Mies’ Memorial to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht (1926)

Posted by Ross Wolfe

Honestly, I was at first put off by the raw severity of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s Memorial to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, leaders of the Spartakusbund and martyrs of the failed November 1918 Revolution in Germany. The monumental structure — first erected in 1926, before being torn down by the Nazis less than a decade later — is almost proto-brutalist in its cantilevered slabs and brazen use of unrefined materials, made up of jagged bricks held together by unsanded grout organized around a steel-and-concrete frame. It just seemed too willfully barbaric to commemorate anything of value, so stark was its ugliness.

Site-plan and elevation for the monument (1926)

But as it turns out, this was precisely Mies’ intention. In a conversation with the prominent communist and cultural commentator Eduard Fuchs, Mies was reported to have said the following:

As most of these people [Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, other fallen heroes of the revolution] were shot in front of a brick wall, a brick wall would be what I would build as a monument.

Though he’d later downplay its radical Bolshevik origins by recasting it in terms of a sorrowful republicanism, Mies would always emphasize that the building was meant to convey a certain brutal honesty. Even in his deeply apolitical American exile, this remained the case. As recalled at several decades’ remove, the monument did not aspire to beauty but to truth:

[I built it] in a square shape. I meant clarity and truth to join forces against the fog that had descended and was killing all hope — the hopes, as we rightly perceived at the time, of a durable German republic.

“Ich war, Ich bin, Ich werde sein”

To his credit, Mies took seriously Luxemburg’s famous dilemma of “socialism or barbarism” (adapted from some lines by Engels written toward the end of his life). Luxemburg’s pronouncement of this opposition was not meant to be regarded as some sort of perennial choice haunting humanity throughout its existence, but rather was historically specific to her own moment, as Second International Marxism entered into profound crisis. Since socialism did not come to pass, as the world revolution stopped short, it is necessary that everything that transpired afterward be regarded as barbarism. For this reason, I’ve come to appreciate the self-conscious barbarism of Mies’ monument. There is something fitting about the unrelenting gnarliness of the brickwork in embodying Mies’ trademark perfect volumes, proportions, and harmonious distribution. Mies went to great lengths to put this symbolism across: the bricks, stacked some twenty feet high, had been assembled from the bullet-riddled remains of buildings damaged or destroyed during the Spartacist uprising.

The inscription “Ich war, Ich bin, Ich werde sein” [“I was, I am, I will be”], Rosa Luxemburg’s final written words before her execution by the proto-fascist Freikorps in January 1919, actually a quote from Ferdinand Freiligrath (1810-1876) during the 1848 German revolution

Site-plan, section, and elevation for Mies’ monument (1926)

Monument to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht [Revolutionsdenkmal] (built 1926, destroyed 1935), designed by pioneering modernist Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Photo by famous author Arthur Köstler, then a communist

“Den Toten helden der Revolution” [The dead heroes of the revolution]

Ernst Thälmann, leader of the German Communist Party (KPD) talks at the unveiling of Mies van der Rohe’s Monument to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht in the Friedrichsfelde cemetery in Berlin (June 13, 1926)

German Communist Party demonstration in front of Mies van der Rohe’s Monument to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, with a quote from the latter: “Wir sind nicht zu verbieten” [“We will not be prohibited”]

Monument to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht [Revolutionsdenkmal] (built 1926, destroyed 1935), designed by pioneering modernist Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

Photomontage of Ernst Thälmann, leader of the German Communist Party (KPD), standing in front of Mies’ Monument to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht on May 8, 1929, observing the anniversary of “Bloody May” a decade earlier

Monument to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht [Revolutionsdenkmal] (built 1926, destroyed 1935), designed by pioneering modernist and later Bauhaus director Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

Wilhelm Pieck (1876-1960), later president of the GDR, speaking on behalf of the KPD’s leadership at the rally on February 10, 1933.

Eberhard Hesse (1911-1986, left) and Gabo Levin (1906-1995, right) at the protest rally on February 10, 1933 before the Monument to the Revolution [Revolutionsdenkmal].

A slightly older Mies van der Rohe standing before the cantilevered brick

Of course, it is well known that that Mies, the third Bauhaus director and one of the great pioneers of the modern movement in architecture, was never all that political to begin with. True to Tafuri’s by-now canonical interpretation of “Miesian silence,” the architect typically kept his mouth shut when it came to such affairs. Unlike Hannes Meyer, whose position as the rector of the Bauhaus he’d eventually usurp in 1930, he saw no inherent connection between politics and architecture. Continue reading →

Family collectives and comradely communes: Three color illustrations from Modern Architecture (1930)

Posted by Ross Wolfe

.
IMAGE: Poster advertising the first exhibition
of the Soviet magazine Modern Architecture
.

The following are extremely rare color prints from the legendary Soviet avant-garde architectural publication Modern Architecture [Современная архитектура], depicting communes for comrades [товарищеский коммуны] and collective housing units for families [семейные коллективы].

Incidentally, this would be the last issue of the journal before changing its name to Soviet Architecture [Советская архитектура] at the beginning of 1931.

Communal dwelling for comrades [товарищеская коммуна] № 17, Modern Architecture (1930)

While its covers often featured bold color schemes, the illustrations on the pages in between were nearly always black-and-white. This was so even with an issue entirely devoted to color and light in architecture, which included detailed graphs and optical charts measuring and explaining color spectra, but no color pieces. Continue reading →

Reconstruction of Mies van der Rohe's monument to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebkneckt (1925-1926)

Architecture: A social and political history since 1848

Posted by Ross Wolfe

Ross Wolfe & Sammy Medina

.
Image: Reconstruction of Mies van der Rohe’s monument
to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebkneckt (1925-1926)
.

What follows is an extended write-up of the Ruins of Modernity: The failure of revolutionary architecture in the twentieth century event submitted to the German magazine Phase II for possible translation and publication.

Victor Hugo once proclaimed the death of architecture at the hands of the printing press. “Make no mistake about it,” he wrote in his Hunchback of Notre Dame. “Architecture is dead, dead beyond recall; killed by the printed book.”[1] In drawing this analogy, Hugo was trying to make a broader point about the transition from Catholicism to Protestantism in European history — traditions symbolized by the grandeur of the Gothic cathedral (“architecture”) and the vernacular of the delatinized Bible (“the printed book”), respectively. But Gutenberg’s invention carried a still-greater significance vis-à-vis architecture. It granted an almost infinite technical reproducibility to texts that had hitherto been manuscripts, copied out by hand. With the advent of lithography — and, shortly thereafter, photography — a similar process was set in motion in the proliferation of images. Music was conveyed through the grooves of the phonograph record, mediated and assembled from a hundred separate studio takes, and unmarred by the immediacy and accidence of live performances. Toward the fin-de-siècle, the Lumière brothers’ cinema reels captured the moving image, beaming light across the hushed theaters of Europe. More generally, the nineteenth century saw an across-the-board increase in the automation of industrial production, and a corresponding standardization and typification of the commercial articles (commodities) thereby produced. The arts, following the articles, were duly transformed along with them.

Architecture was a relative latecomer to this tendency toward standardization and industrialization. Both as a discipline and a profession, architecture lagged behind the other applied arts. But even when such modernizing measures were finally instituted, many of the field’s most innovative and technically reproducible designs were cordoned off from the realm of architecture proper, dismissed as works of mere “engineering.” With the opening of the twentieth century, however, fresh currents of thought arose to lend architecture a new lease on life. Avant-garde architects emulated developments that had been taking place in both the visual arts (Cubism, Futurism) and scientific management of labor (Taylorism, psychotechnics), advocating greater geometric simplicity and ergonomic efficiency in order to tear down the rigid barrier dividing art from life. “Art as model for action: this was the great guiding principle of the artistic uprising of the modern bourgeoisie, but at the same time it was the absolute that gave rise to new, irrepressible contradictions,” recounted the Italian Marxist Manfredo Tafuri, in his landmark 1969 essay “Toward a Critique of Architectural Ideology.” “Life and art having proved antithetical, one had to seek either instruments of mediation…or ways by which art might pass into life, even at the cost of realizing Hegel’s prophecy of the death of art.”[2] Most of the militant members of the architectural avant-garde sought to match in the realm of aesthetics the historical dynamism that the Industrial Revolution had introduced into society. Machine-art was born the moment that art pour l’art died. Aleksei Gan and the Bolshevik Constructivists declared uncompromising war on art (1922),[3] and the Dadaists George Grosz and John Heartfield enthusiastically announced in 1920: “Art is dead! Long live the machine-art of Tatlin!”[4]

The modernists’ historic project consisted in giving shape to an inseparable duality, wherein the role of architecture was deduced as simultaneously a reflection of modern society as well as an attempt to transform it. Amidst the tumult and chaos that shook European society from the Great War all the way up through the Great Depression, revolutionary architects of all countries united in opposition to the crumbling order of bourgeois civilization, attaching themselves to radical political movements. Many joined the camp of international communism — such as the second Bauhaus director Hannes Meyer, the French designer André Lurçat, and the Czech poet and architectural critic Karel Teige, as well as a whole host of Soviet architects and urbanists. Some fell into the more nondenominational Social-Democratic parties of Europe: planners like the Austrians Oskar Strnad, Josef Frank, and the anti-fascist Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, who oversaw the construction of Rotes Wien between 1918 and 1934, the famed German architects Ernst May (mastermind of the Neues Frankfurt settlement) and Ludwig Hilberseimer, and the Belgian socialist Victor Bourgeois, vice-president of CIAM (Congrès internationaux d’architecture moderne). Others joined an anti-bourgeois ideological tendency of a rather more barbaric political bent, like the modernist and ardent Mussolini supporter Giuseppe Terragni.

