422, 423, 441
Bykova, Nadezhda Alexandrovna, born 1908, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1930 144, 458, 592; 384-87
CampaneHa, Tommaso, 1568-1639, philosopher and
poet, author of Civitas solis 341
Cezanne, Paul, 1839-1906, art. 62, 151
Chagall, Mark Zakharovich, 1887-1985, art. 14
Chaldymov, Andrei Konstandnovich, 1904-66, arch.,
grad. Liiks, 1931 334; Doc. 41
Chashnik, Ilya Grigorevich, 1902-29, art., grad.
V k h p i , 1922 67, 234, 281; 57, 128; Doc. 6
Chebotareva, Evdokiya Alexandrovna, born 1898,
arch., grad. M i g i , 1924 Doc. 21
Chechulin, Dmitry Nikolaevich, 1901-81, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 403
Cherikover, Lazar Zinovevich, 1895-1964, arch., grad.

M V T U , 1927 513; 1435

Chernikhov, Yakov Georgievich, 1889-1951, arch.,
grad. Lakh, 1925 197, 198, 200; 552-59
Chernyavsky, Viktor Eduardovich, 1892-1963, arch.,
grad. P I Marseilles, 1914 661
Chernyshev, Sergei Egorovich, 1881-1963, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1901, and Pakh, 1907 22, 343, 500; 1411;
Doc. 1
Chervinka, Ivan, art. Doc. 6
Chinyakov, Alexei Grigorevich, 1902-67, arch., grad.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA,
1934 10, 587
Chisliev, David Georgievich, 1879-1970, arch., grad.
Pigi, 1904 644
Chizhikova, Tatyana Alexandrovna, born 1902, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1928 Doc. 25
Chuenko, Rosdslav Georgievich, 1902-68, arch., eng.,
grad. M V T U , 1929 1164
Claudel, Paul, 1868-1955, playwright 153
Dadashev, Sadykh Alekperovich, 1905-46, arch., grad.
Api, 1929 240,
m;.653
Danilova, Ekaterina Sergeevna, arch., grad. M P I
Doc. 1, 3
Danilyuk, Alexei Mikhailovich, arch., grad. Ligi,
1930 1381
Daugul, Valerian Georgievich, 1900-41, arch. 401
De Feo, Vittorio, architectural historian 9
Deryabin, Flegont Nikiforovich, 1901-75, arch. 600
Dzamy, Theodore, 1803-50, Utopian writer 341
Dikansky, Matvei Grigorevich, town-planning theoretician
271
Dlugach, losif Lvovich, 1902-41, arch., grad. V k h u tein, 1930 598
Dmitriev, Alexander Ivanovich, 1873-1959, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1900, and Pakh, 1903 156, 277,434,436,
497; 1177, 1178, 1227
Doditsa, Yakov Nikolaevich, born 1905, arch., grad.
Khisi, 1930 403
Doesburg, Theo van, 1883-1931, arch, and art. 149
Dokuchaev, Nikolai Vasilevich, 1891-1944, arch.,
grad. Muzhvz, 1916, and Pakh, 1917 22, 70, 71,
107, 141, 257, 282, 499, 543, 588, 592; 369, 370,
781-83, 1049, 1096, 1097, 1378-80; Doc. 1, 3
Dolganov, Vitaly Ivanovich, 1901-69, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 1490
Dombrovsky, Sigismund Vladislavovich, 1883-1953,
arch., grad. Pakh, 1914 67, 75, 76
Dovzhenko, Alexander Petrovich, 1894-1956, film
director 479
Drevin, Alexander (Rudolf) Davidovich, 1889-1938,
grad. Riga School of Drawing, 1913 70, 152
Dubehr, Grigory Ivanovich, 1874-1942, eng. 271
Dubovsky, Valentin Evgenevich, arch. 518, 519
Dyachenko, Dmitry Mikhailovich, 1887-1942,
arch. 257; 676
Dyadin, Gury Ivanovich, 1894-1959, arch., grad. L i g i ,
1930 Doc. 25
Efimov, Alexander Ivanovich, 1889-1962, arch., grad.

Muzhvz, 1915

70, 107, 141, 592

Efimov, Ivan Semenovich, 1878-1959, sculptor, grad.

Muzhvz, 1908 Doc. 1
Egorychev, arch. 400; 1059
Ehrenburg, Ilya Grigorevich, 1891-1967, writer 147,
557
Eisenstein, Sergei Mikhailovich, 1898-1948, film
director 101, 460, 479; 507, 505
Engels, Friedrich, 1820-95 271,341
Ermilov, Ivan Dmitrievich, 1903-73, arch., grad.
K h k h i , 1927 1486
Ermolaeva, Vera Mikhailovna, 1893-1937, art.,
studied privately 67; Dbc. 6, 7
Evald, Viktor Vladimirovich, arch., grad. Pigi (?)
21
Exter, Alexandra Alexandrovna, 1884-1949, art.,
attended art school i n Kiev and studied privately i n
Paris from 1907 72, 153; 116-18, 400, 401, 480, 789
Faifel, Avraam Moiseevich, 1896-1967, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 600
Fedorov, arch. 498; 1368
Fedorovsky, Fedor Fedorovich, 1883-1955, art., grad.
Skhpu, 1907 Doc. 42
Fedulov, Panteleimon Evlampievich, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 339; 881; Doc. 14
Felger, Mark Davydovich, 1881-1962, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1912 156, 258, 278, 404; 735-38
Fidman, Vladimir Ivanovich, 1884-1949, arch., grad.
Pakh (three courses), 1910 22, 67, 75, 76, 141, 402,
499, 500, 592; 149, 151, 152, 188-91, 1108, 1393
Fisenko, Anatoly Stepanovich, 1902-82, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1925 8, 193, 235, 594; 620, 621, 623-27,
629; Doc. 35
Fomin, Igor Ivanovich, born 1904, arch., grad. Lakh,
1928 394, 400, 498; 245, 1000, 1367
Fomin, Ivan Alexandrovich, 1872-1936, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1909 . 11, 19, 21, 23, 64, 71, 74, 101, 198-200,
262, 263, 271, 273, 278, 400, 401, 404, 433, 499; 1,
17-20, 240, 241,567-70, 709, 728, 729,1163,1345; Doc.
27, 29
Fourier, Franfois Marie Charles, 1772-1837, Utopian
socialist 341
Franketti, Vladimir Fehksovich, art. Doc. 21
Frantsuz, Isidor Aronovich, born 1896, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1926 8, 11; 284, 1321
Fridman, Damil Fedorovich, 1887-1950, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1915 338, 400, 402, 404, 499, 515, 598;
1099, 1393, 1469-73, 1487
Fromzel, Viktor Matveevich, born 1909, arch., grad.
Liiks, 1931 970
Fufaev, Alexander Sergeevich, 1894-1967, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1925 345; 905, 906
Gabo, Naum Abramovich, 1890-1977, art. 64, 65;
76-80
Gaken, Mariya Vasilevna, 1894-1977, arch., grad.
M P I , 1921 1138, 1140, 1141; Doc. 25
Galaktionov, Alexander Alexeevich, 1905-75, eng.art., grad. Vkhutein, 1929 437, 438

Galaktionov, Petr Alexeevich, 1906-67, eng.-art.,

grad. Vkhutein, 1929 435, 436
Galperin, Leonid Yulevich, born 1907, arch., grad.
Liiks, 1931 334
Galperin, Vladimir Mikhailovich, 1898-1971, arch.,
grad. Ligi, 1925 498; 613-19, 1207, 1208, 1363
Gan, Alexei Mikhailovich, 1895-1940, art. and art
critic 69, 70, 72, 146-51, 193, 594; 407, 408, 426,
428, 509; Doc. 22, 25
Gassenpflug, C , arch. 403; 1121
Gedike, B., arch. 971
Gegello, Alexander Ivanovich, 1891-1965, arch., grad.
Pigi, 1920 23, 101, 276, 279, 434; 173, 722, 1174,
1175
Gelfeld, Semen Aronovich, 1898-1976, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928 144, 339, 499, 592; 1380,1493; Doc.
42
Gelfreikh, Vladimir Georgievich, 1885-1967, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1914
236,261,263,278,403,477,500;
250, 710, 1264, 1265, 1400
Gerasimov, Georgy Gerasimovich, 1897-1972, grad.
Ligi, 1929 279; 744
Gershtein, Yulian Isaevich, 1894-1962, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1917 389
Gilter, Isidor Albertovich, 1902-73, arch. 11, 279,
483, 541, 598; 1331-33
Ginzburg, Moisei Yakovlevich, 1892-1946, arch.,
grad. M i l a n A r t Academy, 1914,andRPI, 1917 11,
64, 156, 193, 194, 233, 237, 240, 257, 258, 261, 262,
278, 279, 335, 336, 339, 347, 348, 389, 392, 396, 397,
401, 402, 433, 436, 478, 484, 499, 500, 514, 515, 542,
564, 581, 594; 488-92, 643, 657, 702, 703, 739-41, 745,
849-54, 922, 923, 942-54,
958-61,1046-48,1054,1055,
1061,1062,1073,1078,1082,1121,1128,1129,1209,1210,
1277-80, 1289-91, 1341, 1342, 1372, 1383-88, 1405,
1408-10, 1447, 1476, 1477; Doc. 17, 21-23, 25, 45, 49
Gladkov, Boris Vladimirovich, born 1897, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1923 117, 118, 620-22, 966, 967; Doc. 36
Glagolev, Sergei Vasilevich, 1893-1968, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1926 108
Glazunov, Alexander Alexandrovich, art.
1250-52
Glushchenko, Gleb Ivanovich, 1901-67, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928 338, 402-04, 499, 598; 304, 372,
1095, 1375, 1376
Goleizovsky, Kasyan Yaroslavovich, 1892-1970, ballet
dancer and choreographer, grad. Petersburg Theatre
College, 1918
\5'i;479,480
Golosov, Ilya Alexandrovich, 1883-1945, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1912 11, 22, 64, 68, 71, 72, 102-04, 141,
156, 193, 196, 197, 200, 239, 258, 262, 263, 273, 275,
279, 334, 343, 345, 390, 395, 400-04, 434-36, 478,
479, 498, 500, 514, 535, 561-63, 594; 251-76, 284,
521-31, 716, 731, 819-21, 909-1f,
1013-18,1056,1074,
1075, 1079, 1080, 1083, 1084, 1090,1091, 1124, 1154,
1198-1204, 1215, 1271, 1281, 1282,1292, 1307, 1308,
1321, 1343,1362, 1404; Doc. 1, 3, 8
Golosov, Panteleimon Alexandrovich, 1882-1945,
arch., grad. Muzhvz, 1911 22, 261, 273, 275, 343,
401, 404, 434; 684, 716, 1147, 1148, 1306; Doc. 1
Golts, Georgy Pavlovich, 1893-1946, arch., grad.

Vkhutemas, 19
565, 630-32
Golubev, Alexanc
Muzhvz, 1914
Gordeev, Boris A
grad. M V T U ,
Grad, L . , arch.
Grechina, Mikha
K k h i , 1930 3
Grinberg, Alexan
338, 400, 478,:
Grinberg, Alexar
338, 400, 478,
Grinshpun, Leon
Vkhutein, 193(
Gropius, Walter,
Grushenko, losif
Vkhutein, 192l|
Gundorov, Nikol
Vkhutemas, h
Gurev-Gurevich,:
arch., grad. M
1382
Hamilton, Hecto
Hilbersheimer, I ;
Holm, Lundberg
Howard, Ebenez
theoretician ar
I l i n , Evgeny Ale:
1931 334
I l i n , Lev Alexam
1902 23, 273
Ihna, Evgeniya 1
M V T U , 1925
Ilyashev, Vasily
Pakh, 1900 'I
lodko, Romuald
grad. Vkhuter
lofan, Boris M i k
Gkhu, 1911, a
262, 263, 394,
1481, 1482; Do
lofan, Glga Fabi
loganson, K a r l "\
grad. Riga A n
lokheles, Evgeni
1930 598; 14
lozefovich, Isaal
Vkhutein, 193
Istselenov, Niko!
or 1916 6 7 , ;
Ivanitsky, Alexa;
grad. Pigi, 19(
Ivanov, Konstai
grad. Liiks, li

Kalinin, Viktor
Vkhutein, 193^:

613
Index of names

592; 388, 389, 1493

itantinovich, 1889-1971,
484
ivich, born 1907, arch.,
3, 144, 592; 1484, 1493
arch. 1270
188-1945, writer and literary
193
:h, 1904-66, arch., grad.
'-1446, arch. 549, 550
1, 1898-1971, architectural
, 1894-1948, art., followed
died at Pakh, 1910-11, and
vlovich, 1888-1944, arch.,
'9
1876-1919, arch., grad.

