Stalinist architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section recently underwent a major revision or rewrite and needs further review. You can help!

Stalinist architecture (also referred to as Stalin's Empire style or Socialist Classicism) is a term given to constructions that were built in the Soviet Union between 1933, when Boris Iofan's draft for Palace of Soviets was officially approved, and 1955, when Nikita Khruschev condemned excesses of the past decades and disbanded the Soviet Academy of Architecture.

Contents 1 Features 1.1 Technology 1.2 Scope 2 Background (1900-1931) 3 The beginning (1931-1933) 4 Pre-war Stalinist architecture (1933-1941) 4.1 Early Stalinism (1933-1935) 4.2 Moscow Master Plan (1935) 4.3 Moscow Canal (1932-1938) 4.4 Moscow Avenues (1938-1941) 4.5 All-Union Agricultural Exhibition (1939) 5 Post-War (1944-1950) 5.1 Volga-Don Canal (1948-1952) 5.2 Underground (1938-1958) 5.3 Seven Sisters (1947-1955) 5.4 Rebuilding Kiev (1944-1955) 5.5 Regional varieties 5.6 1949 Stalin Prize 6 Folding down (1948-1955) 6.1 Frame-and-panel experiment (1948-1952) 6.2 January, 1951: Moscow Conference 6.3 Peschanaya Square (1951-1955) 7 The end of Stalinist Architecture (November 1955) 8 Legacy and Revival 9 See also 10 Footnotes

[edit] Features

Stalinist architecture is not as such of a true architectural style that is distinct in appearance. Instead it is a from in the way the state communicated with the masses through constructions, using them for Soviet totalitarian expression. The final result is the striking parade monumentalism, the patriotic art decorations and at the same time traditional motives blended together in what has become one of the most vivid examples of Soviet contribution to architecture.

The ensemble that a Stalinist building will contain can be very broad, not only in the overall motif, but also in the technology that lies underneath the rich decorations.

In the Soviet policy of rationalisation of the country, all cities were built to a general development plan. Each was split into regions, with allotments drawn based on the city's geography. As a result, one of the biggest features of Stalinist buildings were the scale at which they would be built, as projects would be drawn up for whole districts, visibly transforming the city's architectural image. Planning each project would be assigned to individuals. In the Stalinist militarist society, this would mean that most projects were a result of whole brigades including architects engineers and artists that were in turn supervised by superiors.

Every point in the design had to gain approval of the state. The critique that would come down on a project would vary from slight recommendations to total disapproval. As a result many had to be modeled and remodeled many times. This also had a direct effect on the architects themselves, many of whom would later describe this period as not on what they should build, but on what they are not allowed to include. For example floral motifs of Art Nouveau were never allowed.

The interaction of the state with the architects would prove to be one of the most focal points of this time. The same building could be declared a formalist blasphemy once, and receive the highest praise the next year,^[1] True styles like Zholtovsky's Renaissance Revival, Ivan Fomin's St.Petersburg Neoclassical Revival and Art Deco adaptation by Alexey Dushkin and Vladimir Schuko coexisted with pale imitations and eclectics that became a symbol of that era.

At the same time, most of the Soviet political repressions affected only a few architects. This was partly because some of the older generation had good construction and management skills as well as experience with bureaucratical affairs. Moreover Stalin's personal relations guaranteed immunity to many of them.

[edit] Technology

In terms of technology methods, most of the structures, underneath the rich wet stucco walls, is simple brick masonry. Exceptions was Andery Burov's medium sized concrete block panel houses (such as the Lace building, 1939-41) and of course large buildings like the Seven sisters which necessitated the use of concrete. The Masonry naturally dictated narrow windows, thus leaving large wall area to be decorated. Fireproof terra cotta finishes were introduced in the early 1950s. ^[2], though this rarely reached outside Moscow.^[3]. Most of the roofing was traditional wooden trusses covered with metallic sheets.

Since 1948, technology improves, at least in Moscow - in favor of faster and cheaper processes; houses become safer by eliminating wooden ceilings and partitions. The standardized buildings of 1948-1955 offer the same level of housing quality as Stalinist classics, are classified as such by real estate agents, but are excluded from the scope of Stalinist architecture: ideologically, they belong to mass housing, an intermediate step before Khrushchyovka. They are presented in this article as much as is necessary to draw the line between two eras.

