Talk:Verkhovna Rada building

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did You Know An entry from Verkhovna Rada building appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 2 February 2006.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] Ukrainian name being a direct translation

Looks good: I think it's totally ready to move to Verkhovna Rada building and submit to DYK. By the way, is there a more formal name in Ukrainian for the building or the chamber, to differentiate it from the Rada itself, or is it just budynok Verkhovnoyi Rady? —Michael Z. 2006-01-29 17:23 Z

Funny: when the Ukrainian name is there, it's obvious that it's just a direct translation and seems superfluous. But when I didn't know the name for certain, I was wondering what the proper name was. Catch-22. What is the legislative chamber called, when you want to be more specific than just Verkhovna Rada? —Michael Z. 2006-01-30 05:15 Z

There is no one widely accepted single name. Sometimes in it called just "Verkhovna Rada" ("Скажiть будь ласка, як пройти до Верховної Ради!"). Sometimes Будiвля or Будинок Верховної Ради. The latter two is directly translated to the title of the article: "Verkhovna Rada Building", so I saw no need for a Ukrainian name there but I don't mind it, of course, if others think otherwise. --Irpen 05:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:DYK

Now that the article is here, we have a good chance to get something UA related to the front page through a DYK section. Any ideas? I have to proposals that we can feature as interesting trivia:

  1. The huge glass dome being on top (a rather rare feature in the modern architecture)
  2. juxtaposition of neo-classical Stalinist architecture building by Zabolotny, later accused in "burgeous nationalism", with the late baroque Mariyinsky Palace built to the drawings of Bartolomeo Rastrelli himself.

Other ideas are welcome. --Irpen 05:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Anybody know the diameter of the dome? Such big skylights are rare, and this could be an interesting factoid.

Also, did the pre-WWII building also have the dome? —Michael Z. 2006-01-30 06:37 Z

Suggested DYK:

...that the Verkhovna Rada building in Kiev was destroyed during the Second World War, and rebuilt, complete with a hundred-tonne glass dome over the chamber where the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine convenes to enact legislation?

If it's too long, then "during WWII" can be abbreviated. Feel free to post this at DYK; I may not be available for a day or two. Good luck. —Michael Z. 2006-01-30 06:50 Z

Well, Khreschatyk is about 1 km or more away from the rada, so "with Khreschatyk" doesn't really fit. We can say "with[[Khreschatyk#Second_World_War:_total_demolition_of_the_street|most of the center]]". I found a link with more info and added it to the article but there is no dome size there while the source is still great for adding more to the article. I will look for more info now but can't guarantee anything. --Irpen 06:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I thought this was right on the street; I've removed the mention, because it's not directly related (although it would be nice to link to that or another new article somehow). —Michael Z. 2006-01-30 06:59 Z
I had "(parliament)" in parentheses, but I think it may actually be a bit more of a tease to encourage clicks without it—the sentence is self-explanatory, even if you don't know the exact meaning of the term Verkhovna Rada. —Michael Z. 2006-01-30 07:01 Z

Still didn't find the size but found that the dome's weight is about 100 tons [1]:

"Та насамперед цей ремонт затіяли для безпеки депутатів. Над їхніми головами висить металево-скляний купол, який важить близько ста тон. І до цієї конструкції ніхто не заглядав щонайменше двадцять років. Тепер, окрім того, що помили люстру, ще й замінили десяту частину шибок, де скло було тріснуте."

--Irpen 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! —Michael Z. 2006-01-30 07:16 Z

Ok, I will try to add some and if not Michael, someone please keep correcting my English. --Irpen 07:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Modified proposal:

...that the Verkhovna Rada building in Kiev was destroyed with most of the city centre during the WWII, and rebuilt, complete with a hundred-tonne glass dome over the chamber where the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine convenes to enact legislation?

or we can make a submission related to the juxtaposition of such contrasting architectural styles. Suggestions? Corrections? --Irpen 08:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How about this shorter one?