M V T U , 1927
5\3;1435
Chernikhov, Yakov Georgievich, 1889-1951, arch.,
grad. Lakh, 1925 197, 198, 200; 552-59
Chernyavsky, Viktor Eduardovich, 1892-1963, arch.,
grad. PI Marseilles, 1914 661
Chernyshev, Sergei Egorovich, 1881-1963, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1901, and Pakh, 1907 22, 343, 500; 1411;
Doc. 1
Chervinka, Ivan, art. Doc. 6
Chinyakov, Alexei Grigorevich, 1902-67, arch., grad.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA,
1934 10, 587
Chisliev, David Georgievich, 1879-1970, arch., grad.
Pigi, 1904 644
Chizhikova, Tatyana Alexandrovna, born 1902, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1928 Doc. 25
Chuenko, Rostislav Georgievich, 1902-68, arch., eng.,
grad. M V T U , 1929 1164
Claudel, Paul, 1868-1955, playwright 153

)
1903-42, arch., grad.
)2, 592; 390-92
vich, eng. Doc. 36
ich, 1905-77, arch., grad.
144, 257, 283, 396, 479,515,
2,
803,1037,1038,1301,1302,
kolai Gavrilovich,
Pakh, 1914 240; 643
1, 1882-1967, art. and
;h, 1890-1920, art. and
/ich, 1886-1917, art. 61
ivich, 1900-57, arch., grad.
262, 397,404, 435,535,594;
DC. 20
lorn 1890, grad. Skhpu,
1 (Peisakhovich),
Pakh, 1916 75, 343, 484;
, born 1898, eng.-art., grad.
I 441
irovna, born 1908, arch.,
44, 458, 592; 384-87
S8-1639, philosopher and
\s 341
art. 62, 151
1, 1887-1985, art. 14
.ntinovich, 1904-66, arch.,
)oc. 41
, 1902-29, art., grad.
11; 57, 128; Doc. 6
xandrovna, born 1898,
Doc. 21

Dadashev, Sadykh Alekperovich, 1905-46, arch., grad.

A p i , 1929 240, iS3;.653
Danilova, Ekaterina Sergeevna, arch., grad. M P I
Doc. 1, 3
Danilyuk, Alexei Mikhailovich, arch., grad. Ligi,
1930 1381
Daugul, Valerian Georgievich, 1900-41, arch. 401
De Feo, Vittorio, architectural historian 9
Deryabin, Flegont Nikiforovich, 1901-75, arch. 600
Dzamy, Thodore, 1803-50, Utopian writer 341
Dikansky, Matvei Grigorevich, town-planning theoretician 271
Dlugach, losif Lvovich, 1902-41, arch.; grad. Vkhutein, 1930 598
Dmitriev, Alexander Ivanovich, 1873-1959, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1900, and Pakh, 1903 156, 277,434,436,
497; 7/77, 1178, 1227
Doditsa, Yakov Nikolaevich, born 1905, arch., grad.
Khisi, 1930 403
Doesburg, Theo van, 1883-1931, arch, and art. 149
Dokuchaev, Nikolai Vasilevich, 1891-1944, arch.,
grad. Muzhvz, 1916, and Pakh, 1917 22, 70, 71,
107, 141, 257, 282, 499, 543, 588, 592; 369, 370,
781-83,1049, 1096, 1097, 1378-80; Doc. 1, 3
Dolganov, Vitaly Ivanovich, 1901-69, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 1490
Dombrovsky, Sigismund Vladislavovich, 1883-1953,
arch., grad. Pakh, 1914 67, 75, 76
Dovzhenko, Alexander Petrovich, 1894-1956, f d m
director 479
Drevin, Alexander (Rudolf) Davidovich, 1889-1938,
grad. Riga School of Drawing, 1913 70, 152
Dubelir, Grigory Ivanovich, 1874-1942, eng. 271
Dubovsky, Valentin Evgenevich, arch. 518, 519
Dyachenko, D m i t r y Mikhailovich, 1887-1942,
arch. 257; 676
Dyadin, Gury Ivanovich, 1894-1959, arch., grad. Ligi,
1930 Doc. 25

vich, 1901-81, arch., grad.

:h, 1895-1964, arch., grad.

Efimov, Alexander Ivanovich, 1889-1962, arch., grad.

Muzhvz, 1915 70, 107, 141, 592

Efimov, Ivan Semenovich, 1878-1959, sculptor, grad.
Muzhvz, 1908 Doc. 1
Egorychev, arch. 400; 1059
Ehrenburg, Ilya Grigorevich, 1891-1967, writer 147,
557
Eisenstein, Sergei Mikhailovich, 1898-1948, film
director 101, 460, 479; J7, 5<9
Engels, Friedrich, 1820-95 271, 341
Ermilov, Ivan Dmitrievich, 1903-73, arch., grad.
K h k h i , 1927 1486
Ermolaeva, Vera Mikhailovna, 1893-1937, art.,
studied privately 67; Doc. 6, 7
Evald, Viktor Vladimirovich, arch., grad. Pigi (?)
21
Exter, Alexandra Alexandrovna, 1884-1949, art.,
attended art school in Kiev and studied privately i n
Paris from 1907 72, 153; 116-18, 400, 401, 480, 789
Faifel, Avraam Moiseevich, 1896-1967, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 600
Fedorov, arch. 498;1368
Fedorovsky, Fedor Fedorovich, 1883-1955, art., grad.
Skhpu, 1907 Doc. 42
Fedulov, Panteleimon Evlampievich, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 339; 557; Doc. 14
Felger, M a r k Davydovich, 1881-1962, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1912 156, 258, 278, 404; 735-38
Fidman, Vladimir Ivanovich, 1884-1949, arch., grad.
Pakh (three courses), 1910 22, 67, 75, 76, 141, 402,
499, 500, 592; 149, 151, 152, 188-91, 1108, 1393
Fisenko, Anatoly Stepanovich, 1902-82, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1925 8, 193, 235, 594; 620, 621, 623-27,
629; Doc. 35
Fomin, Igor Ivanovich, born 1904, arch., grad. Lakh,
1928 394, 400, 498; 245, 1000, 1367
Fomin, Ivan Alexandrovich, 1872-1936, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1909. I I , 19, 21,23,64, 71, 74, 101, 198-200,
262, 263, 271, 273, 278, 400, 401, 404, 433, 499; 1,
17-20, 240,241,567-70, 709, 728, 729,1163,1345; Doc.
27, 29
Fourier, Frangois Marie Charles, 1772-1837, Utopian
socialist 341
Franketti, Vladimir Fehksovich, art. Doc. 21
Frantsuz, Isidor Aronovich, born 1896, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1926 8, \ \;284, 1321
Fridman, Daniil Fedorovich, 1887-1950, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1915 338, 400, 402, 404, 499, 515, 598;
1099, 1393, 1469-73, 1487
Fromzel, Viktor Matveevich, born 1909, arch., grad.
Liiks, 1931 970
Fufaev, Alexander Sergeevich, 1894-1967, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1925 345; 905, 906
Gabo, Naum Abramovich, 1890-1977, art. 64, 65;
76--5
Gaken, Mariya Vasilevna, 1894-1977, arch., grad.
M P I , 1921 1138, 1140, 1141; Doc. 25
Galaktionov, Alexander Alexeevich, 1905-75, eng.art., grad. Vkhutein, 1929 437, 438

Galaktionov, Petr Alexeevich, 1906-67, eng.-art.,

grad. Vkhutein, 1929 435, 436
Galperin, Leonid Yulevich, born 1907, arch., grad.
Liiks, 1931 334
Galperin, Vladimir Mikhailovich, 1898-1971, arch.,
grad. Ligi, 1925 498; 613-19, 1207, 1208, 1363
Gan, Alexei Mikhailovich, 1895-1940, art. and art
critic 69, 70, 72, 146-51, 193, 594; 407, 408, 426,
428, 509; Doc. 22, 25
Gassenpflug, G , arch. 403; 1121
Gedike, B., arch. 971
Gegello, Alexander Ivanovich, 1891-1965, arch., grad.
Pigi, 1920 23, 101, 276, 279, 434; 173, 722, 1174,
1175
Gelfeld, Semen Aronovich, 1898-1976, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928 144, 339, 499, 592; 1380,1493; Doc.
42
Gelfreikh, Vladimir Georgievich, 1885-1967, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1914 236, 261, 263, 278, 403, 477, 500;
250, 710, 1264, 1265, 1400
Gerasimov, Georgy Gerasimovich, 1897-1972, grad.
Ligi, 1929 279; 744
Gershtein, Yulian Isaevich, 1894-1962, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1917 389
Gilter, Isidor Albertovich, 1902-73, arch. 1 1, 279,
483, 541, 598; 1331-33
Ginzburg, Moisei Yakovlevich, 1892-1946, arch.,
grad. M i l a n A r t Academy, 1914,andRPI, 1917 11,
64, 156, 193, 194, 233, 237, 240, 257, 258, 261, 262,
278, 279, 335, 336, 339, 347, 348, 389, 392, 396, 397,
401, 402, 433, 436, 478, 484, 499, 500, 514, 515, 542,
564, 581, 594; 488-92, 643, 657, 702, 703, 739-41, 745,
849-54, 922, 923, 942-54, 95861,1046-48,1054,1055,
1061,1062,1073,1078,1082,1121,1128,1129,1209,1210,
1277-80, 1289-91, 1341, 1342, 1372, 1383-88, 1405,
1408-10, 1447, 1476, 1477; Doc. 17, 21-23, 25, 45, 49
Gladkov, Boris Vladimirovich, born 1897, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1923 117, 118, 620-22, 966, 967; Doc. 36
Glagolev, Sergei Vasilevich, 1893-1968, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1926 108
Glazunov, Alexander Alexandrovich, art.
1250-52
Glushchenko, Gleb Ivanovich, 1901-67, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928 338, 402-04, 499, 598; 304, 372,
1095, 1375, 1376
Goleizovsky, Kasyan Yaroslavovich, 1892-1970, ballet
dancer and choreographer, grad. Petersburg Theatre
College, 1918 153; 479, 480
Golosov, Ilya Alexandrovich, 1883-1945, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1912 1 1, 22, 64, 68, 71, 72, 102-04, 141,
156, 193, 196, 197, 200, 239, 258, 262, 263, 273, 275,
279, 334, 343, 345, 390, 395, 400-04, 434-36, 478,
479, 498, 500, 514, 535, 561-63, 594; 251-76, 284,
521-31, 716, 731, 819-21, 909-1f, 1013-18, 1056,1074,
1075, 1079, 1080, 1083, 1084, 1090, 1091, 1124, 1154,
1198-1204, 1215, 1271, 1281, 1282, 1292, 1307, 1308,
1321, 1343, 1362, 1404; Doc. 1, 3, 8
Golosov, Panteleimon Alexandrovich, 1882-1945,
arch., grad. Muzhvz, 1911 22, 261, 273, 275, 343,
401, 404, 434; 684, 716, 1147, 1148, 1306; Doc. 1
Golts, Georgy Pavlovich, 1893-1946, arch., grad.

