AT THE ROOTS OF POST-SOVIET ARCHITECTURE - LEVAN ASABASHVILI

“Architecture is the will of an epoch translated into space.”

Mies van der Rohe

There exists a tradition in architectural theory depicting architecture as a self-sufficient and autonomous discipline. The idea of architectural autonomy originates from the renaissance period. From this time on, in the history, it has emerged several times and has acquired somewhat different interpretations. Last time the idea gained renewed vitality in 1970ies in the work of European and US architects and theoreticians when they were trying to find alternatives to the late modernist architecture which had entered the crisis by the time. The idea implied isolating architecture from outer social, economic and political influences, striping from it the ambition of social engineering and by this, freeing from the utopianism characteristic for the architecture of that time. As an alternative, they were trying to present architecture as a self-referential discipline, where the main moving force is the total break up or new continuation of the established tradition within it. 

This form of architectural thought has its method of reading history of architecture, based on theoretical assumptions given in it. About the reasons of reemerging this form of thought in the western countries in 1970ies I’ll write below. For now it must be noted that in architectural theory this approach maintains its validity up until today and is quite strong in dominant discourse, among them in Georgian. 

Such understanding of architecture is knotted in broader world view which can be broadly called liberal ideology. Today in Georgian reality the discussion about the post-soviet architecture goes often spontaneously and superficially, but still based on the above mentioned theoretical assumptions. As a rule such discussions don’t go beyond talking about architecture’s formal characteristics and often is leveled to the questions of individual architect’s taste. Of course, keeping in mind our reality, in these discussions enter such questions as scale which as a rule is determined by the unregulated capital’s desire of accumulation, the relation of architecture to the environment etc. but in architectural discussion here I mean discussion about buildings spatial-compositional and aesthetical solutions. 

With such analytical approaches it is impossible to understand post-soviet and in general architectures deeper content. With remaining in narrow disciplinary frameworks we can never manage its adequate problematization and will always stay on the level of superficial discussion. Below I’ll try to suggest analysis of Georgian post-soviet architecture which is quite short and superficial but is based on the analytical method different from the above described. This approach views architecture not as an isolated discipline but as a result and determinant of a broader social process.

After the epoch of Stalinism, big changes occurred in public life of USSR. With rethinking authoritarian and conservative nature of Stalinism important steps were made towards rethinking of soviet idea. The new course implied democratization of the system and growth of welfare. Realization of this idea was enabled by the huge material resources accumulated during the post war period that had to be distributed in more equal and rational manner. Architecture and planning had one of the central roles in this mission. Accordingly, following the new assignment, the radical reshaping of these disciplines - the ideas created within them and the ways these ideas could be realized - started. After the ideological and technological conservatism of Stalinism the new aim was rationalization of projecting and construction to bring the construction industry to the new height of technological development and to enable the rational and equal distribution of building resources. This aim set radically new aesthetical and spatio-compositional agenda. On one hand architects of the time had chance to return to the avant garde ideas of 1920ies and on the other to get closer to the experience of western countries, where the transition to these new approaches started already after world war II. Architecture was not an exception in this trend. This tendency was characteristic of all public life and art among them. For this reason this epoch is called neo avant garde. Soviet 1960ies is the image of this epoch. It is characterized by the high level of scientific and technological advancement, experimentalism, enhancement of welfare and general optimism towards the technology and communist ideals. 

After 1960ies in Soviet Union gradual stagnation is taking place. The economic growth is slowing down, further technological advancement seems unable, the ideological crisis of Marxism-Leninism deepens, the shadow economy develops where the entire soviet elite gets involved. Today this period is known as epoch of zastoy. The project of perestroika initiated by Gorbachev, first stage of which started in 1985, was devised to overcome this condition, although in face of overall reaction it also proved impotent.

At the same time in western capitalist countries the fundamental changes are occurring. From 1970ies the economies of these countries gradually abandon Keynesianism and adopt free market economic models, implying transition of control of economies from public to private sector. To achieve these aims the economies are deregulated, working force is disorganized, public costs are reduced, production is freed from geographical constrains etc. In short, capital becomes more flexible and aggressive on local and global levels. Neoliberal changes don’t touch only the sphere of economy and cause radical changes in public life and forms of thought. This wave of economic and other changes was inspired by the crisis of capitalism and capitalist culture occurred in the end of 1960s. According to many scientists this crises had a potential to overgrow into progressive change but for number of reasons it took the form of further stabilization of capitalism and conservative turn. 

