In the early 30s. in the housing construction of the USSR there were serious changes. In previous years, new residential buildings were built mainly in pre-revolutionary working-class areas in order to eliminate the sharp difference between the center and the outskirts, and work was also carried out on the addition and reconstruction of old buildings scattered throughout the city. Construction in the 30s. new industrial enterprises were also determined by the construction of new large residential areas. In Kharkov, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Novosibirsk, Volgograd, dwellings, schools, preschool children's institutions, etc. were built in the immediate vicinity of industrial facilities.

The need for rapid resettlement required to accelerate the pace of construction, which was achieved by using the simplest building schemes and structures. Despite the monotonous methods of building these residential areas, insufficient landscaping and landscaping, the idea of ​​building residential areas with kindergartens and nurseries, schools and shops, laundries and other public service buildings was progressive and was further developed in the planning and development of residential areas.

In Leningrad and in new cities, such as Zaporozhye, Magnitogorsk, building was carried out on free territories. In Moscow, housing construction was mainly located on the reconstructed highways. Since the architecture of residential buildings began to determine the appearance of the central highways and new districts of the city, the attitude towards their architectural and spatial design has also changed. There was a need to significantly improve the type of mass residential building. The new building rules introduced in Moscow in 1932 (later these rules were used not only in Moscow, but also in other cities) provided for an increase in the area and height of residential and auxiliary premises, the installation of a bathroom in each apartment, and improvement of the equipment of household premises. Particular attention was paid to the external appearance of residential buildings, especially those located on the main streets and squares.

According to the new building rules, the living area of ​​apartments has increased: for two-room apartments from 30-35 to 35-40 m2, for three-room apartments from 40-45 to 60-65 m2 and for four-room apartments from 60-65 to 70 -75 m2. The smallest size of kitchens was determined at 6 m 2 (instead of 4.5 m 2). Accordingly, the size of the auxiliary premises was also increased. The height of the premises was set at 3.2 m.

For the first years of the period under review, the following ratio of apartments is typical: the main part (50-60%) were three-room apartments with an area of ​​​​45-55 m 2, 30% - two-room apartments with an area of ​​35-40 m 2 and 10-20% - four-room apartments with an area of ​​more than 60 m 2.

In large cities, after 1932, mainly multi-storey sectional brick houses with elevators and a two-apartment section were built.

45. Gorky. Avtozavodsky district. Quarter number 4. Architect. I. Golosov, 1936 General view, section plan

Based on the new building design rules in the workshops of the Moscow City Council, Gosproekt, Narkomtyazhprom and other design organizations designing new industrial centers, a a number of typical residential sections(1936-1937). In these sections, much attention was paid to the convenience of arranging the rooms depending on their purpose: the bedroom was located next to the bathroom, the common room was large and had access to a balcony or a loggia.

Improvement in the layout, equipment and decoration of apartments took place first in the construction of houses for specialists, and then was used in mass construction. The layout of these houses is based on a duplex section with apartments in three and four rooms (living area 47 and 69 m 2) (Fig. 44). All apartments are equipped with bathtubs located in the back of the apartment next to the bedroom. The kitchens located in the front of the apartment have a niche for a domestic worker.

Under the influence of Moscow and Leningrad architectural practice, the experience of designing and building residential buildings with two-apartment sections and 3-4-room apartments of a large area spread to other cities of the Union. For example, when building the 4th quarter of the Avtozavodsky district of Gorky (architect I. Golosov, 1936), 2-apartment sections with apartments in 3 and 4 rooms were also used (Fig. 45). The layout is based on the method of highlighting the front part of the apartment, grouped around the hallway. All service premises are located in the interior of the apartment. Sections in the residential building of the Baku Soviet were solved in a similar way (architects S. Dadashev, M. Useinov, 1938).

The increase in usable living space with a shortage of dwellings, however, led to the communal settlement of apartments with all its negative consequences.

In addition, the use of new standards has increased the cost of construction. All these problems were discussed at the First All-Union Conference of Builders.

Shortcomings in the design of residential buildings were also noted at the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Architects in 1937.

In 1938, the Construction Committee was established under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, which later headed the design and construction of residential and public buildings.

Due to the fact that, according to the master plan for the reconstruction of Moscow, the main highways, embankments and squares of the city were built up with residential buildings, their urban planning role has significantly increased. The number of storeys of residential buildings increased to 8, 10, and sometimes up to 14 floors. Based on the program developed by the Committee for Construction Affairs, the design of economical sections for the mass construction of multi-storey residential buildings was launched.

In order to create the possibility of settling apartments by one family, their area was reduced, the number of apartments facing one staircase increased to 4-6. In order to expand the practice of family settlement of apartments in 1938, their percentage was revised. For newly built residential buildings, the following ratio was established: two-room apartments - 60%, three-room apartments - 30% and one-room apartments - 10%. A modular system for designing residential sections was introduced, which significantly reduced the number of structural elements. The architects K. Alabyan, P. Blokhin, A. Saltsman, K. Dzhus, Z. Rosenfeld, S. Turgenev and many others took part in the development of new types of sections with four and six apartments overlooking one staircase (Fig. 46 , 47).

In the prewar years, a four-apartment residential section (architects P. Blokhin and A. Zaltsman) and a similar section for buildings above six floors with an elevator (architect Z. Rosenfeld and engineer I. Gokhbaum) * were widely used. In this section, the elevator was located on the longitudinal axis of the body. Sanitary facilities and bathrooms were located adjacent to two adjacent apartments, which made it possible to increase the depth of the building to 15.08 m. in this period. The layout of the residential section made room-by-room accommodation possible. The disadvantage of the project is that with the latitudinal orientation of the building, half of the apartments inevitably turned out to be facing north.

* Six-apartment section 1-1-2-2-3-3 - living area, respectively, 22.73, 46.7 and 66.3 m 2. The total living area of ​​the section is 271.46 m2.

The main features of the series of projects of residential sections were a set of apartments needed for resettlement, the possibility of blocking sections in the house, the common depth of the building, a single structural scheme, a single horizontal module.

The urgently needed increase in the pace of housing construction, possible with the maximum unification of the main structural dimensions for that time, could only be carried out with the transition to standard design of residential sections. 1939 was the last year when individual planning of apartments and sections was allowed for each house under construction. Since 1940, housing construction has firmly taken the path of building according to standard projects. Standard projects were supposed to reduce the cost of construction by creating in them the prerequisites for industrialization.

At the end of the 30s. along with high-rise construction, low-rise construction also developed, due in a number of places in the country to climatic conditions, seismic, and the need to use local materials. Low-rise buildings made it possible to quickly put them into operation, which was very important when there was an extreme need for housing.

In 1939-1940. The People's Commissariat for Construction created the first nationwide standard projects of low-rise residential buildings. Much attention was paid to the economical solution of the plan and the conveniences of the apartment. In each project, the number of standard sizes of parts and structural elements was minimized, however, all projects suffered from a common drawback: they were developed in isolation from each other, each with a special design and layout scheme, with its own inherent, typical parts and structural elements.

Typical projects of low-rise residential buildings were developed on the basis of impersonal "average" conditions. The climatic features of a particular construction area were taken into account only in the form of corrections to the thickness of the walls and attic floors.

The underestimation of the climatic and national-domestic characteristics of the region and its material resources led to a discrepancy between the built houses and local living conditions and an increase in the cost of construction. Low-rise buildings designed for the southern regions of Siberia and the Urals were not only uncomfortable, but also short-lived.

As a result, the use of typical low-rise residential buildings has not become widespread.

This period in Moscow is characterized by the development of the 1st Meshchanskaya Street. (now Mira Avenue), where there was no integral architectural composition, since residential buildings were "piece by piece" included in the frontal development of the highway.

The architects involved in the development of 1st Meshchanskaya Street designed the houses independently of each other: the result was a random, “mechanical” set of houses that were not compositionally related.

The increase in the need for living space led to the search for more cost-effective organization of the process of erecting residential buildings and reducing construction time. In the 30s. the construction business did not yet have a solid industrial basis. This forced architects and designers to look for ways to speed up and reduce the cost of construction.

In 1938, the proposal of the archit. A. Mordvinov on the introduction of high-speed construction of residential buildings. A new high-speed method was used to build 23 houses in Moscow - on the street. Gorky, on B. Kaluzhskaya st. (now Leninsky Prospekt), on Frunzenskaya Embankment and other highways.

The construction schedule provided for the implementation of various operations, the maximum use of mechanisms, a clear distribution of labor. The work schedule extended not only to the construction itself, but also to the organization of its financing and supply.

In-line construction began in Moscow on the street. Gorky. Residential buildings were built here on the basis of a new method, which showed great potential for increasing labor productivity and reducing costs. The extended development front was carried out on the basis of a single architectural concept. The concentration of all work in one architectural workshop reduced the design time and accelerated construction.

