The Narkomfin building. A story of significance - Elena Petrasheva

THE NARKOMFIN BUILDING: A STORY OF SIGNIFICANCE ELENA PETRASHEVA ST EDMUND’S COLLEGE ESSAY 3: PILOT THESIS

THE NARKOMFIN BUILDING: A STORY OF SIGNIFICANCE Elena Petrasheva. St Edmunds Colledge, MPhil Architecture and Urban Design, The Faculty of Architecture and History of Art, Univercity of Cambridge, 2017 A design thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the M. Phil. in Architectural and Urban Design 2017.

Word count: 4983

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

3

“COMPRESSED ERA” OF RUSSIAN AVANT-GARDE ARCHITECTURE

4

CREATION OF THE NARKOMFIN BUILDING

6

LE CORBUSIER: THE UNITS OF SOCIAL ARCHITECTURE

11

87 YEARS OF SURVIVAL

15

THE PRESENT

16

CONCLUSION

20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

21

IMAGE REFERENCES

24

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text.

INTRODUCTION

«Architecture is a form of knowledge by experience», Although Colquhoun (Nesbitt, 1996, p.204).

The greater part of this essay is the telling of a story of an avant-garde heritage structure named the Narkomfin Building (n.d., 1930), which was constructed in 1932 in Moscow and has survived until now. With this story, the paper is an attempt not only to clarify the origins of the present situation around the building, but also to rediscover the significance of the avant-garde structure: to reveal the important social and cultural roles embedded in the architecture of the building itself. Lost, or neglected in contemporary Russia, these roles constitute a part of the state’s “multi-national identity” and require both attention and protection, particularly given the current turbulent times and the cultural and socio-political quest for self-identification and choice of its ideals.

The impact of the historical context is a crucial element in this study, both physically and theoretically, and is intended to highlight the social and architectural potential of the Narkomfin Building. While serving as an excellent example of Constructivist architecture, the building enjoys not only historical value, it is also culturally significant, and might arguably even be held up as an antidote to Russia’s present social tendencies. For these reasons alone, this severely decayed structure has a deserved right to be preserved after many years of neglect, and explored by the current and future generations.

Figure 3: The Narkomfin building. Perspective, sketch, 1930

3

“COMPRESSED ERA” OF RUSSIAN AVANT-GARDE ARCHITECTURE The 1920s - early 30s was a unique decade when the socio-political system of a young Soviet Union opened up the field of exploration for relatively small professional groups of artists and architects. It requires an act of a mental refocusing to understand the environment that formed a legitimate basis and systematic design approach for the avant-garde Soviet architects.

To their minds, design presented opportunities to realise in practice the noble dream of social equity, which was based on a new economic model of industrial and socialist society rather than on one of pure theory (Khan Magomedov, 2001). Among the post-revolutionary social values, the ideals of equality were prioritised: aiming to raise the standards of life for everyone not only through the development of a highly productive national industry, but also through a much fairer structured society alongside the fairer distribution of national wealth. Aiming to accelerate such development across the country the designers tried to create an appropriate environment for the future socialistic society and to express that in the architectural form not only aesthetically and functionally, but also socially coherent. Also, as Kopp noted, “It was on the cultural level that they proposed to act through the medium of architecture” (Kopp, 1970, p.116).

In 1926 - 1930, Constructivists - the leading group among the avant-garde Soviet architects – ran an influential periodic magazine “SA” (Sovremennaya (transl. Contemporary) Architecture), a brilliant chronological outline of Soviet avant-garde architecture in the most active years of its theory and practice. The chief editor of the magazine was one of the main leaders of the Constructivist movement - Moisei Ginzburg - also the architect of the Narkomfin Building. A combination of architect, theorist and scientist, he highlighted the distinguishing elements of a new soviet style and the specifics of the time. First, and one of the most influential, was the elimination of private clients and the emergence of a new type of client – socialistic people, those recognised as “a collective builder” of the socialistic state. It is to that “collective builder” rather than to separate individuals the new architecture serves (Ginzburg, 1926). Secondly, embracing Marxist’s legacy, that “social being determines consciousness” (Marx, 1859, p.7), formed the basis for the recognition of architecture as a formative and educational force of social transformation.

Thirdly, a holistic approach to urban design, expressed in the O.S.A. board slogan in 1930 “Work, rest and culture must be combined in an organic whole” (Kopp, 1970, p.198), was grounded on the idea of care about the collective through understanding individual needs (Ginzburg, 1929). Finally, an orientation of design thinking towards the future and no longer towards the past: in contrast to soviet architecture’s predecessors, “who were ready to search for the ideas everywhere, - but only in the past» (Ginzburg, 1926, p2).

For the avant-garde architects the rejection of tradition was a deliberate act in an attempt to free the national consciousness from the mental state generated over the centuries by autocratic socio-political system, absolute power of tsar and gigantic insurmountable social inequality. The traditional built environment with its aesthetics, symbols and functionality posed a danger of distortion for the new socialistic ideals. The “unprincipled eclecticism” and old decorative forms of different national styles were seen as a reflection of the “atavistic national idea” (Ginzburg, 1926, p113), while socialistic ideas served as a big consolidative and supportive force for the vast multinational state of the Soviet Union (Academy of Sciences USSR, 1930; The key, 2017), inherited from the Russian Empire.

4

Figure 4: Ethnographic map of Soviet Union (1930) illustrares 68 ethnic groups.

