History of Civilizations of Central Asia
Download 8.99 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
|
21 Tsarist architecture in Central Asia: an experimental laboratory While Central Asian architecture underwent a ‘renaissance’, the Russian colonial towns were becoming a laboratory for Russian architects who had no outlet for their skills in their native land. All the styles currently in vogue in Russia appeared in Central Asia, albeit reinterpreted on occasion to suit local tastes. Pseudo-Russian and classical architecture of Central Asia In the course of time, the pseudo-Russian style came to be widespread in Central Asia. It was adopted essentially for Christian religious buildings, including Tashkent cathedral designed by A. N. Rezanov, 22 the cathedral in Novy Marghilan designed by I. S. Kitner, and the ‘treugol’nik’ church in Kokand, which was the work of A. L. Benois, 23 but also for commercial or administrative buildings, such as the government bank in Samarkand. In Central Asia, this Russian variant of a medieval revival carried with it the idea of tsarist supremacy and domination over the conquered lands. ‘It was based upon the complexities of sixteenth-century brickwork such as that used in the mighty Vasiliy Blazhenniy cathedral on Red Square.’ 24 Alongside the pseudo-Russian style, classicism remained in vogue. The twin houses built by V. S. Ge’ntsel’man 25 in 1904 for the Mandalaka brothers (a firm of wealthy merchants) represent one of the period’s most significant examples of classicism ( Fig. 3 ). Other buildings in that style include the Duma in Tashkent, which was designed by A. L. Benois and E. P. Dubrovich 26 (
). 21 Pugachenkova and Rempel’, 1958 , pp. 150–1. 22 Academician Rezanov attended the St Petersburg Academy of Arts. He worked in Tashkent as an archi- tect. 23 Benois attended in 1865 the St Petersburg Academy of Arts, he received the title of independent artist (svobodniy khudojnik). From 1874 to 1890 he worked in Tashkent as architect for Syr Darya region. He died in 1903. 24 Sprague, 1994 , p. 502. 25 Ge’ntsel’man, the senior architect for the project, was a civil engineer who attended the St Petersburg Institute of Engineering. He had worked in Central Asia since 1875. 26 Dubrovich was a civil engineer. In 1890 with Benois, they built the exhibition pavilion in Tashkent. Dubrovich was head architect of the city of Tashkent from 1897 to 1898. From 1902 to 1910 he worked as engineer of Samarkand oblast’. 803 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning tsarist period FIG. 3. Kokand. Twin houses built for Mandalaka brothers. Architect: V. S. Ge’ntsel’man. 1904. (Source: Archive, Ministry of Culture of Uzbekistan.) FIG. 4. Tashkent. Sketch for the Duma. Architects: A. L. Benois and E. P. Dubrovich. 1898. (Source: Archive, Ministry of Culture of Uzbekistan.)
Eclecticism was also a feature of Central Asian colonial architecture. It was an outgrowth of the appearance of new technology and the economic prosperity that characterized the region at that time. Appropriately enough, it found expression in administrative, cultural and social buildings, such as hospitals, libraries, theatres and cinemas. It was drawn from various sources, in some instances during the construction of a single building. The 804 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning tsarist period Russo-Chinese Bank built in Samarkand in 1910 by I. A. Markevich 27 is a good example. By combining two heterogeneous elements, a façade in neoclassical style and a modern ‘art nouveau’ style of decoration, the architect created a new and original composition. Some architects combined the Russian architectural language with that of Central Asia. In designing the residence of the governor of Ferghana oblast’, for example, A. I. Lekhanov 28 applied the principles of classical Russian architecture in association with Gothic arches. In some instances, collaboration between Russian engineers and architects and local master builders resulted in buildings in which Russian architecture was associated with a Central Asian style of interior decoration: in the governor-general’s house in Tashkent, for example, which was built in 1870, some rooms were decorated entirely by local artisans. Similarly, all the brickwork of the Sergei Circus in Tashkent was the work of Uzbek artisans under the direction of A. A. Burmestera. 29 This effort to combine Russian architecture and Central Asian decoration was also reflected in the new palaces that were built for the khans and emirs of the region. Reciprocal borrowings of style and building techniques Many Russian architects, then, worked with local master builders in creating new palaces. Emirs and khans appear to have adopted a broader range of stylistic references, introducing Russian elements into their new palaces. Both the style and the interior layout of the rooms in the Sitori Mahi Khoja palace in Bukhara and the Khudayar Khan palace in Kokand were a blend of ‘European’ and local tastes. Both palaces were overloaded with interior decoration, and the bedrooms, which would ordinarily have been left undecorated, resem- bled those found in the homes of wealthy Russians. 30 Russian engineers and architects like I. P. Sakovich 31 and I. A. Margulis unquestionably made a major contribution to the new palaces of the khan of Khiva and the emir of Bukhara. The style of the emir’s palace in 27 Markevich was a civil engineer who attended the St Petersburg Institute of Engineering. From 1908 he worked as an architect in Syr Darya oblast’. From 1915 to 1916 he was the head architect of the city of Tashkent. 28 In 1871 a builders’ commission was established and from 1871 to 1877 the military engineer of the governor of Turkistan, I. A. Lekhanov, was the head of this commission and controlled the construction of all Turkistan governor-generalship. After 1877 different sections were set up in Turkistan and the engineer of the oblast’ was in charge of one of these sections. In 1885 a builders’ committee was established. 29 Dobromyslov, 1912 , p. 315. 30 Nil’sen,
