The history of architecture in the history of human development begins with the reasonable organization of a home by man. In the beginning, what man built was simply a shelter from natural influences and attacks by animals and enemies (dugout covered with branches, 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 designs became more and more perfect, the shape and interiors became more and more aestheticized.
The oldest prehistoric dwelling was discovered in the south of France near Nice. It had the appearance of 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 - Paleolithic....... Around the 10th millennium BC, humanity in different regions of the earth at different times began to move from only hunting and gathering to conscious agriculture and cattle breeding and, therefore , to a sedentary lifestyle, 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. Over 7 thousand years, humanity has made a giant leap in its development. During this period, people who settled on the earth and took up farming began to improve permanent housing, create settlements, and then cities, and people who continued to lead a nomadic lifestyle began the long process of developing the design of a mobile home (tent, wagon, yurt, plague and etc.).

……In the 6th millennium BC (8 thousand years ago) on the island of Cyprus, in a place called Kirokitia, the first 2-story house known to us was discovered. This is a domed house, very similar in shape to the Jericho one, but narrower made of stone. Such a house cannot be called small even now: on the first floor there are 50-60 m2 and about 40 more on the second......On the territory of modern Turkey in Anatolia, the remains of a settlement were found, today called Çatalhüyük. The lower, earliest layer is dated quite accurately - 6500 BC, i.e. this is the time of the emergence of the city of Jericho. The mountains around which ÇatalHüyük is located were then active volcanoes. The village was a single house. House-city, house-fortress - a continuous terraced building 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” no earlier than the 4th and 3rd millennia BC, the then inhabitants These places, the ancient Sumerians, created the oldest of the great civilizations known to us. This region, called Mesopotamia or Mesopotamia, was conquered many times by different peoples, great states were formed, flourished and perished here (including Assyria and Babylon), the wheel and writing were invented here. Many discoveries born during the 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 wood and stone, so clay and reed became the main building materials. It is assumed that the first residential buildings in these places were erected like this: a round or oval platform was cut down in thickets of tall reeds, which was compacted with clay and the ends of reed stems were tied over it, which were intertwined with reed branches, and then this wall-covering was coated with clay. The floor was covered with reed mats. Ancient reliefs from later times show this type of hut and more elaborate residential buildings with a circular plan and domed thatch roof.

The need for constant protection from attacks forced us to develop a type of residential building with blank (without window openings) external walls with access from all rooms to a central, uncovered courtyard. This house is designed for single-family residence and is a self-contained planning unit, oriented inward: access to all rooms of the first and second floors (the houses are mainly two-story) is open only from the courtyard. This may explain the appearance of passage galleries on the second floor. These galleries are either cantilevered or supported by wooden posts. Floors and coverings are flat on wooden beams, despite the fact that wood is a very expensive material......Period from 5000 to 3000. BC is called predynastic. During this period, the dwelling was built, as in Mesopotamia, from reeds coated with clay and Nile silt. At the end of this period, mud brick began to be used. It is believed that the manufacturing principle and construction technique from it were borrowed from 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 buildings, in the processing of which they achieved high perfection. Very little is known about residential buildings of this and subsequent periods and only from clay models and reliefs left in tombs. In the reconstruction of a rural dwelling from the period of the late Ancient - early Middle Kingdoms, a two-story building with a usable roof can be seen. The ceilings rest on blank outer walls and internal columns made of reed bundles coated with clay and silt (hence the motif of the 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 top of which are laid reed mats and a layer of earth with clay. Stone stairs lead to the floors and roof. The kitchen is located in an open courtyard..The Middle Kingdom is a time of economic growth in Egypt, accompanied by significant growth of cities, urban life and culture. Social and property differentiation of the population is reflected in housing architecture. It was during the Middle Kingdom that the main types of residential buildings emerged and continued with minor changes in subsequent periods. The type of Egyptian Estate and various options for urban development are being formed, ranging from rich residential buildings to workers' settlements with their minimal residential cells. The rich urban estate was a fairly large space (about 500 m2) enclosed by a blank high brick 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 swimming pool. The layout of the house is quite complex, and the female half is clearly defined - the harem. Such estates could be adjacent to each other, so that the street was a passage between the blank white walls of the fence.

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

15) Architecture of Ancient India Character traits Indian architecture: 1) Religious mythological symbolism is manifested in every architectural monument. 2) Sculpture, and above all relief, occupy the first place in Indian architecture. Monumental stone sculptures, although made in accordance with religious ideas, reflect human life in all its manifestations (spiritual, physical, everyday, 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, however, the first monuments of Indian architecture date back to the 3rd-2nd millennium BC, and possibly date back to an earlier time. The most ancient and interesting from an architectural point of view 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 internal 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 buildings, 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) Architecture of America By the time of the conquest of America by the Spaniards, the peoples of Central America and the west coast had reached their highest degree of development South America. They were at the stage of forming an early slave state. It was preceded by a long period of passage through various stages of social formations, to which certain types of structures corresponded. 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 processed with stone tools. Lime mortar and baked 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 predominantly engaged in agriculture. No monumental architecture created during this period has been discovered. - The period of the beginning of class stratification of primitive communities(VIII - end of the 1st century BC) - characterized by an increase in the standard of living, the emergence of a ruling elite, and the construction of cult pyramids. Monumental sculpture (steles) and a certain complex of architectural ornaments appeared. - " 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 particular power, and grandiose cult centers of city-states were built. This period saw the flourishing of architecture. - 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 tribes. The old city-states are abandoned, the importance of the priesthood decreases, and the power of the military nobility increases. The construction of pyramids decreases and then almost stops. New slave-owning city-states are created. Administrative and palace buildings are being erected. Toltec culture spreads in Central America, and Inca culture spreads in the Andes.

22) Features of an Egyptian sculptural portrait Certain types of composition and canons were used in sculpture: Male sculptures were painted red-brown, and female sculptures were painted yellow (due to genetic differences). The walking figure was depicted with his left leg extended forward, and his head and profile turned to the front. The funeral cult was based on the calm and balance of poses, frontality of figures, portrait resemblance and solemnity. The statues are leaned against a wall or block surface. For men, the left leg is extended forward, arms along the body or one of them on a staff.
Women have their right hand along their body and their left hand on their waist. The seated figures have their knees and feet close together, while their hands rest on their knees. Features of the sculpture are physical strength, fearless faces, including those of the pharaohs.

19) Features of the development of the art of primitive society. Mesolithic. Neolithic. Culture continues to develop, religious ideas, cults and rituals become significantly more complex. In particular, the belief in the afterlife and the cult of ancestors is increasing. The burial ritual involves the burial of things and everything necessary for the afterlife; complex burial grounds are built... .. There are also noticeable changes in the arts. Along with animals, humans are also widely depicted; they even begin to predominate. A certain schematism appears in his depiction. At the same time, artists skillfully convey the expression of movements, the internal state and meaning of events. A significant place is occupied by multi-figure scenes of hunting, chalk collection, military struggle and battles... ….. This era is characterized by deep and qualitative changes occurring in culture as a whole and in all its areas. One of them is that culture ceases to be single and homogeneous: it breaks up into many ethnic cultures, each of which acquires unique characteristics and becomes distinctive. 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 economics, i.e. the transition from an appropriating economy (gathering, hunting, fishing) to producing and transformative technologies (agriculture, cattle breeding), which meant the emergence of new areas of material culture. In addition, new crafts emerged, and with it the use of pottery. When processing stone tools, drilling and grinding are used. The construction business is experiencing a significant boom... ….. The transition from matriarchy to patriarchy also had serious consequences for culture. This event is sometimes identified as a historical defeat for 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 occurred in art. In addition to animals, it depicts the sky, earth, fire, and sun. In art, generalization and even schematism arise, which also manifests itself in the depiction of a person. Plastics made from stone, bone, horn and clay are experiencing a real flourishing. New stone processing technique. Pottery production and construction speak of settled life. The transition from matriarchy to patriarchy.
Conventionally ornamental forms of image are developed, objects that were at a person’s disposal 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 ornament, our ancestors tried to reveal the form and purpose. In small plastic works there are female figures with a large number of conventions.
Rock carvings made mainly with percussion techniques have become widespread. Animals always go in the same direction; long lines of deer or elk stretching along the river. The image of a person is inferior to the images of animals.

26) Greek sculpture of the Classical period
The fifth century in the history of Greek sculpture of the classical period can be called a “step forward.” The development of sculpture in Ancient Greece in this period is associated with the names of such famous masters as Myron, Polyclene and Phidias. In their creations, the images become more realistic, if one can say, even “alive,” and the schematism that was characteristic of archaic sculpture decreases. But the main “heroes” remain the gods and “ideal” people... .. Myron, who lived in the mid-5th century. BC e, known to us from drawings and Roman copies. This brilliant master had an excellent command of plasticity and anatomy, and clearly conveyed freedom of movement in his works (“Discobolus”). His work “Athena and Marsyas” is also known. …. Polykleitos, who worked in Argos, in the second half of the 5th century. BC e. The sculpture of the classical period is rich in his masterpieces. He was a master of bronze sculpture and an excellent art theorist. Polykleitos preferred to depict athletes, in which simple people always saw the ideal. Among his works are the famous statues of "Doryphoros" and "Diadumen". The first job is that of a strong warrior with a spear, the embodiment of calm dignity. The second is a slender young man, with a competition winner’s bandage on his head......Phidias is another prominent representative of the creator of sculpture of the classical period. His name resounded 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 ancient Greece reflected the physical and inner beauty and harmony of a person. Already in the 4th century, after the conquest of Alexander the Great in Greece, new names of talented sculptors became known, such as Scopas, Praxiteles, Lysippos, Timothy, Leochares and others. The creators of this era begin to pay more attention to the internal state of a person, his psychological state and emotions. Increasingly, sculptors are receiving individual orders from wealthy citizens, in which they ask to depict famous personalities...... A famous sculptor of the classical period was Scopas, who lived in the mid-4th century BC. He innovates by revealing inner world person, tries to depict in sculptures the emotions of joy, fear, happiness. This talented man 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 depicted people in various complex poses, looking for new artistic possibilities for depicting new feelings on the human face (passion, anger, rage, fear, sadness). A wonderful creation of round sculpture is the statue of the Maenad; a Roman copy of it has now been preserved. A new and multifaceted relief work can be called the Amazonomachy, which adorns the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus in Asia Minor......Praxiteles 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 “lighter” emotions that were pleasant to the person. He transferred lyrical emotions, dreaminess to sculptures, and glorified 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 Child Dionysus”, “Apollo Killing a Lizard”…..The most famous work is the statue of Aphrodite of Cnidus. It was made to order for the residents of the island of Kos in two copies. The first is in clothes, and the second is naked. Scopas and Praxiteles were the first to dare to depict Aphrodite in the nude. The goddess Aphrodite in her image is very human, she prepared for a bath. 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 Child Dionysus" is the only original statue. Like the works of Phidias, the works of Praxiteles were placed in temples and open sanctuaries and were cultic. But the works of Praxiteles did not personify the former strength and power of the city and the valor of its inhabitants. Scopas and Praxiteles greatly influenced their contemporaries. ….Lysippos (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. Famous works include Hercules with a Hind, Apoxyomenos, Hermes Resting and The Wrestler. Lysippos makes changes in proportions, he depicts a smaller head, a drier body and longer legs.

27) Greek sculpture ArchaicSculpture During the archaic period it developed in very complex ways. Until the middle of the 6th century. BC e. statues of gods were created that were poorly dissected, strictly frontal, as if frozen. …..These are the statues of Artemis, the goddess of the hunt, from Fr. Delos (circa 650 BC) and Hera, wife of the supreme god of the Greek pantheon Zeus, with about. Samos (c. 560 BC), somewhat reminiscent, apparently, of the Xoans of the Homeric era. But already in the statue of Hera, greater plasticity of forms appears, emphasized by soft, smooth lines of the silhouette and folds of draperies. The proportions of the female figure itself, hidden by the robe, have already been quite correctly established......At this time, Greek sculpture opens up new aspects of the world. Her highest achievements refer to the development of the image of a person in 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 kouros served as tombstones and were erected in honor of the winners of competitions. Kuros are full of energy and cheerfulness; they are usually depicted walking or stepping, although the steps are still given somewhat conventionally (both feet are placed on the ground), as in ancient Eastern 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 towards revealing increasingly correct proportions, overcoming elements of geometric simplification and schematism. K ser. VI century BC, i.e. By the end of the archaic period, in the statues of kouros, the structure of the body, the modeling of forms and, what is especially remarkable, the face is enlivened by a mysterious smile, which is called “archaic” in art history. This “archaic smile” is conventional in nature, sometimes giving the kouros a somewhat mannered appearance. And yet it expresses a state of cheerfulness and confidence that permeates the entire figurative structure of the statues. ……The desire to convey the human body in movement is manifested in the famous statue of the Goddess of Victory Nike from Fr. Delos, completed in the first half of the 6th century. BC. However, the movement of the goddess, the so-called “kneeling run,” is as conventional as the “archaic smile.” From the second half of the 6th 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. From this time on, Athens and the Attic school of sculpture began to flourish. One of the achievements of the archaic art of Athens were the statues of girls in elegant clothes, the so-called “koras”, found on the Acropolis. The kor statues seem to sum up the sculptural development of the archaic.