48. Moscow. B. Kaluga street (now Leninsky Prospekt). Building plan. 1939-1940 Archite. A. Mordvinov. House. Archite. G. Goltz. General view, plan

Archite. A. Mordvinov, together with architects D. Chechulin and G. Golts, also developed a project for a complex of residential buildings on B. Kaluzhskaya Street (Fig. 48). The simplicity of the planning and design solutions, the standardization of spans, the use of new methods in the decoration of facades and interiors of residential buildings - all this was a progressive phenomenon in the architecture of that time. The layout of the houses on Bolshaya Kaluzhskaya was based on a single residential section (the section combines two apartments in 3 and 4 rooms), developed in Mordvinov's workshop.

At this time in Leningrad complex construction of new districts began - Malaya Okhta, Avtova, Shchemilovka and Moscow highway. The development of large blocks with an area of ​​9-12 hectares included schools, children's institutions, shops; spatially interconnected elements of quarters were created, having a holistic architectural and artistic solution (Fig. 49-52).

An example of such a solution is the development of the 26th quarter on the Malaya Okhta embankment (architects G. Simonov, B. Rubanenko, O. Guryev, V. Fromzel, V. Cherkassky and others). In the three-dimensional composition of the building overlooking the Neva, the authors sought to create large architectural forms that are well perceived from the opposite bank of the river. Frontal buildings alternate with semicircular buildings. The leading motif of the composition - the processing of loggias by porticos protruding from the field of the wall - runs along the entire front of the embankment development. The Avtovo district in the prewar years was built up according to the projects of architects A. Olya, S. Brovtsev, V. Belov, A. Leiman, etc.).

The architects A. Gegello, G. Simonov, E. Levinson, I. Fomin, N. Trotsky, A. Ol, A. Junger and others participated in the construction of the Moscow Highway. The construction was carried out quarterly. The territory within the quarter was allocated for the construction of children's institutions with adjacent playgrounds. Schools were also located within the quarter.

The main requirement for the composition of the quarter was the creation of an architectural unity of buildings along the highway. The arrangement of 6-storey residential buildings with the formation of indents from the red line made the front of the development of the Moscow Highway in relief and made it possible to introduce elements of diversity into the interpretation of the buildings themselves. In the general building system of the "facade" of the quarters, individual houses were united by gratings of driveways or decorative arches and columns.

A unified architectural design of the external appearance of the residential quarter, street, embankment played a positive role in the development of new areas of the city.

The growing volume of construction necessitated the search for new building materials that would make it possible to lighten the weight and enlarge the building elements and structures of the building, to introduce new means of mechanizing construction work. In the early 30s. in Leningrad, a competition was held for projects of buildings constructed using industrial methods. Projects of houses made of cast cinder concrete (in wooden formwork) and projects of cinder-concrete houses built with the help of the Takhitekton mobile workshop were presented at the competition.

* Based on the approved projects in Leningrad, 12 cast cinder-block buildings and one house were built using the Takhitekton system.

Lightening the construction of walls with different fillers was experimentally carried out in multi-storey construction in Moscow and other cities.

The most successful were proposals for the construction of multi-storey buildings with walls made of large cinder blocks weighing 1-3 tons.

In 1935, the Moscow Soviet of Working People's Deputies organized a large-block construction trust in the capital, under which three factories for the production of large blocks were created. Such a trust was also organized in Leningrad.

In 1936-1940. the volume of large-block construction has increased significantly. In Moscow and Leningrad, not only residential buildings were erected from large blocks, but also the buildings of schools, hospitals, kindergartens and nurseries. However, for the time being, the cost of 1 m 2 of a wall made of large blocks was higher than a brick one, since the blocks were made semi-handicraft.

In the early 30s. in large-block construction, the use of "black" or untextured blocks is typical. Therefore, a building built of such blocks did not essentially differ from plastered brick houses. The facades of most large-block houses made of untextured blocks were decorated with stucco rustication, simple profiles framing door and window openings, and decorative cornices. A typical example is a five-story large-block residential building on Mytnaya Street in Moscow (designed and supervised by engineer A. Kucherov, 1933).

During this period, large-block houses (architects S. Vasilkovsky, I. Chaiko) were built in Leningrad (the area of ​​​​Syzranskaya street), Magnitogorsk (quarter No. 2), Novosibirsk (1937-1940).

Further work on improving the block manufacturing technology made it possible to move on to the construction of buildings from textured blocks and, thanks to this, get rid of labor-intensive processes when finishing facades. The walls and ceilings were made of the same materials as at the first stage of construction of large-block buildings. The plans for these buildings were made from recycled standard sections, taking into account the difference in the modulus of brick (13 cm) and cinder blocks (50 cm).

A characteristic example of large-block construction of this period is the six-story residential building built in 1935 on Olkhovskaya Street in Moscow (architect A. Klimukhin, engineer A. Kucherov). This house was one of the first large-block buildings in Moscow, where large blocks were not hidden under plaster. In 1935 (according to the project developed by architects A. Zaltsman, P. Revyakin and K. Sokolov) in Moscow, in Bogorodskoye, construction began on a complex of residential five-story buildings from textured blocks.

In 1934-1936. in Sverdlovsk, on Sacco and Vanzetti Street, an experimental three-story house was erected from large blocks with a textured facade surface (architect A. Romanov). In 1938-1940. residential buildings from textured large blocks were built only in Moscow and Leningrad. Specialized trusts established in these cities coordinated and directed design and construction.

55. Moscow. Large-block residential building on the Leningrad highway. Architects A. Burov, B. Blokhin, eng. A. Kucherov, G. Karmanov. 1940 General view. Plan

The next stage in the development of large-block construction is the construction in Moscow of typical five-section residential buildings from two-sided textured blocks (designed by architects A. Burov and B. Blokhin). Such houses of the same type were built on the streets Velozavodskaya, Gross, Bolshaya Polyanka and Berezhkovskaya embankment(Fig. 53, 54).

The architecture of large-block buildings of that time is characterized by an imitation of a massive rusticated wall with a developed cornice, and for the very texture of the blocks - an imitation of hewn natural stone or stone processed “under a fur coat”.

In 1940 (designed by architects A. Burov and B. Blokhin) was built residential large-block house on Leningradsky Prospekt in Moscow(Fig. 55). Here, for the first time, two-row cutting of walls was used, which made it possible to reduce the number of blocks. Tectonically, this technique is much more organic than the decorative articulation of large blocks. The construction of this building should be regarded as a progressive stage in the development of large-block construction. There is no longer any desire to “depict” masonry: cutting the wall into vertical and horizontal blocks is organically linked with the architectural composition of the building.

In large-block construction, the wall is the main architectural and structural element of prefabricated buildings. The seeming "non-scale" of large, unusual to the eye blocks required a special approach of the architect to the solution of the building. Two methods could be used here: tectonic, in which the constructive cutting of blocks is a means of architectural expression, and pictorial, when the constructive cutting of blocks is masked by graphic processing of the wall surface.

In order to more clearly imagine the contradictions that arose between the new construction of a residential building and its architectural and decorative solution, characteristic of the period under consideration, let us return to the beginning of the 1930s.

At this time, in the creative aspirations of architects, there was a sharp turn towards traditional architectural forms. The study of architectural classics was accompanied by a denial of the positive in the experience of modern foreign construction. The new direction was reflected, of course, in the design and construction of residential buildings.

56. Moscow. Residential building on Manezhnaya Square. Archite. I. Zholtovsky. 1934 General view. Plan. Fragment of the facade

One of the first residential buildings built according to the canons of classical architecture is residential building on Manezhnaya Square(architect I. Zholtovsky) (Fig. 56).

This house is not an example of mass housing construction, nevertheless it is characteristic in the sense that its architectural solution most clearly reflected the main contradictions that arose between the classical methods of composition, modern construction and the image of a residential building.

The specifics of the architectural construction of a sectional residential building, where each residential cell is an independent element that is repeatedly repeated on all floors, could not be reflected in the architectural forms of the Italian palazzo of the 16th century. The “colossal order” with its massive columns crowned with complex capitals and strongly protruding cornices of the rafters did not in any way reflect the constructive and functional solution of the residential building, but was a magnificent, expensive props. The discrepancy between modern constructions and architectural form was no less noticeable in the decoration of the stairwells with their false cross vaults suspended from the flat reinforced concrete slabs of the landings.

Despite the obvious decorativeness of the compositional solution, the residential building on Manezhnaya Square at one time was a frontier, which was tested imitation and use of classical canons in the architecture of residential buildings. However, in housing construction of the 30s. not only copied classical samples. Most architects tried to rework the classical heritage in their own way, taking from the arsenal of its forms and techniques elements that give the architecture of a modern residential building splendor and monumentality.

An example would be a residential house on st. Gorky architect. A. Burova(Fig. 57).

Despite the obvious influence of the masters of the Renaissance, the compositional solution of the residential building was interpreted by the author independently. Divided into three parts, a wall two bricks thick did not allow for a relief solution, so the author settled on a planar interpretation of the entire volume. The crowning cornice extended two meters further emphasizes the planar solution of the wall. The architect introduced two belt-cornices into the composition of the facades. The wall dissected by them is the leading theme, to which all other details of the facade composition are subordinate.

