(re) in h abitin g ru ssian avant

a
(re)
inhabiting
russian
avant-garde
featuring: Rem Koolhaas, Natalia Dushkina, Clementine Cecil,
Boris Groys, Kiril Asse, Moisei Ginzburg
special archiproba issue
2011
This issue of Archiproba magazine is a part of a research work of Strelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design.
The project was developed in Studio Preservation Next.
Research program director - Rem Koolhaas, supervisers - Anastassia Smirnova, Nikita Tokarev.
Khan - Magomedov’s Planet
by Natalia Dushkina
His name became a legend already during his lifetime. Several generations of
dedicated to the memory of S.O. Khan - Magomedov
people called him “the Khan” behind his back. His terse, aloof, curt locution,
his Orientally aristocratic sound and meaning packed an enormous punch,
they bespoke his nearly fanatical firmness of purpose and will, his tremendous
diligence, love of and commitment to the cause of his entire life - the study of
architecture. Without those personal qualities that determined the strength of
his talent, the phenomenon that might be rightfully called “Khan-Magomedov’s
planet” would never happen. We mean this both literally and metaphorically.
His contribution into the humanities and the history of world architecture was
so significant, his “knowledge” of man’s physical environment so great, the
central subject of his research - Russian avant-garde - so marked by its skyrocketing break with the “traditional” architecture and by its specific vision of the
future as to make his whole activity a breakthrough of cosmic dimensions. We
might presume that someday a newly discovered heavenly body will bear his
name, which would only correspond to his academic magnitude and international importance. This is no exaggeration. S. O. Khan-Magomedov - and,
through him, Russian architecture in the contest of our country’s recent history
- are known to architects worldwide. His books started a never-ending flow of
architectural pilgrimage to Russia.
editorial
content
chapter I
Avant-garde, why again ? 8 - 23
“Utopia and Exchange” by Boris Grois 14
“Mediocrity of the Russian Avant - garde” by Rem Koolhaas 20
My house, 1930
chapter II
Amnesia 25 - 77
“Buildings appeal” by М.Krasnostavsky article from “Smena” magazine 34
Every architect’s dream is to tell the world about the place he lives at. I was lucky
“1000 people” social survey by Kira Kartashova 72
to have been born where I was supposed to - or so I think. For nothing happens
by chance in this life: people that we meet, events that influence us, places that we
chapter III
The ‘phantom menace’ 79 - 94
come to.
I don’t recall when - and in what circumstances - I first heard the story of the apartment block where I live. I could remember neither the time of its construction nor
“The main problems of the workers’ settlements” by Kiril Asse 84
“Why constructivism is unpopular in Russia ?” by Clementine Cecil 90
the renowned names of constructivist architects who designed the earliest experimental residential “settlements” in Moscow.
chapter IV
This issue of the Archiproba magazine is dedicated to the heritage of the period
Konstantine Melnikov referred to as the “Brilliant Decade” - more exactly, to that
part of Russian avant-garde which, by a strange twist of fate or because of historical
Genius loci 96 - 139
My “Usachevka” 100
Nastya, get home! interior session by Grigory Polyakovsky 114
circumstances, ended up in obscurity.
Having composed a jigsaw puzzle of the entire live story out of microscopic pieces
of available data, I’d like to thank people who helped me in that undertaking,
especially those of them who replied to my letters, were willing to be interviewed
and shared with me their most intimate, fondest memories.
In a sense, I am a pioneer. And I am very glad to be the first to relate my personal
account of the Moscow “workers’ settlements” - to be more exact, of my own
“Usachevka” neighborhood. I know the place both as its adoring lifelong resident
and as an architect acquainted with its inner features.
by Tamara Muradova
Epilogue 141 - 144
“Imaginary interview” with Moisei Ginzburg 142
chapter I
9
academic definitions:
1
from Wikipedia
Avant - garde means “advance guard” or “vanguard”
the adjective form is used in English to refer to people or works that are experimental or innovative,
particularly with respect to art, culture, and politics
2
from Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms
the French military and political term for the vanguard of an army or political movement, extended since the late
19’th century to that body of artists and writers who are dedicated to the idea of art as experiment
Avant-garde, why again ?
and revolt against tradition
3
from Poetry Glossary
the innovating artists or writers who promote the use of new or experimental concepts or techniques
4
from American Heritage Dictionary
a group active in the invention and application of new techniques in a given field, especially in the arts
5
from Webster’s Dictionary
the most advanced group of people in any field of endeavor, especially in literary and artistic work,
usually characterized by new ideas and experimental techniques
archiproba # 03
10
11
A
critical definitions:
“ We are the first men of a Future that has not
materialized. We belong to a “great age” that
has not “come off.” We moved too quickly for
the world. We set too sharp a pace ”
Wyndham Lewis
“ Avant - gardism is an addiction that can be
appeased only by a revolution in permanence ”
Harold Rosenberg
“ Wake up. The avant - garde is dead
It’s been marketed ”
Will Self
“ Avant - garde is French for bullshit ”
John Lennon
A.Rodchenko
‘Jumping into Water’ 1934
private archive A.Rodchenko amd V.Stepanova
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
12
13
definitions thought:
heroes, personages, authors, people...
A.Rodchenko about V.Tatlin (1915 - 1917)
A.Rodchenko about K.Malevich (1941 - 1942)
“...Tatlin was a guest of Vesnin, we were
got acquainted. I started saying, that I go
visiting and can’t get any permission to
participate in the Arts World exhibition.
Tatlin also grumbled: “I already have my
hair grey, but “They” still have not recognized me! Well, okay, we’ll make a futuristic exhibition…”
“…Malevich himself was not pleased me.
He looked like somewhat square, with his
sloppy eyes looked aside, insincere, vain,
simple - minded and lapsided way of thinking. He came to me and said: “ You are unique
down here, but don’t you know what you are
doing? ” I replied: “ I don’t have any idea! ”
“ You know, all they are doing here is obsolete
and imitative. All this is finished.
Our Russian novelty comes. And I am doing
it, come to my place, you have already had it
tentatively. It is in the air!...”
Rodchenko, Alexander.
Articles, Recollections, Autobiographical notes, Letters.
Moscow: Soviet Artist Publishing House, 1982.
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
14
15
( from the Introduction )
Utopia
and
Exchange
by Boris Groys
All utopias of the modern world have their source in
It turned out, however, that an art that no one wants,
art. Since the days of old, a work of art was an epitome
no one buys and no one consumes loses its value. This
of the world as it ought to be - complete in its entirety,
lay at the root of economic failure of the Soviet
harmonious, tragic, elevated, free, exquisite. Discard-
society. Its creators believed that subordinating the
ing these traditional ideals, the post - modern art of
entire society to the task of creating a new world is
these days designs a new world of its own: a pluralistic
bound to endow it with incredible dynamism. In
and democratic world in which each language and
reality, society stopped in its development: with
each style has a right to be represented artistically.
consumption gone, production became disoriented.
There is only one thing art doesn’t want to be - a
Excluded from the sphere of consumption and
commodity exchanged for money and other commod-
exchange, art lost its worth, becoming a heap of
ities. In other words, art doesn’t want to recognize the
unwanted trash.
world such as it is, and its actual place in it. This split
between art and the world engenders a protest against
the world, a desire to remodel it not only in art but in
reality itself.
Russian avant-garde of the early 20th century was one
of the most radical attempts to change life itself. It is
We publish a chapter from “Utopia and Exchange”, book by Boris Groys, as it is the first text, devoted to the
Avant-garde, reviewing it from the philosophical viewpoint.
for this purpose that it leagued together with Marxism
which, as is widely known, also aspired to change the
world, not to explain it. While we are on the subject of
Marxism - its own source of inspiration was German
Romanticism aimed at realizing artistic ideals in real
life: every laborer was to become a free creator of
things and of his life in general, i.e., an artist.
To achieve that goal, the task of subordinating
the entire life of society to the aims of free artistic
creation was formulated: each and every had to work,
to become a creator of the new world - “who works
not, eats not.” For the same purpose, the upper classes
of society - whose aim in life consisted in consumption rather than production - had to be eliminated.
Thereby art and creativity were rid of the parasitic
consumer, of his philistine tastes, of the market, of
the power of money. Labor, regarded as art, obtained
totally unlimited prospects of free development.
Soviet avant-garde - like Russian avant-garde whose
part it was - believed that art expressed the personality
of its creator who imparted value to it. Therefore the
creator ought to be placed over the consumer: creative
laborers-artists must come in the stead of nobility, as
From: Boris Grois,
Utopia and Exchange.
Moscow: “Znak”, 1993 [in Russian].
Khlebnikov wrote.