Figure 5: The key of the Ethnographic map of Soviet Union (1930) that illustrares 68 ethnic groups. Translated from Russian by E.Petrasheva

5

The contradistinction between the old hierarchical society, where only a small proportion of dominant classes enjoyed life, and the forward-looking socialistic society, which valued the interests of all, produced a legitimate base for searching for entirely new architectural expressions of the new social order, which were applicable to every citizen in this multinational country. Within such an environment and underpinned by a philosophy of socialism as a paradigm of humanity, Moisei Ginsburg together with Ignatiy Milinis and engineer Sergey Prokhorov created the Narkomfin building.

CREATION OF THE NARKOMFIN BUILDING After the revolution, Moscow became the capital of the Soviet Union and in the 1920s people moved to the city en masse to live and work there. To build a socialistic state the new government prioritised industrial development, which inevitably focused on cities, and attracted people from all regions of the country to the urban centres, especially to the capital. This dynamic invariably created an acute housing crisis, which neither the shelters inherited from the tsarist regime nor the ex-revenue houses of the bourgeoisie could solve. Three or more families often occupied 2-3 bedroom apartments of the traditional type. This was the source of constant conflict and made living conditions generally intolerable (Communal flat corridore, n.d.; Shared kitchen, n.d.), directly contradicting the ideals of socialism (Kopp, 1970). In the Soviet Union, this form of shared occupation became known as “komunalka”. The

Figure 6: The corridor in the communal apartment in 1930s.

Figure 7: The shared kitchen in the communal apartment in 1930s. The impossible, crowded conditions of new urban living contradicted to the promoted transformation of the society to the socialistic one.

simple construction of peripheral barracks or copies of bourgeois apartments also failed to solve the problem. It became clear that a new approach was required.

In 1927, the group of architects led by Moisei Ginzburg attracted public attention to the issue. Under the name of “The Stroikom Team”, government authorities appointed the group to thoroughly research and produce a new type of housing for a new client – the Soviet people. Khan-Magomedov, a leading historian of Soviet avant-garde

6

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 11

Figure 10

Constructivists/s research in housing, 1927.

Figure 8: The Stroikom Team’s graphs of living-to-circulation ratios in six new types, A-F units. Figure 9: Model of type F unit. Figure 10: Rationalising the kitchen: research stages from the movement analysis in standard kitchen to the design of optimised kitchen-unit for the Narkomfin building. Figure 11: OSA “comradely competition“ ideas of Vladimirow, Vegman.

The Narkomfin building, 1930-32.

Figure 12: The main facade of the residential block. Figure 13: The four-storey community building. Figure 14: The south facade of the residential block with the bridge.

7

Figure 15: The picture of some original drawings of the Narkomfin building, which were published in “SA“ № 5, 1929.

architecture noted that it was almost the first time issues of everyday life organization and solutions to them were studied at national level (Khan-Magomedov, 2001).

The Narkomfin multifunctional housing complex was the exceptional fruit of that research. Designed as a “transitional rather than fully communal” type of housing (Ginzburg, 1929, p. 161) the building embodied a great idea: “to stimulate but not dictate” (Ginzburg, M., 1929, p. 5) a smooth social shift from the inherited traditional lifestyle with its specifics to a forward-looking socialist life with its sharing character. (Ginzburg, 1929). In order to achieve this, Ginzburg designed the building as a composition of different blocks linked together: one with private apartments and the other with various shared facilities. This balance of the private and the common together with thoughtfully organised space and distinctive living units and close attention to the needs of everyday life as well as creative design and technical decisions, composed a unique avant-garde architectural experiment.

The Narkomfin building was built in 1929 - 1932 for fifty families of People’s Commissariat of Finance and consists of a residential block with private apartments (The main facade, n.d.; The south facade, n.d.) linked to a communal block via a glass bridge at first floor level (Byron, 1929). The four-storey community building was designed to contain a sports hall, communal dining room, reading and other recreational spaces with summer dining on the roof. Separately standing blocks comprised laundry, utility services and nursery. These structures formed the multifunctional housing complex, which included all the facilities necessary for soviet citizens’ everyday lives. The

8

Figure 16: The layouts and arrangement of F and K units in the Narkomfin building.

park area flowed underneath the living block raised on circular columns. This arrangement created the effect of lightness and spatial connection at ground level.

To maintain the continuous flow of shared facilities, the residential block benefited from a rooftop cafe and solarium.

This five-storey, east-west oriented block turned out to be atypical: due to its unusual internal structure, the main facades of the building are notably different. In the block, the two galleries on the second and fourth floor with panoramic windows and views to the park provided access to the main types of split-level-apartments: K and F type units – the product of Stroikom research. The proposed K flats (for families with children) and F flats (for one or two persons), demonstrated a model of improving quality of housing suitable for standardisation, fast construction and subsequently, for mass production all with the aim of ceasing the housing crisis. Under difficult economic conditions, the model of smaller, more economical flats of 30 m2 (F type) was the prime argument for the project`s popularisation.

The pre-revolutionary apartment plan was carefully studied and rationalised in order to radically improve the everyday experience of residential life. As a result, the residents of units F and K enjoyed double-oriented apartments with optimised living space, where high ceilings and large windows maximised the use of daylight – a critical factor of wellbeing given the gloomy Moscow climate. This was achieved via the exploitation of the unutilised heights of service areas like hallways, bathrooms and kitchens (Kopp, 1970). The thoughtfully designed unit’s

9

Figure 17: Meister Hinnerk Scheper, colour schemes for Narkomfin’s apartments, 1930

composition allowed all bedrooms to face east with the morning sun, while the living spaces enjoyed a west-facing orientation with the benefits of evening sunlight. Paying attention to good ventilation throughout, the size and shape of the rooms and even the provision of built-in equipment for individual time and space optimisation, the Narkomfin building generated evolutionary superior life standards with the goal to make these available to every Soviet citizen in 1930.

