Architecture of the 50s of the USSR. Soviet space architecture
The architecture of the Brezhnev time, which is commonly called stagnation, fully reflected the essence of that era. It did not seek, in contrast to the 1920s and 30s, to make revolutionary changes in urban planning and the organization of public space and was less subject to ideological influence.
The priority in construction was the "ordinary" organization of the urban environment, as well as the convenience and comfort of housing. The interpretation of communism has also changed, the construction of which was considered the main goal of the Soviet government - it was not some kind of abstraction, but a society in which all the needs and needs of a person would be maximally satisfied. Moscow was declared a "model communist city", which meant that it contained not only buildings bearing an ideological load, but also ordinary houses for ordinary Soviet citizens. That is, the capital of the USSR was to become, first of all, a city convenient for life.
General plan-71
All this was reflected in the Master Plan for the Development of Moscow, adopted in June 1971. It replaced the General Plan of 1935 with adjustments and additions of 1953. The significant difference between these documents is very important: the Stalinist General Plan was called the “reconstruction plan” of the capital, and the Brezhnev one was called the “development plan”. The General Plan of 1971, unlike the previous one, did not provide for the mass demolition of old buildings - the emphasis was on the development of new territories. And although the decision to expand the administrative border of Moscow to the Moscow Ring Road was made back in 1961, it is in the General Plan of 1971 that it is not only about the development of the capital itself, but of the entire Moscow agglomeration. By the way, this term was put into circulation in the 1960s and 70s.
Many of the shortcomings of mass housing construction were already evident then. The monotony of a typical faceless building, the absence of any town-planning accents with which one could distinguish one area from another, have become a byword. As you know, it is on this that the whole plot of the famous film by Eldar Ryazanov "The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath!" is built. The refrain of the film was this: typical houses, typical apartments, typical castles and typical feelings.
Photo: Yuri Artamonov / RIA Novosti
Installation of houses "from wheels". Mounting, in which the elements are fed into the mounting area and mounted directly from the vehicles in accordance with the hourly schedule. 1967
To solve this problem, the architects turned to the creative experience of the 1920s - to constructivism. Of course, this was not his revival in pure form, only some constructivist techniques began to be used. For example, a very popular idea in the 1960s and 70s was the formation of the appearance of a building when considering it from the inside out. That is, the internal purpose of the house should have determined its appearance.
Palace in the Kremlin
The first example of this approach was the Kremlin Palace of Congresses, built in 1961. It was considered as a replacement for the never implemented project of the Palace of Soviets, but it turned out to be the forerunner of all Brezhnev architecture. For the sake of erecting this building in the Kremlin, the Cavalry Corps was demolished, which was recognized as a low-value object. cultural heritage. Even the fact that Lenin lived and worked in it in 1918 did not save him.
What was the architectural innovation expressed in the construction of the Kremlin Palace of Congresses? In how the previously considered insoluble dilemma was solved - the combination of the new building with the existing historical building. The famous Soviet architect Ivan Zholtovsky told his students that any new building can be solved in two ways: either it subjugates the entire old building, or itself obeys it, and finding a middle ground is almost impossible.
If, for example, the palace was built in the 1920s, then you can definitely be sure that some constructivist architect would have proposed a skyscraper project in the Kremlin. Constructivism in general as a style was based on the rejection of everything old: the former musty Moscow with its dense lanes and rickety churches, in which, according to many young architects of that time, there was no aesthetic value.
In the 1960s, things were no longer the same; such radicalism was unpopular. At that time, it was believed that the new should be organically combined with the old, not submitting to and at the same time not suppressing it. This is how Zholtovsky's dilemma was solved. If we turn again to the cinema of that era, then another cult Soviet film “Ivan Vasilyevich Changes His Profession” clearly demonstrates this approach. In it, Tsar Ivan the Terrible, and in a typical Soviet apartment, is well mastered, and even listens to Vysotsky, and, surveying the panorama of Novy Arbat and Kutuzovsky Prospekt from the balcony, says approvingly: “Blepota!”
Therefore, the Kremlin Palace of Congresses, completely in the spirit of its time, according to the plan of its creators, had to fit into the surrounding buildings, but in a rather original way. After all, what primarily determines the perception of any building? height and color. If we look at this palace, it is easy to see that it does not at all strive upwards and thus does not suppress the surrounding buildings. Moreover, so that it does not seem too high, two underground floors were built, where wardrobes and other utility and technical rooms were located. The vertical pylons along the entire perimeter of the facade echoed the upwardly directed towers of the Kremlin, and the obvious horizontal orientation of the palace echoed the Kremlin walls.
Kremlin Palace of Congresses, 1965
The building was faced with white marble, which is also no coincidence. The architects sought to harmonize the palace with the white-stone cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin. Parallel to the pylons, it was pulled together by vertical frames made of anodized aluminum “under gold”. By the way, this combination of white and gold shades is typical for many Moscow buildings erected later - the Rossiya Hotel, the House of Soviets of the RSFSR on Krasnopresnenskaya Embankment ( White House), the building of the Ministry of Defense on Arbat Square.
The pylons of the Kremlin Palace of Congresses also performed a useful function, they were equipped with cables and other communications. This is the main difference between the Khrushchev-Brezhnev architecture and the era of the Stalinist Empire style, where numerous decorative elements on the facades of houses were deprived practical application and had only aesthetic value. The entrance to the Kremlin Palace of Congresses was crowned with a huge copper coat of arms of the USSR under its roof, which was clearly associated with the gate icons of the Kremlin towers.
Glass-concrete "checkered shirts"
Others good examples Numerous multi-storey "glass prisms" have already become directly Brezhnev's architecture. Their construction was a kind of tribute to the fashion of that time; the skyscrapers of New York and some European capitals served as a model for them. These buildings were very simple in terms of construction - a parallelepiped with a powerful horizontal stylobate at the base. Their characteristic features are glass facades and vertical division of the frame with a cellular structure. Evil tongues called these houses completely faceless and compared them to plaid shirts. Another reference to the heritage of constructivism was the huge windows. On the one hand, this provided maximum illumination of the interior, and on the other hand, these buildings had disgusting thermal insulation in winter and terrible heat in summer. This, by the way, was one of the reasons for the cessation of the construction of such houses in Moscow. It became clear that they are completely unsuited to our climate.