Vkhutemas, 1922 22, 198, 262, 402, 457; 561, 564,

565, 630-32
Golubev, Alexander Petrovich, 1887-1975, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1914 8, 11, 345, 401; 907, 1112
Gordeev, Boris Alexandrovich, 1903-42, arch., eng.,
grad. M V T U , 1926 401; 1087
Grad, L . , arch. 436; 1227
Grechina, Mikhail Ignatevich, born 1902, arch., grad.
K k h i , 1930 334
Grinberg, Alexander Zinovevich, 1879-1938, arch.
338, 400, 478, 598; ^55, 1085, 1274-76
Grinberg, Alexander Zinovevich, 1879-1938, arch.
338, 400, 478, 598; 488, 1085, 1274-76
Grinshpun, Leonid Gsipovich, 1906-81, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 339, 598; 577, 575; Doc. 14
Gropius, Walter, 1883-1969, arch. 16; 1118
Grushenko, losif Alexandrovich, 1900-65, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928; 313
Gundorov, Nikolai Ivanovich, 1895-1973, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1927 497; 1360, 1361
Gurev-Gurevich, Georgy Samarevich, 1894-1977,
arch., grad. M V T U , 1921 8, 11; 658, 659, 1221,
1382
Hamilton, Hector G., arch. 402; 1113
Hilbersheimer, Ludwig, 1885-1928, arch. 279
Holm, Lundberg 144
Howard, Ebenezer, 1850-1928, town-planning
theoretician and sociologist 271, 274, 546, 559
I l i n , Evgeny Alexandrovich, 1905-76, grad. Liiks,
1931 334
I l i n , Lev Alexandrovich, 1880-1942, arch., grad. Pigi,
1902 23,273'
Ihna, Evgeniya Dmitrievna, born 1899, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1925 Doc. 21
Ilyashev, Vasily Viktorovich, 1873-1942, arch., grad.
Pakh,1900 484
lodko, Romuald Romualdovich, 1894-1974, sculptor,
grad. Vkhutemas, 1925 402; 390-92
lofan, Boris Mikhailovich, 1891-1976, arch., grad.
Gkhu, 1911, and Rome Institute of Fine Arts, 1916
262, 263, 394, 402, 403, 515;
710,1001-03,1111,1127,
1481, 1482; Doc. 42
lofan, Glga Fabritsievna Doc. 42
loganson, K a r l Valdemarovich, early 1890s-I924, art.,
grad. Riga A r t College 65, 70, 147; 96, 109, 110
lokheles, Evgeny Lvovich, born 1908, grad. Vkhutein,
1930 598;1487
lozefovich, Isaak Lvovich, 1900-81, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 8, 283; 806; Doc. 9
Istselenov, Nikolai Ivanovich, arch., grad. Pakh, 1915
or 1916 67, 75, 76; 141, 142, 180-87, 1248; Doc. 1
Ivanitsky, Alexander Platonovich, 1881-1947, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1904 274, 276
Ivanov, Konstantin Afanasevich, born 1906, arch.,
grad. Liiks, 1931 237, 347, 600; 924, 928-30
Kalinin, Viktor Valerianovich, born 1906, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 8, 391

Kahsh, Vasily Georgievich, 1899-1973, arch., grad.

M V T U , 1925 235
Kalmykov, Viktor Petrovich, 1908-81, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 8, 11, 257, 283, 339, 400,480, 598;
665-73, 804, 805, 877, 878, 880, 998, 1060, 1315, 1474,
1487, 1491; Doc. 14
Kamensky, Valentin Alexandrovich, 1907-75, arch.,
grad. Liiks, 1931 61,62
Kandinsky, Vasily Vasilevich, 1866-1944, art., studied
in Munich, 1897-1900 62, 63, 69, 106; 21
Kaplun, Anatoly Isaakovich, born 1907, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 8, 480, 598; 1475, 1491
Kapotsinsky, S., arch. 1381
Kapterev, Vladimir Vasilevich, born 1903, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1926 Doc. 35
Karlsen, Genrikh Georgievich, born 1894, arch, and
eng., grad. M V T U , 1922 193, 195; 620, 621,
625-27
Karra, Alexander Yakovlevich, 1904-44, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1927 144, 400, 402; 1059, 1101
Katsenelenbogen, Tamara Davydovna, 1894-1976,
arch., grad. Second PPI, 1923 1050
Khazanov, Viktor Vulfovich, born 1909, arch., grad.
Liiks, 1934, 970
Khazanova, Vigdariya Efroimovna, born 1924, art
historian 10
Khidekel, Lazar Markovich, born 1904, arch., grad.
V k h p i , 1922, and Ligi, 1930 8, 11, 64, 67, 234, 235,
281, 282, 395, 435; 50, 124, 125, 607-12, 766-78,
1008-11, 1205, 1206, 1381; Doc. 6, 25, 44
Khiger, Roman Yakovlevich, 1901-late 1970s, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1926 102, 193, 237, 594; Doc. 25
Khlebnikov, Velemir (Viktor Vladimirovich),
1885-1922, poet
&2; 471, 472
Kholostenko, Mikola Vyacheslavovich, 1902-78,
arch., grad. K k h i , 1929 258, 594; 682, 683; Doc.
25
Khomutetsky, Nikolai Fedorovich, 1905-73, arch.,
grad. Liiks, 1931 334; 522
Khryakov, Alexander Fedorovich, 1903-76, arch.,
grad. Lakh, 1928 999
Kirov, Sergei Mironovich, 1886-1934, pohtician
401
Kitner, Pavel Maximovich, 1906-42, arch., grad.
Liiks, early 1930s 1011
Klein, Roman Ivanovich, 1858-1924, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1882 19
Klutsis, Gustav Gustavovich, 1895-1944, art., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1921 14, 64, 66, 72, 150, 282; 111-15,
171, 172, 788
K l y u n , Ivan Vasilevich, 1878-1942, art. 64; 63
Knyazev, Alexander Ivanovich, born 1904, arch.,
grad. Liiks, 1931 334; 970
Knyazev, Konstantin Fedorovich, born 1903, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1930 831, 832
Kochar, Gevorg Barsegovich, 1901-73, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 8, 11, 237, 259, 335, 391, 396, 403,
436, 480, 515, 600;
692-98,836-38,968,969,1031-33,
1099, 1309, 1317, 1318, 1483; Doc. 40
Kogan, David Moiseevich, 1884-1954, arch., grad.

614
Index of names

Lakh, 1925 400, 404; 1139

Kogan, Nina Osipovna, art., grad. Vkhpi, 1922

434; 1174, 1175

Doc.

6
Kokorev, Alexander Prokofevich, eng.-art., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928
431,432
Kokorin, Viktor Dmitrievich, 1886-1959, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1912 22, 71
K o l h , Nikolai Dzhemsovich, 1894-1966, arch., grad.
Vhkutemas, 1922 22, 262, 482, 484, 587; 236, 238,
239, 512, 700, 701, 1330, 1419, 1420; Doc. 1, 24
K o l l i , Tatyana Dzhemsovna Doc. 1
Komarova, Lidiya Konstantinovna, born 1902, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1929 8, 11, 70, 193, 402, 594; 292,
862, 863, 1098, 1115, 1492
Kopp, Anatole, arch, and architectural historian 9
Kornfeld, Yakov Abramovich, 1896-1962, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1927 400, 404, 458; 1063, 1064, 1153,
1246; Doc. 23
Korobov, Andrei Stepanovich, born 1904, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 458; 384-87
Korolev, Boris Danilovich, 1885-1963, sculptor, grad.
Muzhvz, 1913 11, 67, 68, 76; 130-40, 153, 154,167,
168; Doc. 3, 5
Korshunov, Boris Andreevich, 1885-1961, arch., grad.
Karlsruhe Higher Technical College, 1910, and
Muzhvz, 1913 400; 1061, 1062
Korsunsky, Zanvil Moiseevich, born 1902, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 mi; 973, 974
Korzhev, Mikhail Petrovich, born 1897, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1925 8, 11, 72, 108, 144, 404, 458, 513,
592;
291,294-96,300,367,384-87,393,394,1155,1156,
1324, 1421-24; Doc. 13
Kosyakov, Vasily Antonovich, 1862-1921, arch., grad.
Pakh (?) 585
Kovalev, public health physician 338, 600
Kozak, Soloman Nikolaevich, 1899-1944, arch. 458
Kozelkov, G.Ya., arch. 600
Kozhin, Sergei Nikolaevich, arch., grad. Vkhutemas,
1926 22, 198, 262, 402; 560, 564, 565, 1088
Kozlov, Vladimir Nikolaevich, 1896-1978, arch., grad.
M i g i , 1924 278
Krasilnikov, Nikolai Alexandrovich, 1899-1983, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1928 8, 11, 70, 71, 193, 194, 282,
499, 594; 311, 312, 318-20, 779, 780, 862, 863; Doc.
21
Krasilnikov, Vasily Alexandrovich, 1900-72, grad.
M i g i , 1924 1373
Krasin, German Borisovich, 1871-1947, eng. 195, 340,
397; 518, 519
Kratyuk, Vladimir Venediktovich, 1899-1976, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1926 340; 885
Kravets, Samuil Mironovich, 1891-1966, arch., grad.
Second PPI, 1922 156, 258, 278, 404; 735-38
Krestin, Alexander Vasilevich, born 1895, arch., grad.
Pigi, 1925 237, 278, 600; 1207, 1208
Krestin, M i k h a i l Vasilevich, 1899-1972, arch., grad.
Ligi, 1929 347; 613-19
Krestovnikov, Sergei Nikolaevich, late 1890s-1930s,
arch. 400
Krichevsky, David Lvovich, 1892-1942, arch. 279,

Krinsky, Vladimir Fedorovich, 1890-1971, arch., grad.

Pakh, 1917 8, 11, 14, 67, 70-72, 75, 76, 107, 108,
141, 147, 156, 261, 343, 400, 403, 434, 484, 498, 513,
535, 543, 588-90, 592;
147,148,159,160,195,196,199,
206-08, 219-21, 223, 321-30, 357-64, 890, 891, 1344,
1415, 1484; Doc. 11, 15, 41
Krivitsky, Alexander Nikiforovich, arch., grad. Liiks,
1931 985
Kruchenykh, Alexander (Alexei Eliseevich),
1886-1967, poet 62
Kruglova, M a r i y a Grigorevna, born 1902, arch., gi'ad.
Vkhutein, 1930 144, 257, 592; 388, 389, 674, 675
Kruglova-Sokolova, S., arch. 1295, 1296
Krutikov, Georgy Tikhonovich, 1899-1958, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1928 11, 144, 237, 282, 283, 338,
339, 395, 402, 458, 499, 513, 545, 592, 598; 368, 373,
791-803, 874-76, 1023-28, 1100, 1237; Doc. 46
Kryachkov, Andrei Dmitrievich, 1879-1950, arch.
401; 1087
Kryukov, Mikhail Vasilevich, 1884-1940, arch. 237,
262, 600; Doc. 1
Kuleshov, Lev Vladimirovich, 1899-1970, fdm director
479
Kupovsky, Mikhail Grigorevich, 1897-1963, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1930 600
Kurabtsev, Sergei Nikolaevich, 1902-1940s, arch.
483
Kurochkin, Nikolai Mikhailovich, born 1907, arch.,
grad. M a i , 1935 589, 590
Kurovsky, Alexander Vladimirovich, 1899-1959, grad.
Vkhutemas, 1927 402, 404; 1143, 1147
Kushner, Boris Anisimovich, 1888-1937, writer 70,
146, 147, 150
K u z m i n , Ivan Grigorevich, born 1903, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 391; 977-80, 1486
K u z m i n , Nikolai Sergeevich, born 1905, arch., grad.
Tomsk Technological Institute, 1929 8, 11, 333,
389; 812; Doc. 25
Kuzmin, V . V . , eng. 108, 141, 592
Kuznetsov, Alexander Vasilevich, 1874-1954, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1896 19, 235, 400, 500, 587: 620, 621,
623-27, 1053
Kuznetsov, Mikhail, arch., grad. Vkhutein, 1930
402; 1102, 1103
Kuznetsov, M i k h a i l Pavlovich, 1902-76, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 Doc. 36
Ladinsky, Anatoly Sergeevich, born 1906, arch., grad.
M i g i , 1930 924
Ladovsky, Nikolai Alexandrovich, 1881-1941, arch.,
grad. Muzhvz, 1917 11, 22, 64, 67, 70-72, 76,
106-08, 141-45, 147, 148, 154, 156, 193, 200, 233,
237, 239, 257, 258, 260, 261, 282, 283, 333, 338-40,
343-47, 393, 395-97, 402-04, 478, 479, 499,
513-15, 535, 536, 541-43,558,588, 592,598; 143-46,
161, 162, 200-05, 209-12, 285-313, 315-20, 365, 368,
371, 372, 376-83, 785-87, 791-801, 807, 808, 810, 811,
867-73, 880, 881, 883, 884, 892-94, 896-901, 912, 913,
918-21, 997, 998,1012, 1023, 1025-29, 1031-33,

