Pyramid of Khafre (Chephren), Great Sphinx. Pyramid of Menkaure.

Architecture of Ancient Egypt. ancient kingdom

Lecture plan:

1. Architecture of residential buildings.

2. Formation of cult architecture (the most ancient burials, mastabas, step pyramids and their symbols).

3. Mortuary Ensemble of Pharaoh Djoser (c. 3000 BC).

4. Pyramids of Pharaoh Snefru (XXVI century BC).

5. The pyramid complex at Giza (XXVI-XXV centuries BC). Pyramid of Khufu (Cheops) - the first "wonder of the world".

7. Obelisks, solar temples.

Literature.

Control questions and tasks

Geographically, Ancient Egypt (Ta-Kemet - "Black Earth", Ta-Meri - "Beloved Earth") represented a narrow ribbon of fertile land, stretched along the banks of the navigable Nile (Hapi). Almost nowhere, with the exception of the Delta and the Fayum oasis, its territory did not exceed 15-20 km in width. The first people (tribes of Proto-Berbers and Proto-Kushites) settled here about ten thousand years ago. There are a lot of things that attracted them here.

Mild climate, very fertile soil brought by the floods of the Nile, which made it possible to collect three or four crops a year;

The richest reserves of building materials: papyrus, high-quality clay, volcanic and sedimentary rocks (limestone, sandstone, granite, basalt, etc.), construction timber (dum palm, acacia, tamarisk, fig tree);

Huge reserves of copper, "solar metal" (gold), precious stones (lapis lazuli, carnelian, onyx, etc.);

Diverse flora and fauna; many animals and plants became totems of tribes, cities, nome regions (for example, the cities of Oksyrhynchus and Lykopol, the Hare and Antelope nomes).

All these factors contributed to the fact that in the IV millennium BC. e. one of the first civilizations on our planet arose in the Nile Valley. All the necessary conditions were ripe for the emergence of a slave-owning state. And, first of all, the large-scale construction of irrigation facilities (dams, dams, canals), which helped to keep the water of the flooding Nile in the fields. This required the combined efforts of a huge number of people. Individual tribes were unable to cope with such work. Therefore, under the legendary pharaoh Menes, the founder of the 1st dynasty, there was a historical unification of the Two Lands - Northern and Southern Egypt.

The population of Egypt at that time, apparently, did not exceed 2-3 million people. Among the mass of the free population, already in the early period, a privileged elite headed by the pharaoh stood out. The convenient connection of all regions along the Nile facilitated the development of domestic and foreign trade and helped the Egyptian authorities maintain the economic and political unity of the country.

The history of the economic, political life and spiritual culture of Ancient Egypt unfolded for more than four thousand years. All this time, Egypt remained a slave-owning society. Its ruling elite persistently adhered to age-old traditions in various areas of life and culture. Therefore, Egyptian architecture, especially religious architecture, also reveals great conservatism in the course of its development.

In the process of historical development, the social structure of Egyptian society becomes much more complicated. The urban craft is isolated from agriculture, private land ownership develops (despite the fact that all the land of Egypt was considered the property of the pharaoh); a powerful administrative-bureaucratic and military apparatus is being formed. The priesthood became a particularly influential social group, in whose hands the wealth of sometimes huge temple households was concentrated.

The hot climate and the minimum amount of precipitation left their mark on architecture Ancient Egypt.

It is characterized by courtyards, gardens and open galleries, as well as flat roofs used as terraces. Due to the almost complete absence of building timber in many parts of Egypt, reeds, clay, bricks and various stones were widely used here, which are rich in almost all parts of the country: “The ancient Egyptians built their dwellings from reeds. Traces of this, as they say, are still preserved among the Egyptian shepherds, who all to this day do not have any other dwellings, except for reeds, and are content with them ... ”[Diodorus, I, 43, 4].

Egyptian raw brick was distinguished by its great strength, which is explained by the properties of the Nile silt from which it was made, and the corresponding admixture of straw and straw dust, which protect the brick from moisture. Brick was used in a wide variety of structures, ranging from dwellings to fortress walls. The stone was used mainly in monumental structures: tombs, temples, palaces, etc.

The technique of building brick and stone reached a high level among the Egyptians. It allowed them to build architectural structures huge in scale and designed for eternity, like pyramids. The vast majority of Egyptian monumental buildings had horizontal ceilings. However, vaults are also found in a number of monuments: false vaults (overlapping) of various types and a wedge vault made of bricks. In the late era, there are also vaults of wedge-shaped stones.

Already in the early period, a whole network of large and small cities arose on the banks of the Nile, from which many architectural monuments have been preserved.

The vast majority of the architectural monuments of Ancient Egypt that have come down to us are temples, palaces and tombs of the pharaohs and nobility, built from the most durable materials. The construction of such structures was possible only if there was a strong state apparatus capable of organizing large-scale work on digging canals and regulating the entire water management of the country associated with the floods of the Nile. These floods, which annually erased the boundaries between many land plots, stimulated the development of land surveying in ancient Egypt - geometry, which in the hands of Egyptian architects turned into a means for creating such, for example, strictly "geometric" structures as pyramids. A rich supply of artistic forms and motifs was given to Egyptian architecture by local nature: the Sun with its scorching rays, caves in the rocks, the plant world (papyrus, lotus, palm and other plants), the animal kingdom (monumental stylized images of rams, lions, etc.) .

The Egyptians made extensive use of sculpture, painting, and relief in their monumental structures. The abundance of all kinds of images, the repetition of identical statues of pharaohs, gods, sphinxes, etc. was associated with the beliefs of the Egyptians in the magical power of these images; repeating rows of identical statues and sphinxes served as an important additional means of enhancing the impressive architecture of Egyptian temples and tombs of the pharaohs. The objects and scenes depicted in the tombs, according to the Egyptians, were supposed to provide the deceased and beyond the coffin with the corresponding earthly blessings. The grandiosity of size, generality, solidity and calmness of the pose of Egyptian statues emphasized the inviolability and eternity of memorial and religious buildings.

Along with monumental calmness, Egyptian reliefs on pylons also contain sharp dynamics – for example, in the figures of pharaohs hunting wild animals or striking their enemies. All these images clearly revealed the social meaning of architecture, expressively speaking with it about the power and majesty of the gods and pharaohs, about the power of the priesthood, about the inviolability of the Egyptian state. In Egyptian reliefs and murals, in addition to figures and objects, hieroglyphic writings perform an important decorative function. No less important than sculpture and relief in the external appearance of Egyptian monumental buildings was also the painting of interiors. The paintings are dominated by bright colors, sometimes taken in sharp combinations. Widely used in Egyptian interiors and faience lining.

The profession of an architect in ancient Egypt enjoyed great respect. History has preserved a number of names of prominent Egyptian architects. However, Egyptian architectural treatises are known only from references.

The main stages in the history of the architecture of ancient Egypt are dated to the main periods of its historical existence: the Old Kingdom (III-VI dynasty, approximately 3000-2400 BC); Middle Kingdom (XI-XIII dynasties - approximately 2150-1700 BC); New Kingdom (XVIII-XX dynasty -1584-1071 BC); late Egypt (1071-332 BC) and Hellenistic Egypt (332-30 BC). During the period of Roman domination (after 30 BC), Egyptian architecture is experiencing a time of its extinction.

As elsewhere, in the Nile Valley, people first lived in oval dugouts and caves. They also arranged canopies and tents made of animal skins and reed mats stretched over a light wooden frame. They were replaced by arched and domed huts, woven from reed stems and covered with clay on top. In them, the tops of the reed stems were tied into a bundle, forming a domed roof. The huts of the leaders differed only in size.

Almost nothing has been preserved from the residential architecture of Ancient Egypt. The housing of the urban poor can be judged by the ruins of abandoned cities and workers' settlements: Kahuna, Deir el-Medina, Akhetaton. They also provide material for restoring the scheme of a rich city estate. A large rural estate can be imagined from the images in the paintings of the tombs.

The mass dwelling of the times of the Old Kingdom, in all likelihood, consisted of several small residential and utility rooms, grouped around an open courtyard. The hearth was placed in one of the rooms, a smoke hole was left above it. Low tables and beds were fitted with barbed legs to protect poisonous snakes and insects. The main building material in mass architecture was undoubtedly clay and Nile silt, or raw brick made from them. The floor structure, typical for the Egyptian dwelling, consisted of round or semicircular horizontal beams. They were laid in a continuous flooring or at intervals. From above, the flooring was covered first with reed mats or boards, and then with a layer of clay, earth.

In richer houses and palaces, raw brick, apparently, was supplemented with some semblance of a wooden frame. Usually such houses had 2-3 floors. On the ground floor there were rooms for cattle and slaves, pantries. On the second floor were the master's rooms, on the third - a terrace. The walls were equipped with vertical openings hung with reed mats or blinds. Ceilings in such houses were made of palm trunks, sawn lengthwise. The gaps between them were covered with clay. On the terrace, where the inhabitants of the house often spent the night, high parapets with fillets along the upper edge were arranged. They hid the owners of the house from the immodest glances of their neighbors (Fig. 2.1).

Rice. 2.1. Options for the reconstruction of an ancient Egyptian residential building (according to Pierre Monte)

Residential buildings in urban areas were quite crowded, but there was always room for a small garden with a swimming pool. Often flowers and trees grew on the roofs. Shady canopies in front of the entrances were very popular. They rested on columns made of palm trunks or bundles of reeds intertwined with aquatic plants (including lotuses) (Fig.). Apparently, these motifs formed the basis of the "plant" columns of Ancient Egypt (lotus-shaped, palm-shaped, papyrus-shaped, etc.).

The dwellings of the Egyptians usually had a short lifespan. The annual floods of the Nile destroyed most of the clay buildings. The surviving buildings in the summer were covered with cracks from the heat, so they preferred not to repair, but to break down and build new houses. New bricks were made from clay in wooden molds, which were then dried in the sun. Usually two weeks was enough to erase all traces of destruction. The constant need for geodetic and restoration work caused the rapid development of land surveying, geometry and astronomy.

2. The formation of religious architecture (the oldest burials, mastabas, step pyramids and their symbols)

The period of the Old Kingdom (approximately 3000-2400 BC) was the time of a significant rise in the economic life of slave-owning Egypt: the expansion of the area of ​​artificially irrigated land, the development of agriculture and handicrafts, the increase in internal trade and foreign trade with neighboring countries. It was a strong state that united the valley of the lower reaches of the Nile and the Delta. Despotic power and colossal material resources were concentrated in the hands of the pharaoh, whose personality was deified. The slave-owning nobility and officials served as a support for the state, and there was a huge social distance between them and the bulk of the population. Such a social structure manifested itself, on the one hand, in the construction of huge pyramids surrounded by monumental tombs of the nobility (mastaba), in combination with a pyramid with a mortuary temple. On the other hand, the monuments of culture and life of ordinary Egyptians, who were not able to build the same durable structures for themselves, almost completely disappeared.

The Nile Valley has long been inhabited by warring tribes. The first ancient Egyptian pharaohs had to conquer them by force of arms and religion. Those prayed to a variety of gods (including totem animals and plants). Wanting to rise above them, the pharaohs began to call themselves the children of the Sun - the most powerful and oldest of the gods. This was reflected in the composition and spatial orientation of the ancient tombs.

The graves of ordinary Egyptians were in the form of a circle or an oval. There is nothing surprising here. It was in such semi-dugouts, dug in the sand, that the first settlers of the Nile Valley huddled. After physical death they continued live in similar buildings. The deceased lay in a bent position on his left side, presumably so that he was ready for rebirth in a new life. His head was turned to the south, and his face was turned to the west, towards the Land of the Duat. In the dry desert climate, the body mummified itself. However, such graves were often dug up by jackals or wild dogs. Robberies of graves were not uncommon, if they suspected the presence of jewelry.

Therefore, already during the 1st dynasty, the Egyptians began to build more capital tombs in the form of a quadrangle from earth and stone. Such a structure was called mastaba . This term was coined by Auguste Mariette in the 60s of the XIX century. The fact is that these tombs reminded him of the brick benches of the Egyptian fellahs. Even today, they can be seen near houses and shops in rural areas of Egypt.

These structures were usually located in regular rows at the foot of the pyramids. They served as homes for the afterlife. There should be everything necessary for existence for "millions of years", from living quarters to food. Real earthly goods could, however, be replaced by their images. For example, slaves or servants - their miniature figurines or painted figures. Much of the architecture of these tomb structures is a model of an Egyptian dwelling. For example, a stone roller carved above the door reflects the shape of a reed mat wound on a wooden rod, which hung the entrance to the house. In general, the mastaba resembles a squat truncated pyramid with a rectangular base. The sloping outer surface of the walls of the tomb testifies to the origin of this stone structure from the forms of a primitive mud-brick dwelling house. Subsequently, the inclined surface of the walls, emphasizing the stability of the structure, became one of the most characteristic features of Egyptian monumental architecture (Fig. 2.2, 2.3).

Inside the mastaba there was usually one or more rooms for offerings and for the funeral cult. The burial itself was located underground. An essential detail of the mastaba was "false door" through which the deceased could, according to Egyptian beliefs, leave the afterlife. A special role in the composition of mastaba played serdab(Arabic) - a dark room or niche in the burial chamber, in which there was a portrait statue of the deceased (Fig. 2.4, c).

Rice. 2.2. Tomb in Negada, I dynasty (reconstruction after K. Michalovsky)

Rice. 2.3. Mastabas of nobles in the Giza necropolis (reconstruction after K. Michalovsky)

His soul Ka moved into it in the event of the death of the mummy. Men were depicted at the age of 45, women - 25 (statues of Prince Rahotep and his wife Nofret) (Fig. 2.4, d-e). The walls of the mastaba were covered with reliefs depicting scenes from the life of the deceased or his activities in the Fields of Iaru (the ancient Egyptian version of Paradise) (Fig. 2.4, a-b).

Rice. 2.4. Works of monumental and decorative art in mastabas interiors:

a - scribe Khesir. Relief on a wooden panel in his tomb (Saqqara, 3rd dynasty); b - “Women carrying sacrifices” (mastaba Ti, V dynasty); "Shepherd leading a bull" (mastaba of Ptahhotep, V dynasty); c – false gate with a statue of the deceased in the burial chamber of the mastaba of Mereruk (Sakkara, VI dynasty); d, e – statues of Prince Rahotep and his wife Nofret, IV dynasty (Gizeh necropolis, currently the Egyptian Museum, Cairo)

Many such structures were erected in the Memphis necropolis. They were built throughout the period of the Old Kingdom. Over time, their appearance has changed. They became more massive and complex in design, sometimes reaching 3.7 m in height. The number of interior spaces increased. There was a custom to attach from the eastern the side of the mastaba is something like a chapel, where relatives of the deceased or priests gathered daily. The tombs of the pharaohs of the I-II dynasties also had the form of a mastaba. There were precedents for this. Indeed, even in the pre-dynastic period, the heads of rural communities lived in wooden houses with rectangular outlines of plans. After death, they were buried in graves of the same shape. The deceased Vladyka was lying with his head to the north. But his face was no longer turned to the west, but to the east. On that side, the Sun rose in the morning from the bottom of the Lily Lake. Later, this form of burial was preserved only among the nobility. The pharaohs chose for themselves a different, more monumental, version of the tomb - step pyramid.

step pyramid - the second stage in the evolution of the mastaba. A total of 84 pyramids have been found in Egypt. The stepped form arose one of the first. According to the legend of Pharaoh Sneferu, who was looking for the optimal shape for his tomb, the stepped shape of the pyramid reflected the political structure of the ancient Egyptian state (Fig. 2.5).

