Reconstruction plan of Moscow 1935 as an urbanistic concept

p. 1

RECONSTRUCTION PLAN OF MOSCOW 1935 as an urbanistic concept

Eindhoven University of Technology Faculty of Urban Design & Planning Master of Architecture, Building and Planning 7W265 - Urbanistic concepts

Tutor: dr.ir.C.H.(Kees) Doevendans July 2014

Student: E.D. (Elena) Bulanova (0867625)

p. 2

CONTENT introduction

3

history overview

3

research question

7

paradigm according to Thomas Kuhn

9

project as a paradigm

12

master plan 1935

17

avant-garde ideas in the plan of 1935

20

loci of debate

21

profession-discipline

21

paradigm-shift

21

conclusion

22

references

23

p. 3

INTRODUCTION

HISTORY OVERVIEW

History of Moscow covers more than eight centuries and in each period of social evolution it possessed certain social, economic and cultural features.

Each generation altered, enriched, and widened the city structure of the capital.

The 20th century appeared to be a significant period in the development of Moscow. After the October Revolution the country stepped in the era of ‘buildings communism’. In time of the first five-year plans during the program of socialistic transformation of the country the design and realization of the 1935 General plan of reconstruction of Moscow played a very significant role. The new plan had to satisfy political and ideological requirements. However, it had represented new ideas in urbanism of the USSR and became an exemplar for further urban developments in the soviet cities.

Moscow started its long story in 1147, then it was first time in the history mentioned in the letter of its founder, Uriy Dolgorukiy, to his brother. In less than 200 years after that Moscow grow in the prosperous and stable principality, known as a Grand Duchy of Moscow. In 1368 wooden walls of the Kremlin, the heart of Moscow for all times, were replaced with stone fortifications to protect its inhabitants from enemies and fires. In 1480 Russian people were finally free from Tatar control, which lasted 200 years , and Moscow became the center of power in Russia. The city was growing as an important trade, economic, cultural center.

It was the time than Moscow architecture started to develop. During the reign of Peter the Great (1682 – 1725) Moscow lost its capital status to newly built Saint Petersburg. In 1812 Napoleon invasion played the crucial role in urban structure of Moscow – the biggest fire in its history destroyed more than a half of the city and that started by the inhabitants. This way Napoleon army came to burn down city with no food provision and supply. According to historical statistics only 2.696 buildings out of 9.158 survived but Moscow was proud enough to be not another trophy of Napoleon. It took long time to be fully reconstructed. In 1861 finally in the Russian Empire the abolition of serfdom was announced and due to the fact Moscow population started to grow rapidly: from 364.000 people in 1864 to more than 1 million people in the end of the 19th century.

The realization plan changed the structure of Moscow dramatically and influenced the development of Moscow for the next 80 years till nowadays. The great ideas implemented in the 1935 Reconstruction plan are still used in the current urban planning of Russia. The realized concepts of plans resulted in 2000s to new problems the city is still facing.

background. problem of the city From the second part of the 19th century till the October Revolution Moscow had lots of changed due to strong development of industry, the construction on its territory big railway hub and ,as it was said before, the abolition of serfdom.

All these factors and caused boost of the inhabitants of Moscow and lead to , one the one hand, higher density, on the other hand, less green territories and pollution of the inside city. year 1885 1895 1917 1936 1980 2012

population 800.000 1.000.000 1.800.000 3.640.000 8.000.000 more than 12.000.000

Table of demograthic growth of Moscow

p. 4 Planning structure of the second part of the 19th century is characterized by development of several highways. Along the roads starting from Moscow to Tver, Yaroslavl, Smolensk, Ryazan new villages were appearing and this way creating a continue of city buildings. Around the industrial zones new worker’s towns were built.

The center district of Moscow Kitay-gorod was reloaded with retail centers and offices.Moscow had narrows streets, not enough capacity to transport enough people. Except some bus lines, the only public transport was tram.

In the meantime, the city remained to have medieval grid of curve and narrow alleys, cul-de-sacs and small districts, where among stone palaces, rich estates and high store apartment houses there located poverty-struck wooden huts. New type of ‘business’ centers appeared: banks, auction house, retail companies.

New privileged social level of bourgeoisie appeared. Moscow got an enormous chaos in its functional structure. All attempts to organize the building structure and streets of Moscow were not successful due to resistant of landlords. It must be mention that no development plans had even been made for Moscow – the city was developing evolutionary and in some way chaotic.

There were not enough multistoried social housing buildings. There no sewerage, mostly wooden heating, rare electricity columns. No asphalt, paved roads only in some places in the center. No new housing estates were built. People had to live in dark wet basements. Till the end of the 50s Moscow was called “big village”.

In the 20s millions of people need food, water and work. The conservation of the historical heritage was not even raised up as a problem. Old world was about to be destroyed, and new world to be built. In this time the country was rather poor and there were no money for total destruction and completely new building. The churches were broken down for bricks, wooden palaces were broken down for woods. In this time, even 5-store houses were miracles for Moscow-citizens.

Political background

The year 1917 appeared to be momentous in the history of the Russian people, country itself, Moscow and, probably, the whole world. In this essay it is necessary to mention some important dates of political life of the country as the political situation has been influencing the development of Moscow for all its time and later in the essay the connection between the communistic government and urbanism in the USSR will be described deeper.

Figure 2.the october revolution

Figure 3. Moscow in 1908

After the October revolution country met lots of changes in all layers of life. For Moscow it means returning its rights of being capital.

The year 1922 can be seemed as a start of Stalin era. First decade of Stalin power can be characterized as rise to power. He pushed for more rapid industrialization and central control of economy. Later his control of the whole life of the country started to cover even the development of architecture and urbanism. Stalin created a cult of personality in the Soviet Union around both himself and Lenin.

In 1953 Stalin era was over, as well as all repressions and total control. All levels of life was still highly politicized, however architecture and urbanism could finally get some fresh air.

The beginning of the soviet urban planning

After the October revolution the abolishment of all private ownership of land and of big industrial estates made it possible to reconstruct old cities and built new cities. Urban planner and architects met absolutely new grandiose challenges.

The construction of cities had new huge scales.