However, decorative pictorial inserts and vertical pilasters, creating the illusion of the frame structure of the upper tier of the building, as well as the crowning cornice, imitating light wooden cornices of the Renaissance in reinforced concrete, break the organic connection between the compositional scheme of the facade, its structural scheme and the structure of a modern multi-storey building.

58. Moscow. Residential building on Chkalova street. Archite. I. Weinstein. 1935-1938 General view, section plan

59. Moscow. Residential building on Suvorovsky Boulevard. Architect E. Yoheles. 1937 General view. Plan

60. Leningrad. Residential building on Karpovka. Architects E. Levinson, I. Fomin. 1931-1934 General form. Plan

Other examples of the use of classical architectural heritage in the practice of housing construction in the 30s. houses built in Moscow according to the designs of architects G. Goltz, I. Weinstein, Z. Rosenfeld, L. Paper, E. Ioheles, M. Sinyavsky can serve (Fig. 58-60), in Leningrad-designed by architects E. Levinson, I. Fomin, A. Gegello and etc.

Each of the authors comprehended and applied in practice the methods of classical architecture in their own way, however, the residential buildings built according to their projects had approximately the same shortcomings: the architects did not take into account the functional features of the residential building (Fig. 61).

Under the influence of Moscow and Leningrad practice, the passion for the monumental composition of residential buildings, achieved using classical decorative techniques, spread to other cities of the country. However, the peculiarity of climatic and natural conditions, as well as national architectural traditions, left their mark on the housing construction of the Union republics. For example, in the guise of residential buildings in Baku in the 30s. one can trace, on the one hand, the desire to achieve artistic expressiveness by borrowing the forms of the classics (the “Monolith” residential building on Nizami Square, architect K. Senchikhin), on the other hand, the use of medieval national traditions (the residential building of the Baku Council, architects S. Dadashev and M . Useinov).

A typical example of mixing classics with national traditions is a residential building built in 1936-1938. on the Heroes' Square in Tbilisi (architect M. Kalashnikov). The plastic development of the facade is based on canonical elements (arches, columns, cornices, intermediate rods) in combination with architectural motifs inspired by the shape of ancient Tbilisi dwellings (balconies hanging over each other, united by corner pillars, reminiscent of Tbilisi balconies of the early 19th century). At the same time, despite the abundance of balconies, loggias, arches, their location on the facade of the building is mostly decorative and is not related to the layout of the residential building. Thus, the main residential premises facing the courtyard facades of the building do not have a sufficient number of balconies.

The introduction of in-line construction methods into practice has increased the contradictions that arise between the "classical" architectural shell of the building and the method of its construction. All this led to the search for new artistic means of composition of a multi-storey residential building.

62. Moscow. Residential building on the street. Gorky. Buildings A and B. Architect. A. Mordvinov, engineer P. Krasilnikov. Residential section plan. 1937-1939 General form

An example of such a search is solution of the facades of buildings A and B on the street. Gorky in Moscow (1937-1939, architect A. Mordvinov, engineer P. Krasilnikov)(Fig. 62).

When solving the volumetric and spatial solutions of the buildings, it was necessary to take into account the relief rising towards Sadovaya Street. At the same time, the residential part of the buildings consists of five floors; only the height of the first, basement floor, occupied by shops, changes. The basement and portal of the building are lined with polished granite, the walls of the residential floors - with factory-made artificial tiles; terracotta details and stucco moldings were used in the decoration of the facade. The use of facing tiles not only freed construction from labor-intensive "wet" processes, but also created a durable wall surface. The construction methods used here included the mechanization of construction work and the use of prefabricated elements (reinforced concrete slabs, window blocks, flights of stairs, etc.). Despite the fact that a number of facade elements are not large-scale (pilasters in the upper part of the building, sculptural figures on the central projections of building A), the architectural and spatial design of residential buildings on the street. Gorky is of interest as an attempt to connect the architectural design of the facades of a residential building with a new technology for its construction.

Further development of the structures of a multi-storey residential building led to the creation of a new image of a sectional apartment building.

Chapter “Architecture of residential and mass cultural and community buildings (part 1). 1933-1941". The General History of Architecture. Volume 12. Book one. Architecture of the USSR, edited by N.V. Baranov.

The history of architecture in the history of the development of mankind begins with a reasonable organization of a dwelling by a person. At first, what a person erected was just a shelter from natural influences and attacks from animals and enemies (a dugout covered with branches, a hut) for a group of people. As a rule, these were temporary dwellings of hunters and gatherers. But over time, the organization of space in these buildings became more and more meaningful; the structures became more and more perfect, the form and interiors became more and more aestheticized.
The oldest of the prehistoric dwellings was discovered in the South of France near Nice. It looked like an oval hut made of poles dug into the ground, with a hearth made of flat stones inside.
It is certain that this dwelling belonged to people who lived in the ancient Stone Age - the Paleolithic ... .... Approximately in the 10th millennium BC, humanity in different regions of the earth at different times began to move from only hunting and gathering to conscious farming and cattle breeding and, therefore , to a settled way of life, i.e. for the first time in the history of the earth, people began to adapt the natural environment to their own needs. Thus began the period NEOLITHIC(new stone age). This period is even called the "Neolithic Revolution", because. for 7 millennia, humanity has made a giant leap in its development. During this period, people who settled on the ground and engaged in agriculture began to improve permanent housing, create settlements, and then cities, and people who continued to lead a nomadic lifestyle began a long process of working out the design of a mobile dwelling (tent, wagon, yurts, plague and etc.).

...... In the 6th millennium BC (8 thousand years ago) on the island of Cyprus, in a place called Kirokitia, the first of the 2-storey houses known to us was discovered. This is a domed house, very similar in shape to Jericho, but already made of stone. You can’t call such a house small even now: on the first floor 50-60 m2 and about 40 more on the second ... ... On the territory of modern Turkey in Anatolia, the remains of a settlement that today bears the name Chatalhuyuk were found. The lower, earliest layer is dated quite accurately - 6500 BC, i.e. This is the time when the city of Jericho was founded. The mountains near which Catal Huyuk is located were then active volcanoes. The village was a single house. House-city, house-fortress - a continuous building of a terraced type with an area of ​​​​150 by 500 m, twice the size of Jericho ... ... .. In the valley between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the "fertile crescent" not earlier than 4 and 3 millennia BC, the then inhabitants of these places, the ancient Sumerians created the oldest of the great civilizations known to us. This area, called Mesopotamia or Mesopotamia, was repeatedly conquered by different peoples, great states (including Assyria and Babylon) were formed here, flourished and died, the wheel and writing were invented here. A lot of discoveries born in the process of development of this civilization, including in the field of construction and architecture, had a huge impact on the subsequent development of mankind. The architectural features of these places are caused by the lack of forest and stone, so clay and reed became the main building material. It is assumed that the first residential buildings in these places were erected as follows: a round or oval platform was cut down in the thickets of high reeds, which was compacted with clay and the ends of the reed stems were tied over it, which were intertwined with reed branches, and then this covering wall was covered with clay. The floor was covered with reed mats. The ancient reliefs of a later time depict a hut of this type and more complex residential buildings with a round plan and domed reeds.

The need for constant protection against attacks made it necessary to work out a type of housing building with blind (without window openings) outer walls with access from all rooms to the central uncovered courtyard. This house is designed for one family and is an autonomous planning unit oriented inward: access to all the premises of the first and second floors (the houses are mainly two-story) is open only from the courtyard. This can explain the emergence of passage galleries along the second floor. These galleries are either cantilevered or supported by wooden posts. Ceilings and coverings are flat on wooden beams, despite the fact that wood is a very expensive material ... ... Period from 5000 to 3000 years. BC is called pre-dynastic. During this period, the dwelling was built, as in Mesopotamia, from reeds coated with clay and Nile silt. At the end of this period, raw brick began to be mastered. It is believed that the manufacturing principle and construction technique from it were borrowed in Mesopotamia, only Egyptian mud brick was stronger, which is explained by the properties of the Nile silt mixed into the clay mass. During the period of the Old Kingdom, the Egyptians began to use stone in their buildings, in the processing of which they achieved high perfection. Very little is known about the residential buildings of this and subsequent periods, and only from clay models and reliefs left in the tombs. In the reconstruction of a rural dwelling from the period of the end of the Ancient - the beginning of the Middle Kingdoms, a two-story building with an exploited roof is visible. The ceilings rest on blank outer walls and inner columns made of reed bundles smeared with clay and silt (hence comes the motif of a papyrus column already made of stone in palaces and temples). The ceilings are made in the form of a continuous flooring of round or semicircular beams, on which reed mats and a layer of earth with clay are laid on top. Stone stairs lead to the floors and the roof. The kitchen is located in an open courtyard.. The Middle Kingdom is the time of the rise of the economic life of Egypt, accompanied by a significant growth of cities, urban life and culture. Social and property differentiation of the population is reflected in housing architecture. It was during the period of the Middle Kingdom that the main types of residential buildings arise and pass with slight changes in subsequent periods. The type of the Egyptian Manor and various options for urban development are being formed, ranging from rich residential buildings to workers' settlements with their minimal residential cells. A rich city estate was a rather large space (about 500 m2) enclosed by a blank high brick-adobe wall, divided into a residential and economic zone. The residential area housed the owner's house, usually two-story, as well as an orchard, a pond or a pool. The layout of the house is quite complex, and the female half - the harem - is clearly defined. Such estates could adjoin each other closely, so that the street was a passage between the blank white walls of the fences.

