{"id":1047,"date":"2015-11-16T02:02:39","date_gmt":"2015-11-16T00:02:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/lt\/?p=1047"},"modified":"2015-11-25T08:49:02","modified_gmt":"2015-11-25T06:49:02","slug":"perversmo-architektura-postmodernistiniai-individualus-gyvenamieji-namai-lietuvoje","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/lietuviu-perversmo-architektura-postmodernistiniai-individualus-gyvenamieji-namai-lietuvoje\/","title":{"rendered":"Perestroika’s architecture: post-modern individual residential houses in Lithuania"},"content":{"rendered":"

Perestroika<\/em>, the fall of the Soviet Union and the independence of Lithuania, the first steps of business and the first glance to the Western world constituted an intensive background for emerging Lithuanian individual houses, following the world’s fashionable (yet already declining) post-modern tendencies.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The buildings that many years ago symbolised a solid life, making the passers-by still living in the Soviet-style \u201cboxes\u201d envy, today look like comic anachronisms. Who made them that way? Who wanted them and who offered them? The individual homes built at the beginning of the independence and pushed aside in the history of Lithuania’s architecture, have become the witnesses of the unique processes that could have taken place only in a post-Soviet environment.<\/p>\n

Reformations in the state \u2014 reformations in architecture<\/strong><\/p>\n

Specific political and economic conditions of the Lithuanian SSR at that time enabled the emergence of individual housing architecture. There were two major documents introducing the changes: 1) The Resolution of the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist Party and the LSSR Council of Ministers No. 264 of 28 September 1987, \u201cRegarding further development of individual residential housing construction\u201d; 2) Resolution of the LSSR Council of Ministers No. 300 of 13 November 1987, \u201cRegarding the measures for improving the organisation of the sales of goods produced by cooperatives and residents engaged in individual self-employment\u201d.
\nThe provisions of the first document gave birth to less-restricted construction of individual houses in the major Lithuanian cities, although claiming that before 1987 construction in LSSR did not exist at all, would be unfair [1]. It did exist, but the houses were built according to standard projects, their area, the construction sites (forbidden in cities and allowed only in rural areas), as well as acquisition of parcels and building materials were very limited. The Resolution No. 264 stated that \u201cparcels for individual constructions can be assigned in all regions, except for Palanga and Neringa. It is acknowledged that individual residential house neighbourhoods can be developed in suburban areas too\u201d (Legal acts… 2009). The amendment of the Resolution of 1988 says: \u201cThe area of individual residential houses is unlimited <…>. Construction materials can be acquired without special permissions at shops of supply and sales organisations, the construction materials of demolished buildings can be used too (Legal acts… 2009). Until finally, the Government of the independent Republic of Lithuania released the Resolution No. 278 of 12 July 1991, \u201cRegarding the construction of individual residential houses\u201d, which confirmed that \u201cthe size of an individual house is unlimited, putting limits only on the maximum built-up area <…>. It was provided that individual constructions are to be developed in all cities, rural areas and homesteads\u201d (Legal acts… 2009). Of course, it can be guessed that the \u201cunlimited size of a house\u201d did not really do much influence on architecture, since it was merely a formal decision of the state, made when the huge houses already existed de facto.
\nThe Resolution No. 300 is not directly related to construction or architecture. However, it largely influenced the economic and, at the same time, lifestyle changes in the country. Compare the standard project of a private residential house for the province of the Lithuanian SSR and the individual residential house built in the late 1980s (Fig. 1).<\/p>\n