1988 , p. 148. 31 Sakovich was a civil engineer. From 1881 to 1887 he worked as engineer of Ferghana oblast’. By the end of 1899, he worked in the cities of the emirate of Bukhara and built different buildings such as the building of the political agent in 1885 and in 1893 the main church of New Bukhara (modern Kagan). 805 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning tsarist period FIG. 5. Kagan. Palace of the emir of Bukhara. Architects: I. P. Sakovich and I. A. Margulis. (Source: Archive, Ministry of Culture of Uzbekistan.) Novy Bukhara ( Kagan), in particular, was such a mixture of hybrid form and volume with a Central Asian type of interior decoration as to defy definition ( Fig. 5
). Similarly, the homes built by wealthy local merchants are noteworthy for their innova- tive styles and construction techniques. This phenomenon can be explained partly by the new frame of reference adopted by some of the native bourgeoisie, and partly by the fre- quent earthquakes that occurred in Central Asia during that period (Tashkent in 1866 and 1886, Verny [Alma-Ata] in 1887 and the Andijan region in 1902). Following these earth- quakes, a commission of inquiry was established, which in due course issued comments and recommendations on the subject of building construction that were published in the local press. The earthquakes had been so severe that the importance of new building tech- niques was immediately recognized. 32 In civil architecture, fired clay brick was adopted for basement walls, iron and other metals were used in place of wood, and the traditional flat cob roofs were replaced by gable roofs made of sheet iron. 32 Nil’sen,
1988 , p. 172. 806 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) Architecture and urban planning during the Soviet period (1920s–90s) FROM THE FIRST MULTI-STOREY DWELLINGS TO LARGE COMPLEXES: THE SEARCH FOR A SOCIALIST MODEL OF CONSTRUCTION The first multi-storey dwellings in Soviet Central Asia (1920s–30s):a period of crisis
The 1920s was a period of architectural recession in war-torn Central Asia. Throughout that period, construction mainly consisted of housing in the vicinity of industrial establish- ments for workers and their families. The debates over rationalism and socialist realism that were exciting architects and urban planners in Russia at this time were almost inaudi- ble in Central Asia. Building continued in the spirit of the pre-revolutionary period. Indeed, G. Bauer and G. M. Svarichevsky’s 1924 design for a workers’ housing development dis- played many of the features of tsarist architecture. This attitude, which persisted until the end of the 1920s, is to be explained by the fact that until the early 1930s, most experts in these fields were products of the tsarist period. 33 The architectural panorama at the end of the 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s was a mosaic of highly contrasting elements. Throughout this period, even as the old dream of the ‘garden city’ with its cottages surrounded by greenery continued to be pursued, the most radical ideas were being put forward, calling for the destruction of old lifestyles and their replacement by collectivism. 34 And between these two extremes, buildings developed within the framework of the limitations imposed by the harsh reality of the times. Every- thing was subordinated to the achievement of one vital goal: to solve the housing shortage as quickly as possible. It was not until after the first five-year development plan (1928–32) and the beginnings of the mass collectivization of land that the ‘garden city’ idea lost cur- rency and a search for new socialist forms of housing and other structures got under way in Soviet Central Asia. The architects sent from Russia and Ukraine at the end of the 1920s 35 imported new ideas that they somehow adapted to the Central Asian context. They were the first to 33 Many engineer-architects were products of the tsarist period including G. Svarichevsky, A. Til’tin, L. Voronin, F. Smirnov and A. Siltchenkov; some of them – Svarichevsky, Voronin and S. Kolotov –were teachers at the Central Asian Builders Institute established in 1930 to train young architects such as A. Babakhanov, V. Jahangirov, and others. 34 Ikonnikov, 1990 , p. 123. 35 A young architectural class (S. Polupanov, F. Dolgov, A. Pavlov, A. Sidorov, A. Petelin, K. Babievsky, etc.) trained in Moscow and Leningrad was sent to Central Asia to carry out the architectural project. Some of them – Petelin and Babievsky – were also teachers at the Central Asian Builders Institute. 807 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) introduce constructivism into Soviet Central Asian buildings. In 1932 two architects sent from Moscow, K. Babievsky and A. Petelin, designed one of the region’s earliest three- storey residential buildings, illustrating the constructivist ideas of that period. It is important to note that during the first five-year plan (1928–32) alone, more than 10 million peasants moved to towns and became wage-earners. The massive migration pro- duced a housing crisis of mammoth proportions. 36 Moreover, economic resources were in short supply at the time, so architects and urban planners opted for local housing types (which cost less than the new multi-storey residential blocks), a trend that illustrated con- structivist ideas. Thus, although the abolition of waqf lands in 1929 37 paved the way for new construction projects within traditional cities, ‘at that time, traditional housing accounted for 84 per cent of all housing’. 38 It was not until the end of the 1940s, when the first urban master plans for the reconstruction and development of the cities (Genplans) were developed, that multi-storey apartment blocks began to be erected in Central Asia. The war years and reconstruction (1940–55) In the aftermath of the Second World War, the Soviet Union’s total housing stock was reduced by some 10 per cent, but in some cities more than half of the buildings had been destroyed. Some cities that had escaped war damage had to face the massive influx of refugees between 1944 and 1948; 39 this was the case of Tashkent, whose population dou- bled in this period, reaching 1 million. Moreover, much of the USSR’s industrial potential shifted to the hinterland, and this stimulated rapid urban growth. Despite the acute housing shortage between 1946 and 1950, the official discourse paid some attention to the aesthetic of the new buildings. The housing crisis had a low impact on the priorities established by the institutes of architecture, which were dominated by men whose social and political legitimacy rested on their capacity to produce buildings in a ‘national style’ – a concept that was invented during those years. 36 Fitzpatrick, 1999 , p. 6.
