|
Moscow architecture from the 1930s to the
early 1950s undoubtedly occupies a central place in domestic
construction of the socialist epoch. Its specific nature and scope is
the most outstanding illustration of the socialist Utopia in
architecture. This period saw the work of the greatest Soviet
architects; B. Icfan, A. Schusev, I. Zholtovsky, the Vesnin brothers, I.
Fomin, L. Rudnev, I. Golosov, V. Schuko. Among the far-reaching
projections of the first stalinist "five year plans", the 1935 General
plan for the reconstruction of Moscow overshadowed all others. According
to this plan, Moscow was to become, in the shortest possible time, the
showpiece capital of the world's first socialist state. The General plan
envisaged the development of the city as a unified system of highways,
squares and embankments with unique buildings, embodying the ideas and
achievements of socialism. This plan contained a number of major flaws,
especially in connection with the preservation of the historical
heritage of the city. The specific nature of the architectural process
of this period was determined wholly by ambitious government schemes. In
order to realize them, extensive architectural contests were held and
architects of diverse orientations and schools of thought were invited
to tender their projects. The competitions for the projects of the
Palace of Soviets (1931-1933) and for the building of the People's
Commissariat of Heavy Industry (1934) were particularly noteworthy in
scope and results. Although, ultimately, neither of these projects was
realised, the plans submitted by the participants had a noticeable
influence on the development of Moscow, and many of the entries have
earned a place in this century's repository of project planning. At the
time, this style of architecture, like its contemporary literature and
Soviet depictive art, were proclaimed to be an exemplary implementation
of the "most progressive" artistic method of "socialist realism",.
Considered today, it is clear that the best examples of this
architecture, most of which never got beyond the drawing board, are more
profound and interesting than the ideological norms within the
constraints of which they were devised. Behind many grandiose projects
one may often discern the desires of those endowed with power to affirm
the greatness of this or that historical epoch. May the unrealised plans
of these monumental buildings serve as a reminder that it is right and
proper to build innovatively without destroying the historically
valuable past.
|
