THE SOVIET by HANNES MEYER ‘The architect has always been intimately linked with his social environment. He is one of the human tools that serve the ruling power to for- ify its position. Architecture besides its direet utility, has always served to maintain power. We find an architect serving the Pope, in Bram- ante, or the King, in Le Notre, or as a colonial funetionary, in Tolsa, or as a privileged member of the bourgeoisie, in Tony Garnier. To this we must add that building is an activity profoundly connected with social-economic needs and the superimposed spiritual structure, And the archi- tect is always of necessity a collaborator. He does his work together with economists and industrialists, with workers, artisans and house- wives. In Hindu tradition the future architect must first perfect himself as a carpenter, a ‘mason, a painter, a sculptor, and an iron worker. Mature men of forty yoars are then known as “masters of architecture”. In capitalist society architecture is numbered among the “liberal professions”, and this is why bankers, speculators, and other knights of the stock market can use the doeorative cloak of architecture to cover the sores of the social body. Architecture is not an autonomous art, as certain prima-donnas of tho drawing board would like to have us believe. Tho architect is born and finds his form in the womb of his society and fs brought forth by a specific age and by 2 definite epoch, Hence we find the most capable and creative architects in the heart of the classical forms of society. The Socialist society in the USSR, ereated by the October Revolution of 1917, is an experiment without precedent. For the first time in human history the people themselves own the factories 24 I dedicate this unprotentioue work to the com- poser Dmitri Shoatakovitch, who, in the trenches of Leningrad, December 1941, yut the final notes on his Seventh Symphony, rising in this classic form—score and weapon forged in hand—to the ‘present duty of all democratic intellectuals in the entire world: the defense of our culture and of uumanity. HANNES MEYER Mexico, D. F—15/11/1942 Villalongin 46-8, ARCHITECT and all the means of production. ‘The land also hhas been nationalized. Private economy, until then ina state of anarchy, has been transformed into a planned ond directed economy. ‘Together with the great change in the position of intellec- tuals in the USSR, the position and the role of the architect has been completely altered. ‘The architectural structure of the new state has itself been transformed Outside of the USSR it is very hard to form any’ clear idea of the present conception of architee- ture in that country. It is confusing to find in its publications buildings of the most diverse character, examples of classicism, and of con- flicting trends. ‘These efforts in search of a national ideal are described as backward by American architects, who are justly proud of their highly industrialized achievements. They: describe as a new Academism the Soviet at- tempts to connect by way of dialectics, the magnificent past of Russian architecture with the dynamic present. Because of their ignorance of social and economical matters, they can em- ploy no other pattern than those found in their everyday surroundings. For this reason “glass construction”, which is the last word on this continent, over there, in a different environment appears completely out of place. Chippendale furniture, here an expression of conservatism, is there a step forward in the development of the highest quality in cabinet work, Let us, therefore, turn the spotlight on the battle eld of Soviet architecture, in the hope that we may emphasize certain features which charac terize it as a whole, The struggle that is being carried on in favor of modern architecture in the USSR can only be compared to a strategic cam-paign. A bee hive of thousands of builders, engineers and architects, whose ideas at times are not realized for lack of an indispensable element, the building materials; a struggle where, on certain battle fields, the combatants are still in the rear guard, while some national groups have already penetrated deeply behind the barricades: among them the Ukranians, the Armenians and the Uzbees; a campaign whose decisive clashes are ealled the “Moseow Subway” or the “Volge-Moskva Canal”, and whose results indicate the future direction of all Soviet archi- tecture, It is 2 truly new architectural form that reflects the corresponding stages of Socialist building in the USSR, and the dynamic will towards a better life for the 193 million people of that country. IL ‘A glance at a few pages of the economie plan of the USSR helps us to grasp the magnitude and ‘the volume of the work of building, aceomplished in the course of tho first three five year plans: Investments of Capital of the Soviet State First five year period 1928-1982 51,000 000,000 rubles Second five yeor period 1985-1937 118/00,000,000 rubles ‘Thied five year period 1958-1912 — 181,000000000 rubles Increase In National Income 1928-1952 20,50,00,000 rubies First five year period 1933-1957 50,500.05, 000 rubles Second five year period Increase of Expenditure for Cultural Building. Hirst five year pera’ 1928-1962 24,008,000 rubles ‘Seeood five yee? period 1983-1987 11000000 rules ‘Value of all Building and Reconstructed Building: 1928-1982 39,990.00,000 rubles 1987 108,00,00,00 rubles First ive year period ‘Second Sve year period 19 During the Second Five Year Period (1983-1987) and later, industrial produetion was increased at ‘an ever quickening tempo: aking the year 1929 as a base, it reached 283.8% in 1934, 298.0% in 1985, 424.0% in 1937, and 477.0% in 1988, ‘The jump in urbanization is illustrated by the growth of the major cities between 1927 and 1939 when the population grew an average of 260%, with one instance of 518%. During the Third Five Year Plan (1938-1042) there was a tremendous boom in building