37 In 1922 a law was adopted establishing a system, known as the GVU (Glavnoe vakufnoe upravlenie), for the administration of waqf lands and property by the government. The system enabled the Soviet authorities to control the income from waqfs and channel it to serve educational objectives. After the borders of the Central Asian republics had been demarcated, all such income was devoted to education and other cultural purposes. In March 1927 all waqf lands were placed under the direction of local komkhozs (kommunal’noe khoziastvo ), the agencies that managed real estate and provided other municipal services, and were finally nationalized by a decree issued in January 1929. 38
, 1940
, p. 111; cited in Azzout, 1999
. 39 The 5.2 million refugees in the Soviet Union in April 1947 represented around 30 per cent of all the inhabitants. 808
Contents ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) The success of young architects sent from Russia and Ukraine – K. Babievsky, M. Bula- tov and V. Dimitriev – and those educated locally in the Central Asian Builders Institutes – V. Jakhangarov and C. Actsaturov – was clearly linked to their ability to produce a ‘national style’. This young generation worked closely with some of the most famous Russian archi- tects sent from Moscow such as A. Shchusev, A. Kuznetsov, V. Lavrov and S. Polupanov. They produced the archetypal style of official building that blended classicism with the interior layout inspired by Central Asian palaces. The rapid promotion of young architect-urbanists who graduated in the 1920s (for those sent from Russia and Ukraine) or at the beginning of the 1930s (for those educated in Cen- tral Asia) is largely due to the troubled Stalin era. This new generation was not associated with the tsarist period and could more easily claim to be the legitimate agents of the pro- motion of a national architecture. The shortage of building materials restricted the implementation of new aesthetic prin- ciples, however, and ‘icon-buildings’ in the ‘national style’ remained scarce ( Fig. 6 a-b ). Two-floor residential buildings were mainly erected along the major avenues of some ancient cities, in line with official speeches about ‘local tradition’ and the ‘new socialist order’. In Tashkent, for instance, the façades of buildings on Navoi Avenue ( Fig. 7 ) and on
the banks of the Ankhor canal ( Fig. 8 a-b ) are decorated with niches, arcades and cornices and are good examples of the interpretation of the ‘national style’ by architect-urbanists of the time. Those projects are the work of the Republican Union of Architects (founded in 1934) and other institutions. At the same time, model housing projects were undertaken by the local organizations in charge of project development (Uzgosproekt, Kazakhgosproekt and their counterparts in the other republics). They aimed to develop projects of a reproducible type for the entire territory or, at least, for a large area. Indeed, the model housing, 264-b series, designed by the architect B. Trofimov and the engineer V. Ozerov in Turkmenistan, was used to rebuild Ashgabat after it had been devastated by an earthquake in 1948. The 210 series ( Fig. 9
), a three-storey building-type designed by Ozerov and the architect I. Rachinskaya in Uzbekistan, served as a model for a great many apartment blocks in Central Asia, par- ticularly in industrial cities. In 1953 four-storey brick buildings (TG-1) were conceived by Uzgosproekt. Based on this design, plans were drawn up for standardized prefabri- cated concrete slabs that were suitable for the area’s climatic and seismic conditions. The elaboration of those standards was not ordered by the government, but was the pragmatic response by architects to the specific needs of the time. These apartment blocks were built as economically as possible by whatever means were available. Local materials (i.e. brick) were used for the most part, while almost no metal went into them. Thanks to this system 809
Contents Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) FIG. 6(a-b). Tashkent. Buildings in the ‘national style’. 1949–50. Architects: M. Bulatov and L. Karash.
(Photos: Courtesy of M. Azzout and G. Akramova.) of construction, 1.7 million m 2 of rental accommodation were built in Uzbekistan between 1946 and 1950, and 2.8 million m 2 during the years of the five-year plan (1951–5). 40 The
40 Kadyrova, 1974 , p. 50.
810 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) FIG. 7. Tashkent. Apartments on Navoi Avenue. 1949–50. Architects: M. Bulatov and L. Karash. (Photo: Courtesy of M. Azzout and G. Akramova.) creation of a large-scale reproducible architectural model, which was the first step in the serial production of housing, dates from the very beginning of the 1950s. The great turning-point: industrial politics and large-scale housing complexes (mid-1950s–1970s) On 4 November 1955 a decree was issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR and the Council of Ministers about the ‘removal of excessive expen- ditures of building projects’. This decree followed Nikita Khrushchev’s famous speech of the previous year in which he condemned ‘Stalinist architecture’ and called for the ratio- nalization and industrialization of the building sector. The new standardization of building processes was supposed to achieve greater savings and increased productivity. In the period of political instability following the death of Stalin, the Central Asian interpretation of the Moscow directive had been to orient its housing policy ‘towards an industrialization of the project types already initiated in the previous years’. The success of slogans such as ‘standardize’, ‘industrialize’ and ‘transform the work-site into an assembly line’ can be explained by the fact that they were all part of a continuous effort, started in the 1940s, of serial production in the building as well as in the metallurgy and cement industries. 811
Contents Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) FIG. 8(a-b). Tashkent. Residential building on the banks of the Ankhor canal. Architects: M. Bula- tov and L. Karash. (Photos: Courtesy of M. Azzout and G. Akramova.) By the late 1950s, industrialization had come to be a decisive factor in the evolu- tion of architecture. Traditional procedures were abandoned in favour of the technique of assembling prefabricated buildings (composed of large panels and concrete blocks). Huge complexes of identical four- and six-storey buildings proliferated all over Central Asia. Prefabricated panel manufacturing became a thriving industry in the cities of Turkmenistan 812 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) FIG. 9. Standard plan of an apartment (210 series). Architect: I. Rachinskaya. (Source: UzNIIPgra- dostroitel’stvo.) FIG. 10. Standard plan of an apartment in prefabricated panels (I-464 series model). (Source: UzNI- IPgradostroitel’stvo.) and Tajikistan. 41 Here we see a sort of new rationalism, in which form was enslaved to the building industry. Economic criteria determined the selection of serial building types. The I-464 series ( Fig. 10 ) was a highly successful type that was built all over the Soviet Union, and nowhere was it more widely adopted than in Central Asia. 42 41 Boeva, Vladimirov and Tukchaidova, 1976
, p. 16. 42 Ibid. 813 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) To rebuild its capital city destroyed by the 1966 earthquake, Uzbekistan developed an ambitious ten-year building programme on a scale unknown in other republics. A decree was issued by the Central Committee and the Council of Ministers on 14 June 1966 ‘to help the Uzbek SSR recover from the damage caused by the earthquake’. Thanks to its new building industry, Uzbekistan was able to erect 2.7 million m 2 of housing in three years, more than the total that had been destroyed in the 1966 earthquake. 43 The ‘icon-buildings’ built at high cost in the centre of towns in the 1940s represented the synthesis of national tradition and the new socialist order – ‘national in form and socialist in content’. Those wartime brick, plaster and timber buildings were followed, from the mid-1950s onwards, by simple standardized constructions made with industrial processes. They were built mainly in places where the industry wanted to attract skilled workers. By the end of the 1960s, it had become clear that more aesthetic and more comfortable housing was needed. The old functionalist idea that the functional attributes of a building should determine its appearance reasserted itself. The architects of the following decade once again had to take into account both internal and external factors. This raised problems of cultural continuity and the interaction between old and new in an urban setting. 44 If the early 1950s had been dominated by the experimentation of various forms of a national architecture, by the early 1970s only a few types of housing were being built across the entire Central Asian territory. ‘The crowning achievement of economic and social politics’ (1970s to the end of the 1980s) Climatic conditions and cultural context The 1970s housing policy was influenced by the official slogan to ‘give each family a mod- ern flat’. 45 This policy was presented as an essential part of a social project, designed to tie in with economic and social policies. Indeed, sociological as well as economic considera- tions were taken into account to determine the type of housing to be built. This approach led to various statistical studies on family structure. 46 In 1969 a government decree on 43 Kadyrova, 1974 , p. 50.
