Tbilisi and the Open City “Hermetically sealed� Soviet dwelling
Special gratitude to G. Bichiashvili, A. Sioridze and his family, dwellers, who kindly agreed on an interviews
Before the Enguri Dam Housing Unit was built – Photo by Anatoly Rukhadze (1974)
Photo taken from the article - Architecture of USSR; p.54.
The city, with its physical forms and social relationships, forms a structure – a system that serves its inhabitants. It is a place that gives people the ability to create formal and informal spaces, further adjusts and re-develops based on the inhabitants’ needs. It can be described as part of ‘a social process’ (Tonkiss, 2013, p. 1) in which the relationship between ‘the past, present, and the possible cannot be separated.’ (Lefebvre, 1996, p. 148). Cities can be a closed or an open system. In the closed city system people are unable to make changes, these cities are built with a top-down approach, pre-planned by authorities and professionals. Closed city system is standardized, regulated, divided into zones where ‘everything fits properly’, with the notion that the planning will ensure its cleanliness, safety, and efficiency. On the other hand, an open city system is a bottom-up approach to city planning, in which people have an opportunity to take part in the city formation processes by active interventions. Diversity and density, the interaction of different people, street life, and the way people dwell and change create, as Jane Jacobs believes, an open city system (Jacobs, 2016). An American sociologist, Richard Sennett draws a parallel between these two systems, describing the closed system as a “harmonious equilibrium”, and the open system as an “unstable evolution.” He believes that a closed system has paralyzed urbanism, while an open system might free it. (Sennett, The Public Realm, 2010, p. 261) Allowing more uncertainty, chaos, and freedom, ‘the open city system cannot be designed’ (Christiaanse, 2009, p. 36) with a set of rules that help to construct the place (Eisinger, 2009, p. 49).It is a process that must morph together with its dwellers. R. Sennett describes the closed system as “overdetermined, balanced, integrated, a linear approach” and the open system as “incomplete, errant, conflictual, non-linear approach” (Sennett, The Open City, 2017, p. 14) ‘Cities play[ed] the central role in Soviet life’ (Morton & Stuart, 1984, p. X) and their physical characteristics were to be ideologically attuned to the communist doctrine. As such, Soviet cities were almost hermetically closed systems. While the Soviet Union was formed by numerous autonomous republics, with their national and/or regional histories and, consequently, identities, the decision-making process about the planning of the cities everywhere was in the hands of the authorities in Moscow, who used standardized and restricted doctrines without taking into consideration the specificities of the particular society and culture where the city was to be developed. They never gave people living in fifteen different republics, with the diversity of cultural backgrounds and geographic locations, the ability to take part in the city or neighbourhood formation processes, to initiate
Surrounding area before the Enguri Dam Housing Unit was built. (The photo was provided by Georgian National Archives)
any changes, and to create either formal or informal settings within the city or even in small neighbourhoods. It was a political and ideological process (Dehaan, 2013, p. 11), where the cities became the political and ideological battlegrounds, rather than being entities that supported the social structures and everyday lives of its inhabitants. These cities were never thought of as “[a] set of elements that create a certain system that co-operates or works together somehow’ (Alexander, 1965, p. 2). Natural city formation processes were fully rejected by the Soviet authorities, instead focusing on structured and planned-out ones, fully divided and organized by functions. Planners and architects had no right to make suggestions nor corrections, serving only “as mediators of ideological discourse” (Dehaan, 2013, p. 12). The housing units were standardized ideological objects, “by which formation of a new soviet person was envisioned” (Khazanov, 1980, p. 27). In order to draw a parallel between the closed city system and the Soviet city planning characteristics, I would like to analyse one particular housing unit, where architecture and its location played an important role in urban setting formation processes. I believe that the urban form of the unit describes well the influence of the Soviet ideology - the communist doctrine. By studying the building – its architecture and urbanity, I inquire into the reasons why this unique architectural form stands alone today as an urban structure with big open space without public access; why the form (architecture) and its surroundings did not change and evolve with time, continuing to be ‘hermetically sealed’ in the centre of the city that has been radically altered in recent decades due to political, economic, and financial changes. Vake area, in particular, is one of the main and admired places in Tbilisi. After the first master plan proposal in 1934, Soviet authorities decided to designate this area mainly for educational and research buildings (Kvirkvelia, 1985, p. 240). Soviet city planning ideology ‘linked work, education, home, and leisure tightly together’ (Sennett, Building and dwelling: ethics for the city, 2018, p. 85), believing that the quality and quantity of urban services, such as housing, provided close to the working area, would increase the productivity of Soviet people (Morton & Stuart, 1984, p. X). Following these rules, professors, researchers, and students received housing units in Vake and Saburtalo areas, which gradually became dwelling places for Soviet ‘intelligentsia,’ i.e. highly educated, white-collar workers. These areas soon started to attract high ranking Communist Party members, government officials, artists, and architects, who ‘frequently received above-norm housing allocation perquisites’ (Bater, 1980, p. 98). The housing unit I will analyse here is located on Chavchavadze Av-
Photo taken from the article - Architecture of USSR; p.55.