28) Vase painting of Ancient GreeceGeometric vase painting With the decline of Mycenaean culture around 1050 BC. e. geometric pottery receives new life in Greek culture. In the early stages before 900 BC. e. ceramic dishes were usually painted with large, strictly geometric patterns. Typical decorations of vases were also circles and semicircles drawn with a compass. The alternation of geometric patterns of patterns was established by different registers of patterns, separated from each other by horizontal lines encircling the vessel. ...During the heyday of geometry, geometric designs became 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. Images are increasingly dominated by black, less often red, colors on light background shades. ….. Orientalizing period…. Since 725 BC. e. Corinth occupies a leading position in the production of ceramics. 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, order, theme and the images themselves were influenced by oriental designs, which were primarily characterized by images of griffins, sphinxes and lions. The technique of execution is similar to black-figure vase painting. Consequently, at this time the three-fold firing necessary for this was already used...... 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 involves covering terracotta vases with white slip made from local lime clay and then painting them. With the development of the style, they began to leave the clothes and bodies of the figures depicted on the vase white. To paint vases in this style, white paint was used as a base, onto which black, red or multi-colored figures were applied. …… Black-figure vase painting From the second half of the 7th century. until the beginning of the 5th century. BC e. black-figure vase painting developed into an independent style of decorating ceramics. Human figures began to appear more and more often in the images. Compositional schemes have also undergone changes. The most popular motifs for images on vases are feasts, battles, and mythological scenes telling about the life of Hercules and the Trojan War. As in the Orientalizing period, the silhouettes of the figures are drawn using slip or glossy clay on dried unfired clay. Small details were drawn with a pencil. After firing, the base became 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 image in black-figure vase painting, they began to paint not the silhouettes of the figures with black, but rather the background, leaving the figures unpainted. The finest details of the images were drawn with individual bristles on unpainted figures. Different slip compositions made it possible to obtain any shade of brown. With the advent of red-figure vase painting, the opposition of two colors began to be played out on bilingual vases, on one side of which the figures were black, and on the other - red. The red-figure style enriched vase painting with a large number of mythological subjects; in addition to them, on red-figure vases there are sketches from everyday life, female images and interiors of pottery workshops.

32) Four styles of Pompeian painting There are 4 styles in the wall paintings of Pompeii: 1st, “inlay” (2nd century BC - early 1st century BC, imitation of marble cladding); 2nd, “architectural-perspective” (mainly around 80 BC - around 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 - early 2nd century; mostly fantastic architectural structures)….. 1 style The first "style", also called "inlay" or "structural", was common in Pompeii in 200-80 BC. It is characterized by the so-called “rusticated” masonry or wall cladding - large stones with a relief, deliberately rough surface. Often the cladding was imitated by modeling architectural details from marbled plaster. Such decoration of the house gave it a strict, refined, noble appearance; the owners of some aristocratic city estates preserved such decoration for centuries, only renewing it from time to time..... 2 style... The second “style” is 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 was no relief... The paintings of the second “style” can be divided into several phases, each of which is characterized by increasingly complex decoration details. 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 rooms, introducing human figures into compositions, often using mythological subjects…….. 3 style The third Pompeian “style” (c. 15 BC - 40 AD in Rome, 62 AD 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 wall in the second style become thinner, turning into candelabra. Mau called this system “ornamental style.” During this period, Rome came under Egyptian cultural influence - Egyptian things appeared in the empire, Egyptian cults spread. Painting of the third “style” also did not avoid similar 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 painting-stamp (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 some ways, 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 elaborate theatrical decorations 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 paintings….. The popularity of 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 excellent opportunity to add modern notes to the design of their homes.

33) Fayum portrait Fayum portraits- funerary portraits created using the encaustic technique in Roman Egypt of the 1st-3rd centuries. They got their name from the site of the first major discovery 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 a mummy. Fayum portraits are the best surviving examples of ancient painting. They depict the faces of the inhabitants of ancient Egypt during 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 Alexander's empire, significant changes took place in art and architecture. Funerary portraiture, a unique art form of its time, flourished in Hellenistic Egypt. Stylistically related to the traditions of Greco-Roman painting, but created for typically Egyptian needs, replacing the funerary masks of mummies, Fayum portraits are strikingly realistic images of men and women of all ages.

| | 3 |

Roman culture is distinguished by a deeper blood attachment to the home as the foundation of social and personal well-being than in Hellenistic cities. The Roman “art of living” - the luxurious decoration of home chambers was supposed to serve as a frame for life, bring joy to the inhabitants, and elevate their spirit with a proud awareness of the beauty with which they surrounded themselves. Residential architecture - villas and insulas - clearly demonstrated the social poles of Roman society.

Villas

The outer walls were blank; inside, the early Roman residential building was divided into two complexes of rooms. The central part of one of these complexes was the Hellenistic peristyle (open courtyard), the other - the Etruscan atrium. The atrium is the main room of the house. Here is a hearth (atrium - black, smoked), a pool (impluvium), into which sacred heavenly water flowed from a hole in the roof, and an altar shelf. The atrium was surrounded on all sides by rooms with doors opening onto it.
The tablinum is the main front room, connecting the rooms around the peristyle with the rooms around the atrium. During the imperial period, two types of villas stand out: Villa Urbana, a luxurious country residence of wealthy people, and Villa Rustica, which was the center of farming.

Monumental and decorative painting

Pompeian houses have well-preserved interior decorative paintings, which are traditionally divided into four styles. The painting of the first style - “inlay” (Republican period) was just an imitation of marble cladding.
The painting of the second, “perspective”, illusoryly reproduces cornices, niches, monumental pilasters, which seem to push the wall apart and create the impression of majestic architecture and spaciousness, giving every Roman the feeling of being an emperor within the confines of his own villa.

In the third style - “candelabra” (“ornamental”) medallions, small paintings, and even some figurines lie in beautiful prints on the wall among light trellises in garlands and flowers, creating an elegant coziness in the rooms. The wall has been restored, the interior space is isolated from external environment, which gives the owners a feeling of some kind of psychological relief.

The painting of the fourth style - “illusory” - is dominated by enchanting architectural compositions with balconies, galleries, theatrical decorations and palace facades, which amaze the imagination with their fantastic luxury. As the architect Vitruvius wrote, all this painting was “wall decoration,” that is, decorative painting, simply a pleasing to the eye decoration of rooms, designed for these chambers and creating the intended mood in them; the pictorial principle was given a subordinate role here.

Insula

By the end of the 1st century. BC, the population of Rome numbered almost a million people, and most of the population were traders, officials, and artisans who lived in insulae. Insula (island) is a multi-storey (4 to 7) residential building with apartments and rooms prepared for rent. They belonged to the mass development of ancient Roman cities - in the 1st century. BC the number of insula in Rome reached almost 50 thousand.

To avoid disasters, Emperor Augustus determined the maximum height of the building as 21 m, and Trajan - 18 m. The insula were built of brick, the roofs were made of tiles. The first floors were reserved for shops (taberns). The other floors were occupied by apartments. Each of them had three rooms, which were adjacent to a corridor located perpendicular to the outer street wall. But only one of them, somewhat larger in area, and the corridor had windows onto the street. The other two rooms, located one after the other at the back of the apartment, were dark and apparently served as bedrooms. The lower floors of the insula were rented by wealthy citizens: such apartments had high ceilings (up to 3.5 m) and wide windows protected by thick shutters. Starting from the third floor, the apartments were intended for the poor; the ceiling height was such that people even walked bent over.

In the early 30s. In the housing construction of the USSR, serious changes occurred. IN previous years new residential buildings were built mainly in working-class areas that had formed before the revolution 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, housing, schools, preschool children's institutions, etc. were built in close proximity to industrial facilities.

The need for rapid resettlement required accelerating the pace of construction, which was achieved by using the simplest construction schemes and structures. Despite the monotonous methods of developing 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 subsequently developed in the planning and development of residential areas.

In Leningrad and in new cities, such as Zaporozhye and Magnitogorsk, construction was carried out on vacant territories. In Moscow, housing construction was mainly located on reconstructed highways. Since the architecture of residential buildings began to determine the appearance of central highways and new areas 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. New building rules introduced in Moscow in 1932 (later on, 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 improved equipment for household premises. Particular attention was paid to the external appearance of residential buildings, especially those located on main streets and squares.

The living area of ​​apartments according to the new building rules 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 to be 6 m2 (instead of 4.5 m2). Accordingly, the size of the auxiliary premises was increased. The height of the premises was set at 3.2 m.

The first years of the period under review are characterized by the following ratio of apartments: the bulk (50-60%) were three-room apartments with an area of ​​45-55 m2, 30% were two-room apartments with an area of ​​35-40 m2, and 10-20% were four-room apartments with an area of ​​more than 60 m2 2.

IN major cities after 1932, mainly multi-storey sectional brick houses with elevators and semi-detached sections were built.

45. Gorky. Avtozavodsky district. Quarter No. 4. Architecture. I. Golosov, 1936. General view, section plan

Based on the new rules of construction design in the workshops of the Mossovet, Gosproekt, Narkomtyazhprom and other design organizations designing new industrial centers, it was developed a number of standard residential sections(1936-1937). In these sections, much attention was paid to the convenience of the arrangement of 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 loggia.

Improvements in the layout, equipment and finishing of apartments took place first in the construction of houses for specialists, and then were applied in mass construction. The layout of these houses is based on a two-apartment section with apartments of three and four rooms (living area 47 and 69 m2) (Fig. 44). All apartments are equipped with bathtubs located in the back of the apartment next to the bedroom. In the kitchens located at the front of the apartment, there is a niche for the housekeeper.

Under the influence of Moscow and Leningrad architectural practice, the experience of designing and building residential buildings with two-apartment sections and large 3-4-room apartments spread to other cities of the Union. For example, during the development of the 4th quarter of the Avtozavodsky district of Gorky (architect I. Golosov, 1936), 2-apartment sections with apartments of 3 and 4 rooms were also used (Fig. 45). The layout is based on the technique of highlighting the front part of the apartment, grouped around the hallway. All service rooms are located deep inside the apartment. The sections in the residential building of the Baku Council were designed similarly (architects S. Dadashev, M. Useynov, 1938).

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

In addition, the use of new standards increased construction costs. All these problems were discussed at the First All-Union Meeting 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, a Committee for Construction Affairs was created under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, which subsequently 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 increased significantly. The number of floors of residential buildings increased to 8, 10, and sometimes up to 14 floors. Based on the program developed by the Committee for Construction, the design of economical sections for the mass construction of multi-story residential buildings began.

In order to create the possibility of occupancy of apartments by one family, their area was reduced, the number of apartments opening onto one staircase increased to 4-6. In order to expand the practice of family occupancy of apartments, in 1938 their percentage ratio 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 design system for residential sections was introduced, which significantly reduced the number of structural elements. Architects K. Alabyan, P. Blokhin, A. Zaltsman, K. Dzhus, Z. Rosenfeld, S. Turgenev and many others took part in the development of new types of sections with four and six apartments opening onto one staircase (Fig. 46 , 47).

In the pre-war years, a four-apartment residential section (architects P. Blokhin and A. Zaltsman) and a similar section for houses 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 housing. Sanitary units and bathrooms were located adjacent to two adjacent apartments, which made it possible to increase the depth of the building to 15.08 m. The simplicity of the structural design, standardization of spans and unification of sanitary blocks favorably distinguished the standard sections of P. Blokhin and Z. Rosenfeld from a number of others designed in this period. The layout of the residential section made it possible to accommodate room by room. 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 22.73, 46.7 and 66.3 m2, respectively. The total living area of ​​the section is 271.46 m2.

