Authors

Petrenko Sergey D.
THE IMAGE OF THE SOVIET WORKER IN MONUMENTAL SCULPTURE IN WESTERN SIBERIAN CITIES THROUGH THE PRYSM OF THE SOCIALIST REALISM CANON

Architecton: Proceedings of Higher Education №4 (52) December, 2015

The article is devoted to the evolution of the image of worker in monumental sculpture in the 1920 – 1950s. Using as an example the sculptural groups that decorate the facades of buildings in some Siberian cities (Barnaul, Novosibirsk, Novokuznetsk) and freestanding monuments, the author makes an attempt to retrace the dependence of the composition and imagery in monumental sculpture of political poster and literary prose, in which the socialist realist canon first took shape and then exerted further direct influence on visual arts. Using the methods of iconology and iconography, the author concludes that the main vector of development in sculpture for over thirty years was determined by both formal solutions of political poster design and Soviet industry-related novel.

Petrenko Sergey D.
ARCHITECTURAL AND ARTISTIC QUALITIES OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IN NOVOSIBIRSK IN 1945-1954. FROM DESIGN TO REALIZATION

Architecton: Proceedings of Higher Education №3 (47) September, 2014

The article reviews the first post-war decade. The main objective of the study is to find out what predominantly defined the vector of architectural practice during that period in Novosibirsk. The research methodology based on complex were examination of archival material and field studies has enabled us to state that a considerable part of designs created by the Novosibirsk architects either remained on paper or were realized in distorted form due to various utilitarian rather than ideological reasons. This means that political and ideological problems that were relevant for the capital city presented a greater degree of abstraction in provinces than the lack of a powerful civil engineering basis in the city.

Petrenko Sergey D.
ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE IN NOVOSIBIRSK IN THE MID-20th CENTURY: ON THE HISTORY OF 1940–1950 RESIDENTIAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Architecton: Proceedings of Higher Education №1 (37) March, 2012

Today it is important to objectively assess the structures built in 1940–1954 and determine their role in the city-planning fabric of Novosibirsk as a considerable part of such residential blocks in many cities, including Novosibirsk, belong to the category of dilapidated housing.

During the period under consideration, building construction was based on general plans drawn up in 1932 and 1950, which were repeatedly modified and updated. Those plans did not take into account terrains and, thus, were not properly sited on the natural podium. All plans of the Soviet period were, as a rule, linked to industrial production needs. That situation led to fragmentation of the city, which was composed of independent stand-alone boroughs. But it may be generally stated that the city-planning principles underlying the pre-war plans (despite a number of inevitable errors that were not critical) got the future growth possibilities right.

To explore the circumstances that surrounded the development of the city environment, we examined field and archival photos, design drawings, and reviewers’ opinions. The article considers the most characteristic housing developments as an example.

A review of various archival materials suggests that there were no uniform evaluation criteria, or such criteria were changing quickly. A question then arises: what was actually done in the area of ensemble construction, and based on what directives?

The residential developments of Novosibirsk built in 1940–1954 display the ensemble character to a varying degree.

None of the projects considered was implemented in a comprehensive way, i.e. they failed to represent an ensemble at either the design or building phase, i.e. the first level of ensemble. There is no single housing block that would fit into the terrain and allow for spatial planning needs. The order method did not work, low-rise housing was not combined with high-rise buildings (along with good quality of building work), there was no well-developed infrastructure, the housing did not match the human scale, decorative elements did not put the spaces under the control of the principle of three scales – the natural, the human, and the parts in relation to the whole.

The second level is represented by housing blocks No. 1 and 2 in Leninsky borough. Spatial planning is done comprehensively, buildings are of human scale, low-rise housing is combined with high-rise buildings, but the finishing is of poor quality. The infrastructure is well developed. The planning and spatial design of the crossing of Vokzalnaya and Sovetskaya Streets provides a coherent and convincing impression.

The third level is represented by the developments that do not demonstrate any ensemble features, the built environment of Garin-Mikhailvosky Square being an example. All the above-mentioned elements show poor cohesion and agreement. Keywords: architecture of Novosibirsk, complex residential housing, architectural ensemble.