A typical example of such architecture is the building of the Hydroproject Institute at the fork of the Leningrad and Volokolamsk highways and the Intourist hotel demolished under Luzhkov on Gorky Street (now Tverskaya). The latter, by the way, was to become another example of a successful combination of new and old forms in architecture. In fact, this multi-storey glass-concrete box did not harmonize well not only with the adjacent pre-revolutionary building of the National Hotel, but also with high-rise Stalinist buildings. Although in technical, utilitarian terms, it was a good building.
The building of the hotel Intourist 1971.
In order for the facades of such buildings to also carry a payload, on major public holidays they hung huge - several floors in area - posters with slogans or portraits of Soviet leaders.
"Jaws" of the capital
But the main monument of that time was, of course, the complex of buildings along Kalininsky Prospekt (now - New Arbat). The functional significance of this new Moscow highway is obvious - it was a government highway connecting the Kremlin with the residences of the country's leaders to the west of the capital. In a sense, the appearance of this street on the map of Moscow was an echo of the General Plan of 1935. However, instead of expanding the Arbat, as happened in the 1930s with Gorky Street, they decided to simply cut a new wide road with modern high-rise buildings through the existing buildings. As a result, many valuable architectural monuments of the 18th-19th centuries were irretrievably lost, for example, one of the symbols of ancient Moscow - the ensemble of the famous Dog Playground.
But the project for the construction of Kalininsky Prospekt did not provide for the complete destruction of all old houses, the idea of a harmonious combination of old and new was reflected here as well. A clear illustration of this is the Church of Simeon the Stylite on Povarskaya Street, over which hangs a multi-storey building at No. 6 on Novy Arbat.
Another constructivist idea used in the construction of the avenue was the huge elongated stylobates that united all four administrative "high-rise books". Two-storey stores were located here, and here we see another innovation - in order not to impede the access of trucks with goods to them, an underground road was built along the entire length of the store line. Another distinctive feature of Kalininsky Prospekt is a wide sidewalk zone, separated from the roadway by a line of green spaces.
From the side of the Moscow River, the new highway was opened with a “book” of the building of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (now the city hall is located here). Since it had a pronounced ideological function, its architectural composition was unusual. Most often, this house is associated with facades in the form of unfolded pages, but it is interesting not only for this. Very original is the famous stylobate and the spiral car park, which was considered a creative find of the authors of the project. The building was supposed to serve as an architectural dominant at the entrance to Kalininsky Prospekt from the side of the hotel "Ukraine".
"Panel Jungle"
If in the early and mid-1960s five-story buildings prevailed, then from the second half of the 1960s to the mid-1970s, houses began to be built with nine, twelve and fourteen floors. But, as before, housing continued to be built mainly from panel structures. The main drawback in the construction of such buildings was the low quality of the materials used. Even if there was one defective panel in the whole house, this could become a serious problem.
Great criticism was caused by the design features of such buildings. In the buildings of the first series K-7, the thickness of the walls was only 8 centimeters. For comparison, in Stalin's skyscrapers, the walls could be up to half a meter wide. In subsequent series of panel residential buildings, the wall thickness was increased to 15 centimeters, but the sound insulation in them still left much to be desired.
Another weak feature of these buildings was the joints between the panels. They had to be regularly lubricated and isolated from the effects of the external environment. If moisture penetrated into these joints, there could be a threat of erosion of steel reinforcement, which tightened the panels of the house. Such cosmetic repairs should be carried out every two to three years. And by the way, sad fate of the first Moscow five-story buildings, which were demolished under Luzhkov, was due precisely to the fact that by that time many of them had not been repaired for 10-15 years and therefore were pretty dilapidated.
By the end of the 1960s, the authorities decided to phase out the typical housing development. In order to add at least some variety to the appearance of new housing, the architects combined different types and series of houses when designing. Therefore, starting in the 1970s, they began to develop not only new types of buildings, but also new types of building parts. A real breakthrough in housing construction of that time was the development of a Unified catalog of universal building products. Such houses, where the imagination of architects combined various structural elements, were built up in the Moscow districts of Troparevo, Yasenevo, Teply Stan and Biryulyovo. Another way to overcome the dull monotony of typical houses was to play with color. Walls, loggias and balconies were decorated with bright colors and intricate patterns.
An important sign of the times was the increase in the number of storeys of new buildings. Since the need for growth in the volume of housing being built in Moscow only increased, and the undeveloped territories within the administrative boundaries of the city became less and less, in the 1970s and 80s the number of floors in new houses reached not only fourteen, but also sixteen and even twenty-two. The era of squat Khrushchev five-story buildings was left far behind.
Our country really appeared on the map of world architecture only after 1917. Not Asian variegation or boring provinciality, but a daring experiment of the avant-garde brought her to the forefront. And no matter how controversial the Stalinist Empire may seem, as well as what came to replace it, these styles at least deserve to be argued about.
6 |
GIANTOMANIA Lenin's plan for monumental propaganda declared sculpture to be the most important means of propaganda. Monuments to revolutionaries and public figures from the 1920s began to appear throughout the country, densely providing artists with state orders. The reference symbol of socialist realism was the monument to Vera Mukhina "Worker and Collective Farm Girl" at VDNKh, which crowned the USSR pavilion at the World Exhibition in Paris in 1937. Thirty years later, another triumph of gigantomania was erected on Mamaev Kurgan in Volgograd - "The Motherland is Calling!" Evgeny Vuchetich. At the time of its creation, it was the tallest sculpture in the world: 85 meters, 33 of which is occupied by a sword. For comparison: the American Statue of Liberty is 46 meters without a pedestal. But in terms of scale and degree of influence on the minds, even they could not compete with the All-Union Radio and Television Transmitting Station named after the 50th anniversary of the USSR. The 540-meter Ostankino tower in the form of an inverted lily in 1967 became the tallest building on the planet. |
GRIGORY REVZIN
What is your understanding of the great style in Soviet architecture?
There is only one big style in it - Stalinist. After all, this very concept is historical, a standard introduced by the French Academy during the period of classicism. The constructivists struggled with the very concept of style, they declared that the avant-garde is an anti-style, a separate art institute. Khrushchev's and Brezhnev's architecture is also far from the ideals of classicism. The grand style is always associated with absolutism, which is why Comrade Stalin adopted it. Paradoxically, he carried out the program of the revival of the classics, prepared back in the 1910s by Alexandre Benois and his colleagues in the World of Art.
Imagine that there was no revolution. Would the architecture of the reign of Emperor Alexei Nikolaevich Romanov be very different from Stalin's?