The exceptional Bauhaus Meister Hinnerk Scheper, who decorated the Dessau Bauhaus building, designed the colour schemes for Narkomfin’s apartments, staircases, corridors and communal spaces in 1930. He spent one year on the project in cooperation with Moscow’s Malyarstroi, the centre of architectural colourists. The discovery and knowledge of colour influence on space perception was applied to the building (Bollerey, Föhl, 2013). A careful selection of warm and cold colour palettes (Byron, 1930) made specifically for the blocks aimed to create a pleasant atmosphere in each of the premises. It was an unprecedented experiment in the architecture of soviet housing.

The architecture reflected the attitude of its creators, and marked the main direction of the profession – to continue “Elaboration of the architect’s social role today” (Ginzburg, 1927, p.5). Furthermore, the statement was a response to the situation in housing. As Kopp noted, by the end of the 1920s, the complete absence of privacy in the Soviet Union was a reality for at least 60 percent of the urban population (Kopp, 1970). The idea of the Narkomfin building gave every citizen the opportunity to escape from an intolerable existence in very dense shared accommodation to an unprecedented urban lifestyle: where finally, individuals could enjoy respect for their privacy. Such an environment facilitated the possibility for personal development, one enriched with opportunities for social experiences and exchanges. At the same time, the essential cultural and historical element of being part of a community – being more engaged rather than isolated – embodied the humanistic philosophy of the “transitional” type of house.

10

The building displayed a variety of facilities, absorbing utilitarian functions and allowing for not only greater time and space for work and private life, but also for inviting increased social interaction with adjustable level of engagement.

For the first time in Soviet Russia, built-in kitchens in every apartment provided an easy-access alternative to the communal dining room with catering service. Moreover, by taking women out of their traditional roles, the building epitomised a remarkable level of equality and support for the feminist way of life by 1930.

The “functional” approach was inevitable in the project, which aimed to solve large-scale problems fast and efficiently. Nevertheless, the functionality did not subvert the architectural design. Neither the pressing drive for the economic prosperity of a future industrial state, nor the theoretical tendencies to prioritise function over form were able to displace the noble idea of producing quality architecture for social needs. By 1926 Ginzburg had already stated, “The period of a naive “symbolism of machine” is passed… and substituted by a creative method of an inventor… , which service to its new client – the soviet people” (Ginzburg, 1926, p.1).

LE CORBUSIER: THE UNITS OF SOCIAL ARCHITECTURE One glance at the Narkomfin building is enough to see the impact of all five principles of Le Corbusier, formulated in 1920s and concreted in the Villa Savoy in 1928-30ss. On the one hand, the theoretical and practical achievements of Le Corbusier influenced the generation of Soviet avant-garde architects (Khan-Magomedov, 1996). On the other, Le Corbusier was very enthusiastic about the Soviet experiment, visiting the Soviet Union as a consultant on several occasions, he expressed his admiration for the courage of Soviet architects to translate theory to reality (Bollerey, Föhl, 2013), where he himself was constrained at the urban and social scale. In addition, he participated in soviet architectural competitions and considered “Moscow the most alive architectural heart” (Ovsyannikova, 2015).

Numerous printed sources admit the close connections and continuous communication between Le Corbusier and the main theorists of Constructivists - Moisei Ginzburg in particular (Cook, 1992). In two of the “SA” magazine issues, № 6, 1928 and № 1, 1929, Le Corbusier acted as editor together with Moisei Ginzburg. As evidenced from the letters printed in the “SA” magazine in 1930 (“SA”, №1-2, 1930), these two architects enjoyed close and productive cross communication over the years.

A historical overview and analysis of the chain of events allow the observation of a deep and significant influence of the ideas embedded in the Narkomfin building on the late projects of Le Corbusier; and likewise the profound impact of Le Corbusier’s principles on the design thinking of Moisei Ginzburg. Take, for instance, a comparison of two projects: the Narkomfin building in Moscow and the first and most famous building of the Unité d’habitation housing complex in Marseille. Many similarities and links are easy to notice. Those parallels reveal themselves in many design ideas, such as: •

The duplex apartments, or units, with double-height living rooms, and the internal organisation of its space.

In particular, unit K in the Narkomfin building and the typical upper unit of the Unité d’habitation. (Ginzburg, 1929; Le Corbusier,n.d.)

•

Built-in kitchens and furniture, designed as part of the architecture.

11

Figure 18: The first building of Unité d’habitation housing complex in Marseille. Le Corbusier, 1947-1952. The main facade.

•

The corridor-forums, which go along the entire structure.

•

The ribbon windows and the originality of the window composition linked to the internal organisation of the units.

•

The flat roof with common access, where the shared space is used for collective activities: sport and rest.

•

The principles of the building’s ground level organisation.

•

Introduction of various shared facilities considered essential to establishing a natural community for each of the buildings at the time, etc.

However, the most intriguing part is the dates of the project completions. The Narkomfin building in Moscow was completed in 1932 and the Unité d’habitation housing complex in Marseille built between 1947 and 1952. (The Unité d’habitation, n.d.; The Narkomfin building, n.d.) In reality, such a distinctive cross-pollination of ideas is not a coincidence if one tries to uncover the historical links between two architectural concepts.

