蘇維埃眾議院的分析

全文

(1)National Taiwan Normal University Graduate Institute of Art History 國立台灣師範大學藝術史研究所. Master’s Degree Thesis 碩士論文. The House of Soviets in Elista: Russian Constructivism and the Process of the Construction of Socialist Society. Advisor: Candida Syndikus 指導教授: 辛蒂庫絲博士 Graduate Student: Basan Kuberlinov 研究生: 巴桑. June 2015 中華民國 104 年 7 月.

(2) Table of Contents English Abstract………………………………………………………………………...3 Chinese Abstract………………………………………………………………………..4 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………5 2. State of Research……………………………………………………………………7 3. The Building History……………………………………………………………….10 a. Prehistory and Planning Process………………………………………………10 b. Construction………………………………………………………………........18 c. Destruction and Rebuilding……………………………………………………19 4. Defining a building type and its style……………………………………………...21 a. The Formal Analysis…………………………………………………………..21 b. Constructivist Houses of Soviets and the Development of a Building Type.......27 c. Golosov’s House of Soviets…………………………………………………….34 5. The Issue of Style in the House of Soviets in Elista……………………………….37 a. Constructivism, Style or Method?...................................................................... 37 b. The Origins of Iliya Golosov’s style and his Theory of the Construction……...45 of Architectural Organisms 6. The House of Soviets in Elista and Constructivism in the Context of Soviet Everyday life and Ideology…………………………………………………………54 a. The Theoretical Conception of Constructivism………………………………...54 b. Everyday life, Ideology and Theater……………………………………………60 c. The Tower……………………………………………………………………….76 7. The Building in its Environment…………………………………………………....83 8. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….92 9. Bibliography………………………………………………………………………...99 Appendix: Glossary………………………………………………………………...103 Appendix: Illustrations……………………………………………………………..104 1.

(3) 2.

(4) English Abstract. The proposal presents the analysis of the House of Soviets in Elista. The building was designed by the famous Russian architect Iliya Golosov and its construction was a part of the first five-year plan (1928-1932). The House of Soviets should become the administrative and socio-cultural center of the newly built capital of the Autonomous Kalmyk Region, Elista. It also was one of new major types of buildings, which were developed in the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) in the first two decades after the October Revolution of 1917. The type was elaborated by architects of Constructivism, the avant-garde style––or rather method, where form had to derive from function––which was predominant in Russia between 1923 and 1933. As at that time the idea prevailed that all art and architecture was to support the construction of the new socialist society, the House of Soviets should become an important factor in this process. The aim of this research is, first of all, to reveal the social and ideological functions of the building and to ask how they are expressed in its form. Second, it will be analyzed how, according to Constructivist architects, the building should help to organize the new socialist life.. Keywords: Constructivism, House of Soviets, Elista, Iliya Golosov, Avant-garde Architecture. 3.

(5) Chinese Abstract 本項研究計劃的主旨為分析埃利斯塔的蘇維埃眾議院。此棟建築物是由俄羅斯著名建築師 Iliya Golosov 所設計。蘇維埃眾議院的興建為第一個五年計劃（1928-1932）中的一部分，而蘇維埃眾議院也成為當時為新興城區的埃利斯塔自治區中卡爾梅克一帶的管理和社會文化中心。此棟建築也是在十月革命後的第一個二十年間由建構主義建築師所發展出的新型建築物之一。建構主義是 1923 年到 1933 年在俄羅斯的主流前衛風格。而在此期間，所有的藝術和建築的目的皆是為了社會主義新社會的建設，而蘇維埃眾議院更是研究此段期間的重要議題。此次研究之目的，首先是要揭示本建築物所呈現出的社會和意識形態，並對其如何表現於建築形式上提出疑問。其次則是為了解對建構主義的建築師而言，建築應如何建構出社會主義的新生活。. 關鍵字：建構主義、蘇維埃眾議院、埃利斯塔、liya Golosov. 4.

(6) 1. Introduction In the turbulent time of the 1920s, artistic movements, such as Dutch De Stijl, German Bauhaus, Italian Futurism and many others, were born that inspired the whole century. Their foremost aim was the attempt to find a new language, which reflected the fundamental changes taking place in the society by combining theoretical studies with the reality that surrounded them. The artist-designer-engineer was regarded as a creator who would generate a new world of objects for the new individuals, embrace the art and architecture of many countries also leaving an imprint in different national cultures. Russian Constructivism played a significant role among these avant-garde movements. In comparison to its counterparts in the movement of modern art of other countries, Russian Constructivism explicitly considered ideological and social aspects. Its development was predominantly associated with the October Revolution of 1917. As a result, architects thought to build the first socialist country. Adopting the socio-political doctrine of the Soviet system, Constructivism made several attempts to realize utopian social projects through the comprehensive material “organization” of social life, the life, which now began to change rapidly against the background of industrialization and urbanization. Posters, monuments and stage design, everything was created in order to hail the revolution and the new social order. Architecture played a significant role in this process, as architects had to build a new environment for the new socialist society, which was meant to consist of modern buildings. Along with factories and plants, new types of buildings, such as house-communes, workers’ clubs, Palaces of Culture, were developed and built by the Constructivist architects. The Houses of Soviets were among these new types. The development of this type was strongly correlated with the country’s reorganization, when administrative-territorial division was reconsidered and new states and National Republics with new administrative centers were established. These new centers needed buildings for the government, communist party organizations and socio-cultural activities, which were called the Houses of Soviets. This was the situation, when the House of Soviets in Elista, which will be in the focus of this present study, was being built. It was in 1921 that Elista became the capital of the newly established Kalmyk Autonomous Region. As an absolutely new city, Elista rose in the very heart of the Kalmyk steppe located in the southeast of the European part of Russia, about 1,250 km south-east of Moscow. 5.

(7) It is necessary to note that Elista city was at the beginning of a process, meant to break the traditional, nomadic way of life of the Kalmyk people. It was one of the few new cities with its central urban ensemble being composed exclusively of modern architecture. The nucleus of this ensemble was the House of Soviets. It became the administrative and sociocultural center of the city. Along with a pedtekhnikum (a college, which prepared teachers for elementary school) and a hospital, the building was designed by the famous Russian architect Iliya Golosov (1883-1945). The style of the House of Soviets in Elista is usually regarded to be Constructivist. Such a statement, however, is arguable, because the term used in this context is contradictory. Architectural Constructivism was not a style but a functional method, in which form had to be derived from function and construction.1 Although Golosov is often considered as one of the main representatives of Constructivism, his buildings were not always designed by applying strictly functional methods. It has been constantly repeated by Russian architectural historians that for Golosov, Constructivism was an “outward trend.” Selim O. Khan-Magomedov, for example, wrote that Golosov treated Constructivism as a set of stylistic features, which he used as means of expression.2 Vigdariya Khazanova called his projects “brilliant stylization in Constructivist spirit.”3 Taking into account the aforementioned facts, there are several aspects of the House of Soviets in Elista that I would like to study. In the first part of this proposal, I will regard the history of the building, on the one hand in order to reveal its involvement in the process of urbanization and the five-year plan; on the other hand, I will investigate under what circumstances and how the building process had progressed and how important the participation of the State had been. In order to achieve this goal, I shall analyze unpublished documents from the National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia in Elista and the Passport of Architectural Monument, which is located in the Kalmyk State University in Elista. In the second part, I will analyze the building’s appearance—in its current form and as it was represented in drawings and photographs—in order to comprehend its main compositional elements. In the fourth part, I will regard the development of the building type in order to 1. Selim O. Khan-Magomedov, Arkhitektura Sovetskogo Avantgarda, Kniga Pervya: Problemy Formoobrazovaniya, Moscow 1996, p. 340. 2 Ibid, p. 442. 3 Vigdariya Khazanova, Sovetskaya arkhitektura pervikh let oktyabrya. 1917-1925 gg., Moscow 1970, p. 141.. 6.