44 Ikonnikov, 1990 , p. 43.
45 On this, see General’niy plan rekonstruktsii gorod Bukhary, 1970 . According to this Genplan, the following was envisaged for each inhabitant: 12 m 2 /inhabitant in 1980, 15 m 2 /inhabitant in 1990 and 18 m 2
46 Thus, according to these studies, the family structure of the city of Bukhara was composed as follows: 15 per cent of the population consisted of 1-person families; 60 per cent of 2–4-person families; 15 per cent of 6-person families; and 10 per cent of 8-person families. These statistics were useful as bases to determine the layout of the future apartments. Other sociological studies took into account the ethnic composition of the population. Thus, according to these studies, in the historical area the population was 93 per cent local, 814 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) ‘measures to improve housing construction’ was promulgated by the relevant ministry of the USSR. 47 In the 1970s housing complexes became more compact, with larger, taller houses. The transition from serial buildings to standardized units allowed for greater vari- ation, and that in turn led to a broader range of possible combinations within a single standard. Climatic and cultural considerations became the determining factors in the layout of new housing. The exposure and internal layout of apartments had to be suitable for the Central Asian climate and meet the needs of the societies concerned. Central Asian inte- rior spaces – hauli (open space), ayw¯an (semi-open space) and kh¯ana (enclosed space) – were reinterpreted through the introduction of loggias into apartments. The loggia was ventilated at both front and back, and the kitchen and the loggia were separated by a com- mon room opening on to both of them. This interest in creating traditional spaces could be observed at various levels. In new housing units, for example, groups of buildings were set closely together around semi-enclosed courtyards, full of greenery, that were reminiscent of traditional haulis. The tall 10- or 17-storey buildings that were typical of that decade, with shops supplying essential items on the ground floor, were also designed in accordance with these principles. A 17-storey building with bevelled corners in Tashkent ( Fig. 11 ) is a good illustration of the trends prevailing at that time. From the sixth floor upwards, the building is encircled with balconies at intervals of three floors; these were intended as substitutes for the traditional courtyards. Decoration also became a key element in the interpretation of what was termed ‘Central Asian culture’. Prefabricated decorative elements were stuck on to the panels of the façades, creating a curious pastiche effect ( Fig. 12 ).
TION; CONSTRUCTIVISM, SOCIALIST REALISM, MULTI-STYLISM How to identify a ‘socialist architecture’: public buildings from the 1920s to the 1940s
During the 1920s many old buildings were deliberately destroyed; others were renovated and new buildings were erected to meet the needs of the new socialist society that the in the north of this area the number dropped to 78 per cent, whereas in the new Soviet-type districts (the southern districts), the number dropped to 38 per cent. These factors determined the allocation of cultural services. On this, see General’niy plan rekonstruktsii gorod Bukhary, 1990 .
USSR Communist Party (KPSS) in the Resolution and the Congress , 1972 , pp. 47–51. 815
Contents Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) FIG. 11. Tashkent. A 17-storey residential building. 1985. Architect: O. Aidinova. (Photo: Courtesy of M. Azzout and G. Akramova.) USSR was trying to build. The innovative trends of this period, namely rationalism and constructivism, found their fullest expression in the great public buildings that were erected during that decade. Constructivists and rationalists, influenced as they were by experiments in so-called ‘left-wing’ art, emphasized the function and rational layout of buildings. The task of architecture was henceforth ‘to formalize and crystallize the socialist way of life.’ 48 The Palace of Labour project in Moscow, designed by the Vesnin brothers in 1923, was one of the earliest examples of this trend. It is a gigantic concrete structure, bare of deco- ration, with geometrically organized volumes and windows aligned in straight rows down the sides – a design that was highly characteristic of what was to become the construc- tivist style. This school made very little impression in Soviet Central Asia, however, partly because it was suppressed at an early date (1930) but also because building materials were in short supply. Designed by architects sent from Moscow, the few buildings erected in Central Asia that did represent the constructivist school were interpreted in accordance with ‘local taste’. 48 Ginzburg, 1935 , p. 7.
816 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) FIG. 12. Tashkent. Prefabricated decorative elements of a residential building. Architects: A. Kosin- sky, V. Azimov and others. (Source: TashGiprogor.) One of the small number of large-scale projects in the constructivist style was the govern- ment complex in Alma-Ata, which was designed by Moise Ginzburg, one of the founders of constructivism and a specialist in the history of the architecture of Central Asia. This massive monument, to use Ginzburg’s own words, was constructed: with simple, basic means corresponding to the specific topography of Alma-Ata as well as the peculiarities [climate, etc.] of the Kazakh ASSR. This was one of my first experiments in the building of a new image for Soviet architecture. 49 And, indeed, the volumes were organized in such a way as to form an inner courtyard (planted with trees) that was reminiscent of the houses and palaces of Central Asia. Fur- thermore, the colours (browns, greens and light blues) used for the interior decoration of the complex were taken from Kazakh ornamental art. This complex illustrates the nascent phenomenon of buildings in which constructivist principles were combined with ‘national forms’. 50
Ibid., p. 8; Sprague, 1994
, p. 308. 50 Yarlov, 1985 , p. 115. 817 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) FIG. 13. Andijan. State Bank. 1928. Architect: S. Polupanov. (Source: UzNIIPgradostroitel’stvo.) Other, more modest buildings ( Fig. 13
) were designed by S. Polupanov 51 in accordance with constructivist ideas, but since reinforced concrete was in short supply, some architects resorted to brick instead. In constructivist architecture proper, the concrete skeleton is the determining element, commanding the rhythmic design of the whole. Beginning in the 1930s, however, constructivism began to be accused of not conveying ‘a true picture of Soviet architecture’, 52 and thereafter it lost ground to socialist realism. The architects and urban planners accused the new architecture of the 1920s of embodying cosmopolitanism, formalism and oversimplification. Therefore, it became the denial of the ‘national style’. The new paradigm of the towns of the future in its most condensed definition, ‘national in form and socialist in content’, became the guiding principle of the architecture of the 1930s. The expression ‘national in form’ authorized the resumption of the ‘national tradi- tion’ of Central Asian architecture, whereas ‘socialist in content’ meant the nationalization 51 S. Polupanov came from Moscow in the 1920s with a group of architects from various cities of Russia – Moscow, Leningrad-St Petersburg – and Ukraine. Along with Svarichevsky, he brought the ideas of constructivism and rationalism to Central Asia. 52 Ginzburg, 1935 , p. 6.
818 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) of land and the end of property speculation. The very hazy definitions of the concepts ‘national form’ and ‘socialist content’ facilitated the reappropriation and recontextualiza- tion in the Central Asian context.