[edit] Scope

Stalinist architecture does not equate to everything built in Stalin’s era. It relied on labor-intensive and time-consuming masonry, and could not be scaled up to the needs of mass construction. When time finally came to tackle the housing crisis, this inefficiency spelled the end of Stalinist architecture and a turn to mass construction while Stalin was still alive and active.

Although Stalin rejected Constructivism, completion of constructivist buildings extended through the 1930s. Industrial construction, boosted by Albert Kahn and later supervised by Victor Vesnin^[4], was heavily influenced by modernist ideas. It was not as important to Stalin's urban plans, so most industrial buildings (excluding megaprojects like the Moscow Canal) do not fall into the Stalinist category. Even the first stage of the Moscow Metro, completed in 1935, was not on Stalin’s watch list, and so included substantial constructivist input.^[5]

Thus, the scope of Stalinist architecture is generally limited to urban public and residential buildings of high and middle quality, excluding mass housing, and selected infrastructure projects like theMoscow Canal, the Volga-Don Canal, and the latter stages of the Moscow Metro.

[edit] Background (1900-1931)

Before 1917, Russian architectural scene was divided between Russky Modern (a local interpretation of Art Nouveau, stronger in Moscow), and Neoclassical Revival (stronger in Saint Petersburg)^[6]. Neoclassical school produced mature architects like Alexey Shchusev, Ivan Zholtovsky, Ivan Fomin, Vladimir Schuko and Alexander Tamanian^[7]; by the time of Revolution they were established professionals in their fourties, with their own firms, schools and followers. These people will eventually become Stalin's architectural elders and produce best examples of his period.

Another school that emerged after the Revolution is now known as Constructivism. Some of Constructivists (the Vesnin brothers) were young professionals who established themselves before 1917, others have just completed professional education (Konstantin Melnikov) or didn't have any. They associated themselves with vocal groups of modern artists, compensating lack of experience with public exposure. When New Economic Policy turned the nation to post-war reconstruction, publicity paid back with real architectural commissions. Experience does not come overnight, and many constructivist buildings were fairly critisized for irrational floorplans, cost overruns and low build quality^{[8] [9]}.

For a short period of time (New Economic Policy of mid-1920s), architectural profession operated the old-fashioned way, with private firms, international contests, competitive bidding and paper wars in professional magazines. Foreign architects were welcomed, especially in the end of this period, when the Great Depression cut down their jobs at home (Ernst May, Albert Kahn, Le Corbusier)^[10]. The line between traditionalists and constructivists was not abslolute. Zholtovsky and Shchusev hired modernists as junior partners in their projects^[11], and at the same time incorporated constructivist novelties in their own designs^[12].

Urban planning developed separately. Housing crisis in big cities and industrialization of remote areas called for mass housing construction, development of new territories and reconstruction of old cities. Theorists devised a variety of strategies and caused hot politicized discussions without practical output; State intervention was imminent.

[edit] The beginning (1931-1933)

This section is based on Dmitry Khmelnitsky's "Stalin and Architecture" (Russian: www.archi.ru)

Stalin's personal taste in architecture and his own input to it remains, for the most part, a matter of deduction, conjecture and anecdotal evidence. The facts, or their reflection in public Soviet documents, revolve around the Palace of Soviets contest of 1931-1933:

• February, 1931, leading Soviet architects received invitations to bid for the Palace of Soviets concept (first contest)
• June, 1931, the Party Plenum authorized three megaprojects: Reconstruction of Moscow, Moscow Canal and Moscow Metro.
• July 1931, architects presented 15 concepts. Then a second, open, international contest is announced
• February, 1932, second contest prize was awarded equally to 3 drafts (Iofan, Zholtovsky, Hector Hamilton). All modernist designs were discarded.
• March, 1932, 12 architects received an invitation to the third contest.
• April, 1932, Party outlawed all independent artistic associations. Victor Vesnin is assigned to lead the official Union of Soviet architects.
• July, 1932, 5 architects receive an invitation to the fourth contest.
• August, 1932, Stalin (then in Sochi) wrote a memo to Voroshilov, Molotov and Kaganovich. He explained his vision of contest entries, picked Iofan's draft and proposed specific changes to it. This memo, published in 2001, is the base for all conjectures on Stalin's personal input.
• February, 1933, contest closed, no winner announced
• May, 1933, public approval of Iofan's draft.
• September, 1933, all Moscow architects were assigned to 20 Mossovet workshops, most of them headed by traditionalist architects (Shchusev, Zholtovsky etc.). Once-independent profession joined the ranks of State.