With the rising tide of fascism throughout Europe — first Italy, then Germany, Austria, and Spain — radical members of the international avant-garde were faced with the question of how (and, perhaps more importantly still, where) their architectural legacy might be preserved. A stark choice confronted them: Russia or America? “In the Old World — Europe — the words ‘America’ and ‘American’ conjure up ideas of something ultraperfect, rational, utilitarian, universal,” observed the Soviet artist El Lissitzky, in a 1925 article on “‘Americanism’ in European Architecture.” Despite America’s technological and economic superiority, however, Lissitzky suggested it lacked the revolutionary social and political base to adequately realize the modernists’ aims. He continued: “Architects are convinced that through the new design and planning of the house they are actively participating in the organizing of a new consciousness. They are surrounded by a chauvinistic, reactionary, individualistic society, to whom these men, with their international mental horizon, their revolutionary activity and their collective thinking, are alien and hostile…That is why they all follow the trend of events in [the Soviet Union] so attentively and all believe that the future belongs not to the USA but to the USSR.”[5] Indeed, not long thereafter, as if to confirm Lissitzky’s hunch, the celebrated German expressionist architect Erich Mendelsohn recorded in a letter: “[The Bolsheviks] make a basic revolution but they are bogged down by even more basic administration. They look to America but…all the possibilities are here, as you know. But this new structure needs a broad base on which to rest, from which to summon up its strength. Everywhere there are those knowledgeable and active people who have always given the hungry mass a new understanding of their freedom, of the goal of all freedom and of man himself.” Many of the proponents of modern architecture thus believed that the future lay somewhere between the glass and steel skyscrapers of New York and the revolutionary vanguardism of the Soviet project. Two years later, Mendelsohn exclaimed that “from buildings I deduce history, transition, revolution, synthesis. Synthesis: Russia and America — the future of Utopia!”[6] The foremost representative of European modernism, Le Corbusier, concurred with this view: “Poets, artists, sociologists, young people, and above all, those who have remained young among those who have experienced life — all have admitted that somewhere — in the USSR — destiny has allowed [universal harmony] to be. One day, the USSR will make a name for itself materially — through the effectuality of the five-year Plan. Yet the USSR has already illuminated the entire world with a glimmer of dawn, of a rising aurora.”[7] Corbusier did not at all exaggerate in making this claim. At the invitation of the Soviet government, European and American architects were drawn en masse to assist in the building of socialism.[8] Continue reading →

Corbu in color

Posted by Ross Wolfe

.
The great Le Corbusier rendered in color. Thanks to Sammy Medina, a wonderful chap, for alerting me to these great photos! Originally posted at Le Journal de la Photographie.

Nikolai Krasil’nikov’s terrifying planar urbanism (1928)

Posted by Ross Wolfe

Nikolai Krasil’nikov
Sovremennaia arkhitektura
Vol. 3, № 6: 1928, 170-176
.
.

Problems of modern architecture
.
……Final diploma project for Aleksandr
……Vesnin’s studio at VKhUTEIN

In order to really know an object, it is necessary to comprehend, to study all sides of it, all its internal and external connectivities.

— Lenin

It is necessary to pursue and elaborate the implications of this proposition in every specialized field.

Nikolai Krasil’nikov’s “New City” (1928)

My initial premises:

The environment in which an organic body exists has an influence upon its form.
The forms of the various parts of the organic body are determined by their functions. Thus in a tree the forms of the root, the trunk, and the leaves are determined by the purposes they serve.
To put it mathematically, the form of every body is a complex function of many variables (and the concept of form embraces the internal structure of the body matter).
A scientific theory of the design of form can be developed through the dialectical method of thinking, with the application of mathematical methods of analysis; analysis, that is, which uses the infinitesimal quantities of analytical geometry along with both differential and integral calculus, and the theory of probability and mathematical statistics.
A theory of the design of architectural form must be based on the physical, mechanical, chemical, and biological laws of nature.
Socialist construction is unthinkable without the solution of economic aspects of the problem such as would yield the maximum economic effect in the very broadest sense. So the constructional economics of a building for human work or habitation must be measured in terms of:

the material resources expended in erecting and running it;
wear (amortization) and repair of the building;
the time expended by people on all forms of movement in and around it;
impairment of the health of individuals, which depends on the extent to which the sanitary-technical norms and laws on safety at work and leisure are observed; and
the working conditions which would promote an improvement in the productivity of labor in general and mental work in particular, or in the conditions for leisure.

7. Under present Soviet circumstances [destvitel’nosti], the
……achievement of maximum constructional economics in
……architecture is also a vital necessity for the successful
……realization of socialism.

Continue reading →

The Soviet Moment: The Turn toward Urbanism, the Crisis in the West, and the Crossroads of the Architectural Avant-Garde in Russia

Posted by Ross Wolfe

Ivan Leonidov, proposal for a section of Magnitogorsk (1930)

Introduction to Part Two of The Graveyard of Utopia: Soviet Urbanism and the Fate of the International Avant-Garde

The Soviet architectural avant-garde was never as unified as its counterparts in the West. Almost from the moment of its emergence in the early 1920s, its members were divided along theoretical and methodological lines. The two main currents of modernist thought on architecture in the Soviet Union could not come to terms over which positive basis of the new architecture held primacy over the others. One side upheld the formal properties of abstract art as the prime determinant of avant-garde architectural practice; the other side stressed the functional properties of the machine as its foundation. A similar tension was always latent in modernist architecture internationally, but in no other nation did there result a full-on split like the one experienced by the Soviet avant-garde. The two competing tendencies were organized into the groups OSA and ASNOVA, as mentioned previously,[1] though subsequent schisms would also occur. These groups respectively identified themselves as Constructivists (disparagingly dubbed “functionalists” by their opponents) on the one hand and Rationalists (disparagingly dubbed “formalists” by their opponents) on the other. Though no equivalent rift ever formed within the other national avant-gardes, the Soviet example serves to highlight some of the internal contradictions that existed in modernist ideology as a whole.

German Building in the USSR (1929)

Ernst May’s proposal for the city of Magnitogorsk (1931)

Though the modernist architects in the USSR were fully conversant with avant-garde developments in the West, this was the fractured and fragmented theoretical landscape on which their European and American colleagues would have to stake out their positions. With the global crisis of capitalism in 1929 and the crisis of parliamentary democracy in the West — along with the ominous rise of ultranationalist (fascist) sentiments in Italy, Germany, Austria, and Spain — many architects outside the Soviet Union looked to the young socialist state as a beacon of hope in an increasingly dark world. As fortune would have it, the Soviet government was launching its revolutionary program of centralized planning and deliberate industrialization just as the international avant-garde was starting to expound its theories of urban planning post-1925. The Soviet Union seemed to offer an unprecedented opportunity to the modernists. It presented a vast canvas onto which the architects could project their most utopian ambitions.

The New Russia, a German periodical (1928)

Mart Stam’s blueprints for Makeevka (1932)

Here, the inherently totalizing aspect of modernist architectural thought was first made manifest. As the members of the avant-garde began to extrapolate their theories of urbanism from first principles, they came to a deadlock over which particular vision to follow. While many of the foreign architects were invited to the Soviet Union in order to negotiate some of these impasses, they often found it difficult to make such compromises themselves. New fissures surfaced as longstanding alliances between certain architects broke down. Meanwhile, Russia’s technological deficit and relative paucity of advanced building materials led to insurmountable obstacles, preventing the practical realization of the modernists’ plans. Even more troubling was a cultural shift that was taking place within the Soviet Union, as some of the more radical and novel forms introduced by the modernists in literature and the arts were condemned as “bourgeois” and illegible to the working masses. The logic of this shift may have owed to a dynamic intrinsic to Russian culture, as Paperny has suggested,[2] but if so, I would like to advance the hypothesis that this occurred mainly as a consequence of the failure of social revolutions to spread in the West following World War I. If socialism had been established on a more international basis, it is perhaps possible that the peculiarities of Russian culture might not have imposed their logic so unilaterally. This is, of course, a counterfactual speculation, and it is admittedly a dangerous business to insinuate what alternate historical sequence might have resulted had things only played out differently. Nevertheless, it is not a point of too much controversy to assert that the USSR’s political isolation had something to do with the grim turn of events that took place for the modernist enterprise in that country. Also, it should not be thought impossible that some of the cultural binaries that Paperny locates within Russian history (horizontal/vertical,[3] uniform/hierarchical[4]) might not have reflected — or even been reinforced by — broader social binaries emerging out of the dialectical development of global capitalism (such as the spatiotemporal dialectic we have hitherto identified).

OSA’s proposal for Magnitogorsk, by Moisei Ginzburg, Mikhail Okhitovich, and Mikhail Barshch (1930)

Ivan Leonidov – Magnitogorsk Proposal (1930)

Either way, it is crucial to review some of the proposed solutions to the question of planning in the Soviet Union advanced by the international avant-garde, insofar as they sought to address the social problems that so preoccupied them — the housing shortage, the liberation of woman, urban alienation, the antithesis of town and country, and man’s greater estrangement from nature. Even if these plans were never realized, even if their blatant utopianism foreclosed any possibility they might have possessed from the start, the fact that they were ever imagined at all is itself significant. For no such visions of an ideal world had ever been dreamt up on such an extraordinary scale: from Plato to More and Campanella, from Renaissance sketches of the città ideale to the fantasies of Boullée and Ledoux, to Owen’s New Harmony, Fourier’s phalanstère, and beyond — never had these propositions amounted to anything more than idle thought experiments or modest programs for single cities existing in isolation from the rest of society. “[The utopians] still dream of an experimental realization of their social utopias, the establishment of individual phalansteries, the foundation of home colonies, the building of a little Icaria — pocket editions of the new Jerusalem,” wrote Marx and Engels, in their famous Manifesto.[5] Such utopias were doomed to fail, they argued, as they simply fled from bourgeois society rather than try to overcome it. By the 1920s and 1930s, however, the Bolsheviks had seemingly uprooted capitalism in Russia, and the rest of the world still appeared ripe for revolution (especially with the onset of the Depression). For with the maturation of capitalism over the latter half of the nineteenth century, utopia had now been reimagined on a global scale, reflecting at once the real commercial and economic interdependence of nations as well as socialist theories of world revolution. H.G. Wells expressed this succinctly in his famous Modern Utopia (1905):

No less than a planet will serve the purpose of a modern Utopia. Time was when a mountain valley or an island seemed to promise sufficient isolation for a polity to maintain itself intact from outward force; the Republic of Plato stood armed ready for defensive war, and the New Atlantis and the Utopia of More in theory, like China and Japan through many centuries of effectual practice, held themselves isolated from intruders. Such late instances as Butler’s satirical “Erewhon,” and Mr. Stead’s queendom of inverted sexual conditions in Central Africa, found the Tibetan method of slaughtering the inquiring visitor a simple, sufficient rule. But the whole trend of modern thought is against the permanence of any such enclosures…A state powerful enough to keep isolated under modern conditions would be powerful enough to rule the world, would be, indeed, if not actively ruling, yet passively acquiescent in all other human organizations, and so responsible for them altogether. World-state, therefore, it must be.[6]

Nikolai Ladovskii’s dynamo-“parabolic” vision of “New Moscow”

Andrei Burov, Sergei Eisenstein, and Le Corbusier (1928)

A Modern Utopia, which in many ways marked the culmination of the series of utopian novels that started in the last decades of the nineteenth century, envisioned the world that was already beginning to emerge around Wells. This world stood in stark contrast to the ones portrayed in previous utopias, especially in that it was all-encompassing. It did not admit of localization; nothing could rightfully stand outside of it. Thereby mirroring the abstract, globalizing spatiality of capitalism, the planetary scale of modern utopianism was combined with the social mission of modernist architecture in its ambition to reshape all of society. Though Stalin already formulated the notion of sotsializm v’odnoi strane (“Socialism in One Country”) by 1924,[7] the architectural avant-garde within Russia and without retained its commitment to internationalism. As Paperny has rightly observed, “‘Workers of the world unite!’ — this Marxist slogan, written in Culture One [Paperny’s term for avant-garde culture] on the covers of nearly all architectural publications (and totally absent from that venue in Culture Two [Paperny’s term for Stalinist culture]), indicates that the idea of the international unity of a single class clearly dominated in Culture One over the concepts of either national or state unity.”[8] The last traces of this celebrated slogan from the end of the Manifesto only disappeared in 1934 from the covers of the popular architectural journals Building Moscow and Architecture of the USSR (successor to the 1931-1934 union journal Soviet Architecture, itself the successor to the iconic 1926-1930 Constructivist periodical Modern Architecture).