21) Ancient Egyptian paintings A large place in the art of the Old Kingdom is occupied by reliefs and paintings on the walls of tombs and temples. Like sculpture, reliefs and paintings were closely associated with the funeral cult and were strictly dependent on architecture. A low relief was applied with a selected background and an incised relief. The painting was done with mineral paints. In some tombs, such as at Meidum, the painting technique was combined with inlays of colored paste into specially prepared recesses.
In the art of the Old Kingdom, the most favorite plots of reliefs and murals developed, the main rules for placing them on the wall (line by line, narrative), compositions of entire scenes, groups, figures, which later became traditional.
The reliefs in the funeral temples of the kings and in the tombs of the nobles were supposed to glorify their power, tell about their activities. The image of the owner of the tomb was therefore made portrait. On the reliefs and in the murals, scenes of rural labor, the work of artisans, fishing and hunting, and the life of nobles are very often found.
The nobleman or the king is usually shown in close-up, depicting them as very large, because they are the main characters in the composition.
When depicting a human figure, the requirements of the canon that developed at the dawn of the existence of the Egyptian state are strictly observed. Great freedom in the transfer of movements, poses, turns is found only in the figures of servants, peasants, artisans - secondary characters.

15) Ancient Indian Architecture Characteristic features of Indian architecture: 1) Religious mythological symbolism is manifested in every architectural monument. 2) Sculpture, above all relief, occupies the first place in Indian architecture. Monumental stone sculptures, although made in accordance with religious ideas, reflect human life in all its manifestations (spiritual, bodily, domestic, glorifying the beauty of everyday life, the art of love.) The beginning of the development of Indian culture is considered to be the 6th century BC. BC, however, the first monuments of Indian architecture date back to the 3rd-2nd millennium BC, and possibly even earlier. The most ancient and architecturally interesting are the Indian rock temples of the 8th-9th centuries. AD These temples are usually dedicated to one of the three leading religions in India: Buddhism, Brahmanism, Jainism. At the same time, the architecture and layout of the temple remains unchanged and differs only in the inner space, where a statue of Buddha (or a Buddhist stupa) can stand in the sanctuary: the god Brahma or Shiva; 24 statues of Jain saints. In addition to temple structures, sanctuaries carved into the rocks were created. chaitya and monasteries vihara. The inhabitants of ancient India had a powerful imagination and their own ideas about the universe, and they were able to reflect all this in their art. All philosophical teachings, aesthetics, and art in general were permeated with the idea of ​​the unity of life. The ancient architecture of India inseparably exists with sculpture. The dominant place in the architecture of India is occupied by relief, which was actively used by craftsmen in the construction of various kinds of buildings, especially religious ones.

17) American Architecture By the time of the conquest of America by the Spaniards, the peoples of Central America and the western coast of South America had reached the highest degree of development. They were at the stage of formation of an early slave state. It was preceded by a long period of passage through various stages of social formations, which corresponded to certain types of structures. The most grandiose structures of the ancient Indians were built without the use of metal (with the exception of the Andes highlands). The stone was worked with stone tools. Lime mortar and fired brick were known. The history of the development of the peoples of America can be divided into periods: - " archaic period”(XV-VIII centuries BC) - the primitive communal system dominated, the population was mainly engaged in agriculture. No monumental architecture created during this period has been discovered. - The period of the beginning of the class stratification of primitive communities(VIII - the end of the 1st century BC) - characterized by an increase in the standard of living, the separation of the ruling elite, the construction of cult pyramids. Monumental sculpture (steles) and a certain complex of architectural ornamentation appear. - " classical period» (I-IX centuries AD) - the time of the emergence and development of the early slave state. Slave labor was still used to a small extent. The priesthood acquired special power, grandiose cult centers of city-states were built. During this period, architecture flourished. - Period of slave city-states(IX-XV centuries). At the beginning of the period, significant changes occur, caused by social upheavals (possibly, uprisings of the pyramid builders) and large movements of the tribes. The old city-states are abandoned, the importance of the priesthood decreases, and the power of the military nobility increases. Decreases, and then almost stops the construction of the pyramids. New slave-owning city-states are being created. Administrative and palace buildings are being erected. In Central America, the Toltec culture is spreading, in the Andes - the Inca.

22) Features of the Egyptian sculptural portrait In sculpture, certain types of composition and canons were used: Male sculptures were painted in red-brown color, and women in yellow (due to genetic differences). The walking figure was depicted with the left leg extended forward, and the head and profile were turned to the front. On the basis of the funeral cult, calmness and balance of postures, frontality of figures, portrait resemblance and solemnity were taken. Statues are leaning against a wall or block surface. In men, the left leg is extended forward, arms along the body or one of them on a staff.
In women, the right hand is along the body, and the left is at the waist. The seated figures have their knees and feet close together, with their hands resting on their knees. The features of the sculpture are physical strength, fearless faces, including those of the pharaohs.

19) Features of the development of art in primitive society. Mesolithic. Neolithic. Culture continues to develop, religious ideas, cults and rituals become much more complicated. In particular, faith in the afterlife and the cult of ancestors is growing. The burial ritual is carried out by burying things and everything necessary for the afterlife, complex burial grounds are being built ... .. There are also noticeable changes in the arts. Along with animals, man is also widely depicted, he even begins to prevail. A certain schematism appears in his image. At the same time, the artists skillfully convey the expression of movements, the internal state and meaning of events. A significant place is occupied by multi-figured siennas of hunting, collecting chalk, military struggle and battles ... ….. This era is characterized by profound and qualitative changes taking place in culture as a whole and in all its areas. One of them is that culture ceases to be unified and homogeneous: it breaks up into many ethnic cultures, each of which acquires unique features, becomes original. Therefore, the Neolithic of Egypt differs from the Neolithic of Mesopotamia or India ... …. Other important changes were brought about by the agrarian or Neolithic revolution in the economy, i.e. the transition from an appropriating economy (gathering, hunting, fishing) to a producing and transforming technology (agriculture, cattle breeding), which meant the emergence of new areas of material culture. In addition, new crafts arise, and with it the use of pottery. When processing stone tools, drilling and grinding are used. The construction business is experiencing a significant rise ... ….. The transition from matriarchy to patriarchy also had serious consequences for culture. This event is sometimes defined as the historical defeat of women. It entailed a profound restructuring of the entire way of life, the emergence of new traditions, norms, stereotypes, values ​​and value orientations... .. As a result of these and other shifts and transformations, profound changes are taking place in the entire spiritual culture. Along with the further complication of religion, mythology appears. …… Profound changes in the Neolithic era also occur in art. In addition to animals, it depicts the sky, earth, fire, sun. Generalization and even schematism arise in art, which also manifests itself in the depiction of a person. The real flourishing is going through plastic from stone, bone, horn and clay. New stone processing technique. Pottery production and construction business speak of a settled way of life. Transition from matriarchy to patriarchy.
Conditionally ornamental forms of the image develop, objects that were at the disposal of a person are decorated.
Images of forms abstracted from natural nature: cross, spiral, triangle, rhombus. Figures of birds and humans are stylized and found in vessel decorations. Clay female figurines are often covered with patterns. With an ornament, our ancestors tried to reveal the form and purpose. In small plastic there are female figurines with a large number of conventions.
Rock carvings, executed mainly by percussion technique, were widely used. Animals always go in the same direction; long lines of deer or elk along the river. The image of a person is inferior to images of animals.