Rice. 2.5. The social structure of the ancient Egyptian state (reconstruction of the legend of Pharaoh Snefru, B. Prus)

“When Sneferu, one of the pharaohs of the first dynasty, asked the priest what kind of monument he should erect for himself, he replied: “Draw, sovereign, a square on the ground and put six million unhewn stones on it - they will represent the people. On this layer put sixty thousand hewn stones - these are your lower servants. Put six thousand polished stones on top - these are the highest officials. Put sixty stones covered with carvings on them - these are your closest advisers and generals. And put one stone on the very top - this will be you yourself. So did Pharaoh Sneferu. From here arose the oldest step pyramid - a true reflection of our state, and all the rest went from it. These are eternal structures, from the top of which the borders of the world are visible and which the most remote generations will marvel at ... ”[Prus B. Pharaoh: Roman, in 2 parts, Part 1 - Warsaw: Craiova Agency Vydavnicha, 1986 - P. 151].

The most famous six-step pyramid of the pharaoh of the III dynasty of Djoser in the village of Saqqara, near Cairo.

Introduction

Socio-historical situation in Russia in the 1920s - early 1930s and its impact on residential architecture

Architectural searches and solutions for a socialist residential building in Moscow

3. Architectural searches and solutions for a socialist residential building in Leningrad

Conclusion

List of used literature

Application

Introduction

The first third of the twentieth century, being a turning point, occupies a special place in the history of Russian architecture. The stages of its formation and development are of interest both from the point of view of shaping and aesthetic searches, and in connection with the experiments of architects of the post-revolutionary period in the social sphere. The ideological projects of the 1920s - early 1930s remained, for the most part, unrealized due to the hypertrophied socialist orientation in relation to the resettlement and existence of citizens. But the existing developments of architectural ensembles, complexes, buildings and structures have made a huge contribution to the development of modern architectural thought and can still serve as a source of inspiration.

In our time, almost a century later, it is possible to give an objective assessment of the results of the construction activities that unfolded in the period after the October Revolution and the Civil War. The creative declarations of the 1920s make it clear that architects and art theorists felt themselves on the verge of creating new canons of artistic shaping. The characteristic features of their work was the veneration of everything avant-garde, breaking the old order and utopian romanticizing the future in the spirit of Marxist-Leninist propaganda. These attitudes were most clearly manifested in the planning of the spatial and objective organization of everyday life.

In their original purpose as a sought-after "participant" in building a socialist society, experimental architectural projects remained for a very short time. What was conceived as an anticipation of the architecture of a historically new type, in practice turned out to be realistically unpromising. And yet, thanks to attempts to search for the latest aspect of residential construction, today one can get a fairly complete picture of the aesthetic orientation of the period under consideration, including how the proletarian personality was presented within the framework of utopian socialism.

Thus, the object of research is the experimental residential architecture of the 1920s - early 1930s, the subject is the typification of experimental residential architecture. The purpose of the presented work was an attempt to analyze among themselves the main types of housing in a socio-historical context.

The objectives of the thesis are:

a) to reveal the influence of post-revolutionary public sentiments on residential architecture;

b) identify the innovations inherent in the experimental architecture of the 1920s - early 1930s;

c) compare the formal and aesthetic aspects of various types of experimental buildings;

d) consider the most famous examples of residential architecture of the specified period of time;

e) determine the significance of the concepts under consideration for artistic culture as a whole;

This thesis consists of three chapters. The first one is devoted to the consideration of historical circumstances that set the architects the task of developing an updated type of dwelling. It analyzes the most striking stylistic trends, considers the problem of the content of theories, their place and role in the system of culture, as well as the general view of aesthetics and poetics that meets the needs of the proletarian social class that has come to power. The second and third chapters present an attempt at an art history analysis of practical and theoretical projects for new types of buildings.

This work was written using art criticism works, monographs, biographies of artists, historical literature, scientific and journalistic articles. anomalies, 1920-1930s" 1and "Soviet Petersburg: "new man" in the old space" 2, co-authored with V. S. Izmozik. They describe in detail the details of life and the moral orientation of the first decades after the October Revolution.

The works of the researcher of Soviet architecture, art historian and architect S. O. Khan-Magomedov turned out to be especially valuable - "The Architecture of the Soviet Avant-Garde" 3and "Pioneers of Soviet Design" 4, representing a multilateral and large-scale analysis of the main artistic avant-garde and experimental concepts.

To get an idea of ​​the true assessment of the reforms of residential architecture by contemporaries, the book of N. A. Milyutin "Sotsgorod. Problems of building socialist cities" helped 5, as well as Soviet journalism of the 20s and 30s of the twentieth century.

residential architecture house building

1. Socio-historical situation in Russia in the 1920s - early 1930s and its impact on residential architecture

The birth of a new architecture is a multi-stage complex process, closely connected with previous traditions and growing organically from them. The October Revolution revealed the potential of creators and accelerated their creative maturation. The former stability of the traditional multi-class society was lost - the way of life, interpersonal relationships, clothing, and aesthetic ideas were changing at an accelerated pace. New requirements for the reorganization of human living space began to be presented to architecture, in connection with the radical transformation of the social system. Accordingly, the architect of the critical period was faced with the task of identifying general patterns and predicting the development of society in the coming years. The huge variety of project proposals was due to the lack of a specific rational idea of ​​the future, understood only as cities that have lost the polarity of luxury and extreme poverty in a single space.

The statistics given in the article by a member of the Academy of Construction and Architecture of the USSR B.R. Rubanenko: “According to the 1912 census in Moscow, about 350 thousand people lived in bed-closet apartments, and 125 thousand people lived in basements and semi-basements. about 400 thousand people lived (an average of 15 people per apartment).Thus, in abnormal, one might say catastrophic, living conditions in Moscow in 1912, a total of 850 thousand people lived, which accounted for over 70% of the total population cities".

The working class of large cities of pre-revolutionary Russia was housed in several types of premises unsuitable for living, resulting in extreme crowding, unsanitary conditions, and high mortality. Some of the workers were housed in factory barracks, categorized into "single" (artel sleeping rooms for 100-110 people) and "family" (corridor-type barracks with rooms up to 15 m 2and population density for 2-3 families). The bed-room type of apartments consisted of attics and basements without sanitary and hygienic devices and furniture in tenement houses, where about 2.5 m2 per person 2.. A large number of workers lived in overnight houses and suburban semi-dugouts.

Thus, the improvement of living conditions and the improvement of housing for all working citizens has become a paramount and urgent task. Already at the end of 1917, the state confiscation of the personal living space of the bourgeoisie began, to which the workers moved. In March 1919, at the VIII Congress of the Revolutionary Communist Party, the program of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was adopted, where the section on the housing issue stated the following: "In an effort to resolve the housing issue, which was especially aggravated during the war, the Soviet government completely expropriated all the houses of capitalist homeowners and handed them over to the city councils, carried out a mass migration of workers from the outskirts to bourgeois houses, handed over the best of them to workers' organizations, accepting the maintenance of these buildings at the expense of the state, began to provide workers' families with furniture, etc. The task of the CPSU is to, going along the aforementioned path, and by no means hurting the interests of non-capitalist homeownership, to strive with all our might to improve the living conditions of the working masses, to destroy the overcrowding and unsanitary conditions of the old quarters, to destroy unusable dwellings, to rebuild old ones, to build new ones that correspond to the new living conditions of the working masses, to a rational resettlement of workers.

In 1918, in large cities, under the guidance of prominent architects, design workshops were created, in which it was necessary to decide what the dwelling of the Soviet worker should be from a hygienic and social point of view: where it would be located - in a village, city or a completely new type of settlement - how it would be a life is arranged where the proletarian will work and rest, raise children. In its expressive appearance, residential architecture was to become a reflection of humanism, accessibility, simplicity and democracy of the renewed social order.

In their creative search, the architects relied both on the experience of working out ideas of a socialist-utopian nature, leading their history from the Renaissance, and on the works of the pillars of Marxist-Leninist theory. In these creative bases, several main tasks ran like a red thread:

planting everyday collectivization of society;

the alienation of a woman from exploitation in a private household and her involvement in socio-economic formations;

the introduction into everyday life of the assets of the scientific and technical industry;

replacing the understanding of "family" as the starting social stage with the concept of "collective";

elimination of the opposition between the village and the city.

Thus, advanced architects, in developing projects for a new type of residential architecture, were guided by the needs of the supposed communist society of the future, which does not exist in reality.

V.I. Lenin wrote: "... without attracting women to public service, ... to political life, without tearing women out of their stupefying home and kitchen environment, one cannot ensure true freedom, one cannot even build democracy, not to mention socialism" . 1One of the main options for strengthening the influence of the communist Soviet government, he also found measures to redefine workers for a daily catering system, as a replacement for "individual farming of individual families with the general feeding of large groups of families." 2For the first time, the topic of women's emancipation was officially raised at the First All-Russian Congress of Women Workers: "Instead of the home-grown stove pot and trough, public kitchens, public canteens, central laundries, workshops for darning dresses, artels for cleaning linen and apartments, etc.". 3In his speeches, Lenin attached great importance to the problem of a woman's exit from traditional domestic oppression, and directly connected the solution of this issue with the successful restructuring of life. So, in 1919, he declared: “The position of a woman in her household chores still remains constrained. For the complete emancipation of a woman and for her real equality with a man, it is necessary that there be a public economy and that a woman participate in common productive labor ...

... we are talking about the fact that a woman should not be oppressed by her economic situation, unlike a man ... even with complete equality, this actual oppression of a woman still remains, because the whole household is blamed on her. This household is in most cases the most unproductive, the wildest, and the most difficult work that a woman does. This work is extremely petty, containing nothing that would in any way contribute to the development of a woman.

We are now seriously preparing to clear the ground for socialist construction, and the very construction of socialist society begins only when, having achieved complete equality for women, we set about new work together with a woman freed from this petty, stupefying, unproductive work...

We are creating exemplary institutions, canteens, nurseries that would free a woman from the household ... these institutions, relieving a woman from the position of a domestic slave, arise wherever there is the slightest opportunity for this " 1.

For a real assessment of the degree of innovation of these postulates, it is worth considering the level of development of household economy that existed at the time of the first third of the 20th century, the main regulator of which was a woman. These are: overwhelming manual labor, the almost complete absence of mechanization, low electrification and other aspects that turn daily work into an exhausting, routine, futile waste of time in an atmosphere of general revolutionary heat and comprehensive transformations. The problem of reconstructing family everyday foundations did not imply (in Lenin's interpretation) the reconstruction of the principle of relationships within the social cell itself. However, changing the principle of creating and perceiving a family became an important part of the concept of a social experiment in the 1920s and early 1930s. The first post-revolutionary years of Soviet Russia are characterized by some neglect, irreverent attitude of urban planners, architects, politicians and sociologists to everyday life, confidence in the adequacy of attempts to radically break its traditional foundations and unwillingness to recognize the household as the fundamental matrix of all life processes. However, despite the fuzzy outlines and the apparent subjectivity of the content, everyday life turned out to be the most stubborn and stable conservative characteristic characteristic of every person. According to Selim Omarovich Khan-Magomedov, it is the conservatism of everyday life that “reflects, in particular, the continuity in the development of a whole complex of acquired elements of culture that are passed down through the baton of generations precisely in the sphere of everyday life. In the “fencing off” of everyday life from public life, given the autonomy of the sphere of everyday life , one can see a special form of life activity that has formed in the course of the development of human society, which creates conditions for the formation of some important personality traits... And in the external "disorder" (for an outsider's eye) of life, one can see a manifestation of personality, a person's need for psychological looseness " 1. In this regard, the practice of setting up an experiment in the field of improving domestic life, simultaneously with the modernization of the entire society of a particular country and period of time, is especially useful, thanks to which it is possible to realize the properties of everyday life as a significant socio-cultural phenomenon.

The figurative ideas of improving the subject space of the 20s of the last century varied from the author's private understanding and vision of the problem of public demand. So some limited themselves to the most necessary to achieve comfort: improving sanitary and hygienic conditions, increasing the footage calculated per resident, improving the functionality of the layouts and including the necessary technical and engineering equipment in the space, equipping them with furniture based on the settlement of apartments confiscated from the bourgeoisie - "by room". Radical architects meant by the reconstruction of everyday life the tasks of a global nature: the rejection of the family, its gradual withering away as the basic cell of the organization of society and its equal replacement by the communist collective. That is, a house consisting of separate units - an apartment for a family, is compared, respectively, with a city consisting of independent residential units - communal houses intended for a large equal community of men and women living outside the traditional institution of marriage. The reasons for the change in the mass public approach, mainly among young people, to the moral aspect of the family and marriage, was the extremely unstable historical situation during the revolution and civil war. The controversial issue of civil unions, free cohabitation, illegitimate children were discussed in the press, in lecture halls, on campaign stands. So, in 1921, Alexandra Mikhailovna Kollontai, being the head of the Zhenomics Department of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), stated: “The communist economy abolishes the family, the family loses its importance as an economic unit from the moment the national economy passes in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat to a single production plan and collective social consumption.

All external economic tasks of the family fall away from it: consumption ceases to be individual, within the family, it is replaced by public kitchens and canteens; preparation of clothes, cleaning and keeping dwellings clean becomes a branch of the national economy, just like washing and mending linen. The family as an economic unit from the point of view of the national economy in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat must be recognized not only as useless, but also harmful.

Caring for children, their physical and spiritual upbringing is becoming a recognized task of the social team in the labor republic. The family, by educating and affirming egoism, weakens the bonds of the collective and thereby hinders the building of communism. 1.

Such a community implies not only a change in personal relationships within the range of the updated basic cell of society, but also a change in position regarding things that are in private ownership - the desire for maximum socialization. Thus, one can note the widest range of opinions regarding the degree of decisiveness of changes in social life, which in turn was reflected in the architecture of variously radical functional.

Awareness of the importance of the historical significance of the accomplished socialist revolution prompted artists to think wider and more utopian than ever. Young architects and artists, being on an emotional revolutionary upsurge, consciously broke with pre-revolutionary traditions, refusing to recognize the classical understanding of art, its values ​​and ideals of beauty, perceiving them as decadence and formalism; sought to find a rebellious artistic image most suitable for their contemporary era. At the turning point in the change of the political system, art was intended not so much for pleasure as for the development of effective methods of agitation using the techniques characteristic of avant-garde art schools. So, "a group of youth and teachers of VKhUTEMAS (Higher Artistic and Technical Workshops) - N.V. Dokuchaev, N.A. Ladovsky and others saw the way to this in that each form or combination of forms was considered symbolically: for example, the cube was considered an expression of peace, and the shifts of the planes and the shape of the spiral were identified by them with the dynamics of the revolution.In order to give their structures even greater expression, supporters of the symbolic interpretation of architectural forms sometimes introduced into their projects the motive of the mechanical rotation of parts of the building or used other methods of aestheticizing industrial machine forms ".

Thus, the leftist art was to become one of the voices of propaganda of the communist ideology. Despite the serious financial difficulties, as well as the extreme insecurity of the first revolutionary years and the period after the civil war, creativity developed at an accelerated pace, fueled by systematically announced competitive projects for the construction of buildings for various public purposes.

At the same time, for all their vigorous activity, the innovative revolutionary currents did not have a centralized organ of publicity. In response to the shortage of narrowly focused journalism, under the editorship of the poet Vladimir Mayakovsky, who sublimates the public moods of the 20s in his work, from 1923 to 1925 the literary art magazine "LEF" was published, the purpose of which was "to contribute to finding the communist path for all kinds Art" The magazine acquainted the reader not only with the work of domestic representatives of the revolutionary avant-garde, but also with foreign figures who create within the framework of proletarian culture. This was the value of the journal as a messenger of the world's specialized practice.