Most likely, she would be very similar to her. Especially in regard to palaces and public buildings. It would be a Russian version of American and European art deco, so widely represented in the 1930s and 1950s by Boris Iofan. But there would be no such hegemony of one style: neoclassicism and the organically developing avant-garde would compete with each other, as happened in the USA or France.
How did Stalin's architecture differ from American Art Deco, from the architecture of Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany?
In America, Art Deco is primarily a style of luxury. Its message is the desire to please the consumer. Even the materials in it are very expensive, be it traditional marble or modernist steel. In our country, the architecture of those years was not commercial, not intended for sale: when you rebuild society, you obviously have no time for it. Stalin's architecture was faced with the task of suppressing with its scale. As for the architecture of Mussolini, who came to power back in the 1920s, along with the classical ones, there were many elements of the avant-garde in it. We have very few such buildings. For example, the Kharkiv Government House, on the one hand, is completely avant-garde, and on the other, it clearly expresses the ideas state power. Or a wonderful housing estate on Traktornaya Street in Leningrad, with houses interconnected by semi-arches. Mussolini's style was productively reworked by post-war marble modernist architecture. The social function of coercion and education makes Stalin's architecture related to Hitler's architecture. Both are extremely pretentious, and the difference between them is in national schools. German representatives are inspired by the creations of Karl Schinkel, and all their neo-classics are very dry, geometric and even metaphysical. Stalin's buildings are material, they feel the weight of the bricks from which they are made. And if you take the Nazi Reich Chancellery, then it was just hectares of polished marble that looked completely mystical, abstract - it was impossible to immediately understand what kind of surface it was.
Do you agree with the point of view that the Soviet architecture of the 1970s and 1980s manifested itself only on the outskirts of the empire - in Georgia or the Baltic states?
Disagree. It is based on the opinion of one person, Frederic Chaubin, editor of the French magazine Citizen K, who, having traveled around the former Soviet republics, found interesting buildings unknown in the West, took photographs, arranged exhibitions in New York and Paris, and published a book that became very popular. Indeed, the first secretaries of the Central Committees of the local communist parties in Tbilisi and Tallinn supported some architectural experiments, but in fact in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Nizhny Novgorod great amount of the most interesting Brezhnev architecture, it's just that this material has not yet been put into circulation.
What from built in the USSR can be proud of today?
In the USSR, there were three passionary waves in architecture, singled out at one time by Selim Khan-Magomedov, with whom I agree on this: constructivism, Stalinist and paper architecture of the 1970s-1980s. As for ratings, I don't like them very much. There are objective assessments, and here it is quite logical to mention the names of Fomin, Zholtovsky, Shchusev, Golosov. In general, if you take the list of winners of the Stalin Prize for Architecture, it turns out that they awarded those who should have been awarded - the creators of all the main buildings of the era got into it. But from a subjective point of view, I always really liked the Northern River Station in Moscow, the station in Detskoye Selo near Leningrad, the House of Artists Bolshoi Theater. And I showed the photo of the Sochi sanatorium "Metallurg" many times to Italian colleagues, and they always said that they perfectly remember this 17th-century palazzo on Lake Garda - architect Kuznetsov did such a fantastic job. He built a holiday home the way he himself wanted, without any ideological load.
Has your personal perception of Stalinist architecture changed over the years?
Few. She inspired me from the very beginning. The building of Moscow State University, where I studied, is a masterpiece. I understand very well the people of the older generation, my teachers, for whom the Stalin era itself, and with it the architecture of those years, evokes a feeling of physical disgust. But I have the same attitude towards Brezhnev's architecture: I know everything about it and understand its virtues with my mind, but I can't get rid of the first physical feeling - fear and filth. And people who did not live at that time do not have such emotions.
SSSURealism
NOVY ARBAT
I love to dream under the windows, I love to read them like books
Kalinin Avenue in Moscow was cut right in the middle of historical buildings, like a clearing in the forest, according to the General Plan for the Reconstruction of Moscow in 1935. The most spectacular street, today called Novy Arbat, looked in the evening on holidays, when the windows of the book houses highlighted four huge letters or numbers to choose from: USSR, CPSU, May 1 or 9. Contrary to the legend, the residents of the other apartments did not sit in the dark at that time: state institutions were located in the houses, and the inclusion of the light was programmed from the control room.
MAIN BUILDING OF MSU
Arch. Lev Rudnev
Once in this place, on Sparrow Hills, they were going to build a temple in memory of the victory over Napoleon, but now something completely unimaginable announced a new victory - either a cathedral, or a palace, or a castle (four jasper columns that survived the demolition of the temple Christ the Savior, installed in front of the rector's office). As with other Stalinist skyscrapers, comparisons with American skyscrapers are preposterous. After all, they certainly huddle together, while the strength of the university is in the vast expanses around, guaranteeing spectacular views. Moscow, 1948–1953
PALACE OF SOVIETS
Higher and higher and higher!
The grandiose building 420 meters high, designed by Boris Iofan, was supposed to be the apotheosis of grand style. A multi-tiered skyscraper with columns, crowned with a hundred-meter statue of Lenin - more than twice as high as the Statue of Liberty - began to be built on the site of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior blown up in 1931, having managed to make the foundation. In the head of the leader, it was supposed to equip a library, Stalin's office, or install anti-aircraft guns. During the war, the project was frozen, and then it was no longer up to the palace, instead of one hyperbuilding in Moscow, “seven sisters” grew up - seven skyscrapers. After the death of the helmsman, the cultural vector was directed not upward, but deeper: the foundation of the Palace of Soviets flowed into the outdoor pool "Moscow".
Bold scope of socialist realist architecture
Unrealized architectural projects from the 30s to the early 50s of the twentieth century
State Museum of Architecture. A. V. Shchuseva keeps projects developed in the 30s - 50s of the XX century. The architecture of Moscow in those years undoubtedly occupies a central place in the domestic architecture of the era of socialism. In its originality and scope, this is the most striking embodiment of the socialist utopia in architecture. The work of the largest Soviet architects is associated with this time: V. Iofan, A. Shchusev, I. Zholtovsky, brothers A., V., L. Vesnin, I. Fomin, L. Rudnev, I. Golosov, V. Shchuko.