The conflict between Moscow’s architects and urban planners relates primarily to politics. It is always difficult to decide what to preserve and what to reject of a country’s material and intellectual heritage. For those led by Alexei Shchusev, the inspiration for the ‘national tradition’ of ‘progressivism’ lay in the precapitalist era whereas for those led by Moise Ginzburg, their inspiration could come from all past culture. The Palace of the Soviets project in Moscow, designed in 1931, may be regarded as a landmark for Soviet architecture as a whole during this period. The ‘palace’ concept had become the symbol of the new culture, and the traditional formal characteristics of palaces appeared in architecture. 53 The official attitude to the country’s architectural her- itage changed, and the advocates of variants of neoclassicism, who were perhaps the major- ity of Russian architects, became predominant. The trend favoured Shchusev, and the most politically ‘acceptable’ style seemed to be the neoclassical. Thus the monumental majesty of the several versions of that style became the expression of socialist realism. In Soviet Central Asia, the political definition of an urban and architectural style inher- ited from the past was based on a different terminology from that of Soviet Russia. Accord- ing to theorists of this period, Central Asia (unlike imperial Russia) had not reached the stage of capitalism. Thus the architects and urban planners envisioned their designs as anti- feudal rather than as anti-capitalist. They sought to ‘legitimize’ their objective by becoming recognized as the holders of indispensable urban knowledge and – in the political context of the time –necessarily anti-feudal, anti-capitalist and ‘progressivist’. Therefore the inspiration for the national (‘progressivist’) tradition was ‘pre-feudal’. As defined by the theorists, the period of ‘decline’ (the seventeenth–nineteenth centuries) could not provide inspiration for the ‘national style’, and the national ‘golden age’ was seen as the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. However, certain practices from the tsarist period were continued: for example, there was frequent borrowing from the interior decoration of palaces dating from the nineteenth to the early twentieth century. It should be remembered that during this period, the political and administrative elite was entirely composed of an older generation – a considerable number of architects had started their professional life in the tsarist era. Indeed, Svarichevsky, A. Til’tin, L. Voronin 53 Ikonnikov, 1990 , p. 180. 819 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) and F. Smirnov, to mention only the most famous architects during this period, had worked during the tsarist period and remained very active after the October revolution. Some of them –Svarichevsky and Voronin – helped to reorganize the architectural profession by training the first local architectural class of 1934 at the Central Asian Builders Institute. Thus Russian architects revived pre-existing themes, and the bulk of the architectural reper- toire was inspired from their experience during the tsarist period. Russian architects con- tinued to collaborate with local builders just as they had done in the tsarist period. During this period, the ‘cultural heritage’ became a geopolitical issue. Indeed, after a delimitation of the Central Asian republics in 1924, architectural cultural heritage became an important identifier of the new territorial boundaries, a process that could be described as the ‘territorialization of the architectural cultural heritage’. 54 The new ‘national style’ architecture helped to reinforce the demands for recognition by the young Central Asian republics by allocating a specific architectural language to each republic. This ‘revisiting’ of the past allowed architecture that had formerly been widely defined as ‘Muslim of Central Asia’ (with its various local versions) to be categorized as exclu- sively ‘Uzbek’, ‘Kazakh’, ‘Kyrgyz’, ‘Turkmen’ or ‘Tajik’. Thus architects and urban plan- ners created a panoply of new architectural terms – inspired primarily by the decoration or interior layout of traditional palaces. They specified what was supposed to be typically Kazakh (felt, yurts) or Uzbek (pichtak, arabesques, turquoise), etc. From the standpoint of the aesthetic theory of that period, the national characteristics of form came to constitute one of the fundamental principles of socialist realism in art. The All-Union Agricultural Exhibition that was inaugurated in 1939 proved to be an excellent testing-ground for the application of the theory of ‘national architecture’. 55 The
architecture of the pavilions was to be an experimental ground for the materialization ‘in concrete’ of what may be labelled ‘the national style, reflecting the cultural diversity of the Soviet peoples’. 56 The Uzbek pavilion stood out by its distinctive architecture ( Fig. 14 ). The architect, S. Polupanov, who had designed many buildings in Uzbekistan, used various features of Central Asian architecture: the hauz (pool of water), hauli (inner courtyard), openwork sculpture on alabaster (ganch), stalactites and so on. The plan was based on a reinterpretation of the form of a pokoi (reception room in an Uzbek house). The traditional
was enclosed, but here the architect created a space extended by an open-plan area, giving the pavilion a welcoming aspect. 57 In line with the main entrance stood a hauz, 54 Azzout,
2002 . 55 Ikonnikov, 1990
, p. 227. 56 Yarlov, 1985 , p. 128. 57 Yarlov,
1985 , p. 131. 820 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) FIG. 14. Tashkent. Uzbek pavilion at the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition. 1939. (Photo: Courtesy of M. Azzout.) surmounted by a high kiosk with dramatic decoration (a slender column in the Central Asian style), which, however, had no structural function. On the other hand, certain projects designed by Ukrainian and Russian organizations in charge of project development were often copies of former projects already realized in Russia or Ukraine. The Palace of the Soviets is a particular example that became a symbol of ‘socialist realist’ architecture. Dushanbe’s Opera and Ballet Theatre, built in 1939, is another good example. It is a replica of the Soviet Army Theatre in Moscow, classical in its perfect symmetry, while the building’s volume and spatial structure are determined by the emblem. The profusion of extraordinarily slender columns, forming strangely lofty porticos, on its frescoes appear to be the equivalent of the decorative and symbolic architecture that made its appearance during the 1930s. The influence of the Palace of the Soviets on the stylistic characteristics of the period was evident in numerous public buildings. In the 1940s and 1950s, in particular, the forms of classical architecture were asso- ciated with Central Asian decorations. The desire to incorporate specific ‘references’ to Central Asian tradition, or to reproduce some unmistakably identifiable prototype (stalac- tites, Gothic arches and so on), became standard features. Buildings erected during the war years (1940–5) are characterized, for the most part, by Russian classicism or ‘suprema- tism’. These stylistic forms were deemed to symbolize Soviet supremacy. In Central Asia, and especially in Kazakhstan, where many war evacuees were sent, the Russian classical style and suprematism developed to an increasing extent. The theatre in 821 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) Alma-Ata clearly illustrates this trend. This theatre, which was built in 1941, is simply a replica of the Moskva Cinema designed by Lazar Hidekel (an architect from St Petersburg), but with its walls covered with Kazakh-style decorations intended to suggest ‘felt blankets of the kind used by Kazakh nomads to cover their yurts’. 