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
16
Supervisor Panteleimon Golosov
was a Russian Constructivist architect and brother of Ilya Golosov
17
Supervisor Nikolai Ladovsky
was a Russian avant-garde architect and educator, leader of the rationalist movement in 1920s
russian avant-garde depicted through the prism of the students works of Vkhutemas, led by the distinguished masters of their epoch
M. Barkhin
Club in the Town of Perov. Competition project. 2nd prize.
1926
archiproba # 03
O.Ivanova
archiproba # 03
Tourist Center in the Mountains. 3rd year
1928
18
Supervisor Alexander Vesnin
was a leading light of Constructivist architecture
19
Supervisor Gustav Klutsis
was a pioneering photographer and major member of the Constructivist avant-garde in the early 20th century
russian avant-garde depicted through the prism of the students works of Vkhutemas, led by the distinguished masters of their epoch
M. Zhirov
“Shops - Bank - Hotels”. 4th year
1927
N. Kolpakova
archiproba # 03
Analysis of Archomatic Levels of Four Materials; Indian Ink, Gouache, Black Chalk and Graphite. 1st year
1927 / 1928
archiproba # 03
21
Mediocrity
of the
Russian
Avant - garde
by Rem Koolhaas special for Archiproba
9 june 2011, Strelka
Interview with Rem Koolhaas whose creative work has been rather influenced by the Russian Avant - garde. This was the
conversation about that part of the unknown avant - garde, which as fate has willed, always stood in the shade.
archiproba # 03
22
What is your personal definition of the “Avant - garde” ?
“ Almost unconceivable/thinkable in the current condition,
an avant - garde is a collection of individuals who work together
to achieve a greater prominence and credibility for all ”.
On the postcard from 1930, there is a photograph of the first worker
settlement in Moscow - “Usachevka”. How do you think, why exactly is this
place represented on the postcards ? What role does mediocre architecture
play in this case ?
23
Mediocre VS Unique. Actually, mediocre architecture seems to be better
preserved and more sustainable than the unique. How do you think, what is
the reason of that state ?
“ Paradoxically mediocrity is a indeed heritage advantage.
In Syria, but also in many other places in the world, the schism of
preservation, - to ‘touch’ buildings - has inevitably effected lead to a
scraping of patina, in the process also the functioning of buildings,
their meaning for a city. The adagium for preserving ‘masterpieces’ to make the same but better -, is a question hardly ever asked to
mediocrity, which is a blessing in disguise ”.
“Avant - garde” literally means going forward. Mediocrity may mean a step backward. What would than be the meaning of the definition “Mediocre Avant - garde”?
“ We live in a time of acute cronocaos with an avant - garde which has
been largely compromised by junkspace. I don’t see a real way out of
it - in our office we use the term ‘generics’ - looking for an architectural
recipes - like generic drugs - which could create valuable architecture
in a more effective way at a larger scale ”.
“Usachevkа” settlement, 1930
“ Postcards proved to be essential when I started documenting
New York in the 70’s. We went to fairs where there were huge
collections of postcards with more or less non - descript buildings,
buildings which never made it to the ‘official’ section of history
writing, and some of them now only existed as post cards.
Without the post - cards the understanding of the bulk of New York’s
explosion of creativity, would have been impossible to trace back.
What probably makes them different is that their production is
triggered by gut feelings rather than formal constraints ”.
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
Special thanks to
Janna Bystrykh
Stephan Petermann
advertisement
chapter II
Amnesia
from Wikipedia
is a condition in which memory is disturbed or lost
27
“Mnemosyne” greek goddess of memory
I find it hard to call to mind a more brilliant epoch in the history of Russian
architecture than that of Russian avant-garde. That epoch, with its uncontainably
future - oriented vector that foreshadowed many phenomena and discoveries,
proved very special.
There are things that are always “the talk of the town,” that are widely known
and much discussed; there are other things that recede into the background, get
eroded by the stream of time which carries them away out of focus.
Cultural amnesia is conducive to the partial disappearance of some historic
objects from the cultural map of Moscow. Technically, they continue to exist on
certain maps; actually, they are now blank spaces in history.
The emergence of this amnesia, with regard to a certain kind of avant-garde
architecture and its typically Russian flavor, has a number of reasons. A major
portion of architectural heritage was forgotten in Russia due to political situation
and to the fiction-centric nature of Russian culture - literature was always in
fashion, avidly read and discussed.
What were the properties of cultural memory that forced certain parts of
avant-garde architecture to leave the present field of vision? Why have they been
forgotten, partially erased from professional memory and - above all - completely
erased from the mind of the general public?
by Tamara Muradova
Dante Gabriel Rossetti
XIX century
archiproba # 03
28
29
visible
The Russian Avant-garde is one of the most popular issues during the
talk about the architecture of the XX century in Russia.
If we imagine the architecture of the Soviet avant-garde period as an
iceberg, we can see that its pick is occupied by the all - known names.
Their projects has been perfectly illustrated in S.O. Khan - Magomedov’s
books “ 100 master - pieces of the soviet architectural avant-garde ” and in
numerous foreign publications.
archiproba # 03
invisible
At the same time, the main part of the “ avant-garde iceberg ” is still
under the water surface and is absolutely invisible. It is replaced by the
“workers’ settlements”, housing for the workers of the nearby factories,
erected in the middle of 20’s.
archiproba # 03
Tatlin
Lamtsov
Vegman
Schuko
Schusiev
Shusiev
Kolly
Vladimorov
Milinis
Krutikov
Movchan
Zholtovsky
Sinyavsky
Barsh
Ole
Leonidov
Khidikel
Ginzburg
Golosov
Barkhin
Fisenko
Nikolaev
Movchan
Malevich
Melnikov
Vesniny brothers
Golosov
Krinsky
Klutsis
Korzhev
Lisitsky
Rodchenko
Ladovsky
Shukhov
Tatlin
Avant-garde iceberg:
30
31
1935
2009
The gap:
1935
magazine “Academy of Architecture” # 1
article “Architecture of the housing estates in Moscow”
The workers’ settlements architecture appeared to be so forgotten and
unpopular, that even after 80 years after their construction there was no
single full value publication, devoted to them.
archiproba # 03
2009
Project Russia # 52
article “Residential districts in Moscow from the 1920’s and 1930’s”
The first reference is dated by 1935 in the article “Architecture of the housing
estates in Moscow” in the “The Architecture Academy” magazine, and further on
the cultural amnesia was finished only in 2009, in the “ Project Russia”
magazine article.
archiproba # 03
32
33
The origins:
Residents of the ‘Usatchevka’ settlement
Residents of the barracks
In far 1924 the factories’ workers lived in the hutments, fully messed up
shacks. Then they were moved in the spacious white houses with the
developed social infrastructure, huge green yards and apartments with full
conveniences.
archiproba # 03
It might be interesting to sense and understand the feeling the first dwellers of the
worker’s settlements had when they found themselves in such paradise ?
The answer to this question could be found in “Buildings appeal” article which
we publish from “Smena” magazine # 133 (1929).
It tells the life of the first dwellers of Khavsko - Shabolovsky settlement in
Moscow.
archiproba # 03
sourse http://smena-online.ru/archive/1929/133
34
35
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
36
37
New buildings appeared on the wasteland. The
lovsky lane are far away from the high rank of the
communist fortress. The educations of the habitants,
Revolution declared war to Rasteryaev Street and
the fight for the new way of life and against the domi-
empty spaces overgrown with grass, erecting new
nance of belongings have been the unplanned things
“appealing buildings”. The Khavsko - Shabolovsky
here. The houses are huge, the buildings - bright and
lane’s appearance changed beyond recognition. The
spacious, but there is no order in them. The raid of
buildings gave one of the Moscow suburbs a whole
a “light cavalry” proved that there are peace, quiet
new appearance. The radio tower, surrounded by the
and the Oblomov’s bliss in the houses at Khavsko-
hovels and poor stalls of Danilovsky market, looked
Shabolovsky lane. Only a small number of people
like a grim reminder for wooden and timber houses
out of ten thousand living there have been covered
and chaotic and busy market before; now the tower
by the houses’ organizers, the others have been left
with its light decorative design and residential area
alone. The yards were poorly lit by rare street lamps.
with numerous buildings are elements of the new
And only along the walls, under the windows tenants
landscape. The wasteland area is subordinated to the
were sitting and whispering to each other. Somebody
Provincial engineer, who permitted to build five -
was playing an accordion, somebody laughed out loud
storied buildings here. About ten thousand people live
cover of the 133 issue
1929
and fell silent, because his own laughter sacrilegiously
in the houses, situated in the Khavsko - Shabolovsky
broke the darkness. People here were obsessed with
lane. People moved in the new apartments according
boredom, gossip and absurd rumor.
to residential standards.