Le Corbusier was not only familiar with the Narkomfin building, but also had a long, friendly and productive correspondence with Moisei Ginzburg, meeting him regularly during visits to the Soviet Union (Cohen, 1992).

Both were highly interested in the theoretical platform of urban architecture and the essential role of the collective component in social theory. They had a critical and especially interesting polemic over the question of deurbanisation (Le Corbusier, Ginzburg, 1930), where Ginzburg helped Le Corbusier to correct his understanding of possibilities and directions of urban design within two different socio-political structures of society: socialism and capitalism. The latter was pointed out as the main restriction for Le Corbusier in realising a set of brave social ideas and embedding

12

Figure 19: The Narkomfin building, Moscow, 1928-1932, Moisei Ginsburg, Ignatiy Milinis, Sergey Prokhorov

them in large-scale housing projects rather than being restricted to minuscule dwellings or private luxury villas.

Due to the extensive, friendly communication, it is no surprise that Le Corbusier visited the Narkomfin building a number of times (Kopyonkina, Cohen, 2008) and was very inspired by the structure (Cohen, 1992). According to Jean-Louis Cohen, in 1929 Le Corbusier took to Paris the original detailed drawings of the Narkomfin building.

Indirectly, this was confirmed by another historical fact, which was discovered by Ovsyannikova: after the Second World War the Soviet Union revealed the disappearance of the building’s original drawings when the Russian archives were found empty. Miraculously, the original drawings were later discovered in the Zurich archives of Le Corbusier. The set is a unique one, as it remains the only surviving original detailed pack of the Narkomfin building’s drawings (Ovsyannikova, 2015).

Another fact worth mentioning is the figure of the architect Georges Candilis, who participated together with Le Corbusier in all stages of the Unité d’habitation housing project. Candilis was the chief of directors in ASCORAL (Assemblée de constructeurs pour une rénovation architecturale), a department for innovative construction within Le Corbusier’s architectural practice. Born in Baku (Russian Empire), he lived in Rostov (Soviet Union) until 1928, and established very good connections with Soviet architects. After emigrating, Candilis stayed in touch with most of them and continued to closely follow the constructivists’ publications and work (Kopyonkina, Cohen, 2008).

To summarise, it is appropriate to approach all these historical episodes as an indication of the persistent influence of constructivism, and Ginsburg in particular, on Le Corbusier’s theory and practice even after 1932, when soviet

13

Figure 20: Le Corbusier, 1947-1952, The typical units. Section. UnitÊ d’habitation housing complex in Marseille. The internal corridor and the upper duplex unit are highlighted to mark the similarities.

Figure 21: Ginsburg, M., Milinis, I., 1929. Section. The Narkomfin building. The internal corridor and the upper duplex unit are highlighted to mark the similarities.

14

avant-garde architecture lost its political loyalty in the USSR. Alexei Ginzburg, architect and grandson of Moisei Ginzburg, shared his knowledge and vision on the subject by stating that: “When the Narkomfin building was under construction, the five points of Le Corbusier were already formulated. Even his villas were already completed. My grandfather was building the Narkomfin building under the influence of those principles, and that influence was significant. However, after World War II, Le Corbusier started to build large-scale residential housing: then, the influence of Moisei Ginzburg to Le Corbusier was notable. It was a fruitful cultural exchange” (Ginzburg, Mak, 2014, p.16).

Indeed, for Le Corbusier the Unité d’habitation was the first opportunity to build a significant-scale housing project with a distinctive socially innovative design, which not only allowed a reshaping of the residential experience in an effective system of living units, but also performed a social correction via the introduction of shared and communal facilities within the residential block. The architect thus took a step, which he had long striven for, to become a social reformer through the medium of architecture.

By the time of the project, Le Corbusier was nearly 60 years old man and had accumulated a tremendous wealth of professional expertise. Poetically described by Kopp, he “toured Europe as a young man, sketchbook in hand, visited the four corners of the Earth to study at first hand the accumulated treasures of the past” (Kopp, 1970, pp.189-190). In light of this, he chose the Narkomfin building as the prototype of an “innovative lifestyle” concept and embedded it in his project, which today inspires devotion from its residents; and he created one of the most famous works, which “proved enormously influential and is often cited as the initial inspiration of the Brutalist architectural style and philosophy” (Banham, 1966, p.16).

87 YEARS OF SURVIVAL The Narkomfin building is exclusive as an engineering piece owing to the decisions of its engineer Prokhorov. A reinforced concrete frame building was one of the first of its kind (Bogdanovich, 2016); the structural walls were made of concrete blocks, with the drains and ventilation hoods located inside the buildings, while the light bearing blocks and ribbon windows comprised the exterior walls. Overall, it was a high-quality construction. Prokhorov custom-designed and created several new materials: xylene for the flooring, torfoplity and rushes for the insulation.

He organised the on-site manufacture of slag blocks to speed up the construction and to test the “on-site” approach (Ovsyannikova, 2015). Already familiar with the last updates in the construction industry by studying German technology closely (Nikulina, 2008), Prokhorov applied this knowledge to the Narkomfin building. This allowed the structure to survive 87 years of neglect, which sadly began not long after the completion of the project.

In 1932, Soviet realism became the official and singular style in art and architecture of the Soviet Union. The rejection of the experimental house followed instantly. Even during the last year of construction, changes in the political environment followed by a lack of financial resources corroded the concept. By 1935, the complex was already facing the threat of demolition, which luckily, did not occur.