The architects invited to lead these workshops included traditionalists - Ivan Zholtovsky, Alexey Shchusev, Ivan Fomin, Boris Iofan, Nikolai Kolli, Vladimir Schuko, but also practicing constructivists: Ilya Golosov, Panteleimon Golosov, Konstantin Melnikov, Victor Vesnin, Moisei Ginzburg and Nikolai Ladovsky. This set an important trend until 1955. Stalin chose Iofan for one project, but retained all competing arhitects in his employ. As Dmitry Khmelnitsky put it, "Comparison with Nazi architecture works to some degree, yet there is a major difference. Stalin never picked a single architect, or a single style, as Hitler picked Speer. No elite group could claim victory ... neither constructivists, nor traditionalists... Stalin forged his "Speer" from whatever he could find."

Another important point is that before cracking down independent groups, Stalin's megaprojects created thousands of professional jobs. As a result, once-vocal youth was absorbed into real-world practice, and abstained from discussions, just like the elders. They had jobs to do.

[edit] Pre-war Stalinist architecture (1933-1941)

[edit] Early Stalinism (1933-1935)

The first years of Stalinist arhitecture are marked by standalone buildings, or, at most, single-block development projects. Building up vast spaces of Moscow proved far more difficult than razing historical districts. Three most important Moscow buildings of this time stand on the same square, all built in 1931-1935, yet each draft evolved independently, with little regard to overall ensemble (see prewar movie stills 1936 1938 1939). Each set it's own vector of development for the next two decades.

• Mokhovaya Street Building by Zholtovsky, an Italian Renaissance fantasy, is a direct precursor of post-war exterior luxury (Stalin's Empire). However, it's size is in line with nearby XIX century buildings.
• Moskva Hotel by Shchusev, grim and heavy, dwarfs everything around it. This line of development was uncommon in Moscow (a tower on top of Tchaikovsky Hall was never completed), but similar grand edifices appeared in Baku and Kiev. Slim roman arches of Moskva balconies were common all over the country in 1930s. After the war they persisted in southern cities but disappeared from Moscow scene.
• Finally, Arkady Langman's STO Building (later Gosplan, currently, State Duma) - a modest but not grim structure with strong vertical detailing. This style, a clever adaptation of American Art Deco, required expensive stone and metal finishes, thus the limited following - House of Soviets in Leningrad, topped out in 1941, and Tverskaya Street in Moscow.

А separate line of development, called early stalinism or postconstructivism,^[13] evolved in 1932-1938. It can be traced both to simplified Art Deco (Schuko, Iofan), and to indigenous constructivism, slowly migrating to neoclassicism (Ilya Golosov, Vladimir Vladimirov). These buildings retain simple rectangular shapes and large glass surfaces of constructivism, but they already have ornate balconies, porticos and columns (usually, rectangular and very lightweight). By 1938, it went out of style and has not recovered after the war.

Mokhovaya Street Building, by Ivan Zholtovsky, 1931-1934

Moskva Hotel, by Alexey Shchusev, 1932-1935

STO Building, by Arkady Langman, 1932-1935

Norhern River Terminal of Moscow Canal, by Alexey Rukhlyadev, 1937

[edit] Moscow Master Plan (1935)

Standalone projects threatened to become a mess of styles and sizes. In July, 1935 the State evaluated the results and finally issued a decree on Moscow Master Plan. The Plan, among other things, projected a clear message of Stalin's urban development ideas:

• New development must proceed by whole ensembles, not by standalone buildings.
• City block size should increase from current 1.5-2 to to 9-15 ha.
• New development must be limited in density to 400 person per 1 ha.
• Buildings should be at least 6 story high; 7-10-14 story on first-rate streets.
• Embankments are first-rate streets, only zoned for first-rate housing and offices^[14]

These rules effectively banned low-cost, mass construction in the old city and first-rate streets, as well as single-family homebuilding. Low-cost development proceeded in remote areas, but most funds were diverted to new, expensive ensemble projects which placed facade grandeur above real-world needs of overcrowded cities.