(8) reveal the main features of this new type of building. In the same part, I will also consider Golosov’s designs of other Houses of Soviets and examine their affiliation to the building type developed by other Constructivist architects. Subsequently, I will juxtapose the Houses of Soviets—those by the Constructivists and by Golosov—with the building in Elista in order to reveal the latter’s place in the architectural tradition of Constructivism. In order to understand the stylistic peculiarities of the House of Soviets in Elista, I will consider the building’s form in the context of the development of the Constructivist style and Golosov’s personal style. In the following research it will be asked what role the House of Soviets in Elista played in the organization of socialist life. In order to do that, first I will study the concepts of Constructivist architects and the Communist party about how the new socialist society should look like; second, I will try to answer the question, why the function of the meeting hall as theater was so important. Furthermore, I will also closely examine the vertical dominant of the building and its ideological implication. Finally, I will regard the building in its urban environment. The expected result is to reveal to what extend architecture could influence social life and to answer the question how utopian ideas, which were embodied by Constructivist architecture contributed to the consolidation of Soviet ideology; an ideology, which later would become an important tool for the manipulation of the people.. 2. State of Research The Houses of Soviets in general, and the example of Elista in particular, have never been studied comprehensively. Only one short monographic article by the historian of the Kalmyk region Ivan Borisenko, published in 2002 under the title Pamyatnik arkhitekturi. Zdanie Kalmytskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Administrativnoe zdanie. (Byvshy Dom Sovetov, 1928-1930). Arkhitektor I. A. Golosov discusses the building in Elista.4 The author briefly regarded the history of the building and its physical environment in 1930s. He also carried out a formal analysis. Considering the history of the construction, the author did not mention the first architect of the building, Boris Velikovsky, but stated that Boris Mitelman were the first. 4. Ivan Borisenko, Pamyatnik Arkhitekturi Zdanie Kalmyckogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Administrativnoe zdanie (Bivshy Dom Sovetov), Arkhitektor I. A. Golosov, Elista 2002.. 7.

(9) architect-in-chief, who in fact was only a collaborator.5 His formal analysis is inconsistent and also has a mistake. Borisenko claimed that the U-shaped plan of the building was supposed to provide shade for the inner yard.6 As the inner yard is opened at the south, this is impossible. Another considerable source is the monograph Arkhitektura Kalmykii (Architecture of Kalmykia), which was written by the Kalmyk Historian D. B. Purveev. In this book the author briefly considers the form of the building and the history of its construction. He also describes other constructions of the city built in 1930s, which constituted the environment of the House of Soviets.7 The House of Soviets was mentioned in the monographs Pioneers of Soviet Architecture (New York 1987) 8 and Iliya Golosov (Moscow 2007) by Selim O. Khan Magomedov, leading expert of Soviet architecture. In his book on Golosov, the author includes short remarks on the appearance of the building and its environment.9 The building is mentioned in books about the history of the city. Among them are a monograph by Ivan Nemichev, Rojdenie Goroda (1965)10, and the collection of documents and materials about the history of the establishment of the Autonomous Kalmyk Region, published in 1960 under the title K istorii obrazovaniya Avtonomnoy Oblasti Kalmytskogo Naroda.11 Both books give short remarks on the involvement of the building in different historical events. The only literary description of Elista in the 1930s, which also includes an account on the House of Soviets, is owed to the Russian novelist Konstantin Paustovsky (1892–1968). His essay Ispitanie Pustiney was part of the series of articles united under the title Our Achievements for the newspaper Pravda.12 As one of my major concerns is a more precise definition of Golosov’s style during his Constructivist period, the literature on Constructivism has to be taken into account. Selim O. Khan-Magomedov’s already mentioned Pioneers of Soviet Architecture provides a 5. Ivan Borisenko, Pamyatnik Arkhitekturi Zdanie Kalmyckogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Administrativnoe zdanie (Bivshy Dom Sovetov), Arkhitektor I. A. Golosov, Elista 2002, p. 1. 6 Ibid. 7 Djangr B. Purveev, Arkhitektyra Kalmykii, Moscow 1975. 8 Selim O. Khan-Magomedov, Pioneers of Soviet Architecture. The Search for New Solutions in the 1920s and 1930s, New York 1987, p. 401; the book war first published in German under the title Pioniere der sowjetischen Architektur, Dresden 1983. 9 Selim O. Khan-Magomedov, Iliya Golosov, Moscow 2007, p. 74; 1st edition 1988. 10 Ivan Nemichev, Rojdenie Goroda, Elista 1965, p. 32. 11 K istorii obrazovaniya Avtonomnoy Oblasti Kalmytskogo Naroda, Elista 1960, p. 82. The editor is unknown. 12 Konstantin Paustovsky, “Ispitanie Pustiney,” in: Povest o Jizni, vol. 6, Moscow 1967, pp. 461-464. An English translation was edited under the title The Story of a Life, vol 6, London 1974.. 8.

(10) comprehensive study of Russian avant-garde architecture of both Constructivism and Rationalism.13 In the first part of the book, “Aesthetic problems of design,” the author gives an overview over the development of Russian avant-garde architecture. In a first step, KhanMagomedov considers the influence of Neoclassicism, the “left” art, the first creative workshops of Vkhutemas (Higher Art and Technical Studios) and Vkhutein (Higher Art and Technical Institute) and the theory of “productive art.” Then he concentrates on the works and theories of the main contributors of the Constructivist style. In the second part of the book, “Social Tasks of Architecture,” the author regards Constructivist architecture in its historical context and asks how an architect tried to solve the problems, which the society had to face during the first years of the USSR. The enlarged Russian edition of this book, Arkhitektura Sovetskogo Avantgarda, published years later in two volumes, has also to be considered.14 Selim O. Khan Magomedov also wrote important monographs on Moisey Ginzburg and Iliya Golosov, published in 1972 and 1988. 15 Both monographs provide important information about the Houses of Soviets, which were designed by architects in 1920s. In her essential monograph from 1970 Sovetskaya arkhitektura pervikh let oktyabrya. 1917-1925 gg. (Soviet Architecture during the first years after the Revolution. 1917-1925 years), the Russian architectural historian Vigdariya Khazanova focuses Soviet architecture in the crucial period of 1917-1925.16 She regards the architecture in its socio-historical context, revealing how the development of architecture echoed social problems and needs in the first eight years after the Revolution. The journal Sovremennaya Arkhitektura (Contemporary Architecture), which was published between 1926 and 1930 by the union of Constructivist architects called OSA (Union of Contemporary Architects) includes numerous articles on architectural theory and designs of the main contributors of Constructivism.17 It is a major primary source for the topic, as it includes the Constructivist architects first-hand descriptions of their concepts of the Houses of Soviets. 13. Selim O. Khan-Magomedov, Pioneers of Soviet Architecture. The Search for New Solutions in the 1920s and 1930s, New York 1987, p. 401. 14 Selim O. Khan-Magomedov, Arkhitektura Sovetskogo Avantgarda, Kniga Pervya: Problemy Formoobrazovaniya, Moscow 1996; id., Arkhitektura Sovetskogo Avantgarda, Kniga Vtoraya: Socialnye Problemy, Moscow 2001. 15 Selim O. Khan-Magomedov, Moisey Ginzburg, Moscow 1972; id., Iliya Golosov, Moscow 1988. I use the enlarged newer edition of the book of 2007. 16 Vigdariya Xazanova, Sovetskaya arkhitektura pervikh let oktyabrya. 1917-1925 gg., Moscow 1970. 17 Available online.. 9.

