Monuments of Constructivism today
Although recent events signal a change in attitude towards the survivor’s of the Soviet Avant-garde, the majority of these buildings, within Moscow and beyond, are languishing in a state of decay, or suffering from inappropriate additions and reconstruction work. Even thought they are monuments they are unrecognised by the local or national authorities as the important witnesses of Soviet history and seminal pieces of modernist design that they are. There has been no good restoration of a modernist building in Russia. There are restoration projects for many of these buildings, but they are not into put into action, often for a lack of political will to save them.
The hey-day of the Soviet Avant-garde was short lived, approximately 1923-1932. In April 1932 all architectural groups were banned and a single Union of Soviet architects was created with the task of defining a new Soviet architecture. Constructivism, and Rationalist architectures were condemned as ‘foreign imports,’ and not indigenously Russian. Neo-Classicism was adopted as the official style.
Krushchev publicly denounced several Avant-garde buildings, although in academic circles their rehabilitation began at this time: Selim Khan Magamedov began to publish articles on the Avant-garde in the sixties closely followed by Vigradia’s Khazanova’s important studies of the period.
In 1987, the State Administration for the Protection of Monuments awarded
30 Avant-garde buildings Monument status and in 1989, to mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of Konstantin Melnikov, seven more buildings were added to this list. Most are listed with local status, the lowest status for a monument in Russia and even this status has in most cases not ensured their maintenance or protection.
Germany, after reunification, turned its attention to its rich modernist legacy. The result is a whole group of beautifully restored buildings. Russia can learn a lot from the mistakes and successes of the German experience for many of the experimental materials are the same, as are some of the architectural forms, for example the flat roofs, that are almost identical in terms of construction and damp-proofing.
Within Russia, however, many buildings have been lost, often due to insensitive development. This is often because the authorities and developers do not understand the importance of the buildings or see their potential as investments for the future. And even when there is every intention to save a building, there is a lack of clarity in the understanding of the basic definitions of preservation. Thus the terms ‘reconstruction’ and ‘restoration’ are interchangeable. This means that original materials are substituted and replicas of old buildings are passed off as ‘restorations’.
This is the case with two Avant-garde monuments in Moscow: the Planetarium (M Barshch and M Sinyavsky, 1927-1929) and Konstantin Melnikov’s Bakhmetevsky Garage (1926-1927). Their modernisation has entailed the loss of an enormous amount of original fabric; technically they are no longer monuments.
The Planetarium was in its time a triumph of engineering – it was one of the largest projection domes for a planetarium in the world and at its apex it is only 4cm thick. In 2004 the dome of the planetarium was jacked up 6.3 metres in order to create more space beneath it and the elegant silhouette of the original was lost forever. An exterior staircase was demolished in the course of the work, and then later reconstructed. The original Planetarium became part of a much larger building.
Bakhmetevsky Garage has also suffered in the process of adaptation to a new function. This building was saved from demolition in 2001 when an investor agreed to convert it for use as a Museum of Jewish History within Russia. However, in the same year, the glass and steel roof that spanned the garage, the last surviving roof by Vladimir Shukhov, was removed without any documentation of the original structure, on the grounds that it was in danger of collapsing under the weight of snow. Many other original details have been lost and critics consider that the proposed additional structures are not harmonious with the surviving building. A final irony is that according to Russia's preservation laws, a monument cannot be used as a garage, thereby leaving the building vulnerable to dramatic redevelopment for a new function. Such treatment of buildings contradicts UNESCO's International Venice Charter of 1964 which stated that «the conservation of a monument implies preserving a setting which is not out of scale. Wherever the traditional setting exists, it must be kept. No new construction, demolition or modification which would alter the relations of mass and color must be allowed.»
Other buildings of the Avant-garde have been demolished or allowed to become ruins, such as the Vasileostrovski Factory Kitchen (Armen Baruchev, Iosif Meerson, Izidor Gilter and Iakov Rubanchik 1930-31) in St Petersburg, or the Hostel for Students of the Textile Institute (Ivan Nikolaev 1929-30). The Hostel, with its magnificent central ramp and its futuristic plans for communal living, is in an advanced state of decay and yet it is one of the most important buildings of the Soviet Avant-garde. Plans exist for its restoration and work even began, but stopped due to a lack of funds. Today, all that remains from the central dormitory block are the external walls (all the partitions have been removed).