26) Classic Greek Sculpture
The fifth century in the history of Greek sculpture of the classical period can be called a "step forward". The development of the sculpture of Ancient Greece in this period is associated with the names of such famous masters as Myron, Poliklen and Phidias. In their creations, the images become more realistic, if one can say even "alive", the schematism that was characteristic of archaic sculpture is reduced. But the main "heroes" are the gods and "ideal" people... .. Myron, who lived in the middle of the 5th century. BC e, is known to us from drawings and Roman copies. This ingenious master perfectly mastered plasticity and anatomy, clearly conveyed the freedom of movement in his works (“Disco Thrower”). Also known is his work "Athena and Marsyas" …. Polikleitos, who worked in Argos, in the second half of the 5th c. BC e. Sculpture of the classical period is rich in his masterpieces. He was a master of bronze sculpture and an excellent art theorist. Policlet preferred to portray athletes, in whom ordinary people have always seen the ideal. Among his works are the statues of "Doryfor" and "Diadumen". The first work is a strong warrior with a spear, the embodiment of calm dignity. The second is a slender young man, with a bandage of a winner in competitions on his head ... ... Phidias is another bright representative of the creator of sculpture of the classical period. His name sounded brightly during the heyday of Greek classical art. His most famous sculptures were the colossal statues of Athena Parthenos and Zeus in the Olympic Temple made of wood, gold and ivory, and Athena Promachos, made of bronze and located on the square of the Acropolis of Athens. …..Sculpture of ancient Greece displayed the physical and inner beauty and harmony of man. Already in the 4th century, after the conquests of Alexander the Great in Greece, new names of talented sculptors such as Skopas, Praxiteles, Lysippus, Timothy, Leochar and others become known. The creators of this era begin to pay more attention to the internal state of a person, his psychological state and emotions. Increasingly, sculptors receive individual orders from wealthy citizens, in which they ask to portray famous personalities ... ... The famous sculptor of the classical period was Skopas, who lived in the middle of the 4th century BC. He innovates by revealing the inner world of a person, tries to depict emotions of joy, fear, happiness in sculptures. This talented person worked in many Greek cities. His sculptures of the classical period are rich in images of gods and various heroes, compositions and reliefs on mythological themes. He was not afraid to experiment and portrayed people in various complex poses, looking for new artistic possibilities for depicting new feelings on a human face (passion, anger, rage, fear, sadness). The statue of Maenad is an excellent creation of round plastic art; now its Roman copy has been preserved. A new and multifaceted relief work is the Amazonomachia, which adorns the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus in Asia Minor……Praxitel was an outstanding sculptor of the classical period, who lived in Athens, around 350 BC. Praxiteles, like Scopas, tried to convey the feelings of people, but he preferred to express more “light” emotions that were pleasant to a person. He transferred lyrical emotions, dreaminess to sculptures, sang the beauty of the human body. The sculptor does not form figures in motion. Among his works, it should be noted "The Resting Satyr", "Aphrodite of Cnidus", "Hermes with the baby Dionysus", "Apollo killing the lizard" ... .. The most famous work is the statue of Aphrodite of Cnidus. It was made to order for the inhabitants of the island of Kos in two copies. The first - in clothes, and the second in the nude. Skopas and Praxiteles were the first to dare to portray Aphrodite in the nude. The goddess Aphrodite in her image is very human, she got ready for bathing. She is an excellent representative of the sculpture of ancient Greece. The statue of the goddess has been a model for many sculptors for more than half a century ..... The sculpture "Hermes with the infant Dionysus" is the only original statue. Like the creations of Phidias, the works of Praxiteles were placed in temples and open sanctuaries and were cult. But the work of Praxiteles was not personified with the former strength and power of the city and the valor of its inhabitants. Scopas and Praxiteles greatly influenced their contemporaries. .... Lysippus (second half of the 4th century BC) was one of the greatest sculptors of the classical period. He preferred to work with bronze. Only Roman copies give us the opportunity to get acquainted with his work. Among the famous works are "Hercules with a doe", "Apoxiomen", "Hermes Resting" and "Wrestler". Lysippus makes changes in proportion, he depicts a smaller head, a leaner body and longer legs.

27) Greek Sculpture Archaic Sculpture the archaic period developed in very complex ways. Until the middle of the VI century. BC e. statues of the gods were created, slightly dissected, strictly frontal, as if frozen. …..Such are the statues of Artemis, the goddess of hunting, from Fr. Delos (about 650 BC) and Hera, wife of Zeus, the supreme god of the Greek pantheon, from Fr. Samos (c. 560 BC), somewhat reminiscent, apparently, of the Xoans of the Homeric era. But already in the statue of Hera, a great plasticity of forms appears, emphasized by soft, smooth lines of the silhouette, folds of draperies. The proportions of the female figure itself, hidden by the robe, are already quite correctly established ... ... At this time, Greek sculpture opens up new sides of the world. Her highest achievements relate to the development of the image of a person in the statues of gods and goddesses, heroes, as well as warriors - the so-called "kouros". …..The image of a kouros - a strong courageous hero - was generated in Greece by the development of civic consciousness. Statues of kuros served as tombstones and were placed in honor of the winners of competitions. Kuros are full of energy and cheerfulness, they are usually depicted as walking or stepping, although the steps are still given somewhat conventionally (both feet are set to the ground), as in ancient oriental sculpture. However, they already reveal the ancient principle of the structure of forms, based on the subordination of details to the whole.
…..The development of the kouros type went in the direction of revealing more and more correct proportions, overcoming elements of geometric simplification and schematism. K ser. 6th century BC, i.e. by the end of the archaic period, in the statues of the kouros, the structure of the body, the modeling of forms, and, what is especially remarkable, the face is enlivened with a mysterious smile, which is called "archaic" in art criticism, more accurately emerges. This "archaic smile" is conditional, sometimes giving the kouros a somewhat mannered look. And yet, it expresses a state of cheerfulness and confidence, which permeate the entire figurative structure of the statues. ……The desire to transfer the human body in motion is manifested in the famous statue of the goddess of Victory Nike from Fr. Delos, made in the first half of the VI century. BC. However, the movement of the goddess, the so-called "kneeling run", is just as conventional as the "archaic smile". From the second half of the VI century. BC e. in sculpture, realistically holistic ideas about the image of a person began to appear more consistently, indicating the approach of profound changes both in public life and in the artistic culture of Greece. Since that time, Athens and the Attic school of sculpture began to flourish. One of the achievements of the archaic art of Athens was the statues of girls in elegant clothes, the so-called "bark", found on the Acropolis. The statues of the cores, as it were, sum up the sculptural development of the archaic.

28) Ancient Greek vase paintingGeometric vase painting With the decline of the Mycenaean culture around 1050 BC. e. geometric pottery is given new life in Greek culture. In the early stages before 900 BC. e. ceramic dishes were usually painted with large, strictly geometric patterns. Circles and semicircles drawn with a compass were also typical decorations for vases. The alternation of geometric ornaments of the drawings was established by various registers of patterns, separated from each other by horizontal lines enveloping the vessel. ... During the heyday of geometry, geometric patterns become more complex. Complex alternating single and double meanders appear. Stylized images of people, animals and objects are added to them. Chariots and warriors in frieze-like processions occupy the central parts of vases and jugs. The images are increasingly dominated by black, less often by red colors on light shades of the background. ….. Orientalizing period…. Starting from 725 BC. e. in the manufacture of ceramics, Corinth occupies a leading position. The initial period, which corresponds to the orientalizing style, is characterized in vase painting by an increase in figured friezes and mythological images. The position, sequence, themes and the images themselves were influenced by oriental patterns, which were primarily characterized by images of griffins, sphinxes and lions. The technique of execution is similar to black-figure vase painting. Therefore, at that time, the necessary three-time firing was already applied ...... Vase painting on a white background Vase painting on a white background is a style of vase painting that appeared in Athens at the end of the 6th century BC. e. It consists in covering terracotta vases with white slip from local lime clay, and then painting them. With the development of the style, the clothes and the body of the figures depicted on the vase began to be left in white. For painting vases in this style, white paint was used as a base, on which black, red or multi-colored figures were applied. …… Black-figure vase painting From the second half of the 7th c. before the beginning of the 5th century. BC e. black-figure vase painting develops into an independent style of ceramic decoration. Increasingly, human figures began to appear in the images. Compositional schemes have also undergone changes. The most popular motives for images on vases are feasts, battles, mythological scenes telling about the life of Hercules and the Trojan War. As in the Orientalizing period, the silhouettes of the figures are drawn with slip or glossy clay on dried unbaked clay. Small details were drawn with a engraver. After firing, the base turned red, and the glossy clay turned black. ……Red-figure vase painting Red-figure vases first appeared around 530 BC. e. In contrast to the already existing distribution of colors for the base and the image in black-figure vase painting, it was not the silhouettes of the figures that were painted with black, but rather the background, leaving the figures unpainted. The finest details of the images were drawn with separate bristles on unpainted figures. Different compositions of the slip made it possible to obtain any shades of brown. With the advent of red-figure vase painting, the opposition of two colors began to play up on bilingual vases, on one side of which the figures were black, and on the other - red. The red-figure style enriched the vase painting with a large number of mythological scenes; in addition to them, red-figure vases contain sketches from everyday life, female images and interiors of pottery workshops.

