Urban planning under communism, particularly in Soviet Russia, in my opinion was not given a proper chance to come to fruition. Communism is an idealistic concept that in theory appeals to social-minded individuals, however in practice awarded incredible power to very few, who tended to abuse it. The initial break from capitalist and ‘western’ views of living situations gave creatives and intellectuals the freedom to redesign the very world they lived in, and some of the centuries most inspiring and imaginative works came from this time (Curtis, 1996). However, change could not wait for technology to keep up with the fantastical city concepts coming from Soviet architects and planners, the reality was that there was a very large population living in cities already built who required urgent attention. French (1995) states that Stalin’s 5 year plans brought immediate wealth to the state at the loss of opportunities for the Soviet union to truly ‘start again’ with Urban planning under Communism. The main challenges facing Soviet designers were the impact of growth and change on urbanism, inequalities of living conditions, particularly in rural areas and the erasure of social expectations surrounding housing and the family unit.
The importance given to the growth and change of urbanism is a concept that had already been examined in the West, however the complete upheaval of social and economic dynamics such as that experienced by the USSR post revolution facilitated an opportunity to put variations of these ideas into practice. The concept of a lineal city was explored by Soria y Mata, who thought to replace the traditional city centre with linearly expanding sections of infrastructure servicing the entire length of the ‘city’, effectively preventing sprawl and inefficient destruction of the environment. While the lineal city in theory deals with growth effectively, Vladimir Milyutin is credited with combining this capacity for growth with land use zoning made popular at the time by Ebenezer Howard and the Garden City Movement. Milyutin’s scheme envisioned 6 parallel zones in ribbon development, which would span just a few hundred meters wide and expand in length only (French, 1995). This theory was to be put into practice with a new socialist development, which was to facilitate a discovery of iron in the town of Magnitogorsk. Ernst May was commissioned to plan an ideal socialist “city” around this natural resource. With reference to Milyutin’s scheme, May designed an intricately planned out lineal city consisting of a strip of factories and industrial plants parallel to another strip of mikrorayons (an all inclusive “superblock” of communal housing towers and shared facilities,) separated by a green belt (Risebero, 1985). Proletariats would live and work in alignment, minimising travel time. The plan indicated that the housing strip would be upwind of the industry strip, thus eliminating toxic fume concerns. Unbeknown to May, development could not wait for the fine-tuning of his plan for Magnitogorsk. Stalin had already implemented the 5 year plan and the pressure was on to complete the mining infrastructure as soon as possible without consulting May’s plan. With industry giants sprawling across land May had envisioned the housing strip to be, he had to compromise and they were built on the other side, downwind of the factories (French, 1995). These were far from perfect conditions for a lineal city and most housing was subject to fumes from the factories. In spite of this, the proletarians worked long and hard, and the city produced a phenomenal revenue for the state, and Magnitogorsk was deemed a success.
The importance given to the growth and change of urbanism is a concept that had already been examined in the West, however the complete upheaval of social and economic dynamics such as that experienced by the USSR post revolution facilitated an opportunity to put variations of these ideas into practice. The concept of a lineal city was explored by Soria y Mata, who thought to replace the traditional city centre with linearly expanding sections of infrastructure servicing the entire length of the ‘city’, effectively preventing sprawl and inefficient destruction of the environment. While the lineal city in theory deals with growth effectively, Vladimir Milyutin is credited with combining this capacity for growth with land use zoning made popular at the time by Ebenezer Howard and the Garden City Movement. Milyutin’s scheme envisioned 6 parallel zones in ribbon development, which would span just a few hundred meters wide and expand in length only (French, 1995). This theory was to be put into practice with a new socialist development, which was to facilitate a discovery of iron in the town of Magnitogorsk. Ernst May was commissioned to plan an ideal socialist “city” around this natural resource. With reference to Milyutin’s scheme, May designed an intricately planned out lineal city consisting of a strip of factories and industrial plants parallel to another strip of mikrorayons (an all inclusive “superblock” of communal housing towers and shared facilities,) separated by a green belt (Risebero, 1985). Proletariats would live and work in alignment, minimising travel time. The plan indicated that the housing strip would be upwind of the industry strip, thus eliminating toxic fume concerns. Unbeknown to May, development could not wait for the fine-tuning of his plan for Magnitogorsk. Stalin had already implemented the 5 year plan and the pressure was on to complete the mining infrastructure as soon as possible without consulting May’s plan. With industry giants sprawling across land May had envisioned the housing strip to be, he had to compromise and they were built on the other side, downwind of the factories (French, 1995). These were far from perfect conditions for a lineal city and most housing was subject to fumes from the factories. In spite of this, the proletarians worked long and hard, and the city produced a phenomenal revenue for the state, and Magnitogorsk was deemed a success.
Nikolai Milyutin’s plan for the Linear City
Residential zones (А) and industrial zones (Б) share a green band. Railroad tracks run along the industrial zone.
It can be said that the communist revolution was sparked by the inequalities of living conditions between rural and urban areas. In The German Ideology (1965) Karl Marx is quoted as stating that “the antagonism between town and country which creates the division of the population into two great classes which can only exist as a result of private property.” The socialist revolutionaries initially saw communism as an end to the inequalities faced by people living sub par conditions. When all land was nationalised in 1918, urban property was taken into the hands of the state, including large dwellings of the wealthy, and subdivided among the proletariats (French, 1995). This brought immediate resolution to the cramped living situations faced by many. Private ownership of land more often then not impeded in productive development in urban areas. The Moscow underground railway network could be planned and built due to the complete control of the state (Risebero, 1985). The technology and infrastructure used by early soviet developers was the best of its time, it was built by proletariats and was seen as a success for communism. Unfortunately, once Stalin gained power over the USSR the state purpose shifted from standardised quality of life and living conditions, to increased economic and industrial power for the country, at the cost of individual quality of life. The population growth due to the successful industrialisation of Russia put a strain on the farmers who, like the urban dwellers, were stripped of private land and forced into collective farming (Hubbard, 39). There was a conscious unrest amongst farmers, as their promise of a better life was far from actualised. Those who resisted openly were reprimanded and the violence between the peasants and the soviets lasted years. The deaths due to starvation and executions during this period were estimated at approximately 10 million people (Hubbard, 1939).