(11) The basic source of this study will be the unpublished documents about the House of Soviets of Elista in the National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia and the Passport of Architectural Monument (Passport Pamyatnika Arkhitekturi), both in Elista.. 3. The Building History a. Prehistory and Planning Process The history of the House of Soviets in Elista is, as the history of the entire city, inseparably related to the Russian Revolution and the new socialist order which it implied. Three years after the Revolution, on 4 November 1920, the new government authorities, the VTsIK (AllRussian Central Executive Committee) 18 and Sovnarkom of Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Council of the People’s Commissars of the RSFSR),19 issued a decree on the establishment of the Kalmyk Autonomous Region with its capital in Astrakhan, the location of which was close to the historical capital of the Golden Horde, Sarai.20 During that time, the majority of the Kalmyk people still lived a very traditional, that is nomadic, life, which did not fit the socialist order. Thereby, the new Soviet authorities and the regional government needed to be close to the people in order to guide them along the path of the new socialist reforms. Astrakhan did not meet these criteria as the city was situated at the periphery of the state. Consequently, on 15 October 1921 the Kalmyk Oblispolkom (Regional Executive Committee) voted for founding the future capital at Elista, a village located in the very heart of the region. Due to the country’s difficult economic and political situation, the real attempts to move the regional center to the new site was, however, implemented as late as in the second half of the 1920s.21 On 29 April 1926, the VTsIK issued a decree on moving the capital from Astrakhan to Elista. On 6 May of the following year, Sovnarkom RSFSR asked the Gosplan (State Planning Committee) to make a four years’ construction plan, which should transform the. 18. This is abbreviation for Vserossijskij Central’nij Gosydarstvennij Komitet (All-Russian Central Executive Committee). The Committee as first elected in 1917 and functioned until 1937. 19 Abbreviation of Soviet Narodnix Kommisarov (Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR), functioned from 1917 to 1946. 20 Andreas Kappeler, The Russian Empire: A Multi-Ethnic History, New York 2001, p. 26. 21 K istorii obrazovaniya Avtonomnoy Oblasti Kalmytskogo Naroda, Elista 1960, p. 82.. 10.

(12) village into a city. The Sovnarkom also suggested a list of buildings to be executed and the budget for their construction: a) “A building for the Kalmyk Oblispolkom (later called House of Soviet Councils) – 100,000 rubles b) Building for the Council of Trade Unions – 100,000 c) Buildings for the Regional Prosecutor’s office, The State Political Directorate, Military Commissariat, Militia and Region Court – 500,000 rubles d) Finance Department – 180,000 e) Ispravdom22 – 200,000 f) g) h) i) j) k) l). Assembly point for recruits – 190,000 Regional Hospital – 300,000 Apartment houses for officials (approximately 10 houses) – 160,000 One garage – 50,000 One school with a dormitory – 300,000 A building for social organizations – 150,000 Typography – 70,000.” On 12 December 1927, the main tasks for drafting the new administrative center of the. Kalmyk region were issued. According to the materials, which were given by the Kalmoblplan (Kalmyk Regional Planning Committee) to the Gosplan, the first building to be constructed in 1927-28 was the House of Soviets. As we can see from the above-quoted list, the amount of money provided for this task, was originally only 100,000 rubles; hence, the initial project appeared to be very small and frugal. It should have been a two-storied building with a useful area of 1,362 m2 and a volume of 11,700 m3. All in all, 129 people should work there.23 Even though a rough plan had existed since 1927, the official contract for drafting, engineering calculations and preliminary technical estimates was signed between the chairman of the Kalmyk Oblispolkom Erdeni Kikeev and the renowned architect Boris Velikovsky (1878-1937) as late as on 16 February 1928.24 By that time, the type of rooms and. 22. This was kind of prison. Passport of an architectural monument. House of Soviet Councils of the Autonomous Kalmyk Region (Kalmyk State University), insert 1, p. 1, in the Russian Federation, Republic of Kalmykia, Elista, Kalmyk State University. Unfortunately the passport of an architectural monument did not provide information which materials was it. 24 Passport, insert 1, p. 2. 23. 11.

(13) their sizes had already been decided.25 Thus, the building of the Kalmyk Oblispolkom should include a few working places, one meeting hall with an area of 72 m2 and fourteen different sections and departments; among them we find departments of planning, trade, statistics, social welfare, education, healthcare and also the Obkom VKP (a regional committee of the All-Soviet Communist Party), the Obkom VLKSM (a regional committee of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League), the Zhenotdel (the women’s department), the Obkom MOPR (International Red Aid), the pioneer organization, the Obl. R.K.I. (Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate) and a regional land administration. The architect was given a very tight schedule: by 7 March 1928, he had to provide a draft design and approximate technical estimates, by 25 March 1928, he should provide a general project and preliminary estimates and one month later, on 25 April 1928, submit working and constructive drawings.26 According to the following correspondence the Representative of Kalmyk Autonomous Region in the VTsIK and Velikovskij, the architect initially worked on schedule. In March1928, he provided a draft of the project, the description of the concept and the budget (amount of materials and their costs) for a two-storied building with a semi-basement. The building should have been made of bricks and its skeleton of reinforced concrete. In June, he sent a plan, a project of the façade and a section of the building. The execution of the building, however, had not yet begun, when two months later, in August, Velikovsky was asked to stop the whole design work. This might have been related to the fact that after all documents had been presented to the Minor Soviet of the Sovnarkom RSFSR on 18 June 1928 the Minor Soviet decided to exclude from the plan the construction of a building for the Council of Trade Unions and provide 100,000 rubles, which were reserved for the building of the Kalmyk Oblispolkom. The Gosplan was, therefore, tasked to enlarge the volume of the building. In the following letter to Velikovsky, dated 26 September 1928, the Representative of the VTsIK in the Kalmyk State was asked to enlarge the building by including rooms for Regional organizations of Trade Unions in its plan. Furthermore, he should express his 25. It is necessary to note that, before the Revolution, Boris Velikovsky had been primarily associated with Neoclassicism, but after World War I he designed a building for the Gostorg (State Trade Organization) in Moscow (1927), which followed the Constructivist style. He was also a teacher of some of the leaders of the Constructivist movement, such as Alexander and Vladimir Vesnin and El Lissitsky, who in the 1910s attended classes in his workshop. Vladimir Revzin, Zodchie Moskvi vremeni eklektiki, moderna I neoklassitsisma (1830-е–1917 godi), Moscow 1998, pp. 55-56. 26 Passport, insert 1, p. 2.. 12.