In first years of the soviet government new master plans of city reconstructions appeared: of Moscow, Petrograd (after 1991 Saint Peterburg), Baku, Kharkiv, Rostov-on-Don, Ivanovo-Voznesensk (after 1932 Ivanovo) and of other soviet cities.

The reconstruction of Moscow was of huge importance. As it was mention before, Moscow could not provide good quality of living, it had still medieval street structure in the center and chaotic industrial zone location around it. As soon

p. 5 n

ol

ev

R er

R

io ut

ob

ct

O e h T the Civil War

1900

1917

he

th

’s

in

n Le

ea

D

so

is

D

Second World War

1922 1924

1953

n

io

t lu

t of

1991

SS

U

2000

Stalin era The USSR period Saint Petersburg is a capital

Moscow returns its capital position

Figure 3. History of Moscow in the 20th century

Reconstruction plan of Moscow

as it returned its capital position in 1917, the question of its reconstruction was immediately raised. But the aim of it was not only to improve quality of living, but to demonstrate the political power. The new masterplan should be approved on the highest political level and it happened in 1935 already in Stalin era.

In the period from 1918 to 1935 lost of proposals for new plan were made.

And this period happened to be very important to the discipline of urbanism of Russia (the USSR). All this plans proposed different concepts for development.

Many famous architects of this time proposed their ideas and solutions. Even Le Corbusier was asked by the Soviet Government to propose his solution for how Moscow should grow. In 1932 the international completion for the reconstruction plan of Moscow took place and 7 project groups revealed their conceptual plans.

After finishing the completion new architectural-planning group were established to work on the new master plan. In this project many best specialist of architecture, engineer, and economy took part. For the next 4 years the specialized group by the leading architects Vladimir N. Semenov and Sergey E. Chernishev was working on the plan. The final plan was affirmed on the 10th of July 1935 by the resolution from the Central Committee of the VKP (b) N 1435 “Master plan of the reconstruction of city of Moscow”.

The characteristic of the creation and the implementation of the Master plan of Moscow of 1935 was reflected in the documents of the supreme bodies of the Communist Party and the Soviet Government of the USSR of the 1930s. The Party’s documents were concentrated on all fundamental issues of development of the national economy, ideology, culture, social processes in the country. Policy decisions of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) and SNK on architecture and construction determined the main phases and direction of the development of the Soviet capital.

The plan obligated to “built and create high-quality facilities for worker, thus the redevelopment of the capital of the USSR and its architectural design fully represent the grandeur and beauty of the socialist era”.

The figure 4 shows the search for the reconstruction plan in timeline.

The reconstruction plan of Moscow 1935 played the biggest role in the formulating the main principles of the soviet urban planning. It became the main exemplar of the Soviet Urbanism. The whole process on working on the plan gave a big push for development of urbanism in the USSR.

TIME LINE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN

p. 6

k

” RE

by

TU

F

O

TY

I

“C

an

pl

FU

ed

to

ow

y

M

1918

SC

”b

c Sh

EW

an

pl

1923

SC

S

o ec

“N

n

a pl

G BI

M

“

1925

1930

y ”b

KH

O

M

) er ow ) y c v e os no M .

M a f lg K t o Do er n d e , a m erg (le p lo b KH ve lden O e M ed o ‘R v, G by ” e ire w em old co h s c o s ,B M h nov g c i et e ‘B n sk em a l S ( P

Figure 4. Searching for new plan of Moscow

pl

an

l ”p

by

ts

ky

l bo

p ce

t of

La

d

ov

en

it et

,7

co

ow

n

io

p

n er

l na

m co

io

at

t

in

spring 1931

de

n

s

v do

a

ar

“P

i

an

by

Le

he

or

C

o el

v

a

R

O

on

ct

tru

ns

W

O

O

M

y ”b

s he

ov

k

ta

W

O

lm

ca

a

e us

r

s bu

r

pm

ie

Zh

h

ov

ta pi

nd

v

c

os

y sk

v

to ol

in ul

Sa

t en

period working on the plan

1932

r

st

n co

Re

1935

n

io

t uc

an

Pl

of

M

c os

by

S

em

an

he

C

v

he

s ni

p. 7 Being the exemplar for the soviet urbanism, the Reconstruction plan of Moscow is an important urbanistic concept. The urbanism in the USSR was developing according the ideas presented in the plan.

Moreover, the period of searching for that plan is also a period of so called soviet avant-garde. It was the unique and excellent time in soviet history of Architecture and Urbanism. Starting to appear in the beginning of the 20th century, it was represented by different new schools, studios and directions. Between 1920 and 1932 there were lots of debate in urbanism and architecture. Even the western architects and urbanists were looking with interest on work of El Lisizky, Melnikov and others. Two soviet architects Moisey Ginzburg and Nikolai Kolli were member of the first period of CIAM. Lots of western architects were invited in the USSR to help built new cities. And they were very inspired to work in the place the new society was about to rise. According to the theory of urbanistic concepts, this period can be called pre-paradigmatic period and a paradigmatic period was already about to come. However, the soviet government got its power to stop a debate and to choose the direction in urbanism which Stalin and his party found appropriate. In 1932 the ruling party outlawed all independent artistic unions; they were replaced with state-controlled Union of Soviet Architects (July 1932) and Academy of Architecture (1933). The main direction of style was announced by Stalin. For the next decades the Stalinistic neoclassicism or so-called Socialist Realism was declared as main direction in architecture and urbanism.

This way, a period of working on the 1935 General plan for reconstruction of Moscow is a transition from avant-garde concepts in urbanism towards the stalinistic ‘Socialist Realism’.

RESEARCH QUESTION As is was mentioned before, avant-garde period is period of debates of future of urbanism in the USSR. There were different schools and movements. It was boost of paradigms but it never came to the logical establishment of the dominating paradigm. The paradigm-shift in urbanism in the USSR happened due to the political and economical reasons. The can see it on the diagram .. that all avant-garde concepts were banned. But the question arises if it is actually possible to stop ‘people’s work’. Did all the concepts shown in different variants for the Reconstruction plan of Moscow have completely disappeared? Or is the 1935 reconstruction plan a collection of the principles from that concepts? If these avant-garde concepts were still implemented after 1932, for the discipline of urbanism it would be necessary to find out which concepts of avant-garde time were strong enough to survive. The clear relation is made between ‘paradigms’ and ‘projects’.