In 1923, in the first issue of the journal, Vladimir Mayakovsky wrote: "... we are the best workers in the art of our time. Before the revolution, we accumulated the most accurate drawings, the most skillful theorems, the most ingenious formulas - the forms of the new art. It is clear: the slippery, round-the-world belly of the bourgeoisie was a bad place for building. During the revolution, we accumulated many truths, we learned about life, we received assignments for the most real construction in the ages. The earth, shattered by the rumble of war and revolution, is difficult ground for grandiose buildings. We temporarily hid formulas in folders, helping to strengthen the days revolution." 1

It is worth noting that the hostility of the creative youth of classical art was not a dogma, but more a fashionable trend associated with revolutionary popular sentiments. Historical examples show that art has always remained in the service of political propaganda, regardless of changing aesthetic ideals. Thus, the communist ideas concerning creativity in the USSR are largely based on the Leninist theory of the heritage of culture, which in turn is based on the teachings of K. Marx and F. Engels. Lenin repeatedly, especially in the first five-year plan of Soviet Russia, when the foundation of a new culture was being built, focused attention on the need to sift through the world's artistic traditions based on considerations of the Marxist worldview. Marxism, on the other hand, did not call for the invention of a new proletarian culture, but offered to develop within its framework the best traditions and examples of international art history. In the context of this topic, the authoritative opinion of Lenin, expressed by him in a conversation with the activist of the German communist movement Clara Zetkin: "We are too big" subversives. must one turn away from the truly beautiful, renounce it as a starting point for further development, only on the grounds that it is “old”? "?<...>There is a lot of hypocrisy here and, of course, an unconscious reverence for the artistic fashion that prevails in the West. We are good revolutionaries, but for some reason we feel obliged to prove that we, too, are "at the height of modern culture." I have the courage to declare myself a "barbarian". I am unable to consider the works of expressionism, futurism, cubism and other "isms" the highest manifestation of artistic genius. I do not understand them. I don't feel any joy from them." 1

Nevertheless, the most popular, progressive and relevant in architectural work for the period of the 1920s - early 1930s were two avant-garde areas of industrial art "isms", each of which promoted its own methods and principles of housing construction, while equally denying the traditional base in favor of a new oppositional architecture: constructivism, whose ideologists and theorists were the architects Moses Ginzburg and the brothers Alexander, Leonid and Alexei Vesnin; and rationalism, whose creative leader was the architect Nikolai Ladovsky.

The constructivists proclaimed function and pragmatism as the leading principles, denying figurative and artistic shaping. One of the most important phases of the design process in architecture was design. The expressive features of the method were the complete rejection of decor in favor of the dynamics of simple geometric structures, verticals and horizontals, an open technical-constructive frame of the structure; freedom of planning of the building, some volumes of which often stand out significantly from the general format, hanging in space; accurate calculations of the physical qualities of a building material in relation to its functional affiliation, the use of advanced technologies and materials (glass, iron, concrete).

In 1922, on the basis of the Institute of Artistic Culture (INKhUK (a)) Alexander Vesnin created the theoretical concept of the first group of constructivist architects, the main provisions of which were: the creation of new expedient and utilitarian things and forms that determine the spirit of the new time and the person living in it; things and forms should be transparently constructive, ergonomic, mathematical and understandable, not burdened with decorative figurativeness; the main task of the artist is not the study of historical art schools, but the development of the laws of combination of the main plastic elements; the artist needs to create works equal in suggestiveness to advanced engineering and technical innovations. In 1924, under the authorship of another leading theorist of Soviet constructivism, Moses Ginzburg, the most famous book-manifesto "Style and Epoch" was published, in which he discusses the further development of architecture on the path of technical and social evolution. In 1925, Ginzburg and Vesnin, at the head of a group of like-minded people, established a single creative organization of constructivists - the Association of Modern Architects (OSA) and the affiliated journal "Modern Architecture" ("SA"), which existed until 1930 inclusive.

Rationalists, recognizing the close relationship between functional and constructive solutions, paid more attention to the latter, studying the laws of human perception of architectural volume in an urban environment from physiological, psychological and biological points of view. Thus, the concept of "space" became the leading one in the rationalist creative platform. In the atmosphere of incessant polemics of the 1920s, the rationalists, led by N. Ladovsky, took a more liberal position than the ultra-radical constructivists. They proposed to master the groundwork left by the past, and take this practice into account in the design of a utilitarian-functional building.

The Commission for Painting, Sculptural and Architectural Synthesis (Zhivskulptarkh), which existed in 1919-1920, became the first design platform for adherents of the rationalist method in architecture. In 1920, at the educational institution of the Higher Artistic and Technical Workshops (VHUTEMAS), Nikolai Ladovsky created his United Workshops (Obmas), where he trained architects on the basis of the creative provisions of the industrial art of rationalism developed by him. Over the three years of Obmas' work, a group of like-minded people has matured to the level of a creative organization - the Association of New Architects (ASNOVA), which included such outstanding architects as Konstantin Melnikov and El Lissitzky.

The rationalists were unable to organize a full-fledged periodical covering their creative activity - the first issue of the Izvestiya ASNOVA magazine prepared by them was published in 1926 under the editorship of E. Lissitzky, which was also the last. In the future, the articles were published in various journalistic publications devoted to issues of art and architecture in particular.

For several years, the creative organizations of constructivists and rationalists OSA and ASNOVA have been in close competition with each other for competitive projects and real construction. However, OCA, despite its extreme absolutization of engineering design, turned out to be more in demand and popular. In turn, in the creative association ASNOVA, in 1928, internal disagreements occur, as a result of which the organization is abolished, and its unspoken leader Nikolai Ladovsky devotes his work to the urbanist.

One way or another, both constructivist and rationalist architects were distinguished by an ambitious, politicized and utopian vision of the architecture of the future, a desire to overcome the eclectic dissonance between the external decoration and the internal structure of the building. The main method of mechanization, modernization and reduction in the cost of construction was the introduction of the latest advances in engineering into the process, as well as the standardization and typification of design.

If the architecture of the first half of the 1920s was predominantly exploratory, experimental in nature, then the end of the Civil War and the transition to the New Economic Policy in the second half of this decade was marked by a revival of construction and the implementation of many analytical developments. The first comprehensively built-up residential areas and entire districts for workers appear, where cultural and community institutions, public buildings, etc., could be built simultaneously with residential buildings. Such districts in Leningrad became Shchemilovka, Avtovo, Malaya Okhta. The first residential areas - the former Dangauerovka, on Shabolovka and Usacheva Street in Moscow, the development of Tractor Street and the Palevsky residential area in Leningrad. Constructivism became the leading direction in architecture, which was followed by already mature large architects.

In its most advanced expression, constructivism met the goals of formational construction, but the fact that real technical conditions do not correspond to the declared context was not always taken into account - this explains the frequent inconsistency and utopia of architects' creative projects. The accentuated industrialism and mechanization of the principles of constructivism were at odds with the method of manual labor that prevailed in the construction of the 1920s. Often, when plastering such available materials as brick, wooden rafters and beams, an imitative effect of a reinforced concrete structure was achieved, which fundamentally contradicted one of the most important principles of constructivism - the veracity of the architectural volume due to the structure and material. Thus, from the method of architectural creativity, constructivism is gradually turning into a decorative style with its own techniques and methods of shaping. Many architects, on the wave of enthusiasm for constructivism, used in their projects and buildings only its external features, such as a free plan, exposure of a structure, strip glazing, etc.

It is possible to deduce several main provisions from which post-revolutionary architects repelled. In the course of the October Revolution and the Civil War, an enormous social shift took place - a state arose based on the latest principles that previously seemed fantastic; the oppressed and exploited majority was in power; revolutionary romantic moods gave rise to aspirations to start all over again, in a new place, from a clean slate; the needs of proletarian citizens are fundamentally different from the needs of the previously ruling classes. All this led to the thought - it is necessary to build differently.

The creation of the newest type of socialist housing and the liberation of women from the burden of individual life became one of the main ideas in building a proletarian society. In the program of the VIII Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, in the section of general political principles, paragraph five states the following: “Bourgeois democracy for centuries proclaimed the equality of people regardless of gender, religion, race and nationality, but capitalism did not allow anywhere to realize this equality in practice, and in its imperialist stage it led to the strongest intensification of racial and national oppression.Only because Soviet power is the power of the working people, was it able to carry out this equality for the first time in the world to the end and in all spheres of life, up to the complete elimination of the last traces of the inequality of women in the field of marriage and general family law.<...>Not limited to the formal equality of women, the party seeks to free them from the material burdens of an outdated household by replacing it with communal houses, public canteens, central laundries, nurseries, etc. 1

In this direction, the most interesting experiments were undertaken by constructivist architects in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The projects of communal houses developed by them, where everyday needs were met with the help of public services, and residential buildings equipped with well-maintained public institutions, bring to life the ideas of a radical reorganization of life and the emancipation of women.

An important axiom of the socialist utopia was the idea of ​​a radical transformation of man into a communal body devoid of individualistic instincts. Perhaps the main instrument of this transformation was to become a new type of housing, the so-called "phalanstery", where citizens were imbued with the ideas of collectivism and freed from household duties, family, and everything that slows down the process of creating a person of an updated formation.

The French philosopher and sociologist François Fourier conceived "phalansteres" as intentionally erected houses from 3 to 5 floors high, equipped with rooms for collective recreation, learning, entertainment and individual bedrooms for each individual member of the commune.

Thus, each person had a personal space within the united. In Russia, the popularization of the idea of ​​collective housing came after the publication of the novel by N. Chernyshevsky "What is to be done?". So, in St. Petersburg, in 1863, thanks to the initiation of the writer and publicist Vasily Sleptsov, the first such Znamenskaya commune arose. During the year, the Communards sought to equalize their needs and expenses, but the inconvenience of everyday life, according to A. Herzen, transformed the advanced community into "the barracks of humanity's despair."

Despite the failure of the commune of the 60s of the XIX century, at first the Leninists tried to revive the Russian "phalanster", now renamed the commune house. But after the end of the October Revolution, the poorest and most unsecured part of the citizens wanted to improve the quality of life, which did not imply their relocation to similar communal conditions, which would undermine the authority of the Bolsheviks in the eyes of the proletarian community. "It was decided to endow the victorious class with a very significant sign of domination - an apartment. The inhabitants of the workers' barracks began to be relocated to the apartments of the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia. The first measures of the housing policy of the Bolsheviks, therefore, did not correspond to the theory of socialism." 1

Nevertheless, in 1919, in the USSR, a consideration of the housing and sanitary standard was formed, calculated on the principle of the smallest amount of air volume that a person needs for a comfortable stay in a confined space. It was assumed that a person is enough from 25 to 30 m 3,, or about 8 m 2area per tenant. Thus, the idea of ​​"phalanstere" was still relevant in the environment of Soviet communism.

The first official Communards in the USSR was the Bolshevik party government, which immediately after the revolution established a new elite form of collective housing in Petrograd, and a little later in Moscow. Already at the end of October 1917, about six hundred people lived in the premises of the Smolny Institute - the families of the Bolshevik leadership of Petrograd. There was also a large library, a nursery, music classes, sanitary and hygienic rooms, a catering department. In 1918, the first House of Soviets appeared on the basis of the Astoria Hotel, then a similar housing formation was organized in Moscow - the National Hotel. The Houses of the Soviets, with some stretch, can also be attributed to the type of an elite commune, where such political figures as Vladimir Lenin, Nadezhda Krupskaya, Maria Ulyanova, Yakov Sverdlov lived.

The rare and exceptionally prestigious first Soviet phalansters had little equivalence with regard to the idea of ​​creating a new communal materiality, more fulfilling the function of a lifeline for Soviet officials in extremely difficult and unusual conditions for them. However, in 1923, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the RSFSR, by a special decree, stopped the trend of increasing the number of people striving to live in the Houses of Soviets. Hotels began to repatriate to carry out their usual task of providing short-term accommodation services to guests of the capitals, while the government began to move into separate apartments.

In the early 1920s, young revolutionary-minded Komsomol members took on the task of instilling phalanstery on the soil of the USSR. The first youth communes, young men and women, spontaneously founded on the bases of pre-revolutionary factory barracks, grouped in order to speed up the difficulties of a material and everyday nature in the harsh conditions of the time. Thus, the topic of the distribution of Komsomol members within the commune by gender was not raised at that time, since the socialization of life in such conditions was forced, brought to the limit.

Since 1923, annual inspections of the living conditions of young workers took place in the USSR, during which it was found that one third of the youth in Petrograd live in such enterprising phalanstery and do not have a personal sleeping place. After the survey, the authorities were forced to launch a whole campaign under the slogan "A separate bed for every citizen, in particular, for every teenager" .

One of the newspapers wrote at the beginning of 1924: “The youth, sooner than anyone else, must and can put an end to the traditions of a dying society. The proletarian collectivism of the youth can take root only when the work and life of the youth are collective. dormitories-communes of working youth. A common communal dining room, common living conditions - this is what is necessary, first of all, for the education of a new person. "

Still, thoughts about creating a collectivized body with the help of the latest forms and types of housing were not the only important ones for the communist government, therefore, full-fledged Soviet communes, marked on the state, arose only at the end of the 1920s, when disputes broke out in the USSR on the political and social, urban planning and architectural levels about the types of dwellings for workers, and the communal house was regarded as the main one, which naturally put the architects on edge with the question of understanding the ordering of living space in accordance with the framework of the personal. The first and dominant was the idea that a new person cannot be formed in the conditions of old architectural spaces - in buildings of a familiar layout. Already in 1926, the organizers of the all-Union competition of architectural projects set the task for architects: “... to be imbued with new demands for housing and, as soon as possible, to give a project of such a house with a public economy that would turn the so-called housing hearth from a cramped, boring, and sometimes heavy track for women, to a place of pleasant relaxation. A new life requires new forms."

At the end of the 1920s, the Central Housing Communist Union developed special regulations - the "Model Regulations on the Commune House". In accordance with this briefing, citizens moving into a new home are required to refrain from purchasing and transporting personal items of furniture and household items. This rule of settling in a commune spoke of the radical ways taken to abandon the traditional boundaries of personal space, which are often formed with the help of dependence on personally accumulated material content of space.

The very interpretation of the concept of a communal house was different: some architects believed that it should be a single architectural volume in which individual apartments and communal institutions were combined. According to this principle, Baburinsky, Batensky and Kondratievsky housing estates were designed in Leningrad; others made an attempt to implement a different type of collective housing, which existed in the form of two-four-room family-individual apartments with a washbasin, a kind of kitchen and personal sanitary and hygienic devices, but the bath-shower complex was calculated as the only one for several apartments; the third form of dwelling was formed by separate living rooms connected by a small room for heating food, the rest of the amenities and paraphernalia were supposed to be common and located in the corridors - it was assumed that the sharing of mandatory hygiene devices would make it possible to quickly make the transition to a more developed collective way of life. "This is what guided the creators of the student house-commune project, developed at the Bureau of Scientific and Technical Circles of the Leningrad Institute of Municipal Construction. The project was called "October in everyday life." It was assumed that the building would be inhabited by" the same conditions, without standing out in special floors or buildings. "The house was supposed to consist of two-bed bedrooms for married couples and four-bed "idle cabins." Food was supposed to be delivered in thermoses from nearby kitchen factories. rooms". Even more rigidly, the idea of ​​collectivization of everyday life was expressed by architect N. Kuzmin. He planned, for example, to make common bedrooms for six people in a communal house. A husband and wife could legally retire to a "double bedroom" in accordance with a special schedule or "cabin for the night." 1

In fact, experimental communal houses showed negative results in operation due to the ultra-radical understanding of the idea of ​​a common life. The fanatical desire for overwhelming control of the zealots of new social guidelines sometimes reached such a level that the life of a settler of a commune house was calculated by the minute like a factory assembly line, or a direct interpretation of the idea of ​​the French architect Le Corbusier - "a house is a machine for living." The phantasmagoric nature of this type of communal house consisted both in neglecting the economic opportunities of the young USSR, and in neglecting the assessment of the degree of readiness of the social section for such fundamental changes. In the authoritative discourse of Soviet architects in the second half of the 1930s, the so-called intimization of living space occupied an increasing place. The leading article in the May 1936 issue of the journal Architecture of the USSR noted: "An element of a certain intimacy must affect the interpretation of housing." 1Indeed, the Stalinist urban policy was outwardly based on the individualization of housing space, but this affected primarily and mainly the privileged strata of Soviet society. In other cases, the issues of providing housing were resolved by room-by-room resettlement. In the short term, the apartment remained the main type of residential cell - on this path, the architects saw a solution to the problem of mass housing construction. During the years of the first five-year plans, close attention was directed to finding an economical and convenient solution for it, with the standardization of individual elements.