[edit] Moscow Canal (1932-1938)

Main article: Moscow Canal

[edit] Moscow Avenues (1938-1941)

In late 1930s, construction industry gained enough experience for large, multi-block urban redevelopment - so far, in just one city. Three most important Moscow projects were

• Gorky Street (Tverskaya), where Arkady Mordvinov tested the so-called flow methode of simultaneously managing building sites in different stages of completion. In 1937-1939, Mordvinov completes rebuilding the central stretch of Gorky Street to Boulevard Ring (with some exclusions like Mossovet headquarters).
• Dorogomilovo (including part of present-day Kutuzovsky Prospekt). Unlike uniform, tight rows of buildings of Gorky Street, Dorogomilovo road was lined with very different buildings, with wide spaces between them. It was an experimental stretch for Burov, Rosenfeld and other rising architects. These buildings were not as thoroughly engineered, as on Tverskaya: wooden ceilings and partitions, wet stucco exterior lead to higher maintenance costs in the future. Yet it is here where the Stalin's Empire canon was forged, in its clearest form.
• Bolshaya Kaluzhskaya (now Leninsky Prospect), a similar greenfield development of standard block-wide buildings east of Gorky Park

Kutuzobsky 26, Brezhnev's home, Moscow-City behind.

Dorogomilovo West, city "gates"

Dorogomilovo West, city "gates". Obelisk added in 1990s.

Slim mediterranean arches, typical for 1930s

[edit] All-Union Agricultural Exhibition (1939)

Main article: All-Russia Exhibition Centre

In 1936, annual Agricultural Exhibition was transferred into a green field to the north of Moscow. By August 1, 1939, over 250 pavillions were built on 1.36 square kilometers. A 1937 statue by Vera Mukhina, once a Soviet showcase at Paris Expo, was rebuilt at the entrance gates. Pavillions were set in national styles of Soviet republics and regions; a walk of exhibition recreated a tour of the huge country. Central pavillion by Vladimir Schuko was remotely based on the abortive 1932 Palace of Soviets draft by Zholtovsky ^[15]. Unlike the "national" buildings, it didn't survive to date (central gates and major pavillions were rebuilt in early 1950s).

Surviving 1939 pavillions are the last and only sign of Stalin's monumental propaganda, concentrated in their original setting. Such propaganda pieces were not built to last (like Shchusev's War Trophy Hangar in Gorky Park), some were torn down during destalinization of 1956, others simply fell apart.

[edit] Post-War (1944-1950)

Post-war architecture, sometimes perceived as a uniform style, was fragmented into at least four vectors of development

• Luxurious residential and office construction for the newly-emerged generation of Victors, the post-war elite
• Equally Victorious infrastructure projects (Metro in Leningrad and Moscow, Volga-Don Canal)
• Rebuilding war damage of Kiev, Smolensk, Stalingrad, Voronezh, and hundreds of smaller towns
• And the drive for new, low-cost technologies to resolve the housing crises, evident since 1948 and the official state policy since 1951
• Builging of new citys in especially in Siberia:Novosibirsk, Kemerovo, Dzerzhinsk and others.

Residential construction in post-war cities was clearly segregated according to the ranks of tenants. No effort was made to conceal luxuries; sometimes they were evident, sometimed deliberately exaggerated (in contrast with Iofan's stern House on Embankment). Country residencies of Stalin's near-royalties are on the top level; so is the 1945 House of Lions by Ivan Zholtovsky^[16], a luxurious downtown residence for Red Army Marshals. 1947 Marshals Apartments by Lev Rudnev, on the same block, is just a step down, also a top brass residence but in a less extravagant exterior package. There was a type of building for every level in Stalin's hierarchy^[17].

High-class buildings can be easily identified by tell-tale details like spacing between windows, penthouses and bay windows. Sometimes, the relative ranks and occupation of tenants is reflected in ornaments, sometimes - in memorial plaques. Note that these are all Moscow features. In smaller cities, social elite usually fitted into just one or two classes; St.Petersburg always had a supply of pre-revolutionary luxury space.

Penthouse, pre-war postconstructivist building by Vladimir Vladimirov.

Entrance with side views for security guards. Marshals Apartments by Rudnev, 1947

Details indicate social strata - House of Actors, Gorky Street

Bay windows, another luxury sign, a late 1952 Rosenfeld block.

[edit] Volga-Don Canal (1948-1952)

Main article: Volga-Don Canal

[edit] Underground (1938-1958)

Main article: Moscow Metro

This section is based on "70 years of Moscow Metro", a Russian edition of World Architecture Magazine, 2005. All station names are current, unless noted.

