March 2018


«Architecton: proceedings of higher education» № 37 March 2012

History of architecture

Petrenko Sergey D.

PhD student,
department Fundamentals of architectural design, architectural history and urban planning
Research supervisor: PhD (Architecture), Associate Professor E. Blinov.
Novosibirsk State University of Architecture, Design and Art.
Novosibirsk, Russia, e-mail: petrenkosergey@ngs.ru


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

Key words: architecture of Novosibirsk, complex residential housing, architectural ensemble

Russian text of this article

ISSN 1990-4126  Registration MCM el. № ФС 77-70832 of 30.08.2017 © USUAA, 2004-2017  © Architecton, 2004-2017