32) Four styles of Pompeian painting In the wall paintings of Pompeii, 4 styles are distinguished: 1st, "inlaid" (2nd century BC - early 1st century BC, imitation of marble facing); 2nd, "architectural-perspective" (mostly around 80 BC - about 30 BC; illusionistic architectural images, landscapes, mythological scenes); 3rd, "ornamental" (1st half 1st century AD, symmetrical ornamental compositions, including mythological scenes and landscapes); 4th (about 63 - the beginning of the 2nd century; mainly fantastic architectural constructions) ... .. 1 style The first "style", also called "inlaid" or "structural", was widespread in Pompeii in 200-80 BC. It is characterized by the so-called. "rusticized" masonry or wall cladding - large stones with a relief, deliberately rough surface. Often, the cladding was imitated by sculpting architectural details from "marbled" plaster. This design of the house gave it a strict, refined, noble look, the owners of some aristocratic city estates kept this decoration for centuries, only updating it from time to time….. 2 style… The second "style" - the so-called. "architectural" or "architectural-perspective" - ​​according to Mau, dominated the design of Pompeian dwellings in 80 BC. - 15 AD Unlike the first system, here the architectural elements were depicted not by modeling, but by painting, there is no relief. ... The paintings of the second "style" can be conditionally divided into several phases, each of which is characterized by more and more complicated details of the scenery. The garlands and masks of the early phase are replaced by columns and pilasters, the main area of ​​the wall is occupied by the composition. With the development of style, artists begin to depict landscapes, creating the illusion of space in the premises, introducing figures of people into the compositions, often using mythological plots…….. 3 style The third Pompeian "style" (c. 15 BC - AD 40 in Rome, AD 62 in Pompeii) naturally grew out of the second, but at the same time lost the illusory perspective of the latter. Architectural details are no longer emphasized here, becoming more and more conventional. The pilasters and columns that divided the plane of the walls in the second style become thinner, turning into candelabra. Mau called this system "ornamental style" During this period, Rome falls under Egyptian cultural influence - Egyptian things appear in the empire, Egyptian cults spread. The painting of the third "style" also did not avoid such motifs - lotus flowers, Egyptian gods and sphinxes appear in the ornaments. Conventionally, the third "style" can be divided into two phases. In the first phase, the wall is a panel divided into three parts, with a monochrome background, decorated with a hallmark painting (as an option: the painting is located only in the central part), in the second phase, light architectural structures appear in the upper tier of the wall. The subjects of the central miniatures of the middle tier of the wall were mainly mythological scenes and landscapes……. 4 style The fourth Pompeian "style" (from about 63-62) has several names - "illusory", "fantastic", "perspective-ornamental". In a way, this system is a combination of the second and third "styles". The architectural elements that characterized the second "style" were exaggerated by the masters of the fourth, turning them into pretentious theatrical scenery that did not obey the laws of physics. The ornamentation of the third "style" became more magnificent, more pompous and, combined with fantastic architecture and magnificent paintings on mythological themes, created the richness of pictorial design that is inherent in this system of murals .... Popularity for this "style" naturally came after the earthquake in 62 AD, when many houses were badly damaged and required not only finishing, but also restoration. Fashion-conscious owners of destroyed and damaged houses did not fail to take advantage of the great opportunity to bring modern notes to the design of their homes.

33) Fayum portrait Fayum portraits- funeral portraits created in the technique of encaustics in Roman Egypt of the 1st-3rd centuries. They got their name from the place of the first major find in the Fayum oasis in 1887 by a British expedition led by Flinders Petrie. They are an element of the local funeral tradition modified under the Greco-Roman influence: the portrait replaces the traditional funeral mask with mummies. Fayum portraits are the best surviving examples of ancient painting. They depict the faces of the inhabitants of ancient Egypt in the Hellenistic and Roman periods in the 1st-3rd centuries AD. After the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great, the reign of the pharaohs ended. During the reign of the Ptolemaic dynasty - the heirs of the empire of Alexander, there were significant changes in art and architecture. The funerary portrait, a unique art form of its time, flourished in Hellenistic Egypt. Stylistically related to the traditions of Greco-Roman painting, but created for typical Egyptian needs, replacing mummy funerary masks, Fayum portraits are strikingly realistic depictions of men and women of all ages.

| | 3 |

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 separated 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, reed, clay, brick and various stones, which are rich in almost all parts of the country, were widely used here: “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) is 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, 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 Snefru, 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 distant 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, not far from Cairo.

The October Revolution set the architects the task of creating a socially new type of dwelling. The search for it was carried out, starting from the first years of Soviet power, in the process of the formation of socialist life.

On August 20, 1918, the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued a decree "On the abolition of private ownership of real estate in cities." All the most valuable residential buildings were placed at the disposal of the local Soviets. A mass resettlement of workers from shacks and basements to houses confiscated from the bourgeoisie began. In Moscow, it was relocated to comfortable apartments in 1918-1924. almost 500 thousand people, in Petrograd - 300 thousand.

The mass resettlement of workers in the homes of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a process of spontaneous emergence of household communes, which pursued both socio-political and purely economic goals. Former tenement houses were considered as working dwellings of a new type, in which the economic structure and organization of life were supposed to contribute to the development of collectivist skills among the population, to educate communist consciousness. Having received housing for free use (before the introduction of the NEP, workers used housing for free), the workers created self-government bodies in each house, which not only managed the operation of the building, but also organized such house communal institutions as common kitchens, dining rooms, kindergartens, nurseries, red corners, libraries, reading rooms, laundries, etc. This form of collective maintenance of residential buildings by workers (on a self-service basis) was widespread in the early years of Soviet power. For example, in Moscow by the end of 1921 there were 865 communal houses, in Kharkov in 1922-1925. there were 242 commune houses. However, even during the years of the greatest upsurge of the movement for the organization of communal houses in the nationalized dwellings of workers, communal forms of life in them developed extremely slowly. The reason for this situation was then seen primarily in the fact that the old types of houses did not correspond to the new forms of life. It was believed that the problem of restructuring life would be solved by building

Page 79-

Telstva specially designed new types of residential building (with public spaces).

At the same time, there was no unified point of view on the architectural and planning type of the new dwelling itself: some suggested focusing on a communal working settlement (consisting of individual houses and a network of public buildings), others assigned the main role to complex communal houses with the socialization of everyday life, others considered it necessary to develop a transitional type of house, which would contribute to the gradual introduction of new forms into everyday life.

The workers' communes that arose in nationalized dwellings were the basis for the social order for the development of a new type of residential building, they played the role of an experimental platform where new forms of life were born and tested. Here arose and became widespread, created on the basis of self-service, the original embryos of the system of public services that developed in the future. First of all, these are those elements of communal and cultural and public institutions that were associated with the solution of such important socio-political tasks as the emancipation of women from the household in order to involve her in production and public life (canteens, common kitchens, laundries, children's gardens and nurseries, etc.) and the implementation of the cultural revolution (libraries, reading rooms, red corners, etc.).

One of the first projects of communal houses (“communal houses”) was created by N. Ladovsky and V. Krinsky in 1920. Residential houses in these experimental projects were multi-storey buildings of complex composition, in which various rooms were grouped around the courtyard-hall .

A significant role in the development of a new type of dwelling was played by a competition announced at the end of 1922 for projects to build two residential quarters in Moscow with demonstration houses for workers (family and single). In most of the competitive projects, apartments for families are designed in three-story sectional houses (projects by L. Vesnin, S. Chernyshev, I. and P. Golosovs, E. Norvert, and others); public institutions of the quarters in many projects were separate buildings, sometimes blocking each other on the basis of functional proximity. Of fundamental interest was the project of K. Melnikov. Having singled out housing for families in separate residential buildings, he combined public premises (food, cultural recreation, child rearing, household sectors) into a single building with a complex configuration, connecting it at the level of the second floor with a covered passage (on poles) with four residential four-story buildings. buildings for small families.

In 1926, the Moscow City Council held an all-Union competition for the design of a communal house. In the project submitted for the competition by G. Wolfenzon, S. Aizikovich and E. Volkov, the plan of the house, complex in configuration, consisted of corridor-type residential buildings adjoining each other, located on the sides of the communal building pushed into the depths. This project was carried out in 1928 (Khavsko-Shabolovsky lane) (Fig. 34).

Communal houses were designed in the mid-1920s. and for other cities. Some of them have been implemented. However, the acute housing need led to the fact that these houses were inhabited in violation of the regime of their operation provided for by the program (municipal institutions did not work, public premises were allocated for housing, intended for single and small-family buildings were inhabited by families with children, etc.), which created inconvenience and caused sharp criticism of the very type of communal house.

In the process of building new dwellings, some elements of the organization of life died off and other elements of the organization of life were born. The transition to the NEP and to the economic self-sufficiency of urban residential buildings (the introduction of rents) led to significant changes in the very economic basis for the functioning of worker communal houses. Household commune based on free operation of the house and full self-service

Page 80-

It gave way to a new form of household collective - residential cooperation with shared participation of members in financing the construction and operation of the house.

Houses of housing cooperatives, the construction of which began in the second half of the 1920s, often included, along with residential cells (apartments for families, rooms for singles), communal public premises. However, in terms of the degree of socialization of everyday life, they were closer to ordinary residential buildings with some elements of service. Such is the residential building of the Dukstroy cooperative in Moscow (architect A. Fufaev, 1927-1928) (Fig. 53, 54).

In the first years of Soviet power, the commune house was opposed as the main type of working dwelling to a single-family house with a plot, the development of which began after the October Revolution. In 1921, N. Markovnikov created an experimental project for a two-apartment brick residential building with apartments on two levels. In 1923, according to his project, the construction of the settlement of the Sokol housing cooperative began in Moscow, consisting of various types of low-rise buildings (one-, two-, three-apartment and block) (Fig. 55, 56).

In an effort to make low-rise housing more economical and at the same time preserve the character of estate development (the entrance to each apartment directly from the street, a green area for each family), architects in the early 20s. create a large number of different options for two-, four- and eight-apartment, as well as block houses.