dwell- ing houses. All kinds of urban dwelling houses were to be built, with a total living area of ‘85,000,000 square metres and besides this more than 10,000,000 square metres of single family houses, mostly of a semi-rural type. A signifi- ‘cant aspect of this Third Five Year Plan was the continued inerease in the production of building materials—cement, rough lumber and finished lumber, pig-iron, stecl—an increase of about 165%. To help us to understand more completely the building problems af the USSR we must; take into aecount the fundamental changes in the social structure of the Sovict people that took place during the First and Sceond Five Year Plans: Social Composition of the USSR 19281937 1. Workers and employees 11% 35% 2 Collective farmers, including artisans associated in the cooperatives B% 55% 3. Independent farmers and un- organized artisans B% 6% 4. Small capitalists (the nep- men and kulaks) be —% 5. The balunee of the people, students soldiers,rentiers,ete, 2% 4% ‘Totals 100% 100% This new social structure of the people in the USSR is the natural result of the collectivisation of agriculture on the one hand, with 249,000 newly organized collective farms (up to 1989), and of the regrouping of great: numbers of work- ers in the new industrial eenters on the other. Gradually the eultural differences between eoun- try and elty have disappeared, the “kolehosnik” (collective farmer) with his completely mech- anized agricultare aspires to the same cultural level as the urban worker. The farmer's average income has inereased from 2182 rubles to 5843 rubles between 1982 and 1987, literacy has been stamped out. The exact methods of Marxist Goctrine have penetrated his thinking, and ortho- ox mysticism has disappeared from popular eon- sciousness. Now he is trying for a decent way of life, with safe drinking water and hygienic sepa- ration of living quarters for men and cattle. Now hho wants upholstered furniture, a bath tub, a shortwave radio, and a sclected library containing the works of the great agronomist I. V. Mit- churin, ‘The realization of all these elomenta in rural life is one of the firet tasks of the Soviet architect. ‘Equally vast as the scale of the upbuilding of the country is the multitude of professionals, ereated ‘by the Soviet state: In 1937, at the ond of the ‘Second Five Year Plan, thore wore 9,591,000 per- sons forming the body of Soviet intellectuals or 26approximately 13 or 14 per cent of the whole ‘population, and of these, 250,000 were engineers and architects. In the course of ten years, (1928- 1987) there were graduated from the higher schools, universities and polytechnies 568,000 scientific specialists, and from the technical schools 943,000 technicians. The former include 211,000 industrial and construction engineers and graduates for the year 1988 number 25,200. In ‘comparison, between 1926 and 1929, the number of engineers and architects and builders rose from 32,000 to 305,000. ‘The recognized equality ‘that obtains between men and women goes far to ‘explain the proportion of the sexes among the £600,000 students who in 1988-89 attended the 708 higher institutions of science and technology. Forty-five percent were women. In the work- shops for planning of the “People’s Commisariat for Heavy Industry,” in 1940, 18,000 women took part, ie. 19.1% of the higher technical person- nel of this administration. Of these women, 2500 were architects, 2700 geologists, $600 engineers. In the Third Five Year Plan (1988-1942) the edu- cational task of the scientific-technical sector was defined as follows: “Training of 1,400,000 tech- nicians of various branches and of 600,000 spe- cialists with higher education, i. e. architects, engineers, ete ‘The architectural course requires six years and is the same in any one of the higher schools of architecture in Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, etc. ‘These studies are regarded as the equal of any other productive work, and a generous allowance is made by the syndicates and by the State. 90% of the graduates in architecture are either work- ers or farmers, which means that only 10% are children of intellectuals. ‘The course of study for architects, Inid out in 1940 by tho “Higher Insti- tute of Architecture of Moscow," provided a total of 5700 hours during the six years, divided as follows: a, Disloeties! materialism, Political ‘economics and’ Marxism-Leninism 876 hes. b. Foreign languages 280 hrs. ¢. Military sport training 284 hrs. d. Projects, construction, City Plan- ning, History of architecture, ‘Water color rendering, ete. 4760 hes. ‘Total 5700 hes, In the course of these six years of study, the stu- dent has to complete 20 projects, present 43 Papers criticizing his own progress in his studies, and take 43 examinations, In the course of study 26 as carried out during the First Five Year Plan, the students choose their specialty from four divi- sions: industrial architecture, city planning, rural building, dwelling houses and social buildings, At present, on the contrary, the schools turn out a single type of architect, who will be able to develop one or the other of these specialties in his future practice. Om, The workshops of architecture and construction vary very much in their type of organization. ‘Thore are “Offices of Architecture and Planning” in tho People's Commissariat for Municipal Eeon- omy in the various republics. ‘There are Architec~ tural Departments connected with the municipal and regional Soviets, There are “mamuts” of technical planning, made up of thousands of col- Jaborators. Besides there are regional types of “Planning Trusts.” Lastly we must mention the “Guilds of Arehitecture and Rural Planning,” which are included in the “People’s Commissariat for Agriculture,” and which are designed to pro- mote the collective farms and state farms, Among the organizations the most outstanding for the high quality of their architectural work are the