Most of the architectural projects remained unrealized due to the difficult financial situation in the country, recovering from the revolution and civil war. And also because of the non-rational approach to design, including the use of practically inaccessible building materials. Although, on the other hand, architects could afford a high flight of fancy in developments precisely due to the lack of their implementation. This made it possible to cut off the superfluous in the course of discussions, since the peculiarity of the approach of the proletarian state to creative life was the development of various directions in the struggle of ideas and opinions.

In just a few years, constructivism began to confidently move from a method of construction to a style, and ultimately to stylization. Back in 1923, V. Mayakovsky warned: “Constructivists! Be afraid to become another aesthetic school.

Constructivism is only art - zero. There is a question about the very existence of art. Constructivism should become the highest formal engineering of all life. Constructivism in playing pastoral pastorals is nonsense. Our ideas must develop on today's things."

In addition, the preparatory base for construction suffered, the use of low-quality materials quickly reduced the hype around the latest experimental residential architecture, which turned out to be hardly acceptable for living.

At the turn of the 1920s - 1930s, construction took on the greatest scope since the October Revolution. In this regard, disputes were brewing, characterized by maximalist judgments about the concept of a proletarian settlement in the future: some voted for the construction of exclusively large cities, consisting of gigantic communal houses; others have made proposals for an anemochory of single-family hotel cottages along the highways. At the same time, the most sensible, prudent architects and urban planners focused on the need for a multifaceted consideration of the provisions of socialist settlement, discarding utopian extremes. Among architects and the public, dissatisfaction with such a long stability of the ascetic orientation of architecture was increasingly evident, there was a desire to change the bias in the direction that better reflects, including artistically, the content of the era, corresponds to the next stage in the development of the USSR. This situation contributed to the revival of the classical character of art, including architecture from the second half of the 1930s. The positions of even such staunch constructivists as the Vesnin brothers and Ginzburg underwent changes. In 1934, they wrote: “Our Soviet architecture developed at a time when we were extremely poor. It fell to our lot to forge the language of new architecture at a time when we had to reduce the cost of each cubic meter of construction. Now we have become richer, we have more opportunities, we can now afford the abandonment of asceticism and a much wider scope. It is only natural that our palette should become a full-fledged creative palette. "

Architectural searches and solutions for a socialist residential building in Moscow

On the rise of moral politicized agitation for the creation of communal houses, as an advanced type of housing, for educating and living in them a "new" person - a socialist and a communist, the Moscow Bureau of Proletarian Students in 1929 prepared a standard project document regulating the construction of student communes with the maximum household merger. It was assumed that young men and women entering Moscow universities and technical schools are the most favorable and sensitive audience for the perception of social changes, carried out, including through the architectural and planning revolution. Excerpts from the document, the full text of which is given in the work of Selim Omarovich Khan-Magomedov "The Architecture of the Soviet Avant-Garde", the chapter "Student Communes. Student Hostels", give the most complete picture of how the commune house was seen in one of its first, radical internal device.

"To all executive bureaus and trade union committees of universities, workers' faculties and technical schools of the Moscow region Assignment for the project of the student "House of the Commune" for 2000 people.

<...>The Moscow Bureau of Proletarian Students believes that<...>in the construction of student dormitories, it is necessary to adhere to the project for the construction of the "House of the Commune".<...>

MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE HOUSE OF THE COMMUNE

It is based on the principle of communal use of the student's personal space in the hostel. Due to the universal room, a number of common areas are created (they are created instead: a sleeping cabin, a drawing room, a study room, a library, club rooms, etc.).

The division of premises is carried out according to the specialization of the contained household processes, such as: sleep, eating, physical education, study, rest, and so on.

The starting point is the economic equality of the commune and a comfortable hostel, determined by approximately 50 cubic meters of building per 1 communal.

The basis for the selection of the living is the commonality of their educational interests (the commune of technicians, the commune of physicians, the commune of musicians, etc.).

INSTALLATION IN RESOLUTION OF HOUSEHOLD MOMENTS

The Question of Ownership

Taking into account that all necessary needs will be met by utilities and maintenance, there is no need for own things. Ownership is retained for clothing, for pocket items and temporarily (until full specialization of the communes) for teaching aids. Sleepwear - communal.

Family question

The family, as a closed cell, does not exist in the commune. Children are isolated in appropriate premises (nursery, kindergarten, etc.). Parents, as well as other members of the community, have access to children's rooms. In view of the fact that both husband and wife are equal members of the commune, it is obligatory for them to comply with the general regulations. Otherwise, they are left to self-determination.

Service

Labor-intensive maintenance or requiring the use of special tools and machines (kitchen, hairdresser, sewing, shoe, vacuum cleaner, etc.) is carried out by a special technical staff. Elements of self-service are introduced into everyday life only for the purpose of self-education. The time spent on this should be minimal so as not to interfere with the productivity of the student's mental work.

ROOMS FOR HOUSEHOLD PROCESSES AND EXPLANATION TO THEM:

Sleeping rooms are calculated for 100% of the living. Guests, sponsored workers or peasants, as well as relatives, are accommodated at the expense of those serving on industrial practice.

Sleeping cabins, subject to sufficient ventilation, are preferred to dormitories, which should be used only in case of an economic gain in space. The number of co-located in the cabin must be at least two and not more than four. A pair cabin is preferable for the reason that in this case there will be no accounting and holding of a stationary proportion between single and married people.

Near the bedrooms, place rooms for morning and evening exercises, showers, washrooms, latrines and a wardrobe for storing personal and night clothes. The layout of the premises should ensure the maximum possible loading of the premises by queuing (up to five queues), while eliminating the hustle by a rational distribution of exits.

In contact with the dormitory there should be a children's building that includes a nursery with children up to 3 years of age inclusive. Do not arrange an orphanage for older children, since it is assumed that by the time they enter the commune, its members are childless. Nevertheless, it is necessary to provide for the expansion of the children's building in the future. The children's building should have especially favorable hygienic conditions, green spaces, a convenient playground, etc.

The estimated number of children is 5% of all living.

Ancillary facilities in the children's building according to existing standards.

Eating

The group of premises for eating includes a dining room for the simultaneous accommodation of 25% of the living, a buffet, a kitchen, pantries for provisions, coupons, washing, harvesting, etc., respectively, 100% of the living and 25% of those who eat at the same time.

The dining room should have a convenient communication with the lobby, dormitory group and recreation group. The pantry should have a separate exit to the outside.

The study group consists of a common study room with the possibility of dividing it into smaller areas for group studies. At the same time, cabins for individual lessons are provided. In addition, there should be a drawing room and a library with a reading room and related ancillary facilities.

A common hall for joint recreation with a stage for lectures, amateur performances and tours of traveling theaters, dances, projectile gymnastics, for receiving guests, etc. The size of the hall based on 50% of the living.

Place nearby the premises of circles and studios: fine arts, music, choral, drama, photography, political, literary, industrial, scientific, etc.

Service group

1.1. Medical center with a doctor on duty.

2.2. Hairdresser.

.3. Laundry.

.4. Sewing and repair.

.5. Shoe.

.6. Repair shop.

.7. Gas shelter.

.8. Phone and mail.

.9. Savings bank.

.10. Reference.

Household management (premises)

1.1. Local committee.

2.2. Control affairs and office.

.3. Accounting.

.4. Typists.

.5. Head. economy.

.6. Material part.

.Apartments for employees are not provided.

Note: The economic equality of the commune and the dormitory of an elevated type is expressed per resident: sleeping cabin + study group + shared lounge = dormitory room.

Since 1 living in a hostel room is given 6 square meters. m of area, then approximately, considering that the area required for sleep can be only half, i.e. 3 sq. m, the remaining 3 sq. m distributed equally between study and rest.

The total cubic capacity of the building, as mentioned earlier, should not exceed 50 cubic meters per inhabitant." 1

One of the first conceptual experimental projects of communal houses was the construction in 1929-1930 of a student hostel of the Textile Institute, designed by architect I. S. Nikolaev, on Ordzhonikidze Street in Moscow. [ill. 1-12] The competition of designers, according to the results of which the architectural development of Nikolaev, as close as possible to the task of Proletstud, won, was organized by Tekstilstroy in order to build a demonstration exemplary building of a communal house and the skill of forming an environment for creating a person permeated with aesthetics and beliefs of collectivism and communal physicality.

The building is characterized by an extremely strict, radical approach to the task of socializing and streamlining life, minimizing personal space, standardizing and mechanizing the daily routine, which is achieved by the accentuated functional rigor of the architectural solution of the building.

Compliance with the idea of ​​​​creating a small size of sleeping cabins, while maintaining maximum functionality, according to I. S. Nikolaev, became a difficulty for the development of the building project. The reduction in footage was achieved by installing bunk beds in the complete absence of any other furniture. For the comfort of being in such small rooms, designed purely for sleeping and, according to

1.The design task, section "General requirements" to the original idea, even devoid of windows - the architect proposed to place ventilation shafts above the volume of the rooms, which at times increase the flow of fresh air. Thus, during construction, not counting the air exchange chamber, the size of each of their 1008 cabins was 2.7 by 2.3 m 2with a ceiling height of 3.2 m, as well as their location, in contrast to the original layout, moved to the outer walls of the eight-story dormitory building, thereby supplying the rooms with windows.

A sanitary building adjoins the main sleeping hexagonal volume with two orthogonal resalites on the pediment. The entrance to the commune is located next to the sanitary, third, public building, intended for study and leisure. Here were located: a special dining room, a hall for physical exercises and sports, a library and a reading room, a kindergarten for children up to four years old (assuming that a married couple of students by the time they graduate from the institute can have children of a maximum of four years old), a medical center, laundry, rooms for a variety of leisure centers and single rooms for learning. At the same time, the planning layout of all public spaces was carried out depending on the expected noise level: from loud halls to quiet rooms for independent learning processes. The body is equipped with trapezoidal sheds directed to the north. The inner side of the opaque sloping ceiling of the lantern shields the falling sun rays, thereby providing a constant diffuse natural light. Such industrial architectural elements used in residential or residential areas have become the hallmark of Soviet constructivism.

Thus, thanks to the radical functionalism of the layout of the student house-commune, a strict conveyor sequence of daily household activities was formed. “After the wake-up call, the student, dressed in simple canvas pajamas (panties or other simple suit), descends to take gymnastic exercises in the gym or goes up to the flat roof for outdoor exercises, depending on the season. The closed night cabin is exposed starting from This time, vigorous blowing throughout the day. Entering it before nightfall is prohibited. The student, having received a charge, goes to the dressing room to the closet where his clothes are placed. There is also a number of showers nearby where you can take a shower and change. at the hairdresser's he finishes his toilet. Having put himself in order, the student "years into the dining room, where he takes a short breakfast or drinks tea at the counter; after which he is given the right to manage the time at his own discretion: he can go to classes at a university, or go to a common room for study, or, if he is preparing for a test, take a separate cabin for classes. In addition, he has at his disposal a common reading room, a library, a drawing room, an auditorium, a studio, etc. For some who will be prescribed by a doctor, an additional meal period will be set - a second breakfast. Lunch in the dining room is on duty at the usual time, by which students are supposed to return from the university. After lunch and the interval after it, short evening classes are resumed with the underachievers, community work is carried out, etc. The student is completely free in choosing how to use his evening. Collective listening to radio, music, games, dances, and other versatile ways of amateur activity is created by the student himself, using the inventory of the commune. The evening bell, gathering everyone for a walk, ends the day. Upon returning from a walk, the student goes to the dressing room, takes a night suit from the closet, washes, changes into a night suit, leaves his dress with underwear in the closet and goes to his night cabin. The sleeping cabin is ventilated during the night by means of a central system. Air ozonation is used and the possibility of sleeping additives is not ruled out" 1.

The clarity and coherence of public actions, repeatedly mechanically repeated by hundreds of people, had to guarantee exceptionally reasonable minimalism, excluding any premises of indirect purpose, the absence of functionless corridors and passages, a reasonably reasonable compilation of small enclosed spaces, with the expectation of avoiding crowding in a densely populated building, hidden assistance to movement large masses of people. The architect is "given freedom<...>in design<...>premises of communal housing, but it is proposed to take into account the following main points in the life of future residents of the communal house: 1) Noisy conversations in common living rooms, singing, playing musical instruments. 2) Collective listening to music, singing, radio. 3) Games of chess, checkers. 4) Rest in a completely quiet environment reading newspapers, magazines and sleep. 5) Studying in common quiet rooms and solitary study in single cabins. 6) Drawing. The project is required to show the arrangement of furniture, furnishings, indoor plants, tools. Balconies needed. 2.

The hostel was occupied in 1931. The following image of living in it was drawn in the press: “This commune house is not only housing - it is a combine for study and recreation. A large softly lit hall for classes. stores books, lectures, preparations in his locker, near the classroom.Shoes, soap, linen - all this belongings lies in a personal toilet drawer.A person sleeps in a room, in its rational unloading, clean air, reminiscent of a glass terrace.The occupant of such a room gets up from ventilated and cheerful head. The anatomy of the house pleases with its reasonableness. The sleeping building is separate from the common rooms, no one and nothing interferes with sleep. The sleeping cabin is cleared of household giblets" 1.

Despite the exceptional thoughtfulness of every detail and the careful design of common areas, real students dogmatically followed the prescribed rules of the social experiment for a very short time: sleeping cabins were replenished with furniture and personal items, which contradicted the original concept; the daily routine with calls announcing the time for a change of actions could not satisfy every communard living in the house. The original layout of the building was preserved for almost 40 years, after which, in 1968, during the transformation of the hostel under the direction of Ya. B. Belopolsky, who consulted with I. S. Nikolaev, the public building was reconstructed, and the sleeping cabins were combined in pairs and enlarged part of the footage of the spacious central corridor. During the period of perestroika, the hostel fell into disrepair, completely technically outdated and in disrepair, the last students were evicted in 1996. In the 2000s, restoration work began on the building.

Thus, on the basis of the student house-commune of architect I. S. Nikolaev, one can get an idea of ​​one of the types of experimental residential architecture that existed at the turn of the 1920s - 1930s. However, an attempt at a social reorganization of life was undertaken not only in relation to the progressive "communist" youth. The introduction of a new view of the private housing arrangement of workers and their families can be traced by considering the example of a Moscow residential building-commune for employees of the Narkomfin of the USSR, architects M. Ya. Ginzburg and I.F. Milinis, built in 1928-1930 on Novinsky Boulevard. [ill. 13-20]

The mouthpiece of the era of constructivism - Moses Yakovlevich Ginzburg, worked on the development of the building, in creative collaboration with the architect Ignatius Frantsievich Milinis. In the construction, advanced modern engineering developments and materials were used. Technician and engineer Sergei Leonidovich Prokhorov, right at the construction site, set up the production of betonite stones, and also, specifically for the construction of the advanced building of the Narkomfin commune house, developed new materials: fiberboard, xylolite, peat slabs. 1

This experimental building is considered a transitional type house with spatial living cells, since the family structure of life was not completely suppressed here, but only partially transferred to the modern pace of public service for domestic needs.

House-communes of the transitional type were prepared by the Typification Section of the Construction Committee of the RSFSR, then, for the first time, the issue of household appliances was approached from a scientific point of view on a countrywide scale. The task of the architects was to create residential sections of such a type that they provided for the possibility of settling a family not as before - in one room, but in one apartment, albeit a small one. The typing section has done work to improve and create new typified methods for designing housing units. “In an effort to be economical, not at the expense of lowering the quality of construction and reducing the comfort of housing, the architects of the Typing Section worked out in advance the basic requirements that their projects had to meet, taking into account the norms of that time and the level of development of science and technology.<...>Great importance was attached to the analysis of the dimensions and shapes of the premises of the apartment, taking into account the schedule of movements and the arrangement of equipment. The proportions of individual rooms were carefully processed,<...>taking into account the arrangement of furniture.<...>Attention was drawn to the rationalization of the layout of the apartment and to the reduction in connection with the auxiliary area. First of all, all intra-apartment transitions and corridors were minimized.<...>The next step was the rationalization of the equipment of the hallway, kitchen and bathroom, which allowed them to be reduced in size.<...>more than one and a half times 1.