To analyze the soviet avant-garde period and the concepts essay refers to the theory of Thomas Kuhn. Variants for the reconstruction plan of Moscow are seen as different paradigms, disciplinary matrixes for population of concepts are introduced.

Moreover, the 1935 Reconstruction plan is described with its main points. The distinguish will be made between the discipline and practice. The new paradigm of Stalinistic neoclassicism evolved after the establishment of that plan and it is necessary to mention its theory and main concepts.

In addition, a look on the next period after ‘Socialist Realism’ is made to try to reveal the changes in paradigm.

p. 8 Bauhaus brigade by Ernst Hannes Meyer work in the USSR ARU - architects-urbanists Ladovsky

ASNOVA - rationalism Korzhev

Ladovsky

MOVANO

VKhUTEMAS

Union of the Soviet Architects

OSA - constructivism / functionalsim SASS A.Vesnin, Ginzburg, V. Vesnin,

art nouveau (Russian Modern)

MEMBERS OF CIAM M. Ginzburg, Nikolai Kolli Neoclassicism Russian Revival Architecture

WOPRA

retrospectivism

1900

1920

1923

1926

1928

1930

1932

1935

MODERNISM / AVANT-GARDE rationalism constructivism / functionalism

NEOCLASSICAL ‘SOCIALIST REALISM’ Stalinistic neoclassicism

PARADIGM-SHIFT due to political and economical reasons

Figure 5. Pre-paradigmatic period in the USSR

p. 9

Paradigm according to Thomas Kuhn.

Avant-garde period in Russia, its appearance and later abandoned can be understand according to the theory of Thomas Kuhn. One of the most important notion of Kuhn’s theory is progress of science by ‘revolution’. In case of Russia it happened literally. After the October revolution gradually appeared more new schools, groups, movements. It was the end of ‘static period’. Sociological approach finds its approval in that case. Old generation of architects representing classical, neoclassical school started to lose their influence. There ideas were attractive in old epoch of the reign of the royal family. After the revolution the old generation loses its authority. According to Kuhn, the change of generations is essential to open place for new paradigms. New generation is growing with new fresh ideas, concepts, and ideas to formulate new paradigms. In that time, VkhUTEMAS represented the initial step to create the space for new paradigms to appear.

VkhuTEMAS – cradle of new paradigms

VkhUTEMAS (from Russian translation: Higher Art and Technical Studios) was the Russian state art and technical school in 1920 in Moscow according to the decree from Vladimir Lenin - the main communist of the country. The aim was to prepare new art specialist who will help to build new better country. However, it was already dissolved in 1930 due to political pressures.

Famous architects and urbanists have their studios in VkhUTEMAS and together with students new concepts are applied in paper projects. In search for new paradigm, different movements separated from each other. Each has its own disciplinary matrix .

VkhUTEMAS was a close to the German Bauhaus. It has the same organization, scope and goal. Both schools were the first to teach art students in a modern manner and were initiated by the state. The courses were similar and the influence on the disciplines of architecture and urbanism were significant. The schools had collaborated with each other to exchange experience and both finished their existence under pressure from increasingly totalitarian regimes.

As it was said before, VkhUTEMAS was a collection of different visions. Famous architects and urbansits teaching in the school started to create their own studios with various vision of architecture and urbanism. After some time two main studies became the center of the new architecture – studio by N. Ladovsky and another one by A. Vesnin.

In 1923 under the leadership of N. Ladovsky an architectural organization ASNOVA was established, commonly called ‘The Rationalistls”. It grew up from the avant garde ring of the VkhUTEMAS school.

ASNOVA – Association of New Architects - rationalists

There main ideas of the group is shown according to the disciplinary matrix: 1.assumptions, propositions: Main aim of the architect is the spatial solution, not decorative. The start of the project is spatial issues and psychology of the perception it. Spatial understanding is more important than artistic image. The members were searching for new flexible (dynamic) planning structure of a city 2. values Dynamic planning and the idea of process: space- shape- construction 3. methods; Use of three-dimensional thinking and psychoanalytic method in teaching students, representatives of paper architecture 4. exemplars dynamic cities by Ladovsky, ‘horizontal skyscrapers’ by Ell Lisicky In 1928 Ladovsky left ASNOVA to create new organization ARU (Association of Architects-Urbanists). He understood that urban planning problems were the main problems and should be tackled first. He proposed dynamic planning for cities, providing them with opportunity to organic development of their structures in future. To find perfect dynamic concept his student for some years made final project for the theme “New city”. Based on analyses of these works in 1930 Ladovsky proposed new famous concept of a city development – parabola, known as ‘Ladovsky’s parabola’.

He applied his theory to the plan of Moscow.

Parabola – absolutely new scheme of the developing city. The public centre is developing along the axis, different zones (residential, industrial, green) consequentially skirt the axis. This idea gives an opportunity to develop public city centre with saving its role as the planning core.

Figure 6. Horizontal skyscraper by Ell Lisicky

p. 10

Relation to CIAM

The OSA group’s leading theorists Ginzburg and Nikolai Kolli were member of CIAM from 1829 until 1933. A small CIAM meeting with the OSA group was held in Moscow in 1932, with Sigfried Giedion and Cornelius van Eesteren in attendance.

There was an interconnected influence between soviet architects and CIAM members. Western avant-garde ideas had been part of the formation of the Soviet avant-garde, as well as the formal and socialist experiments in the USSR , which were well-published and widely known in Western Europe, have influences CIAM ideas about urbanism.