ten very comfortable and rather elegant work shops for architecture of the MOSSOVIET of Moscow, whose architects, planners and engi- neers have been entrusted with the rebuilding of the capital. ‘The legal status of the Soviet architect is that of a State employee. He is never a private archi- tect. He serves the administrative and technical organization of his trust by carrying out the projects which they entrust to him, and he en- joys great liberty and autonomy in the practise fof his profession. He is the responsible head of the professional work of his brigade or of his sector (Guild). He is responsible for the high quality of the work and for its completion within a definite time limit. In earrying it out he has the right to select his helpers, with the approval of the directors of the trust, the “triangle.” ‘The social cell of professional work is the “bri- sade." Adapted to its task, the brigade is com- posed of draftsmen, technicians, engineers, econ- omists, ete. The union of different brigades makes up a sector, headed by a master architect or by a chief engineor. All the brigades and guilds compete among themselves in the fulfill- ment of the “plan.” This stimulus in work is called “socialist competition.” From the Insti- tute of National Economie Planning, “GOS-PLAN,” each trust receives year after year, its respective “plan of production,” acting as a unit in an over-all plan. ‘The trust divides the jobs of its “plan” among brigades and guilds, and accord- ing to the final result of “socialist competition” a brigade may be known as “The Turtle” or “The Airplane.”* Since the beginning of the Stahkanovist move- ment in 1985, the pay for architectural work varies greatly and depends on the effieieney of the individual and the length of time required for the job, The general business of the trust, especially everything concerning criticism of professional work and the collective job, ix brought before the “factory assembly” of each trust, where the “tri- angle” hears suggestions and complaints. The Mnished projects are approved by the “TECH- SOVIET" (technical council) of the trust, made up of outstanding consultant-specialists. Finally, the projects are reviewed by the local authorities, either of the region or the republie. The standardizations adopted by the higher authorities are obligatory all over the USSR. But there is no special architectural or building legislation and there are no bureans of a police- like funetion for the inspection and control of the projects. Iv. Now let us turn to the Soviet architect himself in order to try to understand how he goes about his job. His professions] activity is not subject to the control of ground rent, nor is it fettered by the private ownership of land. In his projects the architect uses the land with eomplete liberty, even modifying its boundaries if necessary. ‘The density of people in a block of houses or the num- ber of floors in an apartment house is hased only on social, biological and esthetic needs, and econo- mic considerations. He must be on his guard against the danger of imitating classical build- ing instead of interpreting it, and must avoid fol- lowing directions mechanically, without studying the dialeetics of the problem. ‘The rent of a Soviet housing project is not a de- cisive factor in his problem, because this is fixed by law, on the basis of the salary of the tenant and area of the apartment, without taking into account the actual value of the housing project. © The brigade receives the principal part of the fee, raid by the owner af ite project (a hossmg eouperative, a collective farm's esl covet te), and vides this mong ite members 2toolding to 2 seale Gael by the sylicae gf the test Rack laborator bas the right minima variable salary (1585 Son robles min/max. 150). rubles monty). Ceeain jobs, Sich se project nwaets oF typifications pay 9 sary the’ seulpor Verw Haine, «| agmbel of Sree! echt rooms of plant tke iis one at Dnicproges, "PPM from the tnting(The outlay for rent is 36% of the personal in- come of the tenant.) Basing himself on the established standard for a housing project, the Soviet architect must create a living space for a Socialist family whose members all have equal rights. Both husband and wife work, and both study. ‘The children are considered young citizens and expect their “red corner,” and the domestic worker is a comrade with her own desk, who attends night school. Al these people want a distinguished home, with plumbing and with heat by the TZ, or turbo- hydraulic electric plant of the city. In industrial architecture the planner must solve the problem of combining machinery and flowers, because the workers, who own the work shops, expeet to have living plants under the ultra- modern sheds of thelr factories and in the sur- roundings of their everyday work. Proud and gay, these comrades in socialist industry show us the nursery in their factory, their common din- ing room, their auditorium, their library and the bright flower beds in their park of rest, ‘The Soviet architect must not shrink from pro- fessional tasks of extraordinary seope, such as the 380 architectural jobs of the Volga-Moscow Canal, nor from the great height (415 meters) of the Palace of the Soviets in Moscow. Neither must he be dismayed by the tremendous flood of building: in Moscow in the years 1936, 1936 and 1997, the architects had to build, within a time limit of 150-200 days for each building, 72 normal schools in the first year, 150 in the second, 71 in the third, each with a capacity of 840 decks. The special exigencies of reconstruction forced him to remove entire buildings from the old street line back to the new one,* In Tadshikistan, in 1989, thousands of peasants built the Ferghana Canal, 270 kilometers long, with all its bridges, loeks and so forth, in only 66 days. And under the pressure of mass enthusiasm, the engineers and architects had to adjust themselves to this extraordinary rhythm of work ‘The masses figure in a very real way in the con- struction of their buildings. ‘The workers brought offerings of the most precious stones from the distant mines of the Urals, Karelia and the such point thet it was poe ng.ol the City Hall on Soviet ‘kaya Place in Mose a Th ceatory peace 0! 