Plan for “New Moscow” (April 1929)

Moisei Ginzburg and Mikhail Barshch, Disurbanist scheme for a linear city (1930)

The ultimate collapse of the avant-garde project in the Soviet Union, symbolically marked first by the outcome of the 1932 design competition for the Palace of the Soviets and capped off by the expulsion of all foreign architects in 1937, signaled the demise of one important dimension of modernist architecture. The social mission that had provided the avant-garde with such positive momentum in its early years was now abandoned. Its fascination with the forms of industrial engineering and abstract composition remained, but its sense of duty to redress social grievances (or to even fundamentally transform society) vanished. Curtis makes the following remark regarding this point: “The modern movement was a revolution in social purpose as well as architectural forms. It tried to reconcile industrialism, society, and nature, projecting prototypes for mass housing and ideal plans for entire cities.”[9] Following the Soviet fiasco and the general hiatus of new construction up through the end of the Second World War, this feeling of social purpose had evaporated. Already by 1960, Banham could take stock of the way that modern architecture had come to be perceived as part of the armature of Fordist administrative capitalism. “[I]f the [modern] style has finished up as the architecture of anonymous corporate domination,” reminded Banham, “it is worth remembering that this was not how it started out.”[10] It is the thesis of the present study that the modernists’ experience in the USSR, the Soviet moment, marked the pivotal turning point in this development.

[1] See page 6 of the present paper.

[2] The principal focus of Paperny’s brilliant Culture Two is on the structural opposition of two patterns operative within Russian culture, which can be identified with the “avant-garde” 1920s and the “Stalinist” 1930s-1950s: “The concept of Culture One is constructed here primarily based on materials from the 1920s, whereas Culture Two is based on materials from the 1930s to 1950s.”

However, Paperny identifies these two cultural patterns as broader tendencies within Russian history as a whole, extending back at least as far as the ascension of the Muscovite principality in the sixteenth century: “The juxtaposition of Cultures One and Two is a convenient way to describe the events that transpired in the same space but at different times. This work voices that a certain portion of the events in Russian history (including events having to do with changes in spatial conceptions) can be described in terms of an alternation of the ascendancy of Culture One and Culture Two. Therefore, because I wish to trace a unifying principle throughout history, my attention is primarily focused on the territory of the Muscovite State under Ivan III, and especially Moscow.” Paperny, Vladimir. Architecture in the Age of Stalin: Culture Two. Translated by John Hill and Roann Barris in collaboration with Vladimir Paperny. (Cambridge University Press. New York, NY: 2002). Pg. xxiii. Originally published in 1985.

[3] Ibid., pgs. 44-69.

[4] Ibid., pgs. 70-103.

[5] Marx and Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party. Pg. 28.

[6] Wells, H.G. A Modern Utopia. (University of Nebraska Press. New York, NY: 1967). Pgs. 11-12.

[7] “[T]he theory that the victory of socialism in one country is impossible, has proved to be an artificial and untenable theory. The seven years’ history of the proletarian revolution in Russia speaks not for but against this theory.” Stalin, Iosif. “The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists? [Preface to a book On the Road to October].” Translator uncredited. Collected Works, Volume 6: 1924. (Foreign Languages Publishing House. Moscow, Soviet Union: 1954). Pg. 414.

[8] Paperny, Architecture in the Age of Stalin: Culture Two. Pg. 44.

[9] Curtis, Modern Architecture Since 1900. Pg. 15.

[10] Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. Pg. 9.

“The Graveyard of Utopia: Soviet Urbanism and the Fate of the International Avant-Garde,” by Ross Wolfe (Section 2)

Posted by Ross Wolfe

Skyscraper from Nikolai Krasil'nikov's "City of the Future"

INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED)

[Continued from here]

It is therefore little wonder that the tenor of the debates over Soviet urbanism should have been cast in such stark terms. The fate of the entire avant-garde, if not society itself, hung in the balance. Whichever principles won out might ultimately determine the entire course of future building for the USSR, and perhaps the world (pending the outcome of the seemingly terminal crisis in the West). Modernist architects, who had up to that point been mainly concerned with the design of individual structures, and only here and there touched on the greater problem of urbanism, now scrambled to articulate their theoretical stances on the issue of “socialist settlement.” As a number of rival positions emerged, they came into heated conflict with one another. Whole books were written and articles published in popular Soviet journals defending one theory and attacking all that opposed it. And so the disputes did not merely take on the character of modernism combating its old traditionalist rival, but that of a radically fractured unity of the modernist movement itself. The fresh lines of division being carved within the architectural avant-garde did not owe so much to national peculiarities as it did to the radicality of the question now being posed before it: that of the fundamental restructuring of human habitation. For the issues at hand were not simply the reorganization of already-existing cities, but also the construction of entirely new settlements from the ground up. The intransigent tone that the debates subsequently assumed is thus more a testament to the urgency and sincerity of the modernist theories of the city being put forth than it is to some sort of arbitrary disagreement over matters of trivial importance.

This point is especially important to stress, moreover, in light of some interpretations that have recently dismissed these crucial differences in the avant-garde’s architectural visions of utopia as a quantité négligible. Not long ago, the argument was advanced that these theoretical disputes amounted to little more than quibbling pettiness on the part of the members of the avant-garde. According to this version of events, the modernists merely dressed up their personal animosities, jealousies, and professional rivalries in high-sounding rhetoric and thereby ruined any chance for productive collaboration with one another. Moreover, it asserts that it was this very disunity that led to the modernists’ eventual defeat at the hands of the Stalinists. Weakened by the years of petty bickering, this argument maintains, the two main groups representing the architectural avant-garde (OSA and ASNOVA) were easily undercut by the fledgling, proto-Stalinist organization VOPRA, working in cahoots with the party leadership.[1]

Of course, this account almost completely overlooks the international dimension of the debates, choosing instead to narrowly focus on the faculty politics taking place within the walls of the VKhUTEMAS school of design. While this was doubtless an important stage of the debate, it can scarcely be considered the decisive grounds on which the war over Soviet architecture was waged. It is symptomatic that such an interpretation would leap suddenly from the middle part of the 1920s to the final defeat of the architectural avant-garde in the 1937, ignoring practically everything that transpired in between. As a result, it is able to treat the problem as a merely internal affair, concerning only Soviet architects. This then allows the importance of the tensions within the VKhUTEMAS leadership throughout the early- to mid-1920s to be grossly overstated.[2] Even if the field of inquiry is thus limited, however, the polemics can by no means be reduced to mere cynicism. Such bitterness and resentment could just as easily be an outcome of (rather than a ground for) heated argumentation.

But this notion — that the real differences within the modernists’ debates over Soviet architecture and urbanism were largely exaggerated — is swiftly dispelled once one takes note of the extra-architectural interest surrounding their potential results. For architects were hardly the only ones worried about the form that new Soviet settlements would take. The ideological influence of architecture on society was not lost on non-architects within the Soviet hierarchy. Many thinkers, scattered across a wide range of vocations, were therefore drawn into the discourse on socialist city planning. Quite a few economists participated in the discussion. Besides Leonid Sabsovich, a writer for the state journal Planned Economy and a major figure in the debates, economists like Stanislav Strumilin (one of Planned Economy’s editors) and Leonid Puzis weighed in on the material aspects of the various schemas of town planning. Professional sociologist Mikhail Okhitovich joined OSA in 1928, and went on to become one of its major spokesmen. The celebrated journalist and author Vladimir Giliarovskii reported on some considerations of nervo-psychological health in the socialist city.[3] Even more telling of the perceived centrality of the problem of Soviet urbanism to the five-year plan is the number of high-ranking party members and government officials who wrote on the matter. The Commissar of Enlightenment Anatolii Lunacharskii, Lenin’s widow Nadezhda Krupskaia, the old guard Bolshevik Grigorii Zinoviev, and the doctor and Commissar of Health Nikolai Semashko all devoted lengthy articles to the consideration of different proposed solutions to the issue of urban planning. So clearly, the detailed differences between the various Soviet urban projects concerned more than solely the architects.

Another historiographical point that must be made is that what appears to have been “Stalinist” from the outset could not have been recognized as such at the time. The emergent features of what came to be known as Stalinism — its bureaucratic deformities, thuggery, and cultural philistinism — had not yet fully crystallized by the early 1930s. While it is true that these qualities may have been prefigured to some extent by the failure of the German and Hungarian revolutions after the war, the USSR’s consequent isolation, and the cascading effects of the political involutions that followed — none of this could be seen as yet. The betrayed commitment to international revolution, the disastrous (if inevitable) program of “Socialism in One Country,” did not bear their fruits until much later. The residual hope remaining from the original promise of the revolution echoed into the next two decades, before the brutal realities of Stalin’s regime eventually set in. In 1930, there was no “Stalinist” architecture to speak of. Even the eclectic designs of the academicians did not fully anticipate what was to come. The contours of what would later be called “Stalinist” architecture — that grotesque hybrid-creation of monumentalist gigantism and neoclassical arches, façades, and colonnades — only became clear after a long and painful process of struggle and disillusionment. Toward the beginning of the decade, a number of possibilities seemed yet to be decided upon, and so the utopian dream of revolution lived on.[4]

[1] Hudson, Hugh. Blueprints and Blood. (Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ: 1995). Pgs. 82-83.