enue in the Vake area. Soviet authorities were not sure what to construct on this territory. Two high-rise buildings were already constructed in the neighbourhood. Only this particular plot housed several one-family house units, which at that time seemed out of the place. Something new needed to be constructed here, something more typical to Soviet city planning. Usually, “[i]n order to alleviate the housing shortage, the conventional building techniques and traditional methods of both building and planning were abandoned” (Engel, 2019) with a slogan to build ‘better, faster and cheaper’. For Soviet authorities, it was important to construct the housing units without decorative elements, prefabricated units with typical floor plans for the sake of saving money (Engel, 2019, p. 26). In addition, the ideology, in the name of equality, demanded sacrificing individualism to the standardization of building types as an urban ensemble (Engel, 2019, p. 32). It was a surprise and deviation from the norm when a talented and open-minded young architect, G. Bichiashvili was asked to design a housing unit for this area. The building was intended to house everybody involved in the construction of another monumental Soviet project – a hydroelectric Dam close to Enguri river. The project was later called Enguri Dam. Instead of repetitive monotonous and monofunctional soviet housing bloc with identical typology, cheap construction solution, and short construction time, architect influenced by Le Corbusier’s Five Points of New Architecture approach, proposed to construct a monumental grid-based reinforced concrete column structure with the free design of the ground plan, without supporting walls, and a façade with horizontal linearity. In other words, together with the constructor K. Meskhi, G. Bichiashvili proposed a new, unforeseen, interesting, and innovative form that defied soviet housing politics. Since this project was managed by Moscow, a discussion among higher-level authorities was held in order to approve the atypical project, considering the costs of construction, the individuality of the design, and the monumentality of the building. A special team calculated the cost of the building unit and presented the report to the Politburo1. The committee asked to make changes due to the high value of the construction, but the architect of the building insisted that the building must be constructed as proposed. After several important meetings in Moscow, the proposal was approved perhaps because the construction of the Enguri Dam was an extremely important project for Soviet leaders, or because they wanted to look competitive internationally and be able to claim that the Soviet socialist system 1
The principal policymaking committee in the former Soviet Union, founded in 1917.
artist’s studios/driers apartments technical floor OPEN SPACE
±0.00
common space/telephone service company garage/storage
was as innovative as the capitalist one. Be it as it was, the architect was privileged to construct a non-typical housing unit and the workers on the Enguri Dam were privileged to receive an extraordinary apartment in the prestigious city centre. In an article published in ‘Architecture of USSR’ (1981), Bukanov mentions several extraordinary projects proposed in the Caucasus region. One of them, the house on Chavchavadze Avenue. The author points out that Georgian architect had considered harsh relief of the city when embarking on this project, effectively used the city territory, and proposed unit construction decisions with interesting architectural elements (Bukanov, 1981, p. 54). The housing unit stands alone, with a 16-meter gap between the avenue and the building, as if floating on the water, with porthole type windows on top, and is connected with three narrow pedestrian bridges to the Chavchavadze Avenue. It has four closed entrances on the ground floor, as well as on the avenue entrance level2. On the first floor, the housing unit has individual storage rooms and garages. The second floor was occupied by a telephone service company3, which served the Vake area . Next to this area, on the same floor, a communal space was designed to serve its inhabitants during special occasions. Today, part of this space can be rented out, a part is used by its inhabitants. The avenue entrance level is an open space that can be used for by public or its inhabitants. The space has only four closed entrances for elevator and stairs. The next level is a technical level, where all building systems are hidden. Larger than standard-size apartments (104 sq.m. instead of 48 sq.m.) are located after the technical level on the following eight levels, with three-meter deep balconies from the east and west sides. The ninth level was designed for artist studios and drying spaces (driers). Upon artists’ requests, and probably one important telephone call away, the drying spaces could be and were modified and given to privileged, or most famous artists. Even today the building is famous for its large artist studios where famous Georgian artists have their working and, occasionally, living spaces. In order to have a recreational zone, which was an important factor for Soviet planners at that time (Mumford, 2009, p. 244), the ground was evened (extra soil was brought in) and prepared for a large yard. A 5 m high and 5 m wide embankment was arranged. The recreational zone had soccer and basketball stadiums, and a tennis court, which was surrounded by a bike lane – an unusual element at that time. The green space for kids and quiet places for the elderly were also planned. 2 There is 10 m difference from ground floor to the avenue level. 3 Interview with Albert Sioridze - Head of the Construction Process (Intervie conducted in August, 2020).