\"Galaunytes-1a\"<\/a>\u00a0\"Galaunytes-1b\"<\/a>
\nFigure 1 On the left \u2014 a project of a typical house of 1985, on the right \u2014 an individual residential house, designed in 1992.
\n<\/em><\/strong>
\nWithout going deeper in the stylistic architectural differences of these two buildings, it is obvious that the area of the house on the right is much larger and there are some elaborate constructional or decorative solutions. We can assume that construction of this scale required large financial resources of the private person. Moreover, this private person was naturally interested in building a \u201cmodern and fashionable\u201d house (in the 1980s and 1990s this referred to post-modern style). The emergence of a group in the society, which wanted to distinguish themselves and earned more than the average LSSR wages [2], was enabled namely by the second legal act \u201cRegarding the measures for improving the organisation of the sales of goods produced by cooperatives and residents engaged in individual self-employment\u201d It said that the individual profit and market-oriented cooperatives (prototypes of private enterprises in the Soviet Union) are equal to state companies and the members of these cooperatives can use the same social guarantees as state officers (Siegelbaum, 1985). Another precondition for intensive construction of housing was the opportunity introduced in the late 1980s for young families to receive concessional loans [3]. There were cheap parcels and opportunities to acquire cheap building materials too [4].
\nThus, the Lithuanian SSR and later independent Lithuania developed a financially capable social group \u2014 not farmers, but citizens \u2014 who wanted more than the existential minimum. In general, a country that had just restored its independence, regarded the construction of small and individual housing as a priority. The architect Algimantas Nasvytis, the Minister of Construction and Urban Development, said: \u201cMulti-storey buildings, that have conquered so much of the city area, have no future. Our landscape looks better with small houses than huge buildings. The strategy is thus: personal design (of residential buildings) should be comminuted, privatised and individualised\u201d (Ilg\u016bnas, 2005). On the other hand, despite of the \u201ccontextuality of small houses in our landscape\u201d, the individual construction of residential houses in cities (an urban house was not equalled to a rural homestead, their concept was always different) and the tradition of individual architecture was somewhat neglected [5]. Perhaps it never even had any roots, because only a small part of the elite could afford an individual house in the city (mostly talking about Kaunas and \u0160iauliai). The volumes of construction in the late 1980s and early 1990s were unprecedented.
\nThe customers that could afford purchasing a project and building a modern house started emerging in the late 1980s. The architect Audrius Ambrasas remembers: \u201cThis turning point coincided with one of the impulses of post-modernism and resulted in an burst of architectural forms and spaces.\u201d However, due to the specific political situation, the architecture of Lithuanian private residential houses was influenced by factors that would be completely irrelevant in the Western world, <…> the new life style was not yet created, while the old one was developed in a communal two-room apartment. People used to joke that you build the first house for your enemy, sell the second one and keep only the third one, because you simply need time to understand your way of life. In general, everything happened in surges and design depended on the society’s instant demands (Grunskis, Reklait\u0117 2012). Thus this type of architecture of individual residential houses, based on a family’s financial situation (rather than artistic movements) received (and continues to receive) all kinds of diverse opinions.<\/p>\n

Architecture for the people<\/strong><\/p>\n

As it was mentioned, the (conditionally) new typology of an individual residential house in the mid 1980s willingly embraced post-modern tendencies at the same finding itself under intense fire of criticism. Post-modern public buildings were built already back in the days of the Soviet Lithuania, but did not receive much praise. For example, Algimantas Alekna wrote: \u201cOur young architects, very quick to embrace all the novelties and extravagance, rushed to study post-modern architecture and imitate some of the details or motifs found in magazines in their own projects\u201d (Alekna, 1985). Giving an interview for the column \u017dodis \u2014 jauniesiems architektams (A word for the young architects), Algirdas Kau\u0161p\u0117das shared similar opinions: \u201cThe interest in contemporary architecture is very often limited by focusing on the formal side, without going deeper to the roots that have led to the specific shapes and forms\u201d (Kau\u0161p\u0117das, 1980). At that time post-modernism in Lithuanian architecture was related namely to the architects of the young generation. Perhaps this fact allowed more critical and somewhat freer opinions: after all, these buildings were designed either by beginners \u2014 former students \u2014 or colleagues (in cases of Kan\u010das, Kau\u0161p\u0117das, Anu\u0161kevi\u010dius, etc.). It should be also noted that post-modernism was a \u201cdeviation\u201d from functionalism in architecture [6], which represented the official architectural style of the Soviet Union for a long time [7]. Topping architects carrying authority in the Soviet era [8] focused namely on that style and, moreover, always used to refer to examples of Interwar modernism in Kaunas as the source of their inspiration. Thus the post-modern architecture in the Lithuanian SSR did not fit in the frames of possible soviet \u201cnational architecture\u201d and \u201csearching for national identity\u201d [9].<\/p>\n