… The old worker and I were going round the numer-
…People who got used to dusty and little windows,
“Buildings appeal”
by M. Krasnostavsky
ous yards of the large house and he dreamed up wisely:
moved in the houses with the large windows open for
sun and fresh air. This removal makes many people live
a different life, cheerful, beautiful and elevated. The
- Here I’d rather stand the poles for volley - ball, allot the
ground for the skittles and crocket. And in this yard it would
be better to make several bowers for reading. It would be nice
wide stairways, gas kitchen stoves, water tabs made of
to read, play chess and draught and to puff a cigarette in the
light copper, wardrobes and the most important - spacious and large rooms - all these make them absolutely
change their way of life. But not all residents feel like
open air. I would set up a loud - speaker in the third yard.
Let the worthy people listen reports, music and songs over the
radio.
this: some of them make up their mind with the old-
My fellow traveler dreamed within reasonable limits,
fashioned way of life, they were too tired to struggle
but the tenants themselves may turn these dreams
for a new life; they thought that the new apartment
into reality if they’ d like it. This man, who has expe-
had the following benefits: large living space, freedom
of movement and water supply. They not accepted the
obligation to master their life, to live a different way.
rienced the horrors of the workmen barracks, who
has known much sorrow, talked about the work in the
houses with a pain and sadness of a lonely enthusiast.
They gave up a fight to make the dream of better life
He showed me to the gate, shook my hand tightly and
into reality. They fell behind, focused on their apart-
explained the shortest way to the tram stop. The radio
ments and everyday life objects, which have a great
tower was dominating the houses in the dark sky. The
influence on people. The furniture and home utensils
lane was getting asleep, and only the noise of trams
in the most apartments are cumbrous, odd and vulgar.
and rings of the tram drivers disturbed the rest of the
The things prevail over people; they are like monu-
workmen outskirt like talking in the sleep.
ments to the past.
Many years ago it was stated, that every house shall be
a communist fortress. The houses of Khavsko - Shabo-
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
38
39
Network: Soviet Union
Saint - Petersburg
Ivanovo - Voznesensk
Nizny - Novgorod
Moscow
Komsomolsk - on - Amur
Ekaterinburg
Khabarovsk
Magnitogorks
Omsk
Novosibirsk
In the middle of 20’s there was a great industrial boom in the Soviet Union;
the incredible number of factories was built in various industrial cities.
The total number of workers has grown from 9 to 23 million, and the
problem of resettlement of the population became pressing ever more.
archiproba # 03
Irkutsk
The Soviet Government ventured on a very bold step and started campaign
for the creation of the mass housing for workers. Thus, the workers’
settlements appeared in all large industrial cities of the USSR.
archiproba # 03
40
41
Moscow , air photography made in 1941
Moscow: 25 workers’ settlements
World War II
Timiryazev
academy
Pistsovaya
Sokol - Madi
Palikha
Preobrazhenskoye
Izmailovsky Val
Matrosskaya Tishina
Rusakovskaya
Budennovsky
Campus of the IPE
Dangauerovka
Kolodezny
Nizhnyaya Presnya
Studencheskaya
Pogodinskaya
ring of factories
Abelmanovskaya Zastava
Dubrovka
Novoostapovskaya
Mytnaya
Velozavodskaya
Vostochnaya
Serpukhovskaya
Usachevka
Khavsko- Shabolovsky
More than 4 million square meters of housing were built in
Moscow from the middle of 20’s.
The factories emerged on the former city outskirts and the worker’s settlements appeared in their vicinity. Nowadays, when the city borders have
spread out, the major part of the settlements appeared to be in the central
part of the contemporary Moscow.
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
42
43
inhabitant:
“...I relieved my room. Down with the flock - dot and roses
and birds “tapestry” wall - papers… The wall is pained
in white color. The “fine” furniture curtails are cut off…
Instead of chairs with hacks I put two pieces of furniture
“ The romance of the revolution could be perceived not
only in the immense projects of the workers’ palaces with
amphitheatres for thousands people, revival of the
thermae as mass sporting arenas, in the monuments for
heroes and victims of the bloody events full of severe
emotions, but also in the first projects of houses bearing
the day - to - day names: “proletarian house, “single
worker’s family house”.
In housing projects of 1918 - 1921 the ascetic facades, the
power of walls and piers seemed romantic for us are, that
is all included in the habitat concept of the architectural
art image. Then, however, in the housing projects of 19221925, the housing functionality became the main feature.
The development of the housing architecture of the first
post - revolution years came seemingly form the romance
of the projects, made in first three of Soviet power, to the
projects of the end of the recovery time, where the main
feature was saving and sanitary requirements demands.
From the contest for the “proletarian house” projects - to
the development of Usachevka, Traktornaya Street and
Palevsky Massive...”
made by my friends from Vkhutemas, the samples of
standard furniture…”
wrote the author of the propaganda leaflet “A new man house model” 1925
apartment interior 1926
government:
“...The worker does not need a number of spacious rooms with the
excessive decoration…For the convenience of the inhabitants it
is necessary to have a separate bedroom, the second room where
worker could spend his available free time, and the third space
must be a kitchen. The minimum floor area of the apartment will
be 50 square meters and the volume 120 m 3...”
“Saratovskije Izvestia” newspaper wrote in March 1925
V.E. Khazanova,
Soviet architecture of the first years of October 1917 - 1925.
Moscow: “Nauka Publishing House”, 1970.
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
image www.oldmos.ru
44
45
The project: winner
First typical residential unit Mossoviet, 1925
The “workers’ settlements” present the earliest sample of mass housing construction
in the mid-1920s.
That was, in a manner of speaking, an experiment - an attempt to create, in a
shortest possible space of time and at a minimum expense, a perfect residential
milieu for workers.
The blocks whose architecture formed snug inner courtyards magnificently
In the ideology of mass housing of the middle of 1920’s there was an idea to create the architecture simple and life
convenient. So, in 1925 the Mossoviet announced the contest for the development of the first standard living section.
The contest organizers were limited by the most general condition: “the project must esthetically satisfy the healthy
proletarian taste”. In the competition 6 countries and 105 projects took part. The winner of the contest became the
section developed by N. Ladovsky and L. Lisitsky: it was an apartment, including separated rooms, bathroom and a
kitchen. At the end of 1925 the architects began developing the various types of the living sections integration.
illustrated a sensory approach to design based on the social aspect and on the role of
man placed within such architecture. Careful attention was paid to each detail - and
to the entire daily routine of residents, ranging from awakening to late night, from
weekdays to weekends.
The residents - who had just moved from their dusty barracks - could not express
their joy adequately at the sight of their new comfortable and spacious domiciles.
The advent of the “workers’ settlements” in a way foreshadowed the Khrushchev
epoch. However, unlike the housing of the latter period, the settlements of the
epoch of constructivism were designed and build on a high level. They furnish a rare
example of a project superbly implemented and adapted to the needs of real life.
I focused my research on the nine “workers’ settlements” situated in the Central
Administrative Precinct of Moscow. This is a “hot zone” of many diverse complications and dangers which draws heightened public attention. The settlements in
question have therefore their own specific problems that differ from those
experienced by the uptown settlements. Troubles notwithstanding, the architecture
of the Moscow “workers’ settlements” envelops their residents in an amazing,
singular ambience to this day, creating an oasis of the long-forgotten feeling - the
feeling of the bona-fide old Moscow.
by Tamara Muradova
“Usachevka” first workers’ settlement
based on the first typical residential unit Mossoviet
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
46
47
The catalog: 9 settlements
7
1
Palikha
Rusakovskaya
Budenovsky Posiolok
4
2
Nizhnyaya Presnya
9
Pogodinskaya
8
3
Serpukhovskaya
5
6
Dubrovka
Usachevka
archiproba # 03
Abelmanovskaya Zastava
archiproba # 03
49
Rusakovskaya
photography by Nikolai Vassiliev
late of 20’s
architect: V. Motylev
address: Rusakovsaya street, Gavrikova street
archiproba # 03
50
51
Budenovsky Posiolok
photography by Nikolai Vassiliev
photography by Nikolai Vassiliev
1926 - 29
architect: M.Motylev
address: Bolshaya Pochtovaya street
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
Budenovsky settlement is interested most of all by its lay - out. “ This is one of only two Moscow settlements that saved their initial planning design and facades, - points out the constructivism architecture
researcher Denis Romodin.