[2] Catherine Cooke, one of the great Anglophone authorities on Soviet architecture (tragically killed in a car crash in 2004), pointed this out in her initial review of Hudson’s book. Hudson marks the date of the final deathblow to the avant-garde, someone melodramatically, as occurring in 1937, which he considers to have been symbolized by the murder of the former-Left Oppositionist and architectural disurbanist Mikhail Okhitovich, which he uncovered as having taken place during the purges. Cooke, though “grateful” for this “archival nugget,” warned that outside of specialists, “others may be mystified as to the significance of the man [Okhitovich]or the weight of the issues he raised, for there is no context here of the eighteen-month public, professional and political debate of which his ideas were a part.” This oversight is no coincidence, however. For if Hudson had examined Okhitovich’s ideas on city planning he would have been forced to discuss the broader international discourse surrounding Soviet urbanism. Cooke, Catherine. “Review of Blueprints and Blood: The Stalinization of Soviet Architecture, 1917-1937 by Hugh D. Hudson.” Russian Review. (Vol. 54, № 1: Jan., 1995). Pg. 135.

[3] Giliarovskii, Vladimir. “Problema sotsialisticheskogo goroda i nervno-psikhologicheskoe zhdorov’e.” Planovoe khoziaistvo. (Volume 6, № 3. Moscow, Soviet Union: March 1930). Pgs. 111-116.

[4] Stites, Richard. Revolutionary Dreams: Utopian Vision and Experimental Life in the Russian Revolution. (Oxford University Press. New York, NY: 1991).

Since Stites already touched on utopian vision in Soviet town planning during the 1920s in chapter nine of this book (pgs. 190-208), it may be wondered why it demands another treatment. First, while Stites’ book offers an excellent framework of analysis for this period (one which I am partially adopting), there are many glaring factual errors in his account. One is quite understandable; he provides Mikhail Okhitovich’s date of birth and death as “1896-1937,” which is true, but then adds that he “died of natural causes.” Pg. 194. Hudson, whose best insights are purely factual, revealed after his visits to the archives in 1992-94 that Okhitovich was actually a victim of the purges. Stites’ other mistakes make less sense. For example, on page 197, he describes Moisei Ginzburg the “main spokesman” for “the principle of ‘rationalism’ in architecture.” Ginzburg was one of the foremost leaders of the Constructivists in OSA, whose theories opposed those of the Rationalists in ASNOVA, led by Ladovskii. On the following page, he lists urban proposals which he attributes to Ladovskii and Varentsov as belonging to OSA, when the former had actually been the president and the latter the secretary of ASNOVA.

Beyond this, however, the reason this subject warrants another study is that even though Stites provides an admirable assessment of the utopian dimension of early Soviet town planning, he leaves out much of the complexity and richness of this topic. First of all, he only looks at the Urbanist and Disurbanist parties in the debate, with one offhand reference to Miliutin’s alternative idea of a “linear city.” He does not once mention ARU, the urban planning group Ladovskii founded in 1929 after parting ways with ASNOVA. Nor does he consider some of the international teams of architects who participated in the utopian project of the early Soviet Union. Finally, because his interests are different from my own, he does not look into the relationship between utopian modernism and its totalizing tendencies as evidenced by the Soviet case. This is doubly important, since I intend to retroactively ground the obstinacy of the debates by it.

Excerpts from My Forthcoming Thesis

Posted by Ross Wolfe

Much as Le Corbusier did by releasing snippets of his Toward an Architecture through his journal L’esprit Nouveau, co-published with the Purist painter Amédée Ozenfant, I plan to release excerpts from my forthcoming thesis here on my blog. These are to be more or less self-contained wholes which have cumulative reference to one another and the central contention of the thesis as a whole.

Stated succinctly, my thesis is that the fate of the international architectural avant-garde as a whole hung in the balance pending the outcome of the Soviet urbanistic experiment of the 1930s, and that the failure of revolutionary socialism to embrace revolutionary modernist architecture resulted not only in its territorial defeat, but in the abandonment of its social mission as a whole. Thus, my argument runs that following the period of intensive urban building took place in the USSR between 1928 and 1937 — while all of Europe and the West was in the throes of the crisis of global capitalism, of parliamentary democracy, and of the European sciences in toto — the entire sphere of architecture has been subject to a general regression, following its missed opportunity.

I hope to post each section of my thesis at a point where it has at least begun to approach completeness. Some of them might still be in some phase or other of intellectual gestation, but nevertheless I should be in a position to post a good deal of my findings. I hope that everyone will enjoy the installments.

A Hitherto Untranslated Letter from Le Corbusier to Anatolii Lunacharskii

Posted by Ross Wolfe

Le Corbusier sitting in front of the site for the Tsentrosoiuz Building in Moscow (March 1931)

The following letter, from the famed French architect Le Corbusier to the Soviet Commissar of Enlightenment Anatolii Lunacharskii, has up to this point never available in English translation:

13 mai 1932

Monsieur Lounatcharsky

Genève

Cher Monsieur,

Vous ne m’en voudrez pas de revenir sur l’entretien que nous avons eu à Genève samedi dernier concernant le Palais des Soviets.

Le Palais des S[oviets] est (dit le programme) le couronnement du Plan quinquennal. Qu’est le Plan quinquennal? La tentative la plus héroïque et véritablement majestueuse dans sa décision d’équiper la société moderne pour lui permettre de vivre harmonieusement. Au bout du Plan quinquennal, une idée. Quelle idée: rendre l’homme heureux. Comment atteindre, au milieu des résidus innombrables d’un premier cycle de civilisation machiniste, un état de pureté capable seul d’ouvrir une ère de bonheur? En n’hésitant pas à se tourner résolument vers l’avenir, en décidant d’être d’aujourd’hui, d’agir et de penser «aujourd’hui».

Ainsi a fait l’URSS. Du moins le croyons-nous, nous qui regardons de loin votre effort. Nous le regardons avec un tel intérêt, avec une telle soif de voir se réaliser quelque part sur la terre, cette aspiration universelle vers un état d’harmonie, qu’une fois en est née, partant, une mystique. Cette mystique: l’URSS. Poètes, artistes, sociologues, les jeunes gens et surtout ceux qui sont restés jeunes parmi ceux qui ont connu la vie, — tous ont admis que quelque part — en URSS — le destin avait permis que la chose fût. L’URSS se fera connaître un jour matériellement — par l’effet du Plan quinquennal. Mais, dès aujourd’hui, l’URSS a allumé sur le monde entier une lueur d’aurore. Des coeurs vrais sont tournés vers nous. Ça, c’est une victoire, — bien plus forte que celle qui suivra sur le plan matériel.

«L’architecte exprime la qualité d’esprit d’une époque.» Donc le Palais des Soviets révélera, dans la splendeur des proportions, la finalité des buts poursuivis chez vous depuis 18. On verra de quoi il s’agit. Le monde verra. Plus que cela, l’humanité trouvera sous les auspices de l’architecture un verbe exact, infrelatable, hors de toute cabale, de toute surenchère, de tout camouflage: le Palais, centre des institutions de l’URSS.

Vous avez fait connaître par le monde que ce palais serait l’expression de la masse anonyme qui vit l’époque présente.

Décision: comme la Société des Nations, le Palais des Soviets sera construit en Renaissance italienne…

La Renaissance italienne — comme les Romains et les Grecs — construisait en pierre. Si grands que fussent les rêves, la pierre fixait les limites de sa mise en oeuvre et de son obéissance aux lois de la pesanteur.

A la Renaissance, il y avait des princes lettrés qui dominaient les masses. Un gouffre séparait la fortune et le peuple. Un gouffre séparait le palais, logis des princes, de la maison du Peuple.

L’URSS, union des républiques soviétiques prolétariennes, dressera un palais qui sera hautain et hors le peuple.

Ne nous illusionnons pas dans la rhétorique: je sais parfaitement que le peuple — et le moujik aussi — trouve admirable les palais de rois et qu’il est de son goût d’avoir des frontons de temple sur le bois de son lit.

Mais la tête pensante des Républiques soviétiques doit-elle conduire ou flatter et cultiver des goûts prouvant la faiblesse humaine?

Nous attendons de l’URSS ce geste qui domine, élève et conduit, parce qu’il exprime le jugement le plus haut et le plus pur. Sinon? Sinon il n’y a plus d’URSS et de doctrine et de mystique et de tout…Il est EFFARANT de devoir être conduit à poser de telles questions.

En un mot pour conclure: il est effarant, angoissant, dramatique, pathétique que la décision actuelle de Moscou puisse commencer son oeuvre de désagrégation de l’opinion, de désenchantement, d’amère ironie. Et que le Plan quinquennal se couronne de ceci: «petitesse des hommes».

Cher Monsieur, dans mes propos, nulle amertume de candidat évincé. Non. Mais j’aime trop l’architecture et trop la Vérité pour désespérer déjà. Je voudrais aller parler à Moscou, expliquer, exprimer. Je voudrais aller dire ceci: l’effort innombrable, l’immense labeur anonyme ou signé de ces cent années de sciences, a créé sur le monde la grande collaboration. Il n’est un appoint technique: béton armé, fer, verre, chauffage, ventilation, acoustique, statique, dynamisme, il n’est un outil: machines de toutes natures — qui ne prouvent la grande collaboration.

L’architecture — en l’occurrence l’architecte — a pour mission de mettre en ordre cette armée de collaboration et par la vertu de la puissance créatrice de composition, par la puissance d’une intention élevée, elle peut exprimer le visage unique et magnifique de cette humanité créative. Ce visage serait-il un masque? Jamais, non jamais.

Me permettez-vous de parler objectivement? J’aimerais aller à Moscou.

Le 29 de ce mois, s’ouvre à Barcelone la session du Comité inter[nation]al pour la préparation du Congrès international d’Architecture qui se tiendra à Moscou en septembre.

Mon voyage d’Alger peut être remis (je viens de l’apprendre) à mai.

Je suis attendu à Rome pour deux conférences présidées par Mussolini et pour une entrevue avec lui. But: les Italiens me demandent d’aller arracher le Duce à l’erreur dans laquelle il s’enfonce en ordonnant de construire l’Italie en style Romain (Vous voyez combien le mal est partout.)

S’il vous était possible de préparer mon voyage à Moscou? Je vais même être indiscret: ne m’avez-vous pas dit que vous retourniez sous peu à Moscou? Alors ceci: s’il m’était possible de vous accompagner dans ce voyage, je pourrais vous entretenir de tout ce qui bouillonne en moi, relativement aux villes et aux maisons.

