Author dr. Rasa Čepaitienė
Development of Soviet urban landscape
Although the post-Soviet development of the former members of the USSR – currently independent states – in recent twenty years has been rather different in terms of politics, economy or culture, all of them had to solve the issues of the attitude towards the Soviet period and the use of its material heritage in the relation with the newly-developed national identity. As we all know, the purpose of Soviet modernisation in a country with a huge territory, inhabited by more than a hundred different nations, was not only to build a new kind of a society and catch up with the industrial Western states, but also eliminate the deep cultural and economic gaps inside the state, providing all Soviet people with a common cultural, socio-economic standard and world-view. Both during the Stalinist era and a bit later, these processes were in a huge part supported on architecture. The doctrine of ‘socialist realism’, officially promoted up until 1955, is the best example of the effort of the totalitarian regime to create a common and consistent aesthetic programme, which was supposed to combine Sovietisation with the promise of ‘prosperity of Soviet nations’. Which elements and signs of this programme still remain in the urban landscape of the post-Soviet capitals and what is their meaning today?
Looking through the prism of the national politics of the USSR, we will continue to introduce Stalinist urban and architectural development tendencies in the ‘national fringes’ – the capitals of the member states. We will also attempt to discuss the following issues:
1. What were the key elements of the social realism theory and practice in architecture and urban development, as well as how did they manifest in the context of different national cultures?
2. Were there any qualitative differences between major pre-war and post-war Soviet city reconstructions?
3. Which – Soviet, national or mixed – elements remain established in the landscape of the post-Soviet capitals after their Stalinist reconstruction?
4. Is it possible to identify local peculiarities or their variations in the ‘Stalinist empire’, enabling to actualise this architectural style as a part of the cultural heritage of the currently independent post-Soviet states?
In order to evaluate the architectural objects of the Stalinist era and its assessment today, we have visited and researched twelve out of fifteen capitals of the former Soviet Union member states – Moscow, Kiev, Kharkiv (former capital of Ukraine until 1934), Minsk of the Belarusian SSR, Chișinău of Moldova SSR, the Baltic capitals – Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn, also the Transcaucasian capitals Tbilisi (Georgia), Baku (Azerbaijan), Yerevan (Armenia) and Ashgabat of the Turkmenistan SSR.
As we know, the so-called ‘Stalinist empire’ or neoclassicism in the USSR architecture, experienced two waves of rejection: upon the resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ‘Regarding the elimination of excess in architecture and design’, adopted in 1955, as well as the fall of the USSR, when buildings of this style, regarded as a symbol of the entire Soviet ideology (including the most hated period – Stalinisim), were destroyed or recycled and never regarded as a part of cultural heritage, or architectural history of the post-Soviet countries (which is especially the case in the Baltic States). The most-noticeable target was the decoration elements – Soviet symbolism – removed from these buildings back in the early post-Soviet period from many buildings.
American researcher Anthony Max Tung introduced a wide view of the heritage protection of historical cities, partially touching the issue of why practically all totalitarian early 20th c. regimes in Europe (and not only Europe – remember China under Mao) needed such ground-breaking transformations on their capitals and other major cities [1]? Interestingly, nearly all the early 20th c. European totalitarian and authoritarian state leaders, engaged into massive architectural projects – A. Hitler, B. Mussolini , later – N. Ceauşescu and others, expressed their ‘love to the classics’.
Soviet progressive urban planners created functional cities that were supposed to meet industrialisation needs. They thought that urban structures must become a spatial expression of social and political system. The revolutionary euphoria in Bolshevik Russia was particularly visible in massive industrial constructions, which became the symbol of the system’s forced modernisation, combining complexes of the heavy industry and experimental ‘socialist cities’. This type of exemplary proletarian culture was developed in Magnitogorsk, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Novokuznetsk (Stalinsk), Karaganda, etc., although radical reorganisations have more or less touched all cities of the country. Socialist cities were supposed to breed a new type of social relations and self-consciousness of citizens, willing to make a collective sacrifice to defend their Soviet homeland from numerous external and internal enemies in order to strive for economic prosperity. We could say that the construction and reconstruction of Soviet cities was both the measure and goal of the Communist revolution. Post-revolutionary Russian architecture and art followed avant-garde and modernist concepts, while architecture was predominated by constructivism, which was widely acknowledged on the international scale. However, circa 1927-1932, being at the top of political power, J. Stalin chose a completely different aesthetic programme – the so-called socialist realism, forcing Soviet architects and artists into quick reorientation.