The main features of the serial design of residential sections were the set of apartments needed for resettlement, the possibility of blocking sections in the house, the common depth of the building, a single structural scheme, and 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 by switching to standard design of residential sections. 1939 was the last year when individual layout of apartments and sections was allowed for each house under construction. Since 1940, housing construction has firmly taken the path of construction according to standard projects. Standard projects were supposed to reduce construction costs by creating prerequisites for industrialization.

At the end of the 30s. Along with high-rise construction, low-rise construction has also developed, due in a number of places in the country to climatic conditions, seismic conditions, 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 urgent need for housing.

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

Standard designs for low-rise residential buildings were developed based on impersonal “average” conditions. The climatic features of a particular construction area were taken into account only in the form of amendments to the thickness of walls and attic floors.

Underestimation of the climatic and national-living characteristics of the region and its material resources led to the inconsistency of the built houses with local living conditions and increased construction costs. Low-rise buildings designed for southern regions Siberia and the Urals were not only inconvenient, but also short-lived.

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

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

The architects who participated in the development of 1st Meshchanskaya Street designed the houses independently of each other: the result was a random, “mechanical” set of houses, compositionally unrelated.

The increasing need for living space has led to a search for ways to more cost-effectively organize the process of constructing residential buildings and reduce construction time. In the 30s The construction business did not yet have a strong 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 architect was accepted. A. Mordvinova on the introduction of flow-high-speed construction of residential buildings. Using a new high-speed method, 23 houses were built in Moscow - on the street. Gorky, on B. Kaluzhskaya st. (now Leninsky Prospekt), on Frunzenskaya Embankment and other highways.

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

In-line construction began in Moscow on the street. Gorky. Residential buildings were built here based on a new method that 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. Concentrating all work in one architectural studio reduced design time and sped up construction.

48. Moscow. B. Kaluzhskaya Street (now Leninsky Prospekt). Development plan. 1939-1940 Archit. A. Mordvinov. House. Archit. G. Goltz. General view, plan

Archit. A. Mordvinov, together with architects D. Chechulin and G. Golts, also developed a project for a complex of residential buildings on Bolshaya Kaluzhskaya Street (Fig. 48). The simplicity of 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 unites two apartments of 3 and 4 rooms), developed in Mordvinov’s workshop.

At this time in Leningrad Comprehensive construction of new areas 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 blocks were created, having a holistic architectural and artistic solution (Fig. 49-52).

An example of such a solution is the development of the 26th block on the Malaya Okhta embankment (architects G. Simonov, B. Rubanenko, O. Guryev, V. Fromzel, V. Cherkassky, etc.). In the volumetric composition of the building facing the Neva, the authors sought to create large architectural forms that are clearly visible from the opposite bank of the river. The frontal development alternates with semicircular buildings. The leading motif of the composition - the treatment of the loggias with porticos protruding from the wall - runs along the entire front of the embankment development. In the pre-war years, the Avtovo district was built up according to the designs of architects A. Olya, S. Brovtsev, V. Belov, A. Leiman, etc.).

Architects A. Gegello, G. Simonov, E. Levinson, I. Fomin, N. Trotsky, A. Ol, A. Yunger and others participated in the development of the Moscow Highway. Construction was carried out quarterly. The territory inside the block was allocated for the construction of children's institutions with adjacent playgrounds. There were also schools inside the block.

The main requirement for the composition of the quarter was the creation of architectural unity of the development along the highway. The arrangement of 6-storey residential buildings with the formation of indentations from the red line made the front of the Moscow Highway development stand out and made it possible to introduce elements of diversity into the interpretation of the buildings themselves. IN common system In the development of the “facade” of the blocks, individual houses were united by gridded passages or decorative arches and columns.

A unified architectural solution for the external appearance of a residential area, street, and embankment played a positive role in the development of new areas of the city.

Increasing volumes of construction have 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, and introduce new means of mechanization of construction work. In the early 30s. In Leningrad, a competition was held for designs of buildings constructed using industrial methods. Projects of houses made of cast slag concrete (in wooden formwork) and projects of slag concrete houses built using the Tachytekton mobile workshop were presented at the competition.

* Based on the approved projects, 12 buildings made of cast slag concrete and one house using the Tachytecton system were built in Leningrad.

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

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

In 1935, the Moscow Council of Workers' 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 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 buildings for schools, hospitals, kindergartens and nurseries. However, the cost of 1 m 2 of a wall made of large blocks was still higher than that of brick, 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 made from such blocks was essentially no different from plastered brick houses. The facades of most large-block houses made from untextured blocks were decorated with plaster rustications, simple profiles framing door and window openings, and decorative cornices. A typical example is the five-story large-block residential building on Mytnaya Street in Moscow (designed and led by engineer A. Kucherov, 1933).

During this period, large-block houses (architects S. Vasilkovsky, I. Chaiko) were built in Leningrad (Syzran Street area), Magnitogorsk (block No. 2), Novosibirsk (1937-1940).

Further work on improving the technology for manufacturing blocks made it possible to move on to the construction of buildings from textured blocks and thereby 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 compiled from recycled standard sections, taking into account the difference in modulus of brick (13 cm) and cinder blocks (50 cm).

A typical example of large-block construction of this period is a 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 a project developed by architects A. Zaltsman, P. Revyakin and K. Sokolov) construction of a complex of five-story residential buildings from textured blocks began in Bogorodskoye in Moscow.

In 1934-1936. In Sverdlovsk, on Sacco and Vanzetti Streets, 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 created in these cities coordinated and directed design and construction.

55. Moscow. Large-block residential building on Leningradskoye Shosse. Architects A. Burov, B. Blokhin, engineer. A. Kucherov, G. Karmanov. 1940 General view. Plan

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

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

In 1940 (according to the design of architects A. Burov and B. Blokhin) it was built residential large-block building on Leningradsky Prospekt in Moscow(Fig. 55). Here, for the first time, double-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 division of large blocks. The construction of this building should be considered 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 connected with the architectural composition of the building.

In large-block construction, the wall is the main architectural and structural element of prefabricated buildings. The apparent “smallness” of large, unusual blocks required a special approach from the architect to the design of the building. Two techniques 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 treatment of the wall surface.

In order to more clearly imagine the contradictions that arose between the new design of a residential building and its architectural and decorative solution, characteristic of the period under consideration, let us return to the early 30s.

At this time, there was a sharp turn in the creative aspirations of architects 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 naturally reflected in the design and construction of residential buildings.

56. Moscow. Residential building on Manezhnaya Square. Archit. 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, however, it is characteristic in the sense that its architectural design most clearly reflected the main contradictions that arose between classical composition techniques, modern construction and the image of a residential building.

The specificity of the architectural construction of a sectional residential building, where each residential cell is an independent element repeated repeatedly on all floors, could not be reflected by the architectural forms of an Italian palazzo of the 16th century. The “Colossal Order,” with its massive columns topped with complex capitals and strongly protruding cornices of braces, in no way reflected the constructive and functional design of a residential building, but was a magnificent, expensive props. The discrepancy between modern structures and architectural form was no less noticeable in the decoration of the staircases 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 milestone that tested the imitation and use of classical canons in the architecture of residential buildings. However, in housing construction in the 30s. Not only were classic designs copied. 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 pomp and monumentality.

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

Despite the obvious influence of the Renaissance masters, the compositional design of the residential building was interpreted by the author independently. A wall two bricks thick, divided into three parts, did not provide the opportunity for a relief solution, so the author settled on a planar interpretation of the entire volume. The crowning cornice, set out two meters, further emphasizes the planar design of the wall. The architect introduced two cornice belts into the composition of the facades. The wall they dissect is the leading theme to which all other details of the façade composition are subordinated.

However, decorative pictorial inserts and vertical pilasters, creating the illusion of a 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, disrupt the organic connection between the compositional scheme of the facade, its design diagram and the structure of a modern multi-storey building.

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

59. Moscow. Residential building on Suvorovsky Boulevard. Architect E. Yocheles. 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 techniques of classical architectural heritage in the practice of housing construction in the 30s. houses built in Moscow according to the designs of architects G. Golts, I. Weinstein, Z. Rosenfeld, L. Bumazhny, E. Yocheles, M. Sinyavsky can serve (Fig. 58-60), in Leningrad-according to the designs of architects E. Levinson, I. Fomin, A. Gegello and etc.

Each of the authors conceptualized and applied in practice the techniques of classical architecture, however, residential buildings built according to their designs had approximately the same shortcomings: the architects took little into account the functional features of a residential building (Fig. 61).

Under the influence of Moscow and Leningrad practice, the fascination with the monumental composition of residential buildings, achieved by using classical decorative techniques, spread to other cities of the country. However, the uniqueness of the 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 appearance 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 (residential building "Monolith" on Nizami Square, architect K. Senchikhin), on the other - the use of medieval national traditions (residential building of the Baku Council, architects S. Dadashev and M .Useynov).

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

The introduction of continuous construction methods into practice has strengthened the contradictions that arise between the “classical” architectural shell of a building and the method of its construction. All this entailed the search for new artistic means compositions of a multi-storey residential building.

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

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

In the volumetric-spatial design of the buildings, it was necessary to take into account the relief, which increases towards Sadovaya Street. Moreover, the residential part of the buildings consists of five floors; Only the height of the first, ground floor, occupied by shops, changes. The building's basement and portal are lined with polished granite, the walls of the residential floors are lined with factory-made artificial tiles; Terracotta details and stucco molding were used in the decoration of the façade. 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 ready-made elements (reinforced concrete slabs, window blocks, flights of stairs, etc.). Despite the fact that a number of façade elements are not to scale (pilasters in the upper part of the building, sculptural figures on the central projections of building A), the architectural and spatial design of the 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 the new technology of its construction.

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

Chapter “Architecture of residential and mass cultural and public buildings (part 1). 1933-1941". " General history architecture. Volume 12. Book one. Architecture of the USSR" edited by N.V. Baranova.

The October Revolution set architects the task of creating a socially new type of housing. 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 massive relocation of workers began from shacks and basements to houses confiscated from the bourgeoisie. In Moscow, they were moved to comfortable apartments in 1918-1924. almost 500 thousand people, in Petrograd - 300 thousand.

The mass relocation of workers to the houses of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by the process of spontaneous emergence of household communes, which pursued both socio-political and purely economic goals. Former apartment buildings were considered as workers' dwellings of a new type, in which the economic structure and organization of everyday life were supposed to contribute to the development of collectivist skills among the population and instill communist consciousness. Having received their housing for free use (before the introduction of the NEP, workers used their housing for free), the workers created self-government bodies in each house, which not only were in charge of the operation of the building, but also organized such house communal institutions as common kitchens and dining rooms, kindergartens, nurseries, red corners, library-reading rooms, laundries, etc. This form of collective maintenance of residential buildings by workers (on a self-service basis) was widespread in the first 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 communal houses. However, even during the years of the greatest rise of the movement for the organization of commune houses in nationalized workers’ homes, 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 everyday life would be solved by building

Page 79-

Developments of specially designed new types of residential buildings (with public spaces).

At the same time, there was no single point of view on the architectural and planning type of the new dwelling: some suggested focusing on a workers’ village-commune (consisting of individual houses and a network of public buildings), others assigned the main role to complex communal houses with the socialization of life, others considered it necessary to develop a transitional type of house that would facilitate the gradual introduction of new forms into everyday life.

The workers' commune houses that arose in nationalized housing were the basis for a 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, the original embryos of a system of public utility services that would develop in the future, created on the basis of self-service, arose and became widespread. First of all, these are those elements of communal, cultural and public institutions that were associated with the solution of such important socio-political problems as the emancipation of women from the household in order to involve them 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.).

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

A significant role in the development of a new type of housing was played by the competition announced at the end of 1922 for projects to build two residential areas 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. Golosov, E. Norvert, etc.); Public institutions of the neighborhoods in many projects were separate buildings, sometimes blocked with each other based on functional proximity. The project of K. Melnikov was of fundamental interest. Having allocated housing for families into separate residential buildings, he combined public premises (sectors of food, cultural recreation, raising children, household services) into a single building, complex in configuration, connecting it at the level of the second floor with a covered passage (on pillars) 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 to the competition by G. Wolfensohn, S. Aizikovich and E. Volkov, the house plan, complex in configuration, consisted of corridor-type residential buildings adjacent to each other, located on the sides of a communal building moved into the depths. This project was implemented in 1928 (Khavsko-Shabolovsky lane) (Fig. 34).