1092-95,1104-06,1120,1130-35,1157,1218,1283-85,
1301, 1302,1309, 1312-14, 1316, 1323, 1324, 1375-77,
1389-91, 1415-18, 1421-25, 1441-43, 1453-60, 1474,
1487; Doc. 1, 3, 9, 10, 14, 41
Lalaev, Mikhail Artemevich, 1898-1957, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 Doc. 14
Lamtsov, Ivan Vasilevich, born 1899, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1926 8, 11, 72, 108, 141, 144, 333, 344,
400, 402, 436, 513, 543, 588, 592; 290, 297, 305, 310,
366, 810, 811, 901, 1059, 1114, 1218, 1323, 1425, 1438,
1439; Doc. 13
Langbard, losif Grigorevich, 1882-1951, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1914 75, 261, 263, 401, 484; 248, 1081
Langman, Arkady Yakovlevich, 1886-1968, arch.,
grad. Vienna Higher Technical CoUege, 1911 263,
513; 1138, 1140, 1141, 1435
Lavinskaya, Elizaveta Alexandrovna, 1901-50, art.,
entered Vkhutemas in 1924, but did not graduate
70
Lavinsky, Anton Mikhailovich, 1893-1968, sculptor
and arch., grad. Baku Technical CoUege, 1913, entered Pakh in 1913, but did not graduate 8, 11, 14,
70, 72, 151, 193, 279, 280, 283, 397;
119-21,169,170,
746-49
Lavrov, Sergei Petrovich, 1895-1940s, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 Doc. 1
Lavrov, Vitaly Alexeevich; born 1902, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928 8, 11, 144, 282, 338, 339, 402-04,
458,499, 592, 598; 365,371,
785-87,874-76,879,1100,
1134, 1237, 1247, 1377
Le Corbusier (Charles-Edouard Jeanneret),
1887-1965, arch. 16, 66, 144, 233, 261, 279, 340,
402, 404, 536, 546, 550, 591; 700, 701, 882, 1119
Lenin, Vladimir llich, 1870-1924 14, 102, 271, 278,
341, 343, 434, 588
Leonidov, Ivan l l i c h , 1902-59, arch., grad. Vkhutemas, 1927 11, 64, 148, 193, 196, 198, 200, 233, 234,
237, 261, 262, 279, 336, 337, 391, 392, 395, 404, 433,
458, 479, 499, 535, 553, 554, 594; 597-603,
704-06,
855-61, 972-84, 1142, 1149, 1150, 1158-61,
1230-36,
1238-42, 1303- 05, 1486; Doc. 25, 32
Leporskaya, Anna Alexandrovna, born 1900, art., studied at Pakh i n 1917-18 8; Doc. 7
Levinson, Evgeny Adolfovich, 1894-1969, arch., grad.
Lakh, 1927 23, 394; 1000
Lisagor, Solomon Abramovich, arch., grad. M V T U ,
1928 389, 403, 433; 703, 958-60, 1121; Doc. 23
Lissitzky, Lazar Markovich, 1890-1941, arch, and art.,
grad. Darmstadt Technical H i g h School, 1914, and
RPI, 1918 11, 14, 63, 67, 72, 101, 142, 147, 149, 151,
152, 261, 279, 280, 346, 396, 404, 460, 557, 558, 560,
592; 24-38, 62, 126-29, 237, 373, 375, 411, 430-32,
752-55, 1039-42, 1145, 1146, 1155, 1156, 1219, 1260,
1261, 1426, 1427; Doc. 12
Lobov, Ivan Petrovich, 1902-61, arch, and eng.-art.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1929 431; Doc. 36
Loleit, Artur Ferdinandovich, 1868-1933, eng. 20,
141,193,195,397,592,594
Lopatin, Boris Vladimirovich, born 1903, eng., grad.
Ivpi, 1925 479; 1293, 1294

Lopatin, Sergei Alexandrovich, 1898-1962, arch.,

grad. Vkhutein, 1928 338, 458, 598; 299, 1133,
1237
Lunaeharsky, Anatoly VasUevich, 1875-1933

23,

282
Lyalevich, Marian Stanislavovich, 1876-1944, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1901 19
LyaUn, Gleg Leonidovich, 1903-74, arch., grad. Lakh,
1927 513; 1436, 1437
Lyudvig, Genrikh Mavrikievich, 1893-1973, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1921 8, 11, 102, 104, 141, 197, 198,
400, 402; 532-51, 1269; Doc. 28
Magarill, Evgeniya Markovna, art., grad. V k h p i , 1922,
and Pakh Doc. 6
Makarova, Tatyana Mikhailovna, eng. 195; 520
Makletsova, Natalya Nikolaevna, born 1909, arch.,
grad. Liiks, 1931 971
Malevich, Kazimir Severinovich, 1878-1935, art., studied at Muzhvz and privately in 1904-10 11, 14,
63, 64, 66, 67, 72, 101, 152, 200,-234, 235, 280, 395;
22, 23, 39-48, 52-54, 761-65, 1004-07; Doc. 6, 7
Malozemov, Ivan Ivanovich, 1899-1954, arch., grad.
K k h i , 1929 258, 436; 1225, 1226; Doc. 25
Malts, Ilya IzraUevich, 1898-1973, arch., grad. G i i i ,
1929 Doc. 25
Mapu, Georgy Maximovich, 1889-1949, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1917 68, 592; 213-18, 222; Doc. 3
Markaryan, Oganes Sarkisovich, 1901-63, arch., grad.
Egu, 1928 697
Markov, Dmitry Sergeevich, I878-I943, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1903 499; 1393
Markovnikov, Nikolai Vladimirovich, I869-I942,
arch., grad. Pakh, 1897 274, 345; 914
Markuze, Margarita Pavlovna, arch., grad. M P I ,
1921 Doc. 1, 3
Marmorshtein, A., arch., grad. Vkhutemas 497
Marsakov, C P . , born 1885, mechanical engineer,
grad. Tomsk Technological Institute 481
Mashinsky, Alexander Vasilevich, born 1902, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1930 458
Maslikh, Sergei Alexandrovich, born 1901, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1925 482; 829, 830, 1330
Matisse, Henri, 1869-1954, art. 62
Matsa, Ivan Lyudvigovich, 1893-1974, art historian
149, 237, 262, 600
Maximov, Alexander Petrovich, 1902-67, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 391; 975,97^
May, Ernst, 1886-1970, arch. 16, 340; 889
Mayakovsky, Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1893-1930,
poet 14, 61, 62, 105, 146, 149, 193, 195, 460, 558;
409
Mazmanyan, MikhaU Davidovich, 1 8 9 9 - I 9 7 I , arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1929 8, 11, 237, 258, 259, 335, 396,
436, 514, 515, 600; 687-94, 697, 836-38, 1029,
1441-43, 1483; Doc. 39
Medunetsky, Konstantin Konstantinovich, 1900-34,
art., grad. First S G K h M , 1919

64-66, 70, 147; 97,

109, no, 163, 164, 481

Meerzon, losif Aisikovich, 1900-41, arch., grad. Lakh,

Index of names

'39
.,grad. Vkhpi, 1922

Doc.

evich, eng.-art., grad.

h, 1886-1959, arch., grad,
1, 1894-1966, arch., grad.
52, 482, 484, 5?,T, 236,238,
'19, 1420; Doc. 1, 24
a Doc. 1
itinovna, born 1902, arch.,
11, 70, 193, 402, 594; 292,

rchitectural historian 9
ch, 1896-1962, arch., grad.
t04, 458; 1063, 1064, 1153,
ch, born 1904, arch., grad.
i-87
1885-1963, sculptor, grad.
B, 76; 130-40,
153,154,167,
ch, 1885-1961, arch., grad.
ical College, 1910, and
f, 1062
ich, born 1902, arch., grad.
3, 974
1, born 1897, arch., grad.
72, 108, 144,404,458,513,
384-87,393,394,1155,1156,

ch, 1862-1921, arch., grad.

iician 338,600
:h, 1899-1944, arch. 458
)0
, arch., grad. Vkhutemas,
560, 564, 565, 1088
ch, 1896-1978, arch., grad.
drovich, 1899-1983, arch.,
11, 70, 71, 193, 194, 282,
779, 780, 862, 863; Doc.
Irovich, 1900-72, grad.

434; 1174, 1175

Krinsky, Vladimir Fedorovich, 1890-1971, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1917 8, 11, 14, 67, 70-72, 75, 76, 107, 108,
141, 147, 156, 261, 343, 400, 403, 434, 484, 498, 513,
535, 543, 588-90, 592;
147,148,159,160,195,196,199,
206-08, 219-21, 223, 321-30, 357-64, 890, 891, 1344,
1415, 1484; Doc. 11, 15, 41
Krivitsky, Alexander Nikiforovich, arch., grad. Liiks,
1931 985
Kruchenykh, Alexander (Alexei Eliseevich),
1886-1967, poet 62
Kruglova, M a r i y a Grigorevna, born 1902, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 144, 257, 592; 388, 389, 674, 675
Kruglova-Sokolova, S., arch. 1295, 1296
Krutikov, Georgy Tikhonovich, 1899-1958, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1928 11, 144, 237, 282, 283, 338,
339, 395, 402, 458, 499, 513, 545, 592, 598; 368, 373,
791-803, 874-76, 1023-28, 1100, 1237; Doc. 46
Kryachkov, Andrei Dmitrievich, 1879-1950, arch.
401; 1087
Kryukov, M i k h a i l Vasilevich, 1884-1940, arch. 237,
262, 600; Doc. 1
Kuleshov, Lev Vladimirovich, 1899-1970, f d m director 479
Kupovsky, M i k h a i l Grigorevich, 1897-1963, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1930 600
Kurabtsev, Sergei Nikolaevich, 1902-1940s, arch.
483
Kurochkin, Nikolai Mikhailovich, born 1907, arch.,
grad. M a i , 1935
589,590
Kurovsky, Alexander Vladimirovich, 1899-1959, grad.
Vkhutemas, 1927 402, 404; 1143, 1147
Kushner, Boris Anisimovich, 1888-1937, writer 70,
146, 147, 150
K u z m i n , Ivan Grigorevich, born 1903, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 391; 977-80, 1486
K u z m i n , Nikolai Sergeevich, born 1905, arch., grad.
Tomsk Technological Institute, 1929 8, 11, 333,
389; 812; Doc. 25
Kuzmin, V . V . , eng. 108, 141, 592
Kuznetsov, Alexander Vasilevich, 1874-1954, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1896 19, 235, 400, 500, 587: 620, 621,
623-27, 1053
Kuznetsov, Mikhail, arch., grad. Vkhutein, 1930
402; 1102, 1103
Kuznetsov, Mikhail Pavlovich, 1902-76, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 Doc. 36

, 1871-1947, eng. 195, 340,

;tovich, 1899-1976, arch.,

I; 885
h, 1891-1966, arch., grad.
258, 278, 404; 735-38
ch, born 1895, arch., grad.
'; 1207, 1208

1, 1899-1972, arch., grad.

levich, late 1890s-1930s,
, 1892-1942, arch.

279,

Ladinsky, Anatoly Sergeevich, born 1906, arch., grad.