The first stage of Moscow Metro (1931-1935) emerged as just another city utility. There was a lot of propaganda about building it, but the subway itself wasn't perceived as a piece of propaganda. "Unlike other projects, Moscow Metro was never called Stalin's metro"^[18]. Old architects^[19] stayed away from Metro commissions, clearing the road to the young. Attitudes changed when the second stage work started in 1935. This time, subway was a political statement and enjoyed far better funding^[20]. Second stage produced such different examples of Stalinist style as Mayakovskaya (1938), Elektrozavodskaya and Partizanskaya (1944). 1944 stations were the first permanent Patriotic War memorial.

After the war, architects waited in line for the Metro contests; it took 6 years to complete the first post-war line (a 6.4 stretch of the Ring Line. These stations were dedicated to Victory. No more Comintern^[21], no more World revolution, but a clear statement of victorious, nationalist Stalinism. Oktyabrskaya station by Leonid Polyakov was built like a Classicist temple, with a shiny white-blue altar behind iron gates - a complete departure from prewar atheism. To see this altar, rider had to pass a long row of plaster banners, bronze candlesticks and assorted military imagery. Park Kultury (2) featured true Gothic chandelliers, another departure. Metrostroy operated its own marble and carpentery factories, producing 150 solid, whole block marble columns for this short stretch. The second stretch of Ring line was a tribute to Heroic Labor (with the exception of Shchusev's Komsomolskaya, set up as a retelling of Stalin's speech of November 7, 1941). ^[22].

April 4, 1953, the public learnt that a 1935 stretch from Alexandrovsky Sad, then Kalininskaya, to Kievskaya is closed for good and replaced with a brand-new, deep-alignment line. No official explanation of this expensive twist exists; all speculations revolve about bomb shelter function. One of the stations, Arbatskaya (2) by Leonid Polyakov, became the longest station in the system, 250 meters instead of standard 160, and probably the most extravagant. "To some extent, it is Moscow Petrine baroque, yet despite citations from historical legacy, this station is hyperbolic, ethereal and unreal" ^[23]. Actually, its vaults are parabolic.

Stalinist canon was officially condemned when two more stretches, to Luzhniki and VDNKh, were under construction. These stations, completed in 1957 and 1958 were mostly stripped of excesses, but architecturally they still belong to Stalin's lineage. The date of May 1, 1958 when the last of these stations opened, marks the end of all late Stalinist construction.

[edit] Seven Sisters (1947-1955)

Main article: Seven Sisters (Moscow)

Stalin's 1946 idea of dotting Moscow skyline with skyscrapers resulted in a January, 1947 decree that started a six-year-long publicity campaign. By the time of official groundbreaking, September 1947, eight construction sites where identified (one, in Zaryadye, would be cancelled). Eight design teams, lead by the new generation of chief architects (37 to 62 years old), churned out numerous drafts; there was no open contest or evaluation commission, which is an indicator of Stalin's personal management.

All lead architects were awarded Stalin prizes in April, 1949 for preliminary drafts; corrections and amendments followed until very late completion stages. All the buildings employed overengineered steel frames with concrete ceilings and masonry infill, based on concrete slab foundations (which sometimes required ingenious water retention technology).

Skyscraper project required a lot of new materials (especially ceramics) and technologies; solving these issues contributed to later housing and infrastructure development. However, it came at cost of slowing down regular construction, at a time when the country was lying in ruins. The toll of this project on real urban needs can be seen from these numbers:

• In 1947, 1948, 1949 Moscow built a total of 100000, 270000, and 405000 square meters of housing.
• The skyscrapers project exceeded 500000 square meters (at a higher cost per meter)^[24]

Similar skyscrapers were built in Warsaw and Riga; the tower in Kiev was completed without crown and steeple.

Upward surge of the Sisters, publicised since 1947, was recreated in numerous smaller building across country. 8 to 12 story high towers marked the 4-5 story high ensembles of post-war regional centers. The Central Pavillion of All-Russia Exhibition Centre, reopened in 1954, is 90 meters high, has a cathedral-like main hall, 35 meters high, 25 meters wide with Stalinist sculpture and murals ^[25].