New ideas in architecture and town planning disciplines in western countries were part of these fundamental changes. Precisely at this time, with the growing skepticism towards the modernist architecture and planning’s social potential above mentioned idea of autonomy emerges. In the beginning, to achieve this autonomy the interest is expressed towards historicism, semantics, symbolic memory, universal typologies. In Europe one of the leading figures of this new movement is architect Aldo Rossi. Simultaneously in United States the same ideas, only with more American specificities are developed by architect Robert Venturi. Later emerge architects who support radical break with established “tradition”. These are Peter Eisenmann, Daniel Libeskind, Bernard Tschumi and others. By this time the initiative on architecture and town planning goes more and more into private hands. Accordingly, architects too have to adapt to the demand emerging in the new economic reality. The emphasis is put on author’s individual style, uniqueness of the building etc.

As in the west, in Soviet Union too, architecture and art were part of the process occurring in broader public life. Accordingly, beginning from 1960ies, up until the end of 1980ies they depict with astonishing detailing first the optimism driven by the new possibilities opened up by surpassing Stalinism and rising Soviet Society on the fundamentally new stage of development, than growing apathy of the epoch of Zastoy and later unsuccessful efforts of renewal made by reforms of Perestroika. 

The monthly official magazine of union of architects of USSR “Архитектура СССР” offers important material for study of main topics and their successive change in this period of time. Even the cover design of publication depicts the ideological and aesthetical transformation occurring in this period. (pic.1, pic. 2, pic. 3, pic. 4.)

In the 1960ies the main accents in the magazine is put on the questions of higher quality of rationalization of industrialized construction and growth of its economic effectiveness. Together with this, future plans for automatization of planning are actively discussed. Necessity of high artistic quality of industrialized construction is not beyond the attention and hereby are discussed the risks that industrialized construction can involve. 

In one of the articles of this period, the negative tendency taking place in planning institutes is described, where architects with high professional qualification are criticized for not sufficiently involving in standardized planning and assigning such tasks to young, unqualified colleagues. As a result, according to the author, the high technical and artistic quality of such planning is undermined. 

We can assume that this content already shows some mistrust of the architects of the period towards the industrialized construction. Later, in the soviet era and especially in post-soviet epoch, this sentiment among architects has emerged with greater and greater pace. From this we can also conclude that due to the unawareness of architects in the sphere of political economy the necessity of adapting architecture and planning disciplines to the new industrialized modes of construction was perceived as a constrain rather than creative challenge of rising the discipline on the new level of development. In the following decades this attitude converted into the deep professional complex. After the fall of Soviet Union this complex was revealed with a new thrust of “free” form creation completely integrated with capitalist real property market. 

In the same period the trend of mimicking western architecture is named as one of the problems. The calls are heard about the necessity of authentic development of soviet architecture. Though, if we look retrospectively Soviet architects of the period truly met this challenge with high professionalism.

In Soviet Union the dissatisfaction with modernist architecture and planning emerged slightly later than in western countries. In 1970ies the optimism characteristic to the previous decade gradually declines. From about 1975 articles emerge criticizing architectural and town planning results of industrialized mass construction. The problems are raised concerning the alienating features of mass produced buildings and districts: difficulty of orientation in such spaces, their anonymity and low aesthetical quality. Gradually the interest grows towards the spatial phenomenon of historical city centre, and generally towards the historical heritage. The research is made on architectural semantics. Theoreticians are trying to implement “culturological” approach toward the architecture and the city. This is what architect A. Riabushin writes in 7th issue of 1979: 
“The culturological approach towards architecture is effective not only in historical terms. It describes today’s urgently actual mechanisms of human expectations and priorities towards architecture. The determination of architectural forms by the broader cultural context is essential and fundamental precondition for mass consumer to accept it as its own, understandable, close. The reason of deeply negative public attitude towards the “Uncomfortable” and “unaesthetic” mass construction is that its structure and image don’t conform to existing cultural norms and values.”

