Introduction
This paper will focus on the architectural characteristics for the time period of the 19th and 20th century where the society architectural design lacked motive or the idea behind any kind of design. The constructions that received the most advantage were the museums, churches, and government buildings all of which had decorative references indicating their past. Eclectic and historicist styles were aimed at the apartment building where its decorativeness portrayed only a sense of fashion and luxury.
The architecture of 1850 – 1917 was undistinguished with shoddiness with all kinds of styles. As at the time of the Revolution many young architectures were copying the leaders of constructivist artistic moments and suprematists. Modern architecture was given the upper official hand resulting in the architecture of the twenties. Although, in 1932 national classicism took root and it lasted till the sixties after World War (II) architectural varied with its construction styles due to much influence from other European nations thus resulting in distinctive national style.
The history of Russian architecture has dominantly been seen in religious activities. Churches were the only buildings that were constructed from stones for a long period of time. This was the period of the revival of architecture and was developed in Imperial Russia. These kinds of buildings were characterized by high walls that were free from openings, slanting roofs, and doomed roofings. Later, Russian architectural was intruded on by other countries especially those from Europe. An example of such foreign work was the Cathedral in Moscow.
In the 19th century interest in traditional Russian architecture brought interest. This lead to the associated movement in arts which lead to the creation of the avant-garde movement in the early 20th century. During the 1917 Revolution, the avant-garde Constructivist gained influence and was contracted to design major constructions or buildings. One of the renowned was the Lenon’s Mausoleum which was designed in 1924 by Alexey Shchusev.
It then (avant-garde) gained recognition from Stalin’s conservative state. During Stalin’s tenure, the best-known architecture was the skyscrapers that dominated the city’s sky that were referred to as the “wedding cake” and were seven in total.
Stalinist architecture describes the architecture that resulted in the way that the state communicated with the masses as an expression of power. All cities were built into a general plan to rationalize the countries policies. This led to a scenario where the construction was monitored by the state and some specific ideas were not supposed to be added like the floral motifs of Art Nouveau. Also, it’s a definition that is used to describe the era between the periods 1933 to 1955 when the Palace of Soviet was designed and the end of the project where most ideas were from Boris Iofan.
In 1918 there was a mass reconstruction of the cities. In this period there was the architectural college which was divided into revivalists and modernists. This lead to the planning of the cities into large avenues, removal of worker quarters, and large public buildings. The worker quarters were turned into proper housing with sanitation and heating capabilities. The development of technologies and materials leads to constructivist elements in a design.
The conservativist architecture was a kind of modern architecture that was being employed in the 1920s and early 1930s. This combined advanced building technologies with the perspective of Communistic socialistic purpose. A good example is the Comintern in St Petersburg which was never built.
The extent of Stalinist architecture was limited to urban public and residential buildings. Before this era, the construction was divided into Russky Modern and Neoclassical Revival. The school of Neoclassical produced renowned architectures who later become Stalinism’s architectural elders and were the best. The other school was that of Constructivism which had young professionals will there were also others who
After the death of Stalin in 1953, everything changed. This lead to the construction priorities and its architecture neglected, and the construction business slowed down. This lead to the removal of decorative style from the design of the building, which leads to the death of Stalinist Architecture, even though there were some construction going ahead they ended up being unsymmetrical of squares.
When Stalin was alive both luxury and mass construction did not conflict. After his death, it was estimated that Stalin’s excess was between 30 to 33 percent of all the construction. This led to the decision of setting the standards for any kind of construction. After this stylistic architecture just lived for about five years before it completely went down.
Modernism architecture has combined versatile use of space in housing design and commercial buildings with an emphasis on structural decoration that had little to do with its past.
Palace of Soviets
It was planned to be the largest building in the world with a height of 415 meters. It was intended to have a statue of Lenin which could have to be 100 meters high which were and were to weigh 6000 tonnes. The building site was fully accessible with the help of a railway network. The project was a priority in 1934 russian2and its construction was started in 1937 but was stopped in 1941 following the emergency of World War (II). It was supposed to house an administrative center and a meeting place. The sitting capacity of the main hall was supposed to be 21,000 with a size of 100 meters high and 160 meters in diameter.
History of the concept
In 1922 the Soviet Union was officially formed. Sergey Kirov during the congress proceedings proposed its construction, this he claimed was because the other halls would be small. After the death of Lenin, there was a proposition that the statues of Lenin should be build all over the country. It was also proposed that the Lenin statue should be built on top of this building.
Proposals for the construction were decided in 1931 but after 15 architectural workshops were given the offer non of the workshops had met the conditions. Also in the same year, the second contest was given out with 272 concepts were given out. It also attracted international contestants. In 1932 three leading drafts were declared. All the three who qualified didn’t like the idea of avant-garde and all backed eclecticism. This caused a lot of misunderstanding with the lead of CIAM complaining to Stalin saying that the idea was an insult to the spirit of Revolution.
After the second contest, there was the third contest with 15 designs teams and the fourth only invited five. In 1933 Boris design was declared the winner and two neo-classicist were added to the team. The final design was then called the Iofan-Schuko-Gelfreikn draft. This name came from the second names of the three designers.
Stalin’s ideas on the draft were that the main tower was to be upward, should be the tallest, possession of a brightly lit hammer and sickle. He also took into consideration of Lenin statue which he proposed should be placed in front of the building also included Marx and Engels statues. He also said that people should be afraid of the height of the building since it was dedicated to Lenin.
Construction
Its foundation was completed in 1939 with a slightly concave concrete slab with accompanying concentric rings. In 1941 the steel for the lower parts of the building was put in place. When World War (II) intensified the steel frame was cut and the army used it for fortification and railroad constructions. The project was stopped and well guarded until 1958. During the war, the designers relocated and added themes of Victory. The construction never took place. The intended space was made to be an open swimming place for the public. The images of the designs were later used in movies and other contractions.
References
John, F. et al. “Russian Architecture”. London: Penguin, 1996.
Hamilton, G. Art and Architecture of Russia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.
Gray, C. The Russian Experiment In Art: 1863 – 1922. London and New York: Thames and Hudson, 2002.