Communal houses were designed in the mid-20s. and for other cities. Some of them were implemented. However, the acute housing need led to the fact that these houses were occupied in violation of the regime of their operation provided for by the program (municipal institutions did not work, public premises were allocated for housing, buildings intended for singles and small families were occupied 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 everyday life died out and other elements were born. The transition to the NEP and to the economic self-sufficiency of urban residential buildings (the introduction of rent) led to significant changes in the very economic basis of the functioning of workers' communal houses. A household commune based on free use of the home and complete 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.

The houses of housing cooperatives, the construction of which began in the second half of the 20s, often included, along with residential units (apartments for families, rooms for singles) and communal and public premises. However, in terms of the degree of socialization of life, they were closer to ordinary residential buildings, which had some elements of service. This 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 communal house was contrasted as the main type of worker’s dwelling with a single-apartment house with a plot, the development of which began after 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 Sokol housing cooperative village began in Moscow, consisting of various types of low-rise buildings (one-, two-, three-apartment and blocked) (Fig. 55, 56).

In an effort to make low-rise housing more economical and at the same time preserve the character of the estate development (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 blocked 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 20s. mainly residential complexes were built, consisting of low-rise buildings: workers’ settlements of AMO factories (Fig. 57) (two-story blocked houses, architect I. Zholtovsky, 1923), “Red Bogatyr” (1924-1925), “Duks "(two-story four-, six-, and eight-apartment buildings, architect B. Benderov, 1924-1926), etc. The village named after S. Razin is built with one-story and partially two-story one-, two-, four-, and eight-apartment residential buildings. Absheron (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 worsening 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 for housing construction are local councils.

The first residential complexes of sectional houses (in Moscow, Leningrad, Baku and other cities) were built using specially developed types of residential sections and houses. In the mid-20s. The first standard residential sections appeared, which over the following years underwent significant changes, which influenced the nature of the occupancy of new residential buildings put into operation.

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

1 - two-room apartments; 2 - one-room apartments; 3 - baths and showers; 4 - dormitories

So, for example, in the first four-apartment standard sections for Moscow in 1925-1926. two-room apartments predominated, which limited the possibilities of their room-by-room occupancy (Fig. 58.) Typical section 1927-1928. was already a two-flat apartment, but the main one became not

Page 81-

Page 82-

A two-room or a three-room apartment. The apartments became more comfortable (bathrooms appeared, cross ventilation was provided, and there were no walk-through rooms). However, the focus on multi-room apartments, which took hold in the second half of the 20s. in conditions of a relatively small volume of housing construction and acute housing needs, it also determined the nature of the distribution of living space. Room-by-room occupancy of new residential buildings has become widespread.

Transition in the mid-20s. development of urban residential complexes with sectional houses required architects to develop new types of sections that would make it possible to design residential complexes with relatively dense buildings and at the same time create neighborhoods with a variety of volumetric and spatial compositions with an abundance of air and greenery. Along with the ordinary, end, corner, T-shaped and cross-shaped 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. Lisitsky).

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 rationalizing housing and developing a transitional type communal house in the typification section of the RSFSR Construction Committee, where almost for the first time, problems began to be developed on a national scale scientific organization everyday life The task was to develop such residential cells that would make it possible to give a separate apartment to each family, taking into account real possibilities those years. Attention was paid to rationalizing the layout and equipment of the apartment. The movement schedule and sequence of work processes of the housewife in the kitchen were analyzed; rationally placed equipment made it possible to free up part of the unused space.

Along with the rationalization of sectional apartments, various options have been developed in the typification section spatial arrangement residential cells 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 rooms of the apartments and the alcove (the corridor is light, and each apartment has cross-ventilation) (Fig. 62).

The result of the work of the typing section in 1928-1929. there was, on the one hand, the development of " standard projects and housing construction structures recommended for 1930" (published in 1929), and on the other - 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 of interconnecting the residential and public parts of a communal house, new designs and materials, and methods of organizing construction work were tested.

56. Moscow. Residential buildings in the Sokol village. 1923 Archit. N. Markovnikov.

House plan. General form. Fragment

Of note is the house on Novinsky Boulevard in Moscow (architects M. Ginzburg and I. Milinis, engineer S. Prokhorov, 1928-1930), consisting of residential, communal 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 with pillars. There are three types of apartments in the house -

Page 84-

Shooting range - small apartments (type F), semi-detached apartments, apartments for large families. At the second floor level, the residential building is connected by a covered passage to the communal building, which housed a kitchen-dining room (lunches were taken home) and a kindergarten.

The expansion of work on the design of new cities and residential complexes at industrial enterprises newly built in the first five-year period brought the problem of mass housing to the center of attention of architects. A heated 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.

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

Supporters of proposals for the complete socialization of life and the elimination of the family referred to individual examples of everyday communes with the complete socialization of life and the abandonment of the family. However, some sociologists and architects of the 20s, when analyzing youth hostels, looked at the specifics of the organization of everyday life and the nature of relationships in them in an unjustifiably broad manner. Almost many projects of communal houses with complete generalization

Page 85-

The establishment of everyday life and the abandonment of the family was an attempt to architecturally design and rationalize the everyday life of a youth hostel. The fate of the communal houses built for such a youth group is also characteristic. Those of them that were created for student communal communities functioned for many years as comfortable dormitories, since they constantly maintained 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 in any way 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 20s.

During this period, an experimental student communal house 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 people, a dining room, a reading room for 150 people, a training room for 300 people, and cabins for individual lessons. A laundry room, a repair room, a nursery for 100 places, rooms for clubs, etc. were also designed (Fig. 66, 73).

60. Friendly competition for the design 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 house-commune 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 most projects carried out under the leadership of I. Leonidov by VKHUTEIN students, the communes are divided into groups. The same idea was used as the basis for a residential complex in I. Leonidov’s project 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 completed communal houses, the public and communal premises of which successfully functioned in conjunction with residential cells, one can name the house of the political convict society in Leningrad (early 30s, architects G. Simonov, P. Abrosimov, A. Khryakov). It consists of three buildings connected by internal passages. There are small two-room apartments in two gallery-type buildings, and large three-room apartments in a sectional building. On the ground floor there are common rooms: vestibule, foyer, auditorium, dining room, 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 utility services.

Page 88-

Page 89-

Page 90-

The real processes of the formation of everyday life indicated that the family turned out to be a stable primary unit of society. The household commune (consumer collective), based on complete 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 receive development . The transitional type of communal house did not become widespread either, since hopes for quickly ousting most of the everyday processes from within the residential unit did not materialize.

At the end of the 20s. Many apartment 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 (cinema, club with theater hall, kindergarten and nursery, dining room, store) are attached to the residential buildings, but are not connected to them; house-complex in Kyiv on the street. Revolutions (architect M. Anichkin, engineer L. Zholtus, 1929-1930) - a five-story building with a complex configuration with public premises on the ground floor; house-collective in Ivanovo-Voznesensk (architect I. Golosov, 1929-1932) (Fig. 70).

Page 91-

A- building with two-room apartments; B- building with three-room apartments; A- typical floor plan: 1 - living rooms; 2 - front; 3 - WC; 4 - kitchen cabinet; b- ground floor plan: 1 - lobby; 2 - foyer; 3 - auditorium; 4 - dining room; 5 - open gallery

Page 92-

Page 93-

These and many other residential buildings and complexes designed in the late 20s clearly indicate that the type of mass urban residential building by this time was still in the search stage. Architects were no longer satisfied with either sectional houses with large apartments for room-by-room occupancy, or communal houses with residential “cabins” devoid of utility rooms. A search was conducted for an economical residential unit for a family, forms of interconnection between a residential building and public service institutions.

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

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

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

Page 94-

Mass housing construction was also important. The geography of new residential complexes is rapidly expanding. Along with Moscow, Leningrad, Baku, Ivanovo-Voznesensk and other large industrial centers that had formed before the revolution, residential complexes for workers are being built at an 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 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 first five-year plan were three- to five-story sectional houses, the development, layout and construction of which received the main attention. Numerous types of sections have been created, taking into account local climatic conditions, the nature of the distribution of living space and the capabilities of engineering equipment.

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

Page 95-

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

Back in 1924-1925. the joint-stock company "Standard", in whose design bureau a group of architects worked who had experience in using new wooden structures in the construction of pavilions of the agricultural exhibition in Moscow (1923), established factory production (on the basis of woodworking plants) of standard low-rise prefabricated residential buildings, which were built 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 design of engineers G. Krasin and A. Loleit. In 1929, research in the field of large-block construction began at the Kharkov Institute of Constructions (headed by engineer A. Vatsenko). The result of this work was experimental blocks of three-story houses made of large slag concrete blocks (1929), an experimental six-story large-block house in Kharkov (1930, architect M. Gurevich, engineers A. Vatsenko, N. Plakhov and B. Dmitriev), villages large-block houses in Kramatorsk (1931-1933, same authors).

Simultaneously with the development of stone large-block construction, with a focus on a gradual increase in the number of storeys of residential buildings, developments continued in the field of low-rise wooden housing construction from standard factory-made elements. Projects for residential buildings of various types from local materials were developed, and experimental construction was carried out. A number of developed types of houses provided for the possibility of changing the layout of a residential 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 completely industrialized, ready-made elements of minimal weight would be produced in factories and assembled on site using 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 volumetric elements were created. In 1930, N. Ladovsky published, and in 1931 patented, a proposal to make the main standard element a fully equipped living cell (cabin) of one or two types. Such volumetric elements had to be manufactured at the factory and delivered in finished form to the construction site, where they were to be used to assemble residential buildings of various types - from individual houses to multi-storey buildings, in which, along with residential cells, there could be premises for general and special purposes. This method of organizing the construction of residential complexes from volumetric elements was envisaged, when all communications would first have to be laid on the site, and then a standardized frame would be erected. The assembled living cabin had to be inserted into the frame using cranes and connected to communications.

When developing projects for workers' housing, the architects sought not only to organize the life of its inhabitants in a new way, but also paid a lot of attention to the development of new techniques for the volumetric-spatial composition of the dwelling and the creation of a new look for the residential building.

The technique of connecting buildings with transitions, widespread in projects of a new type of housing, led to the emergence of new volumetric-spatial solutions; the development of residential areas acquired a different urban planning scope. A typical example is the residential complex “Chekist Town” (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 design 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 housing during the period under review was the pronounced problematic nature of creative searches. The social problems of the new type of housing, which are closely related to the restructuring of everyday life, have acquired particular importance; Other problems were also posed - functional, artistic, constructive.

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

Introduction

The 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 and everyday sphere. The ideological projects of the 1920s and early 1930s remained, for the most part, unrealized due to the hypertrophied socialist orientation regarding the settlement and living of citizens. But 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 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 form. Characteristic features of their work were the veneration of everything avant-garde, breaking the old order and utopianly romanticizing the future in the spirit of Marxist-Leninist propaganda. These attitudes were most clearly manifested in planning the spatial and subject organization of everyday life.

In its original purpose as a sought-after “participant” in the construction of a socialist society, experimental architectural projects remained for a very short time. What was thought to be an anticipation of architecture of a historically new type, in practice turned out to be realistically unpromising. And yet, thanks to attempts to search for the newest aspect of residential construction, today it is possible to obtain a fairly complete understanding of the aesthetic orientation of the period under consideration, including how the proletarian personality was represented within the framework of utopian socialism.

Thus, the object of the study 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 the main types of housing in a socio-historical context.

The objectives of the thesis are:

a) identify the influence of post-revolutionary public sentiment on residential architecture;

b) identify innovations characteristic of 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 graduate work consists of three chapters. The first is devoted to the consideration of historical circumstances that set architects the task of developing an updated type of housing. It analyzes the most striking stylistic trends, examines 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 meet the demands of the proletarian social class that has come to power. The second and third chapters present an attempt at art historical analysis of practical and theoretical projects of new types of buildings.

This work was written using works of art criticism, monographs, biographies of artists, historical literature, scientific and journalistic articles. The most useful in studying the issue of the social situation of the period under review were the books of Dr. historical sciences N. B. Lebina - “Everyday Life” Soviet city: norms and anomalies. 1920-1930s" 1and “Soviet Petersburg: “new man” in the old space” 2, written in collaboration with V. S. Izmozik. They describe in detail the details of life and moral orientation of the first decades after the October Revolution.

Particularly valuable were the works of the researcher of Soviet architecture, art critic and architect S. O. Khan-Magomedov - “Architecture of the Soviet Avant-Garde” 3and "Pioneers of Soviet Design" 4, representing a multifaceted and large-scale analysis of the main artistic avant-garde and experimental concepts.

