Show publication content!

ning and volume-composite qualities 4 . Constructivist project by
architects Sergey Serafi mov and Mariya Zandberg-Serafi mova,
realized in the early 1930’s, took into account the location of
the House of Projects in the city space. Its main facade – which
was oriented to the north – has always remained dark.
In addition, the building gives a deep shadow on the round
part of the Dzerzhinsky Square closing its South side due
to the high-rise composition. The creators ably coped with this
problem at that time. They had provided large vertical surfaces
of glass that allowed beams of the southern sun to penetrate
the building, to highlight the central part of a building from
within, and long stripes of light to fall on the area of ground
in front of the building (Fig. 3a). This play of light was lost forever
after reconstruction [6]. Vertical glazing was transformed
in the conventional windows (Fig. 3b).
The creators of the reconstruction project (architects
Kostenko, V., Kamirny, V., Livshits, V., Ermilov, I., Lipkin, V.)
proposed to expand the central part of the building (thus losing
its harmony), and to crown it with Stalin’s monument,
then later, with a spire. Eventually, both ideas were rejected.
The bases which were laid under the central square tower
were not used; the spire was also not made [7]. The central
part of the building had kept its basic proportions. However,
the main entrance, which was raised above the ground on columns
and corresponded to a principle point of Modem Architecture
“the building raised on stilts” was replaced in the
project by a heavy portal.
Increasing the height of the two lateral wings, facing
with a ceramic tile, alterations to some parts and re-planning
due to changes in function and style, have collectively caused a
deformation of the initial shape of the House of Projects. It is
now impossible to return it to authenticity. Even now it retains
a volume-spatial composition of constructivism, but shows all
signs of Socialist realism style.
The House of Cooperation has an even more complicated
history during its transformation from Constructivism
to Socialist Realism (Fig. 4). In the early 1930’s it was still
in a stage of erection. Since 1934 it has undergone many
transformations in the “Stalin’s empire style” to meet the
needs of the Military-Economic Academy before and after
World War II.
The fi nal project of reconstruction was not implemented
completely because of the offi cial change of style trends in architecture:
the height of the central tower was reduced from 15
to 12 fl oors [8] (Fig. 4). Obviously, this building is an example of
socialist realism; its development is an antithesis to constructivism.
Today, the continued authenticity of its interiors is in danger.
Several years ago the building had been transferred to the
possession the Kharkiv State University, which has insuffi cient
means for the proper restoration of the interiors. Renovations
are being carried out with use of modern materials: wooden
window frames are being replaced by metal-plastic, wooden parquet
is being substituted for the original ceramic tile, etc.
4 The skeleton of the building was transferred to the possession of
the Kharkiv State University in 1950.
Summary
What style of building is this?
203
Because of biographical features of the socialist realism
style (its forced introduction and subsequent interruptions)
— part of its architectural heritage is in essence the elemental
“decorated constructivism” to a greater or lesser extent. Many
Soviet cities (including Kharkiv) lost their “avant-garde spirit”
which became hidden under a shell of socialist realism in the
1930’s-1950’s.
To restore a truthful image of the city it is necessary to
fi nd a reasonable balance in the display of historical landmarks
in both styles, in the modern image of Kharkiv.
For this purpose it is necessary:
– to defi ne (on the basis of research) the degree of preservation
of material traces of both periods of city
development in the existing landscape;
– to reveal those avant-garde buildings in Kharkiv that
can serve as historical landmarks and for which it is
possible to revert to authenticity.
The following should be considered:
1. The degree of existing preservation of original architectural,
planning and constructive solutions: the
probability of rehabilitation of facades, interiors and
details.
2. Existence of historical documentation (drawings,
photographs, sketches, text information), which
can be used for restoration of the authentic shape of
a building;
3. Any damage during the reconstruction period of socialist
realism caused to some constructivist buildings
that led to the loss of their aesthetic, urban, architectural
and compositional, constructive qualities.
4. Economic, ethical and other reasons.
Extensive discussions and serious research on this theme
are necessary to achieve a decision.
Bibliography
Khan-Magomedov, S.O. Soviet avant-garde architecture. Book
1: Problems of morphogenesis. Masters and trends. – Moscow:
Stroyizdat, 1996. – 709 pp.
Lynch, K. The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press,
1960.
Ivolgin, V. Kharkov – Kharkiv. Sketch // Universal magazine. –
1928. – No 1. – P. 67-73].
Lopovok L. To the question on the architectural ensemble of the city
// Architecture. –1928. – No 5-6. – P. 79-81.
Laibfraid, A., Polyakova, J. Kharkov: From the Fortress to
the Capital: Notes on the Old City. - Kharkov: Folio, 2004. –
P. 185.
From conversations with Professor of Architecture Sergey M. Petrov
in November 2009.
Mozhaiko I. Kharkov: what it could be. The embodied and forgotten
projects of architects // Kharkov news. – 2009. – December,
15th. – P. 13.
Shpara, P.E. Notes of the architect – Kiev: Budivelnyk, 1988. –
88 pp.