(14) thoughts about possible changes to be made in the project and present these considerations in a paper by 1–2 October. They explained that such an emergency was needed in order to send the rough draft of a new project to the Kalmyk Oblispolkom for an approval and begin to execute it as soon as possible.27 The building of the Kalmyk Oblispolkom should have been made of hollow concrete stones of the “REKS” system with a filling of the hollow parts with an insulating material. The use of concrete stones for the future construction was due to a deficiency of local building materials. On 3 August 1928, in the presidium meeting of the Oblispolkom, a decree was issued to ask the Regional Organization Committee to help to produce machines for “REKS” stones and also to prepare the stones and red bricks for the next construction season.28 In the same document, they issued that the House of Soviets should be built of red bricks. Thus, the construction process was postponed until the following year. At the beginning of 1929, Velikovsky abandoned the project and left it to a famous Moscow architect with whom he cooperated, Boris Mitelman (1888–1975). Mitelman was one of the architects, who worked for the commercial construction cooperative Techbeton in Moscow. On 7 March 1929, a contract was signed between Techbeton and the Kalmyk Oblispolkom. Subsequently, the renowned architect Iliya Golosov (1883–1945), who also worked in the cooperative as consultant, was invited by Mitelman to join the project. The new following designs were signed by Mitelman, Golosov and the engineer Sergey Prokhorov and were elaborated from Velikovskij’s work.29 On 24 April 1929, after listening to the report of an architect Vladimir Semenov (1874–1960) on the meeting of the Naychniy Texnicheskiy Sovet (Scientific Technical Council), the Glanvoe Upravlenie Kommunalnogo Xozyajstva (Main Department of Communal Services) declined the design one again. In his report, Semenov wrote: “The presented project for the ‘House of Soviets’ in Elista is insufficient and should be redesigned with respect to the following notes: 1. The meeting hall should be made in accordance to the needs of the institutions, which were planned to be placed in the building, without breaking a functional interrelation 27. Passport, insert 1, pp. 2-3. Due to the climate situation in the region and the fact that there was no road lead to the constructing spot, it was impossible to build during a winter time. 29 Passport, insert 1, p. 3. 28. 13.

(15) between them. Because of the additional function of the Hall as a place for public occasions, it should be located in the building in order not to disturb the institutions’ work. 2. The ferroconcrete construction is acceptable due to its rationality in terms of the city Elista 3. The height of the meeting hall should be reduced; the extension of the stage is too excessive. 4. The location of the main vestibule, foyer and dining room is irrational. There should also be one separated vestibule for the Meeting Hall. 5. Using bilge as storage for theater decorations is considered to be unacceptable. 6. The dining room should be included in the theatrical area. 7. The new project should be made in accordance with Semenov’s notes. 8. To take a note that presenting the design to the central institution for approval and sending it concurrently to the place of the construction work violates the guidelines of Government rules of designing and constructing the buildings.”30 What is important in this letter apart from Semenov’s notes on the building project is the first mentioning of the theater or theatrical area and a storage area for decorations. By the “theatrical area,” they probably meant the meeting hall, which should also have been used as stage for theatrical performances. We can find at least two more instances of the use of a meeting hall as theater in other Houses of Soviets: one in Khabarovsk and another in Nizhnij Novgorod. It can be concluded that the presence of the theater or theatrical area was one of the features of this new building type, the House of Soviets. This feature and the fact that social organizations were accommodated in the building made the House of Soviet Councils a center not only of a state machine but also of social life. Another remarkable element, which supports the great importance of a building for the city is its function as a local boiler room or heating. In a letter sent to the commercial cooperative “VSK” in Moscow (14 October 1929), which was appointed to make a project for 30. Quoted from Протокол номер 23 Заседания Научно Технического Совета Управления Коммунального Хозяйства 24 Aprelya 1929 (Protocol No. 23 of the session of the Scientific Technical Council, Main Department of Communal Services of 24 April 1929), Building of Elista, Folder No. P3, Document No. 79, National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia, Elista. (If not otherwise indicated, all translations from Russian are mine).. 14.

(16) a heating system, ventilation and drainage, the representative of the Kalmyk Oblispolkom Burinov suggested that the boiler room of the building of OIK (Oblispolkom) should provide heat to the other buildings within a radius of 300 meters.31 According to the addition to the project description written in 12 April 1929 by the engineer of Techbeton, Alexander Polyakov, the basis for the construction design was derived from the experience of working on three other buildings, a pedtekhnikum, a garage and a clinic.32 He, then, very distinctly described the materials as well as their amount and price and how they should be used. The first story should be made of a ferroconcrete skeleton filled with “REKS” stones isolated with bulrush. Furthermore, the width of the inner stone wall should equal two stones. The same system must have been applied to the second and third story, with the only exception that the width should equal here only one stone. According to Polyakov, such a construction was supposed to be the best from the economical point of view. Since the authorities did not have any further demands to change this system, we can assume that the building was executed in the way described by Polyakov. The second revised project was submitted to the Glavnoe Ypravlenie Komunal’nogo Khoxyaistva (Main Department of Communal Services) on 17 July 1929. This time, the former architect of the building Boris Velikovsky examined the project and added conclusions. After the meeting of the Naychniy Texnicheskiy Sovet (Scientific Technical Council), the GYKKh issued that the new design was mainly acceptable. The execution could, however, only be approved with the following amendments: 1. “The tower should be reduced at least by one story, because of its economically and technically unreasonable height. 2. The restrooms should be more isolated. 3. The rationality of a chosen construction and its materials—such as the use of “REKS” stone—was approved, due to economical and technical feasibility. However you should also provide thermo technical calculations.. 31. Буринов, письмо к «ВСК» (Burinov, letter to “VSK”, 14 October 1929), Building of Elista, Folder No. P3, Document No. 178, National Archive of Republic of Kalmykia. 32 As we can see from the letter these buildings were already executed, although they originally wanted to build the House of Soviets first. Unfortunately all three constructions did not survive.. 15.

(17) 4. You should find a way to reduce the total cost of the building.”33. It is worth noting that an unclear statement of the last amendment and its contradiction to the third amendment became afterwards a reason of a lack of funding and as consequence a slow construction process. On the one hand the GYKKh approved the materials and the construction as economically and technically feasible and on the other hand asked to find a way to make the building cheaper, though without giving any suggestions how this should be implemented. We can assume that Techbeton could not reduce the total cost of the building by changing materials and construction, because it would have violated the third amendment and they were not able to find another way to do it. Although the meeting concerning the new project took place on 19 July, the design had already been submitted on 9 July. In a letter, which Techbeton addressed to the Kalmyk Oblispolkom on 2 October 1929, the following is stated: “On 9 July Techbeton had sent – the design drawing of general plan, facades, sections, the plan of foundation, on 19 July – façades, sections and plans for floors, on 20 August – details for windows, on 3 September retaining wall of boiler room, on 11 September – purlins and slabs between beams, floor beams, 14 September – beams and slabs, on 24 September – types of cushions, a plan of foundation, a plan of basement, the overlap of a backstage space, on 26 September – strapping to maintain the balcony.”34 In another letter of 12 February 1930, the board of Techbeton reported about the completion of all details for the working design drawings preparing the building of the Kalmyk Oblispolkom, which, according to the contract of 7 March 1929, terminated the engagement of the cooperative. They also wrote: “The board of Techbeton finds it necessary to notify, that, according to the contract of 7th March, the original tasks were to make a project and design drawings for the 33. Протокол номер 37 Заседания Научно Технического Совета Управления Коммунального Хозяйства (Protocol No. 37 of the session of the Scientific Technical Council, Main Department of Communal Services), 17 July 1929, Building of Elista, Folder No. P3, Document No. 76, National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia, Elista. 34 Список чертежей посланных на постройку Облисполкома и профсовета в г. Элиста (The list of working drawings sent to Elista for building of Olbispolkom and Profsovet), Building of Elista, Folder No. P3, Document No. 101a, National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia.. 16.