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

residential architecture house structure

1. The 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 related to previous traditions and organically growing out of them. The October Revolution revealed the potential capabilities of creators and accelerated their creative maturation. The former stability of a traditional multi-class society was lost - lifestyle, interpersonal relationships, clothing, and aesthetic ideas changed at an accelerated pace. Architecture began to face new demands for the reorganization of human living space, in connection with the radical transformation of the social system. Accordingly, the architect of the turning point was faced with the task of identifying general patterns and predict 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 B.R., a member of the Academy of Construction and Architecture of the USSR, speak eloquently about the everyday situation in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century. Rubanenko: “As the 1912 census shows, about 350 thousand people lived in bed-and-closet apartments in Moscow, and 125 thousand people lived in basements and semi-basements. In addition, approximately 27 thousand Moscow apartments were overcrowded, beyond all possibility, in them about 400 thousand people lived (an average of 15 people per apartment). Thus, a total of 850 thousand people lived in abnormal, one might say catastrophic, housing conditions in Moscow in 1912, which amounted to over 70% of the total population cities".

Working class major cities pre-revolutionary Russia was housed in several types of premises unsuitable for living, which resulted in extreme overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and high mortality. Some of the workers were housed in factory barracks, divided into categories into “single” (artel sleeping rooms for 100-110 people) and “family” (corridor-type barracks with rooms up to 15 m2 in area 2and a population density of 2-3 families). Bed-and-bed type apartments were attic and basement spaces without sanitary and hygienic facilities and furniture in apartment buildings, where there was approximately 2.5 m2 per person 2.. A large number of workers lived in shelters and suburban half-dugouts.

Thus, improving living conditions and improving housing for all working citizens has become a primary and urgent task. Already at the end of 1917, the state confiscation of the personal living space of the bourgeoisie began, to which the working people 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 in the section on the housing issue the following was stated: “In an effort to resolve the housing issue, especially aggravated during the war, the Soviet government expropriated completely all the houses of capitalist homeowners and transferred them to city councils; carried out a massive resettlement of workers from the outskirts into bourgeois houses; transferred the best of them to workers' organizations, accepting the maintenance of these buildings at the expense of the state; began to provide working families with furniture, etc. The task of the All-Union Communist Party is to, along the above path and without at all affecting the interests of non-capitalist homeownership, strive with all our might to improve the living conditions of the working masses, to eliminate overcrowding and unsanitary conditions in old neighborhoods, to destroy unsuitable housing, to rebuild old ones, to build new ones that correspond to the new living conditions of the working masses, to rational resettlement of workers."

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

In their creative searches, the architects relied both on the experience of developing ideas of a socialist-utopian nature, dating back to the Renaissance, and on the works of the pillars of Marxist-Leninist theory. Several main tasks ran through these creative bases:

imposing everyday collectivization of society;

the alienation of women from exploitation in the private household and their involvement in socio-economic formations;

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

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

eliminating the opposition between countryside and 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 involving women in public service, ... in political life, without tearing women out of their stultifying home and kitchen environment, it is impossible to ensure real freedom, it is impossible to build even democracy, not to mention socialism.” . 1One of the main options for strengthening the influence of communist Soviet power, he also found measures to reassign workers to a daily public catering system, as a replacement for “individual management of individual families with the common 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 female workers: “Instead of home-grown stove pots and troughs, public kitchens, public canteens, central laundries, workshops for darning dresses, cooperatives for cleaning linen and apartments, etc. should be created both in the city and in the countryside.” 3In his speeches, Lenin attached great importance to the problem of women emerging from traditional domestic oppression, and directly linked the solution to this issue with the successful restructuring of everyday life. Thus, in 1919, he stated: “The position of a woman when she is engaged in housework still remains constrained. For the complete liberation of women and for her real equality with men, it is necessary that there be a public economy and that women participate in general productive labor...

... we are talking about ensuring that a woman is not oppressed by her economic situation, unlike a man... even with complete equality of rights, this actual oppression of the woman still remains, because the entire household is blamed on her. This housekeeping is in most cases the most unproductive, the most savage and the most difficult work that a woman performs. This is extremely petty work that does not contain anything 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 a socialist society begins only when we, having achieved complete equality for women, begin new job together with a woman freed from this petty, mind-numbing, unproductive work...

We are creating exemplary institutions, canteens, nurseries that would free a woman from housework... these institutions, liberating a woman from the position of a house slave, arise wherever there is the slightest opportunity." 1.

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

Imaginative ideas for improving the subject space of the 20s of the last century ranged from the author’s private understanding and vision of the problem of public demand. Thus, some limited themselves to the most necessary to achieve comfort: improving sanitary and hygienic conditions, increasing the square footage per resident, improving the functionality of the layouts and including the necessary technical and engineering equipment in the space, equipping them with furniture in order to occupy apartments confiscated from the bourgeoisie - “room by room.” By reconstructing everyday life, radically minded architects meant tasks of a global nature: the rejection of the family, its gradual withering away as the basic unit of social organization and its equal replacement by a 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 changes in the mass public approach, mainly among young people, to the moral aspect of family and marriage were the extremely unstable historical situation during the revolution and civil war. The controversial issue of civil unions, free cohabitation, and illegitimate children were discussed in the press, in lecture halls, and on campaign platforms. Thus, in 1921, Alexandra Mikhailovna Kollontai, being the head of the Women’s Department of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), stated: “The communist economy abolishes the family, the family loses the significance of the economic unit from the moment of transition National economy in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat towards a unified production plan and collective social consumption.

All external economic tasks of the family disappear from it: consumption ceases to be individual, intra-family, it is replaced by public kitchens and canteens; Procuring clothes, cleaning and keeping homes 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 education is becoming a recognized task of the social collective in a labor republic. The family, by nurturing and affirming egoism, weakens the bonds of the collective and thereby complicates the construction of communism." 1.

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

Awareness of the historical significance of the accomplished socialist revolution encouraged artists to think more broadly and more utopianly 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 of the shift political system art was intended not so much for pleasure as for developing effective ways agitation using technical techniques characteristic of avant-garde art schools. Thus, “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 considering each form or combination of forms in a symbolic sense: for example, the cube was considered an expression of peace, and the shifts of planes and the shape of the spiral were identified by them with the dynamics of the revolution.In order to give their buildings even greater expression, supporters of the symbolic interpretation of architectural forms sometimes introduced into their projects the motif of mechanical rotation of parts of the building or used other methods of aestheticizing industrial machine forms ".

Thus, leftist art was supposed to become one of the voices of propaganda of communist ideology. Despite 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, with all the vigorous activity, innovative revolutionary movements did not have a centralized organ of glasnost. In response to the shortage of narrowly focused journalism, under the editorship of the poet Vladimir Mayakovsky, who sublimated the social sentiments of the 20s in his work, the literary art magazine "LEF" was published from 1923 to 1925, the purpose of which was "to contribute to the finding of a communist path for all genders art" The magazine introduced the reader not only to the work of domestic representatives of the revolutionary avant-garde, but also to foreign figures working within the framework of proletarian culture. This was the value of the journal as a messenger of world 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 - forms of new art. It is clear: the slippery, round-the-world belly of the bourgeoisie was bad place for construction. During the revolution we accumulated a lot of truths, we learned about life, we received tasks for the most real construction in the centuries. The earth, shaken by the roar of war and revolution, is difficult soil for grandiose buildings. We temporarily hid the formulas in folders, helping the days to strengthen revolution." 1

It is worth noting that the hostility of creative youth towards classical art was not a dogma, but rather a fashionable trend associated with revolutionary popular sentiments. Historical examples suggest that art has always remained in the service of political propaganda, regardless of changing aesthetic ideals. Thus, communist ideas regarding creativity in the USSR are largely based on Lenin’s theory of the heritage of culture, which in turn is based on the teachings of K. Marx and F. Engels. Lenin repeatedly, especially during the first five-year plan Soviet Russia, when the foundation of a new culture was being built, he focused attention on the need to sift through the world's artistic traditions based on considerations of the Marxist worldview. Marxism did not call for the invention of a new proletarian culture, but proposed to develop within its framework the best traditions and examples of international art history. In the context of this topic, Lenin’s opinion, expressed in a conversation with the activist of the German communist movement Clara Zetkin, is authoritative: “We are too great “subverters.” The beautiful must be preserved, taken as a model, based on it, even if it is “old.” Why should we is it necessary to turn away from the truly beautiful, to abandon it as a starting point for further development, only on the grounds that it is “old”? Why should we bow before the new, as before God, to whom we must submit only because “it is new” "?<...>There is a lot of hypocrisy and, of course, unconscious respect for the artistic fashion that dominates the West. We are good revolutionaries, but for some reason we feel obliged to prove that we also stand “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” to be 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 creativity for the period of the 1920s - early 1930s were two avant-garde directions of industrial art "isms", each of which promoted its own methods and principles of housing construction, while equally denying the traditional basis in favor of a new oppositional architecture: constructivism, whose ideologists and theorists were the architects Moses Ginzburg and the brothers Alexander, Leonid and Alexey Vesnin; and rationalism, the creative leader of which was the architect Nikolai Ladovsky.

Constructivists proclaimed function and pragmatism as the leading principles, denying figurative and artistic formation. One of the most important phases of design in architecture was construction. The expressive features of the method were the complete rejection of decor in favor of the dynamics of simple geometric structures, verticals and horizontals, and an open technical and structural frame of the building; 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 functionality and use advanced technologies and materials (glass, iron, concrete).

In 1922, on the basis of the Institute Artistic Culture(INHUK(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 define the spirit of the new time and the person living in it; things and forms must be transparently constructive, ergonomic, mathematical and understandable, not burdened with decorative figurativeness; The artist’s main task is not to study historical art schools, but to master the laws of combination of basic plastic elements; the artist needs to create works equal in degree of suggestiveness to advanced engineering and technical innovations. In 1924, under the authorship of another leading theoretician of Soviet constructivism, Moses Ginzburg, the most famous manifesto book, “Style and Epoch,” was published, in which he discusses the further development of architecture along 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 subsidiary magazine "Modern Architecture" ("SA"), which existed until 1930 inclusive.

Rationalists, recognizing the close connection between a functional and constructive solution, 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 of Painting, Sculpture and Architectural Synthesis (Zhivsculptarch), which existed in 1919-1920, became the first project platform for adherents of the rationalist method in architecture. In 1920, under educational institution Higher Artistic and Technical Workshops (VKHUTEMAS) Nikolai Ladovsky creates his United Workshops (Obmas), where he trains architects based on the creative principles of the industrial art of rationalism developed by him. Over the three years of Obmas' work, a group of like-minded people 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. Lisitsky, and it also became the last. Subsequently, 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 waged intense competition among themselves for competitive projects and actual construction. However, OSA, 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 occurred, as a result of which the organization was abolished, and its unofficial leader Nikolai Ladovsky dedicated 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 decorativism and internal structure building. The main method of mechanizing, modernizing and reducing the cost of construction was the introduction of the latest advances in engineering into the process, as well as standardization and typification of design.

If the architecture of the first half of the 1920s was predominantly exploratory and experimental in nature, then the end of the Civil War and the transition to the NEP in the second half of this decade was marked by a revival of construction and the implementation of many analytical developments. The first comprehensively built-up residential areas and entire districts for workers appeared, where cultural and social institutions, public buildings, etc. could be erected simultaneously with residential buildings. These were the Shchemilovka, Avtovo, and Malaya Okhta districts in Leningrad. The first residential areas - the former Dangauerovka, on Shabolovka and on Usachev Street in Moscow, the development of Tractor Street and the Palevsky residential area in Leningrad. Constructivism became the leading direction in architecture, which mature, major architects began to follow.

In its most advanced expression, constructivism met the goals of formational construction, but the fact that the actual technical conditions did not correspond to the stated context was not always taken into account - this explains the frequent inconsistency and utopianism of the creative projects of architects. The accentuated industrialism and mechanization of the principles of constructivism diverged from the method manual labor, predominant in the construction of the 20s. Often, by 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 truthfulness of architectural volume due to structure and material. Thus, from a method of architectural creativity, constructivism is gradually turning into a decorative style with its own techniques and methods of shaping. Many architects, in the wake of the passion for constructivism, used in their projects and buildings only its external features, such as a free plan, exposure of the structure, strip glazing, etc.