This tendency of 1970ies is getting stronger in the 1980ies. However with dominant reactionary symbolism, the criticism of chosen path emerges time after time. In 6th issue of 1985, well known theoretician A.Gozak publishes his article “Values of Life – Values of Architecture”, where he criticizes his contemporary superficial historicism and calls for architects towards the deeper understanding of history. The author condemns architects of too much stylization and criticizes the idea of style itself. 

If in previous years only criticism is heard towards modernist architecture, now the first projects and completed buildings inspired with the new trend are published. It is notable how the modes of architectural representation are changing together with architecture. A project, “Centre of Leisure and Communication” by D. Shelest, M. Tumarkin and M. Korolkov, printed in 1st issue of 1985 is interesting in this respect. (Pic. 5) The drawing is made in axonometric view not typical for modernist representation. In projected spaces it depicts everyday life of its users. In the project we see all features characteristic to post modern architecture and urban design – asymmetrical composition, nonlinear forms with reference to neoclassical architecture, continuity of pedestrian streets, squares and pavilions, passing through the neighborhood comprised from modernist high rise residential buildings. This project suggests typical postmodern urban rehabilitation aiming to bring identity, individualism and cultural landmarks in homogenous and alienating space. 

In the same period talks start about necessity of rehabilitation of mass produced buildings of 1960ies. Together with problems of structural integrity and scarce living space the cultural sterility of such buildings is named as one of the problems. One of the solutions to the problem becomes addition of living spaces with architecture endowing them “cultural identity”. (Pic. 6, pic. 7) 

In these solutions we can clearly read attitudes dominant in modern Georgian society towards the Soviet mass produced architecture and districts comprised from such buildings. Until today in dominant culture such spaces are associated with meaninglessness, efforts of shuttering individualism and generally with evils of soviet system. A good expression of this attitude was a program set in motion immediately after coming to power UNM (ruling party from 2003 to 2012). This program aimed to renovate and make cheerful typical soviet buildings. As a result many buildings were painted in different colors, the original cladding materials of balconies were changed with colorful plastic panels etc. The process reached its culmination when with an aim of improving overall outlook of the building, together with colorful balcony panels the Mediterranean sun shades and pots with plastic flowers were installed on well-known residential superblock located on Avlabari square. 

Of course such spaces suffered many innate problems from the days of their creation. The same homogeneity, planning fragility etc. but at the same time they were embodiments of many progressive ideas and principles. The main problem of Soviet architects of 1980ies was that they were unable to correctly identify the problems of such spaces and act accordingly. Jane Jacobs, in her book “Death and Life of Great American Cities” published in 1961 suggests much reasonable problematization of the question. Instead of bringing symbolic signs and such superficial corrections her solutions for degraded modernist districts implied bringing functional diversity, increasing densities, formation of new streets and efforts of strengthening social integrity. I don’t know if Soviet architects were familiar with Jacobs’s work, but it is obvious that their solutions were fed by general conservative turn existing in public life of the time and with ideological crisis of Marxism-Leninism, which had direct influence on architectural and art education. 

In post-soviet reality architects of the 1980ies radicalized their ideas even more. In this they were supported by land and building policy with newly established ideology, adapted to the principles of market economy. Of course, after seizing publicly funded construction programs and privatization of communal housing stock they did not have anything to do with improvements of mass housing and switched completely on private projects. After this moment the main feature of post-Soviet Georgian architecture becomes “free” (often nonlinear) forms, eclecticism, symbolism and decorativeness. Regarding the mass produced housing, editions conceptualized in earlier period were realized spontaneously by the inhabitants themselves and in the process they acquired specific semantics as well. 

In post-Soviet epoch, especially during the rule of UNM, besides the beautification of Soviet mass housing projects many interventions were made on important buildings of 1960ies and 70ies with the aim of altering their outlook and aesthetic qualities. Good examples of this trend are facades of Telavi theatre and its adjacent housing block, lower station of Tbilisi funicular etc. These alterations were made with precise aesthetic and accordingly political aims. 