The innovation of the architect Mikhail Motylev is most of all the building of the inner arciform
passage. It was designed taking into account not the transportation demands solely, but the optimal
insolation of all settlement ”.
archiproba # 03
53
photography by Nikolai Vassiliev
52
Fairly speaking, some buildings were exposed to serious re - construction in 1970 -2000s, notes the
student of local territory. The wooden ceilings were replaced by the concrete, the walls and basements
were enforced, a part of window openings were closed up and the new were made. Though the value of
this housing complex is in its architectural scale which is rather comfortable for the inhabitants. Many
of the living buildings are adapted to the corner position, though they have the standard flat section,
approved by the Mossoviet.
archiproba # 03
Abelmanovkaya zastava
1926 - 27
55
photography by Nikolai Vassiliev
54
The housing block, in which there was used the standard Mossoviet section (4 - storied), but
reconstructed and superstructed in the second half of 1930’s. The block occupies the area of the
architect: G.Vegman
irregular shape between Abelmanovskaya Street, Myasnaya Street (Talalikhin street) and
Broshevsky lane.
address: Abel’manovskaya street
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
57
Nizhnyaya Presnya
architects: I. Antonov, V. Bibikov, B. Blokhin, N.Volkov, P. Grushin, I. Zvezdin,
N. Malinin, O. Stapran, B. Ulinich
address: Shmitovsky proezd, Mantulinskaya street, Kostikova street, Severianovoy street, Makeeva street, Jivova street
archiproba # 03
photography by Nikolai Vassiliev
photography by Nikolai Vassiliev
1926 - 1928
59
Nizhnyaya Presnya
1926 - 1928
architects
I. Antonov, V. Bibikov, B. Blokhin, N.Volkov, P. Grushin, I. Zvezdin, N. Malinin, O. Stapran, B. Ulinich
address
Shmitovsky proezd, Mantulinskaya street, Kostikova street, Severianovoy street, Makeeva street, Jivova street
Housing complex for workers and servants of the factories nearby, unique in its variety ( Trekhgornaya
A house with the trading center at Schmitovsky Proezd is notable for its unusual design. The tower
elements are attractive in this project.
surface pattern walls, laid out boldly (at Schmitovsky Proezd and inside the block).
manufactura and others ). The general architectural scale, cozy yards and numerous domestic services
archiproba # 03
silhouette of its corner center. One should also note the buildings developed by O. Stapran, with the
archiproba # 03
photography by Nikolai Vassiliev
58
61
Dubrovka
1926 - 30
A large housing complex with the buildings composed of standard apartment section of Mossoviet.
In this project this section was adopted to the actual siting of the streets and lanes. For the sake of it
architects: V.Bibikov, E.Shervinsky, N.Molokov, A.Mostakov, A.Vegman, A.Panin, I. Antonov
address: Mel’nikova street
archiproba # 03
M.Motylev and others developed special corner sections. There were at least 10 non - standard sections
( sharp angle, flat angle, angles with various stanza and balconies of complicated shape ).
archiproba # 03
photo by Nikolai Vassiliev
60
62
63
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
Usachevka
photography by Nikolai Vassiliev
1925 - 28
architects: A. Meshkov, N.Molokov, N. Sherbakov
engineers: G.Maslennikov, A.Volkov
address: Usatcheva street, Dovatora street
65
photo by Nikolai Vassiliev
64
The housing complex was built at the place of former Usachevsky marketplace for “ old bolshevics ” in
In certain times all Usachevka area was surrounded by the fence with the wicket gates. Up to now the
jority of 3 - 4 roomed apartments which are rather spacious and have large kitchens and entrance halls,
kindergarten). There was a skating ring in one of the yards, and the central yard made up a public park
commemoration of the October 10 anniversary. It comprises of the thin brick wall buildings with a mathe minor part of 2 - roomed apartments has floor space of 50 square meters. One of the advantages of
the Usachevka apartments is the entire rooms ventilation, the cold boxes and through venting - the flats
initially planned shops (in semi-basement story) still work (bank, Post office and telegraph, laundries,
with Lenin’s monument, fountain and the benches.
occupy all width of the building and their windows compulsory look at both sides.
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
66
67
Pogodinskaya
photography by Nikolai Vassiliev
1927-29
architects: N.Volkov, V.Bibikov
address: 2nd Trujennikov pereulok, Pogodinskaya street, Plushikha street
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
photography by Nikolai Vassiliev
68
69
Palikha
Serpukhovskaya
1928 - 30
late of 20’s
The houses, created on the basis of the Mossoviet standard sections. The buildings are typical for the time, forming the cozy yards
architect: is not known
architect: is not known
archiproba # 03
address: Tikhvinsky pereulok, Palikha street
address: Lousinivskaya street, Mythaya street
archiproba # 03
70
71
The numbers:
VS
total constructivist workers’ settlements residential area in Moscow
2 000 000 m2
95 000 people
total population of the workers’ settlements in Moscow
=
96 168 people
total population of Delft ( NL)
from Wikipedia
diagram
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
http://www.businesspj.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/huge-crowd.jpg
213 757 200 m2
total residential area in Moscow
72
73
Social survey
The research polled a sample of
appoximately 1 000 people living in residential neighbourhoods from
the 1920’s and communal houses in 2008
images www.oldmos.ru
“Usatchevka” inhabitants
by Kira Kartashova
Kira Kartashova
sociologist
Member of the Elders’ Quorum under Moscow Mayor
PhD in Architecture, Professor
Distinguished architect of RF
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
honorary Member of RAABS
74
75
Results:
Social demographic chart of the survey
Male 43%
Female 52%
No answer 5%
Age category of intervieweers
Retirees 20%
Adults 68%
Students 12%
Employment
State Employees 18%
Labourers 4%
Service Workers 35%
Managers 12%
Business Owners 12%
Students 13%
Retirees 11%
Other 10%
No Answer 7%
Family structure
Couples with children 67%
Couples without children 33%
How many people are in your family ?
1 13%
2 28%
3 25%
4 21%
5 2%
6 1%
No Answer 7%
How long have you been living in this
apartment ?
Not long 17%
A long time 27%
Various generations 53%
No Answer 3%
Period of stay of local residents ?
Not long 20%
A long time 80%
How did your family obtain the apartment ?
From work 16%
Inheritance 29%
From the public administration 7%
Exchange 22%
Purchase 21%
No Answer 5%
Did you know that your home is an architectural monument from the 1920s/30s ?
Yes 50%
No 46%
No Answer 4%
Did you know that your home was designed
according to the style of the Constructivist ?
Yes 34%
No 62%
No Answer 4%
How many rooms are there in your
apartment ?
1 room 10%
archiproba # 03
2 rooms 40%
3 rooms 32%
4 rooms 10%
No Answer 8%
How would you describe the condition of
your apartment ?
Good, recently renovated 41%
Requires simple renovation works 33%
Requires a total renovation 21%
No Answer 5%
Did you believe your apartment is in good
condition ?
Yes 20%
No, requires simple renovation works 41%
No, it requires a total renovation 35%
No Answer 4%
What is your feeling about the shops and offices on the ground floor of your buildings ?
Positive 34%
Neutral 43%
Negative 17%
No Answer 6%
What type of extra services would you like to
have ?
Services for residents 27%
Shops 32%
Public services and banks 26%
Sport and fitness 3%
Food stores 11%
Are you aware of the importance of your
building to our culture ?
Yes 37%
No 59%
No Answer 4%
Knowledge of retirees regarding the cultural
importance of their homes ?
Architectural monument from the 1920s/1930s 58%
Constructivism 42%
Building of artistic value 40%
Knowledge of adults regarding the cultural
importance of their homes ?
Architectural monument from the 1920s/1930s 40%
Constructivism 30%
Building of artistic value 30%
Knowledge of students regarding the cultural
importance of their homes ?
Architectural monument from the 1920s/1930s 40%
Constructivism 30%
Building of artistic value 35%
In what type of apartment do you live?
Cohousing 8%
Autonomous 88%
No Answer 4%
archiproba # 03
76
77
Reputation chart:
This is a reputation chart, about typologies of the mass residential
development in Russia in XX century.
1917
1920 - 30
1930 - 50
1960 - 80
1970 - 00
before Stalin’s era
Constructivism
Stalinskie houses
Khrushevki
Prefabricated houses
+
?
+
-+
-
Each epoch has more or
less clear picture, with its
advantages and shortcomings in the people mass
perception. But when we
turn to the 1920 - 1930
period we can see the dark
spot or the white sheet.
People have no any idea of
that epoch objects.
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
advertisement
chapter II
The ‘phantom menace’
www. theoryandpractice. ru
81
photography by Nikolai Vassiliev
80
The “workers’ settlements” of the constructivist era were
not, for a long time, counted among worthy samples of
architecture: unlike certain unique buildings, they were
merely standard projects whose goal was to provide the
working class with housing. To put it differently, they were
not masterpieces in the normal sense of the word. It must
be noted, however, that the services of first-class experts of
Soviet constructivism were enlisted for designing the
settlements, and the experts masterly performed the tasks
they were entrusted with, coming up with revolutionary
and unconventional design solutions that are in many
respects up-to-date even now.