Enguri Dam Housing Unit 2020 (photo by the author)
Enguri Dam Housing Unit – Front and Back views 2020 (photo by the author)
As the architect points out in his interview4 , a) he wanted to create a housing unit away from the main avenue, in order not to clutter the main street and provide fresh air from the riverbed towards the dwelling unit and to the avenue. In parallel to this, by lifting, opening up the entrance level, and positioning away from the main avenue, he tried to unblock and free the street from jamming, since two high rise buildings already were standing on the avenue. He wanted to create a big open surface, to create an impression that the building was floating but at the same time to offer this space to its inhabitants as an open space. b) he wanted to create a dwelling unit that would not merge into the urban structure - an isolated dwelling island, an urban enclave, spatially, socially, and functionally disconnected from the main avenue. He envisioned to create a small neighbourhood for privileged people, even though the socialist ideology dictated to eliminate class stratification of inhabitants, housing repartition (social fragmentation of urban areas into zones based on linear city planning system) was very much at its peak during the Soviet regime. Class stratification was substituted with the social one, as people with similar professions and workplaces were thought of as one unit and grouped together through housing. The architect, partially in line with the Soviet regime’s ideology and its predicaments, intentionally created a dwelling unit on the main avenue with a restricted entrance, underlining the idea that this space was exclusively dedicated to certain people and only they had the privilege to utilize it. By considering these two major elements (isolation + fresh air jamming) he created a comfort zone for the particular society, with an interesting view, natural cooling and sound blocking systems, communal closed and open spaces and recreational zones – a unique luxury housing unit in Soviet times, quite purposefully tearing the structure apart from the main avenue. Soviet authorities gave permission to build this unique house, practically giving in to the class-based ideology that allowed for the space to be reserved solely for a privileged group of people. By doing this, they reinforced segregation of communities, building of class barriers. Speaking of barriers in relation to open and closed city systems, R. Sennett suggests that when constructing such barrier, “in order to achieve the openness, it must be porous, meaning that it must be accessible, it must invite us and tell us that it is our space as well. The distinction between inside and outside has to be breachable, if not ambiguous” (Sennett, Burdett, Sassen, Clos, & UNHabitat, 2018, p. 72). In the complex under discussion, the purposefully created isolated island, with three connecting bridges, created 4
The interview was conducted in 12.06.2020.
Existing Situation of the surrounding area 2020 (photo by the author)
a barrier that the general public was not allowed to cross in order to enjoy the open space, the view and to breath the fresh air coming from the riverbed. As a consequence, the new housing unit became a segregated and isolated small neighbourhood with very nice public space, which lacked the ability to gradually change and evolve together with the social changes, as well as the changes in city planning. One could argue that the open space on the ground level invited visitors without restrictions, but the location, the bridges, and the general atmosphere never gave a similar impression. The ‘porosity’ in this particular case was fully neglected. If you were to ask people whether they had ever entered the space, they would say ‘never,’ because it felt like others’ territory. The building stands alone in such dense surroundings, as an outsider in relation to the adjacent buildings. It is clear that Soviet city system – pre-determined, built top-down and segregated - was very flawed. It was a fully closed system, where people had no say. The situation today can be considered to be even worse, because the city is neither closed nor open system, since the inhabitants have never gained the right to decide how to arrange their city, and the private companies (instead of the architects and city planners) seem to be making decisions about what and how to build. The city has changed radically with ‘megaprojects’ being constructed by and for businesses that simultaneously appropriate the surrounding areas and get rid of all public spaces that the city used to have. To give an example: Along the Chavchavadze Avenue, next to the housing unit, stands a monument of a famous Georgian poet, Galaktion Tabidze. Surrounding it, was a big amphitheatre-style seating designed to be shared by friends and strangers. The space in general had safe, accessible, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing urban quality. The monument still stands, although the big green space is ‘eaten up’ by two high-rise business centres. Opposite the monument stands another high-rise building, which used to have a very nice plaza, connecting to the adjacent building and creating a walkable public open space. Today, on this territory an unfinished business centre is being constructed, without any public space. Next to the monument and the two high-rise buildings, stands a shopping mall. It occupies the area where first a green space and, later kids’ soccer stadium used to be. If we walk a little further, we see a newly constructed church with a gated yard. During Soviet times, there was a building in this area set back, and a small park was designed in front of the building. It was a place to ‘linger’ (Engel, 2019, p. 44), meet a friend, talk, and enjoy the quiet space. Today, people who do not belong to the orthodox church or simply are not religious, do not enter the space as they do not feel welcomed. Opposite to the church, another set