Figure 7 and 8. Schemes of parabola city by N. Ladovsky

OSA - Organization of Contemporary architects constructivists In 1925 OSA (Organization of Contemporary architects) was established by another avant garde followers brothers Vesnini and Moisey Ginsburg and considered to be the first group of constructivist architects in the USSR. Between ASNOVA and OSA was crucial polemic discussion, they criticized each other. OSA separated two disciplines: architecture and urban planning, while that sometimes differed from the position of the Communist Party. Group made proposals for collective houses and pioneered the notion of the social condenser. OSA members worked for the state to create standard apartment buildings for mass production. However by 1929 there was a shift in in the group’s theory away from the collective city block to ‘disurbanism’, perhaps influenced by forced collectivization in the Soviet countryside. On 1930 there were lots of debated about ‘desurbanism’ in the group and it influenced many changes in the collective. Lately it was renamed in SASS (Section of Architects for Socialist Construction).

In the theory OSA members were advocating constructivism and functionalism.

They supposed that utilitarianism and concentration on the function rather more important than form.

CIAM 4, functional city Firstly, meeting was planned to take place in Moscow. The concept of the congress should present ‘the relations that exist between the form of the city and its economical and other tasks’.

In December 1932 Giedion and Van Eesteren attend organizational meeting in Moscow with next members of the Soviet architect’s Union, including one of the Vesnin brothers, Moisei Ginzburg, Nikolai Kolli, and Hans Shmidt; and members of VOKS, the Soviet “society of foreign intellectual cooperation”. During this visit Gieden got aware about the changing situation in the USSR and the attitude of the Soviet authorities against modern architecture . He wrote Le Corbusier that “the Congress will be of great importance as an opposition group”.

The changing in Soviet policy produced a turning point in the history of CIAM, forcing its members to choose between their efforts to influence urbanism in the Soviet Union and continuing to develop its formal language and technical concerns. Those members already in the USSR, such as May, Stam, Schmidt, and Meyer, eventually chose to try to come to terms with the new neoclassical Soviet line of “art for the people” even as this distanced them from the concept of Le Corbusier and other CIAM members.

At the end of March it was announced from the USSR that the CIAM would have to be postponed for another year. Eventually 4 CIAM congress hold during a cruise from Marseilles to Piraeus, the port of Athens. The delegation from the USSR didn’t attend this time.

p. 11

WOPRA

After 1929 the new p WOPRA (Russian Union of Proletarian Architects) was organized to become independent, active and very influence group. This group took its only right to do proletarian architecture, thus only members of this group could take part in competitions. Others architects were called “non-proletarian” (A. Vesnin, Leonidov, Melnikov). They didn’t promote new trends and clear vision on architecture. In many cased their architectural style were not different from the constructivist movement. Mostly they cruelly criticized other groups (ASNOVA, OSA, ARU) and brought an aggressive discussions.

USSR

Urban planning debate

Stalinistic ‘Socialist Realism’ pre-paradigmatic period

‘Khrushchyovka’ type of houses Existenzminimum

lost of paradigmatic period ?

post paradigmatic period pre-paradigmatic period

City Block Functional City

1.

2.

3.

participation of members from the USSR

CIAM

pre-paradig- paradigmatic post paradigmatic period period matic period Garden City

d

Figure 9.Timeline of the disipline of urban planning in the USSR and realation to CIAM

from city

the threat of the rediscovery of suburbanization the large scale

?

p. 12

‘PROJECT AS A PARADIGM’ - NEW PLANS OF MOSCOW 1924 1924 “NEW “NEW MOSCOW” MOSCOW” by Shchusev Shchusev andand 1924 “NEW MOSCOW” byby Shchusev and

1918 1918 Sakulin Sakulin “City “City Future” of Future” 1918 Sakulin “City ofofFuture”

1921-1925 1921-1925 plan plan “BIG “BIG MOSCOW” MOSCOW” 1921-1925 plan “BIG MOSCOW” by by by

Zholtovsky Zholtovsky Shestakov Shestakov area ofeconomic economic ofmentioned economic developmentOOO developmentOOO Zholtovsky Shestakov area of developmentOOO As itarea was before, lots of plans for future development of Moscow were suggested by different architects and urbanists in the period from 1918 till 1935.

First three proposals were made by architects from the old school and were influenced by the concept of garden city.

Figure12. ( 1 - central distric 1. - central district withPlan publicby andShestakov political centers 1. - 1. central - central district district withwith public public andand political political centers centers 2. - industrial district public and political center, 2-industry, 3 - new 2. - 2. industrial - industrial district district 3. - new building zone district, 4zone - big 3. - 3. new - new building building zonegreen zones 4. - big green areas 4. - 4. big - big green green areas areas

with built

Figure10. of regional 1. - town withScheme its appoximate territory planning by Sakulin

Figure11. Plan by Shchusev and Zholtovsky

1918 “CITY OF FUTURE” by Sakulin

1923 Plan ‘NEW MOSCOW’ by Alexey 1925 plan ‘BIG MOSCOW’ by S.S. Shchusev and Ivan Zholtovsky Shestakov

1. - 1. town - town withwith its appoximate its appoximate territory territory 2. - existing railways 2. - 2. existing - existing railways railways 3. - proposed railways 3. - 3. proposed - proposed railways railways highways 4.

4. proposed - proposed highways highways It4. is- -proposed regional plan of the big territory around Moscow. It 5. - territory of the economic influence of Moscow, with industrial 5. - 5. territory - territory ofthe the of first the economic economic influence influence ofthe Moscow, of regional Moscow, withwith industrial industrial was one of examples oftotal planning, territories, network of garden-cities and area of ‘green belt’ territories, territories, network network of garden-cities of garden-cities andand totaltotal areaarea of ‘green of ‘green belt’belt’ 6. - stoneshows and wooden buildings (other settlements) which the economical area of Moscow. The 6. - 6. stone - stone andand wooden wooden buildings buildings (other (other settlements) settlements)

surrounding towns, located in the green belt, were proposed to connect with each other with wide highways.

-electrified ideas of garden city Radial highways were placed to - ideas - ideas of garden of garden citycity link this town with the centre of Moscow. After the road ring, there should be located first ring of railway Influence on the next projects (Shchusev, of economical zone, consisted of 13 towns. It is clear Influence Influence on on thethe next next projects projects (Shchusev, (Shchusev, Shestakov) to see the influence of the idea of the garden city.