In the early 20s. low-rise housing is becoming the most common type of construction for workers, not only in towns, but also in cities. in Moscow in the first half of the 1920s. mainly residential complexes were built, consisting of low-rise buildings: workers' settlements of AMO factories (Fig. 57) (two-story block houses, architect I. Zholtovsky, 1923), Krasny Bogatyr (1924-1925), Duks ”(two-story four-, six- and eight-apartment houses, architect B. Benderov, 1924-1926) and others. Apsheron (the first stage was put into operation in 1925, architect A. Samoilov).

However, by the mid-20s. it became clear that low-rise housing and communal houses cannot be considered as the main types of mass housing construction. The aggravation of housing need required a transition to the mass construction of multi-storey apartment buildings for workers, to the creation of a truly economical type of housing. Sectional residential buildings became this type, the transition to the construction of which was also associated with the fact that in the mid-20s. the main customers of housing construction are local councils.

The first residential complexes of sectional houses (in Moscow, Leningrad, Baku and other cities) were built using specially designed types of residential sections and houses. In the mid 20s. the first typical residential sections appear, which over the next years have undergone significant changes, which influenced the character of the settlement of new residential buildings put into operation.

53. Moscow. Residential building of the cooperative "Dukstroy". 1927-1928 Archite. A. Fufaev. Plan

1 - two-room apartments; 2 - one-room apartments; 3 - bathrooms and showers; 4 - hostels

So, for example, in the first four-apartment typical sections for Moscow in 1925-1926. two-room apartments prevailed, which limited the possibility of their room-by-room settlement (Fig. 58.) Typical section 1927-1928. was already a duplex, while the main one was not

Page 81-

Page 82-

Two-room and three-room apartment. The apartments became more comfortable (bathrooms appeared, cross-ventilation was provided, there were no walk-through rooms). However, the orientation towards multi-room apartments, which was established in the second half of the 20s. in conditions of a relatively small volume of housing construction and an acute housing need, it also determined the nature of the distribution of living space. The room-by-room settlement of new residential buildings has become widespread.

Transition in the mid-20s. to the development of urban residential complexes with sectional houses, he required architects to develop new types of sections that allow designing residential complexes with relatively dense buildings and at the same time creating quarters with an abundance of air and greenery that are diverse in volume and spatial composition. Along with the ordinary, end, corner, T-shaped and cruciform sections that were widely used in the past (and abroad), new types of sections were developed - three-beam (Fig. 59) and obtuse-angled (projects of 1924-1925, architects N. Ladovsky and L. Lissitzky).

In the second half of the 20s. the development of a type of communal house continued.

At the same time, special attention was paid to the development of a program for a new type of housing (comradely competition for the design of a residential building for workers, 1926-1927) (Fig. 60).

In 1928, a group of architects led by M. Ginzburg (M. Barshch, V. Vladimirov, A. Pasternak and G. Sum-Shik) began work on the rationalization of the dwelling and the development of a communal house of a transitional type in the typification section of the Stroykom of the RSFSR, where practically for the first time on a national scale, problems of the scientific organization of everyday life began to be developed. The task was to develop such living cells that would make it possible to give a separate apartment to each family, taking into account the real possibilities of those years. Attention was drawn to the rationalization of the layout and equipment of the apartment. The schedule of movement and the sequence of labor processes of the hostess in the kitchen were analyzed; rationally placed equipment made it possible to free up part of the unused area.

Along with the rationalization of sectional apartments in the typing section, various options for the spatial arrangement of residential cells were developed using a through corridor serving one floor, two floors and three

Page 83-

Floors, such as, for example, a residential cell of type F, which made it possible to arrange a corridor serving two floors by lowering the height of the auxiliary premises of apartments and an alcove (the corridor is light, and each apartment has through ventilation) (Fig. 62).

The result of the work of the typification section in 1928-1929. was, on the one hand, the development of "standard projects and structures for housing construction recommended for 1930" (published in 1929), and on the other hand, the construction of six experimental communal houses in Moscow, Sverdlovsk and Saratov (Fig. 61-65) . In these houses, various options for spatial types of residential cells, methods for interconnecting the residential and public parts of a communal house, new structures and materials, and methods for organizing construction work were tested.

56. Moscow. Residential houses of the village "Sokol". 1923 Architect. N. Markovnikov.

House plan. General form. Fragment

It should be noted the house on Novinsky Boulevard in Moscow (architects M. Ginzburg and I. Milinis, engineer S. Prokhorov, 1928-1930), consisting of residential, utility and utility buildings (Fig. 61). The residential building is a six-story building with two corridors (on the second and fifth floors). The first floor has been replaced by pillars. The house has three types of apartments

Page 84-

Tire - small apartments (type F), twin apartments, apartments for large families. At the level of the second floor, the residential building is connected by a covered passage to the communal building, where the kitchen-dining room was located (lunches were taken at home) and a kindergarten.

The development of work on the design of new cities and residential complexes with newly built industrial enterprises in the first five-year plan put the problem of the mass type of dwelling in the center of attention of architects. A sharp discussion began on the problems of restructuring everyday life, the fate of the family, the relationship between parents and children, forms of social contacts in everyday life, the tasks of socializing the household, etc.

Much attention was paid during this period to the problem of family and marriage relations and their influence on the architectural and planning structure of the new dwelling, opinions were expressed about the complete socialization of the household, the family was questioned as the primary unit of society, etc. Projects of communal houses were created in which residents were divided into age groups (separate rooms are provided for each of them), and the entire organization of life is strictly regulated. For example, the house-commune, designed in 1929 by M. Barshchem and V. Vladimirov, was divided into three interconnected main buildings: a six-story building for preschool children, a five-story building for school-age children, and a ten-story building for adults.

Supporters of proposals for the complete socialization of everyday life and the liquidation of the family referred to individual examples of household communes with the complete socialization of everyday life and the rejection of the family. However, some sociologists and architects of the 1920s, analyzing youth hostels, considered the specifics of the organization of life and the nature of relationships in them in an unreasonably broad way. Almost many projects of communal houses with a complete generalization

Page 85-

The development of everyday life and the rejection of the family were an attempt to architecturally design and rationalize the everyday life of the youth hostel. The fate of the communal houses built for such a youth collective is also characteristic. Those of them that were created for student household communes functioned for many years as well-appointed dormitories, as they constantly supported the age and family composition of residents specified by the program. The same communal houses that were built for everyday communes of working youth, gradually, as their residents created families, turned into uncomfortable dwellings, because the changing way of life no longer corresponded to the organization of life of the youth commune provided for by the project.

And yet, the movement of working youth who came to universities to create everyday student communes, the formation of such communes had a certain influence on the design and construction of student dormitories in the late 1920s.

During this period, an experimental student house-commune for 2 thousand people was built in Moscow. (architect I. Nikolaev, 1929-1930). In a large eight-story building there are small rooms (6 m²) for two people, intended only for sleeping. This building was connected to a three-story public building, which housed a sports hall, an auditorium for 1000 seats, a dining room, a reading room for 150 people, a study room for 300 people, and booths for individual studies. A laundry room, a repair room, a nursery for 100 places, rooms for circles, etc. were also designed (Fig. 66, 73).

60. Friendly competition for the project of a residential building for workers. 1926-1927

Architects A. Ol, K. Ivanov, A. Ladinsky. Axonometry. Plans

In the projects of Leningrad students (LIKS), the commune house was decided on already

Page 86-

Became by the end of the 20s. the usual type - a multi-storey residential building (or buildings) and a public building (or several buildings) connected to it.

In the majority of VKhUTEIN students' projects carried out under the direction of I. Leonidov, the communes are divided into groups. The same idea was put in the basis of the residential complex in the project of I. Leonidov for Magnitogorsk (Fig. 67).

62. Spatial residential cells of type F, developed in the typification section

Construction Committee of the RSFSR and used in the house on Novinsky Boulevard

Page 87-

Among the implemented houses-communes, whose public and communal premises successfully functioned in combination with residential cells, one can name the house of the society of political prisoners in Leningrad (early 30s, architects G. Simonov, P. Abrosimov, A. Khryakov). It consists of three buildings connected by internal transitions. In two gallery-type buildings there are small two-room apartments, and in the sectional building there are large three-room apartments. On the first floor there are common premises: a vestibule, a foyer, an auditorium, a dining room, a library-reading room, etc. (Fig. 68).

The tasks facing architects during the period under review to improve the living conditions of workers involved both the improvement of the apartments themselves and the development of a network of public services.

Page 88-

Page 89-

Page 90-

The real processes of the formation of everyday life testified that the family turned out to be a stable primary unit of society. The household commune (consumer collective), based on the full voluntary self-service of its members, turned out to be a utopia, since it did not take into account the real economic relations of people under socialism (“from each according to his ability, to each according to his work”) and, as a structural unit of society, did not develop . The transitional type of the communal house was not widely used either, since the hopes for the rapid displacement of most household processes from the limits of the living cell did not come true.