As of now, society still lacks a definite opinion as to the
actual value of the settlements in question. The extremely
few relevant publications in the press demonstrate the
absence of a common opinion. Some think this episode in
the history of architecture unworthy of attention; others
see some worth in it. However, despite the fact that professional architects tend to defend the “workers’ settlements,”
their value is seriously called into question.
by Tamara Muradova
“Dangauerovka” settlement
Moscow 2008
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
image by Anke Zalivako
82
83
“ The Head of Moskomnasledie doubts in the
appropriateness to save all workers’
settlements of the constructivism period
located in Moscow ”
26.06.2008 / http://www.gdeetotdom.ru/articles/newconst/1216441/
“ Farewell, the worker’s settlement...”
# 30 (757) 10 september 2009 г / http://www.moskv.ru/articles/fulltext/show/id/9337/
“ Prefect of CAD appealed to demolish the
capital city worker’s settlements...”
26.03.2009 / http://realty.lenta.ru/news/2009/03/26/poselki/
“ The Usachevka hermits ”
Izvestiya newspaper , 13.03.2009
“ The capital city settlements of the
constructivism period: demolishing or
re - construction? ”
18.06.09 / http://www.irn.ru/articles/19180.html
“ The constructivism Atlantis ”
Expert newspaper №23 (661), 15.06.2009 / http://www.archi.ru/events/news/news_current_press.html?nid=17220&fl=1&sl=1
“ The constructivism: to save is unprofitable,
to demolish is shameful ”
Izvestiya newspaper от 06.02.09
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
84
85
Kiril Asse
an architect,
permanent author of OpenSpace.ru portal,
“Project Russia” and “Project Baltia” magazines
The main Problems of the
modernistic workers’ settlements
by Kiril Asse special for Archiproba
In my view, the main problems of the modernistic workmen settlements lie in two
different, not interconnected planes. The first problem is that they were created as
the ideal towns. As any ideal town they became the visual implementation of the
theoretic concepts, which appeared to be to certain extent their art and historical
value from one side, and which became a reason of their low adaptability for the
living, from the other.
The second problem is that these projects served as the answer to the demands
not existing any longer – there is no industrialization, nor masses of liberated
proletariat, forming the alliance with the countryside, and the life quality standard,
which became conventional since that time among the main part of the native
population, is far deviated from the standard the designers have been based on.
On the assumption that in our days the role of cheap labor force, that the proletariat and the outskirts is occupied by the guest workers from the Middle Asia,
who live in the non-human conditions of the hostels as well as proletariat and
joined lumpen - proletariat, one could expect that in the nearest future this slavery
standard will be replaced by the standard of the workmen settlement. But there is
a risk that the settlements themselves will not survive till these bright times.
One should note the lack of diversity as well, relevant for any massive project, but
I think, that it goes without saying.
Though, if the certain efforts will be made to preserve these settlements and the
photography by Nikolai Vassiliev
diversification of their usage will be promoted, we could hope that they could
archiproba # 03
revive being inhabited by the Middle - Asian people or students.
archiproba # 03
86
87
tangible
danger
(in) tangible
danger
In February 2008, the Head Office of the Scientific Design Institute of the General Planning Agency
of Moscow, by order of the Moscow Committee of Architecture, developed the “Concept of Preservation, Reconstruction and Development of the Housing Areas of the 1920s - 1930s.”
All these events - the discussion at the Moscow Committee of Architecture, the termina-
The “Concept” included data of historical and cultural research as well as recommendations for the
tion of protected status, the inclusion in the program of demolition of “uncomfortable
techniques of rehabilitation of the areas in question. The Institute’s “Concept” suggested three regimes
housing” - transpired behind the backs of the unsuspecting residents of the settlements
of rehabilitation of the “workers’ settlements”: (1) the “scientific restoration”; (2) the “reconstruction”;
under consideration.
(3) the “renovation.”
On the one hand, the supposed health hazard presented by these blocks and the former
The 25 “workers’ settlements” located in Moscow as a result of our research were protected
by the state since 2002. However, in compliance with Instruction #1556-RP ( 2009 ) of the
Moscow Government, it was decided to deny them the status of objects of cultural heritage
prefect’s campaign for their demolition are easy to explain: the high cost of a square
meter in the Central Administrative Precinct of the capital. On the other hand, we have
the story of a memory loss, a total oblivion and a lack of information which created a
(regional importance) which entitled them to state protection.
“zone of amnesia” around these blocks.
Thereby nine “workers’ settlements” situated in the Central Administrative Precinct of Moscow were
Whereas it is very hard to protect oneself from life hazards (since we have no actual
deprived of state protection:
knowledge of their sources and no common opinion regarding it), it is nearly impossible
to protect oneself from a danger one can’t place.
1. The “Rusakovskaya” housing complex, block 998;
2. The “Serpukhovskaya” housing complex, block 1269;
Cultural amnesia results in a situation when the place has no one to protect it; there is no
3. The “Nizhnyaya Presnya” housing complex, blocks 781, 777, 778, 780, 785, 503, 2421, 2423;
professional community that would take the impending demolition to heart and alert the
4. The “Pogodinskaya” housing complex, blocks 540, 537;
public, there is no sufficient knowledge, no systematized data, no community opposition,
5. The “Palikha” housing complex, block 715;
no expert evaluation.
6. The “Budenovsky poselok” housing complex;
7. The “Usachevka” housing complex, blocks 474, 475, 476, 477, 479;
So it is now my task to assemble the pieces of the scattered jigsaw puzzle, to focus public
8. The “Dubrovka” housing complex, blocks 1194, 1199, 2017;
attention on the problem, to form a transparent data cloud around the “workers’ settle-
9. The “Abelmanovskaya zastava” housing complex, block 1966.
ments” - a cloud accessible to anyone wishing to see and realize that vital thing which
became obscured during the long time of oblivion.
Later things got worse. In 2010, the Department of Urban Construction of the City of Moscow, in acby Tamara Muradova
cordance with Decree #772-PP (August 11, 2009) of the Moscow Government, “Detailed Long - Term
Urban Program of Demolishing Uncomfortable Housing for the Period till 2025,” all settlements having
wooden ceilings are to be condemned.
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
88
89
The classified materials:
To the chairman of
Moskomnasledie
To the chairman of
Moskomnasledie
Totally on the territory of Moscow there are 25 complexes of the
housing building of 1920-1930s, including 9 on the territory of CAD
The decisions to give the remaining 6 complexes, located on the territory of CAD (Rusakovskaya, Buddenovsky settlement, Usachevka, Nizhnaya Presnya. Serpukhovskaya and Dubrovka) the status of guarded historic-cultural territories have been made before.
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
90
91
Buildings of the Constructivist period are unpopular
the patina of time well. If a building is unmaintained,
in Russia thanks to a combination of negative associa-
a vicious cycle begins by which its inhabitants begin to
tions on the part of Muscovites, compounded by a
perceive their home negatively, and maintenance/repair
series of official rejections by the authorities. In order
becomes increasingly unlikely.
to understand the source of the negative associations,
it is necessary to go back to their original construction.
Today, it is easy to forget the instability and poverty
of the 1920s when many of these buildings were
constructed. It was a time of stress and upheaval and
mass population migration into the cities. Housing
was cramped, the new factories were often dangerous, and there was not enough food to go round. This
“When a building is rejected
by its own inhabitants,
it inevitable suffers in
appearance, becoming less
attractive, and less
remarkable”
instability was reflected in huge changes in the urban
Examples of this are the Hammer and Sickle Factory
environment. In some cases, in order to make way for
Canteen in Samara, and Narkomfin in Moscow. It is
new constructivist - era buildings, churches, monaster-
very difficult to reverse this cycle, without
ies and cemeteries were destroyed. This meant that
‘re-branding’ the building. Such a re-branding
many people perceived the new structures negatively, as
operation has happened at Garazh (Konstantin Mel-
usurpers of sites previously occupied by much - loved
nikov, Vladimir Shukhov, 1926). This is a happy example
and familiar buildings.
of a building that has found an owner who saw its
potential and understood how to use it.
Why Constructivism is unpopular in Russia ?
by Clementine Cecil special for Archiproba
Constructivism was officially rejected in 1932 when
Socialist Realism was called for in all the arts. It was
Other buildings, such as the apartment block at 8
condemned as being a foreign import, and not
Gogolevsky Boulevard (M. Barshch, I. Milinis,
sufficiently able to reflect the great achievement of
1929-1933) have enjoyed far more peaceful lives, and
Soviet Russia. The neo-classical buildings constructed
have been loved and well-maintained by their
in the second half of the 1930s up to the 1950s, were of
inhabitants from the beginning. It is often the more
a larger scale than that of the Constructivist buildings,
ambitious projects, like the Nikolaev Hostel and
which lost their dominance in the urban environment.