Exiting one Family Housing Units Enguri Dam Housing Unit Surrounding Territory Diagram of the existing situations in 1950s, 1990s 0 and 2020s
of high-rise multifunctional buildings have been recently constructed. The investor artfully appropriated part of the pedestrian walkway for the parking entrance, effectively closing it off from pedestrian use. Next to the church, there is yet another gated space – an embassy. Although it is a wonderful area, with lots of green spaces, interesting architecture, it is inaccessible, sheltered from the general public. Describing the current situation, we see that soon there will be limited space left for people to enjoy this area, because big companies are taking up public/ open/green spaces, which are important elements of a contemporary city. As Sassen notes, ‘Megaprojects raise the density of the city, but they actually de-urbanize it’ (Sassen S. , 2018, p. 50), meaning that they make the city unliveable for people. Finding ourselves on the opposite side of the Soviet city planning ideology, the question remains the same: Who owns the city? Who can take part in the city formation process, an important element for the creation of an open city, a city that belongs to people? Soviets built ideology-driven city systems, segregating the society based on one’s skill level and professional interests, not to mention bribery and nepotism. Today, the rich decide and create exclusive and enclosed spaces that are inaccessible for the general public. They seem alienated in the high-rise objects. Segregation is, once again, the main driving force of the city planning nowadays. As Tonkinss argues, a better objective in designing the city is not to engineer diversity but to design against segregation (Tonkiss, 2013). In Tbilisi, we are not even pretending to be engineering diversity, and we certainly are not designing against segregation. As the years passed, due to its location or it’s distinguished architectural style, the Enguri Dam Housing Unit maintained its appearance and, most importantly, saved the public space that today can be accessed by its inhabitants. It has not been harshly destroyed nor reshaped, unlike the buildings standing close to the housing unit. It seems that the building is ‘complete’, in a sense that its relationship vis-à-vis other buildings does not matter. It stands alone and, in the words of C. Salewski, ‘connotes limitations of access’ (Salewski, 2009, p. 147) for the public. It is a product of Soviet planning ideology – to plan a unit for an exclusive society and not for citizens who can actively intervene (Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 2016, p. 34) in order for the city to achieve openness. While interviewing several families living in the housing unit, I realized that each of them cares about the building, its appearance, and tries to preserve it as much as possible from interventions. They are proud of the unique, extraordinary housing unit and always point this out in the interviews. These current dwellers have developed an acute sense of ownership towards the building, as
The scketch was drawn by G. Bichiasvhili during the interview 12.06.2020
well as a sense of pride that their ancestors took part in the construction process of the Enguri Dam. They also take good care of the architecture by trying to preserve its original structure and reject every single proposal from the municipality related to even minor changes. They do believe that it is their space, their yard, their identity which must not be part of or blend with Chavchavadze Avenue. They believe that by pulling back they are protecting the building from the contemporary societal taste, from the politics and the investors, who have brutally occupied other territories in the surrounding area. They are thankful to the architect who, in their minds, has fully thought about their needs and comfort. While I strongly believe that the building has its distinguished identity, an atypical and authentic approach, and I know that the dwellers have developed a sense of ownership is preserving its historical and aesthetic value, I also think that, as A. Eisinger argues, the common space adjacent to the building should function as a space for social integration (Eisinger, 2009, p. 44) if we are to take steps towards turning Tbilisi into an open city. The Open City is neither a utopia nor a clear-cut reality, but a situation, a balance between openness and closeness, between integration and disintegration, between control and laissez-faire’ (Christiaanse, 2009, p. 36). It is a project which must evolve during its living period to keep the city open (Ipsen, 2008, p. 2). Soviet authorities tried to design the city based on strictly structured and regulated doctrines, by providing certain rules and requests, barriers, and restrictions, which later were hard to change, redevelop or restructure. Contemporary political and socio-economic situation, on the other hand, prevents the city from either closed or open development, since it rests entirely in the hands of businesses with narrow, private and unapologetically segregationist agendas. In this context, the Enguri Dam Housing Unit is in a unique symbolic place: it stands as a witness of past (Soviet) mistakes but safeguards the area from the current one.