It is possible to derive several main principles from which post-revolutionary architects started. During the October Revolution and the Civil War, a huge social shift occurred - a state arose based on the latest principles, which previously seemed fantastic; the formerly oppressed and exploited majority came to power; revolutionary romantic moods gave rise to aspirations to start all over again, in a new place, with a clean slate; the needs of proletarian citizens are radically different from the needs of the previously ruling classes. All this led to the idea that we need to build differently.

The creation of a new 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 has proclaimed the equality of people regardless of gender, religion, race and nationality, but capitalism has not allowed this equality to be realized in practice anywhere, and in its imperialist stage led to a strong aggravation of racial and national oppression. Only because Soviet power is the power of the working people, it was able to completely and in all areas of life for the first time in the world to carry out this equality, right up to the complete destruction of the last traces of inequality of women in the field of marriage and family law in general.<...>Not limiting itself to the formal equality of women, the party strives 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 most interesting experiments were undertaken by constructivist architects in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The projects they developed for communal houses, where everyday needs were satisfied with the help of public services, and residential buildings equipped with comfortable public institutions, bring to life ideas about the 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 be a new type of housing, the so-called “phalansteries”, where citizens were imbued with the ideas of collectivism and freed from household responsibilities, family, and everything that slowed down the process of creating a person of a renewed formation.

French philosopher and sociologist François Fourier envisioned “phalansteries” as deliberately constructed houses, 3 to 5 stories 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 one. In Russia, the popularization of the idea of ​​collective housing began after the publication of N. Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done?” Thus, in St. Petersburg, in 1863, thanks to the initiative of the writer and publicist Vasily Sleptsov, the first such Znamenskaya commune arose. Over the course of the year, the communards sought to equalize their needs and expenses, but the inconvenience of life, according to A. Herzen, transformed the advanced community into a “barracks of despair for humanity.”

Despite the failure of the commune in the 60s of the 19th century, at first the Leninists tried to revive the Russian "phalanstery", now renamed the house-commune. But after the end of the October Revolution, the poorest and most vulnerable part of the citizens wanted an improvement in 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 dominance - an apartment. Residents of the workers’ barracks began to be moved into the apartments of the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia. The first measures of the Bolshevik housing policy, therefore, did not correspond to the theory of socialism.” 1

Nevertheless, in 1919, in the USSR, the consideration of housing and sanitary standards was formed, calculated according to the principle least amount the volume of air that a person needs to be comfortable in a confined space. It was assumed that a person needs from 25 to 30 m 3,, or about 8 m 2area per tenant. Thus, the idea of ​​"phalanstery" was still relevant in the environment of Soviet communism.

The first official communards in the USSR were the Bolshevik party authorities, who 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, and a catering unit. 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 Soviets, with some stretch, can also be classified as a type of elite commune, where political figures such as Vladimir Lenin, Nadezhda Krupskaya, Maria Ulyanova, Yakov Sverdlov lived.

Rare and exceptionally prestigious, the first Soviet phalansteries had little equivalence with respect to the idea of ​​​​creating a new communal materiality, more serving 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 seeking to live in the Houses of Soviets. Hotels began to repatriate to 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 upon themselves the task of instilling phalansteries on the soil of the USSR. The first youth communes, boys and girls, were founded spontaneously on the bases of pre-revolutionary factory barracks, grouping together in order to force difficulties of a material and everyday nature in the harsh conditions of the time. Thus, the topic of distributing Komsomol members within the commune by gender was not raised at that time, since the socialization of everyday life in such conditions was forced and brought to the limit.

Since 1923, the USSR has carried out annual inspections of the living conditions of young workers, during which it was discovered that in Petrograd one third of young people live in such initiative phalansteries and do not have a personal sleeping place. After the examination, the authorities were forced to launch an entire campaign under the slogan “A separate bed for every citizen, in particular, every teenager.” .

One of the newspapers wrote at the beginning of 1924: “Young people, rather than anyone else, must and can put an end to the traditions of a dying society. Proletarian collectivism of youth can only be instilled when both the work and life of youth are collective. The best conductor of such collectivism can be "dormitory-communes for working youth. A common communal canteen, 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 new forms and types of housing were not the only important ones for the communist government, therefore full-fledged Soviet communes, noted on the state level, arose only in the late 1920s, when disputes flared up in the USSR on the political-social, urban planning and architectural levels about the types of housing for workers, and the communal house was regarded as the main one, which naturally raised the question of understanding the ordering of living space in accordance with the framework of personal space for architects. The first and dominant idea was that a new person cannot be formed in the conditions of old architectural spaces - in buildings with 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 quickly as possible, to provide a project for such a house with public facilities that would transform the so-called housing center from a cramped, boring, and sometimes heavy rut for women, to a place of pleasant relaxation. New life requires new forms."

At the end of the 1920s, the Central Housing Communist Union developed special regulations - the “Model Regulations on a Communal House”. In accordance with this instruction, citizens moving into a new home are required to refrain from purchasing and transporting personal furniture and household items. This rule of moving into a commune spoke of radical ways of abandoning the traditional boundaries of personal space, which are often formed through dependence on the personally accumulated material content of the 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, the Baburinsky, Batensky and Kondratievsky residential areas were designed in Leningrad; others made an attempt to implement a different type of collective housing, which existed in the form of two- to four-room family-individual apartments with a washbasin, a semblance of a kitchen and personal sanitary and hygienic facilities, but the bath-shower complex was designed to be the only one for several apartments; the third form of housing was formed by separate living rooms connected by a small room for heating food; other amenities and paraphernalia were supposed to be common and located in the corridors - it was assumed that the joint use of mandatory hygienic devices would allow a faster transition to a more developed collective life. “This is what guided the creators of the student house-commune project, developed in the Bureau of Scientific and Technical Circles Leningrad Institute municipal construction. The project was called "October in everyday life." It was assumed that the building would house “the same number of men and women”, “in the same conditions, without being separated into special floors or buildings.” The house was to consist of two-bed dormitories for married couples and four-bed “single cabins.” Food was supposed to be delivered in thermoses from nearby factory kitchens. And the communards had to store their clothes in “toilet and clothing rooms.” The idea of ​​collectivization of everyday life was expressed in an even more harsh form by the architect N. Kuzmin. He planned, for example, to create shared bedrooms for six people in the communal house. Husband and wife could legally retire to a "double bedroom" or "cabin" on a specific schedule. 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 by adherents of new social guidelines sometimes reached such a level when the life of a settler in a commune house was calculated minute by 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 phantasmagorical nature of this type of communal house lay in both the skimping on the economic opportunities of the young USSR and the neglect to assess the degree of preparedness of the social cross-section for such fundamental changes. In the power discourse of Soviet architects in the second half of the 1930s, the so-called intimateization of living space occupied an increasing place. The leading article in the issue of the magazine "Architecture of the USSR", published in May 1936, noted: "An element of a certain intimacy should be reflected in the interpretation of housing." 1Indeed, Stalin’s 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, issues of providing housing were resolved through room-by-room accommodation. In the short term, the apartment remained the main type of residential unit - along this path, 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 architectural projects remained unrealized due to the difficult financial situation in the country, recovering from the revolution and civil war. And also because of an irrational approach to design, including the use of practically unavailable building materials. Although, on the other hand, architects could afford high flights of fancy in their designs precisely due to the lack of their implementation. This made it possible to cut off unnecessary things during discussions, since the peculiarity of the approach of the proletarian state to creative life was the development of different directions in the struggle of ideas and opinions.

In just a few years, constructivism began to confidently move from a construction method to a style, and ultimately to stylization. Back in 1923, V. Mayakovsky warned: “Constructivists! Be careful not to become another aesthetic schoolchild.

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

In addition, the preparatory basis for construction suffered; the use of low-quality materials quickly reduced the excitement around the latest experimental residential architecture, which turned out to be unsuitable for living.

At the turn of the 1920s - 1930s, construction took on the greatest scale since the October Revolution. In this regard, disputes were brewing, characterized by maximalist judgments about the concept of 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 hotel cottages along highways, with a capacity of one family. 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 resettlement, discarding utopian extremes. Among architects and the public, there was increasing dissatisfaction with the long-term stability of the ascetic orientation of architecture; there was a desire to change the bias in the direction that better reflected, including artistically, the content of the era and corresponded to the next stage of 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 during a period when we were extremely poor. It fell to our lot to forge the language of a 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 "There are more opportunities, we can now afford to abandon asceticism and have a much wider scope. It is quite 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 education and living in them of a “new” person - a socialist and communist, the Moscow Bureau of Proletarian Students in 1929 prepared a standard project document regulating the construction of student communes with maximum amenities merger. It was assumed that boys and girls entering Moscow universities and technical schools are the most favorable and sensitive audience for perceiving social changes, carried out, among other things, through the architectural and planning revolution. Excerpts from the document, full text which is given in the work of Selim Omarovich Khan-Magomedov “The Architecture of the Soviet Avant-Garde”, the chapter “Student Communes. Student Dormitories”, give the most complete idea of ​​how the house-commune was seen in one of its first, radical internal structure.

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

<...>The Moscow Bureau of Proletarian Students believes that<...>When constructing student dormitories, it is necessary to adhere to the construction project of the “House of the Commune”.<...>

BASIC PROVISIONS OF THE HOUSE OF THE COMMUNE

The basis is the principle of communal use of the student’s personal space in the dormitory. Due to the universal room, a number of common areas are created (instead, a sleeping cabin, a drawing room, a study room, a library, club rooms, etc. are created).

The division of premises is carried out according to the specialization of the housed household processes, such as sleep, eating, physical education, study, rest, etc.

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

The selection of living people is based on the commonality of their educational interests (a community of technicians, a community of doctors, a community of musicians, etc.).

INSTALLATION FOR HOUSEHOLD MOMENTS

Ownership issue

Considering that all necessary needs will be met by utilities and maintenance, there is no need for your own belongings. Property is retained for clothing, for pocket items, and temporarily (until the communes are fully specialized) for teaching aids. Sleepwear is communal.

Family issue

The family, as a closed cell, does not exist in a commune. Children are isolated in appropriate premises (nursery, kindergarten, etc.). Parents, as well as other members of the community, have access to children's premises. Due to the fact that both husband and wife are equal members of the commune, they are obligated 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, hairdressing, sewing, shoe, vacuum cleaner, etc.) is carried out by 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 student's mental productivity.

ROOMS FOR HOUSEHOLD PROCESSES AND EXPLANATION FOR THEM:

Sleeping areas are designed for 100% occupancy. At the expense of those departing for industrial practice guests, sponsored workers or peasants, as well as relatives are accommodated.

Sleeping cabins, provided there is sufficient ventilation, are preferred to dormitories, which should only be used if there is an economic gain in space. The number of occupants in the cabin must be no less than two and no more than four. It is preferable to prefer a couple cabin for the reason that in this case there will be no need to take into account and carry out a stationary proportion between single and married people.

Near the bedrooms, place rooms for morning and evening exercises, showers, washrooms, toilets and a wardrobe for storing personal and night clothes. The layout of the premises should ensure that the premises are loaded as much as possible by queuing (up to five queues), while eliminating hustle and bustle by rationally distributing exits.

In contact with the dormitory building there should be a nursery containing children up to 3 years of age inclusive. There is no need to establish an orphanage for older children, since it is assumed that by the time they enter the commune its members are childless. It is still necessary to provide for the expansion of the children's building in the future. The children's building must have especially favorable hygienic conditions, green spaces, a convenient area, etc.

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

Auxiliary premises in the children's building according to existing standards.

Eating

The group of premises for eating food includes a dining room for the simultaneous accommodation of 25% of the living, a buffet, a kitchen, pantries for provisions, a coupon room, a washing room, a preparation room, etc., respectively, 100% of the living and 25% of those taking food at the same time.

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

The study group consists of a common study room with the possibility of subdividing it into smaller areas for group study. 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 corresponding auxiliary rooms.

A common hall for joint recreation with a stage for lectures, amateur performances and tours of mobile theaters, dances, apparatus gymnastics, for receiving guests, etc. Room size based on 50% occupancy.

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

Service group

1.1. Medical center with a doctor on duty.

2.2. Hair salon.

.3. Laundry.

.4. Sewing and mending.

.5. Shoe room.

.6. Repair shop.

.7. Gas shelter.

.8. Telephone and mail.

.9. Savings bank.

.10. Information desk.

Household management (premises)

1.1. Local committee.

2.2. Control affairs and office.

.3. Accounting.

.4. Typists.