Narkomfin, that have suffered more.
Due to official rejection, many of the buildings were
unmaintained, for example Narkomfin (Moisei
Ginzburg 1930), and additions were made to the structures, detracting from their visual impact.
Stalin was the first of a series of rulers with anti modernist tastes in 20th century Russia: Krushchev
and former Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov both spoke
out against modernism, contributing to continuing
negative perceptions.
Many buildings, like Narkomfin, and the Nikolaev
Hostel (Ivan Nikolaev 1930) were made from experimental materials, some of which aged badly, becom-
Clementine Cecil
co - founder (with Kevin O’Flynn and Guy Archer)
and trustee of MAPS,
The Moscow Architecture Preservation Society
ing unsightly. Modernist buildings do not always bear
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
92
93
Western Expert
Michael Turner
Vice - Chairman of the worldwide UNESCO
and Chairman of the Israel World Heritage Committee
The book devoted to the
German workers’ settlements
included into UNESCO
supervision, which comprises
the detailed story of this long
but successful process
The conversation with Michael Turner, who took part in the expert
commission on the inclusion of the German settlements under UNESCO
guard.
He told about the criteria which were hard to estimate, in particular the
issue of the authenticity and integrity of the settlements of the
avant-garde period.
archiproba # 03
Strelka
18.04.2011
archiproba # 03
94
advertisement
German example:
In 2008 UNESCO included into the list of the world heritage 6 workmen settlements in Berlin, built in the first
decades of 20th century by the well - known German architects Gropius, Taut and Sharoun.
Such a decision was accepted on the 32th Session of the World Heritage Commission of the organization in the
Canadian Quebec. Germany filed the application in January, 2006.
“These settlements correspond a new type of the social housing of the beginning of 20th century. Further they greatly influenced the
architecture and urban planning”, says the UNESCO support.
The list includes “A garden - city Falkenberg” of the Berlin district Treptov - Kupenik, “Hufaisen” settlement in Britz,
Tourist guide
Moscow 1920 - 1930
Krasnaya Kniga
the Karl Legina in the Prenzlauerberg region, so called “White city” in Reinikendorf, Schille park in Wedding and
Siemens schtadt in Shpandau. They have been built within 1913 - 1934 by the initiatives of the city authorities and
based on the projects of German architects Bruno Taut, Martin Gropius and Hans Scharoun.
Großsiedlung Siemensstadt, 2008
Could we employ the German
example of conservation ?
This
Summer
Will the re-construction in Russian
sense, demolish the verity and
integrity of the objects ?
archiproba # 03
www.avangard - ru.org.
96
chapter VI
photography by Grigory Polyakovsky
Genious Loci:
Usachevka
archiproba # 03
99
academic definitions:
“Genius Loci” Gayley 1893
1
from Wikipedia
the protective spirit of a place
location’s distinctive atmosphere, or a “spirit of place”
2
from American Heritage Dictionary
the distinctive atmosphere or pervading spirit of a place
the guardian deity of a place
3
from Oxford Dictionary of Architecture & Landscaping
every place has its own unique qualities, not only in terms of its physical makeup, but of how it is perceived, so it ought
to be (but far too often is not) the responsibilities of the architect or landscape-designer to be sensitive to those unique
qualities, to enhance them rather than to destroy them.
4
from Webster’s Dictionary
the pervading spirit of a place; a tutelary deity of a place
Source: Charles Mills Gayley,
The Classic Myths in English Literature and in Art
(Boston: Ginn and Company, 1893) 62
archiproba # 03
100
101
My “Usachevka”
This chapter deals with the history of the unique neighborhood - Usachevka, one of
the nine blocks. The place that holds my most treasured, intimate memories.
Это глава посвящена истории уникального места, места которое для меня ассоциируется с самым дорогим и
My family lived there since 1970s, and many interesting neighbors live there to this
родным. В этих местах жила моя семья с 70-х годов, здесь выросла и я.
day. Their destinies and their histories are inseparably connected with Usachevka.
The expression “genius loci” always stirred my imagination, I always tried to
Глава содержит историческую справку о месте и рекомендации по реабилитации среды, с минимальным
perceive its true meaning.
вторжением в ее физическую субстанцию. Я постаралась разобраться из каких же компонентов состоит
The genius loci of Usachevka is a box in which I placed the most incomprehensible
гений места – Усачевки, что составляет ее ценность и уникальность, если отвлечься от традиционного
and lovely moments and images which, combined, form the unforgettable feeling of
the “Place”.
This is the stooping old lady who lives in an apartment accessible from the corner
понятия архитектуры.
Будучи архитектором и особенно жителем, человеком с особой чувcтвительностью к своей среде – я поняла,
entrance who walks her two dogs every evening. This is the opera singer on the top
что предметом охраны никак не может являтьcя здание, им является - дух места, задачей которой является и
floor with a balcony, rehearsing his operatic arias every night, the entire courtyard
вся проделланная мною работа.
resounding with his voice in the nocturnal silence. This is the lilac blossoming
outside our window which Mom always picks to make huge bouquets; she says
it’s good for the lilac - it would grow the lusher next year. These are my childhood
buddies living next door to this day. These are summer barbeque parties in the yard
with our neighbors, right under the windows. This is my record time on foot to the
nearest subway station, early in the morning and being late for classes: less than 1
minute. This is the whispered “See you” to the boy who saw me to my door late
in the evening - whispered on account of the excellent acoustics of the yard and a
neighbor might overhear us… These are myriad of other things which make this
place special for me.
The stories of old residents, who lived in Usachevka their entire lives, run all
through the chapter lending to it a feeling of veracity…
photography by Grigory Polyakovsky
by Tamara Muradova
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
102
103
images www.oldmos.ru
Usachevka:
Usachevka 1928
Usachevka during the WWII
The housing complex Usachevka appeared as an ultra - modern massive
at the Moscow outskirt. In 1925, when the construction works of the first
blocks began, the area near the Novodevichy monastery and Kauchuk plant
was the waste ground crossed by the private structures, the hutments of the
Civil War times, converging to the swamp area of Luzhniki. The landscape
transformed by the constructivism approach and the ideology of the “bright
future” was implanted with the prototype of the urbanity mass building
works. By the ergonomic ratio the result overcomes most of the built later
on. Two blocks of the four - storied buildings on Kooperative Street and
the block of five-storied buildings between Usachevka Street and Dovator
Street after more than eighty years after its erection look like the reservation zone with its own character not disturbed nowadays. Not disturbed
historic aura and spirit of the “human architecture”, introduces by the
authors, and makes the region attractive for the dwellers and tourists.
by Vladimir Sorokin
Usachevka alley 1928
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
104
105
original masterplan 1928
The block “2530” build up project by architect V.I. Bibikov, approved for further
development. The plan shows well the main feature of the workers’ settlements notably the structure of the green yards overflowing into each other and creation of
image source ЦАНТДМ, ф. 2, оп. 1, д. 2077, л. 32.
comfortable closed spaces.
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
107
photography by Grigory Polyakovsky
“...The connection of a man and his place of
inhabitance is mysterious but obvious. Or this way: It’s
absolute but mysterious. It is led by known to our ancient
genius loci, the place genius, connecting the intellectual,
spiritual, emotional aspects with their material environment...”
Vail, Peter.
Genious Loci.
Moscow: Kolibri, 2008.
archiproba # 03
108
109
Vadim Efremovich
Old inhabitants:
“In early 30-s my wife’s father worked at lacy factory in Bolshaya Savvinskaya embankment.
As he was a factory worker, he was granted a flat in Usachevka…”
The Aunt Lena
“We first saw negroes during 2-d World Festival of Youth and Students that took place in
Moscow in 1957…
That was a great holiday, youngsters rode in ZIS cars (Stalin Car - Making Plant) along
Sadovoe ring - this was a state of delighted euphoria…”
Marina Vladimirovna
“Our district was entirely outskirts. We walked along Bolshaya Pirogovka as far as
to Kropotkinskaya. This was our promenade - avenue…”
The Aunt Lena
“We had the best bakery here on the corner, where produced delicious black and
white bread. When we were school pupils we all attended practice at Khlebzavod
(Bread Factory) in Dovatora street…”
...Nobody would know the past times history, they keep the romance of old
Moscow life. The old women talk sweetly on the benches, while their grand
children are busy in the sandpits and play with the old good yard dog.
They always know everything about every person and the place of its living,
as well as they know the persons they could apply for the good advice or
help...
During our private conversation Marina Maslennikova told, that her father
worked with K. Melnikov and she remembers their visits to Melnikov’s house at
Krivoarbatsky pereulok.
Recommendations:
The creation of the social support program for the old dwellers
of the block, renovation and technical modernization of buildings
for the old dwellers and invalids.
