Topic 7A: 20th century planning under communism

Cheuk Fung (Clement) Chan

            Communism was a political system which greatly influenced the planning and development of the newly formed Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in the early 20^th century. Before 1917, there were strong Marxist attitudes towards the inequality and backwardness of rural life in the Russian Empire, which engendered the outbreak of the October Revolution on 28 October 1917 (French, 1995). Since then, the pursuit of common ownership of the means of production and absence of social classes caused the great changes of planning in the new Soviet State, which raised the living standards of the proletariat a lot.

            Regarding the planning strategies adopted in the new State after the revolutionary period, many of them were originated from the ideas and theories of different artists and architects during the period from the Revolution to the new Stalin era. This period of time was regarded as the fundamental process of Soviet town planning, which was about the consideration of what should be planned in the Soviet period (French, 1995).

            The earliest influence to Russia’s planning in the 20^th century was the Garden City movement proposed by Ebenezer Howard as shown in Figure 1 (French, 1995). Garden Cities were planned on a concentric and radial patterns with plenty of open space and greenery. These cities were linked by roads and rails to the central city but they were sustainable themselves. French (1995) mentions that the idea of Garden City for enhancing physical and psychological health was remained in Soviet planning later on. Moreover, the concept of Garden City expressed the Marxist thought of breaking the differences between town and country. Since Garden City was suitable to the new socialist society which improved the poor living conditions for the peasants, it had been proposed for a few times in the early 20^th century of Russia (French, 1995). Garden City movement was therefore one of the most influential ideas for the planning in the Soviet period.

Figure 1 – Garden City planned by Ebenezer Howard

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Garden_City_Concept_by_Howard.jpg

Under the influence of Marxism, there were two main principles of the new social order derived, including Suprematism and Constructivism. Although these two principles had totally different perspectives of art, both of them have had deep influences to the Soviet planning since 1920s.

            Suprematism was an art movement originated by Kazimir Malevich in 1913 which focused on basic geometric forms (French, 1995). The UNOVIS (Affirmers of New Art) group led by Malevich and the Suprematists was surrounded by the concept that creative art and practical design for living were inseparable (French, 1995). Nonetheless, El Lissitskiy, who was a member of the group in the town planning context, led the movement from Suprematism to Constructivism for the culture of materials (French, 1995). Since then, there were more concerns with construction rather than representation by art, which favored the construction of practical buildings and plans in the Soviet period.

            Constructivism had a different goal as Suprematism, which transformed from the foci of expressions of art into engineering-like constructions (French, 1995). In light of the availability of new building materials such as concrete, sheet metal and glass, Constructivism inspired plenty of designs for factories and hydroelectric plants in Soviet planning. Besides, there were massive Constructivist buildings in Moscow built in 1920s, aiming to improve quality of life for the workers and the belief in communal activity (French, 1995). Thus, Constructivism had contributed a lot to the architecture and infrastructure of the Soviet towns.

            Other than the two principles above, there were two schools of planning which also greatly influenced the Soviet planning in 1920s, including ‘Urbanist’ and ‘Disurbanist’.

            The Disurbanist school was based on the concept of the ‘Green City’, which was strongly influenced by the theory of Garden City (French, 1995). The Deurbanists envisaged people living in a form of ribbon development along roads through the countryside, with public bus services at road junctions (French, 1995). Since both Garden City and Deurbanist shared the same Marxian goal of abolishing the difference between town and country, they were similar in pursuing the goal of a socialist society, in which raising rural living standards to those of urban areas by the disappearance of towns and large cities. The triangles planned by M. Okhitovich were a good example of the idea of ‘Green City’ in 1920s as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Okhitivich’s concept of the disurbanist city

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Barschdisurbanism.jpg

            On the contrary, French (1995) states that the Urbanist school believed town should exist and replacement of family unit by communal house. The concept of communal living had led to the concept of the ‘superblock’ and the ‘microregion’ later, which were communal housing blocks and neighbourhood units of communal housing blocks respectively. These communal living cells were a new way of living, which separated people from necessities. On the other hand, there was high surveillance of the workers within the living cells. Consequently, the idea of communal living was effective to deal with the concerns of workers’ living standards and productivity of the ‘Sotsgorod’ (Socialist Towns).

            The linear city planned by N. A. Milyutin was a good example to achieve both of the goals between Urbanist and Disurbanist as shown in Figure 3 (French, 1995). Regarding the importance of greenery, there was buffer zone of trees between houses and workplaces, which ensured the workers’ living conditions and quality of life. On the other hand, parallel strips of communal houses and industries shortened the travelling time between residence and work, which enhanced productivity of the Sotsgorod. Hence, it was a feasible plan to be adopted in the Soviet Union under communism.

Figure 3 – Milyutin’s plan of linear city

Source: http://www.oginoknauss.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Nikolai-Milyutins-plan-for-the-Linear-City1.jpeg

            Yet, many of the concepts and ideas of planning had not been adopted due to the rapid change of political and economic environment during the Stalin years (French, 1995). Even though some of the principles were well-planned, they were ignored in practice. Mercifully, there were quite a lot of the principles remained in the plans in the post-Stalin era and even spread to foreign countries. Hence, Cities around the world might have similar approaches as the planning principles originated from Russia in the early 20^th century.

            To conclude, the period from the Revolution to the First Five Year Plan was a crucial period of the urban development in the new USSR. Although lots of the planning principles appeared in the early 20^th century had not been practiced, we might find a lot of similarities between the old planning principles and the modern planning strategies. Therefore, those ignored principles were useful in guiding us the way towards the future urban planning.

References

French, R. A. (1995). ‘The City of Socialist Man’ in Plans, Pragmatism and People. The Legacy of Soviet Planning for Today’s Cities. London, UCL Press.