(18) building, the volume of which is 17,250 m3 and which will cost 400,000 rubles. However, due to the demands of NKVD and your own suggestions, Techbeton elaborated the new project of the building, the volume of which is 30,729 m3 and which will cost 727,000 rubles. Compared to the original design you proposed, the complexity of the new project is much higher and consists in a significant amount of very complex working drawings.”35 Thus, the board of Techbeton explained to the Kalmyk Oblispolkom, why the costs of the work were higher than originally planned. The Oblispolkom should have been paid 5,452 rubles for the general project and 25 rubles for each working drawing. The total cost, therefore, amounted to15,826 rubles. At the end of the letter, they wrote that “we hope that the Kalmyk Oblispolkom will appreciate our outstanding and complex work, which was made in order to build in Elista city, the capital of Kalmyk state, a truly modern building by its architectural and constructive solution.”36 This letter is very important, because, first, we can assume that Velikovsky’s former project was designed according to the suggestions of the Kalmyk Oblispolkom itself and was, thereby, simple and very different from the new one proposed by Golosov; 37 and, second, the fact that the NKVD demanded the project to be redesigned suggests that perhaps the simple project was considered ideologically inappropriate, because it did not express the high goals of the new socialist order.. b. Construction Although the construction began as soon as the first design drawing had arrived, the building process due to the lack of funding was very slow. On 14 October 1929, the Kalmyk Oblispolkom had already sent a letter to all high authorities of the country such as the Sovnarkom, NKVD, and VTsIk. They explained that according to the new design the size of the building was significantly enlarged and whereby its approximate price rose to 700,000 rubles. As the Kalmyk state did not have this money, they asked the Sovnarkom to provide 35. Копия письма из кооператива Техбетон к Калмоблисполком 12 февраля 1930, для московского представительства (The copy of the letter from cooperative Techbeton to KALMOBLISPOLKOM of 12 February 1930, for Moscow Representative), No 274, 15 February 1930, Building of Elista, Folder No. P3, Document No. 3, National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia, Elista. 36 Ibid. 37 Unfortunately we do not know the appearance of the project made by Velikovsky, due to the lost of working drawings and a description note.. 17.

(19) another 270,000 rubles. In the letter, they also mentioned for the first time the approximate number of staff of 350 people, which should have been working in the building.38 Despite the request of the Kalmyk Oblispolkom, the authorities did not hasten to send more money. During the next year, there was an extensive correspondence between the Kalmyk Oblispolkom and Sovnarkom about the financing of the building. In these letters, we can meet the repeated demand of the Kalmyk state to take over all financial obligations of the construction work, which was impossible.39 One reason among others for such a slow building process was the inconvenience of the location. The building site was located at a distance of 95 kilometers from the nearest train station. This rendered the delivery of the building materials very complicated and, as there were no roads, it was impossible to transport the materials from the train station to Elista, when the weather was bad.40 In the course of new attempt to provide necessary financing for the building in August 1930, the Kalmyk Oblispolkom sent a report of the examination of the causes of the rise in price to the Economic Council RSFSR. This letter contains the following notes: 1. “The wrong choice of a ferroconcrete structure for the building, when it was possible to use stone construction. 2. The increase of the building’s volume first to 17,000 cubic meters, then to 24,000 and finally reached 28,000 cubic meters. 3. The wrong calculation made by Techbeton about the approximate price of the building. 4. Lack of attention of NKVD to approval of the project in 1929, particularly to the volume of the building and its price. Thus, the Scientific Technical Council only focused on the plan of the building and they did not even check nor its estimated costs, neither the recommendations given with regard to the possibilities of reducing the price were clear. 5. The high price of the construction itself by applying a thick instead of thin wood.”41 38. Калмоблисполком письмо к Совнарком 14 октября 1929 (Kalmoblispolkom, letter to Sovnarkom, 14 October 1929) Building of Elista, Folder No. P3, Document No. 86, National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia, Elista. 39 Passport, insert 1, p. 5. 40 Калмоблисполком в Совнарком, 19 Июня 1930 (Kalmyk Oblsipolkom, letter to Sovnarkom, 19 June 1930), Building of Elista, Folder No. P3, Document No. 26, National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia. 41 Председательство Калмыцкого представительства в Экономический Совет РСФСР, 12 Августа 1930 (The Chairmanship of Kalmyk representative, a letter to The Economic Council RSFSR), Building of Elista, Folder No. P3, Document No. 39, National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia.. 18.

(20) Below, the Kalmyk Oblispolkom wrote that on 26 July 1930 the progress of the construction stood at 30 percent and they lacked now 200,000 rubles, in order to finish the building as planned by 1 August 1931, when the Kalmyk state would celebrate its 10th anniversary.42 Eventually money must have been provided, because the building was finished by the day of its anniversary in March 1932, it still was not usable due to the lack of the central heating system. 43 However, all the needed works were completed by the time of the 15th anniversary of the October Revolution in honor of which on 6 November 1932 there was arranged the Ceremonial Session of Soviets.44 In the following ten years, the House of Soviets was used by all state departments, social organizations, as a theater and for the sessions of the new state machine VTsIK of Kalmyk ASSR.. c. Destruction and Rebuilding During World War II, in 1942, most part of Kalmykia was occupied by German troops; so it also happened to Elista, where the House of Soviets was used as the headquarters of the 16th Motorized Infantry Division of the Wehrmacht. In the night from 31 December 1942 to 1 January 1943, the area near the building was taken by the 28th Soviet Army. On 1 January, a meeting of the Soviet Troops took place on the square in front of the House of Soviets Councils about the liberation of Elista, though the building was still under fire when the Soviet red flag was placed on its top by the men of the 28th Army Guard, Lieutenant Mikhail Kondakov, senior sergeant Vladimir Nikanorov and the political worker of army Budda Mandzhiev. Most part of the city was destroyed as well as all of Constructivist buildings, such as the pedtekhnikum, the department of communications and other important sites. Albeit severely damaged, the House of Soviet Councils was the only construction which survived.45. 42. Ibid. Представительство Калмобласти при президиуме ВЦИК к ВАКО, 12 марта 1932 (Representative of Kalmyk region in presidium VTsIK, letter to VAKO, 12 March 1932), Building of Elista, Folder No. P3, Document No. 77, National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia. 44 Borisenko 2002, p. 1. 45 Nemichev, Rojdenie Goroda, Elista 1965, p. 32. 43. 19.