Among the large-scale programs of the first, "Stalinist" five-year plans, the General plan for the reconstruction of Moscow adopted in 1935. According to this plan, as soon as possible Moscow was to become the exemplary capital of the world's first socialist state. The master plan provided for the development of the city center as a single system of highways, squares and embankments with unique buildings that embody the ideas and achievements of socialism. This plan contained a number of major shortcomings, especially with regard to the preservation of the historical heritage of the city. A feature of the architectural process of this period was that it was entirely determined by ambitious state tasks. For their implementation, large-scale architectural competitions were organized, to which architects of various orientations and creative schools were invited. A special scope and creative results stood out Competition for the design of the Palace of Soviets(1931-1933) and Competition for(1934). Although neither Narkomtyazhrom nor the Palace of Soviets were built, the materials of their competitions had a noticeable impact on the development and appearance of Moscow, and many competition projects became part of the treasury of design thinking of our century. At one time, this architecture, like Soviet literature contemporary to it, Soviet art, were declared an example of the implementation of the "most progressive" artistic method of "socialist realism".
Today it is obvious that the best examples of this architecture, which largely remained in projects, are deeper and more meaningful than the ideological dogmas within which they were implemented. Behind many grandiose projects, the desire of people in power to reflect the greatness of a particular historical era is often clearly visible. Let the unrealized projects of these monumental buildings remind us that it is possible and must build something new without destroying the historical values of the past. What history has given us, be it good or evil, is our history, and we must accept it for what it is. But we must not forget the lessons of history, because the future of Russia depends on it.
The building of the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry
A. Vesnin, V. Vesnin, S. Lyashchenko. 1934
In 1934, a competition was announced for the building People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry(Narkomtyazhprom) on Red Square. The construction of this grandiose complex of 110 thousand cubic meters. m on an area of 4 hectares would lead to radical reconstruction of Red Square, adjacent streets and squares of Kitay-gorod. 12 projects were submitted for the first stage of the competition. The impressive projects of the brothers A. and V. Vesnin, the leaders of the constructivism movement, were not recognized by the jury, as well as the projects of other participants, although outstanding architectural solutions were submitted to the competition, which were among the most interesting design ideas of our century. The building of the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry was not built.
Palace of Soviets
B. Iofan, O. Gelfreich, O. Schuko. Sculptor S. Merkulov. One of the variants of the approved project. 1934
Project competition Palace of Soviets in Moscow is one of the largest and most representative architectural competitions of our century. The idea of building in the capital of the world's first state of workers and peasants a building that could become a symbol of the "coming triumph of communism" appeared already in the 1920s. It was decided to build the Palace of Soviets on the site of the destroyed Cathedral of Christ the Savior.
The competition for the design of the Palace of Soviets was announced in 1931, and it took place in several stages. In total, 160 projects were submitted to the competition, including 12 custom-made and 24 out-of-competition, as well as 112 project proposals, 24 proposals were received from foreign participants, among whom were world-famous architects: Le Corbusier, V. Gropius, E. Mendelssohn. The turn of Soviet architecture towards the heritage of the past, which was clearly marked by this time, also determined the choice of winners. The highest prizes were awarded to architects: I. Zholtovsky, B. Iofan, G. Hamilton (USA). Subsequently, the Council of Builders of the Palace of Soviets (which at one time included Stalin himself) adopted the project of B. Iofan as a basis, which, after numerous modifications, was adopted for implementation.
Mossovet hotel ("Moscow")
L. Saveliev, O. Stapran. 1931
In 1931, the Moscow Soviet held a closed competition for project of a huge hotel with 1000 rooms, the most comfortable by the standards of those years. Six projects participated in the competition, the project of young architects L. Savelyev and O. Stapran was recognized as the best. The architectural and general press closely followed all stages of design and construction: in terms of urban planning, the building was of great importance - it was located at the intersection of the main thoroughfare of the capital, Gorky Street, with the newly laid "Ilyich Alley", a huge avenue that led to the Palace of Soviets.
When the walls of the future hotels "Moscow" were already being erected, Academician A. Shchusev was appointed head of the team of architects. The project of the hotel, its facade, were changed in the spirit of new monumentality and orientation towards the classical heritage. According to the legend, Stalin signed both versions of the building facade at once, given to him on one sheet, as a result of which the facade of the built hotel turned out to be asymmetrical. Construction was completed in 1934. "Ilyich Alley" was not laid, the traces of its laying are the current Manezhnaya Square, formed on the site of the demolished buildings of Mokhovy Streets.
Palace of Technology
A. Samoilov, B. Efimovich. 1933
Project competition Palace of Technology was announced in 1933. The design object itself was a complex of scientific and technical institutions, it was supposed to become in the capital of the country, which is in the active process of industrialization, a center designed to "arm the masses with the achievements of Soviet technology in the field of industry, agriculture, transport and communications." The site on the banks of the Moskva River was chosen as the site for the construction of the Palace. The industrial character of the solution of the project by A. Samoilov and B. Efimovich is not a tribute to constructivism that has already gone into the past, but rather an illustration of the “technocratic” nature of the design object itself. The Palace of Technology was not built.
The building of the military people's commissariat
L. Rudnev. 1933
The buildings of the architect L. Rudnev are among the most notable in Moscow. He is the head of the team of authors of the project of the High-Rise Building of Moscow State University on the Lenin Hills (1953). In the 1930s, a number of buildings of the People's Commissariat of Defense were built according to Rudnev's projects: the Military Academy of the Red Army. Frunze on the Maiden's Field (1932), the building of the People's Commissariat of Defense on Frunzenskaya Embankment (1936) and on the street. Shaposhnikov (1933). For the buildings of this department, the architect developed a special style with motives of formidable impregnability and overwhelming power, corresponding to the official image of the Red Army. The project of the building on Arbatskaya Square, which was only partially implemented, reflects the architect's transition from the gloomy grandeur of the buildings of the people's commissariats of defense of the 30s to the major pomposity that became characteristic of the architecture of the 40s and early 50s.
The building of the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry
I. Fomin, P. Abrosimov, M. Minkus. 1934
I. Fomin is the largest representative of the St. Petersburg school of the neoclassical trend in Russian architecture, who developed as a master back in pre-revolutionary times. Even in the 1920s, during the period of complete domination of constructivism, Fomin managed to remain true to the classical principles in architecture and even developed the so-called "proletarian order".
“The two main verticals of the main facade are given in order to create a gap through which it would be good to look at the mausoleum. On Sverdlov Square, the building ends with a straight end of the building. Here, the silhouette solution was chosen. We break this butt with a very front arch, corresponding to the character of the old architecture of the square. The building is in plan closed ring. Since the composition is closed, we did not want to rise above 12-13 floors in general, and only the towers will reach a height of 24 floors. From the explanatory note to the project.