\"Galaunytes-2\"<\/a>
\nFigure 2. Residential house in Kaunas, \u017daliakalnis, designed by the architect Gintaras Natkevi\u010dius in 1995.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Individual residential houses did not receive much praise. Architecture of residential houses, closely related to the life style of the customer, perhaps simply could not be different during the years of \u201csavage capitalism\u201d. R. Buivydas aptly refers to \u201cfreedom poisoning\u201d (Buivydas, 2012). The most intriguing question remains thus: were the architects restricted by the demands of their customers or perhaps this was their only supply? After all, we could not say that all of the queerly-looking buildings were examples of self-learned headstrong construction. Take Naujakurio patar\u0117jas (Settler’s Advisor), the supplement of the magazine Statyba ir architekt\u016bra (Construction and Architecture). Approximately every issue since 1987 featured individual residential house designs with clear references to post-modernism (in total 50 designs, published until 1998). The publication offered not only architectural services, but also gave advice on how to build a house on your own (Rimkut\u0117, 1996), which partially could have contributed to the prosperity of self-learned architecture. The concept of \u201cpost-modern architecture\u201d was not used in these design descriptions, which limited to technical information. Although sometimes there were such epithets as \u201cfolk traditions\u201d (reference to regionalism), \u201cbuilders in favour of non-traditional solutions\u201d (reference to more extravagant shapes). The supplement sometimes featured designs, which, although presented as equal, were characterised by completely different architectural quality. For example, the house in \u017daliakalnis, Kaunas, designed by the architect Gintautas Natkevi\u010dius (Statyba ir architekt\u016bra, 1995\/6) (Fig. 2) and the residential house in Vilnius, designed by the architect J\u016brat\u0117 Mockien\u0117 (Statyba ir architekt\u016bra, 1995\/5) (Fig. 3).<\/p>\n

\"Galaunytes-3\"<\/a>
\nFigure 3. The design of the architect J\u016brat\u0117 Mockien\u0117, published in Statyba ir architekt\u016bra magazine.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The supplement’s covers with architectural objects of not the best quality are worth of an individual analysis (Fig. 4). Obviously, the editorial office of the magazine was interested in this commercial direction \u2014 after all, these were not critical publications, but merely advertisements of designers and architects. B\u016bstas (Housing), the supplement of Lietuvos rytas daily targeted a much wider audience, featuring stories about people that have built their homes with their own hands. A particularly special one ended up in the crime pages \u2014 an owner of a house, which was built without any permissions, injured an inspector of civil engineering…<\/p>\n

\"Galaunytes-4\"<\/a>
\nFigure 4. A typical cover of Naujakurio patar\u0117jas, featuring an advert of a constructions company.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Of course, we could say that commercial and typical architecture, without any claims towards high artistic quality, existed in all times. Yet were there any houses in Lithuania that crossed that line and were characterised by something more than huge area and little towers? A house on Miglovaros street in \u0160iauliai (designed by the architect P. Petrauskait\u0117, 1998) perhaps could be regarded as an example of such, although with several exceptions (Fig. 5).<\/p>\n