...that the neo-classical Verkhovna Rada building in Kiev features the hundred-tonne glass dome over the chamber where the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine convenes to enact legislation?

And the longer one:

...that the neo-classical Verkhovna Rada building in Kiev that features the hundred-tonne glass dome over the chamber where the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine convenes to enact legislation was destroyed with most of the city centre during the WWII and rebuilt to its original style in the post-war years?

--Irpen 21:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I submitted the article for DYK at Template_talk:Did_you_know#January_30. Feel free to correct me there. Also, I listed it with a different Image:Verkhovna Rada cropped.jpg at DYL submission than what we use in the article because only free images are allowed for frontpage listing and in here we have the fairuse ones. Also, we could make a gallery from the building images of the Verkhovna Rada article in this Verkhovna Rada building article. I will leave this up to others. I have too little artistic talent. Thanks to all who helped! --Irpen 23:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I found out that the old Soviet Ukraine's Coat of Arms was still embedded into the black iron gates of Rada long after the CoA was replaced on the building's top. So, there was a trident on the building itself but the hammer and sickle based emblem on the iron gate at the entrance. I think it is an interesting trivia. I remember these massive gates with a very elaborate ornament. Is the Soviet symbol still there I wonder? This would be good to know for the article. Also, the expansions and reconstruction of the building, the underpass across the Hrushevskoho street would be good to cover. The ref has some info and more could be found. But still for a 1 day old article we have it in a very reasonable shape. Hopefully, it will reach the front page at DYK and will bring some visitors to this and other Ukrainian articles through links but not edit wars about number of paragraphs to devote to 1991 flag change. Finally, if anyone wants to make a gallery of the images currently in the Verkhovna Rada article, please by all means. --Irpen 02:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the reference to once destroyed building is irrelevant. "Enact legislation" is technically incorrect. Most important is the glass dome. I would prefer:
...that the neo-classical Verkhovna Rada building in Kiev features the hundred-tonne glass dome over the chamber where the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine convenes for parliamentary sessions?

Sashazlv 17:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK!

This article is on the main page's DYK section. Good work, everyone. —Michael Z. 2006-02-02 08:54 Z


[edit] Builiding style

According to an article at Verhovna Rada Library "Будинок Верховної Ради є зразком "української архітектурної класики"."