During construction, dwindling funds formed the argument for refusing the ventilation equipment, which was due to be placed in a specially designed ventilation chamber on the rooftop of the residential block. Instead of this crucial

15

and innovative technological element, originally envisaged to create a healthy environment for all residents, the first soviet penthouse for the Head of Commissariat of Finance appeared in the empty volume on the roof (Burlakova, 2014). Eventually the rooftop, which was designed to be a common space of recreation and enjoyment complete with summer-café and solarium for the residents, lost it original common character altogether.

Besides this, the kindergarten had never been built as a separate building, and the residents settled the nursery in the common block. This amendment destroyed all common block facilities such as the library, common kitchen and dining hall, gym and the roof terrace. After World War II, a covered storage space substituted the open roof. In the 1930s, the ground floor, which was originally left free and suspended with pillar, was filled with flats and received an additional extended volume from one of the sides together with a deep basement to help alleviate Moscow’s severe housing shortage.

While ignored by local authorities the structures suffered from a departure from their original design concepts, the park area fully lost its landscape design. First, the diagonal path that connected the residential and common blocks with the utility building disappeared; quickly overgrown trees and bushes then filled the park. These broke the visual and spatial links inside the territory of the housing complex. Next, the ground level of the utility block lost its open access and was covered to provide yet again more internal space. Such access restriction not only destroyed the visual lightness, but also excluded the possibility of entering the housing complex through the utility block, which is a single building positioned next to the main road and serves as a main gate. The wall, therefore, instead of allowing open access, cut off the Narkomfin building from the boulevard and its surroundings. All these changes significantly distorted the typology of the common spaces and its perception by the residents.

The perverted idea of common space as an organic and crucial addition to the private units instead led to a “corrosion” in the experience of private life within the units, which were often settled according to the equation: “one family – one room” of shared accommodation, in contrast to the original intention of catering to the individual.

On account of all the amendments and neglect by officials, the residents experienced a constant lack of space and facilities. Deliberately planned to prevent aspiration sharing, the Narkomfin building ironically became the worst communal housing development ever constructed. This parlous state invariably led to public attitudes to the Narkomfin building hardening significantly over the course of decades.

A few years after the complex’s completion, the local authorities painted the facades of the buildings with yellow paint instead of the white and red avant-garde version (Phedorenko, 2016) and the structure ceased to epitomise an avant-garde architectural experiment.

THE PRESENT The development withstood; and not only 87 years with no authorised repairs, but also 87 years of ‘unauthorised repairs’, during which many parts and unique details of the structure vanished: the original colours of many of the walls erased, radiators sold for scrap-metal, many original windows, doors, handles, gates were lost and built-in furniture destroyed, layouts replanned.

16

Figure 22: The Narkomfin building, 2016

In 2002, 2004, and 2006, the Narkomfin building was included in the UNESCO “World monuments watch” – the list of critically endangered cultural monuments worldwide (World Monuments Fund, 2017). Nevertheless, those years marked a start of what is probably the most hazardous decade for the building. Various factors provoked serious fears for the building’s prospects. On one hand, the political establishment, headed by Yuri Luzhkov, the ex-mayor of Moscow, clearly expressed a negative attitude towards the architecture of soviet avant-garde. According to Phedorenko, Yuri Luzhkov made multiple statements highlighting how harmful and mistaken soviet avant-garde architecture is. Potential investors, who may have been interested in the Narkomfin building’s preservation, now became alert to the attitude of the authorities, and didn’t dare risk dealing with the “unfavourite” architecture (Phedorenko, 2016).

On the other hand, since 2007, the main holder of the apartments in the Narkomfin building, Alexander Senatorov, has treated the structure solely as a business project for maximum financial gain. He made his position clear: whatever the final “repaired” building eventually looks like it must provide contemporary apartments “for particular people, whom I like” (Chachko, Senatorov, 2014). In response to any public protests concerning the preservation of the heritage building, Senatorov insisted that he “will be doing with the building whatever he wants, and has no intention to coordinate his actions with Moscow heritage authorities or any other regulator” (Chachko, Senatorov, 2014). Indeed, the ensuing insensitive repairs and barbarously performed “cleanings” of the building were in all

17

Figure 23: A severe deterioration of the east façade, 2014. Figure 24: Recently damaged communal block.

Figure 25: The staircase, probably in the residential block. Present state. Figure 26: One of the duplex apartment. Figure 27: The bedroom of F-type unit, 2016.

likelihood far more damaging to the structure than all the previous years of negligence. Alexei Ginzburg described the recent period the most explicitly: “Literally before my eyes, the original batteries were taken out from here on the wheelbarrows, the rain grilles and frames were broken down and taken away, the walls were repainted” (Kondratieva, 2016). As an outcome of those events and despite not only the official protection of Russian heritage authorities, but also the UNESCO listing and protection, the structure lost a great deal of its original details and continues to decay.

Under such circumstances, the hopes for Soviet avant-garde heritage remain in the hands of individual owners and their personal attitude and intentions. There is no effective government support programme, while the trend of disappearing avant-garde heritage persists on a massive scale. At the same time non-profit organisations assembled of professionals and amateurs such as “Strelka”, “Moscow which doesn`t exist”, “Archnadzor”, “MAPS”, etc. try to influence the situation. They organise educational events and make publications regarding the current situation concerning heritage, keep the public informed, and appeal for international support.

The physical decay of the Narkomfin building reflects not only a weakened economy and the pressures of

18

development, but also the tendency to disconnect individual life and interests from cultural issues – the result of partially lost cultural ideals in the country during the post-crisis confusion period.

