Parameters of generosity

Romea Muryń

INTRODUCTION

The term ‘Soviet Union’, commonly, bears a negative connotation. It is often analogous to the Soviet regime, the associated oppression in the Soviet Era as well as the economic regeneration in the Khrushchevka Era. The regime in many ways led to the distortion of its preliminary ideological principles of social equity and communitarian living, thus stigmatizing and eliminating them from public consciousness. These foundational principles, however, were crucial in determining spatial planning in the early Soviet Era and display a revolution in spatial reforms. The intention of this article is to extract and distil a specific period of the Soviet Union – from the 1920s until the 1930s (early 20th century to the start of Stalin’s Social Classicism) – in order to re-contextualise the concept of the “social condenser” for contemporary practitioners, especially the socio-spatial parameters that defined early soviet urban planning, introducing the concept of “parameters of generosity” (1).

The ideas of early Soviet revolutionists, the constructivist architects and urban planners, aimed to prioritise everyday life as the central figure to be addressed. They envisioned how society could live together by eliminating what capitalists i.e. the bourgeois class had been dictating. This specific period of time raised human development, cultural consciousness and social equality above private interests. A re-introduction of the explorations carried out by constructivist practitioners on spatial reforms and the associated impact on socio-cultural development supported by land “liberation” from private ownership is still significant in our times. With this in mind, the article aims to draw out socio-spatial relationships that emerged during the Soviet era. As such, it asks: What ownership models enabled a dismantling of private asset driven capitalistic hold on society? What spatial parameters allow for social equality to manifest in the everyday? How could we outline the spatial parameters conducive to social collectivity and at what scales do they function effectively?

NATIONALISED LAND OWNERSHIP

,,It is through this new form of property in land that the proletariat is freed its claims to the land, while the capitalist monopolizes land that he or she does not directly use” 

Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 13 (2)

The Decree on the Land (Декрет о земле) signed by V.I.Lenin on October 26, 1917, emerged from the urge to defeat social inequality between aristocrats and proletarians (bourgeois and peasants) and combat the growing “isolation” of the state. It is a document that demolished the hierarchical order of the ruling classes and redefined the role of society within the political system. Land in the Soviet Union became a national treasure and the abolishment of private ownership opened up prospects for “an exploration of what people might be capable of if they were free of bourgeois domination in all its forms” (3).   Despite this, it provided a new chapter in history for “people to shake off the control of capital and the state in order to manage their affairs themselves” (4).

THE SOCIAL CONDENSER 

The question ‘How do you live?’ (‘Как ты живешь?’) and the vision of a new society continued to occupy the minds of leading Bolsheviks and aspiring revolutionaries alike. Socialist culture was shaped by theorists who were schooled in Marxist philosophy – blurring theory and practise – and applied it to every process of building socialist cities. The new urban environment consisted of a critical approach which tried to reject old doctrines and be adequate to new ideologies – equivalency and the removal of alienation:  “The idea of the progressive distancing of the object’: alienation is not only economic, it is the inability in all areas of life to grasp and to think the other. It renders bourgeois thinking incapable of grasping the world as a totality and distances it from the real” (5).

In that vein, it is crucial to assert Marxism as “Russian Vernacular” (6)  formulated at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Marx’s philosophy was used as an instrument to practise social theory on everyday life – “theory is not a dogma but a guide to action” (7). Soviet Architects and Urban Planners role and responsibility shifted to the daily reality and the “new way of life” (“Новый Быт”) – the belief of “engineering” the social soul and shaping people’s behaviour by constructing a new living environment. It is important to emphasize that in the context of the Soviet period, behaviour engineering was not intended as a tactic for control but to collectively engineer another future and achieve the impossible through technological development. In 1927, on the Tenth Anniversary of the October Revolution, the editors of “Sovremennaia Arkhitektura (SA)” (a constructivist journal) established a new radical architectural concept and intention: to develop the “social condenser of our epoch” (8). It was a vision based on social interaction and co-operation as foundational elements, forming a new code for behaviour, norms and habits essential to elevate human consciousness and secure the advancement of humanity. As spatial terms, these were described as “superstructures” – a network of collective socio-cultural systems – as a central part of each socialist settlement – by including public amenities such as schools, kindergartens, creches, clubs, cinemas, cultural houses, canteens, recreational parks, playgrounds. The idea is arguably the most powerful concept applicable at all scales – architectural and urban – produced in the Soviet Union, in response to inequality, poverty, cultural alienation and illiteracy.