Do you expect that the parliament of "the most democratic country in Europe" will admit that its seat is the classic of Stalinist architecture? No matter how hard they may try to spot a "national heritage" here, the structure: a) dates from Stalin's rule; b) is retrospective in that it imitates the Neo-Palladian structures of the late 18th century on a more grandiose, truly imperial scale. Hence, it is the Stalinist architecture, although the term may sound repulsive to many today. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
А если мой дед хатынку построил в конце 40х, то она тоже сталинского архитектурного типа? :)
While the building was constructed when Stalin was ruling the Soviet Union, not everything built in that time is of Stalinist architecture style (which is by itself not of much difference from the neo-classical architecture style elsewhere).
Please bring evidence that this particular building is of Stalinist architecture style. —This unsigned comment was added by 134.84.5.74 (talk • contribs) .
The article Stalinist architecture indicates that after 1933 the state-controlled Soviet Academy of Architecture dictated architectural design. Perhaps there was a Ukrainian regional style (I don't know enough about the subject), but it seem to me that any major Soviet Neoclassical works of the period fall under the umbrella Stalinist architecture (and I suppose they were all Neoclassical, as Stalin had banned Modernism, Constructivism, and Futurism).
Anonymous, if your ded's house had been built by the state, and so required official design approval, then indeed it would have been Stalinist. —Michael Z. 2006-03-21 21:12 Z
No, Stalin didn't design it, my ded (=grandfather) did; Stailn didn't build it, my ded did; Stalin didn't provide any finance out of his personal pocket, my ded did. Stalin doesn't deserve any credit, neither for the whole house, nor for its architecture in particular. My ded does.
I brough this example with ded's house as a simple illustration that not all buildings should be attributed to the Stalinist architecture style. "Style" includes some characteristics. If the article "Stalinist architecture style" is pretending to describe all buildings in the Soviet Union in 1930-50s, then we are not taliking about a style, and the name of the article should rather be changed to "Soviet buildings in 1930-50s". --Anonymous
Like many things in the Soviet Union, this "style" is political. Since architectural style was approved by a state-appointed academy, by definition it was all "Stalinist architecture". It probably included everything built by the state, possibly anything big enough to require an architect's stamp (I don't know how Soviet building codes worked), and certainly any major public building like the Verkhovna Rada. —Michael Z. 2006-03-22 15:55 Z
Could you please cite the sources confirming your statement?--AndriyK 16:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Stalinist architecture#State control of architecture in the USSR. When I say "probably" and "I don't know...", I am making a common-sense extrapolation from what that article says, and of course hoping to hear from someone who knows better. Are you implying that the Academy of Architecture didn't have design approval over works in Ukraine? What is your interpretation? —Michael Z. 2006-03-22 23:01 Z
I think it did, but it does not necessarily mean that everything what was approved is automatically the "Stalinist architectural style".
To make such a statement in the article we need a source published by an expert in the field which classifies the building in this way.--AndriyK 09:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking about sources. Vasyl Stus does not cite any References and its only External links is added by Irpen (who is not the main author) and points to a small online collection of Stus's poetry. Do you plan to add references to the academic sources you use writing the article? abakharev 20:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I was planing to add the references, but I had to suspend working on the article because I do not want waste my time fighting with trolls.
Let's find another place to discuss the article about Vasyl Stus. This talk is about Verkhovna Rada building--AndriyK 09:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Correction: if also your ded's house was neo-classical.

The building is typical neo-classicism of the Stalin's times. Stalinist architecture is a specific term applied to Soviet neo-classicism resurgence. The building is built in this style exactly. There is a line between asking for sources and pestering. Some common sense has to be remembered. Otherwise anyone could disrupt any article by "fact" tags.`In fact, any number of "fact" tags can be added by a bad faith editor to any article at any time. I repeat, I am not against sources and requests for them, just be reasonable, that's all.

The building might have some Ukrainian overtures in architecture (while I am not aware of them). It certainly has a lot of Ukrainian style in internal decoration and I wrote about it in the article. Ukrainian architectural classicism of the site anon linked seems like a neologism or a hapax legomenon. There is a Ukrainian baroque but Ukrainian architectural and cultural traditions are rich enough to not need things to be added to them in order to prop them up. All we have is enough to be proud of. In mid-30s the neo-classicism was a Soviet-wide style in architecture, including in Ukraine. --Irpen 22:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Справді, архітектура будинку Верховної Ради виділялась серед будівель того часу дивовижною незвичністю образу - ясність, тектонічність, виразність, особливо зовнішнього вигляду, вивищували її серед усіх адміністративних кам'яниць того часу, великих, величних, грандіозних, пишних і грізних. В деяких із них яскравіше виявлялись новаційні прагнення, гостріше трактувались форми неокласицизму чи, вірніше, сталінського неоампіру, як це бачимо в адміністративному будинку славетного І.А.Фоміна та П.В.Абросімова, розташованому неподалік" (which is the Cabinet of Ministries builiding). [2]
В.В.Чепелик, канд.арх.наук, професор, дійсний член УАА, почесний доктор КНДІТІАМ
So far, all citations that I see indicate that Verhovna Rada building was rather build not in the Stalinist architecture style. I really would like to see a trustable reference that suggests opposite (if any).
Irpen: This particular Alex Bakharev's edition may be a good starting point. I don't understand why you reverted it, completely ignoring the reference provided [3]. --Anonymous