M i g i , 1930 924
Ladovsky, Nikolai Alexandrovich, 1881-1941, arch.,
grad. Muzhvz, 1917 11, 22, 64, 67, 70-72, 76,
106-08, 141-45, 147, 148, 154, 156, 193, 200, 233,
237, 239, 257, 258, 260, 261, 282, 283, 333, 338-40,
343-47, 393, 395-97, 402-04, 478, 479, 499,
513-15,535, 536,541-43,558,588,592, 598; 143- 46,
161, 162, 200-05, 209-12, 285-313, 315-20, 365, 368,
371, 372, 376-83, 785-87, 791-801, 807, 808, 810, 811,
867-73, 880, 881, 883, 884, 892-94, 896-901, 912, 913,
918-21, 997, 998, 1012, 1023, 1025-29, 1031-33,

1092-95,1104-06,1120,1130-35,1157,1218,1283-85,
1301, 1302, 1309, 1312-14, 1316, 1323, 1324, 1375-77,
1389-91, 1415-18, 1421-25, 1441-43, 1453-60, 1474,
1487; Doc. 1, 3, 9, 10, 14, 41
Lalaev, Mikhail Artemevich, 1898-1957, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 Doc. 14
Lamtsov, Ivan Vasilevich, born 1899, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1926 8, 11, 72, 108, 141, 144, 333, 344,
400, 402, 436, 513, 543, 588, 592; 290, 297, 305, 310,
366, 810, 811, 901, 1059, 1114, 1218, 1323, 1425, 1438,
1439; Doc. 13
Langbard, losif Grigorevich, 1882-1951, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1914 75, 261, 263, 401, 484; 248, 1081
Langman, Arkady Yakovlevich, 1886-1968, arch.,
grad. Vienna Higher Technical College, 1911 263,
513; 1138, 1140, 1141, 1435
Lavinskaya, Elizaveta Alexandrovna, 1901-50, art.,
entered Vkhutemas in 1924, but did not graduate
70
Lavinsky, Anton Mikhailovich, 1893-1968, sculptor
and arch., grad. Baku Technical College, 1913, entered Pakh i n 1913, but did not graduate 8, 11, 14,
70, 72, 151, 193, 279, 280, 283, 397;
119-21,169,170,
746-49
Lavrov, Sergei Petrovich, 1895-1940s, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 Doc. 1
Lavrov, Vitaly Alexeevich; born 1902, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928 8, 11, 144, 282, 338, 339, 402-04,
458,499, 592, 598; 365,371,
785-87,874-76,879,1100,
1134, 1237, 1247, 1377
Le Corbusier (Charles-Edouard Jeanneret),
1887-1965, arch. 16, 66, 144, 233, 261, 279, 340,
402, 404, 536, 546, 550, 591; 700, 701, 882, 1119
Lenin, Vladimir llich, 1870-1924 14, 102, 271, 278,
341, 343, 434, 588
Leonidov, Ivan llich, 1902-59, arch., grad. Vkhutemas, 1927 11, 64, 148, 193, 196, 198, 200, 233, 234,
237, 261, 262, 279, 336, 337, 391, 392, 395, 404, 433,
458, 479, 499, 535, 553, 554, 594; 597-603,
704-06,
855-61, 972-84, 1142, 1149, 1150, 1158-61, 1230-36,
1238-42, 1303-05, 1486; Doc. 25, 32
Leporskaya, Anna Alexandrovna, born 1900, art., studied at Pakh in 1917-18 8; Doc. 7
Levinson, Evgeny Adolfovich, 1894-1969, arch., grad.
Lakh, 1927 23, 394; 1000
Lisagor, Solomon Abramovich, arch., grad. M V T U ,
1928 389, 403, 433; 703, 958-60, 1121; Doc. 23
Lissitzky, Lazar Markovich, 1890-1941, arch, and art.,
grad. Darmstadt Technical H i g h School, 1914, and
R P I , 1918 11, 14,63,67,72, 101, 142, 147, 149, 151,
152, 261, 279, 280, 346, 396, 404, 460, 557, 558, 560,
592; 24-38, 62, 126-29, 237, 373, 375, 411, 430-32,
752-55, 1039-42, 1145, 1146, 1155, 1156, 1219, 1260,
1261, 1426, 1427; Doc. 12
Lobov, I v a n Petrovich, 1902-61, arch, and eng.-art.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1929 431; Doc. 36
Loleit, A r t u r Ferdinandovich, 1868-1933, eng. 20,
141, 193, 195, 397, 592, 594
Lopatin, Boris Vladimirovich, born 1903, eng., grad.
I v p i , 1925 479; 1293, 1294

Lopatin, Sergei Alexandrovich, 1898-1962, arch.,

grad. Vkhutein, 1928 338, 458, 598; 299, 1133,
1237
Lunaeharsky, Anatoly Vasilevich, I875-I933

23,

282
Lyalevich, Marian Stanislavovich, 1876-1944, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1901 19
Lyalin, Gleg Leonidovich, 1903-74, arch., grad. Lakh,
1927 513; 1436, 1437
Lyudvig, Genrikh Mavrikievich, 1893-1973, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1921 8, 11, 102, 104, 141, 197, 198,
400, 402; 532-51, 1269; Doc. 28
Magarill, Evgeniya Markovna, art., grad. Vkhpi, 1922,
and Pakh Doc. 6
Makarova, Tatyana Mikhailovna, eng. 195; 520
Makletsova, Natalya Nikolaevna, born 1909, arch.,
grad. Liiks, 1931 971
Malevich, Kazimir Severinovich, 1878-1935, art., studied at Muzhvz and privately i n 1904-10 11, 14,
63, 64, 66, 67, 72, 101, 152, 200,- 234, 235, 280, 395;
22, 23, 39-48, 52-54, 761-65, 1004-07; Doc. 6, 7
Malozemov, Ivan Ivanovich, 1899-1954, arch., grad.
K k h i , 1929 258, 436; 1225, 1226; Doc. 25
Malts, Ilya Izrailevich, 1898-1973, arch., grad. G i h ,
1929 Doc. 25
Mapu, Georgy Maximovich, 1889-1949, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1917 68, 592; 213-18, 222; Doc. 3
Markaryan, Gganes Sarkisovich, 1901-63, arch., grad.
Egu, 1928 697
Markov, D m i t r y Sergeevich, 1878-1943, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1903 499; 1393
Markovnikov, Nikolai Vladimirovich, 1869-1942,
arch., grad. Pakh, 1897 274, 345; 914
Markuze, Margarita Pavlovna, arch., grad. M P I ,
1921 Doc. 1,3
Marmorshtein, A., arch., grad. Vkhutemas 497
Marsakov, G.P., born 1885, mechanical engineer,
grad. Tomsk Technological Institute 481
Mashinsky, Alexander Vasilevich, born 1902, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1930 458
Mashkh, Sergei Alexandrovich, born 1901, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1925 482; 829, 830, 1330
Matisse, Henri, 1869-1954, art. 62
Matsa, Ivan Lyudvigovich, 1893-1974, art historian
149, 237, 262, 600
Maximov, Alexander Petrovich, 1902-67, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 391; 973, 974
May, Ernst, 1886-1970, arch. 16, 340; 889
Mayakovsky, Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1893-1930,
poet 14, 61, 62, 105, 146, 149, 193, 195, 460, 558;
409
Mazmanyan, M i k h a i l Davidovich, 1899-1971, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1929 8, 11,237,258,259,335,396,
436, 514, 515, 600; 687-94, 697, 836-38, 1029,
1441-43, 1483; Doc. 39
Medunetsky, Konstantin Konstantinovich, 1900-34,
art., grad. First S G K h M , 1919 64-66, 70, 147; 97,
109, 110, 163, 164, 481
Meerzon, losif Aisikovich, 1900-41, arch., grad. Lakh,

1927 65, 279, 483, 541, 598; 68, 73,1331-33; Doc. 2

Meilman, Lev Naumovich, 1900-61, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1927 235; 625-27, 1164; Doc, 35
Melnikov, Konstantin Stepanovich, 1890-1974, arch.,
grad. Muzhvz, 1917 8, 11,22,64,71, 141, 144, 156,
198, 200, 233, 237, 239, 261, 262, 275, 280, 343, 345,
395, 396, 400, 433, 434-36, 478, 484, 514, 515, 535,
551, 562, 592; 571-96, 707, 708, 750, 751, 895, 1030,
1034-36, 1179-92, 1196, 1197, 1286-88, 1340, 1446,
1461-68,1488, 1489; Doc. 1, 30
Mendelsohn, Erich, 1887-1953, arch. 16, 257
Merkurov, Sergei Dmitrievich, 1881-1952, sculptor
56-6
Merzhanov, M i r o n Ivanovich, 1895-1975, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 515; 1480
Meshkov, Alexei Ivanovich, 1885-1938, arch., grad,
Muzhvz 276, 346, 483; 779, 720
Methn, Nikolai Alexandrovich, 1896-1966, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1928 1430, 1431
Meyer, Hannes, 1889-1954, arch. 16, 340; 888
Meyer, K u r t , arch. 340; 887
Meyerhold, Vsevolod Emilevich, 1874-1942, theatre
director 150, 153, 235, 460, 476; 463, 464, 473-78,
1260-63
Mieic, Ljubomir, poet, editor of the Yugoslavian avantgarde magazine Zenit
144
Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig, 1886-1969, arch. 535,
536
Mikhailov, Alexei Ivanovich, born 1904, art historian
237, 262, 600
Mihnis, Ignaty Frantsevich, 1899-1974, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 8, 11, 258, 279, 335, 348, 400, 404,
436, 484, 500; 678-80, 739-41, 745, 942-56, 1057,
1058,1063,1064,1082,1153,
1222-26,1228,1229,
1336,
1383-85, 1412; Doc. 25, 49
M i l i u t i n , Nikolai Alexandrovich, 1889-1942, townplanning theoretician 11, 336-38, 393, 436;
864-66, 994-96, 1217; Doc. 47
Miller, Grigory Lvovich, 1898-1963, art., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1924 150; 402
Minkus, M i k h a i l Adolfovich, 1905-63, arch. Pakh,
1930 5\3; 709, 1440
Minofev, Sergei Alexeevich, first half of the twentieth
century, arch., grad. I v p i , 1925 479; 7295, 1294
Mitelman, Boris Yakovlevich, 1888-1975, arch., grad.
M P I , 1921 395, 435; 528, 1013, 1079, 1080, 1202-04
Mitkovitser, sculptor Doc. 42
Miturich, Petr Vasilevich, 1887-1956, art., grad. Pakh,
1915 64; 67
Mochalov (Smolensky), Sergei Alexeevich,,c. 1900-c.
1950, arch., grad. Vkhutemas, 1924

71, 141, 499,

592;1390
Mondrian, Piet, 1872-1944, art. 66
Mordvinov (Mordvyshev), Arkady Grigorevich,
1896-1964, arch., grad. M V T U , 1930 237, 258,
262, 263, 334, 402, 550, 591, 600; 681, 814, 815,1101;
Doc. 41
More, Thomas, 1478-1535, utopian writer 341
Morellet, l'Abb Andr, 1727-1819, morahst, writer on
liberty and family law 341

Morozov, Ivan Kuzmich, born 1900, eng.-art., grad.

Vkhutein, 1929 424, 425, 442
Morozov, Nikolai Mikhailovich, born 1899, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1925 497; Doc. 1
Morozov, Nikolai Mitrofanovich, arch., grad. M V T U ,
1925 Doc. 35
Motylev, Mikhail Ivanovich, 1891-1969, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1916 276, 335; 723, 724, 835
Movchan, Gennady Yakovlevich, born 1901, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1926 8, 11, 235; 620, 621, 625-27,
1164; Doc. 35
Movchan, Vladimir Yakovlevich, 1899-1972, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1925 235; 625- 27, 1164; Doc. 35
Munts, Gskar Rudolfovich, 1871-1942, arch., grad.
Pakh,1896 278
Muroyama 144
Mushinsky, Yury Mikhailovich, born 1901, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 1115
MysUn, Vladimir Alexeevich, born 1903, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930

144.