The system started indoctrinating USSR cities with a certain general ideological scheme with no regard to local differences, but creating a consistent visual narrative. This involved various themes, such as Lenin, October revolution, ‘the leading role of the Party’, ‘people’s government’, later ‘victory in the Great Patriotic War’, etc. Therefore, public spaces, especially representational areas, featured ‘symbol packages’, which were supposed to introduce visitors and local citizens to unequivocal messages, achieved by well-thought-of visual, aesthetic, technical, discursive and other measures. For this reason, representational city squares used to feature a full complex of ideological objects and toponyms – a visual detail (monument), street names, surrounding of official buildings, etc. Central public spaces were used for mass events – meetings, demonstrations, parades.
Another particularly important line of the ‘great Soviet narrative’, which has left visual traces in many capitals of the former Soviet Union, is the ‘victory in the Great Patriotic War’. It should be noted that after the war certain cities were even granted the special status of a city-hero. This status had been given to Moscow, Kiev, Volgograd (Stalingrad) and Minsk and other cities already after the Stalinist era, in the 1960s-1980s. Although the monuments for the Great Patriotic War that had become the shapers of the ideological space of the capitals and other cities were built in different times, usually after Stalin’s death, all of them are characterised namely by the social realistic aesthetic expression of the Stalinist era. Some objects, worth of mentioning, include: Mamayev Kurgan memorial with The Motherland Calls – probably the largest monument in the world at that time in Stalingrad (1959-1967, sculptor Y. Vuchetich), Mother Armenia (pedestal 1950, statue 1967, sculptor A. Harutyunyan, built after the removal of the monument for J. Stalin) (Fig. 2), Mother of Georgia (1958, sculptor E. Amashukeli), The Motherland Monument in Kiev (1981, sculptor Y. Vuchetich and others) (Fig. 3), etc. The project of the Victory Monument on Tauras Hill, planned or Vilnius, remained unimplemented. The cultural memory of Belarus still has it as the major collective narrative. It is well illustrated by the Victory Square in Minsk with a 38 m obelisk, decorated with four impressive high reliefs, belts with national Belarusian ornaments and the Order of Victory at the top (1950-1956, architects G. Zagorski and U. Karol, sculptors Z. Azgur, A. Bembel, A. Glebov and S. Selikhanau) (Fig. 4). The memory of World War II in Vilnius has been established by the grave and monument for Ivan Chernyakhovsky (1950, sculptor N. Tomsky), the group of the soldiers-liberators of the Green Bridge (The Peace Watch by B. Pundzius, 1952), (Fig. 5) and a memorial for the Soldiers of the Soviet Army in Antakalnis Cemetery with the eternal flame and monument For the Soviet Partisans and Underground Activists on Pylimas Street Square, built later (1983, sculptors J. Kalinauskas and A. Zokaitis, architects G. Baravykas, K. Pempė, G. Ramunis), eliminating the former cemetery and chapel of the Calvinist community that stood there before.
Thus, the impressive and monumental examples of social realistic architecture and sculpture acted as effective means of visual propaganda for visitors and citizens. The architecture of Stalinist regime became an ideal model, embodying the future society of excess. The official architecture served as the ‘stage decoration’ for the mass rituals of the totalitarian socio-political arrangement – parades, demonstrations and meetings, making the process of the public deindividualisation and, at the same time, the neutralisation of rational thinking and critical relation to the regime. Moreover, they became a material illustration of the postponed promises to provide the Soviet citizens with at least decent living conditions, which were available only to the members of the state apparatus, loyal to the regime. Wide avenues, bright streets, the magnificent, impressive, décor and size of public spaces and buildings expressed the ideology’s aspirations to eternity.
