Проектирование восстанавливаемых городов в 1943–1946 гг., в особенности их центров, начиналось с создания проектов монументов Великой Отечественной войны. Они послужили тем образно-смысловым ядром, которое, развиваясь пространственно и усложняясь композиционно, определяло собой главное в архитектуре восстанавливаемых городов. В профессиональном сознании тех лет абсолютная смысловая доминанта 1930-х гг. – Дворец Советов - вступала в композиционный спор с мемориалом Победы.
Сложившаяся в практике система ведомственного финансирования застройки городов постепенно приводила к тому, что реконструкция города стала пониматься как строительство крупных общественных «зданий-символов». Прецедент, как известно, был создан проектированием и строительством высотных зданий в Москве. Дворец Советов, в качестве композиционной поддержки которого и задумывались высотные здания, в это время не строился, а Б.М. Иофан подвергался жесткой критике в ходе кампании «борьбы с низкопоклонством перед Западом». Тем не менее, московские высотные здания сразу вошли в арсенал клишированных образов, эксплуатировавшихся всей советской архитектурой, слившись по смыслу с непостроенным Дворцом Советов. Во многих городах строились Дома Советов, по возможности имитировавшие «высотность» композиционными средствами. Такая универсализация образа высотных зданий была связана не только со стремлением восстановить утраченный в ходе сноса архитектурных памятников силуэт города, но и с переменой знаков в культурной политике государства. Москва становилась идеалом как символ «исконно русских» градостроительных традиций, в отличие от «западного» Петербурга, а строительство высотных зданий - символом приобщенности послевоенного зодчества к этим традициям.
The Interpretation of the Concept of ‘High-Building’ in the Soviet Urban planning of the 1940s - 1950s
The topic of altitude as one of the most effective means of shaping the image of a Soviet city acquired extraordinary relevance in the 1930s; and it was actively picked up and developed in the post-war decade. In the course of development of the general plan of Moscow in 1935, it was directly related to the formation of the concept, which can be called “the whole city-ensemble”. During the post-war reconstruction, Soviet urban planning was developed under the influence of two opposite tendencies: the desire for artistic integrity and the universal over-orderliness of the entire city space, understood as a single ensemble. At the same time, the city was seen as a vehicle for presenting political ideas of social well-being and economic prosperity, and the destructive in nature, formation of an urban area as a set of settlements at industrial enterprises. The long-term prospects for the development of cities were constantly changing due to repeated adjustments to planning decisions made in the national economic sphere.
The design of the cities to be restored in 1943-1946, especially their centres, was started with the creation of projects of the monuments for the memory of the Great Patriotic War (WWII). They served as the figurative and semantic core, which, developing spatially and becoming more complex compositionally, determined the main aspects in the architecture of the cities being restored. Those years, in the professional consciousness, the absolute semantic dominant of the 1930s – Palace of the Soviets - entered into a compositional dispute with the Victory Memorial.
The system of departmental financing of urban development, that took shape in practice, gradually led to the fact that the reconstruction of cities was understood as the construction of large public ‘symbolic buildings’. A well-known precedent was set by the design and construction of high-rise buildings in Moscow. The Palace of Soviets, for which the high-rise buildings were conceived as a compositional support, was not built at that time, and B.M. Iofan was subjected to harsh criticism during the campaign “to combat sycophancy before the West”. Nevertheless, Moscow high-rise buildings immediately entered the arsenal of clichéd images used by the entire Soviet architecture, merging in meaning with the unbuilt Palace of Soviets. In many cities, Houses of Soviets were constructed, imitating the ‘altitude’ with compositional tools. Such a universality of the image of high-rise buildings was associated not only with the desire to restore the silhouette of the city lost during the demolition of architectural monuments, but also with the change of leading signs in the cultural policy of the state. Moscow became an ideal as a symbol of “the primordially Russian” urban traditions, in contrast to the “western” Petersburg, and the construction of high-rise buildings became a symbol of the post-war architecture's adherence to these traditions.
Похожие статьи
Технологии и материалы
Сейчас на главной
Бывший главный архитектор Самары о страхе потерять Безымянку и будущем исторического центра.