3,000 8 ean 48 mines, withou intereapt fog the functioning of ts. public administration. In the ease of the 3-0 fon Gorki Avenue the whl bil 700. mBweight= 12,00 ons) Tae Prange rising lam Meson 6 rah Fray ea The Lovin Esbrary im Moscow {arch Shake nd telftnifs'8 Ths Piteatte tbr, Mion spears, ae Tsuen ete SG Bop Canmioeite 27 oieCrimea for the new subway stations in Moscow, insisting that the architecture of the METRO dis- play all the geological riches of the country. For the Palace of the Soviets in Moscow the profes sionals made some 400 studies, while the people demanded and continued to demand thousands of schemes: folding seats and seats which disappear under the floor for the main hall, which has capacity of some 20,000 spectators; suggestions for supplying refreshments to some $0,000 vis- itors to the building, developed by a brigade of ‘workers specialized in restaurant service, ete The Soviet architeet is not confined by the usual modern assumption that architecture is merely 2 technical problem. This conception has been eancclled by the owner-masses. In building their cities, they want to be surrounded by artistic works which commemorate the herves of collec- tive labor, the “Stakhanovists” and the pioneers of aelence in their country. ‘They want to honor, by means of sculpture and mural painting, the great builders of Socialism: Krivonos, who per- fected the efficiency of locomotives; Vonograd- ova, the great textile worker; the womsn-furmer Demtehenko, famous for the cultivation of sugar beets; and the miner Stakhanoy, inventor of new methods for increased production. These same ‘masses, who inbabit a sixth part of the world, demand the representation of their revolutionary history and of their collective life. ‘The masses expect their architect comrades to be the interpreters of their national cultures, of thelr regional folklores and of their loeal build- ing forms, developing them without imitation, Here it should be repeated that there are 16 re- publics with more than 80 languages and national cultures, making up the USSR, and that each of these is developing, within the Socialist frame ‘work, its own culture in complete freedom. Sov- fet culture is a kaleidoscope of national cultures, with all their many forms, based on the one prin- ciple of Socialism. Finally, these masses demand from their archi- tects 2 profound respect for their historieal her- tage. ‘The Russian proletariat did not conquer the feudal palaces and churches in order to de- stroy them, but to incorporate them in a new world where they would ve at the service of every- one. Today those marvelous works of the Rus- sian elassival arehitects have been made over into sanstoriums, rest houses, museums and libraries, Soviet culture eunnot flourish on a heap of rub- ble. Every new culture must select the best of what has gone before, for its own continuing evo- lution. In the USSR the immortal works of Push- kin, Gogol, and Lermontov were never burned. ‘Those noble progressives af the days of the feudal Csarism are the predecessors of the revolutionary writers of today: Alexander Tolstoy, Sholochov, Pagodin. ‘Thus there has come into existenee a Soviet literature of world wide fame. Why then should the Soviet architect not follow the same road? ‘Those who carry out with the greatest integrity all these prinefpals are looked upon as “masters Of socialist realism” in architecture, y. On April 2, 1982, an official decree was published, inviting all artists, actors, musicians, architects, writers and moving picture people, to dissolve their “sectarian” eclls and to organize each pro- fession into a centralized federation, where they ‘would continue their fraternal efforts for Soviet culture. Some months afterwards the SSA or Federation of Soviet Architects, was founded. After his family and his guild, the SSA is the third center of gravity for the Soviet architect. ‘The SSA is tho social and professional organ through which the spiritual tendencies of the now arehitecture, and its professional maturing, de- velop—socially integrated with the activity of all the experts working in the building field. The local sector of the SSA places at the disposal of ity members and of their families a club, a ib- rary, a restaurant, and a recreation field, and provides without charge opportunities for swim- ming, military drill, aviation, parachuting, target practise, horseback-riding and driving, as woll as courses in painting, dancing, music and the Ian- guages. Without consulting the S3A, no official decision on architectural points can be mado, no competitions can he organized nor important nominations made.* According to the Soviet principles of eolleetive work, each architect member of the SSA must submit all his professional output to collective criticism. He must be willing as well to help other members in working out their projects with fraternal and objective adviee. (The eorrespond- * The SSA meet its expenses by 2 general tax of from 96-19% fo all the fees paid mio the trusts and wills from projects Members’ and condidaes, moreover pay snodrate dacs, i 1046 it eas six rales a Seat) ube the Tegel salary of ace fects varied between 300 and 1800 mutter 2 rman. ‘The ofbcia ‘gan ofthe SSA is the “ARXITECTURA. CCCP" + monthly review without advertising, of 8) gaxes, with a circulation of F800. (1941), dinected by the Euitor-in-chiet Architect Alabion. EGing western principle is “professional secrecy,” inspired by a fear of competition that prevails in private workshops. If the Soviet architect re~ ‘quired such “‘seerecy” he would automatically eliminate himself from his