58 The Alishir Navoi Theatre in Tashkent ( Fig. 15 a-b ), designed in 1947 by Shchusev, is another example of a Central Asian interpretation of socialist realism, based on variants of the neoclassical order and characteristics of the ‘national culture’. All these buildings were erected in collaboration with local master builders. The role of local builders in the creation of a socialist architecture The reorganization of the profession of architect which was generated by the above-mentioned 1934 training course at the Central Asian Builders Institute involved the marginalization of ‘traditional’ local builders, leaving major constructions in the hands of their colleagues trained in Moscow or more recently in Tashkent. At the end of the 1930s, ‘traditional’ local builders were charged with erecting new kolkhozs (collective farms), housing, clubs for communist propaganda, public baths and other facilities. In short, they built all that made it possible for these kolkhozs to function. However, some ‘traditional’ local builders, still considered as second-rate, were utilized as decorators of the interior of the prestigious architectural works, as they had been during the tsarist period. 59 Impact of the new planning on public buildings (1950s–60s) From socialist realism to standardization The socialist realist attitude in art and architecture persisted down to Stalin’s death in 1953. 60
become one of the established bases of architecture within the Soviet Union. Borrow- ings from tradition became mere imitations of the panoply of architectural forms derived from previous periods. The new urban planning influenced the types of public buildings that were erected, and thus gave rise to the idea of cooperatives, which were highly suc- cessful in Central Asia. The large shopping centre built in the rayon (residential district) of Chilanzar in Tashkent in 1962 was the first of its kind in the Soviet Union. V. Spivak, 58 Ibid., p. 134. 59 In 1940 the committee for museum affairs and the preservation of ancient monuments and nature (UzKomstaris) organized special classes for a local master (usta). The old masters (ustas) such as Shirin Muradov (1880–1957), Suleiman Khojaev (1866–1947) and Abdu Ghafurov (1884–1956) were teachers at UzKomstaris to train new students. The main role of new trained masters was to decorate the interior of prestigious architectural works. 60 Sprague, 1994 , p. 511. 822 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) FIG. 15(a-b). Tashkent. Alishir Navoi Theatre. 1936–47. Architect: A. Shchusev. (Photos: Courtesy of M. Azzout and G. Akramova.) V. Roschupkin, I. Koptelov and A. Yasnogorodsky were the architects who designed this project. 61 61 Kadyrova, 1987
, p. 100. 823
Contents Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) ‘Multi-stylism’ (1970s–90s) The 1970s were characterized by a highly varied architecture. Multi-stylism became a feature of the period, with rationalism revisited, neoclassicism and hybrid Central Asian forms. Formal rationalism is clearly expressed in the Namangan administrative building, which was designed in 1974 by D. Chuvaev. The composition of this building, with its facing of light-coloured stone, expresses a single theme: the widely spaced bearing points support a massive crown topped with a large, bare acroterion. It is reminiscent of the Palace of Culture in Moscow, which was built during the same period. The 1980s were noteworthy for the construction of underground rail-transit systems as part of the urban development of the major Central Asian capital cities. The initial lines of the Tashkent subway, which were completed in 1980, were unquestionably one of the most popular architect ural achievements of the period. It was the first time that such a substantial project had been designed essentially by Uzbek architects. Every station is a work of art, reflecting powerful visual images and a concentration of vast spatial systems. The basic guiding principle was that every station should be associated with the surface facilities through the judicious use of visual or thematic associations. URBANIZATION OF THE CITIES OF SOVIET CENTRAL ASIA (1930s–1990s) As industry developed rapidly after 1928, the construction of new cities or the remodelling of old ones became the order of the day. There was a vigorous debate over the ideal popu- lation distribution model for the region. There were two parties with diametrically opposed views on the matter: on the one hand, the advocates of the concept of ‘urbanization’, led by the economist Leonid Sapovich, and on the other hand those who favoured ‘disurbaniza- tion’, whose champion was another economist, Mikhail Okhotovich. Sapovich imagined the ideal city as ‘a compact, organized entity for production, living and culture’, with its entire population housed in from 1 to 20 ‘communal houses’ structured around modern means of transport and communications. Only adults would have bedrooms. 62 Okhotovich rejected the unit of land as a basis for concentrating the population. His ideal city would be everywhere and nowhere, with its inhabitants linked by car and telephone. These two concepts were given material form in the competition for the design of the new town of Magnitogorsk, a metallurgical complex in the southeastern Urals. 63 The
‘disurbanist’ model featured the establishment of eight residential ‘lines’ located along roads radiating out from the industrial complex, while the ‘urbanist’ model, known as 62 Ikonnikov, 1990 , p. 113. 63 On the construction of the city of Magnitogorsk, directed by Ernst May, see Kotkin, 1995 . 824 Contents Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) Sozogorod, featured a compact, organized plan with green spaces and apartment blocks for 2,000–4,000 inhabitants located close to the complex. Urban development master plans for the reconstruction and development of the cities of Moscow and Leningrad (present-day St Petersburg) were developed in 1935, subsequently becoming ‘a guiding standard for urban planning throughout the country’. 64 However, the linear ‘disurbanist’ model was virtually abandoned. The urban planning principles in these projects were used for the urban development master plans for the reconstruction and development of the cities of Tashkent, Samarkand, Alma-Ata and other Central Asian cities ( Fig. 16 ).
Soviet Central Asian cities can be divided into four basic categories: historic cities that were remodelled and expanded (Samarkand, Bukhara, Khiva and Kokand, to mention only the best-known); cities that arose in response to industrial development, such as Chirchik, Navoi and Bekabad); the former tsarist administrative centres of Verny (Alma-Ata), Ashkhabad (Ashgabat), 66 Frunze (Pishpek) and, lastly, former villages that were restructured into cities, such as Stalinabad ( Dushanbe). 67 Restructuring of the historic cities of Soviet Central Asia: the first urban develop- ment master plans for the reconstruction and development of the cities (1940s) Between 1920 and the early 1930s, the state confiscated and nationalized the most impor- tant Islamic architectural monuments of Central Asia and abolished their former functions. This attitude was particularly marked in 1929, with the abolition of waqf lands and prop- erties and the launch of the first five-year plan (1928–32), accompanied by large-scale collectivization of land, intensive cotton-growing and the grain-supply campaign. Through- out this period, many architectural monuments were used as warehouses, and many of the houses in the old cities were deliberately destroyed (70 per cent of the residential dwellings in the city of Bukhara were destroyed between 1917 and 1947). 68 In the Official Gazette of the Central Executive Committee of 31 October 1930, we read: 64 Kadyrova, 1974 , p.12.
