Show publication content!

Problems of preserving the heritage of socialist
realism in the architecture of Kharkiv
in the 1930s-1950s.
The biography of Socialist realism in Soviet architecture
(1932-1955) is in its own way unique and ambiguous as it is
marked by a violent change of styles. It had begun with a declaration
of a course on neoclassicism in architecture and art, and
with a ban on avant-garde experiments by the offi cial power
(since 1932-34). This was terminated unexpectedly when the
government issued decrees against extravagance in architecture
(“About the elimination of architectural extravagances in
design and construction” in 1955, etc). Actually, the Socialist
realism style emerged on the bones literally and fi guratively of
previous Modernism (Constructivism) which had earlier been
subjected to “persecution” and gradual destruction.
Therefore the heritage of Socialist realism is of mixed
roots. It is possible to distinguish two types of structures:
1. Buildings which were originally designed and erected
in the Socialist realism style (for example, Kharkiv
Airport, the Southern Railway Station, many apartment
houses, educational complexes, etc.)
2. Those buildings constructed in the 1920-30s Constructivist
style that were deliberately distorted,
decorated in the 1930s or suffered serious post-war
reconstruction in the Socialist realism style (the House
of Projects, the House of Cooperation and the
“International “ hotel in Dzerzhinsky Square, the
Red-factory Theatre, the student-hostel “Giant”,
etc.).
Each of these Heritage types deserves a different approach
to preservation. In the fi rst case, the value of stylistic
authenticity is unquestioned. In the second case the dilemma
arises: to restore the original modernist style of the building,
or to retain its later Socialist realism appearance.
The Venice Charter, 1964 (article 11) and subsequent
ICOMOS documents, recommend that we should respect the
valid contributions of all periods to the building of a monument,
and when a building includes the superimposed work
of different periods, revealing the underlying state can only be
justifi ed in exceptional circumstances.
The expression “exceptional circumstances” can be applied
to several buildings and the complexes of Kharkiv constructivism
and adapted under socialist realism.
WHAT STYLE OF
BUILDING IS THIS?
Svitlana Smolenska
First is the fact that traces of the most rapid period of
growth in the evolution of Kharkiv (1920’s-30’s) as the fi rst
capital of the Soviet Ukrainian Republic have been erased out
of the modern landscape of the city. Most of the monuments
of that period are hidden under the shell of socialist realism. It
seems strange that it is diffi cult to fi nd constructivist buildings
in “the capital of constructivism” today.
The fi rst changes in neoclassical style had mentioned facades
of those modernist buildings that were under construction
in the 1930’s. The post-war reconstruction of Kharkiv
(during the second half of 1940’s and 1950’s) featured the
neoclassical style or «Stalin Empire style» as it was named
(S.О. Khan-Magomedov [1]), also “had absorbed” the Kharkiv
constructivism considerably. Many avant-garde buildings of
Kharkiv had lost their authenticity. This included to a large
degree the complex of Dzerzhinsky Square where only the
famous Gosprom had retained its original form. The hotel
“International” had twice been reconstructed by its creator:
in the 1930’s and after World War II. After war, the House
of Projects, which perfectly complemented Gosprom on style,
had also been reconstructed. The House of Cooperation – already
as a building of the Military-Economic Academy – was
also completed in «Stalin Empire style». Many other buildings
had undergone changes in the process of post-war reconstruction.
As a result, the appearance of the city has been deformed
in favor of the socialist realism style.
But impressive, emotionally deep images of the urban
environment should refl ect all stages of development of the
city to some extent. The artifi cial etching of any period of its
history can adversely affect the city dwellers’ perception of
their environment. It subtracts from the city’s sense of history:
it reduces citizens’ sense of attachment and minimizes their
connection with the environment, to the point where history
is rejected and vandalism begins.
Kevin Lynch asserted rightly [2]: the spatial surroundings
with traces of past times can strengthen and humanize
the image of the current time.
The Quebec Declaration on The Preservation of the Spirit
of Place (ICOMOS, October 4th 2008) expands our understanding
of heritage, emphasizes the relationship of its tangible
(sites, buildings, landscapes, routes, objects) and intangible
elements, and the necessity of their combined protection. It
provides a richer, more dynamic and inclusive vision of cultural
heritage.