Vadim Efremovich
lives at Usachevka since 1940, his wife‘s family lived here, he moved to her after his
marriage.
The Aunt Lena
images www.oldmos.ru
lives at Usachevka since she was born (1941).
Marina Maslennikova
is a daughter of the Chief Engineer of Usachevka - Georgy Maslennikov, she was born
in 1927 at Usachevka, and right after the complex building was completed.
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
A cool summer day, you are sitting on the bench...
There is nobody around...
The dense leafage closes the alley, and it is hardly seen who is walking to
you...
Only the birds singing and the leaves noise are heard, deafening the sounds
of rarely passing automobiles...
You are sitting in the inner park of your yard...
It seems you have to go home, it’s getting dark...
pavilions
+
fountains
alleys
The Aunt Lena
“I couldn’t remember much playing in the yard, but I remember winter time when we on ice skates went all the way
from the yard to the stadium and skated there till we fell, so we came home on all fours by the evening only…”
+
boulevards
Marina Maslennikova
“In early 50-s there was an arbor in the middle of the yard; usually grannies were sitting there, sometimes inhabitants
brought radios or phonographs and set up some dances…”
The Aunt Lena
“There still is an old lamp is hanging in our yard: it enlightened the yard with red light before and were always on duty
beside it. Our yard was the less dangerous, no matter at what time I came there when I was a teenaged girl, I did not
feel fear of anybody.”
lawns
+
glades
Vadim Efremovich
In mid 70-s a first white Volga appeared in our yard, and we were all terribly jealous of that…
The Aunt Lena
“In the turn (of the Moskva river) people planted carrots and potatoes, but in 1937 all kolkhozes (communal farms)
were kicked out. And now at the area of the former Khimik stadium and a beach, where we’ve got our sunburn, there
is the Luzhniki stadium.”
Recommendations:
Reconstruction of the initial trees species in the yards, alleys
and boulevards. Improvement and saving of the original planned
structure of the yards, saving and careful recreation of the
environment elements: fountains, benches, bowers, playgrounds.
archiproba # 03
sport
+
playgrounds
archiproba # 03
images www.oldmos.ru
Greenery:
111
photography by Grigory Polyakovsky
110
112
Time patina:
113
The peeling plaster, uncovering the old brick masonry...
Rubbed away by time stairway, which you walk up and down every day...
Crunching old oak parquet, which makes you walk tiptoe to the kitchen
at night not to disturb someone’s sleep...
The old double window frames which need to repaint from time to time...
Shabby stairway ministers, my grandfather always held...
The Aunt Lena
“All houses were initially colored red brick or dim - gray, base dressing and house painting appeared in late 70-s…”
Examples for the paving textures
photography by Nikolai Vassiliev
PANTONE colors for facades
Recommendations:
The careful renovation of the existing original elements, façade
plaster, window frames and doorways. Recreation of the original
yard paving, the curbstone, pipes and the yard fences.
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
115
Anastasia and Fyodor Maksutiny
Interior session:
“Nastya, get home!”
photography by Grigory Polyakovsky special for Archiproba
archiproba # 03
116
117
Anastasia lives at Usachevka since she was born, with her parents,
a well - known Russian artists: Korsakova Irina, Maksutin Sergey.
The Maksutin family moved here in 1976, when Anastasia grand
father moved in after the complete overhaul.
The apartments saved the time spirit, the window frames of 1927
are still there, and the things from the past move us time back,
creating the feeling of mystery and awe.
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
118
119
inhabitants
Anastasia Maksutina, Fyodor Maksutin
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
120
121
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
122
123
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
124
125
“ We appear at the place we ought to. I can’t imagine I could be born in
any other Moscow region. For instance at the place, where houses were
not built from the old bricks, and the entrances in summer time don’t
breathe cool, or there, where the road noise deafens the birds, and where
the porches do not exist at all. In such places shouldn’t the linen is dried.
The moms do not permit their kids to play with children all along the
cowboys and Indians and don’t cry trough the window:
“ Nastya, get home! ” - it is not customary there. And here… we live
with windows open wide, with the door keys forgotten in the door lock
or hidden under the door mat. And it’s not scaring. And if some stranger
comes, the neighbor is always at home and asks the unbidden stranger a
couple of questions to repel his interest to the wrong property. And she
will come at night and ask for salt, and bring the fresh pancakes. I have
an apartment in other district - also near the center, the same bricks, the
green trees are around… but I don’t really know what will make me to
move in, or somewhere else...”
by Anastasia Maksutina
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
126
127
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
128
129
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
Special thanks to Anastasia Maksutina
130
131
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
Architecture:
Facade. Usacheva street, 29
Vadim Efremovich
“This was outskirts, a swampy area. Along Efremova street there was a railroad to Kauchuk factory…”
The Aunt Lena
“During the war no missiles fell on our houses, thanks God, but I remember, how we, kids, ran on the roofs of houses
discarding a high - explosive projectile…”
“I remember we lived in almost elite houses, we had all the blessings of civilization for that time, and everybody
treated us as if we were cool…”
Vadim Efremovich
“Apartments were heated by potbelly stoves; every inhabitant had a utility room in the underground floor where they
kept firewood…”
“Elevators appeared in some houses in late 70-s, after basic repair. They were initially planned only in corner sections
of six – storied buildings …”
Marina Maslennikova
“When Sportivnaya metro station was being build, the hall of which was situated under our houses, buildings 2,3,8 and
7 have been cracked. They were initially tightened by timber angle braces, which later were substituted for by metal
ones…”
Someone has the corner balcony on the last floor with the astonishing view
of the boulevard...
Someone could not imagine his life without the bathroom with the window
with the view of the Novodevichy monastery belfry...
Someone lives on the attic sixth floor with the exit to the roof...
Someone has the cooler box where the raspberry jam jars are kept...
archiproba # 03
Plan. Usacheva street, 29
Recommendations:
To maintain the strict control of the accessory buildings, to control
the shop windows style, entrances and glazing of the first stories,
given to the social needs: to ban self-making of the window frames
and balcony fences.
archiproba # 03
image source ЦАНТДМ, ф. 2, оп. 1, д. 2077, л. 35,36.
133
photography by Grigory Polyakovsky
132
134
135
Environment:
If you want to go sports, you can reach in 10 minutes by slow walk the biggest stadium in Russia; 6 minutes are needed to reach Novodevichy
Monastery and enjoy its buity; 12 minutes are needed to go to the legendary
Usachevsky bath house; to enjoy the distinguished masterpiece of Russian
constructivism it requires 20 minutes of the sashayed walk; to see the Leo
Tolstoy mansion – 25 minutes, to look the city panorama from the highest
Moscow point – 27 minutes...
Lev Tolstoy Memorial Estate in Khamovniki
Novodevichy Convent
The house where Tolstoy and his family lived after leaving his family
is probably the best-known cloister of Moscow
In 2004, it was proclaimed a UNESCO World Heritage Site
estate and moving to Moscow in the 1881
Usachevskie Baths
Was built for factorie worker’s in 1934
Kauchuk Club (1927-1929)
is a constructivist public building designed by Konstantin Melnikov
Sparrow Hills, Vorobyovy Gory
is the biggest sports stadium in Russia
is a hill on the right bank of the Moskva River and one of highest points in Moscow
Recommendations:
To include the Usachevka settlement into the city tourist map.
archiproba # 03
images www.oldmos.ru
Luzhniki Stadium opened july 31, 1956
archiproba # 03
136
Mythology:
The stories covering the places by the mystery veil...
People made the places mysterious...
Places attracting by their vagueness...
Vadim Efremovich
“On the opposing bank of the Moskva river, behind Novodevichy monastery there was a chemical plant of paint and
coatings, producing perfumes. It would be impossible to go down to ponds as the smell was so sweet that it made us
dizzy…”
Marina Maslennikova
“We prepared for exams in Novodevichye cemetery as it was quiet and silent there.”
137
The Greeting
“ Derisive, feeble and the awkward
the only one on this Earth,
in Usachevka near the bus stop
it was Lermontov who suddenly
appeared next to me,
and in the middle of the night of the
distract and unsteady
( as if I’ ve asked him to reply ) Martynov - what…
- he said to me while keeping smiling
- he’s innocent, I have forgotten all for him...”
Mikhail Bulgakov (1891 - 1940)
Lived in Usachevka from 1927 to 1934, exactly in these times he wrote his legendary novel
“ The Usachevka
always was inhabited
by the intellectuals musicians, architects,
distinguished medical
doctors, professors,
military leaders.
The name “workers’
settlement” is just a
time convention…”
“The Master and Margarite”.
We could only imagine, what influenced the appearance of the mysterious and
magic work, may be the Usachevka spirit ?