Nappelbaum, Lev Mikhailovich, born 1904, arch.,

grad. Vkhutein, 1928 Doc. 25
Nekrasov, public health physician 338, 598
Nikolaev, Ivan Sergeevich, 1901-79, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1925 193, 235, 391, 594; 620-27, 629,
962-65; Doc. 23, 35
Nikolsky, Alexander Sergeevich, 1884-1953, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1912 11,64, 193,234,235,276,279,400,
402, 435, 497-500, 513, 541, 584, 585, 594; 604-06,
613-19, 722, 1071, 1072, 1107, 1152, 1207, 1208, 1320,
1350-56,1363- 65, 1370, 1371, 1381, 1398, 1401-03,
1428, 1429, 1432-34; Doc. 25, 34
Noakovsky, Stanislav Vladislavovich, 1867-1925,
arch., grad. Pakh, 1894 23
Norvert, Edgar Ivanovich, born 1884, arch. 22, 71,
343; Doc. 1
Notes, Venyamin Yakovlevich, arch., grad. Liiks,
1931 334, 392; 956
Novitsky, Pavel Ivanovich, 1888-1971, theatre critic
Doc. .25
Gkhitovich, Mikhail Alexandrovich, 1896-1937, sociologist 335-37, 339, 392; 843-48, 1045; Doc. 48
G l , Andrei Andreevich, 1883-1958, arch., grad. Pigi,
1910 347, 392, 587; 92^
Grlov, Georgy Mikhailovich, born 1901, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1926 193, 237, 482, 587, 594; 572, 1330;
Doc. 24, 25
Griovsky, S. v . , eng. 348; 955, 956
Gsipov, D m i t r y Petrovich, 1890-1934, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1913, and Pakh, 1917 14, 278, 394, 400,
459, 598; 730, 1060
Gskolkov, Nikolai Innokentevich, 1886-1951, eng.,
grad. Moscow Institute of Transport and Communications Engineers, 1909 Doc. 24
Gud, Jacobus Johannes Pieter, 1890-1963, arch.
560
Gvsyannikov, Sergei Gs., arch, 400
Owen, Robert, 1771-1858, Utopian sociahst

341

Index of Names

Palladio, Andrea, 1508-80, arch. 261

Panin, S. V., arch. 497; 1357-59
Parusnikov, Mikhail Pavlovich, 1893-1968, arch.,
grad. Muzhvz, 1918, and Vkhutemas, 1924 22
198, 402, 434, 457;567-6-5
Pashkov, Viktor Andreevich, 1903-62, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1927 499; 1144, 1392
Pasternak, Alexander Leonidovich, born 1893, arch.,
grad. Muzhvz, 1917, and M P I , 1921 193, 335, 347,
348, 389; 955, 956, 961; Doc. 23, 45
Pavlov, Grigory V . , eng.-art., grad. Vkhutein, 1929
439
Pavlov, Leonid Nikolaevich, born 1909, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 391, 402, 480; 972, 1102, 1103
Pavlov, Nikolai Ivanovich, born 1899, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 391; 972, 1486
Pen, Semyen Samoilovich, 1897-1970, arch., grad.
Ligi, 1925 240, 436; 6-57, 6-52
Perret, Auguste, 1874-1954, arch. 200; 1117
Petrov, Alexander Vasilevich, 1888-1942, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1918 70, 107, 592
Petrov, Viktor Alexandrovich, 1897-1972, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1927 8, 11, H4, 513, 592; 285, 287, 288
293, 309, 1391, 1438, 1439, 1484
Pevsner, Anton (Natan) Abramovich, 1886-1962,
art. 65
Piacentini, Marcello, 1881-1960, arch. 200
Podvoisky, Nikolai l l i c h , 1880-1948, Soviet pohtical
personahty

513

Polupanov, Stepan Nikolaevich, 1904-57, arch., grad,

Khkht, 1926 257, 401; 660, 662-64
Polyadsky, Venyamin Borisovich, arch. Doc, 42
Polyak, Raisa Akimovna, born 1899, arch,, grad
M V T U , 1925 347; 925
Polyakov, Alexander Lvovich, arch., grad. Muzhvz
1918 (?)

Doc. 1

Polyakov, Nikolai Kharlampievich, 1898-1969, arch.,

grad. M V T U , 1928 237, 600
Pomansky, Nikolai Nikolaevich, art.
1250-52
Pomazanov, Petr Vasilevich, 1903-77, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928 498
Popov, Evgeny Mikhailovich, 1901-65, arch., grad
M V T U , 1927 235, 389
Popov, Valentin Semenovich, 1905-75, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928 144, 339, 402, 458, 513, 592, 598'
874-76, 1012, 1100, 1237, 1417; Doc. 9
Popov, Yakov Fedorovich, 1885-1963, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1915 Doc. 42
Popova, Lyubov Sergeevna, 1889-1924, art. 64, 69,
70, 150, 151-53, 459, 547; 395, 396, 404, 446, 447,
460-63, 473-75
Prokhorov, S. L., eng. 348, 389; Doc. 25
Prokhorova, Mihtsa Ivanovna, 1907-59, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 144, 402, 404, 592; 390-94 1155
1156
Proskurina, Glga Nikolaevna, born 1906, arch., grad.
Liiks, 1931 334; 822
Proskuryakov, Lavr (Lavrenty) Dmitrievich,
1858-1926, eng., grad. Piips, 1884 20
Punin, Nikolai Nikolaevich, 1888-1953, art. and art

historian

146

Pyankov, Grigory Konstantinovich, born 1903, arch.,

grad. Vkhutein, 1930 391; .975, 976
Pylinsky, Vladimir F., eng.-art., grad. Vkhutein,
1929 440
Quilici, Vieri, born 1935, arch.

Rabinovich, Isaak Moiseevich, 1894-1961, theatrical

designer, grad. Kiev A r t College, 1912, studied privately, \9\2-\5
482, 790
Raikh, Yakov losifovich, 1883-1957, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1915 67, 400
Raisky, Ilya Petrovich, born 1889, arch., grad. Warsaw
PI, 1916 Doc. 25
Rayak, Efim M . , art., grad. Vkhpi, 1922 Doc. 6
Razov, D m i t r y Vasilevich, 1884-1952, arch., grad
Pakh, 1916

482; 1328

Reizman, M i k h a i l Semenovich, 1888-1959, arch.,

grad. Pakh, 1916 436; 1050
Revyakin, Petr Petrovich, born 1906, arch., grad,
Vkhutein, 1930 339, 402; 881, 1101; Doc, 14
Richter, Hans, 1888-1976, writer, artist and cinema
pioneer 149
Rodchenko, Alexander Mikhailovich, 1891-1956, art,,
studied at Kazan A r t School, 1910-14, and Skhpu,
1914 11, 14, 64-66, 68-70, 72, 76, 147, 150, 151,'
153, 280, 400; 98-110, 198, 224-35, 402, 405, 406, 409,
410, 415-25, 433-42, 756- 60, 1065- 67, 1255; Do'c. 4 '
Rogozhin, N . N . , eng.-art., studied at Vkhutein 429
Roth, Emil, arch. 144
Rozanov, A . , eng. 436
Rozhdestvensky, Konstantin Ivanovich, born 1906,
art., studied with Malevich, 1923-27 Doc. 7
Rubanchik, Yakov Gsipovich, 1899-1948, arch., grad.
Lakh, 1928 279, 483, 541, 598; 1331-33
Rubanenko, Boris Rafailovich, born 1910, arch., grad,
Liiks, 1931, and Lakh, 1934 334; 822, 970
Rudnev, Lev Vladimirovich, 1885-1956, arch,, grad,
Pakh, 1915 14, 23, 64, 101, 278; 249, 728, 729
Rukhlyadev, Alexei Mikhailovich, 1882-1946, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1911 67, 76, 141, 394, 400, 434 588'
592; 364; Doc. 1, 3
Rusakov, Mikhail Khaimovich, arch., grad. Ligi
1930 334, 392; 956
Rybchenko, Ivan Kuzmich, born 1899, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1926 498
Rybin, I . A . , arch. 276
Rylsky, Ivan Vasilevich, 1876-1952, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1896, and Pakh, 1904 71
Sabsovich, Leonid M . , sociologist
390

284, 335 336 339

Safaryan, Samvel Arakelovich, 1902-69, arch., grad.

Egu, 1928 697; Doc. 40
Saint-Simon, Claude Henri de, 1760-1825, Utopian
sociahst 341
Saishnikov, A . , arch. 338, 598
Sakulin, Boris Viktorovich, c. 1880-1952, arch., eng.,
grad. Moscow Survey Institute and Pakh, 1909

276, 277, 338, 598; 725, 727; Doc. 1

Samoilov, Anatoly Vasilevich, 1883-1953, arch., grad.
Pigi, 1914 273, 276, 345, 346; 247, 721, 908, 1151
Samokhvalov, Alexander Nikolaevich, born 1894, art.,
grad. Pakh, 1923 246
Sant' Elia, Antonio, 1888-1916, arch. 279
Sarkisyan, Ara Migranovich, born 1902, sculptor
694
Savinov, Grigor)f Grigorevich, born 1904, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 Doc. 45
Schmidt, Hans, 1893-1972, arch. 16, 557
Semenov, Vladimir Nikolaevich, 1874-1960, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1898 271, 274, 340; Doc. 43
Semenova, Elena Vladimirovna, born 1898, art.,
attended Vkhutemas, 1924, but did not graduate
8, 11, 70; 443-45, 1258, 1259
Senchikhin, Konstantin Ivanovich, born 1905, arch.,
grad. A p i , 1930 240, 483; 1329
Serafimov, Sergei Savvich, 1878-1939, arch
156
258, 261, 278, 404; 7J5-55
Sevortyan, F. 402; 390-92
Shadrin, Nikolai Fedorovich, arch., grad. Liiks,
1931

335; 822

Shapiro, Tevel Markovich, born 1898, sculptor, grad

Lakh, 1927 11, 65; 69, 75; Doc. 2
Sheherbakov, Nikolai Sergeevich, arch., grad. Muzhvz
1914 401
Shchuko, Vladimir Alexeevich, 1878-1939, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1904 19, 23, 102, 236, 261, 263, 278,
403, 477, 500; 6, 242- 44, 250, 710, 1264, 1265,'1400
Shchusev, Alexei Viktorovich, 1873-1949, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1897 1 1, 21, 23, 71, 156, 236, 261-63, 272,
278, 403, 404, 433, 500, 515; 5-5, 633-42, 731 1143
1162, 1399, 1479; Doc. 1, 37
Shekhtel, Fedor (Frants) Gsipovich, 1859-1926, arch.,
attended Muzhvz, 1876-77, but did not graduate
19, 240; 7, 5, 643
Shestakov, Sergei Sergeevich, town-planning theoretician 272, 273, 277; 777, 726
Shestakov, Viktor Alexeevich, 1898-1957, theatrical
designer, grad. Vkhutemas, 1924 153, 459; 464
Shevchenko, Alexander Vasilevich, I882-I948, art.,
studied privately i n Paris, 1905, and grad. MuzhCz
1909 68, 76, 400; 1068-70
Shevtsov, Alexander Moiseevich, born 1904, arch.,
grad. Vasi, 1931 598
Shibaev, Dmitry Evplovich, 1897-1966, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1926 102
Shilov, R . A . , arch. Doc. 25
Shkvarikov, Vyacheslav Alexeevich, 1908-71, arch.,
grad. Vasi, 1932 Doc. 41
Shhosberg, J.A., urban municipal economy expert
274
Shreter, Evgeny Fedorovich, arch,

278

Shtalberg, Ernest Yakovlevich, 1883-1958, arch,, grad,

Pakh, 1914

23

Shteinberg, Yakov Aronovich, born 1896, arch,, grad,

K k h i , 1925 258, 436, 500; 742, 1225 1926 1413
1414
Shterenberg, David Petrovich, 1881-1948, art., studied

at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the Acadmie V i t t i

i n Paris 23
Shtivel, Boris Petrovich, born 1903, arch., grad. Gkhi,
1928 Doc. 25
Shukhov, Vladimir Grigorevich, 1853-1939, eng.,
grad. M V T U , 1876 20, 195; 9, 10, 12, 13, 516, 517,
591, 592
Shvidkovsky, Alexander Vladimirovich, 1898-1932,
arch., grad. M V T U
11; 625, 630-32
Sidorov, Alexei Alexeevich, 1891-1978, art historian,
grad. M G U , 1913 Doc. 1
Silchenkov, Alexander Afanasevich, 1889-1975, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1928 8, 11, 144, 339, 344, 404, 592;
303, 898-900, 902, 1157
Simbirtsev, Vasily Nikolaevich, born 1901, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928 70, 237, 402, 404, 458, 479, 600;
307, 1101, 1310
Simonov, Grigory Alexandrovich, 1893-1974, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1920 23, 276, 392, 394,498; 722,986,999,
1366
Sinyavsky, Mikhad Isaakovich, 1895-1979, arch.,
grad. Vkhutemas, 1926 404, 479, 484; 862, 863,
1297-1300, 1346, 1347; Doc. 50
Slavina, Lyubov Stepanovna, 1897-1982, arch., grad.
M i g i , 1924 348; 955, 956; Doc. 22
Smolenskaya, Rashel Moiseevna, born 1901, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1928 8, 1 1, 402; 1092-94
Smolin, Petr Ivanovich, born 1902, arch., grad. Liiks,
1931 347; 928-30
Smyk, A., arch. 1057, 1058
Sobolev, Ivan Nikolaevich, 1903-71, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1926 193, 198, 333, 347, 402, 457, 594;'
809, 1089, 1322
Sokolov, Boris Afanasevich, born 1906, eng.-art., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 1041
Sokolov, Konstantin Mikhailovich, 1900-72, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1925 Doc. 35
Sokolov, Nikolai Borisovich, born 1904, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 8, 11, 193, 335, 515, 594; 843-48,
1045, 1451, 1452; Doc. 25, 45, 50
Sokolov, Venyamin Dmitrievich, 1889-1955, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1918 334; 525, 52^
Solodovnik, Grigory Abramovich, 1901-71, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1930 600
Solomonov, Kasyan Ivanovich, 1900-66, arch;, grad.
Gih, 1929 659
Solovev, R., eng. 484
Soria y Mata, Arturo, 1844-1920, inventor o f t h e
'linear city' idea 337
Spassky, Yury Konstantinovich, 1901-52, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1927 108, 144, 458, 592; 55^-57
Stam, Mart, born 1899, arch. 144, 557
Stenberg, Georgy Avgustovich, 1900-33, art., grad.
First S G K h M , 1919 64-66, 69, 70, 72, 147, 150,
153; 81-83, 86-91, 94, 95, 109, 110, 481
Stenberg, Vladimir Avgustovich, 1899-1982, art.,
grad. First S G K h M , 1919 64-66, 69, 70, 72, 147,
150, 153; 82- 85, 92-95, 109, 110, 155, 156, 481
Stepanova, Varvara Fedorovna, 1894-1958, art., studied at Kazan A r t School, 1911-12, and in a private