A Moscou, je pourrais, en dehors du Palais parler en public de la Ville Radieuse et expliquer où le progrès et une vue large nous ont conduits et exposer à votre pays qui est le seul ayant les institutions permettant la réalisation des programmes contemporains, le détail technique de la question:

la réforme architecturale

la journée solaire de 24 heures et son programme

les nouvelles techniques de la respiration exacte à l’intérieur des bâtiments (avec les résultats des récents essais du laboratoire de St-Gobain) (Problème décisif capital pour l’URSS)

les problèmes de l’économie du sol dans l’économie domestique

l’insonorisation des logis

l’acoustique

Là sont des vérités, des réalités, des choses à longue trajectoire qui sont dans l’esprit du Plan quinquennal — beaucoup plus que certaines méthodes restrictives, sans imagination et malthusiennes, auxquelles on a fait grand accueil en URSS.

Et si l’on veut, je pourrais parler de proportion, de beauté, de ces choses qui sont les impératifs de ma vie, car il n’y a pas de bonheur possible, sans l’esprit de qualité.

A Buenos Aires en 1929, j’ai fait dix conférences (un cycle) en quinze jours. Je veux bien le faire à Moscou.

Cher Monsieur, voici vingt ans que je vis comprimé. Paris m’a été jusqu’ici indispensable car Paris est le champ clos de la qualité. La vie sévère que j’y mène a porté des fruits. Ignorant en tout, je le sais, je connais toutefois beaucoup de choses de l’architecture et de l’urbanisme.

J’ai à Moscou des amis de coeur, des collègues dans lesquels j’ai grand espoir. J’ai à Moscou des ennemis, mais, je crois, beaucoup d’amis.

Je vous dirai encore ceci: à Moscou j’ai toujours défendu M. Joltowsky qui est un vrai architecte, sensible et plein de talent. C’est cet arrêt inattendu sur une forme historique de l’architecture qui a créé nos divergences. Mais je parlerais avec lui d’architecture, infiniment mieux qu’avec la plupart de mes collègues occidentaux qui se dénomment «architectes modernes».

Je termine : entièrement désintéressé, passionné d’architecture, à l’âge de maturité où un homme doit donner, j’offre ma collaboration en toute loyauté et sans espoirs de gains.

Voilà.

Tout cela était long à dire. Voulez-vous me pardonner d’avoir retenu si longtemps votre attention.

V[otre] bien dévoué

— Le Corbusier

Here, for the first time, is a full English translation of the letter, provided courtesy of my father, Michael Wolfe, and his friend, Michael Vogel:

May 13^th, 1932

Mr. Lunacharskii

Geneva

Dear sir,

You will excuse me for returning to the discussion we had in Geneva last Saturday concerning the Palace of the Soviets.

The Palace of the S[oviets] (hereafter referred to as the “program”) is the crowning achievement of the five-year Plan. What is the five-year Plan? The most historic and undeniably majestic attempt in its decision to equip modern society in order to enable it to live harmoniously. At the end of the five-year Plan, an idea. What idea? To make mankind happy. How is it possible, amid the innumerable residues of the initial cycle of machinistic civilization, to achieve that state of purity which alone is capable of ushering in an era of happiness? By not hesitating to turn resolutely toward the future, by deciding to be contemporary, to act and think “today.”

This is what the USSR has done. At least this is what we believe, we who observe your effort from afar. We observe it with such an interest, with such a thirst to see achieved, somewhere on Earth, this universal aspiration for a state of harmony, from which is consequently born a mystique. This mystique — the USSR. Poets, artists, sociologists, young people, and above all, those who have remained young among those who have experienced life — all have admitted that somewhere — in the USSR — destiny has allowed the thing to be. One day, the USSR will make a name for itself materially — through the effect of the five-year Plan. Yet the USSR has already illuminated the entire world with a glimmer of dawn, of a rising aurora. The hearts that are true have turned toward us. That in itself is a victory, one that is far greater than the one that will follow in material terms.

“The architect expresses the spiritual quality of an era.” Thus, in the splendor of its proportions, the Palace of the Soviets will reveal the finality of the goals pursued in your country since 1918. We will see what this is all about. The world shall see. But even further, humanity will find under the auspices of architecture a precise, uncorruptible verb, devoid of cabalistic machination [cabale], of exaggeration, of camouflage: the Palace, center of the institutions of the USSR.

You have made known throughout the world that this palace is to be the expression of the anonymous mass that is witnessing current events today. Decision: like the headquarters of the League of Nations, the Palace of the Soviets will be built in the Italian Renaissance style…

The Italian Renaissance — like the Romans and the Greeks — built with stone. However grandiose the dreams, stone set the limits for its realization, in compliance with the laws of gravity.

During the Renaissance, there were literate princes who dominated the masses. There was a chasm separating the wealth from the people. A gulf separated the palace, the dwelling-place of princes, from the house of the people.

The USSR, a union of proletarian soviet republics, shall erect a palace that will be haughty and separate from the people.

Let us not be blinded by rhetoric: I know perfectly well that the people — as well as the muzhik — admire regal palaces, and that it is their taste to have the headboards of their beds engraved with temple façades.

Should the leadership of the Soviet Republics, vehiculate or flatter and cultivate tastes that attest to human frailty?

From the USSR, we expect the type of sweeping gesture that dominates, elevates, and conveys, for such a gesture is a reflection of the highest and purest discernment. If not? Well then there is no longer such a thing as the USSR, or its doctrine, or its mystique, or anything else…the mere notion of such a thing is INCONCEIVABLE.

In other words — inconceivable, tormenting, dramatic, and indeed saddening [pathetique] that with the actual decision Moscow is now making, it may commence its work of disaggregating opinion, disenchantment, bitter irony. And for the five-year Plan to be thus crowned: only by “the pettiness of men.”

Dear sir, my opinions do not reflect the bitterness of a defeated candidate. No. But I love architecture and the Truth too much to already have lost all hope. I would like to go to Moscow to talk, to explain things, and to express all this. I would like to go to say this: The immeasureable effort, the immense labor of so many persons — some known, some nameless — in the sciences these past hundred years has created all over the world the great collaboration. There is no method of construction — using reinforced concrete, iron, glass, heating systems, ventilation systems, acoustics, or statics and dynamic elements; there’s no tool or any sort of machine that doesn’t reflect the existence of this great collaboration.

Architecture — and in this case the architect — must strive to discipline this army of collaborators, and by virtue of the creative power assemble all these elements. By the power of its lofty aims, it can express the unique and magnificent face of all mankind’s creativity. Is this face a mask? Never. No, never.

How can I put it to you any more directly? I would like to go to Moscow.

On the 29^th of this month, in Barcelona, there begins a meeting of the of international committee responsible for planning the upcoming International Congress of Modern Architects [CIAM] that will be held in Moscow in September.

My trip from Algiers can be put off (as I’ve come to learn) until May.

I am expected in Rome for two conferences presided over by Mussolini, and for a meeting with him. Its aim: the Italians are asking me to save il Duce from the blunder into which he has driven himself by ordering the building of Italy in the Roman style. (You see how much the evil is everywhere).

Is it still possible for you to set up my trip to Moscow? I’m even going to be indiscreet: didn’t you just tell me that you would be returning to Moscow soon? Consider this: if I could accompany you on this trip I would explain to you everything that is broiling inside me, as concerns towns and houses.

In Moscow, I could — outside the Palace — publicly speak of the Radiant City, and explain where progress and the grand view have led us and shown to your country, which is the only one possessing the institutions that permit the realization of modernist programs. The technical detail of the questions concerning:

architectural reform

the 24-hour solar day and its program

the new techniques of exact respiration inside buildings (with the recent laboratory experiments at St.-Gobain) (the most pressing problem facing the USSR)

the problems which agriculture poses for the domestic economy

the soundproofing of homes

acoustics

Here are the truths, realities, the long-range items that are informed by the spirit of the five-year Plan — much more than certain restrictive methods, Malthusian and lacking imagination, which have been so warmly embraced in the USSR.

And if anyone wants, I could speak of proportion, of beauty, those things that are the driving forces of my life, because happiness is not possible without a sense of quality.

In Buenos Aires in 1929, I presented at ten conferences (one after the other) in fifteen days. I really want to do the same in Moscow.

Dear sir, I’ve lived a confined life these last twenty years. Until now, I have not been able do without Paris, because Paris is the only place that holds this quality. The austere life I’ve lived has borne its fruits. Though I can admit ignorance to everything else, I have always known a great deal about architecture and urbanism.

I have some close friends in Moscow, colleagues for whom I have great hope. I have enemies in Moscow, but I believe also many friends.

I will tell you this again: in Moscow I have always stood up for M. Zholtovskii, who is a true architect, sensitive and quite talented. It is this unexpected stopover in an historical form of architecture that has caused us to part ways. But I would much rather talk with him about architecture than with the majority of my Western colleagues who call themselves “modern architects.”

Let me finish: entirely disinterested and passionate about architecture, at an age in adult life when a man must give, I offer you my assistance with completely loyalty and no hope of gain. There you have it.

It took a long time to say all this. Please pardon me for taking so much of your time and attention.

Yours truly,

Le Corbusier

«РАСПАД города» (Бруно Таут)/“The DISINTEGRATION of the City”/Die Auflösung der Städte (Bruno Taut)

Posted by Ross Wolfe

Bruno Taut’s article “RASPAD goroda” (“The DISINTEGRATION of the City”) was published by the Constructivist journal Modern Architecture in early 1930, just as the debate over the future of socialist resettlement of the USSR was getting underway. In this article, he states his position vis-à-vis the major Soviet theorists of the city who had thus far thrown their hats into the ring: Leonid Sabsovich, Mikhail Okhitovich, Aleksandr Zelenko, and Aleksandr Pasternak. As a point of reference, he draws upon his book Die Auflösung der Städte, published twelve years earlier in Germany. While he was still at that point designing in the Expressionist vein, a style he would later drop in favor of a more thoroughgoing modernism, the main points of the book, as he indicates, are anti-urban in their sentiments. Taut thus sympathized the most with the Soviet disurbanists Okhitovich and Pasternak.

Из Современная архитектура — (1930) — № 1/2

From Modern Architecture — (1930) — № 1/2

Pg. 63

Редакция Moskauer Rundschau в своем примечании к статье А. Пастернака (№ 2, 1930 1.) предлагает открыть дискуссию по поводу четко и превосходно отмеченного им противопоставления двух теорий будущего города. Я тем более охотно принимаю участие в этой дискуссии, что она затрагивает наиболее важную для меня область моих собственных работ.