profession!) This “olleetive criticism” on the part of colleagues and laymen, workers, future tenants, ete. is an Indispensable and efficient instrument for carry- ing on the creative work of the Soviet architect. ‘There is no approval of a project by the authori- ties until the designer has presented evidences of this public eritieism. From time to time, architects of one region visit those of another. "Creative get-togethers” is what one might call these “forums” devoted to the swapping of experiences and talking over the architectural situation in different localities. The “House of the Architect” is bubbling over with the life of more than a thousand members and about 500 young eandidates. Shows, lectures, courses of study, mectings, follow one another. Here also, interprofessional groups meet with the federation of actors or of painters to talk over the common problems of Soviet culture. And here are held receptions in honor of the best ‘masons from the METRO (the Moscow subway), or of North Pole explorers, or of the world-famous Soviet women parachute aces. v ‘The professional hoard of directors of Soviet Ar- chitecture is centered in the “Soviet Academy of Architecture” (BAA), in Moseow, which was founded in 1934, The BAA grew rapidly and to- day is a highly diverse organization, made up of these sectors: a) Institute of Candidates b) Institute of Housing ©) Institute of City-Planning 4) Institute of Social and Industrial Building e) Faculty for the Technique of Construction f) Faculty for the History and Theory of Ar- chitecture 2) Laboratories for Ceramics, for Furnishing, and Applied Painting h) Museum for Architecture i) Editorial Office On August 31, 1939, the first “Architectural Fel- Jows” were named. Today there are already 32 and among them are architects of international fame, such as the two brothers, A. A. Vesnin and Y. A. Vesnin, the classieist I. V. Sholtovsky, B. M., Iofan, co-designer of the “Palace of the Sov- iets," and among the youngsters, K. S. Alabian, architect of the “Theatre of the Red Army” in 28 Moscow, and A. G. Mordvinov, inventor of new high-speed methods of building. ‘The eduestional activity of the BAA is carried on. in the “Institute of Candidates.” There were 69 architects. in 1940-41 taking the three-year course leading to the degree of “Master-Professor in Architecture.” Only architects selected from all over the country for their outstanding achieve- ments are called to this Institute. During the three years of training in the BAA they receive the usual architect's salary, and they devote themselves, under architectural fellows and other professors, to 2 serious study of scientific archi- tecture. This three year plan of study, totaling 8756 hours, is divided as follows: 19.2% to projects, theory and history of archi- tecture 62% to art courses 8.4% to foreign languages 6.2% to dialectics and historical materialism ‘The press of the BAA has disseminated the lassfeal works on architecture, some of them translated for the first time into Russian: Vit- ruvius, Vignola, Palladio, Letaroully, Viollet-Le- Due, Burckhardt, Geymuellor, Brinckman, It has published monographs on Soviet buildings, in poo- ular editions of from 20,000 to 200,000 copies, It publishes scientific works carefully chosen by ar- chitects and specialists of the BAA, made pos- sible by these new forms of collective work, ‘Among these last we call attention to three of international significance: A.B. Bunin & M. G. Kruglova: Architectural Layout of Cities 1940 ©. A. Kuznetsov: Architeetural Constructions 1940 V. A. Shkvarikov: City Planning in Russia in the 18th ond 19th Centuries 1989 In what other country has it been possible within the last decade to publish the whole scientific architectural literature independent of advertis- ing and without commercial side issues’? vu. ‘The historical development of Sovict architecture runs parallel to the four economic stages of the USSR: first, the period of reconstruction and of ‘the NEP (New Economic Policy) rom 1923 to 1927, and then the three Five Year Plans from 1928 to 1989, from 1933 to 1937 and from 1938, to 1942, By way of illustration let us make a. rough draft of the architectural square of these four periods.‘The Period of Reconstruction and of the N. E. P. (1923-1927) After the bloody years of the first world war, the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Civil War in Rus- sia and the struggle against the Foreign Inter- vention (1918-1922), all the progressive intellec- tuals of Europe and Ameriea expected a cultural eruption of the Bolshevik voleano. ‘They ignored the fact that the creation of a truly now culture can only be carried out in harmony with all tho acts of this new society. In the field of architec- ture the innovators were not architects but painters, sculptors and artists in the cinema and theatre. Individualistie and anarchistic, each of them struggled to put forward his own particular “ism.” ‘There was Malevitsh, the father of “su- prematism,” Lissitzky, inventor of “prounism”; ‘Tatlin, the nareissus of “tatlinism”; and Rod- shenko, Altman and Gabo, representatives of “constructivism”, pure, purest or purified. The mass of the people stood outside, listening—en- thusiastic and open-mouthed—to the pooms of the great Vladimir Majakovsky and cagerly ro- ceived his eatirieal “Square Windows.” ‘The famous corkscrew of the “Tower of the Third International,” that Soviet castle in the air, was built by Tatlin. The dreamer-artist Gabo de- signed his “erystal construction” with the last pennies of an impoverished Russia, Ladovsky had a vision of a “Lenin Library” to te eylindrical in shape and Leonidov invented new forms for worker's clubs, practically gasometers. Finally in Paris, at the “Exposition of Decorative Arts,” A. Melnikov presented as his calling card the fantastic “Pavillon of the USSR.” This happened in 1925, In the “WXUTEMAS" of Moscow, a sort of anti- ‘academic academy, some