617
Index of names

I, arch. 261
357-59
vich, 1893-1968, arch.,
1 Vkhutemas, 1924 22,
)5
;h, 1903-62, arch., grad.
'44, 1392
adovich, born 1893, arch.,
I M P I , 1921
193,335,347,
)oc. 23, 45
:t., grad. Vkhutein, 1929
1, born 1909, arch., grad.
12, 480; 972, 1102, 1103
born 1899, arch., grad.
'2, 1486
1897-1970, arch., grad.
1,652
I , arch. 200; 1117
ch, 1888-1942, arch., grad.
592
ch, 1897-1972, arch., grad.
144, 513, 592; 255,257, 2<?5,
1484
)ramovich, I886-I962,
4960, arch. 200
180-1948, Soviet political
vich, 1904-57, arch., grad.
KO, 662-64
iovich, arch. Doc. 42
orn 1899, arch., grad.
ch, arch., grad. Muzhvz,
pievich, 1898-1969, arch.,
', 600
vich, art.
1250-52
1, 1903-77, arch., grad.
h, 1901-65, arch., grad.
h, 1905-75, arch., grad.
9, 402, 458, 513, 592, 598;
'417; Doc. 9
1885-1963, arch., grad.
, 1889-1924, art. 64, 69,
; 395, 396, 404, 446, 447,
, 389; Doc. 25
na, 1907-59, arch., grad.
404, 592; 390-94, 1155,
a, born 1906, arch., grad.
Ity) Dmitrievich,
ips, 1884 20
1888-1953, art. and art

historian 146
Pyankov, Grigory Konstandnovich, born 1903, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1930 391; 975, 976
Pylinsky, Vladimir F., eng.-art., grad. Vkhutein,
1929 440
Quihci, Vieri, born 1935, arch.

Rabinovich, Isaak Moiseevich, 1894-1961, theatrical

designer, grad. Kiev A r t College, 1912, studied privately, 1912-15 482, 790
Raikh, Yakov losifovich, 1883-1957, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1915 67, 400
Raisky, Ilya Petrovich, born 1889, arch., grad. Warsaw
PI, 1916 Doc. 25
Rayak, Efim M . , art., grad. V k h p i , 1922 Doc. 6
Razov, Dmitry Vasilevich, 1884-1952, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1916 482;1328
Reizman, M i k h a i l Semenovich, 1888-1959, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1916 436; 1050
Revyakin, Petr Petrovich, born 1906, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 339, 402; 881, 1101; Doc. 14
Richter, Hans, 1888-1976, writer, artist and cinema
pioneer 149
Rodchenko, Alexander Mikhailovich, 1891-1956, art.,
studied at Kazan A r t School, 1910-14, and Skhpu,
1914 11, 14, 64-66, 68-70, 72, 76, 147, 150, 151,
153, 280, 400; 95-770, 198, 224-35, 402, 405, 406, 409,
410, 415-25, 433-42, 756-60, 1065-67, 1255; Dod. 4
Rogozhin, N . N . , eng.-art., studied at Vkhutein 429
Roth, Emil, arch. 144
Rozanov, A., eng. 436
Rozhdestvensky, Konstantin Ivanovich, born 1906,
art., studied w i t h Malevich, 1923-27 Doc. 7
Rubanchik, Yakov Gsipovich, 1899-1948, arch., grad.
Lakh, 1928 279, 483, 541, 598; 1331-33
Rubanenko, Boris Rafailovich, born 1910, arch., grad.
Lnks, 1931, and Lakh, 1934 334; 822, 970
Rudnev, Lev Vladimirovich, 1885-1956, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1915 14, 23, 64, 101, 278; 249, 728, 729
Rukhlyadev, Alexei Mikhailovich, 1882-1946, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1911 67, 76, 141, 394, 400, 434, 588,
592; 364; Doc. 1, 3
Rusakov, Mikhail Khaimovich, arch., grad. Ligi,
1930 334, 392; 956
Rybchenko, Ivan Kuzmich, born 1899, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1926 498
Rybin, I . A., arch. 276
Rylsky, Ivan Vasilevich, 1876-1952, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1896, and Pakh, 1904 71
Sabsovich, Leonid M . , sociologist 284, 335, 336, 339,
390
Safaryan, Samvel Arakelovich, 1902-69, arch., grad.
Egu, 1928 697; Doc. 40
Saint-Simon, Claude Henri de, 1760-1825, Utopian
socialist 341
Saishnikov, A., arch. 338, 598
Sakulin, Boris Viktorovich, c. 1880-1952, arch., eng.,
grad. Moscow Survey Institute and Pakh, 1909

276, 277, 338, 598; 725, 727; Doc. 1

Samoilov, Anatoly Vasilevich, 1883-1953, arch., grad.
Pigi, 1914 273, 276, 345, 346; 247, 721, 908, 1151
Samokhvalov, Alexander Nikolaevich, born 1894, art.,
grad. Pakh, 1923 246
Sant'Eha, Antonio, 1888-1916, arch. 279
Sarkisyan, Ara Migranovich, born 1902, sculptor
694
Savinov, Grigory Grigorevich, born 1904, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 Doc. 45
Schmidt, Hans, 1893-1972, arch. 16, 557
Semenov, Vladimir Nikolaevich, 1874-1960, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1898 271, 274, 340; Doc. 43
Semenova, Elena Vladimirovna, born 1898, art.,
attended Vkhutemas, 1924, but did not graduate
8, \ \, 10; 443- 45, 1258, 1259
Senchikhin, Konstantin Ivanovich, born 1905, arch.,
grad. A p i , 1930 240, 483; 1329
Serafimov, Sergei Savvich, 1878-1939, arch. 156,
258, 261, 278, 404; 735-38
Sevortyan, F. 402; 390-92
Shadrin, Nikolai Fedorovich, arch., grad. Liiks,
1931 335; 522
Shapiro, Tevel Markovich, born 1898, sculptor, grad.
Lakh, 1927 11, 65; 6-9, 75; Doc. 2
Sheherbakov, Nikolai Sergeevich, arch., grad. Muzhvz,
1914 401
Shchuko, Vladimir Alexeevich, 1878-1939, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1904 19, 23, 102, 236, 261, 263, 278,
403, 477, 500; 6, 242-44, 250, 710, 1264, 1265, 1400
Shchusev, Alexei Viktorovich, 1873-1949, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1897 11, 21, 23, 71, 156, 236, 261-63, 272,
278, 403, 404, 433, 500, 515; 3-5, 633-42, 731, 1143,
1162, 1399, 1479; Doc. 1, 37
Shekhtel, Fedor (Frants) Gsipovich, 1859-1926, arch.,
attended Muzhvz, 1876-77, but did not graduate
19, 240; 7, 5, 643
Shestakov, Sergei Sergeevich, town-planning theoretician 272, 273, 277; 777, 726
Shestakov, Viktor Alexeevich, 1898-1957, theatrical
designer, grad. Vkhutemas, 1924 153, 459; 464
Shevchenko, Alexander Vasilevich, 1882-1948, art.,
studied privately in Paris, 1905, and grad. Muzhvz,
1909 68, 76, 400; 1068-70
Shevtsov, Alexander Moiseevich, born 1904, arch.,
grad. Vasi, 1931 598
Shibaev, D m i t r y Evplovich, 1897-1966, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1926 102
Shilov, R. A., arch. Doc. 25
Shkvarikov, Vyacheslav Alexeevich, 1908-71, arch.,
grad. Vasi, 1932 Doc. 41
Shhosberg, J. A., urban municipal economy expert
274
Shreter, Evgeny Fedorovich, arch. 278
Shtalberg, Ernest Yakovlevich, 1883-1958, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1914 23
Shteinberg, Yakov Aronovich, born 1896, arch., grad.
K k h i , 1925 258, 436, 500; 742, 1225, 1226, 1413,
1414
Shterenberg, David Petrovich. 1881-1948, art., studied

at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the Acadmie V i t t i

in Paris 23
Shtivel, Boris Petrovich, born 1903, arch., grad. Gkhi,
1928 Doc. 25
Shukhov, Vladimir Grigorevich, 1853-1939, eng.,
grad. M V T U , 1876 20, 195; 9, 10, 12, 13, 516, 517,
591, 592
Shvidkovsky, Alexander Vladimirovich, 1898-1932,
arch., grad. M V T U
11; 628, 630-32
Sidorov, Alexei Alexeevich, 1891-1978, art historian,
grad. M G U , 1913 Doc. 1
Silchenkov, Alexander Afanasevich, 1889-1975, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1928 8, 11, 144, 339, 344, 404, 592;
303, 898-900, 902, 1157
Simbirtsev, Vasily Nikolaevich, born 1901, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928 70, 237, 402, 404, 458, 479, 600;
307, 1101, 1310
Simonov, Grigory Alexandrovich, 1893-1974, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1920 23, 276, 392, 394,498; 722,986,999,
1366
Sinyavsky, Mikhail Isaakovich, 1895-1979, arch.,
grad. Vkhutemas, 1926 404, 479, 484; 862, 863,
1297-1300, 1346, 1347; Doc. 50
Slavina, Lyubov Stepanovna, 1897-1982, arch., grad.
M i g i , 1924 348; 955, 956; Doc. 22
Smolenskaya, Rashel Moiseevna, born 1901, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1928 8, 11, 402; 1092-94
Smolin, Petr Ivanovich, born 1902, arch., grad. Liiks,
1931 347; 925-50
Smyk, A . , arch. 7057, 1058
Sobolev, Ivan Nikolaevich, 1903-71, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1926 193, 198, 333, 347, 402, 457, 594;
509, 7059, 1322
Sokolov, Boris Afanasevich, born 1906, eng.-art., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 1041
Sokolov, Konstantin Mikhailovich, 1900-72, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1925 Doc. 35
Sokolov, Nikolai Borisovich, born 1904, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 8, 11, 193, 335, 515, 594; 843-48,
1045, 1451, 1452; Doc. 25, 45, 50
Sokolov, Venyamin Dmitrievich, 1889-1955, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1918 334; 525, 52^
Solodovnik, Grigory Abramovich, 1901-71, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1930 600
Solomonov, Kasyan Ivanovich, 1900-66, arch., grad.
G i i i , 1929 659
Solovev, R., eng. 484
Soria y Mata, Arturo, 1844-1920, inventor o f t h e
'linear city' idea 337
Spassky, Yury Konstantinovich, 1901-52, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1927 108, 144, 458, 592; 384-87
Stam, M a r t , born 1899, arch. 144, 557
Stenberg, Georgy Avgustovich, 1900-33, art., grad.
First S G K h M , 1919 64-66, 69, 70, 72, 147, 150,
153; 81-83, 86-91, 94, 95, 109, 110, 481
Stenberg, Vladimir Avgustovich, 1899-1982, art.,
grad. First S G K h M , 1919 64-66, 69, 70, 72, 147,
150, 153; 52-55, 92-.95, 109, 110, 155, 156, 481
Stepanova, Varvara Fedorovna, 1894-1958, art., studied at Kazan A r t School, 1911-12, and i n a private