Dual towers, flanking major city squares, can be found from Berlin to Siberia:

Moscow, Gagarin square; note different finishes	Minsk, Railway Terminal square	Berlin, Frankfurter Tor	Kharkiv, Railway Station
Red Square in Kursk	Novosibirsk opera and ballet theatre seen from the sky

[edit] Rebuilding Kiev (1944-1955)

[edit] Regional varieties

National republics were entitled to develop their own Stalinist styles, with more or less freedom. When local forces were not enough, Russian architects were summoned (Shchusev designed an oriental-looking theater in Tashkent, etc.). Alexander Tamanian, appointed as the chief architect of Yerevan, is largely responsible for the Armenian variety of Stalinist arhitecture.

Stalinist architecture was for a time employed in all of post-war Eastern Bloc, notably the Stalin Allee in Berlin. In East Asia, some examples may be found in North Korea and China, e.g., the Shanghai Exhibition Center, originally built as the Palace of Sino-Soviet Friendship. Stalinist styles were used in the design of Soviet embassies overseas, notably the embassy (1952) in Helsinki, Finland. The building, designed by architect E.S.Grebenshthikov, has a certain resemblance to Buckingham Palace in London; this is said to be due to the then Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov's liking for the official residence of the British monarch.

[edit] 1949 Stalin Prize

Stalin Prize for the year 1949, announced in March, 1950, showed a clear and present division of Stalinist architecture - extravagant, expensive buildings are still praised, but so are attempts to make Stalinist style affordable. 1949 prize was given exclusively for completed apartment buildings, a sign of top priority. It also demostrates clear class stratification of eligible tenants of this time. Three Moscow buildings received awards:

• Zemlyanoy Val, 46-48 by Yevgeny Rybitsky stands out in exterior luxury, even by 1949 standards. In addition to bay windows, it has elaborate rooftop obelisks, porticos and complex cornices. Even more is hidden inside. It was built for top MGB brass, with 200-meter apartments and a secure 2-level courtyard. Workforce included German POW's; wiring, plumbing and finishes used requisitioned German materials^[26]. In 1949, it was praised, in 1952 criticized^[27], and in 1955 Khruschev personally labelled it as "a pinnacle of excesses".
• Sadovo-Triumphalnaya, 4 by Rosenfeld and Suris is just one step below the ladder. Walls, deeply cut by bay windows and horizontal cornices, are finished in granite and terra cotta. Overall image is so heavyweight, it projects luxury as effectively as Rybitsky's work. A nice design feature is a second set of stairs for the servants.
• Bolshaya Kaluzhskaya, 7 by Zholtovsky is one of the first recognized attempts to cut costs per unit, while retaining Stalinist standards of quality and masonry technology. Two-room apartments are small by Stalinist standards, yet with plenty of storage space and a smart floorplan that discouraged conversion of single-family units to multi-family kommunalka. Externally, it's a flat slab with modest decorations following Zholtovsky's Florentine canon; no statues or obelisks, no bay windows. It was a sign of things to come.

[edit] Folding down (1948-1955)

A switch from Stalinist architecture to standard prefabricated concrete is usually associated with Khruschev's reign and in particular the November 1955 decree On liquidation of excesses ... (November, 1955)^[28]. Indeed, Khruschev was involved in cost-cutting campaign, but it began in 1948, while Stalin was alive and active. A turn to mass construction is evident in economy Stalinist buildings like Zholtovsky's Bolshaya Kaluzhskaya, 7. Based on masonry, they provided only a marginal gain; there had to be a technology breakthrough. In 1948-1955, various architectural offices conduct an enormous feasibility study, devising and testing new technologies^[29].

[edit] Frame-and-panel experiment (1948-1952)

In 1947, engineer Vitaly Lagutenko was appointed to lead the experimental Industrial Construction Bureau, with an objective to study and design the low-cost technology suitable for fast mass construction. Lagutenko focused on large prefabricated concrete panes. He joined rising architects Mikhail Posokhin (Sr.)^[30] and Ashot Mndoyants, and in 1948 this team built their first concrete frame-and-panel building near present-day Polezhaevskaya metro station. Four identical buildings followed nearby; similar buildings where built in 1949-1952 across the country^[31]. This was still an experiment, not backed by industrial capacity or fast-track project schedules. Posokhin also devised various pseudo-Stalinist configurations of the same building blocks, with decorative excesses; these didn't materialize. Concrete frames became common in industrial construction, but too expensive for mass housing.

