The shock of the old: architectural preservation in Soviet Russia

Abstract

In Soviet sources from the Brezhnev era, the history of architectural preservation after 1917 was presented as a triumph of rational state‐building and cultural organisation: with the support of Lenin, the Bolshevik government had rapidly put in place effective measures to protect historic buildings for future generations. As this article shows, the evolution of legislative and practical measures was considerably more complicated than this optimistic representation would suggest. In the early Soviet period, a highly ideologised understanding of the past meant that preservationist ambitions might (especially during the ‘Great Break’ of 1928–1932) be seen as intrinsically reactionary. The canon of historical buildings was shaped by perceptions of centrality to Soviet values, as well as historical and aesthetic importance. The article also explores the transformation of attitudes to architectural heritage as a response to destruction by the invading forces during the ‘Great Patriotic War’, after which commitment to preservation became far more whole‐hearted, although enforcement and financial support continued to be inconsistent. The Soviet case indicates not just the importance of heritage preservation to the cultural ambitions and self‐image of the modern state but the limits of commitment to preservation and the pressure placed on this by the commitment to all‐out modernisation and to the propaganda of new identities and values.

Introduction: The state and historic buildings: preserving ‘the national past’

“…Russia and China offer good examples, as both switched from rhetoric based on class to one of the ‘national’ values of heritage (Smith ). Thus for example, having knocked down large numbers of churches, the Stalinist regime in the late 1930s ‘appropriated’ remaining ones to the Russian nation, along with the former Tsarist palaces (despite being designed by non‐Russian architects) and presented them as symbols of the nation's resistance to foreign threats (Kelly ). Similarly, since at least the late eighteenth century, the French state has used historic buildings as symbols of power or French nationalism during or following wars.…”

“…Conversely on some occasions, allowing subnational discretion has formed part of policies of seeking to reconcile a nation state with diversity. In Germany, local powers over historic building policy arises from the history of unification of different long‐standing states, while similarly, the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s allowed states and groups to promote their own traditions as part of keeping support for the federation (Kelly ). Finally, policymakers can use selective preservation to favour certain ethnic or religious groups and discriminate against others.…”

“…Buildings from previous regimes can be appropriated as symbols by new ones, while certain ‘dark heritage’ can be selected to show progress. Religious buildings can become objects of national pride for lay states or even Communist regimes such as the Soviet Union or China (Kelly , Smith ). Buildings with local links can become part of strategies to bind nations or federations together.…”

“…Changes of political regime have sometimes been followed by active policies of destruction. This was not only seen in France after 1789, but also in Russia, where preservation of old buildings was often associated with ‘anti‐Soviet’ attitudes during the 1920s and 1930s (Kelly, ). Equally, after the fall of the Soviet Union, urban redevelopment meant large‐scale destruction of historic buildings, while in China, buildings were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution and then since the 1990s, modern buildings have replaced old ones or even entire historic centres in cities (Smith ).…”

“…Although senior leaders still become personally involved in decision making – from Mitterrand in alterations in central Paris to campaigns to save ‘traditional’ architecture by Prince Charles – there has been a professionalisation of preservation within government as the roles of trained employed architects, art historians and conservationists has grown. These organisations and professionals often have a broader conception of national identity than that of the current political regime and have sought to include buildings that are ‘unpopular’ (with political leaders or the general public) – from churches in Russia in the 1920s to modern buildings or ‘dark heritage’ today (Kelly, ).…”