Shestakov) Shestakov)

The plan is based on the tradition city’s ring-radial Another plan of the development of Moscow also structure and the principle of conservation of old shows the use of the concept of garden city. In the historical buildings. That plan also implements the plan it is established to increase the territory of Mosow concept of garden city in the idea of building around from 7 0t o200 thousands hectares. Town in supurbs - ideas of garden city - ideas of garden city the railway ring road) many worker’s - ideas - ideas garden of garden city city other settlements should become (beyond of of Moscow and -Moscow ideas - ideas of garden of garden citycity - conservation of the historical part - conservation of the historical part - conservation - conservation of the ofregion, the historical historical part part city itself is divifed into ofofthe garden city’s type. the Moscow and the -settlements conservation - conservation the of the historical historical part part several zones: business, development (transition) and industrial, residential (suburban gardens), and the last is forestry ring.

p. 13

Le Corbusier Le Corbusier was highly popular among soviet architects. His book were widely spread and had huge influence. He was invited to design buildings in Moscow and the member of OSA group Nikolay Kolli was consulting him.

Moreover Le Corbusier was asked to give his critics on the competition on the USSR named ‘Greetn City’, which he did in his ‘Commentaries Relative to Moscow and Green City’

Green city competition

Le Corbusier responded with a 59 page report, called ‘Response to Moscow’, in which he sketched his ideas for the city.

In his response, Le Corbusier developed a plan similar to that proposed by the constructivists (‘desurbanists’) for the Green Town. The collectivist spirit that the constructivist had envisioned for their own instantly seduced Le Corbusier, and he in turn implemented these to his own ideas of planning. Much like the Green Town of the Constructivists, in this radiant city for Moscow Le Corbusier utilized services communes, or communal facilities. In it, he also proposed the radical destruction of much of the historic center of Moscow, demolishing everything except the Kremlin and Kitay-gorod, and advocated the creation of separate

In early 1930s government-controlled labor units sponsored a major competition for a decentralized ‘socialist garden city’ for 100.000 people on a 15.000-hectare site thirty-seven kilometers northeast of Moscow. The competition was given the name “Green city”. The aim of the competition was to find a design for new hew housing solutions for Moscow’s “outmoded urban organism” and also a design with combination of Western technologies and socialist principles to ‘carry out the utmost development of the collectivization of life possible in the present stage”. The completion showed up a discussion between the ‘urbanists’ and the ‘disurbanists’. The first group proposed to create contained settlements of limited size with collective housing blocks and communal kitchen, bathing, laundry. The ‘disurbanists’ preferred linear, dispersed settlements along main transport axes.

They rejected the idea of collective dwelling and choose for individual detached dwellings. However, both groups opposed the existing metropolis.

Designs for the Green City competition were received from many famous architects and groups, among others, Ladovsky, Melnikov, OSA group.

The competition is one of the good examples of loci-debate in urban planning in the USSR. Le Corbusier left Moscow in 1928 with a positive view of the Soviet Union. Indeed, his time there would prove influential in the development of his own theories on architecture and urban planning.

The Soviets were impressed with his comments on the Green city competition and in 1931 Soviet officials inquired Le Corbusier’ opinion on the reconstruction of the city of Moscow.

Figure13. Proposal by Le Corbisier

G LADOVSKY

p. 14 cities with separate functions. He proposed not to enlarge territory of the city, but to shrink it. Le Corbusier placed upon the radial plan of the ancient city a roughly rectilinear organization comparable to his earlier tabula-rasa program of Villa Contemporaine. New rectangular strict grid of streets would have strict zoning: in the north – politic center, then to the south - 4 huge residential zones, then – historical center, and finally industrial zone.

The soviet government saw in his new plan of Moscow still an ideas to remain the capitalist city. Soviet authorities understood the skyscrapers as ‘the last of capitalism’, even the idea of conserving the historical center was not of major imrortance of new plan, the radical destruction of historical building was too much.

Despite this, Le Corbusier did not abandon the project all together but rather used his documents on the project for his own personal ends. He later presented a modified version of his study to the CIAM, removing all references to the Soviet city, labeling it “Villa Radieuse.

PROJECTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION

He proposed by using the same structure of parabola to gradually transform from radial-ring structure to dynamic structure with development in one direction.

Attempt to develop the“VOPRA” city out of its historical limits. Growth of the KURT city is supposed Group MEYER to happen in different directions, different in its volume and intensity. Moreover, KRATUK HA two main V. directions form (along Leningradsky avenue and avenue Entuziastov) rectangular form of the plan and are connected with some diagonal avenues.

In the developing new plan of Moscow, one important event has to be regarded as highly influential: the competition for the reconstruction of Moscow in 1931/1932.

The competition took place exactly during the period of changing of the political direction in urban planning. There were never really a winning proposals, but the projects were ‘integrative constituents of the whole process towards the General Plan of Moscow and were largely discussed and criticized the Soviet Union at ‘public’ podiums as well as abroad’.

DESIGN COMPETITION 1932 Reconstruction and development of Moscow

It was closed design competition and only 7 groups , Soviet and from Western Europe, were invited to take part in it. The goal of the assignment was to reveal mean concepts and planning solution for future Moscow. The invited planners and architects were representatives of both movements, urbanists and desurbanists.

7 project groups

DECENTRALIZATION, Urbanistic approach - dynamic development of the citym historical center as the big public center DYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY, CONSERVATION OF THE HISTORICAL CENTRE HISTORICAL CENTRE AS THE BIG PUBLIC CENTRE N. Ladovsky V. Kratuk LADOVSKY

habitat industry center Figure14. Proposal by Ladovsky

V. KRATUK

Figure15. Proposal by brigade of Kratuk

HANNES MEYER

nt of Moscow Both groups had an idea for dynamic development of the city out of the historical part and its radial-ring structure, this the city can be understand as a unique settlement with highly developed public centre.

7 project groups 7 project groups

p. 15 Other projects intended to preserve traditional structure of the historical centre and to decentralize all other urban structure of Moscow. There were shown different alternatives of the decentralization: from cutting the city in different districts to the system of independent settlements.