The building of the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry
A. Vesnin, V. Vesnin, S. Lyatsenko. Option. 1934
“On the stylobate corresponding to the Kremlin wall, four towers were placed, reaching a height of up to 160 meters. The rhythmic construction, expressed in four vertical elements and the stylobate colonnade, creates the visual extension necessary for the longitudinal framing of the square, and corresponds to the construction of the Kremlin wall. The vertical division corresponds to the four divisions of the Kremlin Tower, which is necessary to include the building in the overall ensemble. A single vestibule has been designed along Red Square.” From the explanatory note to the project.
Aeroflot House
D. Chechulin. 1934
In 1934, the whole world followed the dramatic fate of the crew of the Chelyuskin icebreaker, which drifted on an ice floe after the ship was lost in the Chukchi Sea. In the summer of the same year, Moscow met the brave Chelyuskinites and the pilots who saved them, who were the first to be awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.
The new traditions of socialist life demanded perpetuation of the glorious feat of the Soviet people in monumental forms. Building Aeroflot, which was planned to be erected on the square near the Belorussky railway station, was conceived by the architect D. Chechulin as a monument to the heroic Soviet aviation. Hence the sharp silhouette solution, the “aerodynamic” form of the high-rise building and the sculptural figures of the heroes-pilots: A. Lyapidevsky, S. Levanevsky, V. Molokov, N. Kamanin, I. Slepnev, I. Vodopyanov, I. Doronin, crowning seven openwork arches , turned perpendicular to the main facade and making up a kind of portal. The sculptor I. Shadr took part in the work on the project, sculpting the figures of the pilots. The project in its original form and purpose was not implemented. Almost half a century later, the general ideas of the project were embodied in the complex of the House of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR on Krasnopresnenskaya Embankment (now the Government House).
Book House
I. Golosov, P. Antonov, A. Zhuravlev. 1934
Project book houses- an example of a building solution typical for the early 30s as "architectural monument". Trapezoidal, skyward-looking silhouette, simplified architectural forms and an abundance of sculpture on all parts of the building. In the 1920s, the architect I. Golosov clearly showed himself in line with constructivism (he is the author of the well-known Zuev Club), and in subsequent years he created interesting solutions in the spirit of the new Soviet classics. He participated in competitions for the design of the Palace of Soviets and the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry, where he proposed original projects. Golosov's works are distinguished by features that are defined as "symbolic romanticism".
“The architect must be free from style, in the old, historical sense of the word, and must create style himself... For this, guiding rules and laws must be given to make it easier for the architect in each individual case to choose the right path to solve the problem of artistic creativity.. It is necessary to establish only immutable provisions that are inevitable, true and irremovable. There are a lot of such provisions, and these provisions, undoubtedly, bearing an absolute value, are equally acceptable both to classical architecture and to the architecture of our time. I. Voices. From the lecture "New Ways in Architecture".
Heroes Arch. Monument to the heroic defenders of Moscow
L. Pavlov. 1942
Since October 1942, in the midst of the Great Patriotic War the newspaper "Literature and Art" reported: "The competition for Monuments to the heroes of the Great Patriotic War. About 90 works were received from Moscow sculptors and architects. Information was received about the expulsion of projects from Leningrad, Kuibyshev, Sverdlovsk, Tashkent and other cities of the USSR. More than 140 projects are expected to arrive.”
In order to acquaint the public with the materials of the competition in the winter and spring of 1943, three exhibitions were arranged in Moscow, at which the submitted projects were exhibited. The terms of the competition, among other topics, provided for the creation of a monument to the Heroic Defenders of Moscow. The choice of location for the monument was at the discretion of the contestants. Author "Arcs of Heroes" architect L. Pavlov proposed to place his monument on Red Square. The monument was not built.
Residential building on Vosstaniya Square
V. Oltarzhevsky, I. Kuznetsov. 1947
Architect V. Oltarzhevsky, together with A. Mordvinov, the author of the High-rise building of the hotel "Ukraine" on Kutuzovsky Prospekt. V. Oltarzhevsky was much engaged in architectural theory and methods of erecting high-rise buildings. In 1953, his book "The Construction of High-Rise Buildings in Moscow" was published, in which he tried to find a connection between this architecture and the traditions of Russian architecture. V. Oltarzhevsky paid special attention to the structures and various types of engineering and technical equipment of the "skyscrapers". Oltarzhevsky's project was not implemented. High-rise building on the square. The uprising was built according to the project of architects M. Posokhin and A. Mndoyants.
High-rise building in Zaryadye
Perspective from Red Square. D. Chechulin. 1948
In 1947, the Soviet government adopted a resolution on the construction of high-rise buildings in Moscow. By the beginning of the 1950s High-rise buildings on the Lenin Hills (MGU), on Smolenskaya Square (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), on Lermontovskaya Square (administrative building), on Komsomolskaya Square and on Kutuzovsky Prospekt (Leningradskaya and Ukraina Hotel), on Kotelnicheskaya embankment and on the Uprising Square (residential buildings) were built.
And only the construction of a 32-storey administrative building in Zaryadye, which was supposed to become one of the main dominants in the silhouette of the capital's center, was not completed. Its construction was interrupted after the famous decree of 1955 condemning "excesses and embellishment in architecture" and marked the beginning of a new era in Soviet architecture. Already erected structures were dismantled, and on the foundations of the High-Rise Building, according to the project of the same D. Chechulin, the Rossiya Hotel was built in 1967.
Palace of Soviets
B. Iofan, V. Gelfreich, J. Belopolsky, V. Pelevin. Sculptor S. Merkulov.
One of the variants of the approved project. 1946
Palace of Soviets conceived as largest building on earth. Its height was to reach 415 meters - higher than the tallest structures of its time: eiffel tower and the Empire State Building. The pedestal building was to be crowned with a sculpture of Lenin 100 meters high.
The construction of the Palace of Soviets has become an independent economic and research branch. Special laboratories for optics and acoustics functioned in this system, for the development of special materials: “D.S. steel”, “D.S. brick”, mechanical and expanded clay concrete plants operated, a separate railway line was brought to the construction site. By special resolutions of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Council of Labor and Defense, the construction of the Palace of Soviets was declared a shock construction site in 1934, by the end of 1939 the foundations of the high-rise part were ready. In 1941, due to the war, construction was suspended and never resumed. Work on the project of the Palace of Soviets continued until the end of the 1940s.