Ia Kupatadze 01.11.2020
Works Cited Alexander, C. (1965). A city is not a tree. 124. Asatiani, N. (n.d.). Architecture of Tbilisi from 1960-70. Retrieved from ARS Georgica, George Chubinashvili National Research Center for Georgian Art History and Heritage Preservation: http://www.georgianart.ge/index.php/en/component/content/article/197.html?ed=17 Asatiani, N. (n.d.). Architecture of Tbilisi from 1970-1980. Retrieved from ARS Georgica, George Chubinashvili National Research Center for Georgian Art History and Heritage Preservation: http://www.georgianart.ge/index.php/ka/component/content/article/197.html?ed=17 Bater, J. H. (1980). The Soviet City. London: Sage Publications Inc. Baum, M. &. (2013). City as loft. City as Loft, Adaptive Reuse as a Resource for Sustainable Urban Development. gta publishers. Bukanov, G. (1981). Practice of the complex Industrial dwelling units in Caucasus . Architecture of USSR. Christiaanse, K. (2009). The Open City and its Enemies. In T. S. Rieniets, Open city: Designing coexistence (p. 416). Sun Architecture. Corbusier, L. (2013). Towards a new architecture. Courier Corporation. Dehaan, H. D. (2013). Stalinist City Planning: Professionals, Performance, and Power. Toronto Buffalo London: University Toronto Press. Eisinger, A. (2009). The Open City and its Historical Context. In K. S. Christiaanse, Open City: Designing Coexistence (p. 416). Amsterdam: Sun Architects. Engel, B. (. (2019). Mass Housing in the Socialist City; Heritage, Values, and Perspectives. Berlin: DOMpublisher. Gehl, J. (2019). Forward by Jan Gehl. In D. Sim, Soft City; Bulding Density for Everyday Life (p. xi). Washinton Covelo London: IslandPress. Harvey, D. (2003). The Right to the City. international Journal of Urban and Regional Planning. Ipsen, D. (2008). The Socially Spatial Conditions of the Open City-a Theoretical Sketch. Jacobs, J. (2016). The death and life of great American cities. Vintage. Jacobs, J. (2016). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vintage Books. Khazanov, V. (1980). Soviet Architecture. Moscow: Nauka. Kvirkvelia, T. (1985). Architeture of Tbilisi. Stroizdat.
Larcher, G. (2014). Library as a meeting place; Volume II. Lefebvre, H. (1996). The Right to the City . In H. K. Lefebvre, Writings on cities, Vol.63. Oxford: Blackwell. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT press. Morton, H. W., & Stuart, R. C. (1984). The Contemporary Soviet City. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Mumford, E. (2009). CIAM and the Communist Bloc, 1928-59. The Journal of Architecture, 14no; 237-254. Nunan, T. (2012). Ecologies of socialism: Soviet Gradostroitel'stvo and ltae soviet socialism. Journal of Eurosian Studies, 106-115. Salewski, C. (2009). Spaces for Coexistence. Urban Design and the Open City. In T. S. Rieniets, Open City: designing coexistence. Amsterdam: Sun Architects. Sassen, S. (2017). The City: A Collective Good? . Brown Journal of World Affairs, 119-126. Sassen, S. (2018). Who Owns the City? . In R. Sennett, R. Burdett, S. Sassen, J. Clos, & UNHabitat, The Quito Papers and The New Urban Agenda (pp. 48-51). New York: Routledge. Sennett, R. (2010). The Public Realm. In The Blackwell city reader (pp. 261-272). WileyBlackwell. Sennett, R. (2017). The Open City. In T. &. Haas, In The Post-Urban World. Routledge. Sennett, R. (2018). Building and dwelling: ethics for the city. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Sennett, R. (2018). The Quito Papers and the New Urban Agenda . In R. Sennett, R. Burdett, S. Sassen, J. Clos, & UNHabitat, The Quito Papers and the New Urban Agenda (pp. 90-96). Routledge. Sennett, R., Burdett, R., Sassen, S., Clos, J., & UNHabitat. (2018). The Science of Urbanization and the Open City. In The Quito Papers and the New Urban Agenda (pp. 52-149). Routledge. Tonkiss, F. (2013). Cities by Design: The Social Life of Urban Form. Cambridge: Polity Press.