Also, the abundant and frequent references to the ‘classical heritage’ gave these buildings credibility and connection with the global cultural heritage. However, the theoretical basis of the Stalinist architecture, which started developing in the 1940s, is quite hard to define. It’s difficult to talk about a consistent theory, while it was more of a set of certain stylistic measures and images. Nevertheless, the use of the ‘past heritage’ had undergone strict ideological selection: using Gothic or modern as styles of ‘social decline’ were forbidden, Baroque was undesirable, Western functionalism and local constructivism were rejected as well. Only the classic architectural elements, taken over from ancient Greece and Rome, Italian Renaissance or the Russian empire were allowed. National republics were also allowed to use local historical styles. This provision was brought by the USSR’s national policy of that time.
Developing Soviet capitals as a reflection of the USSR’s national policy
The pre-war foreign policy of the USSR shows that Joseph Stalin essentially aimed to restore the borders of the former Tsarist Empire. Aside from the unsuccessful attempt to reincorporate Finland in 1939-1940 during the Winter War, the greatest achievements were made in 1940, after annexing not only the Baltic States, but also Bessarabia. In essence, the Soviet Union was restored as a multinational united state, consisting of state members (in 1945-1956 there were 16, including the Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic, which was later reorganised into an autonomous republic, later – 15), which featured (mostly RSFSR) 20 autonomous republics, 8 autonomous areas and 10 autonomous districts. All of them were built on a national basis. In total the USSR featured citizens of more than 100 nationalities, the majority of them – Slavs, predominated by Russians. All major USSR administrative formations were named after the name of the national majority living in the territory, except for Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, where Kazakh and Kirghiz people constituted only about 36 and 41 per cent of the total citizens, and in some autonomous formations – even less. Armenia was the most ethnically solid (with more than 90 per cent), while Russians, Belarusians, Azerbaijanis and Lithuanians constituted more than 80 per cent of their national population.
According to the Soviet national policy, the administrative centres of the union’s republics were supposed to not only carry the major social economic load, but also become the symbolic capitals of the union’s or autonomous republics. Symbolic, because they couldn’t take any actual role of a representative of statehood, since the sovereignty of these republics was only formal due to well-known reasons. It should be noted that the cities of the national fringe of the USSR were very different in origins and history. Some of them, such as Kiev, Kazan, the capitals of Transcaucasia or the Baltic states, were already established as centres of national statehood, while others were deliberately selected and reorganised to acquire a status of a symbolic capital of a certain republic, for example, Chișinău – the new capital of Moldova, which was a part of Romania in 1918-1940. This process of ‘inventing capitals’ was especially noticeable in five brand new Soviet republics in Central Asia, which were established in 1924 by dividing the autonomous Republic of Turkestan, which was a part of the Russian Federation. These processes were not always smooth: there were cases, when the status of a capital was granted to another city, than planned before. For example, the capital of the Ukrainian SSR was returned from Kharkiv to Kiev in 1934, the capital of Uzbekistan SSR was transferred from Samarkand to Tashkent, while the capital of Turkmenistan – from the northern Cherzhou was transferred to Ashgabat, located in the south, close to the border with Iran.