Die Auflösung der Städte (1918)

Я вполне разделяю критику Пастернаком теории Сабсовича. Он прав, если он говорит, что подобные поселки «постепенно превратятся просто в города с регулярно расположенными каменными кубами, в которых жизнь будет протекать по социалистической инсценировке». К этому надо добавить следующее. Еще в 1916 г., когда я писал свою книгу — «Венец города» и наметил схему чисто плоскокрышего города на социалистической основе, с населением в 150 тыс. жителей, я верил, что можно число жителей ограничить. Теперь я не верю больше, чтобы можно было ограничить население города, исходя из определенной цифры, что является основной предпосылкой Сабсовича, и что подобный план вообще осуществим. Первое, если такой город процветает, по причине ли благоприятных транспортных и промышленных возможностей или по каким-либо другим причинам то никто не сможет помешать тому, чтобы он превратился в миллионный город. А второе—его регулярное, кубическое и шахматное построение постепенно разрастается и примет такие формы, которые вполне правильно можно будет назвать типом города капиталистического периода. Неизбежной необходимостью явятся так называемые небоскребы, хотя он сам усматривает в американских городах не что иное, как взвинченную вверх земельную ренту. Поэтому небоскреб никогда не был и не будет олицетво, рением архитектуры. Что же касается его экономической стороны, сточки зрения капиталистической прибыли, то даже наиболее ярый псалмопевец Америки, немец Вернер Хегеман, в течение долгого времени работавший там в качестве архитектора, говорит о том, что небоскребы обходятся очень дорого, и что вертикальное сообщение лифтом в многоэтажном доме является наиболее невыгодной формой скорого сообщения (Wettbühne № 8, 1930 г.) Укладывание обобществленного быта со всеми его жизненными процессами в многоэтажные кубы фактически не является результатом материалистического мышления, а это скорее продукт удобной схематизации. «Город будущего» Корбюзье в его «Урбанизме» как раз весьма четко показывает артистические черты такого формалистического мышления. Хаос большого американского города Ле Корбюзье переделывает по всем правилам парижской художественной школы в чисто буржуазные застывшие формы. В немецкой пропаганде высоких домов для бедноты выявляется то же мышление, по которому человек, ребенок и земля должны отступить на второй план перед техническими тенденциями. Один известный немецкий архитектор заявил мне, что он следуя идеям Ле Корбюзье, во всяком случае представляет себе жилище поднятым над землей, путем устройства домов на колониях, ибо для него земля — это мусор. Социалистическая жизнь в таком городе с неизбежной последовательностью должна превратиться в «социалистическую инсценировку», как совершенно Правильно замечает Пастернак.

Теория Охитовича, я должен признаться, вызвала у меня великую радость. Тем более, что еще во время войны, лотом 1918 г., Я сам пришел к такой же мысли, вызванной безнадежностью положение Европе, и не только в основной ее тенденции, но и в отношении некоторых важных ее деталей. С того времени я изучая политическую и экономическую литературу, исследовал ее скрытые тенденции в этом направлении и к моему все растущему изумлению я констатировал, что как критические исследования существующих больших городов, так и пророческие предсказания поэтов, начиная с Руссо, и великие социальные теории Маркса, Энгельса, и наконец Ленина,— все они приходят к одинаковому результату. В феврале 1920 г. я сделал 30 набросков на эту тему и, снабдив их выдержками из указанной литературы, я объединил их в одну книгу под названием «Распад городов», которая появилась в том же году в издательстве Фояъквакга в Гагене. Эта книга обратила на себя внимание и ее название «Распад городов» стало техническим термином для тенденции, которая, однако, в процессе развития «строительства» послевоенного периода все более и более приходила в забвение н если случайно упоминалась, то с презрительной или иронической усмешкой. То, что советская действительность на основе материальных предпосылок пришла к такому же выводу, наполняет меня радостью не столько потому, что мысли, возникшие у меня 12 лет тому назад, теперь подтвердились, сколько самый факт как таковой. Я полагаю, что для дискуссия советской печати представляет интерес ознакомиться с основными принципами этой книги, поскольку она в СССР еще не известив. В ней изложены следующие точки зрения, как выводы соответствующей литературы: в первую очередь вопрос об общественной форме, которая при сохранении старых методов не может быть плановой. Социалистической она может быть только, если мы строить города будем строго планомерно. Все отрицательные стороны больших городов вытекают из этого момента. Все современные работы научного строительства городов на Западе должны укладываться в тесные рамки тех толстых стен, которые называются частной земельной собственностью. После сноса этих стен придется, однако, разрушить также некоторые стены ограниченного мышления, которые по вышеуказанной причине крепко засели в головах. Они относятся преимущественно к вопросам производства — промышленности и сельского хозяйства, — транспорта и, наконец, к условиям быта человека, являющимся преимущественно результатом порядка распределения земля для жилищных надобностей. Что касается последнего, то еще в 1893 г. англичанин Г. В. Пур — О. V. Рооге — указал, что житель перенаселенного города нуждается в большем участке земли, чем житель деревенский, даже в том случае, если у них обоих а отношении пищи и одежды одинаковые потребности. Это надо, понимать в том смысле, что снабжение перенаселенного города водою и уничтожение отбросов нерационально по сравнению с одинаковым удовлетворением потребностей деревенских жителей. Что касается транспорта и производства, я считаю точку зрения Пастернака правильной. Но я хотел бы уточнить некоторые небольшие мои расхождения с ним, и для этой цели я воспользуюсь некоторыми характерными чертами набросков в моей книге «Распад городов».

Эти наброски покажутся многим, как и мне самому теперь, излишне патетическими и романтическими. Объясняется это в первую очередь влиянием переживаний тогдашнего периода последнего года войны и наступившей по ее окончании депрессии, когда надежды на новое созидательное строительство все более и более рушились, и в конце концов остался только лишь один призыв, являвшийся не столько выражением реальных возможностей, сколько продуктом чувства. Эта книга «только утопия», хотя она в то же время содержат указанна на далекую действительность. Мы тогда верили, что по существу утопии но существует, если только она не исходит от сумасшедшего, что утопия — это только вопрос темпа и времени для ее осуществления. Для правильной мысли, если она не сопровождается соответствующей перспективой, есть опасность, что она выродится а фанатическое сектантство, вроде вегетарианства, антиалкоголизма, анархизма и т. д. Форму утопии я выбрал также и по другим соображениям: никогда не следует смешивать» «материалистическое» с «материальным» и никогда вопрос насыщения желудка не должен являться альфой и омегой всех желаний. Поэтому дан эскиз культурного обобществленного строительства по ту сторону необходимого, как парабола для перспективы, лежащей по ту сторону осязаемого. Шаги становятся неуверенными и теряют направление, если не видно на горизонте отдаленной цели. Этой цели, которую еще нельзя точно определить, легко придают формы того, что находится у нас вблизи.

Первые наброски толкуют об индустрии и аграрных коммунах, обе сравнительно небольших размеров, особенно последние, если их сравнить с гигантскими вашими совхозами и колхозами, далее мы переходим к большим поселкам, связанным с крупными производственными предприятиями: верфями, заводами, фабриками и т. д. В этом отношении у меня имеется некоторое расхождение с Охитовичем, поскольку большие дороги для автомобильного сообщения не лежат не по средственно вдоль поселков и жилых домов, а находятся несколько в стороне, соединяясь с последними проселочными путями дорог к эскиз плана сообщений имеет вид свободной петельной ткани, причем наиболее тесные петли обозначают автомобильные дороги, а более широкие — каналы и воздушные линии. Железная дорога больше не существует (на Западе, например, в Рурской области железные дороги уже сильно чувствуют конкуренцию автомобиля). Железная дорога с ее станциями и узловыми пунктами фактически является основной причиной вырастании больших тесных населенных пунктов, но это свое значение они по мере развития автомобильного сообщения будут постепенно утрачивать до тех пор, пока они, наконец, совершенно не исчезнут.

Покидая эту область четких рациональных основ, не совсем уже молодой автор с некоторый чувством ответственности направляется в другую область, — область неведомого, — которую он, однако, игнорировать не может. Шестой набросок содержит в сопровождающем нашем тексте следующие слова: «Мир держится на принципе изобилия. Работа, направленная друг против друга — эта работа впустую. Работа друг для друга ведет к избытку». Если, следовательно, не сомневаются в успехе планового хозяйства и коллективного труда, то надо иметь в виду также и то, что лежит по ту сторону необходимого, то, чем рабочий сможет заполнить свой большой досуг, который он потом будет иметь. Надо показать, что имеются перспективы нового духовного содержания по ту сторону экономических моментов, если даже для отображения такой перспективы в будущем приходится воспользоваться нашими современными вряд ли соответствующими представлениями и понятиями. Речь в данном случае идет до известной степени о гиперболе, которая зиждется на фактах нашей действительности, но которую мы должны развить и придать ей формы будущего. Тут, понятно, есть известной опасность как для самого автора — некоторые мои тогдашние наброски кажутся теперь мне самому уже устаревшими, — так и для читателя, который может впасть в фантастику и мечтательность, тем не менее каждая материалистически обоснованная теория должна ваять на себя этот риск, если мы не хотим, чтобы идея превратилась в сухой субстрат мысли.

Расширение нашего поля зрения в отношении одного лишь производства приводит нас к новым жилищным формам. Поставленное Марксом и поддержанное Лениным требование «рассеяния поселений», другими словами «дезурбанизация», привело меня тогда, как ныне Охитовича, к тому выводу, что параллельно с принципом обобществления, изоляция человека, как стимулирующий момент к развитию его личности является также равноправным требованием. В соответствии с этим набросок № 7 показывает одноквартирный дом со всеми подсобными помещениями и с ванной. В принципе это — «коробка» с единственным жилым помещением, форма которого меняется в зависимости от ветра, солнца и местоположения. Однородные части стен, так же как и потолок, сделаны из щитов — плохих термических проводников, — снабженных по краям фальцами и из которых, смотря по желанию, можно создать любую форму жилища. Отопление, варка и освещение электрическое. Промежуточные стенки передвижные, так что внутреннему помещению также можно придать любую форму. Другими словами бесконечная вариация форм из одинаковых составных частей дома. Как и человек, дом может быть подвержен всяким превращениям. Пространственно отдаленные друг от друга люди ведут более интенсивную индивидуальную жизнь, возрастающая ценность которой усиливает ценность всего общества. Другими словами: не оседлость и не кочевничество, не мещанский уют и не бродяжничество, не крестьянин, но и не горожанин, человек — не растение, которое «пускает корни», но и не какое-либо животное, а именно — человек, который вкушает гостеприимство земли.

Народный дом для собраний трудящихся служит одновременно выставочным помещением для обмена опытом в области промышленности и сельского хозяйства. Арена для массовых собраний и для народных игр. Канал, снабженный подъемным краном для подачи хлеба в элеваторы для хранения запасов на черный день. Площадка для аэропланов на крышах гостиниц, подъем автомобилей на эти крыши, «прибытие по воде, по суше и в воздухе», увеселительный парк и т. д. — Если в тексте этого наброска сказано, что государство, как и город, ло словам Энгельса, уже отмирают, то это не может, разумеется, иметь отношения к данному моменту, ибо это было бы анархическим тупоумием.