Urbanistic approach Desurbanistic approach WOPRA DECENTRALIZATION, DECENTRALIZATION, Proposed to develop Moscow as a city consisting of 5 districts-complexes like KURT MEYER Divided the city structure on districts with ray-looking converge toward the center an independent planning units with their OF own residential blocks, serving CONSERVATION OF industrial THE HISTORICAL CENTRE CONSERVATION THE HISTORICAL CENTRE TRE zone and regional and from other side develop to the suburb area. These districts are divided from public centers. each other with green zones and together form some kind of star.

Group “VOPRA” KRAS Group “VOPRA” KURT MEYER KURT MEYER KRASIN

habitat industry

Figure16. Proposal by WOPRA brigade

HANNES MEYER HANNES MEYER

habitat industry center

Figure17. Proposal by Kurt Meyer

ERNST MAY

ERNST MAY

p. 16

ERNST MAY

HANNES MEYER

New network of settlements-satellites leads to gradually disaggregation of Moscow. May propose to substitute the compact big city with the system of town-satellites, connected with common public center. While on the territory with a diameter of up to 30 km satellite towns located relatively evenly, outside of this zone they increasingly tend to the main transport axes (overall diameter of satellite towns about 60 km). In several staged the present city is transformed in the territory of a limited administrative and business center, surrounded by MAY the cultural ERNST area. Moscow housing after getting too old is demolished and new housing estates are built in the satellite towns, each has about 100 thousand inhabitants.

City grows deeper in suburbs, thus its ‘rays’ and ‘wedges’ break down into ten complexes-satellites strung on highways (mainly in eastern direction). The entire system is considered in the project as an agglomeration. However, Moscow itself retains radial-ring structure and is divided into six districts, adjusted to the ring “A”. This satellites settlements take necessary dynamic process and save Moscow from excessive expansion.

RATUK

HANNES MEYER

habitat industry center Figure17. Proposal by Ernst May

Figure19. Proposal by Hannes Meyer

Y

p. 17

KRASIN Territory of the city intensively grows in the form of the wide wedges into suburbs along main car roads. Due to the opportunities of the modern transport, network of metro lines and electrified railways transform suburb area of Moscow into the city structure.

KRASIN

MASTER PLAN 1935

The work on the final plan started in 1932, after the completion of the international competition. For the next 4 years the final team by the leading architects V.N. Semenov and S.E. Chernishev was working on the planThe general plan of reconstruction of 1935 is an important attempt to concentrate and centralized the political power to Moscow. It was of high political importance and the deep control from the soviet party played a huge role in designing the plan.

Political context

In 1930 Lazar Kaganovich became General Secretary of the communist party in Moscow. He began to use his powerful positions in a very intelligent way, engaging himself actively in designing proposal for the enhancement of the municipal economy and thus for urban planning. In June 1931 in his speech he criticized the architect and urbanists for their endless debates about linear, grid, ring concepts for the cities, for new modern thinking. He critically discussed the ‘unrealistic’ desurbanist concepts and the strong emphasis on reconstruction of the old city and its clear limitations.

It was an important shift when politics was taking the responsibility in planning.

‘People’ work’ in searching for the plan was not now leaded by the specialists, but by the politicians. The ‘unrealistic’ (avant-garde) vision in urban design were not more possible to implement. The party wanted to see real, to make a step from the science to the practice.

habitat industry center Figure 20. Proposal by brigade of Krasin All presented on the competition plans, even with diversity of ideas, had one important disadvantage – ignorance of the historically developed stricture of the city. The government denied totally the idea of conservation of the current city as the “ancient city” and development of the new Moscow outside the old territory.

Moreover, the government was not also pleased with the idea of demolishment of the current city and building of that territory new city with totally new planning.

From that moments Kaganovich formulated the next main goals for the reconstruction: • Creation of planning regulations to control further development of industrial areas, • Controlled growth of Moscow with an increase of 2 million people to not more than 5 million people.

• Construction of new housing and apartment building in efficient way: the standardization of houses, • Reconstruction and transformation of existing buildings • Expansion and redevelopment of the green areas , • Construct a transportation (underground) system to solve the need for rapid and cheap transportation Probably the reason to choose Semenov and Chernishev as the leading architects was that both were not involved in any avant-garde movements. They worked already as main leaders in many state companies and had good work experience

p. 18 in planning new cities. Moreover, in 1932 Semenov was assigned to be main architect of Moscow.

Main principles Strategy of the development:

• The Central Committee of the CPSU (b) and SNK rejected projects to maintain the existing city as conservation museum city of antiquity, with the creation of the new city outside the existing.

• The Central Committee of the CPSU (b) and SNK also rejected proposals for totally destruction of the existing city and building on its place the city in a completely new plan.

• The Central Committee of the CPSU (b) and SNK supposed that new design of the plan of Moscow must proceed from the basis of historical preservation of the city, but with a radical redesign of its planning structure by ordering the network of urban streets and squares.

STREET STRUCTURE

The most important point of the plan was the reconstruction and maintenance of the radial-concentric street system.

Master Plan fixed “ the current radial-ring system of the streets” and the need “ to supplement its system with new streets , unloading center from traffic and allow to establish a direct transport link between the areas of the city without the need for a drive through the city center.” The plan included the expansion of the existing streets, construction of three major highways through crossing the center, construction of ring roads and completely new roads to improve the coherence of the structure.

HOUSING BLOCKS

One of the main characteristic features of the work on the general plan of Moscow was the wish to see the city as a collection of large-scale ensembles. The city should not be a collection of fragments, but must be designed as an urban complex, as an entity. Due to this idea, new developments Figure 21. General plan for reconstruction of Moscow 1935

p. 19 must be proceed by whole ensembles and not individual buildings and that leads to creation of city block.

- City block should increase from the current 1-2 ha to 9-15 ha, filled with large houses (multistory apartment houses). Network of lanes, alleys, small streets should be abandoned.

- New developments must be limited in density to 400 persons per ha (reference: the population density within the Garden Ring in 1935 - more than 1,000 people per 1 ha) - Buildings should be at least 6 story’s high; 7-10-14 story on first-rate streets.

- Embankments are first-rate streets, only zoned for first-rate housing and offices.

- Place the service facilities must be placed at the center of blocks designed to serve a wide range of inhabitants.