Manipulation with the façades, using them for hiding reality from view and creation of mythology is not specifically post-soviet phenomenon. Not to mention Stalinist architecture, in the end of 1970ies and beginning of 1980ies one of the largest polygons of this methodology in Soviet Union became historical centre of Tbilisi. (Pic.8) In this period several key streets and locations were renovated and rehabilitated. In addition pedestrian streets were created where spaces were given to artists and galleries. If we look broadly, this intervention methodologically was completely similar to large scale urban rehabilitations going on in the last decade, until today – facades were renovated, where needed, completely new “historical environments” were produced, commercial/touristic pedestrian streets were created etc. In reality, preconditions for gentrification were created, but unlike today, Soviet economic system did not support this process sufficiently. 

In this respect a reconstruction project of Stalin’s av. In Batumi is also interesting. (Pic. 9.) This project shows today’s well established trend (or deviation from heritage legislation) of radical renovation of historic fabrics, while keeping original facades intact. 
It is noticeable that in 1980ies the materials about successes of Georgian architects are published more and more frequently. Here we can already clearly see the contours of post-soviet Georgian architecture. A good example is 1983 project of Shota Rustaveli memorial together with museum and manuscripts institute by V. Gelashvili, D. Kostov and D. Tevdoradze . (pic. 10.) Based on formal and aesthetical features of Georgian calligraphy, this project tries to reanimate and formalize national motives. Another example is children’s café in Mziuri park – variation on greek classicism by T. Abuladze, L. Kiknadze, I. Maskharashvili and B. Chigogidze. (pic. 11.) The project of bread factory by V. Davitaia and Sh. Bostanashvili is a perfect prophecy of modern Georgian restaurant architecture. (pic. 12)

Of course it is impossible to completely cover the topic of post-soviet architecture in this short and fragmented text. Indeed I haven’t tried to do so. Here my aim was to briefly show that the main architectural trends existing today in Georgia have their origins in late Soviet epoch. This can seem logical and shouldn’t surprise us. Although to realize the problem we should know how and in which conditions these ideas were born and how are they presented to us. 

Architecture was not exclusion in this respect as it was part of the general cultural and ideological wave, formation of which coincides with most decadent and crisis driven epoch of Soviet Union. This is an epoch where economic growth and technological advancement is hampered. Soviet Union already significantly stays back compared to capitalist countries. The overwhelming nihilism caused by Zastoy and its ideological crisis growth in general public. Nationalism and separatist sentiments are flourishing. According to many researchers, along with fragility of Soviet political system, its isolationist tendencies and other specificities, in creating crisis situation one of the causes was Soviet elite, which was completely involved in shadow economy born in period of Zastoy. After acquiring shadow material base, it started to search for ideological instruments for dismantling soviet system lingering the full realization of its class interests. In this effort it was greatly supported by ideological wave started slightly earlier in the west and determined with its own material logic. As described above this wave was also a conservative turn from existing order. 
I am not intending to argue that all this was well calculated and defined act. On the contrary, it is more probable, that this was unconscious, materially conditioned process. In this case soviet art and architecture stepped over the well-known axiom of socialist realist art: “national in form and socialist in content” and converted its formal feature to bourgeois, while retaining socialist content. This was supported by the reforms of Perestroika, enabling flourishing of conservative sentiment accumulated in upper classes. It took only one decade of this process for the soviet elites to dismantle the soviet system and change the illegal status of its economic base. Accordingly, with formal features, architecture acquired bourgeois content. 

Our today’s political economic and social totality, and among them architecture, in dominant discourse presents itself as new, healthy condition without alternative. But the analysis shows that this reality is nothing more than the reflection of the west discovered by the peripheral, theoretically confused elites in the decadent and crisis driven late Soviet Union. Accordingly, if we want to raise our society on the new step of development, the primary goal of our generation should be the fundamental dismantling of this project and creation of new, theoretically upgraded totality on its ruins. I think one of the important preconditions and symbolic beginnings for this will be bringing UNM, as a most radical executor of late soviet elite’s project to the political court. Of course this should be accompanied with complete rethinking of newest Georgian history. 

As history showed, without such fundamental changes it will be impossible to think about realizing any kind of progressive architectural project. Otherwise the future generation architects, under same regime, will have to be satisfied with mere paper and work in slavery against the public welfare.