However, following Yuri Luzhkov’s resignation, the Moscow authorities have softened their attitude to avant-garde architecture. That shift coincided with the change in ownership of the Narkomfin building. The new owner, Garegin Barsumian, has expressed a desire to make a complete and sensitive restoration of the structure, and to preserve all its initial functions. At least verbally, some hope for the Narkomfin building remains.

19

CONCLUSION The Narkomfin building is an exceptional structure in many ways. Extraordinary architectural, historical and social significance is highly concentrated in its decayed physical form – an attempt to propose an alternative approach to urban residential development, to reimagine and construct an alternative social arrangement of everyday life. It continues to prove its validity by being the inspiration and prototype of Le Corbusier’s Unité d’habitation.

Taking into account multiple conceptual amendments in the “transitional” housing complex started even during the completion stage it appears that the Narkomfin building was never occupied in a way it was designed for, and was never fully tested. Despite the distortion and neglect of the building’s original social and architectural ideas, these are still waiting to be explored. Born of an era when social equality became paramount, the Narkomfin building carries not only a rich wealth of history and aesthetics, but also the ideals of soviet avant-garde architects realised in the built form.

The theoretical position is necessary here. It brings an understanding of a prioritised social role in the early soviet urban design and, as Nesbitt highlights, offers “a continuous dialogue between the sublime and the beautiful” (Nesbitt, 1996, p.32), which may lead to the reconfiguration of “a contemporary sublime” reflected in the built environment of modern day Russia.

The potential of new discoveries inspired by the Narkomfin building or any other piece of significant soviet avantgarde architecture should not be lost either physically or culturally. As a higher and more universal model, the structure offers a critical dialogue with the present in shaping future prospects, perhaps socially and politically, certainly architecturally. While the trend of vanishing avant-garde architecture poses important questions of not only national self-identification on a global scale, but also the choice of ideals that each nation cultivates and carries to the future. With this in mind, the true significance of the Narkomfin building is therefore grounded not on looking nostalgically back, but rather on looking inquisitively forward.

Figure 28: The Narkomfin building within its contemporary dominative building environment. Elevation along Novinsky boulevard, Moscow.

20

BIBLIOGRAPHY Banham, R., 1966. The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?. New York: Reinhold Publishing Company.

Barkhin, M. ed., 1975. Masters of Soviet architecture on the architecture: Selected excerpts from letters, articles, speeches and treatises: in 2 volumes. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. Moscow: Art. Bogdanovich, E, 2016. Ten facts about the soviet house-utopia. Moslenta, [online] 16 October. Available at: < http:// moslenta.ru/article/2016/10/16/narkomfin/> [Accessed 23 March 2017].

Boldirev,V., 1989, Results of the USSR Population Census, State Committee on Statistics of the USSR. Information Centre. [pdf] Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. Available at: <http://istmat.info/files/uploads/17594/ naselenie_sssr._po_ dannym_vsesoyuznoy_perepisi_naseleniya_1989g.pdf> [Accessed 24 March 2017].

Bollerey, F., Föhl, A., 2013. Architecture of the Avant-Garde: Icons and Iconoclasts. Moscow Heritage at Crisis Point. No 1, pp. 33-49. [online] Available at: <http://www.maps-moscow.com/userdata/part_01.pdf> [Accessed 22 March 2017].

Burlakova, D, 2014. Narkomfin - barbaric development instead of restoration. Moskovskij Komsomolets, [online] 30 May. Available at: < http://www.mk.ru/moscow/2014/05/29/dom-narkomfina-varvarskoe-osvoenie-vmestorestavratsii.html > [Accessed 25 March 2017].

Chachko, A., Senatorov, A., 2014, “Guys, relax, you will not control us “: the new life of the Narkomfin building.

Afisha Daily [e-newspaper] Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. Available at: <https://daily.afisha.ru/archive/ gorod/architecture/rebyat-rasslabtes-vy-ne-budete-nas-kontrolirovat-novaya-zhizn-narkomfina/>

[Accessed

9

March 2017].

Cohen. J-L., 1992. Le Corbusier and the Mystique of the USSR, Theories and Projects for Moscow, 1928—1936.

New York: Princeton University Press.

Cooke, C., Kazus, I., 1992. Russian avant-garde: theories of art, architecture and the city. London: Phaidon.

Cooke, C., 1995. Soviet architectural competitions, 1920s-1930s.

Elkin, C., 2014. Saving of Narkomfin Building. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. Available through: Dickinson College website <http://www.dickinson.edu> [Accessed 1 March 2017].

Ginzburg, A., Mak, I., 2014, Alexcey Ginzburg, an architect and a grandson of the Narkomfin building’s creator, dispelled the myth that the monument of constructivism cannot be restored. The Art Newspaper Russia [e-journal] Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. Available through: Google Books website <https://books.google.co.uk> [Accessed 18 March 2017].

Ginzburg, M., 1924. Style and epoch: Problems of modern architecture. [e-book] Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. Moscow: State-publishing House. Available through: National Electronic Library website <http://нэб. рф> [Accessed 14 March 2017].

Ginzburg, M., 1926. New methods of architectural thoughts. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. SA, no.1, pp.1-4.

Ginzburg, M., 1926. International front of contemporary architecture. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva.

SA, no.2, pp.41-46.

21

Ginzburg, M., 1926. The functional method and form. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. SA, no.4, pp.8992.

Ginzburg, M., 1926. The national architecture of ethnic groups in USSR. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva.

SA, no.5-6, pp.113-114.

Ginzburg, M., 1927. Aims in contemporary architecture. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. SA, no.1, pp.410.