\"Galaunytes-5\"<\/a>
\nFigure 5. This individual house in \u0160iauliai, the only of its kind, was presented in detail in the magazine Archiforma (Archiform).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Although most likely it is only a variation of \u201cthe best among bad\u201d: \u201cNevertheless, the house on Miglovaros street is an individual and unique object, as opposed to some assembled American surrogate with pretentious stylistic details of Victorian times. At the same, this object indirectly reflects the sociocultural and aesthetic priorities in \u0160iauliai and the entire Lithuania (there are exceptions, but not too much). The newly-built Estonian embassy in Vilnius could serve as an example of purist modern architecture in Lithuania, yet we cannot refer to it as a product of Lithuanian architectural thinking\u201d (Vy\u0161ni\u016bnas, 1998). This house, together with the house of Vinkleris, designed by the architect K. Jur\u0117nas (1995, \u0160iauliai) (Fig. 6) and the house in Panev\u0117\u017eys, designed by V. Klimavi\u010dius (1994) (Fig. 7), were chosen for the retrospective issue of Archiforma, dedicated to \u0160iauliai and Panev\u0117\u017eys (Archiforma, 2002\/4) and were presented as the most prominent projects of the decade.<\/p>\n

\"Galaunytes-6\"<\/a>
\nFigure 6. House in \u0160iauliai, designed by the architect Kajetonas Jur\u0117nas.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The already-mentioned house in \u017daliakalnis, Kaunas, designed by G. Natkevi\u010dius, was acknowledged as the best in the group of residential houses at the competition \u201cRealisation of the Year\u201d, organised by Kaunas Department of the Lithuanian Architects’ Association in 1995. However, the presentation of these objects consisted of only several photos, leaving the reader to wonder what exactly made these objects exceptional. Most likely the authors of these buildings did not provide much information either. According to the architect Martynas Mankus, \u201cthe majority of the architects working in Lithuania and the world, who are over 40 years old, are inclined to remember post-modern architecture negatively\u201d (Mankus, 2012). Talking about Lithuanian architecture, we sometimes tend to forget the post-modern architecture completely. Take, for example, some of the websites of companies providing architectural services, which often omit their \u201cyouthful errors\u201d of post-modern architecture.<\/p>\n

\"Galaunytes-7\"<\/a>
\nFigure 7. House in Panev\u0117\u017eys, designed by the architect Vladas Klimavi\u010dius.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

If it could be said that the Interwar modernism of Kaunas inspired Soviet modernism in Lithuania and they both continue to influence Lithuanian architecture, then we definitely could not find any similar parallels with regards to post-modernism. The economic downturn in Russia of 1998 slowed down construction for several years. When the economic situation improved in the early 21st century, architecture was already different. Builders reduced their ambitions, houses became smaller and got rid of their pointy roofs and little towers. Contemporary houses have no trace of Lithuanian post-modernism. It did not inspire any future styles or designers and simply lays forgotten in the 1990s as a witness of chaotic development of the state and savage capitalism.<\/p>\n