.5. Manager farming

.6. Material part.

.There will be no apartments for employees.

Note: The economic equality of a commune and a superior dormitory is expressed per inhabitant: sleeping cabin + study group+ common recreation hall = dorm room.

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

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

One of the first conceptual experimental projects of communal houses was the construction of 1929-1930 - student dormitory Textile Institute designed by architect I. S. Nikolaev, on Ordzhonikidze Street in Moscow. [ill. 1-12] The design competition, which resulted in the winning of Nikolaev’s architectural design that was as close as possible to the Proletstud brief, was organized by Tekstilstroy for the purpose of constructing a demonstration model building of a communal house and the skill of creating an environment for the creation of a person imbued with the 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 design of the building.

Compliance with the idea of ​​​​creating small-sized sleeping cabins while maintaining maximum functionality, as I. S. Nikolaev admitted, became a difficulty for developing 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 assignment, section “General Requirements”, the original plan was devoid of even windows - the architect proposed placing ventilation shafts above the volume of the rooms, greatly increasing 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 providing the rooms with windows.

Adjacent to the main sleeping hexagonal volume with two orthogonal floors on the pediment is a sanitary building. The entrance to the commune is located in the third public building next to the sanitary building, intended for educational activities and leisure. It housed: a special dining room, a hall for physical exercise and sports, a library and a reading room, a kindergarten for children under four years of age (assuming that a married couple of students by the time they graduate from the institute can have children of maximum four years of age), a medical center, a laundry, premises for a variety of leisure centers and single rooms for training. At the same time, the layout of all public premises was carried out depending on the expected noise level: from loud halls to quiet rooms for independent educational processes. The hull is equipped with north-facing trapezoidal sheds. The inner side of the opaque inclined ceiling of the lantern screens falling Sun rays, due to which constant diffuse natural light is provided. Similar industrial architectural elements used in residential or semi-residential spaces have become business card Soviet constructivism.

Thus, thanks to the radical functionalism of the student house-commune layout, a strict conveyor belt sequence of daily everyday activities was formed. “After the bell that wakes everyone up, a student, dressed in simple canvas pajamas (panties or another simple suit), goes down to do gymnastic exercises in the physical education hall or goes up to the flat roof for exercise in the air, depending on the season. The closed night cabin is subjected to, starting from of this time, vigorous blowing throughout the day. Entry into it before nightfall is prohibited. The student, having received exercises, goes to the dressing room to the closet where his clothes are placed. There is also a number of shower cabins nearby where you can take a shower and change clothes. In At the hairdresser's he finishes his toilet. Having cleaned himself up, the student goes to the dining room, where he takes a short breakfast or drinks tea at the counter; after which he is given the right to manage his time at his own discretion: he can go to classes at the university, or go to the common room to study, or, if he is preparing for a test, take a separate cubicle for studying. In addition, he has at his disposal a common reading room, a library, a drawing room, an auditorium, a studio, etc. For some who are prescribed by a doctor, an additional period of eating will be established - a second breakfast. Lunch in the canteen is on duty at normal times, by which time students are expected to return from the university. After lunch and the interval after it, short evening classes with unsuccessful students are resumed, social work is carried out, etc. The student is completely free to choose how to use his evening. Collective listening to the radio, music, games, dancing and other diverse methods of amateur activities is created by the student himself, using the equipment 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 himself, changes into a night suit, leaves his dress along with his underwear in the closet and heads to his night cabin. The sleeping cabin is ventilated during the night using central system. Air ozonation is used and the possibility of soporific additives cannot be ruled out." 1.

The clarity and coherence of public actions, mechanically repeated many times by hundreds of people, should have been guaranteed by exclusively justified minimalism, excluding any premises of indirect purpose, the absence of functionless corridors and passages, a reasonably justified compilation of small enclosed spaces, with the expectation of avoiding crowding in a densely populated building, hidden assistance for movement large masses of people. The architect is given freedom<...>in design<...>premises of communal housing, but at the same time it is proposed to take into account the following main moments in the life of future residents of the communal house: 1) Noisy conversations in the common living rooms, singing, games on musical instruments. 2) Collective listening to music, singing, radio. 3) Games of chess, checkers. 4) Relax in a completely quiet environment, reading newspapers, magazines and sleeping. 5) Studying in common quiet rooms and studying alone in single cabins. 6) Drawing. The project requires showing the arrangement of furniture, furnishings, indoor plants, and tools. Balconies required" 2.

The hostel was occupied in 1931. The press depicted the following image of living in it: “This house-commune is not only housing - it is a complex of study and recreation. A large hall illuminated by soft light for classes. Cabins for team work on tasks. A dining room, corridors for gymnastics, rooms for clubs. Student keeps books, lectures, and preparation materials in his locker, near the class hall. Shoes, soap, linen - all this belongings lie in a personal drawer in the toilet. A person sleeps in a room, in its rational unloading, the purity of the air, reminiscent of a glass terrace. The tenant of such a room gets up with " 1.

Despite the exceptional thoughtfulness of every detail and 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 pieces of furniture and personal items, which contradicted the original concept; the daily routine with calls notifying about the time of change of activities 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 dormitory under the leadership 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, became completely technically obsolete and was in disrepair; the last students were evicted in 1996. In the 2000s, restoration work began on the building.

Thus, based on the student commune house of the 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 social reconstruction of everyday life was made not only in relation to progressive “communist” youth. The introduction of a new look at the private housing arrangement of workers and their families can be traced by considering the example of a Moscow residential commune building for workers of the People's Commissariat of Finance of the USSR, architects M. Ya. Ginzburg and I.F. Milinisa, built in 1928-1930 on Novinsky Boulevard. [ill. 13-20]

The mouthpiece of the era of constructivism, Moisei Yakovlevich Ginzburg, worked on the development of the building, in creative collaboration with the architect Ignatius Frantsievich Milinis. Advanced modern engineering developments and materials were used in construction. Technician and engineer Sergei Leonidovich Prokhorov, right on the construction site, established the production of bentonite stones, and also, especially for the construction of the advanced building of the Narkomfin house-commune, 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 services for everyday needs.

Communal houses of a transitional type were prepared by the Typification Section of the Construction Committee of the RSFSR, then, for the first time, the issue of household structure was approached from a scientific point of view on the scale of the country. The task of the architects was to create residential sections of this type so that they would provide for the possibility of a family settling not as before - in one room, but in one apartment, albeit a small one. The typification section has done work to improve and create new typified methods for designing housing cells. “Striving for efficiency, not at the expense of reducing the quality of construction and reducing the comfort of housing, the architects of the Typification Section previously developed the basic requirements that their projects had to meet, taking into account the standards of that time and the level of development of science and technology.<...> Great importance was given to the analysis of the sizes and shapes of the apartment’s premises, taking into account the movement schedule and the arrangement of equipment. The proportions of individual rooms were carefully processed,<...>taking into account the arrangement of furniture.<...>Attention was paid to rationalizing the layout of the apartment and reducing the auxiliary area in this regard. First of all, all intra-apartment passages and corridors were minimized<...>The next step was to rationalize the equipment of the hallway, kitchen and bathroom, which made it possible to reduce their size<...>more than one and a half times" 1.

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

Type A - sectional apartment, divided into:

· type A2 - an apartment of two rooms 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 by an internal functional window.

Sectional apartments of type B are structurally and planning complicated by the placement of a staircase leading to the bathroom:

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

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

Apartments type D and F are two-story, served by a corridor. At the same time, type F apartment showed itself to be the most productive, in an economic sense, of all those developed in principle. One-room apartments F consisted of 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 designed for 3-4 residents. “The architects of the Typification Section believed that, unlike communal houses with complete socialization of life, the type F residential cell makes it possible to create an economical communal house of a transitional type, where isolated apartments for each family will be organically combined with public spaces.” 1.

Apartments of type E are three-story, also with a through corridor, for communal house projects such as a small-family hostel.

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

A residential building of six floors, with one staircase at both ends of the rectangular building. The ground floor is formed by frame pillars designed by Ginzburg, apparently influenced by Le Corbusier. In addition, their use was determined by the desire to find greater safety and stability in case of possible earthen landslides - since an underground river bed runs under the house. The project used apartments of the promising type F, and its variant - 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.

Particularly important for us in type F is that such an apartment opens up new social and living 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, a 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 in this type a public dining room, kitchen, rest rooms, bathrooms, etc. These are all communal spaces that should become an integral part of the new housing.

At the same time, we believe important point taking into account the dialectics of growing life when building new houses. It is impossible at the moment to make this house necessarily collective, as they have tried to do so far, and which usually led to negative results. It is necessary to ensure that this house can have the possibility of a gradual natural transition to public services in a range of functions. That is why we sought to maintain the isolation of each cell, that is why we came to the need to create a kitchen niche with a standard element that takes up minimal space, can be completely removed from the apartment and allows you to switch to a collectively served dining room at any time. We consider it absolutely necessary in our work to create a number of moments that stimulate 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: thus, on the first three floors there are apartments of a larger area, with three rooms for numerous families. However, all apartments in their layout are two-story, they are entered from a common corridor.

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

On the second floor level, through a covered passage, the residential building is connected to the communal building - a cubic building of four floors.

The House of Narkomfin could not be realized as a house-commune of a transitional type. A few years after the house was put into operation, the residents themselves abandoned this idea: thus, the gallery running next to the lower corridor of the second floor, originally intended for meetings and communication of communards, was reclassified as private storage rooms; the solarium and roof garden remained unfinished, and the common dining room was also little used. However, the laundry and kindergarten functioned most successfully 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 dissolved, and in their place the Union of Soviet Architects emerged, designed to determine the appearance 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 towards “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 standard demonstration housing for workers, in all respects consistent with 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 implemented in absolutely all aspects of life.

Already in 1918, under public administration and the calculation, in accordance with the decree “On the abolition of private ownership of real estate in cities,” included all buildings and structures suitable for habitation, where masses of workers and workers were urgently moved. Thus, in the first five-year period after the October Revolution, according to official papers, 300 thousand people were settled in the expropriated housing stock of Petrograd on extremely favorable terms with extremely low rents. Thus, the rule of providing housing of varying degrees of comfort in direct dependence on the financial viability of the tenant is a thing of the past and was replaced by an understanding of the quality of the socially useful work of the worker. However, the state's gratuitous donation of residential space actually excluded the influx of resources for the restoration and repair of the apartment asset, which was steadily deteriorating from hypertrophied non-functional use by the end of the 1920s and was out of use by a third.

The exploitation of requisitioned capitalist buildings followed the path of the uncontrolled emergence of improvised communes, understood as centers for the education and culture of the new proletariat. So Mikhail Ivanovich Kalinin - the “all-Union elder” and chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee - in 1919 he himself founded and lived there in a commune with a socialized life for 32 people. “One of the most striking phenomena in the housing field, 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 the bourgeoisie out of their lordly nests, taking possession of their apartments. On the other hand, it was thought to transform large houses expropriated from the bourgeoisie into centers of communist culture. The house-commune was imagined as a hostel in which the economic structure and life were supposed to contribute to the development of collectivist principles among the population of the house. In these houses, communist life was supposed to instill communist consciousness. This existence was supposed to be created by organizing various kinds of communal institutions in houses<...>The goal of the commune was to liberate women from household work, from kitchen slavery and introduce her to socially useful work, to public life.

If in 1918 the formation of workers' houses was spontaneous, 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 existing ones and take care of the formation of new workers’ houses.

<...>Workhouses are associated with enterprises that contribute significantly to their improvement, and in some cases, their maintenance<...>against the backdrop of the general devastation of our homes<...>In most of them, by organizing 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 truly “communal”. In this regard, the communal houses did not give anything and do not justify their name<...>Separate kitchens still confine women to homework. It is rare that a commune has any communal institutions at all: a nursery, a kindergarten, etc. 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 communal life in houses of the capitalist era, built for petty-bourgeois life. The communal house must be rebuilt according to special instructions and plans." 1.

Thus, the former houses of the bourgeoisie, whose characteristics did not correspond to the new principles of economy, were largely to blame for the failure of the first attempts to implement the idea of ​​​​restructuring life. The problem had to be resolved by the construction of buildings specially designed for the necessary purposes and tasks, which, by their appearance, would bring the architectural appearance of the city to a single denominator. Two concepts for a new type of building have been the subject of the greatest debate - the idea of ​​a commune as a small settlement within a garden city; and the commune as an autonomous complex of premises of a personal and collective nature, self-sufficient due to the socialization of the household. However, both adherents of the idea of ​​a garden commune and adherents of the “house - a machine for living” did not see the future of the general ideological concept within the walls of requisitioned apartment buildings.