Although the reconstruction project of Moscow, approved in 1935, became the example of urban development in the USSR, research shows that despite the easily-recognisable Stalinist empire buildings all over the USSR territory, neoclassicism had acquired individual features in all different capitals and other major cities. That was a reflection of local engineering expert expectations, manifestation of the ideological declaration to cherish local cultures, and a tendency brought and promoted directly from the ‘Centre’. The reconstruction plans for the Soviet capitals were prepared and implemented by experts, sent from Moscow, Leningrad and other major cities of the USSR. These architects and urban developers, except for some cases, usually didn’t go into a deep research about the history of local architecture and cultural specifics. Some of the most well-known exceptions – Alexey Shchusev, a member of the architectural elite of the USSR, who led the post-war reconstruction of Chișinău and had actually been born in that city, as well as the general plan for Yerevan was developed by the famous Armenian architect Alexander Tamanian, who had come back to this homeland from Moscow. However, in other cases the creative work of the outsider architects often had little to do with the sense of genius loci of the reconstructed capitals. Thus, their attempts to synthesize forms of classical and local folk art were not always successful, limited by formal use of the local folk art elements in building décor (especially noticeable in Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn). Moreover, their creativity was limited by the ideological pressure not to deviate from the narrow path, defined by the party, towards the inadmissible revival of the ‘bourgeois culture of the past’. Probably the most successful cases of ‘korenization in architecture’ could be found in the capitals of Transcaucasian and Central Asian republics (Fig. 6).
Speaking of the scale and means of the reorganisation of the USSR capitals, we should focus on the historical context, which explains the variety of urban rearrangements implemented. For example, the capitals of Central Asian republics had usually been developed before the war. The capitals of some of the Soviet republics had been sovietised already after World War II as an outcome of the ‘liquidation of massive destruction’. This group also includes the territories, invaded by the Nazis during the war. However, the scale of change in the western Soviet capitals was also rather different. For example, Minsk, the capital of Belarusian SSR, which featured significant examples of architecture of the transitional and neoclassical period, was turned into an ‘exemplary Stalinist city’ after the war (Fig. 7). Other cities mostly made do with a reconstruction of the major avenues, such as the famous Khreshchatyk Street in Kiev (Fig. 8, 9) or Lenin Avenue in Chișinău (currently – Stephen the Great Avenue) (Fig. 10), introduction of the symbols of the regime (the Stalinist skyscraper in Riga (1952-1958) or visual sovietisation of the main squares (Lenin Square, currently Lukiškės Square in Vilnius).
Most importantly, despite the planned rather more massive reorganisation in the capitals of the Baltic States , as well as Tbilisi and Baku, the valuable historical old towns were preserved. On the other hand, we could also pinpoint a group of capitals that were reconstructed several times due to natural disasters, rather than war destruction. These include Ashgabat after the earthquake of 1948, Tashkent after the earthquake of 1966, etc. Thus, in essence, the landscape of the Soviet capitals was sovietised in different times and on different scale.
Soviet Central Asian cities continued to develop on the basis of the Russian imperial colonist heritage, characterised by a system of cities-twins , when a city had both a European and an Asian side (Tashkent, Fergana, Andijan), or only a European side, such as Almaty (former Verny fortress), Ashgabat (1919-1927 – Poltoratsk), etc. Since the citizens of Transcaucasian and Central Asian republics could continue to associate the classic European architecture with former colonialism practices, Soviet city developers began to use reinterpreted and historically-developed local architectural traditions and shapes. This created a paradox of the ‘national form’ of the socialist realistic architecture, based on the constructions and decorative shapes of medieval sacral Christian (Georgia and Armenia) or Islamic (Azerbaijan, Central Asian republics) architecture. They were allowed to continue the traditions of local construction using local construction materials – mountain rock (Transcaucasian capitals). This gave these cities a unique character, particularly noticeable in Yerevan and some other buildings in Transcaucasian capitals, such as the Supreme Council Chamber and Government House (1938, architects V. Kokorin, G. Lezhava) (Fig. 11) and the building of the Academy of Sciences in Tbilisi (1953, architects M. Chkhikvadze, K. Chkheidze) (Fig. 12) or the Government House of Baku (1936-1952, architect L. Runev, V. Munts) (Fig. 13).
The search for ‘national form’
The sovietisation of the urban landscape of the USSR was implemented not only by synchronising it with the ideological narrative, mentioned before (in Stalinist terms, by introducing ‘socialist content’), but also by emphasizing the local cultural peculiarities, which facilitated the implementation of the Soviet meta-narrative in specific locations – the ‘national form’. Its purpose was to reflect the characteristics of the local art traditions of the nations, living in the USSR.