Aist\u0117 Galaunyt\u0117<\/em><\/p>\n

Footnotes<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]\u00a0 The further analysis of the Resolution No. 264 of the Council of Ministers is based on the information provided in the \u201cList of legal acts, which regulated territorial planning, construction and the procedure of state construction control in Lithuania in 1947-1992\u201d (Vilnius, 2009), published by the State Territorial Planning and Construction Inspectorate under the Ministry of Environment.
\n[2] In the late 1980s \u2014 120 roubles.
\n[3] From conversations with families, who built houses at that time.
\n[4] From a conversation with the architect Gintautas Ti\u0161kus (24-05-2013).
\n[5] From a conversation with the architect Gintautas Ti\u0161kus (24-05-2013).
\n[6] The architecture historian Jonas Minkevi\u010dius refers to that style as functionalism (Disidenti\u0161kumo s\u0105lygos-scenarijai Lietuvos architekt\u016broje [accessed on 07-06-2013] Access on the internet: <http:\/\/www.archfondas.lt\/lt\/pokalbiu\/irasas\/disidentiskumo-salygosscenarijai-lietuvos-architekturoje>), Vaidas Petrulis \u2014 as Soviet modernism, while in the Soviet Union of that time it used to referred to as \u201c\u0441\u043e\u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0430\u0440\u0445\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0430\u201d (contemporary architecture). Nevertheless, the majority of historians agree that the architecture of those days was largely based on the movement of modernism, i.e. the International Style or the Bauhaus school.
\n[7]\u00a0\u201cAfter getting rid of \u201cexcessiveness in architecture\u201d, architects moved on to architectural shapes based on industrial logic. This paved the way for functionalism and modernism\u201d (Tutlyt\u0117, J., 2011, \u201cPokario modernizms. Nuo tipinio iki tautinio\u201d from Reklait\u0117, J., R. Vilnius 1900\u20132012. Naujosios architekt\u016bros gidas. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, p. 110).
\n[8]\u00a0The most prominent architects in the Soviet era were A. and V. Nasvy\u010diai, G. Baravykas, V. \u010cekanauskas, A. Ma\u010diulis, V. Br\u0117dikis, etc.
\n[9]\u00a0Here is an interesting comparison of Lithuanian and Estonian SSR architecture. In winter 2013-spring 2014 the public institution Architecture Fund hosted a cycle of discussions Dissidence in architecture, with Conditions\/scenarios of dissidence in Lithuanian architecture as one of the topics presented. Nevertheless, the post-modern architecture was not even mentioned during the lecture (presenters J. Minkevi\u010dius, A. Kau\u0161p\u0117das, A. Karalius). Another scenario \u2014 \u201cTallin’s school of architecture \u2014 designs, exhibitions and buildings\u201d (presenters Vilen Kunnapu, Andres Krug) provided numerous references on the connection between Estonian architects-dissidents and post-modernism, R. Venturi.<\/p>\n

Literature<\/strong><\/p>\n

Alekna, A.1985. Vardai nauji, o id\u0117jos…, Statyba ir architekt\u016bra 11.
\nDapkus, R. 2012. Kai kas apie dvide\u0161imties met\u0173 architekt\u016br\u0105, i\u0161 Grunskis, T., Reklait\u0117, J. 2012. Laisv\u0117s architekt\u016bra. Vilnius: Baltos lankos. p. 290
\nGrunskis, T.; Reklait\u0117, J. 2012. Laisv\u0117s architekt\u016bra. Vilnius: Baltos lankos. p. 120
\nIlg\u016bnas, G. 2008. Lietuvos Respublikos I Vyriausyb\u0117, 1990\u20131991 m. Vilnius. p. 185
\nKau\u0161p\u0117das, A. 1980. \u017dodis \u2013 jauniesiems architektams, Literat\u016bra ir menas, December 20: p. 6
\nMankus, M. 2012. Skaitant architekt\u016bros \u017eenklus Lietuvoje [accessed on 06-06-2013]. Access on the internet<\/a>.
\nRimkut\u0117, D. 1996. Miesto namo vienai \u0161eimai architekt\u016bra, Statyba ir architekt\u016bra 3: 29, 32.
\nSiegelbaum, L. 1985. Cooperatives [accessed on 02-05-2013]. Access on the internet: <http:\/\/www.soviethistory.org\/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1985coops&Year=1985>.
\nTeis\u0117s akt\u0173, reglamentavusi\u0173 teritorij\u0173 planavimo, statybos ir valstybin\u0117s statybos kontrol\u0117s tvark\u0105 Lietuvoje 1947\u20131992 metais, s\u0105ra\u0161as. 2009. Valstybin\u0117 teritorij\u0173 planavimo ir statybos inspekcija prie Aplinkos ministerijos. Vilnius. p. 21
\nVasiliauskas, A. 1998. Gyvenamasis namas Miglovaros gatv\u0117je Nr. 6 \u0160iauliai, Archiforma 1: 56-58.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sorry, this entry is only available in Lietuvi\u0173.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":324,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1047","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-publikacijos"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1047","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/324"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1047"}],"version-history":[{"count":27,"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1047\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1096,"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1047\/revisions\/1096"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}