65 Kadyrova, 1974 , p.12.
66 Known briefly in the 1920s as Poltoratsk, the centre of the former Transcaspian oblast’ of tsarist Turk- istan which became the capital of the Republic of Turkmenistan in 1924. 67 The two last groups will not be discussed separately, since their Genplans were not so different from those of the first two groups mentioned. 68 According to the master plan for the city of Bukhara, there had been 12,000 dwellings before 1936, while in 1940 only 3,500 remained. It thus appears that 70 per cent of those dwellings had been destroyed. 825
Contents Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) FIG. 16. Tashkent. Schematic master plan (Genplan). 1937. (Source: UzNIIPgradostroitel’stvo.) Madrasa of the village of Daghbit, Ak Darya rayon, Samarkand okrug: has decided to demol- ish the madrasa and to use the bricks to erect a building for the purpose of establishing a foundation for cultural instruction. 69 Until the 1930s, building proceeded in the absence of urban planning of any kind. The few buildings that were erected belonged to industrial establishments (such as silk or cotton factories) and were located near them. The cities of Central Asia had to wait until the 1930s and 1940s for their first urban development master plans for the reconstruction and the development of the cities (Genplan), and it was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s that those plans were implemented. Even then, the prospects opened up by the Genplan did not always lead to concrete results. The Genplan was designed by a collective of architects, engineers and economists, and it was intended to cover a period of between 20 and 25 years. It might be supplemented by additional development detailed plans (PDP), and it might be amended on occasion, notably in the event of a natural catastrophe such as an earthquake. After various tentative beginnings, Genplans were prepared for the historic cities of Central Asia. A Genplan for Tashkent was drawn up in Moscow in 1938–9 under the direction of the well-known architect Kuznetsov. A Genplan for Samarkand was prepared in Tashkent in 1938 under another well-known architect, Bulatov. Bukhara received its Genplan in 1940, Khiva its Genplan in 1941, and others followed. While these Genplans 69 National Archive of the Republic of Uzbekistan, TsGA Uzrep F. 86, inv. 2, No. 115, p. 26. 826 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) for the reconstruction and development of the historic Central Asian cities were designed by a variety of collectives of architects in different republics, or in Moscow, they shared a number of characteristics: • identification, for the first time, of the city’s functional zones (industrial zone, resi- dential zone, administrative centre); • reconstruction and development of the street layout, to improve the traffic flow, and establishment of public transport systems featuring such vehicles as trolley buses; the street layout was based on a radioconcentric system designed so that commuting distances should not exceed 45 minutes; • provision of green spaces such as parks, squares and playgrounds and, later, water features such as pools and ariqs (canals) (amenities of this kind came to account for 3.5 per cent of the total urban area, with 6.4 m 2 per resident); • development of a new city centre containing most of the main buildings, clustered around a large square which in some cases included the city park. Unlike theories of ‘city building’ that focused on the economic and commercial func- tions of the ‘down-town’ district, the urban planning of Soviet Central Asia, in the first Genplan dated 1940, proposed the transformation of the ‘market centre’ into a place for socialization and the political expression of the ‘new dominant class’ in society. Thus the down-town area must be located in the centre, with the public buildings embodying the working class and its party. Down-town necessarily became the social and political centre where meetings and demonstrations could take place. 70 The identification of functional zones entailed the grouping together of a number of industrial facilities. New establishments, for example, were built out by the old city wall, and buffer zones of parks and gardens – a protective green belt between industrial and res- idential areas – were created. The green belt would extend into the old city, which as a rule contained very little greenery. The reconstruction of existing streets was frequently injuri- ous to the historic cities, entailing: first, the demolition of many old houses and the urban fabric, more generally in cases where an existing street was widened or a new street opened through an old district ( Fig. 17
); and, second, the demolition of the old city wall (Bukhara) in cases where the city was developed or simply grew to the point where it spilled over its former limits. In some instances, the radioconcentric system of streets engulfed and stifled the city’s historic centre (as in the case of Khiva) ( Fig. 18 ) or encroached upon old outlying districts (as in the case of Bukhara). 70
, 1940
, p. 128. 827
Contents Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) FIG. 17. Tashkent. Reconstruction of Navoi Street. Architects: M. Bulatov and V. Smirnov. (Source: TashGiprogor.) FIG. 18. Khiva. Schematic Genplan (Uzgosproekt). 1950. (Source: UzNIIPgradostroitel’stvo.) Industrial cities Throughout the Soviet period, urban planning was closely linked to economic requirements. 71 The state’s objectives were to conform to the ‘Gosplan’ 72 theory; other initiatives were 71 On this matter, see Merlin, 1975 ; Beaujeu-Garnier et al., 1995 .
The State Economic Planning Agency. 828
Contents Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) individual programmes established by industries. Industrialization was dependent on urban- ization. The size of a city was decided by its main industrial activities. The success of the ‘industrialized city’ was determined by its economy and the competence of its leaders. Thus a city based on the chemical industry should accommodate from 60,000 to 100,000 inhabitants, and a city dependent on heavy industry from 120,000 to 200,000 inhabitants. The first industrial sites in Central Asia spawned towns around the new factories. Chirchik and Navoi, for example, were centres of the chemical industry and Almalyk, Zerafshan and Bekabad grew up around steel plants and non-ferrous metal industries, while Angren was a coal-mining town. 73 During the Second World War, many industries were moved deep into the hinterland, thereby contributing to the growth of new cities. Those cities became, in effect, experimen- tal laboratories for Soviet urban planning. Theories discussed in Moscow or in the capitals of the Central Asian republics were put into practice in these new cities, which became ‘showcases for Soviet greatness’. The city of Navoi, for example, which was a product of chemical plants and the energy sector, was remodelled in the 1960s on the new theoretical bases of the day. Water, greenery and ariqs became the new imperatives in the remodelling of Central Asia’s cities. In addition, the ‘urban-planning’ model began to lose ground to a new graduated model (Gradow). The simultaneous construction of industrial districts and housing was the principle behind urban growth. Each city was designed within a system of interrelated cities. Planning aimed to rationalize their function by specializing and treating the level of the services they offered on a hierarchical basis. Navoi, 400 km south-west of Tashkent, occupies 8 km 2 of land. The city is divided into three functional zones: industrial, residential and recreational. The residential areas are located in the central district. The city’s infrastructure is organized on a graduated plan: essential services are located as close as possible to the residential areas (within a radius of 300–350 m). The first service group includes schools, shops and so on, while the second group includes less heavily frequented institutions such as cinemas, sports clubs, libraries and restaurants. A broad belt of greenery separates the residential from the industrial areas. Navoi has been dubbed ‘the green city’, and its three structural elements are water, vege- tation and the buildings. The city boasts 26 hauzs, all of them connected by ariqs along its tree-lined main thoroughfares. The water enhances the local microclimate and allows the greenery to flourish. Navoi is an excellent example of the trends of the 1960s and 1970s. 73 Kadyrova, 1974 , p. 32.