of the most sectarian took haven. There, members belabored all kinds of experts or carried on hot discussions with long- ing glances at the great symphonic orchestra that played Moussorgsky without baton or conductor. Meanwhile the place was erowded with student ‘workers, who at great sacrifices were devoting themselves to study, and who were all eager to build collective houses, factory-kitehens and So- cialistic cities. Through the windows could be seen crowds of workers rebuilding a destroyed world and looking forward to evolving a new ar- chitecture out of their own resources. ‘The Period of the First Five Year Plan (1928-1932) This is the period of the upbuilding: of heavy in- dustry and the regrouping of millions of workers around the new factories. It is the period of the collectivization of agriculture, It ia the period of the dynamic slogan “Overtake and surpass” ‘the capitalistic countries. ‘The equipment needed to carry through the ‘mechanization and industrialization of building ‘was still almost entirely lacking. The scanty supply of building materials was mainly reserved for industrial construction, ‘There was a tragic lack of experts in all branches of the building industry, particularly among the architects and technicians, This shortage of houses, of schools, of clothing, was deseribed as “rowing pains.” Parts of the old Russian intelligentsia. remained indifferent or hostile. The few scientific and ‘technical professionals were concentrated for the ‘most part in the big urban centers of the repub- lies. ‘The vast Soviet hinterland lacked architects, ‘engineers, technicians. Every effort was directed towards building the 500 main industrial centers: Magnetogorsk, Tsheliabinsk, Molotov, Kusnetzk, the Dnieproges, the canal from the Baltic to the White Sea, the industrial, chemical and electric plants, the paper mills, the factories for produe- tion machinery. Tho state farm “Sovkhoz Gi- gant” beat all records for the rural centers. Tks electrical incubator, for instance, had a capacity: ‘of 500,000 eges. Among the architeets and plan- ners the same megalomania prevailed: they pr0- duced combines of dwellings, containing between 1,000 and $,000 tenants in a single block, and factory-kitehens providing from 10,000 to 25,000 meals a day. (At this time I worked on a project for a technical-schoal-combine for 12,000 students in the eity of Gorki.) ‘Along with some 12,000 to 14,000 foreign spe- cialists hundreds of architects and technicians were brought in. On a single day in October, 1980, two coach-laads of city-planners were shipped from Berlin to Moscow. ‘The Soviets troated these foreigners as precious precision in- struments, wrapping them up in cotton, loding them in the few modern houses, giving them the privilege of almost luxurious food, and paying thom very high salaries. ‘These foreign experts brought with them from Europe and tho United Statics the last word in supor-mech- mized snd standardized building, and the cok lision between their ideas and the setual situation of the Soviet building industry at that time, was often cataclysmic. Many essentials were lacking: steel for concrete reinforeements, plywood, cement, glass, hardware; nails and serews seemed worth thelr woight in gold. 28‘The most customary mode of construction was of ‘wood. The few “occidental” projects that were carried out proved to be ill-adapted to the elimate. In the sub-tropical zones, the Russian insects tended to infiltrate very quickly through the great quantity of joints in even such oxcellently con- structed wood buildings as those of the Ameri- ‘can Jewish IGOR-group, (which I saw in Birobid- shan in 198%) Sometimes the impression was that industrialized execution produced far more lasting work than the traditional output of the old-fashioned local craftsman. Finally, after having overcome the unavoidable initial ‘difficulties, the first great buildings as- cended under the rosy clouds of mass enthusiasm, ready and functioning—the slaughter house or “meat combine” of Leningrad; the DOM ZIK, “combine of apartments” in Moscow; the Palace of Industry al Kharkoy, “combine of offices”; the DNIEPROGES, central hydro-electric plant in the Ukraine; the “paper combine” at Balachna, ete. ete. The first architectural jewel of the country ‘wus created, the “Tomb of Lenin” in the Red Square at Moscow. Finally we should add that in this period industrial building took the lead. Tn other branches of architecture, experiments were worked out in new types of social building, clubs, schools, sanatoria and so forth. In the mean- time, the very pressing problem of housing had to await its turn, ‘The Period of the Second Five Year Plan (1933-1937) This is the epoch of growing prosperity and the deginning of well-being in a collective life. In- comes rose from 84,935,000 rubles in 1983 to 96,425,000 in 1938. In the country practically all the collective farms were mechsnized. Indus- trial production was quickened under the stimulus of the Stakhanovist movement. The manufse- ture of shoes, toxtiles and eanned goods increased by leaps and bounds. Life for the great mass of people, formerly co harsh, was Milled with gaiety. In the cooperative shops appeared the first models of Soviet fasion, In the clubs and restaurants ‘jana! was playod and daneing was revived: one saw the Tango, the Boston, the Charleston and the Slow Fox. In the bakeries twelve kinds of bread ‘were sold without restriction. The best Stalkhan- ovists were rowandod with “Leicas” and “Fords” ‘turned out by Soviet production. The first USSR- made electric lamps appeared, the fbrst stainless table ware, the first upholstered furniture. ‘The new marriage laws, prohibiting unlimited abor- tion and restricting divoree, stimulated discussion 20 of the living problems of the Soviet family. Thousands of newly formed technical cadres al- Towed a wide decentralization of the planning units, and facilitated the carrying