(21) The half-destroyed building was not reconstructed until 1959. This was due to the fact that during the World War II, on 28 December 1943, the Kalmyks were deported to various locations in Central Asia and Siberia. Kalmyk people were permitted to return home only in 1957. 46After the return of Kalmyks from the deportation the reconstruction of the building began and in 30 August 1960 it was included in the list of the country’s cultural monuments.47 During the slow reconstruction process, which was finished in 1970, considerable changes at the interior and exterior of the building were made. In the same year, the Kalmyk State University moved into the House of Soviets. The University is based there until today.48 There are hardly any accounts about the appearance of Elista and her buildings during the 1930s, which could witness the impression the new construction made on contemporary people. A description of the city included in the essay The Underwater Winds of 1932 by the Russian Romanticist novelist Konstantin Paustovsky is, therefore, all the more precious. The essay was first published in the newspaper Pravda for which Paustovsky worked as a corresponded. During that time, the writer travelled around the country and described the undergoing changes in the series of articles united under the title “Our Achievements.”. 49. After his visit at Elista, Paustovsky wrote: “An economist who was sent to Elista from Moscow, called this city ‘cheap exotic.’ Puckered like a monkey with horn-rimmed glasses and clad in a white suit, he was just angry. Elista is not a cheap exotic. She is a prairie mirage, which got a dense and tangible form. Hundreds of people work in this mirage. She appears in this way: after 300 kilometers of journey, the steppe begins to weigh. Only two villages with houses made of adobe our group encountered on the way, Yashkul and Ulan-Erge. Then, after I climbed the hill, below in blue dust and blue lakes of shade formed by clouds, a toy city appeared. It makes a very strong impression with its white, milk-like, festive appearance and mirrored windows. All this is placed in a virgin steppe, where drivers have to bypass golden eagles, which do not listen to car signals […] Elista has exotic, if you want […] it is exotic of constructing and creating. Thus, the small and well-calculated 46. See: Konstantin Nikolaevich, Kalmykia in Russia’s Past and Present National Policies and Administrative System, Budapest 2008, pp. 309, 312. 47 Совет Министров РСФСР. Постановление от 4 Декабря 1974, дополнение к документу от 30 августа 1960 (The Council of Minister of RSFSR. Resolution of 4 December 1974, addition to the document of 30 August 1960) Building of Elista, Folder No. P3, Document No. 404, National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia. 48 Borisenko 2002, p. 4. 49 Sergey L`vov, Konstantin Paustovsky, Moscow 1956, pp. 33-34.. 20.

(22) city grows: radio station, garages, a museum, hotels, an eating venue, a telegraph, a hospital, clinics, kindergarten and cooperatives. But Elista does not have streets. The buildings are placed in the steppe […] white cubical buildings, with light square towers and balconies made of concrete and wide windows, which are sparkling with transparent purity. They are separated from each other by plantations of acacias and ailanthus. And only a wind blows around a yellow black cap on the mast of the aerodrome.”50 Elista, evidently, appeared before Paustovsky’s eyes as a completely modern city. Located in the bare steppe, it had all the buildings needed for modern life. The buildings in turn were erected in the pure contemporary style characterized by white concrete walls, square forms and extensive use of glass, which gave the impression of transparency.. 4. Defining a building type a. The Formal Analysis The House of Soviets of Elista (fig. 1) situated in the center of the city on the intersection of two arterial roads, Pushkin Street and Lenin Street. The directions of the streets correspond to the cardinal points. According to the general plan, the building should provide the dominant, in order to bind them (fig. 2, A). A square for public meetings located at the west side of the building across Pushkin Street (fig. 2, B). 51 Subsequently, it was called after the Lenin monument erected in the 1930 before the main entrance. Behind this statue, an alley leads to a small park with a fountain, an “arch-like construction” (as Borisenko put it), a dance floor and an obelisk dedicated to Kalmyk revolutionary Kharti Kanukov.52 The House of Soviet is an asymmetrical three-storied construction consisting of a multifaceted conglomerate of flat-roofed horizontal blocks. The building has an irregular Ushaped plan with an inner yard, which opened at southern side. It consists of three wings and one distinct corner part with the vertical dominant provided by a tower (fig. 3).. Konstantin Paustovsky, “Ispitanie Pustiney,” in: Povest o Jizni, vol. 6, Moscow 1967, pp. 461-464. The literal translation of the square is administrative square. It was used for the public meetings as well as the meetings of Communist party members, which could gather there in order to listen to the leaders of the party. It was also used for parades and festivals. 52 Borisenko 2002, p. 1. We do not how exactly the arch construction looked like and what its function was. Borisenko is the only one to mention that there was such a construction. 50 51. 21.

(23) The most prominent and elaborate part of the building marks the corner of the northern and western wings; unfortunately, this section had been partly destroyed during World War II and was reconstructed afterwards (fig. 1, mark A).53 From this perspective, the play of the superimposed and sometimes projecting rectangular blocks of different height and flatter slabs is most impressive. The corner is conceived by a low one-storied block covered by a high projecting roof. The main entrance is rather concealed then noticeable at the right end of its western wall, from where a tunnel-like passage leads to the inner yard. It is divided by glassed semicircular element (fig. 4, mark A); we can assume that it is a place for a receptionist. The glassed door of the main entrance is located in the wall at the left of the receptionist’s booth; above the door, curved ribbon windows, which lead inside the passage (fig. 4, mark C). Such semicircular and convex forms are repeated in several parts of the building (figs. 5, 6). Contrasting with the dominating rectangular lines of the blocks, they are supposed to soften sharp corners and enliven the composition. The north side of the first story has an additional entrance. It is topped by a rectangular flat roof, which protruded above the walls constituting a kind of cornice. On the ends of the western and eastern sides, the cornice enters the space of the three-storied wings and thereby creates an effect as if the slab was cleaved into the mass of the building. Its horizontal contour on the one hand emphasizes the visual independency of the corner part and on the other forms a transition from the western to the northern wing. In former times, the flat roof of the first story was used as a tribune for the Communist Party officials in order to address the people, which usually crowded on Lenin’s square. In 1949, for example, the Communist Party officials hailed the participants of the celebrations dedicated to the fifth centenary of the national epos Dzhangar standing on that roof.54 Another important component of the corner is the vertical dominant provided by the tower. Golosov visually emphasized it as an individual figure, which seems to rise from the flat roof of the first story, inserted between the two wings. Seen from the north side, the tower has a stepped structure. This results from the different horizontal heights of the walls of second, third and fourth, fifth stories and the high platform of the narrow block of the sixth story. Golosov “decorated” this complex construction with a loggia in the second floor, which 53. During the reconstruction, the small loggia of the third story was closed and one more story was built on the flat roof of the additional vestibule. 54 Borisenko 2002, p. 2.. 22.