One of the first such communes in Leningrad, built on the wave of enthusiastic public enthusiasm for the restructuring of everyday life, was the house-commune of Engineers and Writers on the corner of Rubinstein 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”, since it represented the forefront for Leningrad, which by that time had lost the status of the capital, the character of a building of a new, hotel type. Thus, it is even more ironic 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 noun- "Tear of Socialism." Yet in its concept, the communal house was intended to be 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 design of the famous architect Andrei Andreevich Olya in 1929-1930, funded by share contributions from members of the Leningrad Writers' Union and the Society of Engineering and Technical Workers. Construction was completed in 1930. The house, under one roof of which there was a collective kindergarten, a dining room, a library, a dressing room, a hairdresser, and a laundry, was immediately occupied and put into operation.

Despite the stinginess of external artistic expression, the layout is purely dependent on the ascetic functionalism inherent in the concept of a hotel-type building: a commune with 52 apartments of two, three and four rooms without kitchens, with access to the facade of small square balconies located 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 and hygienic premises of the common showers.

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

The dining room, which occupied most of the volume of the first floor, was architecturally highlighted by a strip of strip glazing, facilitating the overall appearance stingy with the artistic expressiveness of the building. Three daily food allowances were provided by the State catering organization - Narpit, through a system of personal monthly food cards.

The first communards were mostly 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 life of the house-commune of Engineers and writers can be gleaned from their memories.

“Its official name was “House-Commune of Engineers and Writers.” And then a comic, but quite popular nickname in Leningrad appeared - “Tear of Socialism.” We, its initiators and residents, were universally called “Tears of Tears.” We, a group of young (very young!) engineers and writers, they built it on shares at the very beginning of the 30s in order to categorically fight against the “old way of life”<...>We moved into our house with enthusiasm... and even the extremely unattractive “Corbusier-style” appearance with a mass of tall tiny cage-balconies did not bother us: the extreme wretchedness of its architecture seemed to us to be some kind of special austerity corresponding to the time.<...>The sound permeability in the house was so ideal that if downstairs, on the third floor... they were playing fleas or reading poetry, on the fifth floor I could already hear everything, even the bad rhymes. This too close forced communication with each other in incredibly small rooms and kennels was very annoying and tiring." 1.

In conditions of shortages covering all aspects of industry at the turn of the 20s - 30s, 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 and intensively save 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 communication 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 there was 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 looked out onto a flat roof - a solarium. Tables were taken out of apartments there and guests were received. Children rode tricycles there, dried clothes there, and grew flowers, although there was not much sun. The residents were mostly young, starting to build their lives. The engineering staff, however, was older, and the writers were mostly young.<...>The house was noisy, cheerful, warm, the doors of the apartments were not locked, everyone easily visited each other. But sometimes a note appeared on the door: “Don’t enter - I’m working” or “Don’t enter - mother is sick.” Sometimes downstairs in the dining room meetings were held with friends, with guests, actors came after performances<...>During this period, for the first time after a harsh life recent years War communism began to include entertainment, Christmas trees, dancing into the life of Soviet people...

<...>At first, the population of the house rejoiced at being free from economic worries, 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 find it expensive, others want variety. The situation with children was especially difficult. It turned out that it was necessary to have a home. And so - large boards were laid on the bathtubs, the kitchen was deployed on them - primus stoves, electric stoves. Little by little, the communal house began to lose its distinctive features." 1.

Residents of the communal house survived the blockade; during the period of repression, many were arrested and deported. The canteen lost its “communal” status and became a public city one. In 1962-1963, a major renovation of the building was carried out, during which the corridor system was destroyed, the apartments were redesigned, with the addition of a small kitchen space to accommodate the scale of the public premises.

Another new type of residential building is known in Leningrad - the house-commune of the Political Prison Society, located on Trinity Square (formerly Revolution Square). [ill.29-34]

"The All-Union Society of Political Prisoners and Exiled Settlers was created in 1921, uniting 2,381 people (People's Will, Land Volunteers, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Anarchists, Socialist Revolutionaries, Budennovists, 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 elderly people." 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. Wanting 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 Aleksandrovich 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 share contributions from the Lenzhilgrazhdanstroy trust. By November 1932, the Petrovsky and Nevsky residential buildings were ready; the construction of the communal 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. Its location was approved by S. M. Kirov - he believed that former revolutionaries deserved the right to live in one of the most beautiful places in the former Russian capital.” 1.

The communal house consists of three buildings - three, six and seven floors in height. The main area, where apartments of different sizes were located, with its long facade is directed towards the square, the revolution, and the pediment towards the Neva embankment. The constructivist method of building a complex with 145 apartments of two or three rooms in size was manifested in the geometric volumes of the buildings inscribed into each other, extremely meager and ascetic artistic expression, flat ceilings, and functional layout. The conceptual basis was a striking example of the collectivization of everyday life: traditionally, apartments did not have kitchens - food supply was carried out in the dining room, but food could be taken out and heated in personal electric frying cabinets. Two small buildings had a corridor-type layout. These buildings, on the lower floors, also included: a hall for general meetings with 500 seats, equipped with a movie screen; Museum of History revolutionary movement; laundry, nursery, library; there were premises for the functioning of public meetings based 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, one can find information about the Leningrad branch of the All-Union Society of Former Political Convicts and Exiled Settlers, then in the guidebook of 1935 there is no information: it was in this year that, on Stalin’s orders, the society was liquidated.

<...>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 asymmetrical composition are most strongly expressed in the structure of the main building, joined from two unequal in height, mutually shifted plates. In the place of the stepped 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 the illusion that as if the main mass is floating above a weightless transparent base. The end of the house is turned into a semi-cylinder<...>softening turn to Petrovskaya Street. The complex play of volumes includes a tall narrow parallelepiped with a vertical strip of staircase glazing 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 the 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 emphasizes the weighty plasticity of the volumes.<...>However, one of the best houses of constructivism with its correctly found scale was constantly attacked for its stylistic alienation to the historical core of the city." 1.

Conclusion

It is paradoxical that the architects' projects, carried out in accordance with all the manifestos they proclaimed, turned out to be anti-functional and practically impossible to implement 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 intended purpose - human use in everyday life.

It can be concluded that post-revolutionary public sentiments became the main influencing factor for changing the principles of approach to residential architecture. This led to the development of experimental projects to create various types of communal houses, where domestic and personal aspects of life were to be reduced to a minimum. Existing architectural and design documentation and individual examples of constructed buildings indicate varying degrees of rigor in the approach to the idea of ​​collectivization: from fanatical and dogmatic to completely democratic and comfortable.

The need to create a new type of residential element arose in connection with the difficulties of public resettlement in the first years of Soviet power. At the rise of popular enthusiasm in the 20s of the 20th century, after the expropriation of apartments and houses of capitalists, most politicized social scientists, architects and urban planners excluded the possibility of changing the way of life not just of individual individuals, but of an entire social class within the framework of an old type building, built for the needs and aesthetic needs of the bourgeoisie.

The primary tasks of organizing a communal house were:

free a woman from the burdens 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 compliance with the rules of the general daily routine;

to mechanize aspects of everyday life as much as possible, 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 at its disposal, as a rule, with one bathroom, a bathroom and a shower, shared on the floor. The kitchen was replaced by a common dining room; the house could also contain a library, games room, cinema hall and other cultural and educational premises for public use. Thus, excluding the period of sleep, the entire life of the communards was 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 study the problem in the most multifaceted way, as well as, 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 new Soviet architecture, a romantic perception of reality, when the wildest dreams seemed feasible, and architecture was destined to be the most important tool for transforming the world. The rejection of everything old, including centuries-old forms of architecture, and a clear desire to create a new architectural language were natural. This is especially acutely felt in design proposals that were not implemented in kind, and often not intended for implementation at all, but they nevertheless had a huge impact on the entire world architecture of the 20th century. Thus, advanced architects, when developing projects for a new type of residential architecture, were guided by the needs of the supposed communist society of the future, which in reality does not exist.

As time passed, it became obvious that the avant-garde movement of constructivism was inappropriate within the framework of real life. Thus, the radicalism of the mid-1920s is gradually replaced, first by external stylization with constructivist features of expressiveness, and then ostracized in favor of the more socially polarized functionalism of the 30s of the 20th century.

Projects of the 1920s are a special page in the history of architecture, clearly demonstrating the enormous creative potential of the architectural thought of that time. Closely linked with propaganda art, architecture became a symbol of new life. The search for new compositional and artistic means became an important condition identified new ideological and artistic content of architecture. In many ways it was associated with images of romantically perceived technology. Faith in its limitless possibilities inspired architects to create complex volumetric-spatial compositions. Every major building built by Soviet architects in the 1920s was part of a large 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 acquired all the features of an architectural style in the late 1920s, brought world fame to our country, made it a leader in the development of architecture, and made a major formative contribution to modern architecture at the early stage of the formation of a new approach to the residential architecture of the future.

List of used literature

1. “Ding-Bom” - heard here and there // Evening Petersburg. - 1992. - May 27
2. “Tear of Socialism” // St. Petersburg Gazette. - 1996. - October 12
3. Avant-garde in the culture of the twentieth century (1900-1930): Theory. Story. Poetics: In 2 books. / [ed. Yu.N. Girina]. - M., 2010
4. Aninsky L.A. Olga Bergolts: “I am... a Leningrad widow” /Text/: from the series “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. - P. 225-232. - 356 s.

Bocharov Yu. P., Khan-Magomedov S. O. Nikolai 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 Russian Architecture: Collection scientific works. - SPb.: Institute named after. Repina Russian Academy of Arts, 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 // Vasilyev 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 / Publication idea: Enver Kuzmin; Concept of the publication, text of the preface: Nikolay Vasiliev, Elena Ovsyannikova. - M.: ABCdesign, 2014.

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

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 a project of a standard collective housing for the development of a suburban area of ​​Petrograd. 1921.

2.Competition for projects for the development of two residential areas in Moscow with demonstration houses for workers. 1922.

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

.Competition for the design of a residential building suitable for both single workers and working families who do not have a separate household. Organizer: Moscow City Council. 1926.

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

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

7.All-Union inter-university competition for a student communal house 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 preliminary design of a communal house. Organizer: Moscow Regional Housing Union. 1930.

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

UNIMPLEMENTED BUILDINGS AND COMPLEXES PROJECTS

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

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

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

.L. Beteeva. House project for the VKHUTEMAS housing association. Workshop of A. Vesnin. 1925.

.F. Revenko. House project for the VKHUTEMAS housing association. Workshop of A. Vesnin. 1925.

.A. Urmaev. House project for the VKHUTEMAS housing association. Workshop of A. Vesnin. 1925.

.A. Zaltsman. House project for the VKHUTEMAS housing association. Workshop of A. Vesnin. 1925.

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

.N. Marnikov. Experimental project. 1927.

.N. Markovnikov. Experimental project of a two-story communal house. 1927.

.V. Voeikov, A. Samoilov. House-commune - dormitory for 300 people. Commissioned by the Committee for Promotion of Workers' Housing Construction of the RSFSR. 1927.

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

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

.I. Golosov. Project of a residential building of the Novkombyt cooperative. 1928.

.Typification section of the RSFSR Construction Committee. Project of a communal house with E1 type cells. 1928

.Typification section of the RSFSR Construction Committee. Project of a communal house with apartments A2, A3. 1928

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

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

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

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

.N. Kuznetsov. Communal house project. MVTU. 1929.

.V. Sapozhnikova. Project of a communal house in Leningrad. 1929.

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

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

.S. Pokshishevsky. Project of a communal house for Leningrad. 1930.

.A. Burov, G. Kirillov. Project of a dormitory for students of a 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. Village of the cooperative partnership "Dukstroy", Moscow. 1924-1925.

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

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

.B. Velikovsky. Residential building of Gosstrakh on Durnovsky Lane. Moscow. 1926-1927.

.A. Fufaev. Residential building of the Dukstroy cooperative on Leningradskoye Shosse. Moscow. 1927-1928.

.G. Mapu. Communal house in 4th Syromyatnichesky Lane. Moscow. 1927-1930

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

.G. Wolfensohn, S. Leontovich, A. Barulin. Communal house on the street. Khavskoy. Moscow. 1928-1929.

.B. Shatnev. Former residential building of the Moscow-Kursk Railway Administration 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