GREEN STRUCTURE The garden-city concept is another important key element, which has to be conceived far beyond its origins. A series of elements such a peripheral parks, city parks or green corridors carefully planned and designer to evolve in a system of green spaces.

WATER STRUCTURE The plan has innovatory plan of water channel of Moscow. The emphasis on the water system was a vital component of the Moscow on future. The construction of the Moskva-Volga canal was of high importance to connect city with the black sea in the south and the east seas in the north.

Figure 22. Plan of main traffic road, water channels and green system.

Red lines show reconstructed and new streets

p. 20 METRO SYSTEM

It is a crucial element for developing of public-transportation system in Moscow.

It should transport workers in fast and cheap way to their locations. The style the metro station started to be built should create the illusion of being in the palace.

In terms of architectural expression, Semenov referred to classicism and neo classicism fie to the desire of Stalin.

Looking on the main features of the plan, the main approach used in the creation was to moving from the general towards to the particular, from the city to its components. For Semenov the new starting point was the image of the city, its holistic presentation. The design of the plan supposed to be not two-dimensional, but three-dimensional city. The task and all features mentioned before were huge and to elaborate all this various projects on depth restructure of the planning institution. With political reassurance the reorganization of the institution lead to setting up of ten architectural and ten urban planning ateliers. These ateliers were working on concrete new design for different project but with collaboration to create a unite city ensemble and under control of the leading architects.

New ateliers were led by famous architects and urbanists, even originally they were avant-garde representatives. As it was mentioned before, the year 1932 was crucial in the discipline of urban planning. By political law all creative organizations were abandoned to create state-controlled Union of Soviet Architects. There were only one official style to use in designing. Professional architects and urbanists had to adjust themselves to new ‘socialist realism’.

AVANT-GARDE IDEAS IN THE FINAL PLAN OF 1935

Officially, according to the soviet authorities, there were no possible implementation of avant-garde ideas in the final plan. However, the ateliers responsible for the Master plan were managed famous architects, such as Ginzburg, Ladovsky, Vesnin and others, who were well-known for being leaders of different avantgarde movements. Newly politically established ‘spirit of time’ had also affect on the work of avant-garde architects. Before it was a belief in the technological advancement which would change the society, then it was belief in the human spirit and creation of a socialist future. However, it is impossible to say that all the architects of avant-garde denied their original ideas and rapidly continued to work in new style.

The final ideas of the final master plan couldn’t appeared from the scratch and ignored all concepts of new plan presented before. Some formative principles in

the previous proposals were pursued in the different approaches and could be recognized in the General Plan of 1935. Even though the urbanist approaches were more appreciated by the soviet officials, also the desurbanist approaches contained some very considerable proposals.

Many desurbanist projects proposed to retain the radial-concentric system.

One of the biggest influence on Semenov, the leader of the final master plan, had the competition work of Kurt Meyer. Moreover, Kurt Meyer was already working before the competition in the state planning company and made some proposals for the reconstruction of Moscow. His competition work also gained the attention of Kaganovich. He proposed the maintenance of the radial-concentric street system, a compact structure, through the densification of the existing urban fabric. Moreover he gave an idea of decentralizing districts, each with its own administrative center. The continuety of this ideas is possible to recognize in the street and housing system of the final plan.

The WOPRA’s project was considered to be also of big value. The most interesting part of the project was a new orthogonal system of streets that would be superimposed with the existing network of roads and enable better connectivity with the districts.

The project of Vladimir Kratuk contained also principles of disturbance through breaks of the ring-system in the form of linear cities, focusing the existing centre.

The aspect of decentralization in Ernst May’s through the satellite-settlements had its own advantage. The concept of functional zoning inside new settlements, the proximity of working and living areas were of big importance in designing city block in the General plan of 1935.

Hannes Meyer had another idea which can be recognized in the final plan – a series of revaluation of existing green areas with emphasis on the riverbanks.

To conclude, a collection of principles can be recognized that suggested the reconstruction and modification of the radial-concentric system: the combination of radial with linear system (parabola city by Ladovsky, dynamic center), the juxtaposition of the radial and the orthogonal grid system (WOPRA), the breaks in the radial concerti system through a system of linear cities (Kratuk).

p. 21 Competition of the plans as loci of debate

PARADIGM-SHIFT

Profession-discipline

As it was mentioned before, the General plan of Reconstruction of Moscow became an exemplar for the further development. Next key points characterized the planning: 1. The idea of city block and ensembles 2. Use of standards for streets constructions, green areas, residential zoning, developed in state documents for city developments in the USSR 3. Street system as the main structural system of a city

Many projects were proposed to the reconstruction plan of Moscow. Every most famous architect-urbanist and his studio proposed his vision for the future development of the city. As being the most important city of the USSR, the showing of new plans and especially the international competition can be called as loci of debate, there concepts are highly discussed. Professional architects shared their visions and methods. In that sense the plan cannot only be understand as a political top-down realization of an ideology, but also a culmination of an extremely broad spectrum of people’s work in urbanistic thinking.

It could be interesting to distinguish main difference between the proposed plans and the realized plan. The previous plan has a concept sketching while the final plan is much elaborated concrete proposal. The question arises if it is actually appropriate to make a comparison between them and we can recognize here the distinction between discipline and profession. In some way, it is possible to say that all proposed concepts for the plan were mainly theory-related, while the final plan in practice-related. Using the scheme of distinction between scientist and designer/engineer from an article by Roels it approved the idea that the concepts idea were the work science: architects tried to analyze and understand the city, the main focus was using of a paradigm and specific method. The final plan contains another features: the idea of change and control, focus on the result, project led by multidisciplinary organization (architects, engineers, economists). In this case, the profession follows the discipline. However, as soon as profession reflected on the science, the opposite movement is clear – the discipline is reflected upon the concepts that are described in urban practice. The situation now is different: the discipline is following the profession. The context of the current situation had its own peculiarities. Even the profession work was influenced by science practice, it is obvious that political pressure had its own effect. That can be understand as a breaking point for evolving of the different discipline after the real practice of general plan of 1935.