In this way, several types of apartments with improved layouts were developed. Where one letter marked one-room apartments, a letter with the addition of a number - two- and three-room apartments, respectively.

Type A - sectional apartment, subdivided into:

· type A2 - a two-room apartment for four residents. Combined sanitary unit;

· type A3 - an apartment of three rooms: two of them are isolated and are supposed to be residential, the third is shared, equipped with a large sleeping niche and combined with the kitchen with an internal functional window.

Section apartments of type B are structurally and planning complicated by the placement of stairs leading to the bathroom:

- type B2 - an apartment of two rooms with one or two sleeping niches, a sanitary unit is combined.

Type C apartments are one-storied, with a penetrating functional corridor.

Apartments type D and F are two-storey, served by a corridor. At the same time, apartment type F proved to be the most productive, in an economic sense, of all those developed in principle. The one-room apartments F were an entrance hall with a staircase leading to the living room, where a kitchen alcove was located near the window, hidden by a screen.

The lower part of the living cell included a niche for sleeping and a miniature combined sanitary unit. Such an apartment was calculated for 3-4 tenants. "The architects of the Typification Section believed that, unlike communal houses with a complete socialization of life, a residential cell of type F allows you to create an economical transitional communal house, where isolated apartments for each family will be organically combined with public spaces" 1.

Type E apartments - three-story, also with a through corridor, for projects of communal houses such as a small-family hostel.

The Narkomfin House was built as a multifunctional complex structure of four buildings for various purposes: residential, public, children's and service, where technical and consumer services were located.

A residential functional building of six floors, with one staircase at both ends of a rectangular building. The ground floor is formed by frame pillars designed by Ginzburg, apparently influenced by Le Corbusier. In addition, their use was due to the desire to find greater security and stability in case of possible earth landslides - since an underground river runs under the house. In the project, apartments of the promising type F were used, and its varieties - type F2. The architect of the building, Moses Ginzburg, noted: “Type F is important for us as a transition to a communal type of housing that meets the social processes of family differentiation and stimulates the use of collective premises.

What is especially important for us in type F is that such an apartment opens up new social and everyday opportunities for residents. A common bright corridor can turn into a kind of springboard on which purely collective functions of communication can develop.

In general, the complex of one-room apartments of type F is already the first organism that leads us to a socially higher form of housing - to a communal house. The presence of a horizontal artery - a bright corridor - allows you to organically include a public dining room, kitchen, rest rooms, bathrooms, etc. in this type. These are all communal premises that should become an integral part of the new housing.

At the same time, we consider it important to take into account the dialectics of growing life when building new houses. It is impossible to make this house necessarily collective at the moment, as it has been tried to do so far, and which usually led to negative results. It must be done so that this house can have the possibility of a gradual natural transition to public services in a number of functions. That is why we tried to keep the isolation of each cell, that is why we came to the need to create a niche kitchen with a standard element that takes up minimal space, can be completely taken out of the apartment and allows you to go to a collectively served dining room at any time. We consider it absolutely necessary in our work to create a number of factors stimulating the transition to a socially higher form of everyday life, stimulating, but not decreeing it" 1.

The flights of stairs were interconnected by wide corridors on the second and fifth floors. The entire volume of the building is divided in the center into two equal parts: for example, on the first three floors there are apartments of a larger area, from three rooms for numerous families. However, all apartments are two-story in their layout, the entrance to them is from a common corridor.

The upper three floors are reserved for one- and two-room apartments of small footage without kitchens, equipped with only a small kitchen element.

On the tier of the second floor, by a covered passage, the residential building is connected with the communal - a cubic building of four floors.

The House of Narkomfin could not be realized as a commune house of a transitional type. A few years after the house was put into operation, the tenants themselves abandoned this idea: so the gallery passing next to the lower corridor of the second floor, originally intended for meetings and communication of communards, was reclassified into private storerooms; the solarium and roof garden were left unfinished, and the communal dining room was little used. However, the laundry and kindergarten functioned as successfully as possible relative to all other public service organizations of the residential complex.

The commissioning of the Narkomfin building in 1930 coincided with a critical turning point in the fate of architecture in the USSR: all professional associations were disbanded, and the Union of Soviet Architects arose in their place, designed to determine the shape of the new Soviet architecture. Constructivism and rationalism were branded as "formalism" and foreign borrowings, alien to the Soviet people. In architecture, a course was announced for "mastering the classical heritage."

3. Architectural searches and solutions for a socialist residential building in Leningrad

Thoughts about the appearance of communal houses in Petrograd, as a model demonstration housing for workers, in all respects corresponding to the Bolshevik worldview, arose immediately after the October Revolution. It was assumed that a bright and joyful communist future would come faster if the principles of collectivization and universal equality were decisively implemented in all aspects of life.

Already in 1918, under the state control and calculation, in accordance with the decree "On the abolition of private ownership of real estate in cities", all buildings and structures suitable for habitation fell into place, where the masses of workers and laborers were urgently moved. Thus, in the first five years after the October Revolution, according to official papers, 300 thousand people were settled in the expropriated housing stock of Petrograd on extremely favorable conditions for extremely low rents. Thus, the rule of providing housing of varying degrees of comfort, in direct proportion to the tenant's financial viability, remained in the past and was replaced by an understanding of the quality of the worker's socially useful labor. However, gratuitous donations by the state of living space actually excluded the influx of resources for the restoration and repair of the apartment asset, which was steadily dilapidated from hypertrophied non-functional use by the end of the 1920s and out of operation by a third.

The exploitation of the requisitioned capitalist buildings went along the road of the uncontrolled appearance of improvised communes, understood as centers of education and culture of the new proletariat. So Mikhail Ivanovich Kalinin - "all-Union headman" and chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee - in 1919 he himself founded and lived there in a commune with a socialized way of life for 32 people. "One of the most striking phenomena in the housing sector, caused by the spirit of the October Revolution, are communal houses or workers' houses.<...>At that time, the idea of ​​forming communal houses pursued mainly political goals. The victorious proletariat threw out the bourgeoisie from the aristocratic nests, taking possession of its apartments. On the other hand, it was conceived to turn the big houses expropriated from the bourgeoisie into centers of communist culture. The house-commune was presented as a hostel in which the economic structure and way of life were supposed to contribute to the development of collectivist principles among the population of the house. In these houses, communist existence was supposed to educate communist consciousness. This being was supposed to be created by organizing various types of communal institutions in houses<...>The purpose of the commune was: the liberation of women from domestic work, from kitchen slavery, and to involve her in socially useful work, in public life.

If in 1918 the formation of workers' houses was of a spontaneous nature, then, starting from 1919, we have a planned systematic development of this matter under the leadership of the Housing Departments. Under the latter, "special sections of workers' houses" were formed, whose task was to manage the existing ones and take care of the formation of new workers' houses.

<...>Workers' homes are linked to businesses that contribute greatly to their improvement and, in some cases, maintenance.<...>against the backdrop of the general destruction of our homes<...>In most of them, by organizing a planned and systematic labor service for the entire population of the house, it is possible to properly maintain both the apartments and the property as a whole.

<...>Another question is to what extent communal houses are really "communal". In this regard, the communal houses did not give anything and do not justify their name.<...>Separate kitchens still attach women to household chores. Rarely in any commune there are any communal institutions at all: a nursery, a kindergarten, and so on. Hopes for communal houses, as centers of communist culture, turned out to be illusions and did not achieve their goal.

This experience proved that it is impossible to create a communal life in the houses of the capitalist era, built for petty-bourgeois life. The house-commune must be built anew according to special tasks and plans. 1.

Thus, the former houses of the bourgeoisie, which by their characteristics did not correspond to the new principles of economy, were blamed for the failure of the first attempts to implement the idea of ​​restructuring everyday life. The problem was to be resolved by the construction of buildings specially designed for the necessary goals and objectives, which, by their appearance, would bring the architectural appearance of the city to a common denominator. Two concepts of a new type of building were the subject of the greatest discussions - the idea of ​​a commune as a small settlement within the garden city; and the commune as an autonomous complex of premises of a personal and collective nature, self-sufficient through the socialization of the household. However, both the adherents of the garden-commune idea and the adherents of the "house - a machine for living" - did not see the future of the general ideological concept within the walls of requisitioned tenement houses.

One of the first such communes in Leningrad, built on a wave of enthusiastic public enthusiasm for the restructuring of life, was the house-commune of Engineers and writers on the corner of Rubinshtein Street and Proletarsky Lane (now Grafsky Lane). [ill. 21-28]

According to the historian Dmitry Yuryevich Sherikh, there is evidence that initially, informally, the project had the name - "House of Joy", as it was the best for Leningrad, which by that time had lost the status of the capital, the character of the building of a new, hotel type. Thus, even more ironic is the fact that just a few years after the building was put into operation, thanks to the apt description of the poetess Olga Fedorovna Berggolts, another common name was assigned to it - "Tear of Socialism". Nevertheless, in its conception, the commune house was conceived as a triumphant step into the bright prospect of all-consuming communism and another weighty blow to the conservative order of domestic oppression of women. In addition, this commune was exceptional due to the nature of the employment of its settlers: the creative intelligentsia of Leningrad - writers, poets, graphic engineers.

Built according to the project of the famous architect Andrei Andreevich Olya in 1929-1930, with the funds of share contributions of members of the Leningrad Union of Writers and the Society of Engineering and Technical Workers. Construction was completed in 1930. The house, under the same roof of which there was a collective kindergarten, a canteen, a library, a dressing room, a hairdresser's, a laundry, was immediately settled and put into operation.

Despite the stinginess of external artistic expressiveness, the layout is purely dependent on the ascetic functionalism embedded in the concept of a hotel-type building: a commune of 52 apartments of two, three and four rooms without kitchens, with access to the facade of small square balconies arranged in a checkerboard pattern. The apartments were connected by a corridor truncated on the sides by two flights of stairs. From the corridor you can get to the sanitary hygienic rooms of the common showers.

A large open terrace was intended for a solarium for walking, sunbathing, a small flower garden, and together with a pitched roof create a stepped silhouette of the end of the house.

The dining room, which occupied most of the volume of the first floor, was architecturally distinguished by a strip of tape glazing, which facilitates the overall appearance of the building, which is sparing in artistic expressiveness. Daily food three times a day was provided by the State Public Catering Organization - Narpit, according to the system of personal monthly food cards.

The first Communards, for the most part, were members of the Writers' Union. The most famous of which were married couples: Olga Fedorovna Berggolts with her husband, literary critic Nikolai Molchanov, and Ida Nappelbaum with her husband, poet Mikhail Froman. The main part of the information about the existence of the house-commune of Engineers and writers can be gleaned from their memoirs.

"Its official name is" House-Commune of Engineers and Writers. "And then a comic, but quite popular nickname in Leningrad appeared -" Tear of Socialism ". We, its initiators and residents, were universally called "tears". We, a group of young (very young!) engineers and writers, it was built on shares at the very beginning of the 30s in the order of a categorical struggle against the "old way of life"<...>We moved into our house with enthusiasm... and even the arch-unattractive appearance "under Corbusier" with a mass of tall tiny balconies cages did not bother us: the extreme wretchedness of its architecture seemed to us some kind of special severity corresponding to the time.<...>The sound transmission in the house was so perfect that if downstairs, on the third floor ... they played flea games or read poetry, I could already hear everything on the fifth floor, even bad rhymes. This too close forced communication with each other in incredibly small rooms was very annoying and tiring. 1.

In conditions of shortage, covering all aspects of industry at the turn of the 20s - 30s, the Architect A.A. Ol, in collaboration with his students - K.A. Ivanov and A.I. Ladinsky, during the construction of the building, they were involuntarily obliged to use the least expensive materials, to save heavily on budget funds.

In turn, Ida Nappelbaum wrote: “At the entrance to the house, in the first entrance there was a common dressing room with a doorman on duty and a telephone for communicating with the apartments. Not only visiting guests, but also many residents of small apartments, left their outerwear in the dressing room. floors, in the corridors in special bay windows they arranged a hairdressing salon, a reading room, and on the ground floor there was a kindergarten (only for children living in the house).

The windows and doors of the upper floor overlooked a flat roof - a solarium. Tables were taken out of the apartments there and guests were received. There, children rode tricycles, dried clothes there, grew flowers, although there was not much sun. Most of the residents were young, starting to build their lives. The engineering staff, however, was of a more respectable age, and the writers were mostly young.<...>The house was noisy, cheerful, warm, the doors of the apartments were not locked, everyone easily went to each other. But sometimes a note appeared on the door: "Do not enter - I am working" or "Do not enter - my mother is sick." Sometimes downstairs in the dining room, meetings were arranged with friends, with guests, actors came after performances<...>During this period, for the first time after the harsh life of the last years of war communism, entertainment, Christmas trees, dances began to enter the life of Soviet people ...

<...>At first, the population of the house rejoiced at the liberation from household chores, but it was not for nothing that this house was nicknamed "the tear of socialism"<...>It turned out that not everyone is satisfied with the same food - some, it is expensive, others want variety. The situation with children was especially difficult. It turned out that it is necessary to have a home. And now - large boards are laid on the baths, a kitchen is deployed on them - stoves, electric stoves. Little by little, the house-commune began to lose its distinctive features" 1.

Residents of the commune house survived the blockade, during the period of repression, many were arrested and deported. The canteen has lost the status of "communal", and has become a public city. In 1962-1963, a major overhaul of the building was carried out, during which the corridor system was destroyed, apartments were replanned, with the addition of a small kitchen space due to the scale of public premises.

In Leningrad, another new type of residential building is known - the house-commune of the Society of Political Prisoners, located on Troitskaya Square (formerly Revolution Square). [ill.29-34]

"The All-Union Society of Political Prisoners and Exiled Settlers was created in 1921, bringing together 2381 people (Narodnaya Volya, Zemlyavolya, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, anarchists, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Budyonnovists, Social Democrats of Poland, non-party people). These were people of different political views who selflessly fought against tsarism One of the goals of the society was to provide material and moral assistance to its members, most often the elderly" 2. The Leningrad division of the society included five hundred residents, former revolutionaries and freedom fighters, including those associations that ceased to exist for one reason or another. Wishing to improve the living situation of former political prisoners, in 1929 the Society decided to build a cooperative house, and in the same year an All-Union competition was announced for the creation of the project. The project was developed by architects: Grigory Alexandrovich Simonov, Pavel Vasilyevich Abrosimov and Alexander Fedorovich Khryakov. In September 1930, the foundation was laid, the construction itself in 1931-1933 was carried out at the expense of shares by the trust Lenzhilgrazhdanstroy. By November 1932, the Petrovsky and Nevsky residential buildings were ready, the construction of the commune house, according to official documents, was completed on December 1, 1933.

"In 1934, the society completed the construction of its own residential building in Leningrad. S. M. Kirov approved its location - he believed that the former revolutionaries deserved the right to live in one of the most beautiful places in the former Russian capital" 1.

The house-commune consists of three buildings - three, six and seven floors in height. The main array, where different-sized apartments were located, with its long facade is directed to the square, the revolution, and the pediment to the Neva embankment. The constructivist method of building a complex of 145 apartments, two or three rooms in size, manifested itself in the geometric volumes of buildings inscribed into each other, extremely sparing and ascetic artistic expressiveness, flat ceilings, and functional planning. The conceptual basis was a vivid example of the collectivization of everyday life: already traditionally, apartments did not have kitchens - food was supplied in the dining room, but food could be taken out and heated in personal electric ovens. Two small buildings had a corridor-type layout. As part of these buildings, on the lower floors, there were also: a hall for general meetings for 500 seats, equipped with a movie screen; Museum of the History of the Revolutionary Movement; laundry, nursery, library; there were premises for the functioning of public meetings on interests, thus, the non-residential area was 4 thousand m 2. The house was heated by its own boiler room.