Дальнейшие отображения обобществленной жизни должны опираться, понятно, на вышеуказанные гиперболические данные, для того, чтобы придать перспективам культурного развития некоторую осязаемость. Хотя подобная игра фантазии может показаться случайной, но несомненно, что развитие индустрии, а вместе с нею и воздушного сообщения гораздо более радикально изменят поверхность земли, чем это делают теперь железные дороги и фабрики. Использование солнечных лучей, электричества из воздуха и т. д. еще впереди. К этому надо добавить световые маяки для воздушных дорог. Использование цветного света и стекла на узловых пунктах воздушных дорог протянет над землею световые цепи и создаст новую архитектуру, в которой груборациональное сольется в художественном в единое целое. Большие световые центры, которые можно будет наблюдать с аэроплана, будут обозначать те культурные центры, отнюдь не поселковые центры, в которых будет протекать научно-исследовательская работа и ее применение в жизни. Там будут изучать наиболее тяжелые случаи болезней физических, психических и моральных и их лечение, а также методы воспитания.

Также и школу я в своей Утопии считал пережитком старого. «Ребенок работает, где он хочет, и ведет свою жизнь самостоятельно и т. д.» — В вопросе воспитания и семейного быта я у Пастернака, в его изложении распада городов, проповедуемом Охитовичем, вижу некоторую неясность. Я считаю принципиальное требование отделять жизнь детей от родителей схематическим вмешательством. Достаточно будет уточнить отношения взрослых к детям и в остальном предоставить все естественному ходу вещей. Совершенно неправильно мнение, что дети лучше всего развиваются только в среде множества других детей. Наблюдатели подтверждают, что и ребенок стремится к известной изоляции, и нельзя сказать, чтобы он наверняка любил даже самый прекрасный детский сад. К предостережению Крупской против сверхколлективизации в области воспитания надо отнестись чрезвычайно серьезно.

К массовому искусству, в первую очередь к совершенно преображенному, при участии масс, театру, надо еще добавить новые формы массовых развлечений, неукладывающиеся в рамки необходимого, носящие утопический характер. Работа над гигантскими творениями якобы совершенно излишнего характера является психологически обоснованной и нужной а тот момент, когда все потребности жизни будут удовлетворены и не будет больше ни войн, ни приготовлений к таковым. Тогда образуется вакуум, который надо будет заполнить культурным содержанием для [Pg. 65] того чтобы дать выход избытку энергии бороться с дурными инстинктами.

В кратких чертах я дал обзор «Распада городов», который в некоторых пунктах дополняет, а в других, быть может, содержит критику теории Охитовича. Проектирование для будущего может иметь только направляющий характер и поэтому менее важно заводить спор о деталях того, что будет в будущем, как именно, путем дискуссии, выявить и определить самую тенденцию. Уже благодаря одному этому образуются и выявляются достаточные рефлексы в отношении того, на какие моменты надо обращать внимание уже теперь, при организации новых поселков. В первую очередь чрезвычайно важно отказаться от геометрического (Корбюзье) или другого формалистического подхода к устройству поселков. На его место надо вводить безграничную вариацию форм, которую, в противовес к кристаллическому и геометрическому можно было бы назвать вегетабильной или биологической (дело не в названии или лозунге). Так же как развитие транспорта базируется на собственных присущих ему законах, так обстоит дело и с организацией поселков. Так же как в Сибири железная дорога является пока лишь первым фактором цивилизации (Турксиб), ибо автомобильные дороги и развитие автомобилизма закономерно могут иметь теперь лишь второстепенное значение, так и в отношении поселков надо пока довести до полного совершенства современный метод строительства. Тем не менее основная тенденция уже теперь указывает не предпочтение плоского строительства в его различных формах. Лишь после усовершенствования возможных в данный момент методов можно будет приступить к успешному производству отдельных составных частей сборочного — монтажного — дома. Усоверше[н]ствование современных методов жилищного строительства ведет по прямому пути к этой цели. Новое строительстве в его отдельных формах и отдельных элементах уже предвосхищает эту цель, что выражается в том, что оно придает строительству соответствуюший характер. Тем не менее к здесь, как и у «урбанизма», есть на-лицо опасность урбанизации. В моей новой книге «Новое искусство строительства» (издательство Юлиус Гофман. Штуттгарт) я определил международность архитектуры как автономию народов в архитектуре.

В высокой степени радостно, что автономия мышления о городском строительстве берет теперь свое начало в Советском союзе. Распад города как ясная теория, ведет к целительному освобождению от формалистических цепей доктринерства, историцивма и эклектизма (безразлично относится ли это к старому или к новому на Западе). Распад есть следствие и параллельное явление освобождения пролетариата от цепей капитализма.

Pg. 63

The editorial in the Moskauer Rundschau, in its footnote to the article by A[leksandr] Pasternak (№ 2, 1930 1.) proposes to open a discussion on the clearly and ideally marked contrast between two theories of the city. I am especially happy to take part in this discussion, which touches on the area most important to my own work.

I totally agree with Pasternak’s criticism of Sabsovich’s theory. He’s right, if such settlements “gradually turn into a city of regularly placed stone cubes, a socialist staging-ground through which life will flow.” To this must be added the following. Already in 1916, when I wrote in my book Crown City, and outlined a scheme of a purely flat-roofed city on a socialist basis, with a population of 150 thousand inhabitants, I believed that it was possible to limit the number of residents. Now, to an even greater extent I do not believe that one can limit a city’s population, based on the specific figures that are Sabsovich’s basic premise, or that such a plan is at all feasible. First, if a city is thriving, because of auspicious transportative and industrial opportunities, or for any other reason, no one can prevent it from turning into a city of one million. And secondly, his regular, cubic, and staggered buildings will gradually grow and take forms that can quite rightly be called the type of city of the capitalist period. The inevitable necessity of these so-called skyscrapers will appear, although he himself perceives in the American city nothing more nor less than upwards-inflated land rent. The skyscraper has therefore never been and never will be the embodiment of architecture. As far as its economic side goes, from the standpoint of capitalist profit, even the most ardent psalmist of America, the German Werner Hegeman, in the course of having worked there for a long time as an architect, has said that the cost of skyscrapers is very expensive, that the vertical conveyance of an elevator in a high-rise apartment is the most uneconomical form for a speedy connection (Wettbühne, № 8, 1930). The bundling of socialized life, with all its vital processes, into multi-story cubes is not in fact the result of a materialistic mindset, but is rather just convenient product schematization. Corbusier’s “City of the Future” in his Urbanisme very clearly exhibits the artistic features of such formalistic thinking. The chaos of the big American cities Le Corbusier recasts in all the rules of the Parisian art school, in purely bourgeois frozen forms. The German propaganda about tall high-rises for the poor reveals the same mentality, in which the person, the child, and the land are forced to stand back in the background compared with the technical tendencies. One renowned German architect who told me that he was following the idea of Le Corbusier, in any case represents a dwelling raised above the ground, by way of building houses on columns, since for him the ground — it’s trash. Socialist life in such a city with an inevitable sequence must evolve into a “socialist reenactment,” as Pasternak rightly observes.

The theory of Okhitovich, I must admit, has caused me great joy. Especially because while still during the war, in the summer of 1918, I myself came to the same thought, hopelessness brought on by the situation in Europe, and not only in its main tendencies, but for some of its important details. Since that time I have studied the political and economic literature, explored its latent tendencies in this direction and, to my ever-growing amazement, I found that the critical study of the large existing cities and the prophetic visions of the poets, beginning with Rousseau, as well as the grand social theories of Marx, Engels, and finally Lenin — all of them arrived at the same result. In February 1920 I completed 30 sketches on this subject and, supplying them with quotations from these said sources, I combined them into a book entitled The Disintegration of the City, which appeared that same year from the publisher Folkwang in Hagen. This book attracted some attention to itself and “the Disintegration of the City” became the technical term for the trend. This increasingly came to be forgotten as if by accident, however, in the process of the development of “construction” in the postwar period — and if it was mentioned, then it came with a contemptuous or ironic smile. The fact that Soviet reality, on the basis of material conditions, came to the same conclusions, fills me with joy not so much because the thoughts that occurred to me twelve years ago have been confirmed, as much as the fact itself. I believe that the discussion in the Soviet press represents an interest to learn the basic principles of this book, inasmuch as it is still not known in the USSR. It contains the following viewpoints, as the implications of the literature: first, the question of the social formation, which, while retaining the old methods, cannot be planned. A city can only be socialist if is built strictly according to plan. All the negative aspects of big cities follow from this moment. All the present work on the scientific construction of cities in the West must fit inside the narrow framework of thick outer walls that is called private property. After the demolition of these walls, however, it is then necessary to break down some of the walls of limited thinking that, for the aforementioned reasons, is solidly lodged in their minds. They relate mainly to issues of production — to industry and agriculture — to transport, and, finally, to the conditions of human life, which is mainly the result of the order of allocation for housing requirements. With regard to the latter, as far back as 1893 the Englishman G.V. Poore — O.V. Rouge — pointed out that the resident of a crowded city needs a larger plot than a resident of the village, even if they have both food and clothing for the same needs. This must be understood in the sense that the supply of water and waste disposal of the overcrowded city is irrational compared with the same needs of the villagers. With regard to transportation and production, I think that Pasternak’s viewpoint is correct. But I would like to clarify some of my minor disagreements with him, and for this purpose I will use some of the characteristic features of the outline from my book, The Disintegration of the City.

These sketches seem to many (such as myself) too pathetic and romantic now. This can be accounted for by the experiences of the period of the last year of the war and the ensuing Depression at its end, when hopes for a new creative construction increasingly collapsed, and eventually left only one clarion-call, which was not so much the expression of real possibilities as it was the product of emotions. This book is “only a utopia,” although at the same time it provides guidance to a distant reality. We then believed that the substance of utopia does not exist if it only emanates from a madman — that utopia is just a question of pace and the time for its implementation. For if a correct idea is not accompanied by the appropriate perspective, there is a danger that it will degenerate and the fanatical sects, such as vegetarianism, anti-alcoholism, anarchism, and so on. The form of the utopia I selected also for other reasons: one should never confuse “materialistic” [Pg. 64] with “material” and never question that the satiety of the stomach should not be the alpha and omega of all desires. Therefore, this sketch of the cultural, socialized construction on the other side is needed as a parabola for a perspective that lies beyond the tangible. Steps become insecure and lose their direction if they are not visible on the horizon, a distant goal. This objective, which is still impossible to determine exactly, is easy to impart to the form of that which is nearby us.