THE SELF-SUSTAINED DISTRICT

Early Soviet planning integrated this aspiration of “social condensation”  within the city by creating self-sufficient districts. They engineered easily accessible communal amenities in proximity to the living units in response to their pursuit of providing a feeling of ownership and a reduction of “alienation”. A characteristic feature of this period’s development was building a single living complex next to places of work, or areas of economic influence and intersecting them with socio-cultural amenities, proposing the concept of the “curation of every day” (9). Residents of these districts were empowered to facilitate and dictate the program and activities taking place in the collective spaces in order to be liberated from entrenched backwardness. Today, the concept of self-sustainable districts is mostly associated with the economic period of early Soviet modernism in the Khrushchev Era with the “Mikrorayons” typology – multifunctional residential units dating from the ’60s and 70s, made of prefabricated building elements. However, the idea of a self-sustained district was in fact formulated in the pre-war era in the 1930s and emerged within the conceptualisation of the “social condenser”. 

THE SHABOLOVKA DISTRICT

The Shabolovka District is, arguably, one of the experimental grounds of the original concept of self-sustained districts where, even today, it is quoted as an indication of the “1920s lifecycle: from kindergarten to crematorium” (10). In essence, all the needs of a resident could be accessed within the district’s area such that people could spend their entire life in this neighbourhood without ever having the need to leave.

The starting point was the Shukhov Tower, a radio tower (1919 – 1922) designed by Vladimir Shukhov.  It was created to broadcast the new state’s ideologies to different parts of the country and became a symbol of progress and development of a “new society”. Created by two architects — Georgy Volfenzon and Samuil Ayzikovich, the first Communal House of the cooperative “1-st Association of Zamoskvorechye’’ emerged around the tower. The building plan was designed in a “Д” (D) shape, with public areas in the middle and residential areas on the edges. The residential units were built according to a corridor system, on each floor there were separate living cells of 9 and 12 m² with a vestibule, shared washrooms, bathrooms and rooms to prepare simple meals. Common balconies connected residential units externally on each floor while the familial living rooms were oriented to face each other across the communal courtyard.  With the introduction of physical and visual connectivity, a sense of familiarity and kinship between neighbours was created. Thereby instilling a notion of safety and security within communal spaces. Additionally, by locating all spaces where socio-cultural activities would manifest in the middle of the building the architecture emphasised collectivity as the communal identity. On the ground floor of the communal building, a nursery, kindergarten and a dining room was located, relieving women of the individualized burdens of domestic life and instead encouraged them to pursue a working life. While the planning did not rethink gender roles, it was radical in its efforts to not only professionalise child care but also to recognize it as collective labour. On the second floor, there was a club, which included a two-room hall and several reading rooms for evening education. These were also used for political and cultural debates. The last floor and the roof were dedicated to physical education. This was the site for a gym, a running track, a solarium and a summer cinema. By layering programs and providing equal access to all residents, this type of planning led to community interaction and social empowerment which the new revolution promoted.

The first and most significant avant-garde urban district, the Khavsko-Shabolovskiy housing estate (1927-1929) was built across the street from the first Communal House of Shabolovka. It was developed by ASNOVA – Association of New Architects. The estate consists of thirteen L-shaped buildings, situated at a right angle to each other, and at a 45-degree angle to main streets with the corners of the houses facing the Shukhov Tower. The main feature of this spatial condition is the creation of a network of small inner yards articulated with a “superstructure” – a day-care, civil office, sauna, a library, a club –  that condense socio-cultural activities on a neighbourhood scale. They acted as an extension of the residents’ domestic space where a sense of ownership and belonging was directly related to the proximity and the permeability of the neighbourhood. Solely by passing through these spaces, residents could be captivated by the ongoing activities and serendipitous encounters  to be prompted to integrate within these neighbourhood communities. The distribution of these micro-scale amenities throughout the residential environment stimulated and influenced unpredicted networks and activities. Following on this first successful urban plan, the next few years saw the emergence of more experimental buildings – these include the Mostorg Department Store, the Textile Institute Dormitory, the School on Drovyanaya Square, the first crematorium in Moscow, and the Academy of Sciences maternity clinic. It was a spatial model where the integration of cultural and social amenities into the everyday was prioritised leading to learning opportunities on an urban scale. 