out of jobs and the opening up of the hinterland. In the realm of pure architecture the first storms broke over the “Palace of the Soviets” in Moscow, the buildings along the Volga-Moskva canal, and the stations of the Metro. In remote regions new cities were born: (Komsomolsk, on the banks of the Amur river in the far Bast; Igarka, on the river Yenissei on the Aretie coast; Karaganda, in the desert of Kasaksian in Central Asia.) In the now schemes of block planning, the principle of ‘4 mixed combine of living quarters with com- munal rooms, was abandoned. ‘The new housing system is composed of area-units for 2,000 to 4,000 tenants, The private and communal aspects of life are carefully separated. On the one hand are family and one room apartments, on the other, clubs, nurseries, schools and collective shops, ete. The number of foreign professionals decreased inversely with the rise of the new Tech- nical generation, On this shifting scene the aeademic architects of the prewar period reap- ‘peared and together with their young colleagues, ‘they re-investigated the archeological and classie~ ‘al heritage, so that gradually there came into ‘being a new synthesis between the traditional and the modern, between the national endowment and international importation, (which flowered in the “Pavillon of the Soviets” in Paris, 1987, (S. M. Tofan, arch.) and in the “Sanatorium NKTP" in Kislovodsk (M. 1. Ginsburg.) ‘The new architects sought eagerly for new ways of collaborating with seulptors, painters, and specialists in “green ar- chitecture.” But it was a woman, Vera Mukhina, who achieved a sculptural interpretation of this new dynamie lyricism of the Soviet citizen, in the monument to the “Worker ‘and Kolkhosnitza” (collective worman-farmer), built in 1937 of stain- loss steol and 24 meters high. "The Reconstruction of Moscow (1925-1944) Before speaking of the Third Five Year Plan the chronicler of Soviet architecture must tell the story of the rebuilding of greater Moscow, and its, transformation, in ten years, into a capital of 5,000,000 people. It is the model for much of the city building in the USSR. Tt began in 1992 with ‘the working out of eight preliminary studies, made by eight brigades of city planners. This transformation was speeded up by the three stages of the building of the METRO, the subway.‘The final decision was taken at a historic meet- ing of the SOVNARKOM (Council of the People’s Commissars) on the 10th of July, 1985. The starting point of this gigantic work was the “Stalin Plan,” the result of the collective work of hundreds of specialists over a three year period. In July of 1940, figures were published showing some of the results already reached in the execu- tion of the “Stalin Plan" for the first five years of its progress: 19131955 1940 LIAS 3608 43420 17700 32500 Thersne of population (Gn thousands) ‘Area of the cay iin heetres)| Distrinwion of electricity 7 mS ons Tlowatt pet inhabitant) ly consumption of drince water 6LS 183 24k (in liters per false) ‘Public urbastranspertation 2596 2007 27314 (Gn_milions of passengers) Number of gas consumers 78 94 «ar nS aoe camtal consumotion of ee (i cobie meters por inhabitant) Childeen in seeondary sols o me {in thousands) Hospital beer a 19458 ‘Gn eoaande) Volumes in public libraries 54 2000 2600 — 137 2702 in mulions of robles) city expences — mvs 007 oer lahabitane) xpenditares for education — an ws ‘in rides por inhabitant) apenditures for health — ws 6s6 (Gn rubles per inhabitant) In this first period of the reconstruction of Mos- cow, from 1935 to 1940, 500 blocks of apartments, between 7 and 9 stories high, were built with a. total of 1,800,000 meters of dwelling area, and 379 secondary schools accommodating 880 each. In 1989, of all the apartment bulldings under eon struction, 52% lay on the 13 principal thorough- fares and on the three concentrie boulevards, Each one of these thoroughfares is under the direction of one master architect, responsible for all the rebuilding of a section from 0.8 to 2.0 kilo- metors long. Most of those new housing zones are situated in the south-west part of the eity, in ‘wooded country, with rolling hills and valleys, criss-crossed by the ellvery threads of tranquil brooks. It ia a typical Russian landscape, where the great poet Maxim Gorki (+1936) spent his last years surrounded by birehes and by the affec- tion of his people. ‘The Period of the Third Five Year Plan (1938-1912) In the jobs of the THIRD FIVE YEAR PLAN, ‘three principal tendencies emerge and naturally influence the architecture of that period: first to overiake and to surpass the economy of the United States and the most advanced eapitalistic countries of Europe; second to increase consumer goods from 50% to 100%; third to raise the cul- tural and technical level of the workers to that of engineers and technicians. At the beginning of 1939 the “People's Commis- sariat of Building Materials” was organized, probably the only ministry of this sort in the world. It was a clear indication of the interest of the people and of the Soviet government in the needs of the building industry. This implied the greatness of the need at that time. It is cortain that the last census of the 20th of January, 193 showed for the first time the new lines of the ustrialization of building: 15,000 workers, spe- cialists in building forms for reinforeed eonerete, and 8,800 operators of steam shovels. In an offi- cial statement of March 20, 1939, the government: expressly recognized the serious backwardness of the building industry. The megolomania of the projects was atiacked and the organization of many smaller centers instead of one huge one recommended. A determined effort was made to develop rapid methods of building and the goal set for the Third Five Year Plan was a 75% in- crease in the productivity of labor on construction projects, and a 12% decrease in the cost of labor in building, as compared with the