5 ms·

Was it rebuilt badly due to bad engineers, or just because the soviets had a lot to rebuild?

by kiiski 14y ago

RollAHardSix 14y ago
engineers, a lot to rebuild, or bad politicians?
stasm 14y ago
The engineers were good (if not too good, it all still stands...), but they were limited by the ideology. The city planning and the architecture were at the ideology's service. For instance, rarely did buildings have ground-level spaces for commerce and services; after all, any form of entrepreneurship was discouraged by the economic system, so there was no official need for cafes at every corner. The streets were made wide to allow for easy troops transfer and make it harder for any rebels to create barricades. Some streets were shifted by a few meters to obscure a view of churches and other historic landmarks which could provoke unrighteous thinking. I heartily recommend Ryszard Kapuscinski's 'Imperium' (it's available in English) if you want to learn more about the Soviet Union in general and different cultures inhabiting it at the time. A lot of spot-on analysis of how the system worked. Brilliant documentary writing, too.
planetguy 14y ago
It wasn't the engineers, it was the architects. Communist architecture followed the principles of communist architecture. Diversion from what the state thought was a good idea was highly un-recommended. The principles of communist architecture started off from a lot of high-minded platitudes about equality and national purpose, but in practice always translated to a monstrous block of filthy grey concrete with tiny windows that looks awful from a distance and only gets worse as you get closer. It wasn't confined to the eastern bloc either, you can find plenty of horrible examples of a similar style dreamed up by western architects infected by similar principles; pretty much anything ugly, grey, concrete, and mid-century. They continue to blight our cities and (especially) our university campuses. But reconstruct a whole city in the same milieu, and you'll have Warsaw.
- dmix 14y ago
  Soviet architects were Brutalism's predecessors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture
- Dove 14y ago
  I didn't know that, but googling around to learn about communist architecture took me here . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konigsberg_Castle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konigsberg_Castle . . . where they replaced a pretty castle with something like you describe.
  - planetguy 14y ago
    One of the most visually offensive things about a lot of communist architecture is top-heaviness. It's not just a grey block of filthy concrete, it's a grey block of filthy concrete that looks like it's about to crush you.
- damncabbage 14y ago
  ... Pretty much anything ugly, grey, concrete, and mid-century. Like, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTS_Tower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTS_Tower ? (To be fair, it's pebblecrete.)

Was it rebuilt badly due to bad engineers, or just because the soviets had a lot to rebuild?

by kiiski 14y ago

Was it rebuilt badly due to bad engineers, or just because the soviets had a lot to rebuild?

RollAHardSix 14y ago

engineers, a lot to rebuild, or bad politicians?

stasm 14y ago

The engineers were good (if not too good, it all still stands...), but they were limited by the ideology. The city planning and the architecture were at the ideology's service. For instance, rarely did buildings have ground-level spaces for commerce and services; after all, any form of entrepreneurship was discouraged by the economic system, so there was no official need for cafes at every corner. The streets were made wide to allow for easy troops transfer and make it harder for any rebels to create barricades. Some streets were shifted by a few meters to obscure a view of churches and other historic landmarks which could provoke unrighteous thinking. I heartily recommend Ryszard Kapuscinski's 'Imperium' (it's available in English) if you want to learn more about the Soviet Union in general and different cultures inhabiting it at the time. A lot of spot-on analysis of how the system worked. Brilliant documentary writing, too.

planetguy 14y ago

It wasn't the engineers, it was the architects. Communist architecture followed the principles of communist architecture. Diversion from what the state thought was a good idea was highly un-recommended. The principles of communist architecture started off from a lot of high-minded platitudes about equality and national purpose, but in practice always translated to a monstrous block of filthy grey concrete with tiny windows that looks awful from a distance and only gets worse as you get closer. It wasn't confined to the eastern bloc either, you can find plenty of horrible examples of a similar style dreamed up by western architects infected by similar principles; pretty much anything ugly, grey, concrete, and mid-century. They continue to blight our cities and (especially) our university campuses. But reconstruct a whole city in the same milieu, and you'll have Warsaw.

dmix 14y ago
Soviet architects were Brutalism's predecessors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture
Dove 14y ago
I didn't know that, but googling around to learn about communist architecture took me here . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konigsberg_Castle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konigsberg_Castle . . . where they replaced a pretty castle with something like you describe.
- planetguy 14y ago
  One of the most visually offensive things about a lot of communist architecture is top-heaviness. It's not just a grey block of filthy concrete, it's a grey block of filthy concrete that looks like it's about to crush you.
damncabbage 14y ago
... Pretty much anything ugly, grey, concrete, and mid-century. Like, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTS_Tower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTS_Tower ? (To be fair, it's pebblecrete.)