PARAMETERS OF GENEROSITY: SOCIAL CONDENSER AND ITS PROJECTIVE CAPACITY

By separating the utopian vision of Soviet Idealists from the authoritarian regime that characterized the demise of the Soviet Union, it would be important to address the potential global future of the social condenser, its capacity to disrupt the contemporary austere socio-political systems such that its underlying spatial parameters of liveability when appropriated and made relevant to contemporary society. Using this as a frame of reference, two main contemporary conditions can be problematised: (1) the unregulated commodification of public land by private entities guiding (2) the disappearance of socio-cultural infrastructures at a microscale, and rendering them inaccessible as a consequence.

Gradual privatisation and the lack of innovative strategies by state institutions to keep the existing socio-cultural institutions, in both, the post-Soviet as well other nation-states alive, are leading to the misuse of these fundamental assets. Most of these spaces have become neglected, demolished, gentrified or commodified by profit-driven entities. As public land and the commodification of social institutions have become the norm, ownership models need to rethink stakeholder structures while the speculative, blurry mechanisms behind them, have to be regulated. The current scale of acquisitions of land by the private sector – in cities, towns, villages – has expanded to the point of dictating the future of diverse properties (and populations) inhabiting common households,  neighbourhoods as well as public institutions. As Saskia Sassen urges to protect the ‘cityness of cities’ in “Global capital and urban land” (11), as “When you take the broader map of the buying up of what once may have been a mix of public and private and it all becomes private, both in rural areas and in urban areas, you begin to think about a larger category that has to do with living space. How do we secure futures that enable many people to keep on living in cities that are real cities?” (12)

The danger of this on-going transformation is in its tendency to modify the governmental structure and influence land use to suit private micro interests. As the power of decision is transferred from public institutions to corporate stakeholders, so do the social and urban needs of local neighbourhoods become vulnerable to the interests of capital investments and profit-driven ventures. These economic mechanisms and their infinite unaccountable transactions, make the responsibility of creating a liveable urban fabric increasingly foreign, leaving the private investor to create an infrastructure that is entirely profit-driven and not necessarily interconnected to form a coherent living condition. As urban practitioners, it is important for us not to see the neighbourhood as just a territorially bounded entity but as a series of overlapping social dialogues and agreements. We should not underestimate the importance of physical change, physical boundaries and social infrastructure in creating a sense of belonging and identity. Insofar, the constructivists’ ideas that emerged as a response to inequality, crossed borders through time to become universally relevant. All in an effort to advance knowledge and society on a planetary scale. 

ENDNOTES

1. “Parameters of generosity” – Parameters in spatial reform and planning that serve as a series of protocols that aim to protect, preserve and embrace the quality of living in a micro-scale building environment with macro-scale benefits inspired by the principles of the “social condenser”. These parameters aim to prioritise human development and stimulate dialogue in order to renew inherent social and spatial agreements.

2. Karl Marx, Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Volume 1, Book One: The Process of Production of Capital, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1887.

3. Mark Purcell, Possible Worlds: Henri Lefebvre and the Right to the City, Washington: Journal of Urban Affairs, 2013, 145.

4. Mark Purcell, Possible Worlds: Henri Lefebvre and the Right to the City.

5. Henri Lefebvre, The Critique of Everyday Life: The One-Volume Edition, London: Verso, 2014, 209.

6. Anna Kruglova, Social Theory and Everyday Marxists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017, 773.

7. Anna Kruglova, Social Theory and Everyday Marxists.

8. Michał Murawski, Revolution and the Social Condenser How Soviet Architects Sought A Radical New Society, Strelka Magazine, September, 2017,https://strelkamag.com/en/article/architecture-revolution-social-condenser.

9. Henri Lefebvre, The Critique of Everyday Life: The One-Volume Edition, London: Verso, 2014.

10.  https://strelka.com/en/magazine/2017/03/20/95-schuhov-tower

11. Saskia Sassen, Global capital and urban land, Urban Age: Shaping Cities, 2016.

12. Ibid.

* This essay has been originally published in CANactions Magazine Edition 01 “Mikrorayons” – “Parameters of generosity”, Romea Muryń.