The house-commune of Politkatorzhan in its intended purpose lasted only a few years, until the end of the 30s. “If in the Guide to Leningrad, published in 1934, you can find information about the Leningrad branch of the All-Union Society of Former Political Convicts and Exiles, then there is no information in the 1935 guide: it was in this year that the society was liquidated on Stalin’s orders.

<...>There was a bitterly ironic joke: "The NKVD took the square root of us - out of one hundred and forty-four apartments, twelve remained unsealed" 1.

By 1938, 80% of the Communards were repressed. In the 1950s, the building was reconstructed, with a change in the internal layout, but the appearance of the communal house remained unchanged. "The dynamics of the asymmetric composition is most pronounced in the structure of the main building, joined from two unequal in height, mutually shifted plates. In the place of the ledge joint, they are additionally connected by long balconies and a canopy on thin round pillars. The public area is highlighted below by a horizontal glazing strip, creating an illusion as if the main array is floating above a weightless transparent base.The end of the house is turned into a half-cylinder<...>softening turn to Petrovskaya street. The complex game of volumes includes a tall narrow parallelepiped with a vertical strip of glazing stairs and a multi-storey passage on light pillars leading to a diagonal building, the facade of which is stitched with dotted lines of lying corridor windows.

Terraces and numerous balconies, glass surfaces and a solarium on a flat roof emphasize the openness of the building to the space of the square and the water area of ​​the Neva, and the rustication of the walls sets off the weighty plasticity of the volumes.<...>However, one of the best houses of constructivism, with its correctly found scale, was constantly attacked for being stylistic alien to the historical core of the city" 1.

Conclusion

It is paradoxical that the projects of architects, executed in accordance with all the manifestos they proclaimed, turned out to be anti-functional and practically unrealizable in these materials. Artificially invented constructiveness and the rejection of the artistic content of the project led industrial art to a dead end, making it virtually unsuitable for its direct purpose - human use in everyday life.

It can be concluded that post-revolutionary public sentiment has become the main influence factor for changing the principles of approach to residential architecture. This led to the development of pilot projects to create various types of communal houses, where the domestic and personal aspects of life were to be minimized. The existing architectural and design documentation and individual examples of constructed buildings indicate a different degree of rigor in the approach to the idea of ​​collectivization: from fanatically dogmatic to quite democratic and comfortable.

The need to create a new type of residential element arose in connection with the difficulties of social resettlement in the early years of Soviet power. On the rise of popular enthusiasm in the 20s of the XX century, already after the expropriation of apartments and houses of the capitalists, most politicized social scientists, architects and urban planners ruled out the possibility of changing the way of life not just of individuals, but of an entire social class within the framework of an old-type building built to meet the needs and needs of aesthetic aspirations of the bourgeoisie.

The primary tasks of organizing a commune house were:

free a woman from the hardships of housework and raising children;

develop a sense of unity and cohesion among people;

develop in the team the need for internal self-government and the implementation of the rules of the general daily routine;

to mechanize as much as possible aspects of everyday life, depriving all household functional items from personal living space.

Commune houses traditionally belonged to state associations, the family of a member or employee of which received a room, as a rule, with one common bathroom, bathroom and shower room per floor. The kitchen was replaced by a common dining room, the house could also contain a library, a games room, a cinema hall and other cultural and educational facilities for public use. Thus, excluding the period of sleep, the whole life of the Communards passed as collectivized as possible.

Even within the narrow framework of considering only the phenomenon of communal houses, one can note the antinomic nature of creative searches and solutions. This made it possible to investigate the problem in the most multifaceted way, and also, in the course of experimental and practical construction, to reveal the actual advantages and disadvantages of each of the ways of restructuring the reorganization of the household.

The first post-revolutionary years were a time of searching for ways to develop a new Soviet architecture, a romantic perception of reality, when the wildest dreams seemed feasible, and architecture was intended to play the role of the most important tool for transforming the world. Natural was the rejection of everything old, including centuries-old forms of architecture, a clear desire to create a new architectural language. This is especially acute in design proposals that are not implemented in nature, and often not intended for implementation at all, they nevertheless had a huge impact on the entire world architecture of the 20th century. Thus, advanced architects, when developing projects for a new type of residential architecture, were guided by the needs of the supposed communist society of the future, which in reality does not exist.

As time passed, it became obvious that the avant-garde movement of constructivism was out of place in the framework of real life. Thus, the radicalism of the mid-1920s is gradually replaced first by an external stylization of constructivist expressiveness, and then ostracized in favor of the more socially polarized functionalism of the 1930s.

The projects of the 1920s are a special page in the history of architecture, which clearly testifies to the enormous creative potential that the architectural thought of that time carried in itself. Closely linked with mass propaganda art, architecture became a symbol of new life. The search for new compositional and artistic means became an important condition for the revealed new ideological and artistic content of architecture. In many ways, it was associated with images of romantically perceived technology. Belief in its limitless possibilities inspired architects to create complex three-dimensional compositions. Every major building built by Soviet architects in the 1920s was part of a larger experiment, which can be called the entire Soviet architecture of that time. In the first half of the 1930s, the main efforts of architects were transferred from exploratory design to real design - buildings and structures that were supposed to begin construction in the very near future.

Constructivism, which received all the features of the architectural style in the late 1920s, brought world fame to our country, made it a leader in the development of architecture, made the most important formative contribution to modern architecture at an early stage in the formation of a new approach to residential architecture of the future.

List of used literature

1. "Din-Bom" - heard here and there // Evening Petersburg. - 1992. - May 27
2. "Tear of Socialism" // St. Petersburg Vedomosti. - 1996. - October 12
3. Avant-garde in the culture of the twentieth century (1900-1930): Theory. Story. Poetics: In 2 books. / [ed. Yu.N. Girin]. - M., 2010
4. Aninsky L.A. Olga Bergolts: "I am ... a Leningrad widow" /Text/: from the cycle "Ambush Regiment" / L.A. Aninsky // Neva. - 2005. - No. 6.

Architecture of Moscow 1910-1935 / Komech A.I. , Bronovitskaya A. Yu., Bronovitskaya N. N. - M .: Art - XXI century, 2012. - S. 225-232. - 356 p.

Bocharov Yu. P., Khan-Magomedov S. O. Nikolay Milyutin. - M.: Architecture-S, 2007. - 180 p.

1. Bylinkin N.P. History of Soviet architecture 1917-1954. - M. 1985
2. Vaytens A.G. Constructivist architecture in Leningrad: ideas and results // One Hundred Years of Studying Architecture in Russia: Collection of Scientific Papers. - St. Petersburg: Institute. Repin RAH, 1995.

Vasiliev N. Yu. , Ovsyannikova E. B. , Vorontsova T. A. Residential building of the Council of People's Commissars and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee // Vasiliev N. Yu., Ovsyannikova E. B., Vorontsova T. A., Tukanov A. V., Tukanov M. A., Panin O. A. Architecture of Moscow during the NEP and the First Five-Year Plan / Edition idea: Enver Kuzmin; The concept of the publication, the text of the preface: Nikolai Vasiliev, Elena Ovsyannikova. - M.: ABCdesign, 2014.

1. Evening Moscow. - 1932. - 3 April.

Revival of the commune<#"justify">Application

LIST OF PROJECTS AND COMPLETED BUILDINGS OF EXPERIMENTAL RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE IN MOSCOW AND LENINGRAD IN THE 1920s - EARLY 1930s

COMPETITIONS

1.Competition for the design of a typical collective dwelling for the development of a suburban area of ​​Petrograd. 1921.

2.Competition for construction projects of two residential quarters in Moscow with demonstration houses for workers. 1922.

.Competition of residential buildings with apartments for a working family living in a separate economy. Organizer: Moscow City Council. 1925.

.Competition for the project of a residential building adapted both for single workers and for working families that do not lead a separate economy. Organizer: Moscow City Council. 1926.

.Friendly competition for a draft design of a residential building for workers. Organizer: Association of Contemporary Architects (OSA) and the magazine "Modern Architecture". 1926-1927.

6.Competition for the design of a hostel for students of the Communist University of the National Minorities of the West in Moscow. 1929.

7.All-Union interuniversity competition for a student house-commune for 1000 people for Leningrad. Organizer: scientific and technical student society of the Leningrad Institute of Municipal Construction (LIKS). 1929-1930.

8.Competition for the Green City project, Moscow. 1929-1930.

9.Internal friendly competition for a draft design of a communal house. Organizer: Mosoblzhilsoyuz. 1930.

.Closed competition for the design of the complex on Krasnaya Presnya in Moscow. 1932.

UNIMPLEMENTED PROJECTS OF BUILDINGS AND COMPLEXES

1.N. Ladovsky. Communal house. Experimental project. Organization Zhivskulptarch. 1920.

2.V. Krinsky. Communal house. Experimental project. Organization Zhivskulptarch. 1920.

.G. Mapu. Communal house. Experimental project. Organization Zhivskulptarch. 1920.

.L. Beteeva. Project of a house for the housing association VHUTEMAS. Workshop of A. Vesnin. 1925.

.F. Revenko. Project of a house for the housing association VHUTEMAS. Workshop of A. Vesnin. 1925.

.A. Urmaev. Project of a house for the housing association VHUTEMAS. Workshop of A. Vesnin. 1925.

.A. Zaltsman. Project of a house for the housing association VHUTEMAS. Workshop of A. Vesnin. 1925.

.I. Voices. Housing and office building of the "Electro" cooperative. 1925.

.N. Marnikov. Experimental project. 1927.

.N. Markovnikov. Pilot project of a two-storey communal house. 1927.

.V. Voeikov, A. Samoilov. House-commune - a hostel for 300 people. Commissioned by the Committee for Assistance to Workers' Housing Construction of the RSFSR. 1927.

.L. Zalesskaya. Development of typical residential sections for municipal construction. VKHUTEMAS. Workshop N. Ladovsky. 1927.

.A. Mashinsky. Development of typical residential sections for municipal construction. VKHUTEMAS. Workshop of A. Vesnin. 1927.

.I. Voices. The project of a residential building of the cooperative "Novkombyt". 1928.

.Typification section of the Stroykom of the RSFSR. The project of a communal house with cells of the E1 type. 1928

.Typification section of the Stroykom of the RSFSR. The project of a communal house with apartments A2, A3. 1928

.Typification section of the Stroykom of the RSFSR. Project of a communal house based on cell type F. 1928

.A. Silchenkov. The project of a communal house with cantilever overhanging living rooms. 1928.

.Z. Rosenfeld. The project of a communal house for the Proletarsky district of Moscow. 1929.

.M. Barshch, V. Vladimirov. Community house project. 1929.

.N. Kuznetsov. Community house project. MVTU. 1929.

.V. Sapozhnikova. The project of the house-commune in Leningrad. 1929.

.G. Klyunkov, M. Prokhorova. Semi-ring semi-detached house. VHUIEIN. Workshop of K. Melnikov. 1929-1930.

.F. Belostotskaya, Z. Rosenfeld. The project of a communal house for the Baumansky district of Moscow. 1930.

.S. Pokshishevsky. The project of a communal house for Leningrad. 1930.

.A. Burov, G. Kirillov. The project of a hostel for students of the Mining Institute in Moscow. 1930.

.A. Smolnitsky. Experimental project of a transitional type house. 1930.

.O. Wutke. Experimental project of a communal house. 1930-1931.

CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS AND COMPLEXES

1.B. Venderov. Settlement of the cooperative partnership "Dukstroy", Moscow. 1924-1925.

2.A. Golubev. Housing and office building - Kozhsindicate House on Chistoprudny Boulevard. Moscow. 1925-1927.

.M. Ginzburg, V. Vladimirova. Gsstrakh residential building on the street. Malaya Bronnaya. Moscow. 1926-1927.

.B. Velikovsky. Residential building of the State Insurance Committee on Durnovsky Lane. Moscow. 1926-1927.

.A. Fufaev. Residential building of the cooperative "Dukstroy" on the Leningrad highway. Moscow. 1927-1928.

.G. Mapu. House-commune in the 4th Syromyatnichesky Lane. Moscow. 1927-1930

.B. Iofan, D. Iofan. Residential complex on Bersenevskaya embankment. Moscow. 1927-1931.

.G. Wolfenzon, S. Leontovich, A. Barulin. House-commune on the street. Khavskoy. Moscow. 1928-1929.

.B. Shatnev. Former residential building of the Office of the Moscow-Kursk Railway on the street. Earthworks. Moscow. 1928-1929.

.A. Samoilov. Residential building of the cooperative of scientists and teachers on the street. Dmitrievsky. Moscow. 1928-1930

.M. Ginzburg, I. Milinis. Residential building of Narkomfin on Novinsky Boulevard. Moscow. 1928-1930.

.N. Ladovsky. Cooperative residential building on the street. Tverskaya. Moscow. 1928-1931

residential architecture

The history of architecture begins with the development of the dwelling.

For the first period of pre-class society, the main is the appropriating character of the economy and the absence of a producing economy. Man collects the natural products of nature and engages in hunting, which, over time, comes to the fore more and more.

The cave was the oldest dwelling of a man who originally used natural caves. This housing differed little from the housing of higher animals. Then a man began to make a fire at the entrance to the cave in order to protect the entrance and warm its inside, and later began to wall up the entrance to the cave with an artificial wall. The next stage of great importance was the appearance of artificial caves. In those areas where there were no caves, a person used natural holes in the soil, dense trees, etc. for living. The form of a half-cave, called "abri sous roche", which consists of an overhanging rock - roof, is also interesting.

Rice. 1. Image of tents in the caves of primitive man. Spain and France

Along with the cave, another form of human habitation appears very early - a tent. Images of the oldest round tents on the inner surfaces of the caves have come down to us (Fig. 1). There is a dispute about what the "signes tectiformes" depict in the form of a triangle with a vertical stick in the center. The question arises whether this central vertical stick can be considered as an image of a standing pole on which the entire tent rests, since this pole is not visible from the outside when approaching the tent. However, such an assumption is no longer valid, since the visual art of primitive man was not naturalistic. Undoubtedly, we have before us an image, as it were, of a section of round tents made of branches or animal skins. Sometimes these tents are grouped in two. Some of these drawings suggest that perhaps they depict already square huts with straight, light walls, somewhat inclined inward or outward. In a number of drawings, one can make out the inlet and the folds of the tent cover on the ribs and corners. Tents and huts served only as shelters during summer hunting expeditions, while the cave remained, as before, the main dwelling, especially in winter. Man has not yet built a permanent dwelling on the surface of the earth.

Rice. 2. Painting in the cave of primitive man. Spain

Rice. 3. Painting in the cave of primitive man. Spain

Is it possible to classify the first caves and tents of the era of pre-class society as works of art? Is this not only practical construction? Of course, practical motives were decisive in the creation of caves and tents. But they undoubtedly already contain elements of primitive ideology. In this regard, the painting that covers the walls of the caves is especially important (Fig. 2 and 3). It is distinguished by unusually lively images of animals, given in a few strokes in a very generalized and vivid way. You can not only recognize animals, but also determine their breed. These images were called impressionistic and compared with the painting of the late 19th century. Then they noticed that some animals are depicted with pierced arrows. The painting of primitive man has a magical character. Depicting the deer, which he was going to hunt, already pierced by an arrow, the man thought that in this way he really takes possession of the deer and subjugates it to himself. It is possible that the primitive man shot at the images of animals on the walls of his cave for the same purpose. But the elements of the ideological concept are contained, apparently, rife only in the painting of the cave, but also in the architectural form of caves and tents. When creating caves and tents, the beginnings of two opposite methods of architectural thinking appeared, which later began to play a very important role in the history of architecture. The architectural form of the cave is based on negative space, the architectural form of the tent is based on positive space. The space of the cave was obtained as a result of the removal of a certain amount of material, the space of the tent - by piling up material in the space of nature. In this regard, Frobenius's observations on the architecture of the savages of North Africa are very important. Frobenius distinguishes two large cultural circles in the areas he surveyed. Some savages build their dwellings by digging into the ground, others live in light huts on the surface of the earth (Fig. 4). It is remarkable that the negative and positive architecture of individual tribes correspond to different forms of life and different religious beliefs. Frobenius' conclusions are very interesting, but require careful verification and explanation. The material relating to this problem has not yet been studied enough, the whole question is still obscure and has not been developed. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that, along with the dominant practical moment, elements of ideology have already appeared in the contrast between caves and tents.