The architecture of the Brezhnev time, which is commonly called stagnation, fully reflected the essence of that era. It did not seek, in contrast to the 1920s and 30s, to make revolutionary changes in urban planning and the organization of public space and was less subject to ideological influence.
The priority in construction was the "ordinary" organization of the urban environment, as well as the convenience and comfort of housing. The interpretation of communism has also changed, the construction of which was considered the main goal of the Soviet government - it was not some kind of abstraction, but a society in which all the needs and needs of a person would be maximally satisfied. Moscow was declared a "model communist city", which meant that it contained not only buildings bearing an ideological load, but also ordinary houses for ordinary Soviet citizens. That is, the capital of the USSR was to become, first of all, a city convenient for life.
General plan-71
All this was reflected in the Master Plan for the Development of Moscow, adopted in June 1971. It replaced the General Plan of 1935 with adjustments and additions of 1953. The significant difference between these documents is very important: the Stalinist General Plan was called the “reconstruction plan” of the capital, and the Brezhnev one was called the “development plan”. The General Plan of 1971, unlike the previous one, did not provide for the mass demolition of old buildings - the emphasis was on the development of new territories. And although the decision to expand the administrative border of Moscow to the Moscow Ring Road was made back in 1961, it is in the General Plan of 1971 that it is not only about the development of the capital itself, but of the entire Moscow agglomeration. By the way, this term was put into circulation in the 1960s and 70s.
Many of the shortcomings of mass housing construction were already evident then. The monotony of a typical faceless building, the absence of any town-planning accents with which one could distinguish one area from another, have become a byword. As you know, it is on this that the whole plot of the famous film by Eldar Ryazanov "The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath!" is built. The refrain of the film was this: typical houses, typical apartments, typical castles and typical feelings.
To solve this problem, the architects turned to the creative experience of the 1920s - to constructivism. Of course, this was not its revival in its pure form, only some constructivist techniques began to be used. For example, a very popular idea in the 1960s and 70s was the formation of the appearance of a building when considering it from the inside out. That is, the internal purpose of the house should have determined its appearance.
Palace in the Kremlin
The first example of this approach was the Kremlin Palace of Congresses, built in 1961. It was considered as a replacement for the never implemented project of the Palace of Soviets, but it turned out to be the forerunner of all Brezhnev architecture. For the sake of erecting this building in the Kremlin, the Cavalier Corps was demolished, which was recognized as a low-value cultural heritage site. Even the fact that Lenin lived and worked in it in 1918 did not save him.
What was the architectural innovation expressed in the construction of the Kremlin Palace of Congresses? In how the previously considered insoluble dilemma was solved - the combination of the new building with the existing historical building. The famous Soviet architect Ivan Zholtovsky told his students that any new building can be solved in two ways: either it subjugates the entire old building, or itself obeys it, and finding a middle ground is almost impossible.
If, for example, the palace was built in the 1920s, then you can definitely be sure that some constructivist architect would have proposed a skyscraper project in the Kremlin. Constructivism in general as a style was based on the rejection of everything old: the former musty Moscow with its dense lanes and rickety churches, in which, according to many young architects of that time, there was no aesthetic value.
In the 1960s, things were no longer the same; such radicalism was unpopular. At that time, it was believed that the new should be organically combined with the old, not submitting to and at the same time not suppressing it. This is how Zholtovsky's dilemma was solved. If we turn again to the cinema of that era, then another cult Soviet film “Ivan Vasilyevich Changes His Profession” clearly demonstrates this approach. In it, Tsar Ivan the Terrible, and in a typical Soviet apartment, is well mastered, and even listens to Vysotsky, and, surveying the panorama of Novy Arbat and Kutuzovsky Prospekt from the balcony, says approvingly: “Blepota!”
Therefore, the Kremlin Palace of Congresses, completely in the spirit of its time, according to the plan of its creators, had to fit into the surrounding buildings, but in a rather original way. After all, what primarily determines the perception of any building? height and color. If we look at this palace, it is easy to see that it does not at all strive upwards and thus does not suppress the surrounding buildings. Moreover, so that it does not seem too high, two underground floors were built, where wardrobes and other utility and technical rooms were located. The vertical pylons along the entire perimeter of the facade echoed the upwardly directed towers of the Kremlin, and the obvious horizontal orientation of the palace echoed the Kremlin walls.
The building was faced with white marble, which is also no coincidence. The architects sought to harmonize the palace with the white-stone cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin. Parallel to the pylons, it was pulled together by vertical frames made of anodized aluminum “under gold”. By the way, such a combination of white and gold shades is typical for many Moscow buildings erected later - the Rossiya Hotel, the House of Soviets of the RSFSR on Krasnopresnenskaya Embankment (White House), the building of the Ministry of Defense on Arbatskaya Square.
The pylons of the Kremlin Palace of Congresses also performed a useful function, they were equipped with cables and other communications. This is the main difference between the Khrushchev-Brezhnev architecture and the era of the Stalinist Empire style, where numerous decorative elements on the facades of houses were deprived of practical use and had only aesthetic value. The entrance to the Kremlin Palace of Congresses was crowned with a huge copper coat of arms of the USSR under its roof, which was clearly associated with the gate icons of the Kremlin towers.
Glass-concrete "checkered shirts"
Numerous multi-story "glass prisms" have become other clear examples of Brezhnev's architecture. Their construction was a kind of tribute to the fashion of that time; the skyscrapers of New York and some European capitals served as a model for them. These buildings were very simple in terms of construction - a parallelepiped with a powerful horizontal stylobate at the base. Their characteristic features are glass facades and vertical division of the frame with a cellular structure. Evil tongues called these houses completely faceless and compared them to plaid shirts. Another reference to the heritage of constructivism was the huge windows. On the one hand, this provided maximum illumination of the interior, and on the other hand, these buildings had disgusting thermal insulation in winter and terrible heat in summer. This, by the way, was one of the reasons for the cessation of the construction of such houses in Moscow. It became clear that they are completely unsuited to our climate.
A typical example of such architecture is the building of the Hydroproject Institute at the fork of the Leningrad and Volokolamsk highways and the Intourist hotel demolished under Luzhkov on Gorky Street (now Tverskaya). The latter, by the way, was to become another example of a successful combination of new and old forms in architecture. In fact, this multi-storey glass-concrete box did not harmonize well not only with the adjacent pre-revolutionary building of the National Hotel, but also with high-rise Stalinist buildings. Although in technical, utilitarian terms, it was a good building.