Ginzburg, M., 1929. Problems of housing typification in RSFSR: Report at the plenary session of the RSFSR Stroikom. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. SA, no.1, pp.4-6.

Ginzburg, M., 1929. The housing complex for employees of Narkomfin, Moscow. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. SA, no.5, pp.161-162.

Harris, E. ed., 2009. Moscow Heritage at Crisis Point. Updated, expanded edition. Moscow: Save Europe`s Heritage.

Igumnova, Z., 2016. Narkomfin building at Novinsky Boulevard will gain the original look. Izvestiia. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. [online] Available at: <http://izvestia.ru/news/627641> [Accessed 13 February 2016].

Khan-Magomedov, S. O., 1972. M. Ya. Ginzburg. [e-book] Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. Moscow: Stroizdat. Available at Alyoshin.ru <http://www.alyoshin.ru> [Accessed 14 March 2017].

Khan-Magomedov, S. O., 1996. The Architecture of the Russian avant-garde. Volume 1: Problems of formation.

Masters and flows. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. Moscow: Stroizdat.

Khan-Magomedov, S. O., 2001. The Architecture of the Russian avant-garde. Volume 2: Social Problems. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. Moscow: Stroizdat.

Kondratieva, S., 2016. How the Narkomfin Building will be restored. Strelka Magazine, Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. [online] Available at <http://strelka.com/ru/magazine/2016/09/26/the-reconstruction-of-narkomfin> [Accessed 7 December 2016].

Kopyonkina. O, Cohen. J-L., 2008. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Lost Avant-garde. Soviet architecture during 1922-1932.â&#x20AC;? Moscow art magazine, [online] Available at < http://xz.gif.ru/numbers/67-68/vetshaiushy-radicalizm/> [Accessed 20 March 2017].

Kopp, A., 1970. Town and revolution: Soviet architecture and city planning 1917-1935. London: Thames and Hudson.

Le Corbusier, Ginzburg, M., 1930. Le Corbusier - Ginzburg Correspondence. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. SA, no.1-2, p. 61.

Le Corbusier, 1986. Towards a New Architecture. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. Lefebvre, H., 1991. The Production of Space. Translated from French by D. Nicholson-Smith. Oxford : Basil Blackwell.

Levitas, R., 2013. Utopia as Method: The Imaginary Reconstitution of Society. Houndmills, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Marx, K., 1859, Vol 13. Towards the critic of political economy. Translated by N.Ter-Akopyan,1959. Moscow: Polittzdat.

Nesbitt, K. ed., 1996. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: Anthology of Architectural Theory, 1965-95. New

22

York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Nikulina, E., 2008. Narkomfin building. Collisions of the life. Archnadzor, [online] Available at: <http://www. archnadzor.ru/2008/04/07/dom-narkomfina-zhiznenny-e-kollizii/> [Accessed 15 March 2017].

Ovsyannikova, E., 2015. Residential complex â&#x20AC;&#x153;Narkonfin Building.â&#x20AC;? Moisei Ginsburg, Ignatiy Milinis, Alexey Prokhorov. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. Yekaterinburg: Tatlin.

Ovsyannikova, E., 2010. The problems of architectural heritage in Moscow in first half of XX century and today.

Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. 75 years of the Roerich Pact, no.1, pp. 378-384.

Pasternak, A., 1927. New forms of contemporary housing. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. SA, no.4-5, pp. 125-129.

Phedorenko, N., 2016. Where do you live& I live in the Narkonfin building. The Village, [online] Available at < http:// www.the-village.ru/village/city/where/251641-narkomfin> [Accessed 10 March 2017].

Piketty, T., 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Translated from French by A. Goldhammer. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Rann, J., 2014. Narkomfin: Can a Utopian Housing Project Survive in Modern Moscow? The Calvert Journal, [online] Available at <http://calvertjournal.com/comment/show/2294/narkomfin-moscow-constructivism-renovation> [Accessed 10 March 2017].

Rigby, A., 1974. Alternative realities: a study of communes and their members. London, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Tafuri, M., 1976. Architecture and utopia: design and capitalist development. Translated from Italian by B. L. La Penta. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Veymarn, B., Kolpinskiy, Y., 1965, Vol.6 (2). General art history. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. Moscow: Art. World Monuments Fund, 2017. Narkomfin building. [online] Available at: < https://www.wmf.org/project/narkomfinbuilding > [Accessed 16 March 2017].

23

IMAGE REFERENCES Figure 1. [The south facade of the Narkomfin building in 2016, Cover photo] n.d. [image online] Available at: <https:// birdinflight.com/ru/mir/20160921-zhile-novogo-cheloveka-nedolgaya-zhizn-konstruktivizma.html> [Accessed 5 November 2016].

Figure 2. Own drawing, 2017, Moscow map. Cover background.

Figure 3. [The Narkomfin building. Perspective. Sketch] n.d., 1930, [Drawing] In: Kopp, A., 1970. Town and revolution: Soviet archi-tecture and city planning 1917-1935. London: Thames and Hudson. p. 116.

Figure 4. Academy of Sciences Commission for the Study of the ethnic composition of the USSR, 1930, Ethnographic map of Soviet Union, in Russian [image online] Available at: <http://heninen.net/view.htm?F=karjalantasavalta&P= etnografinen.jpg> [Accessed 5 March 2017].

Figure 5. Own drawing, 2017, The Key to the Ethnographic map of Soviet Union, translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva.

Figure 6. [The corridor in the communal apartment] n.d. [image online] Available at: < http://maxim-nm.livejournal. com/220812.html > [Accessed 29 December 2016].