Gai Dmitrievich Gai (1887 - 1937)
From 1927 - 1935 one of the soviet armed forces leaders, the hero with the mysterious name
Gai Dmirievjch Gai lived in the corner entrance at the last 6th floor, with a view to the entire
spacious green yard.
from Izvestiya, 13.03.2009
Bulat Shalvovich Okudzhava (1924 – 1997)
Mentioned Usachevka in his poem “The greeting”.
one of the city portraits, the meeting with Lermontov’s spirit also appeared in Usachevka
In 1984 Usachevka appeared in the movie: “The House for Everybody” Director: Komarova. O
The story about history of mass housing construction in Moscow - from the first houses, built for the workers in the
20’s, to today’s large new neighborhoods.
Usachevka, in the courtyard
image “Smena” magazine
1935
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
138
139
“A letter for you!”
In 1930 it was decided to publish a post card series “New houses of Moscow”, including Usachevka, as the most
modern housing massive in Moscow for that time (post card circulation was 30 000 copies).
E-bay sells old postcards with “Usachevka” settlement
price starts from 100 US $
may 31, 2011
“Usachevka”, 1930
ownership Tamara Muradova
It is 2011 now, and yesterday, on the 6th of May, I got my post card at
Usachevka Street Post office, which was reaching me all these long 81 years.
I have in my hands the post card of 1930 where Usachevka is shown.
The houses look like nowadays, people are strolling, the ice-cream stand
is here, and the only time proof is the absence of the trees.
And now instead of this naked field there is a tight forest of poplars
and oaks...
Recommendations: To recreate new post cards series called “Old new
Moscow” including Usachevka.
archiproba # 03
archiproba # 03
images www.oldmos.ru
advertisement
Epilogue
Moisei Ginzburg
Imaginary Interview
142
Moisei Ginzburg - Ideologist of Constructivism
The founder of the OSA Group (Organization of Contemporary Architects),
in 1924 he published the book “Style and Epoch”
- effective manifesto of Constructivist Architecture
143
Good afternoon! Thank you for your con-
It is quite natural that with the new culture
You were saying about appearance of a new
sent to meet with us. Today let us speak
new people should emerge. What do they
style called “Constructivism”. Could you
about “style” and in particular about the
look like up to you ? Is this a new caste ?
dwell upon its ideological sense ? Is this a
“époque” that made it. Well, here comes the
first question. How does a new style emerge ?
What are the preconditions that define it ?
“ A new style does not emerge in a day. It starts in
different aspects of the human life that often have
nothing in common. Outdated things regenerate
gradually, and we often have to watch elements of the
past remaining due to sustained traditions and surviving
the ideas that induced them, and the element of a new
daring world stunning with its vandal dew and full of
independence of its arrival. But the new element that
rubs down increasingly the outlines of the old world
until there finally remains nothing capable to stop this
process due to its vitality and pure natural rightness …”
(Chapter: Preconditions for New Style, page 75).
What historical events force a dramatic
change in the conception of an “époque” and
played a role that might have an effect as dramatic as
any other historical move clearing the horizons and
contributing to perfection of a brand new and viable
culture. All these events like a thundering knock shook
many foundations that had seemed to be secure, and
turned us free from an abyss of numerous pretenses
and habits, substituting for the true power of creation.
Indeed, we are now clearly facing a whole number of
elements from new life hiding on the other side, nearly
skipped by us back, then and now turning into basic
factors of the new world. And a whole pantheon of
godlings and idols has crumbled to dust like good for
nothing junk…” (page 77).
archiproba # 03
before us in all their beauty and unexpected and acute
and the ability to galvanize into life the senile body of
mankind. But stepping put of the long passive existence
and becoming a more active element of creative life this
new driving factor brings into power of creation the
and lapidary language of simple, unobstructed architectural forms. Analyzing the history of styles we can
every big blossom. When a new style language
emerged from…” (page 77).
emerges, when its new elements are created, there
certainly is no necessity to temper them with
Let us speak about the problem of labor
something else - the new is normally born as a
housing being now the problem of modern
construction or utilitarian necessity deprived of any
architecture not only in Russia but all round
Europe. What will a labor residence be in
ornamental elements, in the raw. ” (Chapter: Construction and Form in Architecture, page 119).
“ This is why the ideas of constructivism despite their
future?
destructive promises appear nowadays as natural,
“ The problem of labor residence had been dictated by
deeded and life - giving. And it can be explained, of
course, not only by economic conditions of the
present, but also the outstanding role the machine
there are a lot of workers’ settlements in Europe. We
starts playing in our life… The machine has no ethically “altruistic” elements. There is no so - called “free
the typical workers’ settlement project casting
flight of imagination”. Everything in it has a concrete
organized in 1918 by Association of British Architects
under the instructions of the Government gathered 800
competitors and 1838 projects.” (page 81).
and precise purpose. This is not the matter of, according to some constructivists that the esthetic emotion
has vanished: fortunately, this is not so, which is best
“ One should admit that the modern worker’s house
proven by works of these constructivists themselves,
in its formal and typical expression is a task still to be
ahead. Even in sentimental houses of a garden - city we
face a gradual release from formal elements of overage
but it is that with the influence of altered life conditions our esthetics emotions and its nature have also
changed” (page 121).
classic system, expansion of logic simplicity of fine
Constructivism as a facet of modern esthetics born by
unhidden constructions and rational space use. Even
uproarious life filled with odor of the street, its mad
with these first steps we stumble into the spirit of
pulse, its pragmatism and routine concerns, esthetics
community, the large scale of architectural projects,
readily assimilating “Labor Center” and an a
prompting to lapidary and enthusiastic expression.
dvertising poster of a folk festival is undoubtedly one
What will the future worker’s house is beyond our
explicit visualization, but these are the qualities born by
the peculiarities of the worker’s house as such that will
constitute the basis of the latter...” (pages 80-81).
artistic asceticism, in all the power of rude barbarian
easily notice the rule being quite natural for nearly
particularities and features of the environment it had
“ The World War and Russian Revolution acting as an
power distinguished between the old and the new,
of their glittering and superficial clothing have come
or babyhood, therefore retaining its creating powers
can judge about how vital the issue is by the fact that
world, and being an event that by its spread and mental
“ Architectural monuments, denuded and deprived
group after being withdrawn from lethargical sleep
its new interpretation ?
bases of not only our motherland but also the whole
Text from: M.I.Ginzburg,
Style and Epoch.
Moscow: “Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo”, 1924 [in Russian].
in the historic arena of a new nation, people or social
life conditions long before the War. Thus, nowadays
immense catalysts that gave a jolt and upturned the
new notion ?
“ Nearly always a new culture is a result of appearance
of the peculiarities within the époque of new style lapping up modernity with all its advantages and
disadvantages…” (page 123).
archiproba # 03
Daylight was falling.
Archiproba magazine
moscow summer 2011
First Street lights kindling outside.
3d issue
Inside the room warm light mildly refracting fell on the floor following the window sashes of Narkomfin Building.
www.archiproba.com
For a moment I caught myself thinking that I do not want to leave this room.
Editor / Creative Director
The pureness of space, harmony of proportions, - all these seemed unusual here.
Tamara Muradova
Moisei Ginzburg slowly rose from his armchair and walked me to the exit.
Translation
We found ourselves in the corridor.
Anatoly Kovalev, Olga Sherbakova
The house lived its own life, I could hear children’s laugh, and somebody rattling the dishes, from the very end of the
corridor I scarcely heard echoing radio.
I felt the house was alive.
Thanks to:
We said good bye to one another.
Kiril Asse
Yura Ananiev
I went to the staircase and my accompanee left right - about with a sweet smile.
Vasilli Bantsekin
I turned around and saw the figure of Moisei Ginzburz leaving quickly - his dark overcoat and bowler - hat have been
Boris Bernaskoni
slowly disappearing into the corridor as if in the veil of mist…
Clementine Cecil
Natalia Dushkina
Bart Goldhoorn
Yefim Freidine
Ekaterina Karinskaya
( granddaughter of K.Melnikov)
Rem Koolhaas
Marina Khrustaleva
Alexander Lavrentiev
( gradnson of A.Rodchenko)
Anastasia Maksutina
Marina Maslennikova
Mihic-Jeftic Marko
Fedor Novikov
image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Narkmomfinfoto2.jpg
Polina Nazarenko
Ilya Oskolkov-Tsentsiper
Vladimir Paperny
Olga Polishuk
Grigory Polyakovsky
Askar Ramazanov
Mikhail Smetana
Anastassia Smirnova
Elena Solovieva
Kuba Snopek
Tatiana Tsareva
Nikita Tokarev
Nikolai Vassiliev
Tamara Muradova
january 10, 1930
© Educational program 2010-11
Anke Zalivako