Talk:Stalinist architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Stalinist architecture is part of WikiProject Soviet Union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Soviet Union. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the class scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Disputed

I don't think you could call stalins architectural style "conservative", and I don't think that Because he had total control, many of Stalin's personal tastes became the law. This is evident in many surviving architectural plans. is very npov. I'm not sure why you need to mention Such an approach was not occurring solely under Stalin because, in Nazi Germany, under Hitler, Nazi architecture had taken a similar turn. in the lead, around this time there was also futurism influenced buildings being built in the UK and the US, should this be mentioned? Really nice pics though and the article could really become something. - FrancisTyers 12:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please modify the article according to your views. We don't need totallydisputed tags here for long. --Ghirla | talk 13:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, for the most part I agree with the edits of User:86.145.18.53. The article is no longer disputed. - FrancisTyers 16:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My deletions

I deleted some passages because they were blatantly copied. Also, I removed the comparisons to Hitler because they were just ridiculous. This is an article about Stalinist architecture, not about Hitler. Are we to compare everything Stalin did with Hitler? ("Stalin had a mustache--just like Hitler!", "Stalin breathed oxygen--just like Hitler!"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.18.53 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 22 December 2005

Outside comment: I'm no expert, but the originally-disputed version didn't seem to contain any obvious factual inaccuracies to me. The comparison to Hitler is not totally out of place—how many other major national architectural movements of the twentieth century happened at the behest of an individual? There is a notable parallel between Germany and the Soviet Union, who had the leading schools of modernism in the early twentieth century, which came about because of a climate of experimentation, and both were stifled by totalitarian regimes.

A few quotes in talk and citations added to the article could probably settle all this. —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 17:07 Z

The factual accuracy was describing the style as conservative. I haven't read anywhere of stalinist architecture being "conservative" :) - FrancisTyers 17:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall to have contibuted a single line to this article, but I'm pretty sure that the Stalinist architecture was both traditionalist and revivalist in its approach. It aimed at reviving the architectural forms of past periods, mainly Renaissance and Neoclassicism. Perhaps a specification wouldn't be out of place. --Ghirla | talk 17:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It certainly was a conservative return to monumental Neoclassicism, after the radical departures of Modernism, Constructivism, Futurism. —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 18:27 Z

[edit] changing the name

this is classicism but stalinist one. builddung huge glorius buildings is not for workers, it is for stalin and the state. that's why we should call it stalinist. these are 'classicism' buildings but not the original classicism, stalinist classicism. Superzohar 06:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide any evidence that "Stalinist Classicim" is the established name for the architecture style? --KPbIC 16:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It is known that this architecture make use of classicist elements.

it opposite of modern. soviet regime didn't let use modern architecture so architect came back in time and used clasical elements. Superzohar 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

One simple reason why I oppose the name, Stalinist Classicism not only applies to architecture, it can apply to many other elements: arts, music i.e. it is a broad term. Moreover just how Classic was it is also disputable, some designs did formally remind of Neoclassic European architecture, whilst others went for traditional motives, I mean the VDNKh in Moscow, all of the republic pavilions were styled after the traditional tendencies of those republics. And the Seven sisters in Moscow were based on the Kremlin Towers. So I do not see an argument out of sense of naming for confusion that it would cause. --Kuban Cossack 14:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet architecture around the pretty corners

Sure, this is all pretty and great, but the article should certainly also cover the standardized, mind-numbing architecture of less important government/factory/apartment buildings built during the Soviet regime. That is, what you see when you look beyond the fancy regions of any post-Soviet city. In some regions, such buildings tend to be painted with distinctive yellow color and have white window frames, other regions have just plain concrete buildings.

Unfortunately, examples of these appear to be fairly hard to come by on the Internet. There's an article about this on the Russian Wikipedia, ru:Хрущёвка. Here are some more examples: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Anybody who has played Half-life 2 will also know what I'm talking about. -- intgr 17:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I added an article on Vitaly Lagutenko, the father of Khrushchyovka. NVO 21:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Point well taken, but it is beyond the title heading, and there is a lot on panelak already. There is more to be done specifically on the topic. First, it seems to focus on a narrow segment of architecture, both in time and function. Sort of a tourists' snapshot. It was wider than this. Factual stuff that's needed here:
  1. Early St.Arc.
    • Early St.Arc. examples (1932-1937: Langman etc.), quite different from what the article claims!
    • Make clear that before Khrushev's standartization, there was low-grade and middle-grade construction, also a part of St.Arc. Baraki. Poselki. Mention the other two reasons why St. dumped constructivists.
    • Mention the 'Early St.' revival (Afina Estate block etc.) of our times. It all comes back.
  2. St.Arc. and the GrandMasters
    • Fomin (!), Schusev, etc. how they fit into St. establishment and the link to 1907-1914 Neoclassical revival
    • Dushkin et al. - prized, lots of contracts, but not Stalinist at all!
    • Ethnic varieties (Tamanyan). Could be integrated into 'Abroad' section (it is abroad now, anyway)
  3. Late St.Arc.
    • The buildings awarded Stalin's prize in 1950-1951 (Zholtovsky, Rybitzky, Rosenfeld-Suris, Miminoshvili. Stylistic turn.
    • Make clear that in the last years of St., specifically starting with Jan.1950 MGK conference, St.Arc. took a turn from slow, expensive projects to fast-track construction and modernized technology. There was a brief period, ca. 1951-1958, when residential construction quality reached it's peak, at a lesser cost than traditional St.Arc., and looked nice too.
    • How it paved the way to what Khrushev did NVO 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the formatting of your post. People don't normally edit others' posts so I hope you don't mind. :) -- intgr 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to reformat the article