829 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) Urban planning between the mid-1950s and the 1970s: industrialization, ratio- nalization and the advent of the micro-rayon In the first half of the 1950s, new Genplans were developed for the great capitals, including Tashkent, Alma-Ata and other large Central Asian cities. The war had brought an influx of populations from every part of the Soviet Union, while industrial development had caused the great Central Asian capitals to grow vigorously but not uncontrollably. During this period, district-bydistrict planning became the basis of these cities’ Genplans. Cities were organized into districts: the rayons (40,000–80,000 inhabitants) and micro-rayons (10,000–15,000 inhabitants) each of which corresponded to standardized norms. The rayon was an outgrowth of industrialization that served as the model for the typol- ogy of the cities of Soviet Central Asia. A rayon was made up of approximately 8 housing units, each of which was known as a micro-rayon. Every micro-rayon housed some 10,000 people in an area of 20–25 ha, was structured around a cluster of basic services, includ- ing shops, cultural facilities, a community centre, parks and sports complexes, located at a distance of less than 100 m, and was connected via one or more activity centres to public transport facilities. One of the earliest examples of a Central Asian rayon was the Chilanzar quarter, which, like many others, was built by a large industrial company, a textile complex in this par- ticular instance. Chilanzar, located in the south-western part of Tashkent, was designed in 1956 by a collective of architects, including I. Gordeeva and O. Gazenkopf. Chilanzar comprised 9 rayons with a shared administrative centre and a community centre. 74 The Chilanzar rayon served as a model for many Central Asian cities; it was duplicated virtu- ally unaltered at several new sites. During this period, the new construction technique required a wide open space. Thus most new buildings were concentrated outside the city, abandoning the historic centre as well as the workers’ district. Except in down-town and peripheral districts, the morphology and the physical aspect of Central Asia’s historic cities was almost unchanged until the end of the 1970s. 74 Kadyrova, 1974 , p. 53; Kadyrova, 1987 , p. 88.
830 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Architecture and urban planning (1920s–90s) The reconstruction of ancient cities and the redevelopment of new ones (1970s–80s) Reconstruction of the ancient cities 75 By the late 1960s, urban planners had begun to be concerned about the historic cities, and about their historic monuments in particular. In 1967 Khiva’s central ichan-kala was declared a protected architectural site; controlled building zones were established around the monuments of Bukhara; ‘in order to isolate the historic centre of Samarkand from traf- fic, the Registan was surrounded with green spaces’, 76 and there are many further examples of measures to protect and isolate ancient monuments that might be cited. It was not until the 1970s, however, that the ideas of integration of the urban envi- ronment and cultural continuity were given material form by an integrated restructuring of the architectural heritage of many cities. 77 In addition, this phenomenon was fostered by the Soviet policy of encouraging tourism between the various republics. Many ancient buildings were renovated to meet the requirements of tourism. From that time onwards, the rehabilitation of historic monuments went hand in hand with tourism. Thus in the detailed plan for Bukhara PDP (1977, under the supervision of A. Alexandrovich), entire chapters were dedicated to tourism. Various itineraries were planned, to the extent of even calculating the time needed for a tourist to go from place to place on the various itineraries. Each building was given new functions and could be classified according to one of three categories: a monument to be viewed; a monument designed to keep its original function; or a monument that had been transformed for new and modern requirements with the option of exhibiting its architectural value. 78 The ques- tion of reconstructing the urban fabric of the ancient city centres was now identified with the restoration and use of ancient monuments and the demolition of housing deemed unfit for human occupancy. During that period, many old dwellings were renovated and turned into hotels for tourists; this process continues today. It was not until the late 1980s that the historic city centre ceased to be regarded as a separate entity and came to be accepted as an integral part of the city as a whole. 75 One might think that the 1966 earthquake (which destroyed the city of Tashkent) explains the interest in the rebuilding and restoration of the traditional cities of Central Asia. It is important to note, however, that during the same period, i.e. the end of the 1960s, the overall urban policy of the Soviet Union and of certain East European countries such as the German Democratic Republic was directed towards the rebuilding of the historic centres. 76 Alexandrovich and Kalinovskaya, 1968 , p. 31.
77 Ikonnikov, 1990 , p. 412. 78 Azzout,
1999 , p. 165. 831 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Conclusion Urban planning linked to economic and social development For the Soviet cities of Central Asia, the late 1960s and early 1970s marked the beginning of a new development phase. The objectives of the Genplans of the 1940s and 1950s had been attained, and it was now necessary to prepare new Genplans for the future develop- ment of those cities. Accordingly, the architects of the various republics joined forces with economists and engineers to prepare regional development plans. It was on the basis of these regional plans that Genplans were now prepared. In fact, the Genplans were closely linked with economic and social development; cities were no longer regarded as self- contained systems, but rather as components of a population network characterized by the complete integration of all their parts. This new approach was reflected in the redistribution of functional zones (heavy industries were relocated outside the cities), the development of major road traffic and public transport roads (with the establishment of new roads linking the city with its surrounding region), and lastly, the construction of new city centres. 79 Conclusion Within the limits of this chapter, it has not been possible to cover the entire complex urban and architectural history of a period lasting more than 150 years. However, it is immedi- ately apparent that a number of issues from the tsarist era were not adequately resolved during the Soviet period. How can new technology become the ally of local traditions? How can the old urban fabric best be reintegrated into the future development of these cities? Many attempts at answers have been forthcoming from various local, Russian and foreign architects and urban planners, but definitive solutions have not yet been found. 79 Within the limits of this chapter, it has not been possible to discuss the new city centres. 832 Contents
Copyrights ISBN 92-3-103985-7 LITERATURE IN PERSIAN 30 LITERATURE IN PERSIAN AND OTHER INDO - IRANIAN LANGUAGES H. Javadi, A. Alimardonov and I. Hasnain Download 8.99 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|