In St Petersburg, which is home to some of the most outstanding examples of industrial Avant-garde architecture, the situation is even worse than in Moscow. In this great city of classicism, buildings of the Avant-garde are often overlooked. The Red Banner Power Station (Eric Mendehlson 1926-1928), one of the great achievements of Soviet industrial design, is in an advanced state of decay with little prospects of restoration. Yakov Chernikhov’s water tower for the rope yard, the Red Nail Maker’s Factory (1930-31). It is on the list to be considered for monument status. The rest of the factory has been reconstructed and the water tower stands empty. The Yakov Chernikhov Foundation is ready to help restore the water tower and create an installation dedicated to the work of the great architect, but for administrative and economic reasons work has not yet commenced.
Beyond Russia's main cities, in industrial centres such as Ekaterinburg and Ivanovo, and in the capital cities of countries that were once part of the Soviet Union such as Kharkov and Baku many Avant-garde buildings are also in a state of neglect. Key buildings that once defined cities such as the water tower of the Ural Mash plant (M Reisher 1928-1931) in Ekaterinburg are neglected due to confusion over ownership. It is a Federal monument but it is owned by the Regional Committee for State Property. Too often in Russia, monument grading is mistaken for ownership - the local administration thinks it is the responsibility of the Federal Authorities as it is a Federal monument, but the Federal Authorities are even less interested in the building than the local administration. And it is the building that suffers in the confusion.
The ruinous state of many of these buildings has finally jolted people out of their apathy towards them: in the last few years a new wave of heritage preservation have helped awaken and spread interest in the Soviet Union's Avant-garde legacy. The press have helped in this campaign, as have art projects held in these buildings, television programmes, books and conferences. The authorities too are beginning to take steps to help these buildings before it is too late.
The Heritage at Risk conference held in Moscow in 2006 was attended by over 200 foreign visitors. All were touched by what they saw. Mayor Yuri Luzhkov met with the representatives of the leading organisations who attended the conference (DOCOMOMO, ICOMOS, UIA and The World Monuments Fund). A conference held in Berlin by ICOMOS in September 2007 was a continuation of the Moscow discussion, as was a conference at New York's Museum of Modern Art in the same month. This accompanied an exhibition by Richard Pare, «The Lost Vanguard”, photographs taken of SOviet Avant-garde buildings over the last 15 years.
Several new publications have appeared in recent years, highlighting the plight of the Soviet Avant-garde including “20th Century Preservation of Cultural Heritage” (Moscow, 2006) ,“Heritage at Risk, (ICOMOS, Berlin 2006) and “Moscow Heritage at Crisis Point” (MAPS/SAVE, Moscow 2007).
And the change in attitude is showing itself in the treatment of Avant-garde buildings. Although highly compromised, the conversion plan for Bread Factory Number 5 (Georgy Marsakov 1931) will at least preserve most of the original complex. It closed in early 2007 in preparation for a conversion into a cultural and office centre. Unfortunately the revolutionary factory equipment, created by Marsakov to create 50,000 loaves of bread per day, has been scrapped. Two office blocks will be built behind the central circular building, thus depriving the factory of its original silhouette, one of its most striking features. The new development is a far cry from the efficiency of form of Marsakov’s original design, but it does at least represent a shift in attitude towards the legacy of the industrial avant garde.
Other positive developments include the formation of The Russian Avant Garde Foundation in 2007. Among its many worthy aims is a pledge to “preserve masterpieces of Russian architecture.” It has also applied to the Moscow Heritage Committee to award monument status to many buildings of the Avant-garde from within Moscow. The Heritage Committee has been cooperative and applications have so far led to the listing of The Hostels of the Red Professors’ Institute (Dmitry Osipov, Alexei Rukhlyadev 1929-32) and several worker’s settlements.
The creation of the Narkomfin Foundation is another important step forward in this change of attitude to the Soviet Avant-garde. It is an opportunity to create a precedent - an example of a well-restored building to pave the way for a sea change in attitudes towards the Avant-garde. Those with the vision to undertake this task have many difficulties to overcome, not least the indifference of local people to these buildings: after all it is a challenge to love buildings that have been so neglected and officially denounced for so many decades. Such a flagship restoration project will set a much-needed example to other building owners throughout Russia and the former Soviet Union and ensure that the buildings of the Soviet Avant-garde will be awarded their position in the pantheon of international modernism, from which they have been discounted for so long.
Clementine Cecil