In order for the facades of such buildings to also carry a payload, on major public holidays they hung huge - several floors in area - posters with slogans or portraits of Soviet leaders.
"Jaws" of the capital
But the main monument of that time was, of course, the complex of buildings along Kalininsky Prospekt (now Novy Arbat). The functional significance of this new Moscow highway is obvious - it was a government highway connecting the Kremlin with the residences of the country's leaders to the west of the capital. In a sense, the appearance of this street on the map of Moscow was an echo of the General Plan of 1935. However, instead of expanding the Arbat, as happened in the 1930s with Gorky Street, they decided to simply cut a new wide road with modern high-rise buildings through the existing buildings. As a result, many valuable architectural monuments of the 18th-19th centuries were irretrievably lost, for example, one of the symbols of ancient Moscow - the ensemble of the famous Dog Playground.
But the project for the construction of Kalininsky Prospekt did not provide for the complete destruction of all old houses, the idea of a harmonious combination of old and new was reflected here as well. A clear illustration of this is the Church of Simeon the Stylite on Povarskaya Street, over which hangs a multi-storey building at No. 6 on Novy Arbat.
The people immediately called the new avenue the “false jaws” of Moscow, and home-grown conspiracy theorists saw in five 24-story double panel skyscrapers the secret embodiment of the Pentateuch of Moses.
Another constructivist idea used in the construction of the avenue was the huge elongated stylobates that united all four administrative "high-rise books". Two-storey stores were located here, and here we see another innovation - in order not to impede the access of trucks with goods to them, an underground road was built along the entire length of the store line. Another distinctive feature of Kalininsky Prospekt is a wide sidewalk zone, separated from the roadway by a line of green spaces.
From the side of the Moscow River, the new highway was opened with a “book” of the building of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (now the city hall is located here). Since it had a pronounced ideological function, its architectural composition was unusual. Most often, this house is associated with facades in the form of unfolded pages, but it is interesting not only for this. Very original is the famous stylobate and the spiral car park, which was considered a creative find of the authors of the project. The building was supposed to serve as an architectural dominant at the entrance to Kalininsky Prospekt from the side of the hotel "Ukraine".
"Panel Jungle"
If in the early and mid-1960s five-story buildings prevailed, then from the second half of the 1960s to the mid-1970s, houses began to be built with nine, twelve and fourteen floors. But, as before, housing continued to be built mainly from panel structures. The main drawback in the construction of such buildings was the low quality of the materials used. Even if there was one defective panel in the whole house, this could become a serious problem.
Great criticism was caused by the design features of such buildings. In the buildings of the first series K-7, the thickness of the walls was only 8 centimeters. For comparison, in Stalin's skyscrapers, the walls could be up to half a meter wide. In subsequent series of panel residential buildings, the wall thickness was increased to 15 centimeters, but the sound insulation in them still left much to be desired.
Another weak feature of these buildings was the joints between the panels. They had to be regularly lubricated and isolated from the effects of the external environment. If moisture penetrated into these joints, there could be a threat of erosion of steel reinforcement, which tightened the panels of the house. Such cosmetic repairs should be carried out every two to three years. And, by the way, the sad fate of the first Moscow five-story buildings, which were demolished under Luzhkov, was due precisely to the fact that by that time many of them had not been repaired for 10-15 years and therefore were pretty dilapidated.
By the end of the 1960s, the authorities decided to phase out the typical housing development. In order to add at least some variety to the appearance of new housing, the architects combined different types and series of houses when designing. Therefore, starting in the 1970s, they began to develop not only new types of buildings, but also new types of building parts. A real breakthrough in housing construction of that time was the development of a Unified catalog of universal building products. Such houses, where the imagination of architects combined various structural elements, were built up in the Moscow districts of Troparevo, Yasenevo, Teply Stan and Biryulyovo. Another way to overcome the dull monotony of typical houses was to play with color. Walls, loggias and balconies were decorated with bright colors and intricate patterns.
An important sign of the times was the increase in the number of storeys of new buildings. Since the need for growth in the volume of housing being built in Moscow only increased, and the undeveloped territories within the administrative boundaries of the city became less and less, in the 1970s and 80s the number of floors in new houses reached not only fourteen, but also sixteen and even twenty-two. The era of squat Khrushchev five-story buildings was left far behind.
ARCHITECTURE OF THE PERIOD L.I. BREZHNEV. MODERN ARCHITECTURE. SOVIET ARCHITECTURAL MODERNISM
Unlike N.S. Khrushchev, who perceived architecture more as an application to economical construction and gave rise to minimalism, L.I. Brezhnev (ruled from 1964-82) was more indifferent to architecture. Influence communist party on the development of architecture was impersonal, so the legitimacy of using the term "Brezhnev architecture" remains controversial. Despite the fact that this period is called the era of "stagnation" in the economic and social spheres of the country's life, construction proceeded on an unprecedented scale.
The architecture of public buildings developed along the lines of Soviet minimalism and functionalism. Relatively recently (since the 2010s), a new term has appeared, denoting the modern post-Stalinist architecture of 1955-1991 - "Soviet architectural modernism". This architecture has not yet been sufficiently studied (and we are filling this gap), and the term has not yet taken root enough and is not clearly defined.
In general, the following criteria correspond to the new direction: the most modern building materials and structures are used based on the latest achievements of the scientific and technological revolution and industrial progress; rational (functional) approach to constructive solutions; minimum decorations; global cosmopolitan appearance of buildings; the desire to abandon the appeal to the architectural past (historicism).
And, of course, as in every era, real masterpieces of architecture were born in this one.
In our opinion, we can conditionally distinguish the following main areas of Soviet modernism - minimalism, brutalism and organic architecture.
MINIMALISM
Minimalism is a direction in architecture, the main principle of which is the limitation of decor.
Palace of Sports of the Leningrad Trade Unions "Jubilee"
The building of the sports complex on Dobrolyubov Ave., consisting of a round volume (diameter 94 m and height 22 m) and a rectangular subordinate part, was built in 1967 according to the project of architects G. P. Morozov, I. P. Suslikov, A. L Levkhanyan, F. N. Yakovlev, engineer A. P. Morozov. The project was awarded the State Prize of the USSR for 1971. The design features of the structure determined its architecture; in the USSR, this is one of the first examples of the use of hanging-type spatial structures equipped with flexible cables (cables). All this looked ultra-modern against the background of the general historical building. The building inexorably resembles the Roman Pantheon and the nearby stadium named after V.I. Lenin, although the sharp interpretation of the columns in the form of reinforced concrete ribs announces the arrival of new architecture.