Researchers still debate, whether the inclination towards excess decoration and the interpretation of the national theme in the ‘Stalinist empire’ architectural details (especially using national ornaments) is more characteristic to the first stage of the Stalinist architecture or to its ‘twilight’ (Шамрук 2007). However, looking through a number of albums with the best examples of social realistic style, it seems that back before World War II, active use of national ornaments sprouted quite a few decorative buildings of high artistic value, at least in Transcaucasia and several Central Asian Soviet republics. These include, for example, the Homeland cinema theatre in Tashkent (1938, architect A. Sidorov), Dinamo stadium in Tbilisi (1934-1938, architect A. Kurdiani), Government House in Yerevan (1926-1941, architect A. Tamanian) (Fig. 14), residential neighbourhoods in Ashgabat (Fig. 15), etc.
Architectural means were used to indoctrinate the sense of belonging to the Soviet society (general ‘socialist content’) in the citizens and city guests, while the local ‘nationality’ or, in lack of actual statehood, ‘people’ expressed dependence to a specific territory – a republic, which belonged to the Soviet Union as a member, or an autonomous republic. Thus the strategy of the ‘localisation of the national décor’ became a certain marking of urban space, making a city different from other similar ones. At the same time the use of folk art elements in new constructions complied with the ideological goals and the fact that it presumably reflected the unprivileged societal members – the ‘people’. Therefore, architects were actively encouraged to rely on the experience of local folk architecture and aesthetics, and try to integrate it into their project solutions.
Considering the certain distribution of floral motifs (Lithuania – a tulip (Fig. 16), Belarus – a cornflower (Fig. 17), Moldova – a grape (Fig. 18), Ukraine – a sunflower (Fig. 19), Armenia – a pomegranate, Central Asian nations – cotton (Fig. 20), etc.) , we could assume that it was a visual and symbolic way for the Soviet regime to ‘brand’ different ethnocultural spaces. Of course, this presumption requires more in-depth research, but it could be partially confirmed by the abundance of similar metonyms in the décor of the national pavilions of the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition in Moscow (VDNH) and especially the sculptural composition of the Friendship of Nations Fountain , depicting 15 republics – ‘sisters’ of the Soviet Union (Fig. 21).
Thus the Soviet visual propaganda solved two issues at once. On one hand, the eclectically selected classic elements, predominating the décor of Stalinist buildings, unified it, embodying it as a single empire style, on the other – the modest inclusion of the ‘national motifs’ enabled specific nations of the USSR to recognize their ‘own’ characteristics, thus funding their ‘location’. The combination of these two goals enabled the Soviet ideology demonstrate the care of the development of local national cultures without deviating too much from the major goal of creating the ‘Soviet man’.
Conclusions
Just like any other types and forms of art, urban development and architecture in Stalinist era was used to serve the state propaganda. Widely implemented city reconstructions were also supposed to facilitate the process of creating a unified totalitarian Soviet man. Although the autocratic doctrine of social realism in the Stalinist USSR officially postulated its respect for the ‘classical heritage’, in essence, that was implemented by mechanically using selected stylistic and compositional forms for ideological purposes. Authentic urban-architectural heritage was mercilessly destroyed, making place for the new neoclassical construction.