The first sketches expound on industry and agrarian communes, both relatively small if you compare them with your huge state and collective farms (especially the last). Then we move to the big towns associated with the large manufacturing enterprises: shipyards, plants, factories, etc. In this regard, I have some disagreement with Okhitovich, insofar as vast roads for automotive conveyance do not lie directly along the towns and dwellings, but some are situated on the side, conjoined with the back roads. The sketch of the plan of communication possesses the form of loosely looping fabric, in which the closest-bound stitches represent the automotive roads, while the wider ones are the channels and overhead lines. The larger railroad no longer exists (in the West, for example, in the Ruhr region, railroads already deeply feel the competition of the car). The railway and its nodal points are in fact the main source for the sprouting of large, closely-packed settlements, though their significance will continue to fade in proportion to the development of automotive transport, until they finally disappear completely.

Departing from this area of clear rational foundations, a young author with some feeling of responsibility already heads off, not entirely, into another area — the area of the unknown — which, however, he cannot ignore. In the accompanying text to the sixth sketch is contained the following words: “The world rests on the principle of abundance. Work, when directed against one another — this work is wasted. Work for each other leads to surplus.” If, therefore, they do not doubt the success of planned economies and the collective labor, that which lies beyond the necessary must also be borne in mind, how the worker can fill his great leisure-time, which he then would have. We must show that there are prospects of a new spiritual content on the other side of economic issues, even if it is necessary to avail ourselves of our contemporary, hardly adequate concepts and ideas for the imagery of such a prospect in the future. Speech about a case in point comes to a certain degree of hyperbole, which is based on the facts of our reality, but which we need to develop and give to it the shape of the future. Here, clearly, there is a certain danger for the author — some of my sketches of those days now seem to me already obsolete — and for readers, who may fall into fantasy and reverie. However, each sketch, grounded in materialist theory, should form in itself this risk if we do not want the idea turned into a dry substrate of thought.

Expanding our field of view with respect merely to production leads us to new forms of housing. Posited by Marx and maintained by Lenin, the demand for a “scattering of settlements,” or in other words “disurbanization,” moreover led me then, as Okhitovich now, to the conclusion that in parallel with the principle of socialization, the isolation of man — as a stimulating moment in the development of his personality — also has an equal claim. In accordance with this sketch, № 7, shows a single-apartment home with all the storage rooms and the baths. In principle, this is a “box,” with unique living space, the form of which varies in relation to the wind, sunlight, and location. Homogeneous parts of the walls, as well as a ceiling made of panels — poor thermal conductors — fitted to both the edges and folds from which, according to one’s desires, he can create an omniform dwelling. [It will have] heating, cooking, and electric lighting. The intermediate walls are adjustable, so that the interior can also be given any shape. In other words, there is an infinite variation of forms from the identical constituent parts of a home. Just as with a man, a house can be subjected to all sorts of transformations. Spatially distant from one another, people can conduct more intensive individual lives, the rising value of which increases the value of the whole society. In other words: Neither sedentarism nor nomadism, neither petit-bourgeois comfort nor loitering, not a peasant, though also not a townsman, but a person — not a plant that “takes root,” but also not some sort of animal, but namely — a man who partakes of the hospitality of the earth.

The people’s assembly house for the working masses also serves as an exhibition facility for the exchange of agricultural and industrial experience. It is an arena for mass meetings and folk games. It is a passage equipped with a crane for the delivery of grain in elevators from the stockpiles, for rainy days. It is a platform for airplanes on the roofs of hotels, and a car-lift to these roofs, “for the arrival by water, by land, or by air”; it is an amusement park, etc. — If the text in the sketch said, like Engels did, that the state, the city, and the local are already dying, then it obviously cannot have a relationship to the present, because this would be anarchistic stupidity.

The further mapping of socialized life should clearly be based on the hyperbolic data above, in order to give the prospects for cultural development some tangibility. Although this corresponding thought-experiment may seem random, there can be no doubt that the development of industry, and along with it, of air traffic, will much more radically alter the earth’s surface than railroads and factories are doing now. The use of sunlight, of electricity in the air, etc., is still ahead. To this we must add light beacons for airstrip runways. The use of colored lights and glass on the nodal points of airstrips will stretch over the land a chain of light and create a new architecture, in which crude rationalization merges with art into a coherent whole. The large points of light that can be observed from an airplane will be marked by the cultural centers, nowhere near the town centers, in which the research work and its application in life will take place. There one will learn about the most severe cases of disease of physical, psychological, and moral, and their treatments, as well as child-rearing practices.

Also, I consider the school in my own Utopia to be a relic of the old. On the issue of education and family life, I have Pasternak, in his account of the disintegration of cities, while I see some confusion in the preaching of Okhitovich. I believe it is a fundamental requirement to separate the lives of children from their parents in a schematic intervention [after the fashion of Sabsovich]. It will be sufficient to clarify the relationship of adults to children and the rest to provide to all the natural course of things. Completely wrong is the view that children develop best only among many other children. Observers verify that the child tends to strive after a certain isolation, and probably cannot say that he loved even the most beautiful nursery. In warning against excessive collectivization in education, Krupskaia should be taken extremely seriously.

For mass art, to be completely transformed primarily with the participation of the masses, to the theater must be added new forms of mass entertainment, an unsettling within the framework of the necessary, the wearing of utopian clothes. Work on these gigantic creations, of a supposedly completely unnecessary character, is psychologically sound and necessary once the moment when all the necessities of life are satisfied and there will not be any more wars, there will be no preparations for such. Then a vacuum is created which will need to fill the cultural content [Pg. 65] in order to provide an outlet for excess energy in dealing with ugly instincts.

In brief outline I gave an overview of the Disintegration of Cities, which in some places supplements, while in others criticizes, Okhitovich’s theory. Designing for the future may only have a guiding character, and therefore it is equally important to start a dispute about the details of what will happen in the future, namely, by way of discussion, to identify and determine the same tendencies. Already, thanks to one of these appeared and disclosed sufficient reflections as to which features need to be paid attention even now, with the establishment of new settlements. First and foremost it is essential to abandon the geometric (Le Corbusier) and other formalist approaches to the organization of towns. In its place needs to enter unlimited variations of form, which, in contrast to the crystalline and geometrical, could be called the vegetative or biological (the affair is not a title or slogan). Just as the development of transportation is based on its own inherent laws, so is the case with the organization of settlements. Just as in Siberia the railway is still only the first factor of civilization (Turksib), because roads and automotive development can now naturally be of only secondary importance, and with respect to the settlements they have yet to bring to perfection the modern method of construction. Nevertheless, the basic trend now indicates no preference for flat-building in its various forms. Only after improvements are possible in the present can methods begin to successfully manufacture some of the components for the assembly — for the erection — of the home. The perfection of the modern methods of housing construction is a direct route to this goal. New construction, in its separate forms and separate elements, is already anticipating this goal, which is reflected in the fact that it attaches to construction a corresponding character. Nevertheless, it is also here, as in “urbanism,” that the threat of urbanization is obvious. In my new book, The New Art of Building, (published by Julius Hoffman, Stuttgart), I define international architecture as autonomous nations in architecture.

To a great degree the joy of the autonomy of thinking about city-building now takes root in the Soviet Union. The disintegration of the city is a clear theory leading to the healing emancipation from the formalist chains of dogmatism, historicism, and eclecticism (whether or not it refers to the old or the new in the West). This disintegration is a consequence of and a parallel to the phenomenon of the liberation of the proletariat from the chains of capitalism.

An excellent website containing all of Taut’s illustrations for Die Auflösung der Städte, from 1918, can be accessed by clicking here.

“Comrades!

The twin fires of war and revolution have devastated both our souls and our cities. The palaces of yesterday’s grandeur stand as burnt-out skeletons. The ruined cities await new builders[…]

To you who accept the legacy of Russia, to you who will (I believe!) tomorrow become masters of the whole world, I address the question: with what fantastic structures will you cover the fires of yesterday?” ⎯ Vladimir Maiakovskii, “An Open Letter to the Workers” (1918)

“Utopia transforms itself into actuality. The fairy tale becomes a reality. The contours of socialism will become overgrown with iron flesh, filled with electric blood, and begin to dwell full of life. The speed of socialist building outstrips the most audacious daring. In this lies the distinctive character and essence of the epoch.” ⎯ I. Chernia,“The Cities of Socialism” (1929)

“The idea of the conquest of the substructure, the earthbound, can be extended even further and calls for the conquest of gravity as such. It demands floating structures, a physical-dynamic architecture.” ⎯ El Lissitzky, The Reconstruction of Architecture in the Soviet Union (1929)

The Charnel-House

From Bauhaus to Beinhaus

modern architecture

Mies’ Memorial to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht (1926)

Family collectives and comradely communes: Three color illustrations from Modern Architecture (1930)

Architecture: A social and political history since 1848

Ross Wolfe & Sammy Medina

Corbu in color

Nikolai Krasil’nikov’s terrifying planar urbanism (1928)

Nikolai Krasil’nikov
Sovremennaia arkhitektura
Vol. 3, № 6: 1928, 170-176
.
.

Problems of modern architecture
.
……Final diploma project for Aleksandr
……Vesnin’s studio at VKhUTEIN

The Soviet Moment: The Turn toward Urbanism, the Crisis in the West, and the Crossroads of the Architectural Avant-Garde in Russia

Introduction to Part Two of The Graveyard of Utopia: Soviet Urbanism and the Fate of the International Avant-Garde

“The Graveyard of Utopia: Soviet Urbanism and the Fate of the International Avant-Garde,” by Ross Wolfe (Section 2)

INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED)

Excerpts from My Forthcoming Thesis

A Hitherto Untranslated Letter from Le Corbusier to Anatolii Lunacharskii

«РАСПАД города» (Бруно Таут)/“The DISINTEGRATION of the City”/Die Auflösung der Städte (Bruno Taut)

Ross Wolfe & Sammy Medina

Nikolai Krasil’nikov Sovremennaia arkhitektura Vol. 3, № 6: 1928, 170-176 . .

Problems of modern architecture . ……Final diploma project for Aleksandr ……Vesnin’s studio at VKhUTEIN

Introduction to Part Two of The Graveyard of Utopia: Soviet Urbanism and the Fate of the International Avant-Garde

INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED)

Nikolai Krasil’nikov
Sovremennaia arkhitektura
Vol. 3, № 6: 1928, 170-176
.
.

Problems of modern architecture
.
……Final diploma project for Aleksandr
……Vesnin’s studio at VKhUTEIN