Caves and tents complemented each other in the architecture of the pre-class society of the most ancient period. The primitive man at times left the cave into the space of nature and lived in a tent, and then again took refuge in the cave. His spatial representations were determined by the space of nature, which passes into the space of the cave.

The second period of development of pre-class society is characterized by the development of agriculture and settlement. For the history of architecture, this time marks a very big turning point, which is associated with the appearance of a settled house. Positive architecture dominates - light structures on the surface of the earth, but mainly in dugouts, dwellings more or less dug into the ground, echoes of cave perception continue to live.

Let us imagine, as clearly as possible, the psychology of a nomad. For him, there is still no consistent differentiation of spatial and temporal images. Moving on the surface of the earth from place to place, the nomad lives in the “spatio-temporal” element, in which the impressions he receives from the outside world are dissolved. And in the architecture of a nomad, there are still very few spatial moments, which are all closely merged with temporal moments. The cave contains an inner space which is its core. But in the cave, the axis of man's movement inward, out of nature, is also fundamental. A person goes deep into the rock, burrows into the thickness of the earth, and this movement in time is closely intertwined with spatial images that are just beginning to take shape and take shape. The temporary tent contains the germs of spatial forms in architecture. It already has both internal space and external volume. At the same time, the tent has a very clear shape, developed over millennia. Nevertheless, in the tent, only a conditional allocation of spatial and volumetric forms from the spatio-temporal elements of nature is given. The nomad moves, spreads the tent, and then after a while he folds it again and moves on. Due to this, both the inner space and the outer volume of the tent are deprived of the sign of constancy, which is so essential for spatial architectural images.

In the settled house, however light and short-lived it may be, the inner space and the outer volume have become permanent. This is the moment of real birth in the history of the architecture of spatial forms. In a settled house, the inner space and the outer volume have already fully formed as independent compositional elements.

Nevertheless, in the settled residential architecture of the era of pre-class society, spatial forms are clearly transitory. These structures are constantly subject to very easy destruction, for example, from fire, defeat during the invasion of enemies, natural disasters, etc. Stone structures are stronger than wooden or adobe huts. Yet for both, their lightness and fragility are typical. This leaves a significant imprint on the nature of the internal space and the external volume of the settled dwelling of the primitive man and to a large extent makes it related to the nomad's tent.

The round house is the oldest form of the settled house (Fig. 5). The round shape clearly indicates its connection with the tent, from which it actually originated. Round houses were common in the East, for example in Syria, Persia, and in the West, for example in France, England and Portugal. They sometimes reach very large sizes. Round houses with a diameter of up to 3.5–5.25 m are known, and in large round houses there is often a pillar in the middle that supports the roof. Often, round houses end at the top with a domed top, which in different cases has a different shape and was formed by closing the walls above the interior space. A round hole was often left in the dome, which simultaneously served as a source of light and a chimney. This form was preserved for a long time in the East; the Assyrian Village depicted on the relief from Kuyundzhik consists of just such houses (Fig. 136).

In its further development, the round house turns into a rectangular house.

Rice. 4. Residential buildings of African savages. According to Frobenius

Rice. 5. Houses of modern African savages

Rice. 6. Kyrgyz yurt

Rice. 7. Kyrgyz house

In the Mediterranean region, the round one-room house has been preserved for a very long time, and still simple, round houses are still being built in Syria and the version. This is mainly due to the fact that the building material in these areas was almost exclusively stone, from which it is very easy to build a structure that is round in plan, which also applies to adobe houses. In the wooded areas of Central and Northern Europe, the transition to a one-room rectangular house took place very early and very quickly. Long logs laid horizontally require a rectangular plan outline. Attempts to build a round house out of wood using horizontally laid logs lead, first of all, to the transformation of a round plan into a multifaceted one (Fig. 6 and 7). In the future, the material and construction lead to a decrease in the number of faces, until they are brought to four, so that a rectangular one-room house is obtained. Its middle is occupied in the north by a hearth, above which there is a hole in the roof for the exit of smoke. In front of the narrow entrance side of such a house, an open front hall with an entrance is arranged, formed by the continuation of the long side walls beyond the line of the front wall.

The resulting architectural type; which subsequently played a huge role in the development of Greek architecture, in the addition of the Greek temple, is called megaron (Greek term). In northern Europe, only the foundations of such houses have been found by excavation (Fig. 8 and 9). Burial urns found in large numbers during various excavations (Fig. 10), designed to store the ashes of the burned dead, usually reproduce the shape of residential buildings and make it possible to clearly imagine the external appearance of a settled primitive house. The imitation of the form of a residential house in funerary urns is explained by the view of the urn as the “house of the deceased”. Urns usually quite accurately reproduce the shape of crowbars. So, on some of them, a thatched roof is clearly visible, sometimes quite steep, tapering upwards and forming a smoke hole there. Sometimes there is a gable roof, under the slopes of which triangular holes are left that serve as chimneys. In one case, two round light holes are shown on each of the long walls of the house, arranged in a row. Of interest are the horizontal beams crowning the gable roof with human or animal heads at the ends.

Rice. 8. House of the era of pre-class society near Berlin

Rice. 9. House of the era of pre-class society in Schussenried. Germany

Piled dwellings (Figs. 11 and 12) are a variation of the settled habitation of primitive man, which are mainly associated with fishing as the main occupation and are located in more or less large settlements along the shores of lakes. Perhaps the prototypes of pile settlements are buildings and settlements on rafts, the remains of which were apparently found in Denmark. Piled buildings continued to be built for a very long time, and piled settlements reached their greatest development in the era of the use of bronze tools, when they were erected using pointed stakes that could not be hewn with stone tools. In general, the design of a tree begins only from the Bronze Age.

Rice. 10. Funeral urn from the era of pre-class society in the form of a house from Aschersleben. Germany

Settled wooden houses of the era of pre-class society were built not only with the help of horizontally laid, but also with the help of vertically placed logs. In the first case, vertical connections were used, and in the second, horizontal ones. In cases where the number of these connections increased significantly, a mixed technique was obtained.

Kikebusch, on the basis of his studies of the huge settlement of the pre-class society in Buch, in Germany, put forward a theory about the origin of the forms of Greek architecture (see Volume II) from the forms of settled housing of primitive man. Quikebusch pointed first of all to the megaron, all phases of development of which from a simple square to a rectangle with an open front and two columns on the front side were found in the north in the residential architecture of the era of pre-class society; then - on vertical ties attached to the walls of horizontal beams, as on prototypes of pilasters; finally - on the huts, surrounded by a canopy on pillars, as on the prototypes of the peripter.

Rice. 11. Reconstruction of a primitive pile settlement

The settled houses of primitive man form ensembles of villages. Separate isolated estates of farmers are very common. But more often there are settlements of irregular shape, which are characterized by a random arrangement of houses. Only sometimes rows of houses are observed, forming more or less regular streets. Sometimes settlements are surrounded by a fence. In some cases, there is an irregularly shaped square in the middle of the settlement. Rarely do villages have a larger public building; the purpose of such buildings remains unclear: perhaps they were buildings for meetings.

In the settled houses of the era of the tribal system, there is a desire to increase the capacity of the house and the number of internal premises, which leads to the formation of a rectangular multi-room house.

Already in one-room houses, especially in rectangular ones, internal complication is early observed, associated with a tendency to separate the kitchen from the upper room. Then there are houses in which families live (reaching a size of 13?17 m, for example, in Frauenberg near Marburg). It is very important that with the increase in the interior of the settled house and the number of rooms, the architecture of the era of pre-class society develops in two different ways, which have a common starting point and a common end point of development. But between the beginning and the end of this evolution, architectural thought moves in two completely different ways, which are of significant fundamental importance. Two monuments give a clear picture of this development.

Rice. 12. House of the modern savage

Rice. 13. Funeral urn from the era of pre-class society in the form of a house from Fr. Melos. Munich

Funeral urn from Fr. Melos in the Mediterranean (Fig. 13 and 14) shows the first path that the architects followed. Interpretation of the urn from Fr. Melos as a reproduction of housing is confirmed by the view of the primitive man on the funeral urn as the house of the deceased, and this certainly refutes the proposed interpretation of it as a barn for storing grain. The exterior design of the house entirely confirms that a multi-room residential building is depicted. In the type of house reproduced in the urn with Fr. Melos, the architect, when increasing the number of rooms, went by comparing several round cells, by summing up, adding to each other a number of one-room round houses. The dimensions and shape of the primary round cell are preserved. Round rooms depicted in an urn with Fr. Melos houses are arranged around a central rectangular courtyard. The shape of the courtyard is reflected in the shape of the house as a whole: in the complicated curvilinear outer contour, the simple outlines of the future rectangular multi-room house are outlined. Connecting a number of identical round rooms in a row is associated with great inconvenience both from the point of view of design and for their practical use. Very early there was a tendency to simplify the complexity of the plan, which was easily achieved by replacing round rooms with rectangular ones. As soon as this happened, the rectangular multi-room house took shape completely.

Rice. 14. Plan of the burial urn shown in fig. 13

Rice. 15. Oval house in Hamaisi-Sitea on about. Crete

House in Hamaisi-Sitea on about. Krite (Fig. 15), which has an oval shape, shows a second path, completely different from the first, along which the architects also went, trying to increase the residential building. In contrast to the summation of many identical round cells in an urn with o. Melos, in an oval house on about. Krite took only one such cell, which is greatly enlarged in size and subdivided into many rooms of very irregular segmental shape. And in this case, the middle of the house is occupied by a rectangular courtyard. Here he begins to subjugate the outer outlines of the building: the oval is a transitional step from a circle to a rectangle. In some of the rooms, which are almost perfectly rectangular in shape, there is a clear natural tendency to overcome the random asymmetric outlines of individual rooms. Oval house with about. Krita in its further development leads to the same many-roomed rectangular house with a courtyard in the middle as the urn from Fr. Melos. This type formed the basis of the house in Egyptian and Babylonian-Assyrian architecture, where we will later trace its further development and complication.

The two paths of development of a one-room round house of the era of pre-class society into a multi-room rectangular house, which I have just traced, indicate that at this stage in the development of a residential building, the architectural and artistic moment already plays a large role in the architectural composition and in its development.

The fortifications of the era of pre-class society have not been studied enough yet. These include mainly earthen ramparts and wooden fences.

From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures XXXIII-LXI) author Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

Residential arable land and emptiness Adjacent arable plots of neighboring villages, according to the law, were to be fenced off on both sides “in half” to avoid grass damage. Each peasant household had its own special land plot with a corresponding meadow space.

author Woerman Karl

From the book History of Art of All Times and Peoples. Volume 2 [European Art of the Middle Ages] author Woerman Karl

From the book 100 famous monuments of architecture author Pernatiev Yury Sergeevich

Le Corbusier's "residential unit" in Marseilles The architecture of modern times, with its rich arsenal of high-tech materials, provided architects with an excellent opportunity to reveal their creative individuality, opened the way for bold experiments. Talented

From the book Alexander III and his time author Tolmachev Evgeny Petrovich

Architecture Architecture is also a chronicle of the world: it speaks when both songs and legends are already silent…N. V. Gogol, let me remind you that architecture is the art of designing and building objects that shape the spatial environment for life and activity

From the book On the noisy streets of the city author Belovinsky Leonid Vasilievich

author Zimin Igor Viktorovich

From the book Court of Russian Emperors. Encyclopedia of life and life. In 2 vols. Volume 2 author Zimin Igor Viktorovich

From the book Court of Russian Emperors. Encyclopedia of life and life. In 2 vols. Volume 2 author Zimin Igor Viktorovich

author Petrakova Anna Evgenievna

Topic 15 Architecture and fine arts of the Old and Middle Babylonian periods. Architecture and fine arts of Syria, Phenicia, Palestine in the II millennium BC. e Chronological framework of the Old and Middle Babylonian periods, the rise of Babylon during

From the book Art of the Ancient East: study guide author Petrakova Anna Evgenievna

Topic 16 Architecture and visual arts of the Hittites and Hurrians. Architecture and art of Northern Mesopotamia at the end of II - beginning of I millennium BC. e Features of Hittite architecture, types of structures, construction equipment. Hatussa architecture and issues

From the book Art of the Ancient East: study guide author Petrakova Anna Evgenievna

Topic 19 Architecture and fine arts of Persia in the 1st millennium BC. e.: architecture and art of Achaemenid Iran (559-330 BC) General characteristics of the political and economic situation in Iran in the 1st millennium BC. e., the rise to power of Cyrus from the Achaemenid dynasty in

Against the backdrop of the large housing construction launched in the post-war years, noticeable successes were achieved in the field of residential architecture in Yerevan. Along with some improvement in the residential sections, the external architecture of the residential buildings has also improved.

The architects engaged in the design of residential buildings and the architectural and design workshops of the Department of Architecture of the Yerevan City Council worked on the improved residential sections for mass construction, where, through competitions, the two-three-apartment section proposed by the architect A. Terznbashyan was recognized as the most acceptable, widely used in the housing construction of Yerevan in 1949-1950.

Concern for the further improvement of the quality of the residential sections continued to be a paramount task for the architects of the republic. Competitions organized by the Union of Soviet Architects for the best residential sections and a wide discussion of the presented projects mobilized the attention and creative efforts of architects to a significant extent to solve this important problem.

Hard work of recent years could not but lead to positive results. In recent years, a number of standard sections have been developed for multi-storey urban-type residential buildings, in relation to the specific conditions of Armenia. A series of single-family residential houses of the estate type and two-three-story residential buildings for settlements and small towns of the Armenian SSR have also been approved.

Nevertheless, it should be recognized that the standard sections listed above have a number of significant shortcomings, which is why the further development of new, more advanced sections remains an urgent task for the architects of Soviet Armenia (Full House 5).

As a rule, residential sections of recent years have been characterized by some improvement in economic indicators and an increase in residential and usable space, as a result of which, along with the improvement in the living conditions of workers, the cost of residential buildings under construction has also decreased somewhat.

Until the forties, residential sections without through and corner ventilation were also allowed to be implemented. Life has shown the unsuitability of such sections for the climatic conditions of the south.

After the war, with rare exceptions, as a rule, two or three-room apartments are designed with through ventilation.

In the conditions of the south, through ventilation and the two-sided arrangement of rooms in the apartment provide the possibility of alternate use of them at different times of the day and year.

Since 1945, a significant number of residential buildings have been built on Lenin, Stalin, Mikoyan and Ordzhonikidze avenues, on the streets of Amiryan, Abovyan, Marks, Baghramyan, Aygestan and others. In most cases, their layout is satisfactory, and the external architecture truly reflects the image of residential scrap.

Among the houses built on Stalin Avenue, the residential building of the Yerevan City Council (architect G. A. Tamanyan) stands out with a carefully thought-out layout. However, some excesses are allowed in the architecture of its facade.

Residential buildings built by the Yerevan City Council according to the project of architects G.A. Tamanyan and M.M. Sogomomyan on opposite corner sections at the intersection of Stalin Avenue with Krasnoarmeiskaya Street, form a single architectural ensemble; from a town-planning point of view, they are well placed. Without denying the correct compositional idea of ​​the architecture of these buildings as a whole, we note that their forms suffer from a certain heaviness, which makes their external architecture excessively monumental. In the layout of apartments, especially those located in the corner sections of buildings, some shortcomings can be noted.