The totalitarian ideology had emphasised architecture as an effective means of social engineering: the planned reorganisation of the surroundings were supposed to promote changes in people’s cognition, habits, behaviour and thinking. The purpose of the new – totalitarian – thinking was to create brand new institutions of mediation between the government and the governed, as well as forms of social control. Architecture became one of them. Interacting with and serving propaganda, the totalitarian architecture was turned into the means and, at the same time, arena for mobilising masses of individuals. This explains its monumental and façade-oriented form, because decorations create an effect only from the outside and do not necessarily be monumental and beautiful on both sides or on the inside…
The processes of indoctrinating Soviet visual culture simultaneously took place in all cities of the USSR. According to the basic logic of the hierarchical, monochromatic, uncompromising Soviet culture, the urban spaces of the capitals of the autonomous territories (republics of the Soviet Union) were given a certain status of a systemic ‘brand’, putting them onto the neat shelf of the totalitarian system. Urban, architectural and discursive tools, as well as stereotyped national ornaments and symbols were used to implement the ideological ‘circulation’ – through the ‘Stalinist empire’ the archetype of the “Third Rome’ has permeated the images of each Soviet capital and vice versa – all national republics were symbolically reflected in Moscow, a joint ‘combination of symbols’ at the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition in Moscow (VDNH). In the late Stalinist period all Soviet capitals managed to shape the major ideological accents, serving to legitimise and localise the Soviet political power, as well as implement the new scenario of collective memory, particularly highlighting the theme of the ‘Great Patriotic War’ in all city landscapes. Certain concessions to the architectural and folk art traditions of the national republics shouldn’t blanket the fact that the so-called cherishing of local cultures actually meant the elimination of any trace of actual statehood.
Notes
[1] Tung, A. M. 2001. Preserving the World’s Great Cities. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Literature
Golomstock, I. 1991. L’art totalitaire. Union Sovietique, III-e Reich, Italie fasciste, Chine. Paris: Editions Carre.
Tung, A. M. 2014. Preserving the World’s Great Cities (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2001.
Богданов, Л. С. 1950. Рига, Таллин, Вильнюс. Реконструкция исторически-сложившегося ансамбля центра города. Москва.
Косенкова, Ю. Л. 2010. Среднеазиатский город глазами архитекторов сталинской эпохи. Архитектура сталинской эпохи. Опыт исторического осмысления. Москва: КомКнига.
Нефедов, П. 2014. ВСХВ-39 [interactive], [seen on 26-09-2018]. Access on the internet: <http://www.chaskor.ru/article/vshv-39_36238>.
Нефедов, П. 2014. ВСХВ-39 [interactive], [seen on 26-09-2018]. Access on the internet: <http://www.chaskor.ru/article/vshv-39_36238>.
Топуридзе, K. 1954. Фонтаны Всесоюзной сельскохозяйственной выставки, in: Архитектура и строительство Москвы, № 7 [interactive], [seen on 26-09-2018]. Access on the internet: <http://www.bcxb.ru/doc/1954_ArchStrMos7.pdf>.
Шамрук, A. 2007. Архитектура Беларуси ХХ – начала ХХI в. Минск: Белорусская наука.
Illustrations
1. Lenin (currently Lukiškės) Square in Vilnius, 1972. Photo by A. Braaitis. LCVA 1-20202
2. Mother Armenia monument in Yerevan. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
3. The Motherland Monument in Kiev. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
4. Victory Obelisk in Minsk. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
5. Green Bridge statues in Vilnius. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
6. Main entrance to the Recreation Park. Dushanbe. Photo by A. Isserov.
7. Former Lenin’s Avenue in Minsk. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
8. Khreshchatyk architecture in Kiev. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
9. Khreshchatyk architecture in Kiev. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
10. Former Lenin’s Avenue in Chișinău. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
11. Former Supreme Council Chamber and Government House of the Georgian SSR. Tbilisi. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
12. Building of the Academy of Sciences. Tbilisi. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
13. Government House of Azerbaijan SSR. Baku. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
14. Opera and Ballet Theatre in Minsk. Photo by D. Mačiulis.
15. Yerevan’s landscape with Mount Ararat. Photo by T. Vardanyan-Ayvazyan.
16. Yerevan Republic (former Lenin) Square. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
17. The décor of the Government House in the Republic Square of Yerevan. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
18. Residential buildings in Ashgabat. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
19. Tulip motif in the social realistic architecture in Vilnius. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
20. Cornflower motif in the social realistic architecture in Minsk. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
21. Grape motif in the social realistic architecture in Chișinău. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
22. Sunflower motif at Kharkiv Airport building (the old wing). Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
23. Cotton and geometric motifs in social realistic architecture of Ashgabat. Photo by R. Čepaitienė.
24. The Friendship of Nations Fountain at the complex of the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition. Moscow. Photo by T. Korobova.