At the end of the 20s. many residential buildings and complexes were designed and built, which included elements of public services: a residential complex (architect B. Iofan, 1928-1930) on Bersenevskaya embankment in Moscow (Fig. 69), in which public buildings (a cinema, a club with a theater hall, a kindergarten and a nursery, a canteen, a shop) are attached to residential buildings, but are not connected with them; house-complex in Kyiv on the street. Revolutions (architect M. Anichkin, engineer L. Zholtus, 1929-1930) - a five-story, complex building with public premises on the ground floor; collective house in Ivanovo-Voznesensk (architect I. Golosov, 1929-1932) (Fig. 70).

Page 91-

BUT- building with two-room apartments; B- building with three-room apartments; a- typical floor plan: 1 - living rooms; 2 - front; 3 - toilet; 4 - kitchen cabinet; b- ground floor plan: 1 - vestibule; 2 - foyer; 3 - auditorium; 4 - canteen; 5 - open gallery

Page 92-

Page 93-

These and many other residential buildings and complexes, designed in the late 1920s, clearly indicate that the type of mass urban residential building was still in the search stage by that time. Architects were no longer satisfied with either sectional houses with large apartments for room-by-room settlement, or communal houses with residential "cabins" devoid of utility rooms. Searches were conducted for an economical residential cell for a family, forms of interconnection between a residential building and public utilities.

In May 1930, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a resolution “On work on the restructuring of life”, which emphasized the importance of forming a new socialist way of life and revealed the mistakes made in this area.

New social conditions and the forms of solving the housing problem determined by them created favorable conditions for the development of a typical rational economical apartment. The forms of distribution of living space characteristic of a socialist society required a fundamentally new approach to the design of an apartment.

During the years of the first five-year plan, extensive housing construction for workers began in the country. Separate houses were built in densely built-up areas of cities, new quarters were created on the site of the former poor outskirts, new residential complexes, new industrial cities. The whole country has turned into a construction site, and along with huge investments in the industry of paramount

Page 94-

Mass housing construction also played a significant role. The geography of new residential complexes is rapidly expanding. Along with Moscow, Leningrad, Baku, Ivanovo-Voznesensk and other large industrial centers that had been established even before the revolution, residential complexes for workers are being built at an ever-increasing pace near the newly built industrial giants of the first five-year plan at the Kharkov and Stalingrad tractor plants, at the automobile plant in the city of Gorky.

Housing construction began on a large scale in the rapidly developing industrial centers of the Urals and Siberia - Sverdlovsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Novosibirsk, Chelyabinsk, Kemerovo, Novokuznetsk, etc.

The main types of mass residential construction during the years of the first five-year plan were three-five-story sectional houses, the development, planning and construction of which was given the main attention. Numerous types of sections were created, taking into account local climatic conditions, the nature of the distribution of living space and the possibilities of engineering equipment.

Due to the acute shortage of building materials in the late 20s. (released primarily for industrial construction), scientific

Page 95-

And design experimental work in the field of prefabricated housing construction using local materials and industrial waste.

Back in 1924-1925. Joint-stock company "Standard", in whose design bureau a group of architects who had experience in using new wooden structures in the construction of pavilions of an agricultural exhibition in Moscow (1923) worked, set up factory production (on the basis of woodworking plants) of standard low-rise prefabricated residential buildings, which were built up workers' settlements (for example, in Ivanovo-Voznesensk) (Fig. 71).

In 1927, the first residential building was built in Moscow from small cinder blocks according to the project of engineers G. Krasin and A. Loleit. In 1929, research in the field of large-block construction began at the Kharkov Institute of Structures (headed by engineer A. Vatsenko). The result of this work was experimental quarters of three-story houses made of large cinder blocks (1929), an experimental six-story large-block house in Kharkov (1930, architect M. Gurevich, engineers A. Vatsenko, N. Plakhov and B. Dmitriev), settlements large-block houses in Kramatorsk (1931-1933, the same authors).

Simultaneously with the development of large-block stone construction, with an orientation towards a gradual increase in the number of storeys of residential buildings, developments continued in the field of low-rise wooden housing construction from standard prefabricated elements. Projects of various types of residential buildings from local materials were developed, and experimental construction was carried out. In a number of developed types of houses, it was possible to change the layout of the living cell - sliding and folding partitions. It was envisaged to create special enterprises for the construction of low-rise standard residential buildings from local materials. Construction

Page 96-

Housing was supposed to be fully industrialized, ready-made elements of minimal weight produced at factories and assembled on site with a light crane in a short time.

At the end of the period under review, the first promising projects for the construction of residential buildings from three-dimensional elements were also created. In 1930, N. Ladovsky published, and in 1931 patented, a proposal to make a fully equipped living cell (cabin) of one or two types the main standard element. Such three-dimensional elements were to be manufactured at the factory and delivered in finished form to the construction site, where various types of residential buildings were to be assembled from them - from individual houses to multi-storey buildings, in which, along with residential cells, there could be general and special purpose premises. Such a method of organizing the construction of residential complexes from three-dimensional elements was envisaged, when all communications were to be laid on the site in the first place, and then a standardized frame was erected. The assembled living cabin had to be inserted into the frame with the help of cranes and connected to communications.

Developing projects for a working dwelling, the architects sought not only to organize the life of its inhabitants in a new way, but also paid much attention to the development of new techniques for the volumetric and spatial composition of the dwelling and the creation of a new look for a residential building.

The method of connecting buildings with transitions, which was widespread in projects of a new type of dwelling, led to the emergence of new volumetric and spatial solutions, and the development of a residential area acquired a different urban planning scope. A typical example is the residential complex "Town of Chekists" (Fig. 72) in Sverdlovsk, 1931 (architects I. Antonov, V. Sokolov, A. Tumbasov).

In the 20s. Soviet architects developed a number of original solutions for blocked low-rise buildings.

Page 97-

In 1930, in Yerevan, according to the project of K. Alabyan and M. Mazmanyan, a residential building was built with a peculiar “chessboard” arrangement of deep loggias characteristic of local architecture (Fig. 74).

A distinctive feature of the development of a new type of dwelling in the period under review was the pronounced problematic nature of creative searches. Of particular importance were the social problems of the new type of housing, closely related to the restructuring of everyday life; other problems were also raised - functional, artistic, constructive.

New types of dwellings, new volumetric and spatial solutions of the house, options for combining residential and communal premises, spatial types of residential cells, rational layout and apartment equipment, new types of single-family, block, sectional and single-section houses, large-scale and mobile housing, etc. were developed. This led to the fact that our architecture, already in the period of its formation, actively influenced the development of modern housing in other countries.

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 an extremely 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 cultural system, as well as the general appearance 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 critic 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, housing 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, divided by category 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 m 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, 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 meet 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 will be located - in a village, city or a completely new type of settlement - how it will 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 system.

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, when 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 ...

... the point is that a woman should not be oppressed by her economic situation, unlike a man ... even with full equality of rights, this actual oppression of a woman still remains, because the whole household is blamed on her. This housekeeping is, in most cases, the most unproductive, the wildest, and the most difficult work that a woman does. This work is extremely small, 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 the family became an important part of the concept of the social experiment of 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 "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 things 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 encouraged 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 is 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 1920s 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 magazine, 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. should one turn away from the truly beautiful, reject 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 to study historical art schools, but to master the laws of combining 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 trains 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 journal Izvestia ASNOVA prepared by them was published in 1926 under the editorship of E. Lissitzky, which was also the last. In the future, 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 external decorativeism 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 complex built-up housing estates 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 utopianism 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 led to the strongest intensification of racial and national oppression.Only because Soviet power is the power of the working people, it was able to carry out this equality for the first time in the world to the end and in all areas of life, up to the complete destruction 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 "phalansters", 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 gauge 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 allow for a faster transition to a more developed collective way of life. "This is what guided the creators of the project of the student house-commune, developed at the Bureau of Scientific and Technical Circles of the Leningrad Institute of Communal Construction. The project was called "October in everyday life." 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 preparedness 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 planning 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 more and more 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 the upbringing and living in them of a "new" person - a socialist and a communist, the Moscow Bureau of Proletarian Students in 1929 prepared a standard design 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 eating rooms includes a dining room for the simultaneous accommodation of 25% of the living, a buffet, a kitchen, storerooms 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 won as close as possible to the task of Proletstud, 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 everyday 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 placed: 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, a 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 ascends 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 social 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. Cabins for team work on assignments. Canteen, corridors for gymnastics, rooms for circles. Student 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 tenant 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 cells. “In an effort to be economical, not at the expense of reducing the quality of construction and reducing the comfort of housing, the architects of the Typification 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's why we tried to keep the isolation of each cell, that's 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 financial viability of the tenant, 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 inflow 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 - the "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 inherent 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 ground floor, was architecturally distinguished by a band of strip glazing, which facilitates the overall appearance of the building, which is sparse in terms of 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 everywhere 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, uniting 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, was manifested in the geometric volumes of the buildings inscribed in 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 instructions.

<...>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 architects' projects, executed in accordance with all the manifestos they proclaimed, turned out to be anti-functional and practically unrealizable in these materials. The 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 sentiments have 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.

Communal 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 twentieth 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, clearly testifying 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