Figure 7. [The shared kitchen in the communal apartment in 1930s] n.d. [image online] Available at: <http://myhistori. ru/blog/43660137707/Pro-kommunalnyie-kvartiryi> [Accessed 2 January 2017].

Figure 8: The Stroikom Team, 1929, The Graphs of living-to-circulation ratios in six new types, A-F units. [image online] Available at: <http://www.alyoshin.ru/Files/publika/khan_magomedov/khan_ginsburg_05.html> [Accessed 11 January 2017].

Figure 9: The Stroikom Team, 1929, Model of type F unit. [photograph] In: Kopp, A., 1970. Town and revolution: Soviet architecture and city planning 1917-1935. London: Thames and Hudson. p. 133.

Figure 10: The Stroikom Team, 1929, Model of type F unit. [image online] Available at: < http://www.alyoshin.ru/ Files/publika/khan_magomedov/khan_ginsburg_05.html> [Accessed 11 January 2017].

Figure 11: OSA, 1927, “Comradely competition“ ideas of Vladimirow, Vegman. [image online] Available at: <http:// tehne.com/assets/i/upload/library/sa-1927-4-5-1400-031.jpgi> [Accessed 20 January 2017].

Figure 12: [The main facade of the residential block] n.d. [image online] Available at: <https://thecharnelhouse. org/2013/10/05/dom-narkomfin-in-moscow-1929/#jp-carousel-12461> [Accessed 5 January 2017].

Figure 13: Byron, R., 1929, Narkonfin Apartments, Moscow, Russia. [image online] Available through: The Courtauld Institute of Art website <http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk > [Accessed 2 March 2017].

Figure 14: [The south facade of the residential block with the bridge to the community building] n.d., 1930-1940 [image online] Avail-able at: <https://pastvu.com/p/2649 12461> [Accessed 5 January 2017].

Figure 15: Ginsburg, M., Milinis, I., [The picture of some original drawings of the Narkomfin building, which were published in “SA“ № 5, 1929] 1929 [image online] Available at: <http://www.archfondas.lt/leidiniu/en/alf-02/eannabronovitskaya-glimpses-today-visions-russian-avant-garde-architects> [Accessed 4 January 2017].

Figure 16: Own drawing, 2017, The arrangement of F and K units in the Narkomfin building.

24

Figure 17: Scheper, M., H., 1930. The colour schemes for Narkomfin’s apartments. [print] In Ovsyannikova, E., 2015. Residential complex “Narkonfin Building.” Moisei Ginsburg, Ignatiy Milinis, Alexey Prokhorov. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. Yeka-terinburg: Tatlin. p. 393.

Figure 18: [The first building of Unité d’habitation housing complex in Marseille. Le Corbusier, 1947-1952. The main facade. [image online] Available at: <http://www.habitermarseille.com/lieux-projets-la+cite+radieuse+du+corbusier +et+le+mamo+au+coeur+de+mp2013-56.html> [Accessed 15 March 2017].

Figure 19: [The Narkomfin building, Moscow] n.d., [image online] Available at: <https://www.flickr.com/ photos/98803345@N06/10098618426> [Accessed 15 March 2017].

Figure 20: Le Corbusier, 1947-1952, The typical units. Section. Unité d’habitation housing complex in Marseille. [image online] Avail-able at: <https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2014/09/Unite-d-Habitation-by-Le-Corbusier_ Foundation-Le-Corbusier_dezeen_468_1_1000.jpg> [Accessed 10 March 2017].

Figure 21: Ginsburg, M., Milinis, I., 1929. Section. The Narkomfin building. [image online] Available at: <http:// www.archfondas.lt/leidiniu/en/alf-02/eanna-bronovitskaya-glimpses-today-visions-russian-avant-garde-architects> [Accessed 9 March 2017].

Figure 22: Bronovitskaya, A., 2012, The Narkomfin Building. [image online] Available at: <http://www.archfondas. lt/leidiniu/en/alf-02/eanna-bronovitskaya-glimpses-today-visions-russian-avant-garde-architects uk > [Accessed 2 March 2017].

Figure 23: [The Narkomfin building, Moscow, Present state, 2014] n.d [photograph] In Ovsyannikova, E., 2015.

Residential complex “Narkonfin Building.” Moisei Ginsburg, Ignatiy Milinis, Alexey Prokhorov. Translated from Russian by E. Petrasheva. Yekaterinburg: Tatlin. p. 397.

Figure 24: [Decayed communal block. The Narkomfin Building] n.d. [image online] Available at: <http://julikc. livejournal.com/573.html> [Accessed 4 Februrary 2017].

Figure 25: Leonov, G., 2016. The staircase, probably in the residential block. [image online] Available at: <http:// www.strelka.com/ru/magazine/2016/09/26/the-reconstruction-of-narkomfin> [Accessed 15 March 2017].

Figure 26: Bochkarev, B., n.d. One of the apartment. [image online] Available at: <http://bochkarev-msc.livejournal. com/17698.html> [Accessed 5 Februrary 2017].

Figure 27: Leonov, G., 2016. The bedroom of F-type unit. [image online] Available at: <http://www.strelka.com/ru/ magazine/2016/09/26/the-reconstruction-of-narkomfin> [Accessed 15 March 2017].

Figure 28: Own drawing, 2017, The Narkomfin building within its contemporary dominative building environment, Moscow.

25

THE NARKOMFIN BUILDING: STORY OF SIGNIFICANCE

ELENA PETRASHEVA

Cambridge, 2017