The role of the State

Authors such as Dmitry Khmelnitsky[3]​ appreciate Khan-Magomedov's studies on the 1920s and 1930s, but completely disagree with him on the origins and evolution of early Stalinist architecture[4]​ and the disappearance of constructivism.

Khan-Magomedov barely mentions the role of the State (or Joseph Stalin personally) in those events, presenting the disappearance of the avant-garde as a natural evolution within the professional community. He admits that the profession was manipulated by the youth of the "class of 1929," but he does not study the forces that shaped and directed their attacks. Not a word about Stalin's personal influence, not a word about the rise of terror. Khan-Magovedov discusses at length the VOPRA political attacks of 1929-1931, but does not mention that they were part of a total national campaign. As Khmelnitsky summarized, “postconstructivism was born of terror.” The term itself is misleading. Traces of the constructivist style in the post-constructivism of the 1930s are a sign of indecision, not tradition. They banned constructivism, but did not explain what to do; the result is an architectural pathology. The comparison with European parallels is useless. There were no European parallels, not even Nazi architecture comes close.

The Art Deco factor

Postconstructivism merged closely with Soviet adaptations of Art Deco. Some examples of this style, such as Vladimir Shchuko's 1934 Lenin Library, can be confused with post-constructivism. In fact, Schuko was an experienced neoclassicist and the Library was his attempt to differentiate himself in proletarian classical with Art Deco tools. The situation within the professional community was even more diverse than in Khan-Magomedov's vision. Vladimirov's apartment block above is also often classified as an adaptation of Art Deco.

Public awareness and preservation

The general public is rarely aware of the concept of postconstructivism. Real estate agents classify these buildings as primitive stalinka, and that is how the public perceives them. In Moscow, these buildings are gradually demolished or completely rebuilt (see façade); The demolition of post-constructivist buildings, with few exceptions, goes unnoticed even within the conservation community. A recently lost example was the A.A. building. Samoilov in Novy Arbat, Moscow, demolished in 2006.[5]​.

Security risks

Buildings of the 1920s-1930s were built using primitive technologies (masonry, wet stucco, wooden roofs and partitions), low-quality materials, and low-quality workmanship. Poor initial quality and inadequate maintenance led to rapid deterioration. Except for a few well-maintained upper-class apartment buildings, the early stalinka are unsafe. On February 10, 1999, a fire at the Samara police department, built in 1936, killed 57 men and women.[6]​ On February 13, 2006, Panteleimon Golosov's constructivist Pravda building caught fire, killing one person and injuring four.[7][8]​.

Reconstruction

The proper reconstruction of constructivist buildings or the first Stalinka is quite a challenge. The structures are weak and often require complete demolition. A notable example is School 518 (Balchug, Moscow), designed in 1933 by Ivan Zvezdin (1899-1979)[9]​ and completed in 1935. Praised by Khan-Magomedov, the only post-constructivist building inscribed in the national register of monuments, the school was rebuilt in 2001 to modern safety standards. Most of the load-bearing walls and all 1935 interiors were completely rebuilt from scratch.[10]​.

Renaissance

New post-constructivist or early Stalinka buildings are rare. The Preobrazhenskaya Zastava (Преображенская Застава) mixed-use project (two blocks, 308 apartments and shops) was completed in 2002-2005. Unusually for today's Moscow, it looks like a period building, not a cheap modern replica. It does not have the characteristic square columns or slender porticos, but it is the best attempt to recreate a style from the 1930s.

On a smaller scale, Russian architecture studios design country houses in authentic post-constructivist form.[11]​.

• - Neo-Russian style.

The role of the State

Authors such as Dmitry Khmelnitsky[3]​ appreciate Khan-Magomedov's studies on the 1920s and 1930s, but completely disagree with him on the origins and evolution of early Stalinist architecture[4]​ and the disappearance of constructivism.

Khan-Magomedov barely mentions the role of the State (or Joseph Stalin personally) in those events, presenting the disappearance of the avant-garde as a natural evolution within the professional community. He admits that the profession was manipulated by the youth of the "class of 1929," but he does not study the forces that shaped and directed their attacks. Not a word about Stalin's personal influence, not a word about the rise of terror. Khan-Magovedov discusses at length the VOPRA political attacks of 1929-1931, but does not mention that they were part of a total national campaign. As Khmelnitsky summarized, “postconstructivism was born of terror.” The term itself is misleading. Traces of the constructivist style in the post-constructivism of the 1930s are a sign of indecision, not tradition. They banned constructivism, but did not explain what to do; the result is an architectural pathology. The comparison with European parallels is useless. There were no European parallels, not even Nazi architecture comes close.

The Art Deco factor

Postconstructivism merged closely with Soviet adaptations of Art Deco. Some examples of this style, such as Vladimir Shchuko's 1934 Lenin Library, can be confused with post-constructivism. In fact, Schuko was an experienced neoclassicist and the Library was his attempt to differentiate himself in proletarian classical with Art Deco tools. The situation within the professional community was even more diverse than in Khan-Magomedov's vision. Vladimirov's apartment block above is also often classified as an adaptation of Art Deco.

Public awareness and preservation

The general public is rarely aware of the concept of postconstructivism. Real estate agents classify these buildings as primitive stalinka, and that is how the public perceives them. In Moscow, these buildings are gradually demolished or completely rebuilt (see façade); The demolition of post-constructivist buildings, with few exceptions, goes unnoticed even within the conservation community. A recently lost example was the A.A. building. Samoilov in Novy Arbat, Moscow, demolished in 2006.[5]​.

Security risks

Buildings of the 1920s-1930s were built using primitive technologies (masonry, wet stucco, wooden roofs and partitions), low-quality materials, and low-quality workmanship. Poor initial quality and inadequate maintenance led to rapid deterioration. Except for a few well-maintained upper-class apartment buildings, the early stalinka are unsafe. On February 10, 1999, a fire at the Samara police department, built in 1936, killed 57 men and women.[6]​ On February 13, 2006, Panteleimon Golosov's constructivist Pravda building caught fire, killing one person and injuring four.[7][8]​.

Reconstruction

The proper reconstruction of constructivist buildings or the first Stalinka is quite a challenge. The structures are weak and often require complete demolition. A notable example is School 518 (Balchug, Moscow), designed in 1933 by Ivan Zvezdin (1899-1979)[9]​ and completed in 1935. Praised by Khan-Magomedov, the only post-constructivist building inscribed in the national register of monuments, the school was rebuilt in 2001 to modern safety standards. Most of the load-bearing walls and all 1935 interiors were completely rebuilt from scratch.[10]​.

Renaissance

New post-constructivist or early Stalinka buildings are rare. The Preobrazhenskaya Zastava (Преображенская Застава) mixed-use project (two blocks, 308 apartments and shops) was completed in 2002-2005. Unusually for today's Moscow, it looks like a period building, not a cheap modern replica. It does not have the characteristic square columns or slender porticos, but it is the best attempt to recreate a style from the 1930s.

On a smaller scale, Russian architecture studios design country houses in authentic post-constructivist form.[11]​.

• - Neo-Russian style.