(24) is cut into the corner; a rectangular pillar marks the angle and, at the same time, supports the roof of the third floor. The loggia is topped by a long stage-like platform or balcony. Its floor is slightly cantilevering at the western side, protruding over the opening of the loggia and cutting into the western wall (fig. 4). Consequently, the upper part is markedly separated from the three stories below, which is on the same level with the rest of the building. Thus, it plays a rather decorative than functional role. The same quality is applied to the platform-like roof of the fifth story. With the fencing around and an antenna in the center its appearance formerly resembled a ship deck. The ribbon windows below, on the two upper stories of the western wall, gave the building a very modern look. Apart from the loggia of third story, the west wall of the tower is solid and does not show any openings. In former times, the acronym of Central Executive Committee (CIK or in Russian “ЦИК“) was presented in the upper part with monumental letters (fig. 4). This plain wall was also used for displaying posters with communist slogans (fig. 7). Such a stress on the corner was not a new invention. It was already prefigured in Golosov’s project for the Zuyev Workers’ Club in Moscow (1927–29), where a monumental glass cylinder dominates the corner situation (fig. 8). Selim Khan-Magomedov remarked in his monograph on Golosov: “According to his (Golosov’s) ideas: cylinder as absolutely symmetrical figure with a vertical axis and thereby can keep independency and play a main role, although it inserted in a complex sculptural composition of a building.” 55 A similar effect is to be observed in the House of Soviet Councils in Elista; however, instead of a cylindrical element, which penetrates the mass of the building, we have a vertical of the tower. The similarities between two elements can also be supported by the fact that, analogously to the cylinder of the Zuyev Workers’ Club, the tower contains the main staircase of the building. Another noteworthy parallel between the Workers’ Club and the House of Soviets in Elista is the multiple use of loggias and balconies. At the Workers’ Club, three loggias are superimposed above the main entrance, whereas in Elista the same theme appears on the recess at the left end of the northern wing. Balconies lined with railings set horizontal accents on the façades of both buildings. The tower also provides a key component for the composition of the building, which unites its different wings. The last one is a simple three-storied rectangular block. It has a 55. Quoted from Selim Khan-Magomedov, Golosov, Moscow 2007, p. 77.. 23.

(25) two-storied recess on the west wall of the right end with a side door in it (fig. 9 and fig. 1, mark B). On the left side before reaching the vertical dominant, the wall recedes and thereby forms a kind of transitional area (fig. 4, mark B). It stresses the independency of the corner part and opens a space for the tribune of the flat floor of the first story. According to Golosov’s working drawing, the wall of the transitional part was originally supposed to be made of glass, but probably due to difficulties related to the construction material, it was not executed (figs. 10, 11). Among other sections, which differ from the original design, there are windows of the western wing. They had been planned as ribbon windows running through its whole length. The most prominent feature of the building’s northern wing is the great meeting hall (fig. 1, mark C). Golosov put this two-storied space in a separate rectangular block. At the exterior, its height is expressed by six vertical windows; according to the original design, instead of having windows, the entire wall should have been made of glass. The height of the meeting hall is 7,7. m. Its seating capacity is 500. 56 The second floor of the northern part rises behind the flat roof of the meeting hall. Its windows correspond to the high vertical windows of the block below and thereby visually unite the two different horizontal blocks. It is necessary to note that, unlike the corner part, the flat plane of the roof of the meeting hall did not have any additional function. In the design of the south-western corner, we have already seen how Golosov used the flat protruding elements as decoration; in the northern wings, the akin decorative function had a vertical plane of wall of the meeting hall. Golosov raised the wall of the block of the meeting hall at the point where it met the first story of the corner part. The wall exceeds the height of the roof and appears as a fence between them. Such a solution should probably stop the movement of stepping upwards and confine it exclusively to the corner part. On its opposite end, the northern wing has a recess with loggias. The recess projected from the upper two stories of the wall and provided the visual transition to the eastern wing. The original appearance of the eastern wing is unknown due to the lack of original photographs. In comparison to other parts of the building, the eastern wing has the simplest form. It looks like a three-storied rectangular block (fig. 12). The only significant aspects can be perceived from the inner yard; at the right side of the wall, there is a solid one-storied cubic 56. Djangr B. Purveev, Arkhitektyra Kalmykii, Moscow 1975, p. 110.. 24.

(26) block, which is attached to the ground floor of the building. On the left side, the wall has a projecting cylindrical staircase (fig. 13). Its body rises from the ground and exceeds the height of the roof, thereby visually releasing it from the mass of the building. Its elevation has a glass window over the full height, which opens the view to the staircase inside. A similar element is to be seen on the opposite wall of the western part. Here, the staircase is allocated by a rectangular recess, which has three narrow vertical ribbon windows on its sides (fig. 14). As in the case of the enveloping of eastern part, the height of its elevation surpasses the roof of the building and thereby stresses its visual self-sufficiency. In addition, it is worth noting that the view to the main staircase is also opened with high vertical windows in the right end of the northern wall (fig. 15). As I have mentioned before, the main entrance is located on the west side of the building (fig. 3, mark A). Inside, behind a vestibule, a wide central staircase connects the first three stories (fig. 16 and fig. 3, mark B). Golosov opened it on one side by eliminating the wall between the corridor and the staircase and on the other side he opened a view to the inner yard by including high windows in the wall (figs. 16, 17). He released the staircase from the closed mass of the interior and connected the vestibule with the two floors above, thus creating a continuous flowing space. As at the outside, where the corner part serves as an anchor point for the whole composition, the staircase inside redistributes the movement of the people, who work in the building. Being next to the main entrance, it provided quick access to the first and second floors; above it, a smaller staircase lead to the additional fourth and fifth floors of the narrow tower (fig. 18). A horizontal movement by the corridors with the offices on both sides runs through the whole building (fig. 3, mark E). Public institutions occupied the rooms of the western wings, while the governmental institutions settled in the northern and eastern parts. The access between them was assured through passages on the first and second floors. Due the elongated plan of the building, it would not have been convenient to return to the main staircase every time when someone wanted to get to another floor; therefore, Golosov planned two extra stairs (fig. 3, mark F). One was located almost at the end of the western part and another was in the eastern part, close to the point, where it connected the northern; both had side exits on the ground floor. Their rectangular and half cylindrical shapes has already been mentioned in the context of the exterior of the building. 25.

(27) At the left side of the main staircase, there was, on the ground floor, an additional vestibule of the meeting hall with its own entrance (fig. 3, marks C and D). From the outside, it looked as an independent one-storied part of the corner. Such an appearance was not insignificant; inside the building, its space was separated from the rest of the interior by a wall with four doors. The same can be applied to the meeting hall, which from outside appeared as an independent rectangular block. Hence, we can see that the meeting hall and its vestibule were designed as an independent structure within a building. It could operate autonomously without disturbing the work of the institutions, when it was used for public occasions such as theatrical performances or concerts. The construction rests on a concrete fundament reinforced with metal pillars and a skeleton made of reinforced concrete, cored parts of which were filled with hollow concrete stones of the “REKS” system, which were produced of high-quality cement. The analysis has shown that the composition of the building was made in the tradition of Constructivist architecture by conjunction of different geometric figures on an asymmetrical plan. However, Golosov also tried to expand the artistic means of Constructivism by using loggias, balconies and visors like decorative elements, which were supposed to enliven the appearance of the construction. Another important idea, which is embodied in the building, is unity between form and content. All the functional elements of the building are expressed in its exterior, as it was designed from inside. We have seen that on the example of the enveloping of additional staircases, visually independent blocks of the meeting hall and the additional vestibule and the corner part which contains the main staircase.. b. The Constructivist House of Soviets and the development of a building type The development of the new building type of the House of Soviets began in the middle of 1920s. Building started in the Republics and provinces, where the new organ of state machine, did not have places, which meet their requirements.57 Big influence on their development as well as the development of all types of administrative buildings was exercised by the project of the Vesnin brothers for the competition of 1923 for the Palace of Labor in Moscow (figs. 19–21). The building’s design. 57. Selim O. Khan-Magomedov, Pioneers of Soviet Architecture. The Search for New Solutions in the 1920s and 1930s, New York 1987, p. 400.. 26.