Firewall design
The design of such a significant area as Stachek Square is an important urban planning task. After Stalin's personality cult was debunked, after the image of the leader was dismantled on the firewall of the former apartment building of the Gordzialkovskys, the square turned out to be unfinished. In 1965, under the guidance of professors K. L. Johansen and G. A. Savinov, students of the Mukhinsky School made a monumental panel on revolutionary themes from the history of the Narva outpost.
In 1967, on the firewall of the house at 2V Serdobolskaya Street, a monumental panel "Workers of the Vyborg side in the struggle for Soviet power and the path of V. I. Lenin to Smolny" was made in the same style using the fresco technique (artist E. Kh. Nasibullin). Demolished in 2009 during the reconstruction of the building.
Experimental School N 345 on Krasnye Zor Boulevard was built in 1968 according to the project of a group of architects led by S. I. Evdokimov. The integral building of the school has a zigzag shape in plan and consists of blocks connected by passages. It also provided for an amphitheater hall, a catering unit (which can be transformed into a ballroom), a winter garden, an observatory, workshops, a club, a gym and a swimming pool. The architects proceeded from the correlation of buildings with the scale of the child and adaptation to the needs of the educational and developmental process. In addition, interior decoration was developed.
The complex on Gagarin Avenue was built in 1970-81 according to the project of architects I. M. Chaiko, N. V. Baranov, F. N. Yakovlev, N. A. Vladislavleva, engineers A. P. Morozov, O. A. Kurbatov, Yu. A. Eliseeva.
The music school building on Varshavskaya Street was designed by a group of architects led by V. V. Popov in 1971. The austere, minimalist appearance of the façade is enlivened by a frieze depicting boys and girls playing music.
River Station. Hotel "River"
In pre-Petrine times, this place was the village of Koyoshi. After the Volga-Balt was put into operation in 1964, it was decided to build here, on Obukhovskaya Oborona Avenue, the buildings of the river station and the hotel (built in 1970 and 1974, project manager architect I. N. Kuskov). The modern architecture of the vertical and horizontal volumes of the complex was a landmark for those years. Buildings demolished in 2012
Central Research Institute of Robotics and Technical Cybernetics
The Center was established in 1968 as the Special Design Bureau of Technical Cybernetics of the Leningrad Polytechnic Institute to conduct scientific research and create science-intensive products for the defense industry. The complex of buildings for the institute was built at the corner of Tikhoretsky and Svetlanovsky prospects in 1973-86 according to the project of architects B. I. Artyushin and S. V. Savin. The compositional center is an amazing tower 70 meters high and 30 meters in diameter, which resembles either a rocket launch complex or an alien spacecraft. The architects wanted to clearly capture our imagination and create a look that matches the purpose of the building.
The complex, located on the square. Victory, plays an important role in urban development, marking the main entrance to the city from Moscow and Pulkovo Airport. The majestic and spiritualized monument was created according to the project of the former participants in the defense of Leningrad, architects V. A. Kamensky and S. B. Speransky and sculptor M. K. Anikushin in 1974-75. On granite pedestals, 26 bronze sculptures of the defenders of Leningrad face the former front line - the Pulkovo Heights. In the center of the memorial rises a red granite 48-meter obelisk, with a symbolic broken blockade ring located behind it. At the base of the obelisk are five-meter figures of a worker and a soldier. In 1978, an underground memorial hall was opened (authors S. N. Repin, I. G. Uralov, N. P. Fomin under the direction of A. A. Mylnikov).
Institute of Railway Transport (University of Railways), Dom physical education(sports complex LIIZhT)
A concrete-glass structure with a coating based on rigid cables on Malaya Posadskaya was built from 1975 to 1986 according to the project of architects S. I. Trofimenkov, V. F. Khrushchev and others. The unusual appearance of the building, resembling a ship with sails, is purely functional - the main the volume is occupied by a swimming pool and a gym.
House of Political Education of the Leningrad Regional Committee of the CPSU
The building on Proletarian Dictatorship Square was built in 1974 according to the project of architects D. S. Goldgor, G. A. Vasilyev and others. The main facade is designed in the form of an extended rhythm of pylons alternating with window openings. The scale rectangle of the portal is lined with gray polished granite. The severity of forms and rhythm emphasizes the important social and political significance of this structure.
Hotel "Pribaltiyskaya"
Representative hotel building on Pribaltiyskaya Square, closing the prospect of st. Nakhimov, and once opening onto the Gulf of Finland, was an important part of the design of the western part of Vasilyevsky Island and the sea facade of the city. It was built in 1976-78 according to the project of architects N. N. Baranov, S. I. Evdokimov and V. I. Kovaleva. The building is similar in plan to the letter “H”, the walls are covered with anodized metal, and the high stylobate supporting the bulk is lined with red granite. In front of the main facade of the hotel in 1983, a sculptural group "Creators of the Fleet in Russia" was installed, made by E.M. Aghayan.
The general view of the dynamic building with open wings of the side buildings resembles a concert hall or a theater, which makes those on Nakhimov Street involuntary spectators of the unfolding architectural action.
Hotel Pulkovskaya and VNII "Electronstandart"
The buildings were built on Victory Square in 1981 - 84 according to the project of the architect S. B. Speransky and co-authors and were supposed to play the role of a backdrop for the outstanding monument to the Heroic Defenders of Leningrad. The presentable appearance of the hotel is determined by the combination of white stone "sinking" pylons and anodized aluminum space between the windows.
The architecture of the administrative building of the All-Russian Research Institute "Elektronstandart" echoes the hotel located opposite and balances the symmetrical composition of the square.
Metro station "Pionerskaya"
The station was opened on November 6, 1982 as part of the Petrogradskaya - Udelnaya section. Named in honor of the 60th anniversary of the All-Union Pioneer Organization. The ground pavilion was designed by architects V.N. Shcherbin and Yu.M. T. Gaponova, architects V. G. Chekhman, V. G. Sokolskaya, 1986 or 1988)
NPO "Scientific Instruments"
The complex of buildings of the Special Design Bureau of Analytical Instrumentation of the Russian Academy of Sciences on the street. Marshal Govorov, designed by architect B. A. Podolsky and others, was built in 1987. Here, the authors seem to worship scientific progress, defining the appearance of the building as clearly technocratic - the tower, which is the dominant on the street, resembles a robot or a spaceship, the walls are decorated with images great scientists.