[edit] January, 1951: Moscow Conference

It is not known for sure which Party leader personally initiated the drive to cut costs. The need was imminent. What is known is that in January, 1951, Khrushchev - then City of Moscow party boss - hosted a professional conference on construction problems^[32]. The conference decreed a transition to plant-made, large-sized concrete parts, building new plants for prefab concrete and other materials, and replacement of wet masonry technology with fast assembly of prefab elements. The industry still had to decide - should they use big, story-high panels, or smaller ones, or maybe two-story panels, as Lagutenko tried in Kuzminki^[33]? Basic technology was set, feasibility studies continued. A year later, this line of action - setting up prefab concrete plants - was made a law by the XIX Party Congress, Stalin attending. Major public buildings and elite housing were not affected yet.

[edit] Peschanaya Square (1951-1955)

A different line of experiments tackled improvement of project management, switching from single-building to multi-block project scale. This was tested live during Peschanaya Square development (a territory north from 1948 Posokhin-Lagutenko block). Using flow methode^[34] of moving crews through a chain of buildings in different completion stages, and a moderate application of prefab concrete in an otherwise traditional masonry, builders managed to complete typical 7-story buildings in 5-6 months^[35]. Instead of wet stucco (at least two months delay), these buildings are finished in open brickwork outside and drywall inside; from a quality of life viewpoint, these are true - and the last - Stalinists buildings.

[edit] The end of Stalinist Architecture (November 1955)

When Stalin was alive, luxury empire and mass construction coexisted; support for Lagutenko did not mean demise for Rybitsky. It changed in November, 1954, when critics openly bashed the excesses and the will to build 10-14 story buildings, Stalin's own will; according to Khmelnitsky^[36], this had to be triggered by Khruschev personally. For the next year, the campaign grows, preparing public to a formal farewell with stalinism.

Decree On liquidation of excesses... (November 4, 1955) provides some data on the cost of Stalinist excesses, estimated at 30-33% of total costs. Certainly, these examples were carefully hand-picked, but they are reasonable. Alexey Dushkin and Yevgeny Rybitsky received a special beating for triple cost overruns and luxurious floorplans; Rybitsky and Polyakov were stripped of their Stalin prizes. This was followed with specific orders to develop standardized designs and install an Institute of Standardized Buildings in place of former Academy^[28].

Stalinist architecture agonized for five more years - work on old buildings was not a top priority anymore. Some where redesigned from scratch; some, structurally complete, lost all the excesses. The story ended with completion of Hotel Ukrayina (Kiev) in 1961.

The majestic Stalin Allee in Berlin, also completed in 1961, was conceived in 1952, and didn't have too much to lose: the bulks of these buildings are definitely Stalinist, but the modest finishes lean to Jugendstil and Prussian Neoclassicism.

[edit] Legacy and Revival

Certain buildings of Brezhnev era, notably the White House of Russia, can be traced to Stalin's legacy. Deliberate recreations of his style appear in Moscow since 1996, either as infill into period neighborhoods, or as standalone development. Some lean to pure Neoclassical or Art Deco; with a few exceptions, their architectural quality and role in urban development is disputed. Examples of the least controversial kind are:

• Triumph Palace in Moscow, known as the eighth sister, is one of the most prominant buildings, with a sillhoute identical to the Stalinist constructions.
• Roman Court (Римский Двор, 2005) by Mikhail Filippov; probably better classified as neoclassical fantasy, yet related to early Stalinist buildings ^[37]
• GALS Tower (Cистема ГАЛС, 2001) by a team of Workshop 14 architects fills a gap between midrise period buildings on Tverskaya. Not intended to dominate the neighborhood, it just marks the corner of a block. Despite mixed citations from Art Nouveau and Art Deco, it blends well with its Tverskaya setting^[38]
• Preobrazhenskaya Zastava (Преображенская Застава, 2003) is a whole block (308 apartments and retail stores) designed in early 1930s style approaching the Art Deco adaptations by of Iofan and Vladimirov. An unusual example which actually looks like a period piece, not a modern replica.

[edit] See also

Enlish-language books:

• Architecture of The Stalin Era, by Alexei Tarkhanov (Collaborator), Sergei Kavtaradze (Collaborator), Mikhail Anikst (Designer), 1992, ISBN 978-08-4781-473-2
• Architecture in the Age of Stalin: Culture Two, by Vladimir Paperny (Author), John Hill (Translator), Roann Barris (Translator), 2002, ISBN 978-05-2145-119-2
• The Edifice Complex: How the Rich and Powerful Shape the World, by Deyan Sudjic, 2004, ISBN 978-15-9420-068-7

[edit] Footnotes