level of the last years of the Second Five Year Plan. On the architectural front of the Third Five Year Plan, before that ominous 22nd of June, 1941, two events of outstanding significance were taking lace: the “National Exposition of Agriculture of the USSR” 1939-1941, and the distribution of the “Stalin Prizes” for architectural achievements on March 20, 1941. ‘The “Agricultural Exposition” gave @ general picture of the actual standard of rural existence in the USSR, and provided at the same time valuable ideas about raral architecture. ‘The latest developments were exhibited, new types worked out in the field: winter housing for cattle, silos, electrified farm equipment. In some 20 national and regional pavilions, twenty dif- ferent experiments for the creation of national architectural forms, were shown. ‘The pearl of them all was—in my opinion—the “Uzbek Pa vilion.” (See illus. on center page.) ‘On March 15, 1941, the Government, with the aid of the Art Committee, distributed for the first time the “Stalin prizes” to pioneers in all the branches of Soviet culture: music, painting, seulp- ture, architecture, theatre arts, opera, ballet, aL‘movies, prose and poetry, drama and literary criticism. For. architecture the prizes were awarded to the “Building of the Soviets” in Kiev (arch. V. I. Sabolotny), the two subway stations in Moscow, “Kievskaya” and “Komsomolskaya Ploshtshad” (arch, D, H. Tshetshulin), and the ‘new “Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute”in Tiflis (arch. ‘A.B.Shtshussev), ‘These four subjects,so very dif- ferent in style, reflected two common tendencies: they are rich and pleasing in their architectural harmony, in their details ond in their material, and they show painstaking execution. Epilozue Sinee June 22, 1941, all these men and buildings have passed through a baptism of fire. The Soviet architect laid down his peneil for a ma- chine gun, Together with all his people he is defending his homeland and his family, his So- ialist culture and the free development of his architecture. Already, several of the buildings that illustrate this article, have been destroyed. ‘The echoes of the explosion that in a single day in October destroyed the famous hydro-electric plant of DNIEPROGHS in the Ukraine sounded aeross the whole civilized world. The NEW YORK TIMES of November 8, 1941, published a radio-graph of the “Palace of Industry” in Khar- Koy, blown up from the inside. ‘The “New Theatre” at Rostoy-Don, a marvel of Soviet ar- chitecture, was also destroyed. Today it is a heap of rubbish, fragments, slabs of conerete and twisted stecl, where once it raised, with its rhythms of horizontals and verticals, a grand new song of technics. Soviet planning during these months of war has ‘undergone the trial of fire. Totalitarian war is a war of strategy, but also a war of production. In addition to the heroic Red Army, with its first class military equipment and fighting morale, and the stubborn guerrillas, the industrial and rural centers with the network of transportation throughout the entire country, are also of vital importance in this titanie struggle. ‘These units of regional planning have been technically and economically prepared by hundreds af thousands ‘of specialists: oeonomists, scholars, engineers, agronomists, eity planners and arehitects. Built up in echelons, like a medieval army, these centers of planned industrial and agricultural production, extend to the cast of the front: the regional units of Gorki, Kazan, Utmurtia, Ufa, the Basin of 32. Perm, the “Second Baku,"—and behind the Ural ‘Mountains, immense regions such as “Kusbass” or the “Hydro-ElectriePower Combine Angara- ‘Yenissei.” ‘Returning to the starting point of this article: 150 years ago, with the French Revolution, a new ‘ruling class emerged in western Europe from the collapsing feudal society, the free bourgeoisie. The result of this historie erisis, aa it affeeted archi- tecture was a new concept of “Classicism.” (This yeas the produet of a union of Jacobins, eneyelo- pedism and horse sense.) Down with the baroque and the roceoeo of the feudal lords! Liberty, fraternity and equality for all citizens and ho! for ‘a new architecture, It was in this period of transition that the French architect Claude-Nieole Ledoux, who had been em- ployed by the worn out nobles to build palaces of languid baroque, decided to throw away his aris- tocratic notions and to take an active part in the bourgeois revolutionary movement, Through his architeetural studies he hegan to interpret freely the ideals of the liberated bourgoisie. He de- signed a “Temple of Youth,” which was to be co- educational, where young people of both sexes lived together in a new Arcadia. He designed « “City of Salinas,” in whose center, instead of the usual castle and cathedral, he placed the bwo ‘buildings that represented the new civil and cconomie power of the bourzeoisie, the Prefecture and the Salt Works Administration, whieh they had taken over. Among his plans for private houses some are remarkable for their pyramidal form; these he called “Houses for Foresters.” On the square base of these modest houses he placed. @ pyramidal stone roof. In all architectural perinds the pyramid had symbolized the dorainant power of king or priest (eg. the pyramids of Gizeh, of Cestus-Rome, of Teotihuncin-Mexico, ctc.). This architect deliberately handed over the pyramid to the new dominant class and placed it at the service of the liberated and revolutionary: bourgeoisie. Daring deed! We all know this: that today we are involved in. the collapse of an old world and the emergenee of anew, More than a struggle for a new division of the earth, this second world war is the decisive phase of the transfer of power from an old and. dying society to the new community that is aris- ing. Shall we, the architects of the democratic countries, be found ready to hand over the pyramids to the society of the future?