The residential building of railway workers on Mikoyan Avenue (architect O. T. Babadzhanyan) is successful in terms of composition, layout of apartments, architecture of the facade, as well as in terms of the structures used. balconies, etc. An interesting, on the whole, cheerful architecture of the facade was found.Despite the lack of clarity of individual details, this residential building, with its scale and overall composition, fits well into the highway ensemble.

The residential building built by the Yerevan City Council according to the project of the architect O. A. Hakobyan on the same avenue is distinguished by its harmony and good drawing of the facade elements. Lateral risalits, the proportions of which are well found, as well as a somewhat receding middle part of the facade, create a general composition, which, together with loggias repeating metrically in the upper part, well emphasizes the significance of the highway. The noted qualities, along with the convenient layout of the apartments, allow us to consider this house one of the best among those built in the post-war period.

Here, on Mikoyan Avenue, new residential buildings were built according to the designs of architects V. L. Belubekyan, A. Terzibashyan, G. G. Aghababyan and others. With a convenient layout and different interpretations of the image of a residential building, these buildings do not have the high quality of external architecture necessary for an important city highway, and the small volumes of some of them significantly violate the scale of the highway development.

The residential building of the Ministry of Public Utilities of the Armenian SSR on Lenin Avenue (architect 3. T. Bakhshinyan) should be considered a creative success of the architecture of this period. The external architecture of the house is expressive. The author succeeded by simple means to achieve the appearance of the image of a residential building, showing artistic flair and creative invention.

The facade is dissected in pleasant proportions, openings, loggias, balconies and other elements of the house are well drawn. Unfortunately, the layout of the apartments in this house is not without some shortcomings.

Approximately the same qualities are distinguished by the residential building of Zaktsvetmet workers built according to the project of the same author on Stalin Avenue.

We have already mentioned the residential buildings built on Amiryan Street between Lenin Square and Stalin Avenue. As a result of the common scale and color harmony, the impression of unity, integrity of the entire complex of these houses is created. However, it should be noted that their architecture clearly suffers from sketchiness, poor visibility of details, and in the residential building of the Ministry of Building Materials Industry of the Armenian SSR (architect K. A. Hakobyan), the appropriateness of the court-doner on this very important section of the street is questionable. In addition, its external architecture is distinguished by excessive decorativeness reaching pretentiousness, which by no means contributes to architectural expressiveness. Due to this and partly the color of the stone used for facing, this house breaks away from the general building of the street, to some extent violating its ensemble integrity.

Located at the beginning of Baghramyan Street, the five-story building of the Yerevan City Council (architects G. G. Aghababyan and E. A. Tigranyan) is one of the largest residential buildings built in Yerevan after the war. The authors, taking into account the important location of the building, managed to give the appropriate expressiveness to its architecture. At the foot of the entire building is a high basement floor reserved for shops. The rod passing over the plinth pleasantly dismembers the facade. Loggias stretched out over two floors and completed with double pediments, as well as balconies and other elements of the facade, significantly enrich the external architecture and give lightness to the forms.

Interesting and original is the architecture of the residential building built here, at the beginning of the street, according to the project of the architect A. T. Ter-Avetikyan. Its facade is decorated with decorative arcade on thin semi-columns. The same motif in the form of three deep loggias is repeated on the facade in the corner part of the building, which has the outlines of a concave curve and goes to the intersection of Baghramyan and Moskovskaya streets.

Among the best houses is also the residential building of Gyumush HPP, located on one of the corner sections of the beginning of Baghramyan Street (architect G. A. Tamanyan). The facades of the house, lined with basalt in the basement and yellow Ani tuff in the upper floors, are enriched with spots of arched loggias well traced in shape and proportion against the background of smooth walls and sparsely spaced openings. The restrained monumentality determined by the purpose of the building is combined in its appearance with the features of comfort and warmth, characteristic of the image of a residential building. Its architecture as a whole and in detail is based on the desire to use the motifs of national architecture, creatively rethought and found a place in a new single composition that meets modern requirements.

Built on Lermontov Street according to the project of architect Z. T. Bakhshinyan, the complex of residential buildings combines into a single architectural organism three independent buildings: the residential building of the Hudfond of the USSR, raised in relation to its wings, located in the middle part of the complex, and the residential scrap of Electrotrust, occupying the right wing of the complex.

The large length and scale, well-drawn flying and proportions in general have a positive effect on the external appearance of the residential complex, giving its architecture a certain significance. However, it is impossible not to immediately notice that from an urban planning point of view, the expediency of emphasizing a part of the building by raising it by one floor is questionable.

Such a technique, perhaps, would be more appropriate to apply in relation to the corner to emphasize the intersection of two important streets - Teryan and Lermontov streets.

All three buildings are characterized by an expedient layout of apartments.

The residential building of the USSR Hudfond conveniently combines the residential apartments of artists and sculptors with their workshops, many of which are located at the apartments. The external architecture of the side wings of the residential complex is laconic and consonant with the architecture of the middle part. The facade of this house, due to the plastic means used, somewhat departs from the image of a residential building, expressing rather the character of a public building. This interpretation of the facade is partly due to the author's desire to enter into an ensemble with the building of the Opera and Ballet Theater located opposite, as well as to reveal the complex purpose of the building.

The residential building of the Ministry of Local Industry of the Armenian SSR, built on the corner section of Lenin Avenue and Teryan Street (author architect G. G. Aghababyan), is distinguished by the novelty of external architecture. On the facade of this house, the author uses the polychromy of stones as the main means of architectural and artistic expression. Wide, finely ornamented frames around the doorways, made of white noem taking some stone, along with the crowning cornice of the same stone, are clearly drawn against the pink background of the walls of the residential building, built of Artik tuff.

In a good combination of colors of stones and metal railings of balconies, careful drawing of all elements of the facade and in an interesting solution of its architecture as a whole, one can feel the author's desire for fresh motives to display the appearance of a residential building.

The residential building at the corner of Stalin Avenue and Mravyan Street (architect G. A. Tamanyan) is characterized by a well-thought-out layout of apartments and somewhat weighted forms of external architecture.

Source of information: book “Architecture of Soviet Armenia. Brief essay". Harutyunyan V.M., Oganesyan K.L. Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR. Yerevan, 1955

The peculiarity of construction in the existing urban areas, old and new, is associated with the need to take into account a much more complex set of external factors than in the development of free territories. In the 70s, large complexes appeared associated with the reconstruction of significant parts of the city. Among them, we will name first of all the development of Marxistskaya Street (architects V. Stepanov, R. Melkumyan, L. Olbinsky, Ya-Studnikov, started in 1974). This street, lying between two important squares - Taganskaya and Krestyanskaya Zastava - connects Volgogradsky Prospekt, one of the main thoroughfares of Moscow, with the central massif. A number of administrative, industrial and public buildings have been created here - the buildings of the 1st Moscow Watch Factory, design institutes, the solemnly symmetrical building of the Zhdanovsky district committee of the CPSU. And yet the general tonality of the ensemble of the street is set by residential buildings, their impressive masses with large articulations and a strong rhythm of facades. The development on the left side of the street is especially clearly organized, dominated by three 16-storey eight-section houses of frame-panel construction. Their U-shaped hulls protrude towards the highway. Separated by large gaps, they are perceived as gigantic monoliths, commensurate with a wide highway and distant prospects opening from the Peasant Outpost Square.

The large rhythm of the facades is determined by vertical ledges connected by loggias. Ribbons of balcony railings, "running around" the corners of the houses on the top three floors, form, as it were, a frieze, emphasizing the integrity of the impressive volume. The unifying element is also the protruding first floors, where trade enterprises are located - they are perceived as a stylobate, above which residential floors rise. The combination of white and lilac colors emphasizes the relief of architecture. A characteristic, memorable composition is created from standard elements, without the use of individual products.

Speaking about the architecture of Moscow in the 70s, one cannot ignore the reconstruction of the central quarters. The significance of this work is determined not only by the onset of a shortage of free land - here the problem of the relationship between the old and the new, the search for links between the traditional and the modern, a problem that has taken a significant place among the trends in culture characteristic of the decade, arose with particular acuteness. The experience of building in these special conditions had an undoubted influence on the development of Moscow housing architecture in general.

Among the successful examples of the combination of new and old in the context of reconstruction, we can name the quarter of the old Arbat, enclosed between Starokonyushenny Lane and Myaskovsky Street (architects A Shapiro, I. Sviridova). The new buildings, which were introduced into the existing development, received plastic volumes, greatly reduced in comparison with those familiar to new houses. Due to this, their scale turned out to be quite close to that characteristic of existing buildings. The variable number of floors - from 6 at the exit to the red lines of lanes to 10-11 in the highest part, going into the depths of the block - also naturally connected with the surroundings and provided a picturesque silhouette. Light brick was used for the house, which provided that weighty materiality that remains a common property of the architecture of old Moscow and was somehow lost in large-panel housing construction. Ultimately, the new building turned out to be related to the environment not due to artificially introduced “retro” motifs, but due to the special structure of its composition.

The reconstruction of Bronny streets is also interesting, where many new inclusions have entered the existing building. A residential complex with a public service block has been introduced into the perimeter building of the quarter on Bolshaya Bronnaya between Ostuzheva Street and Bogoslovsky Lane. Here, however, architects, bound by the existing layout, could achieve the necessary plasticity and unity with the scale of the surrounding buildings only by complicating the facades elongated in a line, creating deep loggias, rectangular bay windows, and protruding volumes of vestibules in front of the stairs. The plane of the facade wall is divided by window frames; a combination of bricks of various colors is used. The brick building of the kindergarten in the quarter adjacent to Malaya Bronnaya (1980, architects L. Zorin, G. Davidenko) has a complex volume with pitched roofs; an echo of the "post-modern" architecture that spread abroad in the 70s - a decorative arcade - is perceived quite natural in the environment in which the building is inscribed, as well as the arches of the entrances cutting through the brick facade.

In Starokonyushenny lane and on Bronnye streets, the architects who supplemented the existing building were not bound by the certainty of its stylistic characteristics. A task of a different kind arose during the construction of a new house at 37 Gorky Street (1976-1977, architects Z. Rosenfeld, V. Orlov, D. Alekseev). Here it was necessary to take into account not only the general character of the surroundings, but also that very definite stylistic characteristic that the building of the street received during the years of its reconstruction. The new nine-story building filled the gap between the seven and six-story buildings, to which it is connected via six-story transition elements. The authors used the three-part division of the house into a foundation, a “body” and a wedding, characteristic of Gorky Street, repeating such characteristic features as a high first floor lined with polished granite, crowning a cornice of a traditional pattern. Softly protruding bay windows, which give plasticity to the facade, and loggias alternating with them, completed with arches, also bring the house closer to the usual stylistic features of Gorky Street. Traditional white stone cladding. The architects did not strive for complete novelty, but for a new variation of the familiar (it seems, however, that the cornice, which seems not large enough for a high facade, does not fully meet the criteria for the composition that they adopted). The plan of the house is such that stairs, kitchens, and only one room each in three-room apartments face the noisy Gorky Street. Significantly reduces noise in dwellings and triple glazing of windows.

Residential buildings, usually large, multi-storey, have a special character, with the help of which the construction of residential complexes, begun in the late 50s and 60s, is completed. As a rule, when introducing such houses into the system, architects sought to correct the shortcomings of the existing environment - its monotony, spinelessness - and used strong architectural and compositional means for this. Characteristic brick 12-storey building, stretching along Nakhimovsky Prospekt between Sevastopol Prospekt and Nagornaya Street for a good quarter of a kilometer (architects V. Voskresensky and others, 1977). The façade facing the highway, with its endless horizontals of continuous loggias, did not receive the power of expressiveness that the authors probably aspired to, cutting off the inexpressive five-story building of an earlier time. However, the northern facade of the house is quite impressive, which is dissected by strongly protruding rounded volumes of stairwells. A semblance of a powerful colonnade was formed

To bring contrast and diversity into the building system, single-section brick houses are often used. An example is two interconnected brick houses of a very complex plan of 14 floors, standing inside the quarter on Bolshaya Cherkizovsky Street (1976, architects E. Nesterov, F. Tarnopol, T. Pankina, Sh. Agladze). Their authors deliberately contrasted the elementary nature of the surrounding buildings and its hard edges with a very complex volume, even somewhat crushed, with softly rounded corners and garlands of curvilinear balconies. The complexity of the plan served here to create a variety of options for well-organized apartments.

The 16-storey building at 3 Seregina Street (architects A. Meyerson, E. Podolskaya), in contrast to the building on Bolshaya Cherkizovskaya, is deliberately angular, crushed by crepes and sharply protruding ends of the transverse walls; the overall impression is enhanced by the contrast of their dark red brick with the white railings of the balconies and loggias. Due to its specificity, this house no less influences the environment than the building on Cherkizovskaya.

The nature of a large segment of Leninsky Prospekt was determined by a group of three one-section frame-panel houses 24 floors high (1979, architects Y. Belopolsky, R. Kananin, T. Terentyeva). At the basis of the sharp specificity of their appearance lies the consistently carried out principle of dismembering functions, singling out a special volume for each. In accordance with this principle, each house has two blocks of apartments, connected by a block of smaller section, where the elevators are located. Stairwells, placed on opposite sides of the house, also form special blocks. Such a grouping made it possible to isolate housing from communications and, at the same time, to vigorously emphasize the high-rise of the tower house, which was turned into a bundle of very slender verticals connected together. At the same time, each part of the dissected volume has a character that meets its purpose. Ultimately, the buildings, together with a convenient layout, received a memorable, expressive form, associated with rather subtle associations with the traditions of Soviet architecture of the 1920s. The rhythm of the verticals running through the entire group of tower buildings emphasizes the horizontal extent of the 16-storey building, composed of 24 sections; the house was built next to the towers according to the project of the same architects (1980-1982).

On Leninsky Prospekt, frontal buildings were formed from the towers. More characteristic, however, was the use of high-rise tower houses as single landmarks marking the key points of the urban structure. An example is the 25-storey building at the intersection of Marshal Zhukov Avenue with Narodnogo Opolcheniya and Mnevniki streets (1981, architect R. Sarukhanyan and others). The building has a central stiffening core made of monolithic reinforced concrete (it houses elevators) and prefabricated structures of its other parts. It is overlooked from all sides and therefore formed as a compact volume.

Groups of loggias on the rafters are the main architectural motif of its facades. These groups are placed in such a way as to give a special contrast to the facades facing more distant prospects - towards Serebryany Bor and the center. Despite the expressiveness of its vertical mass, which has good proportions, the house is not plastic enough and does not have a finish that could give completeness to its composition.

The 16-storey building at 34/36 Begovaya Street (1978, architects A. Meyerson, E. Podolskaya, M. Mostovoy, G. Klymenko) also occupied a special urban planning position. The house, as if opening the route of one of the important thoroughfares of the city, faces the vast expanses of the sports complex with its front. Its front is wide enough - almost 130 m - and, in order to save space in the cramped existing quarter, to give access to the green strip separating the house from the street, the building is raised, as it were, on a high table made of monolithic reinforced concrete, with powerful supports that seem to be firmly rooted in earth. The plan of the house is based on three wide nine-unit sections with an internal corridor radiating from the elevator hall. A staircase joins it through an open loggia, enclosed in a special volume that is brought out to the outside, oval in plan, which stands at some angle to the plane of the facade facing Begovaya Street. The apartments have a layout with a clear division into daily and intimate zones. The impressive massiveness of reinforced concrete forms is emphasized - a monolithic "trunk" and residential floors rising above it, having a prefabricated structure. The concrete railings of the balconies and the consoles that carry them are massive. The panels of the outer walls are hung in an unusual way - with an overlap, which should protect the horizontal joint between them from rainwater. At the same time, the panel wall revealed its weight, materiality, which is not perceptible with the usual way of combining panels. The house is polemically opposed to the apparent weightlessness of glass facades and the “non-materiality” of the panel walls that have been in vogue in recent years. The dark green facing tiles, together with the gray color of the concrete elements, underline the imposingness given to the building by the use of the plastic possibilities of the material.