To standardise living conditions in urban areas, as mentioned, properties were taken by the state and redistributed among proletariats. There was also a necessity to build new housing for the vast urban and rural population. The erasure of social expectations surrounding living arrangements gave architects and planners a unique opportunity to redesign the very framework of how people lived. Mass housing was envisioned across the countryside, consisting of blocks with thousands of individual units for proletariats to sleep and store personal items (French, 1995). The idea was that each block would have sufficient shared amenities such as laundry, kitchen, bathrooms and eating halls. State funded facilities would give all the workers, children and the elderly an equal opportunity to access healthcare, education and recreation. This concept of communal living required an abolishment of the family unit, freeing women from the constraints of domestic duties and giving every child an opportunity for education, ensuring that every proletariat had the best chances to perform efficiently (Curtis, 1996). This model was used for many housing communes that were built in Soviet Russia. It is fair to say that the concept was born out of true socialist values, standardising living conditions and eradicating inequalities between classes of people. Understandably, this is a working system that depends on state funding and the complete support of every individual. This was not the case for the most part and it is said to be an uncomfortable experience living in such close proximity to one another. This led to spying on neighbours and informing to the controlling police that someone may secretly disagree with the Soviet state (Risebero, 1985). There were dire consequences and people lived in fear.
It can be said that the communist revolution was sparked by the inequalities of living conditions between rural and urban areas. In The German Ideology (1965) Karl Marx is quoted as stating that “the antagonism between town and country which creates the division of the population into two great classes which can only exist as a result of private property.” The socialist revolutionaries initially saw communism as an end to the inequalities faced by people living sub par conditions. When all land was nationalised in 1918, urban property was taken into the hands of the state, including large dwellings of the wealthy, and subdivided among the proletariats (French, 1995). This brought immediate resolution to the cramped living situations faced by many. Private ownership of land more often then not impeded in productive development in urban areas. The Moscow underground railway network could be planned and built due to the complete control of the state (Risebero, 1985). The technology and infrastructure used by early soviet developers was the best of its time, it was built by proletariats and was seen as a success for communism. Unfortunately, once Stalin gained power over the USSR the state purpose shifted from standardised quality of life and living conditions, to increased economic and industrial power for the country, at the cost of individual quality of life. The population growth due to the successful industrialisation of Russia put a strain on the farmers who, like the urban dwellers, were stripped of private land and forced into collective farming (Hubbard, 39). There was a conscious unrest amongst farmers, as their promise of a better life was far from actualised. Those who resisted openly were reprimanded and the violence between the peasants and the soviets lasted years. The deaths due to starvation and executions during this period were estimated at approximately 10 million people (Hubbard, 1939).
To standardise living conditions in urban areas, as mentioned, properties were taken by the state and redistributed among proletariats. There was also a necessity to build new housing for the vast urban and rural population. The erasure of social expectations surrounding living arrangements gave architects and planners a unique opportunity to redesign the very framework of how people lived. Mass housing was envisioned across the countryside, consisting of blocks with thousands of individual units for proletariats to sleep and store personal items (French, 1995). The idea was that each block would have sufficient shared amenities such as laundry, kitchen, bathrooms and eating halls. State funded facilities would give all the workers, children and the elderly an equal opportunity to access healthcare, education and recreation. This concept of communal living required an abolishment of the family unit, freeing women from the constraints of domestic duties and giving every child an opportunity for education, ensuring that every proletariat had the best chances to perform efficiently (Curtis, 1996). This model was used for many housing communes that were built in Soviet Russia. It is fair to say that the concept was born out of true socialist values, standardising living conditions and eradicating inequalities between classes of people. Understandably, this is a working system that depends on state funding and the complete support of every individual. This was not the case for the most part and it is said to be an uncomfortable experience living in such close proximity to one another. This led to spying on neighbours and informing to the controlling police that someone may secretly disagree with the Soviet state (Risebero, 1985). There were dire consequences and people lived in fear.
Imaginative design for Soviet housing commune - Narkomtiazhprom, Vesnin brothers, 1934
There were many factors in the perceived
failures of socialist planning, however fault is rarely found with the concepts
themselves. The planning and design of this time inspired the whole world, it
was unfortunate that these great thinkers were given little opportunity to see
their work completed, and their idealistic concepts tied to a regime that
ultimately crippled the nation.
REFERENCES
Curtis, W. (1996). The crystallization of modern Architecture between the wars. In, Modern Architecture since 1900 (201-215). London: Phaidon Press Limited.
French, A. (1995). The city of Socialist Man. In, Pragmatism and People: the legacy of soviet planning for today’s cities (29-49). London: UCL Press.
Hubbard, Leonard E. (1939). The Economics of Soviet Agriculture. Macmillan and Co. pp. 117–18
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1965). The German Ideology (p. 78). London.
Risebero, Bill. (1985). Modern architecture and design: an alternative history. MIT Press. pp. 162-213
No comments:
Post a Comment