(28) consisted of superimposed cubic figures, which are attached to each other; a circular structure, the congress hall, was added at one side. In order to provide light to the rooms, which are located deep inside the building, they opened the space on the lower floors between the rectangular and circular parts and thereby created a big passage through the building with a height of 38.34 m and a width of 38.08 m. The passageway is topped by the small hall for the Moscow City Council; the big circular congress hall for the “national assembly” is located next to it.58 The halls are separated by iron shutters. Their space can be united by opening them. The idea was that the Moscow City Council could participate at the “national assembly” without leaving the small hall. The rectangular block with a tower or vertical dominant included a meteorological station, the astrophysical observatory, the central Moscow radio station, an information office, the Museum of the Social Sciences, a library and other facilities. Outside, on top of the tower there is a screen for “indicating the time and other observations of meteorological and astronomical station,” as well as screens “for the socio-economic and political information.”59 In the issue of 1924 of the journal “LEF” (The Left Front of Arts), the Vesnin’s brothers themselves explained the main ideas, inherent in the project: “While working on the design of the building of the palace, authors tasked to solve all the requirements of the contest, in the principles of: constructiveness, utility, rationality, efficiency. All forms of the building are derived from: the most efficient location of the required facilities in terms of their utilization, their size in three dimensions and the most constructive use of the materials which were taken for the construction of structures: iron, concrete, glass.”60 Important in this building are the following aspects: first of all, its design expressed the desire of the new proletarian society in order to unite different institutions and organizations in one building, which should become the political and cultural center of the country; and second, the graphic representation of the building manifested the principles of Constructivism, which gradually evolved during that period. Thus, the Vesnins’ Palace of Labor turned out to be programmatic for all types of public buildings in Constructivist style, such as the Palaces of Culture and Houses of Soviets. 58. The literal translation if the “national assembly” means “the meeting of all people.” It is necessary to note that it was not a kind of administrative organ in common sense. It literally meant that every person could come and participate at the meeting and listen to the speeches of the leaders of the communist party. 59 Vigdariya Xazanova, Sovetskaya arkhitektura pervikh let oktyabrya. 1917-1925 gg., Moscow 1970, pp. 134-135. 60 Alexander, Leonid and Vladimir Vesnin, “Proekt Dvorca Tryda,” in: LEF 4, 1924, pp. 59-62.. 27.

(29) The result of its great impact was immediate. In 1924, on the competition for the House of Soviets in Bryansk, one of the most renowned Constructivist architects, Alexander Grinberg, presented his project (figs. 22–25). Although the building’s appearance is characterized by Neoclassical spirit, its plan and multi-functionality related to the Palace of Labor. It consists of two buildings, which are visually united by a gallery. One of the buildings is three stories high and contains a central hall for 1200 people. It was indented for the sessions of the Regional Soviets as well as for club activities and public theater performances. The other building, which was called the administrative block, had four stories and contained most of the Soviet institutions as well as the Communist party’s and trade union organizations.61 The functional method, which was proposed by the Vesnin brothers in the project for the Palace of Labor, was used by Moisey Ginzburg in the design for the competition of the House of Soviets for the capital of the Republic of Dagestan, Makhachkala, in 1926 (fig. 26). Although his project did not win the first prize, its design had, due to its numerous publications in architectural journals, a fundamental importance and exercised significant influence on the formation of this building type.62 In his design, Ginzburg wanted to create optimal conditions for employees and visitors of the House of Soviets by strictly dividing the functions of the individual parts of the building. Hence, he developed the type of the pavilion plan. Ginsburg designed three independent four-storied blocks for each department. Each block has separate entrances from the street. The fourth block had an L-like plan with an increased six-storied part and was designed for the CIK (Central Executive Committee), Sovnarkom and meeting hall. The buildings are connected by walkways between the second and third stories. The square is constituted by the intersection of two main streets on one side and one another side by a four-storied block and the block with U-like plan. It supposed to be used for public meetings. Another square with bleachers for spectators is located within the complex. It is designed for assemblies and sports performances. A major problem, which he wanted to solve in his design, was the problem of the relations between national and 61. Selim O. Khan-Magomedov, Pioneers of Soviet Architecture. The Search for New Solutions in the 1920s and 1930s, New York 1987, p. 400. The Communist Party’s organizations included: the Obkom VKP (a regional committee of the All-Soviet Communist Party), the Obkom VLKSM (a regional committee of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League), the Zhenotdel (the women’s department), the Obkom MOPR (International Red Aid), the pioneer organization, the Obl. R.K.I. (Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate). 62 Selim O. Khan-Magomedov, Ginzburg, Moscow 1972, pp. 41-43.. 28.

(30) international aspect in the Soviet architecture. Because RSFSR as today’s Russia, was first of all a multinational country with about 182 different nationalities, which have different traditions and live in locations with different climatic conditions. In his project Ginzburg wanted simultaneously to make an appearance of a building universal and to take into account the peculiarities of traditions and climatic conditions of the given region. In an article dedicated to the project of House of Soviets in Makhachkala, he wrote: “A correct application of the functional method can provide a solution to the issue of national identity in architecture. When designing the building an architect should take into account all the preconditions that define the modern face of the national Soviet Republics: 1) the preconditions related to the centuries-old way of life and climatic peculiarities, which determine the individual, national face of the republic; 2) the preconditions related to the new social order, new forms of life and achievements of the modern technologies, which are common and uniform for the entire USSR; the preconditions that determine the growth of new, All-Union forces of Socialism in the construction process. The right solution can be provided only when preconditions of both categories were taken into account. From this point of view, of course, the resurrection of old architectural decorative forms of a national style is fatuous.”63 Ginsburg adds that in the House of Soviets in Makhachkala, the first precondition was solved by locating the building in the ensemble of a typical eastern town, the “kishlak”. 64 The second precondition was solved by applying the functional method described above.65 In the same year, the brothers Leonid and Alexander Vesnin submitted their project for the House of Soviets in Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg) (figs. 27–29). As in the projects of Ginzburg and Grinberg, the building is multifunctional and has a very complex asymmetrical plan (fig. 30). Besides the Soviet institutions and Communist party’s and trade union organizations, the building should house the Regional Court, a library, a reading room as well as telephone and radio stations. The Regional Court is located near the meeting hall and has an independent entrance. Another important element is vertical dominant. The dominant is given by a tower, which clearly refers to Vesnin’s Palace of Labor. As the Palace. 63. Moisey Ginzburg, “Nacional’naya Arkhitektura Narodov SSSR,” in: Sovremennaia Architektura 5-6, 1926, pp. 113-114. 64 Kishlak is a rural settlement of semi-nomadic Turkic peoples of Central Asia and Azerbaijan. The literal translation from Turkish mean “wintering space.” 65 Ibid.. 29.