Combining different concepts of schools, using the best ideas of every movement didn’t create an exemplar of new-paradigm that could arise from pre-paradigmatic period. The new paradigm was not the highest point of people’s work. It was the political decision and the political power who chose the direction of urban planning and architecture.

New style approved by Stalin cannot be named as a new paradigm according to Kuhn – it is not a ‘people’s work’, there is no sociological approach. According to Toulmin, it is not even the evolutionary approach. It is the effect of the totalitarian regime and the power of Stalin. The stalinistic neoclassicism can be characterized by the next features: 1. Classical and monumental style, closed to Empire style, Art-deco and Eclectic, 2. Complex approach in designing cities block – ensemble construction of streets and squares 3. Synthesis of architecture, sculpture and painting 4. Use of tradition of Russian classicism 5. Use of elements of classical architecture 6. Use of expensive luxury building materials While some new principle of urban planning represented in avant-garde period (the construction of city block with all necessary function in it, developing of linear towns with strict functional zoning, urbanistic dynamic approach) were could partly recognized in new principles, the architectural style was completely different from the ideas of functionalists and constructivists. In addition, the buildings in constructivism style were forbidden after 1932. It means that the preparadigmatic period was stopped.

The direction in the soviet urban planning changed in 1954-55 after the death of Stalin. The style was already in crises – the new trend to duplication of buildings worsen not only the exterior appearance, but also raised the price for the

p. 22 construction. New head of the government signed the law ‘Elimination of excesses in the design and construction’. New urban principles were established and new citied were built according to them: ‘functional’ and ‘typified’ architecture, which existed till the 1990. Ii can be understand as the attempt to follow the idea of CIAM 2 – Existenzminimum. The typified apartment block, so called Khrushchyovka, built in the USSR after 1955 is a type of low-cost, concrete-paneled or brick three- to five-storied apartment building. The building provided residents with minimum square meters for living and everyday activity. It was a symbol of ‘standardization, industrialization and taylorization’. The idea represented in CiAM in 1929 finally found its realization in the USSR after 35 years, but the actuality of it was outdated. The ideas of avant-garde period finally had some freedom to exist but the moment was lost. New issues of the urban planning appeared which needed another solutions. Typified architecture cause the struggle for using local architectural style to promote national identity. In 1970-1989 regional schools of architecture were developing to solve the problem of national originality.

Conclusion

The period between 1918 and 1932 can be called a heyday of soviet avantgarde. All signs of pre-paradigmatic period are noticeable in that time. It was time of lots of concepts, debates between various movements. It is a good example of the Kuhn’s theory and his sociological approach. The October revolution caused also the revolution in the discipline of urban planning. The soviet architects and urbanists were developing completely new ideas and concepts, and the western community were looking with the interest on building of new socialist future. New school VkhuTEMAS is an interpretation of Bauhaus in the USSR. Difference in the paradigms can be understand through the concept proposal for the reconstruction plan of Moscow. The paradigmatic period was about to happen but the political pressure appeared to be the main power in every decision. The final plan of Moscow of 1935 was mainly influenced by political authorities, but its internal idea is the collection of many concepts of avant-garde which were accurately used in new political situation. The proclamation of ‘Stalinstic neoclassicism’ style had enough influence on the final plan to prevent it to be the boiling-point of making new paradigm. However, the paradigm-shift occurred with abandoning all modern movements. The general plan for reconstruction of Moscow became an exemplar for new paradigm of not ‘people’s work’ but politician pressure.

Even after 1955 this type of paradigm came to the end, the ideas of avant-garde were not of current interest. Another political authorizes proclaimed new rules in architecture and urban planning. Until the breakup of the USSR in 1991 urban planning were not positioned as the discipline. After 1991 the urban planning were in post-paradigmatic period, criticizing old concepts. Nevertheless, the absent of real ‘people’s work’ and the predomination of political power in the discipline had an important effect on the urban planning in the country. Even nowadays the discipline and the development of urban planning has considerable influence from the government. The nowadays period of the discipline is controversial: if we are still in post-paradigmatic period or it is the beginning of pre-paradigmatic.

p. 23

REFERENCES books A.V. Bunin, L.A. Ilyin, N.H. Polyakov, V.A. Shkarikov , Urban Planning (‘Gradostroitelstvo’). Moscow, 1945 Rolf Jenni, Learning from Moscow – planning principles of the 1935 General plan for Reconstruction and its political relevance, (2006) E.V. Konysheva, ‘Communist and ‘enemy of the people’: the architect Kurt Meyer in the USSR’, Architeckton: news of high schools(Architekton: izvestiya vuzov), March 2013, N 41 S.O. Han-Magomedov, Architecture of Soviet Avant-Garde, volume 1, Problems of forming. Moscow, 2001 S.O. Han-Magomedov, Architecture of Soviet Avant-Garde, volume 2, Social problems. Moscow, 2001 Eric Mumford, The CIAM discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960, 2000 Eric Mumford, ‘CIAM and the Communist Bloc, 1928-1959’, The Journal of Architecture volume 14 (number 2): 237-254 Hideo Tomita and Masato Ishii, ‘The influence of Hannes Meyer and the Bauhaus Brigade on the 1930s Soviet Architecture’ WEB RESOURCES: www.alyoshin.ru – history of architecture and urbanism in the USSR www.wikipedia.org IMAGES Figure 2: http://photochronograph.ru/2012/09/12/revolyuciya-1917-goda/ Figure 3: http://photochronograph.ru/2012/09/12/revolyuciya-1917-goda/ Figure 6: http://www.archnadzor.ru/2012/09/06/pryizhok-v-vyisotu-stalinskim-vyisotkam-v-moskve-60-let/lisitskiy-neboskreb/ Figure 7 and 8: http://www.alyoshin.ru/Files/publika/khan_archi/khan_archi_2_055.html Figure 11: http://bdb-2000.livejournal.com/20973.html Figure 12: http://bdb-2000.livejournal.com/20732.html Figure 13: http://bdb-2000.livejournal.com/20047.html Figure 14-20: http://www.alyoshin.ru/Files/publika/khan_archi/khan_archi_2_058.html Figure 21: http://bdb-2000.livejournal.com/21881.html Figure 22: http://bdb-2000.livejournal.com/21881.html