This are above comments expanded to a complete article plan.

  • Background. 1920s. Constructivists vs. mass building vs. Albert Kahn etc.
  • The early years (1932-35), demise of constructivists
    • Political will. 1932 crackdown on unions. 1935 Molotov's program, influence of Kirov murder
    • Constructivists' own weaknesses - floorplans, quality, experience, not scalable.
    • Role of arhitectural elders (Fomin, Schusev, Rerberg, Zholtovsky) and how they became official art.
    • Palace of Soviets contest
  • Prewar years (1936-1941), major one-of-a-kind projects
    • Not for the masses: A clear idea that St.Arch, as we see it, coexisted with lots of makeshift low grade construction.
    • Attempt to do ensembles, block-wide projects and how they failed for lack of technology and commitment
    • Example: Langmann (Moscow), Fomin (Kiev)
    • Metro (Example: Dushkin) where non-Stalinist architecture was very well welcomed. Burov's Lace House probably belongs here too.
  • Post-war (1944-1951)
    • Rebuilding Kiev
    • 7 sisters (who coined the name? seems like its English Wiki exclusive)
    • 1950-51 Stalin prize projects (Zholtovsky, Rybitzky, Miminoshvili) as a sign of things to happen
    • Ethnic varieties, example: Tamanyan (may be merged with 'Abroad', it is abroad after all)
  • A turn to mass construction (1951-1957) yet still Stalinist
    • 1951 MGK conference. Call for speed and scalability. Technologies for mass construction. Prefab concrete. 1951 Logutenko house at Skakovaya St.
    • 1953-1957. The summit before demise. Fast-track, large scale projects (Peschanaya St.). First 'standard houses' ans the last with old quality of life and build.
    • The crackdown. Example: Hotel_Ukrayina (Kiev)
  • Revival. Examples (Paveletzkaya Plaza, Triumph, Afina block)

NVO 03:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New version more or less complete, please review

Not to start a flame war of parallel text - opinions, please. The text is naturally moscowcentric; additions on other cities and the Canals required.
Stalinist architecture, new version for review
I'll keep it in the sandbox for a while, collecting photos.NVO 13:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it, but to many weasel words like a caption "ugly" but nice. Also the Metro can be expanded, add Mayakovskaya/Ploschad Revolyutsii as an early example. The VDNKh is you are aware was began with the mosaics that were latter crudely overpainted...Also feel free to add my Gagarin Square image...It shows perfectly how the Stalinist architecture began to demise... As for neo-stalinism then IMO the first example was the white house in Moscow...it contains certain influences that are unmistaken...--Kuban Cossack 17:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
ok, replaced the ugly thing with something nice. through me a link to Gagarin, the one I found doesn't show much difference —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NVO (talk • contribs) 23:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
Here is another word of advice - PURGE all americanisms from the langauge, this is an international encyclopedia and Moscow is technically in Europe which uses British English. You not need go full extreme to switch to British but International English, that IMO should be the one that wikipedia use (e.g. Metre, Aluminium etc.). It does wonders for the clarity of the article. Also a bit off note, but since you are writing so many bridge articles, why not code a template for Moscow's bridges? The image in question is the current wikipedia article... --Kuban Cossack 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The choice of British or American spelling is left to the author of the article, as long as it is consistent, per Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Although naturally you're allowed to state your opinions. -- intgr 00:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a job for native speakers. NVO 08:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well the problem is that it is not consistant. Most of Moscow's article, for example all of the Metro stations I wrote in British English. Although its not the spelling, but its the grammar. Words like "downtown" are not found anywhere outside the US. What's wrong with using "centre" or if you like "center"? I know the manual of style, but there are things we can do that excede it...Anyway, just further wanted to mention that http://www.walks.ru 's author, Alexey Troshin has allowed full free distribution of his works, in commons there is a special template for that. This should be helpful to you. --Kuban Cossack 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Content first, accents later. Anyway, I cannot write in the unfamiliar Brit language, this would be an odd invention. Last time I heard something like live Brits was an Irish-Estonian plumbers crew somewhere on Rublyovka. BTW, in Novo-Romanovskaya far from you?NVO 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IDGI

What does this sentence mean? "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." Anyone opposed to its removal? It seems rather out-of-place in the section that it's in. Recury 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)