studio i n Moscow, 1912-15 11,69, 70, 147, 150,

153; 122, 397-99, 476- 78; Doc. 4
Strigalev, Anatoly Anatolevich, born 1924, arch., grad.
Markhi, 1952 8, 10
Suetin, Nikolai Mikhailovich, 1897-1954, art., grad.
Vkhpi, 1922 1 1, 67, 234; 49, 55-61; Doc. 6
Sum-Shik, Grigory Romanovich, born 1901, arch.,
grad. M V T U , 1928 347
Surzhenkov, Petr, laboratory assistant Doc. 1
Svirsky, Yakov Osipovich, born 1902, arch., grad.
Lakh, 1927 513; 1436, 1437
Svishchevskaya, M . , arch., grad. Ligi, 1930 (?) 1011
Syryshchev, Yakov Mikhailovich, 1886-1954, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1915 240; 6^5
Tairov, Alexander Yakovlevich, 1885-1950, theatre
director 153, 235, 460; 465-67
Tamanyan, Alexander Gvanesovich, 1878-1936,
arch., grad. Pakh, 1904 258, 259, 271, 278,433; 656,
752; Doc. 38
Tarabukin, Nikolai Mikhailovich, 1889-1956, art historian 70
Tatlin, Vladimir Evgrafovich, 1885-1953, art., grad.
Muzhvz, 1910 63-66, 69, 72, 101, 150, 151, 200,
239, 257, 401; 64, 65,68-75, 403, 412-14, 429, 471,472;
Doc. 2
Taut, Bruno, 1880-1938, arch. 16
Teige, Karel, 1900-51, publicist and theoretician of
art 144
Tephtsky, Leonid Samoilovich, 1898-1947, arch.,
grad. Vkhutemas, 1926 402; 1090, 1091
Terekhin, Fedor Antonovich, arch., grad. Ligi,
1930 347, 600; 925-50; Doc. 25
Tersakov, A . , arch. 498
Tikhomirova, Irina Nikolaevna, 1906-68, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1930 7^5^
Trikhonov, Nikolai Ivanovich, 1896-1941, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1924 576, 577
Tikhonov, Sergei Egorovich, art.
1250-52
Torisyuk, Ya., arch. 1057, 1058
Toropov, Sergei Alexandrovich, 1882-1964, arch.,
grad. Muzhvz, 1910 400; 1053
Travin, Nikolai Pavlovich, 1898-1975, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 8, 144, 395, 402, 592; 1019-22,
1096, 1097
Tretyakov, Sergei Mikhailovich, 1892-1939, poet and
playwright 61,460
Trotsenko, Viktor Karpovich, born 1888, arch., received no specialized training, but was awarded title
of 'architect' for an actual design 258, 278, 344
Trotsky, Noi Abramovich, 1895-1940, arch., grad.
Pakh, 1920, and Second PPI, 1921 23, 278, 279,
400, 401, 458, 484; 7057, 7052, 7056, 1176, 1349
Tsionghnsky, E.F., died 1914, art. 547
Tsiperovich, David M . Doc. 42
Tumbasov, Arseny Mikhailovich, 1901-74, arch.,
grad. Tashkent A r t Technical College, 1922 525,
824
Turgenev, Sergei Petrovich, 1902-75, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1926 235, 401; 625, 7057

Turkus, Mikhail Alexandrovich, born 1896, arch.,

grad. Vkhutemas, 1926 8, 11, 72, 108, 144, 333,
344, 402, 458, 513, 543, 588, 592; 256, 259, 502,
384-94, 807, 808, 896, 897, 1416, 1418; Doc. 13, 15,
41
Tvelkmeier, Viktor Fedorovich, 1902-56, arch., grad.
Lakh, 1926 401
Tverskoy, Lev Mikhailovich, 1889-1972, arch., grad.
Pigi, 1914, and Pakh, 1923 23, 343, 395, 484; 1349
Udalenkov, Alexander Petrovich, ?-1950s, arch.

257;

654, 655
Udaltsova, Nadezhda Andreevna, 1886-1961, art.
70, 152
UHnich, Boris Yakovlevich, born 1885, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1917 197, 400, 401; 525, 1056, 1083, 1084
U n w i n , Raymond, 1863-1940, arch. 546
Useinov, Mikael Aleskerovich, born 1905, arch., grad.
A p i , 1929 240, 483; 655
Vainshtein, Ilya Zakharovich, born 1902, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 1115
Vakhtangov, Evgeny Bagrationovich, 1883-1922,
theatre director 153, 460
Vakhtangov, Sergei Evgenevich, born 1907, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1930 460; 7262, 7265; Doc. 36
Varentsov, Trifon Nikolaevich, 1903-48, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928 144, 282, 283, 397, 499, 592; 569,
570, 781-84, 802, 803, 1049, 1378, 1379, 1493; Doc. 12
Vargazin, Boris Nikolaevich, 1898-1965, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1925 Doc. 35
Vasilkovsky, Sergei Vladimirovich, 1892-1960, arch.,
grad. Second P I , 1922 497
Vatsenko, Andrei Stepanovich, 1893-1973, eng., grad.
Pigi, 1917, 397
Vegman, Georgy Gustavovich, 1899-1973, arch., grad.
M i g i , 1924 8, 11, 102, 104, 156, 193,347,499,594;
277-83, 511, 656, 833, 834, 926, 1138, 1140, 1141, 1374;
Doc. 22, 23, 25
Veiras d'AUais, Denis, c. 1630-c. 1700, Utopian w r i ter 341
Veksler, Moisei Borisovich, art., grad. Vkhpi, 1922
Doc. 6
Velikovsky, Boris, Mikhailovich, 1878-1937, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1904 403; 1138, 1140, 1141
Venderov, B., arch. 346
Vernik, Evgeny Mikhailovich, arch., grad. Liiks,
1931 971
Vertov, Dziga (Denis Arkadevich), 1896-1954, f d m
director
150,479
Vesnin, Alexander Alexandrovich, 1883-1959, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1912 1 1, 14, 23, 70-72, 142, 148,
151-56, 193, 194, 196, 200, 233, 236, 237, 239, 240,
258, 261, 262, 273, 276, 279, 282, 334, 345, 390, 400,
402-04, 433, 434, 436, 456, 458, 459, 477, 483, 499,
515, 535, 541, 542, 547, 548, 553, 587, 591, 594;
448-62, 465- 70, 483-87, 493-506, 597-600,
645-50,
687, 688, 702, 703, 779, 780, 813, 816-18, 1088, 1089,
1098, 1122, 1123, 1125, 1126, 1142, 1214, 1228, 1229,
1243-45, 1266, 1267, 1310, 1322, 1337-39, 1346, 1347,

618
Index of names

1394-97, 1449-52, 1478; Doc. 16, 22, 25, 41

Vesnin, Leonid Alexandrovich, 1880-1933, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1909 23, 71, 142, 151, 154-56, 193,
196, 235, 236, 240, 261, 273, 275, 279, 334, 343, 390,
400, 403, 404, 434, 436, 456, 458, 477, 483, 499, 547,
587, 594; 484-87, 498-504, 646-50, 718, 813, 816-18,
1122, 1123, 1125, 1126, 1214, 1243-45, 1266,1267,
1337-39, 1394-97, 1478; Doc. 21, 22, 23
Vesnin, Viktor Alexandrovich, 1882-1950, arch., grad.
Pigi, 1912 14, 19, 23, 142, 151, 154-56, 193, 196,
235, 236, 240, 261-63, 273, 276, 400, 403, 433, 434,
436, 456, 458, 477, 482, 483, 499, 500, 547, 587, 594;
484-87, 493-501, 503, 504,512, 646-50, 702, 703,1122,
1123, 1125,1126,1165, 1214,
1243-45,1266,1267,1330,
1337-39, 1394-97, 1406, 1407; Doc. 18, 25
Vilensky, Boris Solomonovich, 1903-70, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1927 483
Vinogradov, Pavel M . , art. 65
Vinogradov
1167-70
Vladimirov, Vyacheslav Nikolaevich, 1898-1942,
arch., grad. M i g i , 1924 22, 193, 335, 348, 389, 436,
484, 499, 500, 594; 570, 843-48, 927, 955-57, '1045,
1216, 1220, 1334, 1341, 1342, 1373; Doc. 21, 22
Vlasov, Alexander Vasilevich, 1900-62, arch., grad.
M V T U , 1928 237, 262, 263, 402, 478, 600; 1268,
1272, 1273; Doc. 26
Voinov, Vasily Mikhailovich, 1888-1954, arch., grad.
Muzhvz, 1917 400
Volfenson, Georgy Yakovlevich, 1893-1948, arch.,
grad. Pigi, 1918 344; 903, 904
Volkov, E., arch. 344; 903, 904
Volodko, Ivan losifovich, born 1895, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928 144, 403, 404, 484, 592; 306, 374,
997, 1344
Vorotyntseva, Nina, 1900-30, arch., grad. M i g i ,
1924 347, 500; 925; Doc. 21, 22
Wright, Frank Lloyd, 1869-1959, arch.

536

Yafa, Glga Alexandrovna, born 1889, arch., grad.

M V T U , 1925 829, 830
Yakovlev, K i r i l N . , arch. 484; 1335
Yakulov, Georgy Bogdanovich, 1884-1928, art., grad.
Muzhvz, 1902 102, 153; 242
Yalovkin, Fedor Ivanovich, born 1902, arch., grad.
Vasi, 1931 193, 594; 862, 863; Doc. 25
Yasinsky, Felix Stanislavovich, 1856-99, eng., grad.
Piips, 1877 20
Yavein, Igor Georgievich, born 1903, arch., grad. Ligi,
1930 402
Yudin, Lev Alexandrovich, 1903-41, art., grad. Vkhpi,
1922 67; Doc. 6, 7
Yuon, Konstantin Fedorovich, 1875-1958, art., grad.
Muzhvz, 1900 547
Yurchenko, Petr Grigorevich, 1900-72, arch., grad.
K k h i , 1928 334; 7057, 7055
Yurgenson, Nikolai Nikolaevich, arch., grad.
M V T U Doc. 36
Zabolotny, Vladimir Ignatevich, 1898-1962, arch.,

grad. K k h i , 1928 7057, 1058

Zalesskaya, Lyubov Sergeevna, 1906-79, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 8, 11, 144, 403, 404, 479, 515, 592;
388, 389, 393, 394, 918, 1132, 1155, 1156, 1312
Zaltsman, Alexei Moiseevich, 1889-1963, arch., grad.
Vkhutemas, 1927 345, 458, 479, 497; 966,967,1311,
1348; Doc. 36
Zandberg-Serafimova, Mariya Alexandrovna,
1896-1966, arch., grad. Lakh, 1925 261, 278
Zaonegin, Dmitry Alexeevich, born 1902, eng.-art.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1929 7255
Zapletin, Nikolai Pavlovich 600
Zaslavsky, Abram Moiseevich, 1899-1962, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 237, 600
Zazersky, Alexei Ivanovich, ?-1942, arch., grad. Pigi,
1902 276,338,598
Zemlyanitsyn, Boris Petrovich, 1897-?, eng.-art., grad.
Vkhutein, 1928 430, 1040
Zhigunov, Prokhor Konstantinovich, 1862-1956, eng.art., grad. Vkhutein, 1929 433, 434
Zhirov, M i k h a i l Stepanovich, 1898-1977, arch., grad.
Vkhutein, 1929 862, 863, 1444, 1445
Zhmudsky, L . , economist 338, 598
Zholtovsky, Ivan Vladislavovich, 1867-1959, arch.,
grad. Pakh, 1898 19, 21-23, 67, 71, 106, 148,
198-200, 236, 260-62, 264, 273, 346, 401, 402, 403,
433,498, 543, 588; 2, 7^-76,549,550,560,564-66,699,
711, 1076, 1077, 1109, 1110, 1116; Doc. I , 26, 31
Zholtus, L . , eng. 394
Zhukovsky, Pavel Nikolaevich, 1905-42, arch., grad.
Liiks, 1931 334
Zilbert, Avraam 514, 600; 1448
Zundblat, Georgy Alexandrovich, 1898-1979, arch.,
grad. Vkhutein, 1930 335, 436; 72;6', 7^50