Thissiteusescookies.Bycontinuingtobrowsethissiteyouareagreeingtoouruseofcookies.

(MoreInformation)
Backtoarticlepage

AlmostLovable
SheilaFitzpatrick
LandscapesofCommunism:AHistorythroughBuildingsbyOwenHatherley
AllenLane,613pp,25.00,June,ISBN9781846147685

Backintheday,everyoneknewthatStalinistarchitecturewashateful.ThePolesnotoriously
loathedthePalaceofCultureandSciencethatwasthegifttowarruinedWarsawfromthe
SovietelderbrotherorasthePolessawitmaster.ForeignersandsophisticatedRussians
sneeredatMoscowsweddingcakebuildingsandlamentedtheoldTverskayathathad
undergoneaStalinistremakeasGorkyStreet.Somepeoplecherishedtheoniondomesof
17thcenturyMuscovy,othersthegrandclassicalfaadesof18thcenturyStPetersburg,anda
fewevenidolisedthedilapidatedremnantsof1920sConstructivisminMoscow,buttherewas
ageneralconsensusthatStalinismofthe1930s50swasthepits.Iwasoneofthosetrekking
aroundMoscowinthelate1960s,aworncopyofP.V.Sytins850pageFromtheHistoryof
MoscowStreetsinhand,toseewhatmonstrousactshadbeencommittedagainstinnocent
buildingsinStalinstime.IdontknowhowSytinevergotthatbookpublished.Itfirstcame
outin1948,illustratedwithsmudgynonglossyphotographs,lightgreyontheyellowing
pages,withneweditionsin1952and1958,eachaddinghundredsofpagesofstreetbystreet
andbuildingbybuildingclosedescription.Isupposethecensoraccepteditasacelebration
ofStalinisttransformation,eveniftheintelligentsiareaditasalamentforthepre
RevolutionaryimperialRussianpast.Itsbeenreprintedseveraltimessincethecollapseofthe
SovietUnion,butwhoknowsinwhatspiritofStalinistnostalgiapeoplereaditthesedays.
Now,OwenHatherleytellsus,thePolesactuallyliketheirPalaceofCulture.

MoscowStateUniversityinitsheyday(c.1953).
Ivenoticedbeforethestrangetendencyofhatefulbuildingstobecomealmostlovableafter
thepassageofdecades.Notallofthem,ofcourse.Some,likethe1960shighrisecloneslining
MoscowsNewArbat(KalininProspekt)becomemoreannoyingastheygetshabbier.Butthe
MoscowStateUniversitybuildingonLeninHills,oneofMoscowssevenlateStalinist
weddingcakes,hasdefinitelyundergoneametamorphosisinmymind.WhenIlivedtherein
thelate1960s,Iregardeditasanantipeoplemonster,guardedbydragonswho,ifyouhad
lostyourpass,wouldthrowyououttodieinthesnow.(AccordingtoHatherley,theynowuse
swipecardstoprotectthebuildingagainstinvasion.)ButInoticedawhilebackthatIhad
startedregardingtheweddingcakeswithsomethinglikeaffectionapparentlythepassageof
timehasnaturalisedthem.
ButHatherleyisyoung,andsoarethePoleswholikethePalaceofCulturetheir
reassessmentmustcomefromsomewhereelse.Actuallyitseemstocomefromtwodifferent
places.OneistheWesternpop/youthphenomenonthatmightbecalledSovietruinchica
fascinationwithSovietimperialghostsor,asHatherleyputsit,tourismofthecounter
revolution.AndreiTarkovskys1979filmStalker,withitsmemorableimageryoftheZone,isa
referencepointhere,asisreallifeChernobyl,nowatouristdestinationforthosewitharuin
chicsensibility.HatherleydistinguisheshisownpositionfromthatoftheadmirersofTotally
AwesomeRuinedSovietArchitecture,andhisideologicalandpersonalbaggageisdefinitely
notcounterrevolutionary.Buttheressomefamilyorperhapsmoreaccurately,
generationalresemblance.

TheotherplacethisreevaluationcomesfromisEasternEurope,specificallyyoungpeople
whogrewupintheSovietblocattheendofthecommunistera,anddontsharetheir
parentsbadmemories.HatherleytravelledaroundtheoldSovietempirewithhisPolish
partner,AgataPyzik,whoin2014publishedherowntakeonEastWestcultureclashes,Poor
butSexy.Freelancersintheirearlythirties,theylivewithonefootinLondonandtheotherin
Warsaw.AgataistheonewithRussianand,asareadingofPoorbutSexysuggests,a
penchantforfilmandculturaltheory.Hatherleyistheonewiththeeye,thearchitectural
knowledge,andachildhoodbackgroundinMilitantTendency.Theymakeanentertainingly
observantcoupleastheywanderroundMoscow,Warsaw,Berlin,Prague,Budapest,Vilnius,
Kiev,Riga,Tallinn,Bucharest,Sofiaandtherest,onthelookoutforgoodcheapmealsas
wellasstrikingcityscapesandweird(afavouriteword,generallyapproving)buildings.
Hatherleyhasquiteaweirdbackgroundhimself.SonofTrotskyistsandgrandsonofmembers
oftheCommunistPartyofGreatBritain,hegrewupinthe1980sonaSouthamptoncouncil
estatewhosecottagestylebuildingshedisdained.Thebrutalist1960stowerblocksnearby,
withtheirconcretewalkwaysandwindsweptprecincts,seemedbycomparisonexcitingly
modernandglamorous.Poignancywasaddedwhensomeofthetowersweredemolished
duringhischildhood.Hefirstmadeasplashwithhislovesongtoarchitecturalbrutalism,
MilitantModernism(2008),andthelargerscaleAGuidetotheNewRuinsofGreatBritain
(2010),reviewedinthesepagesbyWillSelf.Hatherleyconfessestonostalgiaforthefuturein
MilitantModernism,alongingforthefragmentsofthehalfheartedpostwarattemptat
buildinganewsociety,anattemptthatlayinruinsbythetimeIwasborn.Itmakessense
thatheshouldfollowupNewRuinsofGreatBritainwithasurveyoftheruinsandresidue
oftheSovietempire.
HatherleydidntgoroundMoscowwithSytininhisbackpack,andindeeditshardto
imagineanypointofconnectionbetweenhissensibilityandthatoftheRussianintelligentsia.
iekisahoveringpresence,andthereisadashofBorisGroysaswell.Hatherleywouldlike
tothinkthecommunistregimesdidsomethingrightincreatinglivingspacefortheirpeople
andhopestofindsomeelementsofrealsocialismintheirbuiltenvironments.Buttheres
alwayssomethinglikeawrygrinonhisfacewhenhehintsatthesehopes.LikemanySoviet
ideas,hewritesinfrustrationatonepoint,itissoobviouslyrightandsoobviouslybotched.
Architecturally,hiscoreallegianceistomodernism(thebrutalistandutopiankinds,notthe
defangedIkeamodernism,whichhedisdains),buthehasdevelopedacertainaffectionfor
Stalinistmonumentalism.
Readingthebook,IfeltsurethatHatherleyhaddonemostofhistravellinginsummer
because,despitehisaffectionforStalker,heseemsrelativelyunaffectedbythesenseof
existentialinsignificance,exacerbatedbycold,thatthevastemptyspacesofStalinistcity
planningcaninduce.Forme,thequintessentialmeaninglessSovietspacewastheillegible

voidbetweenManezhandtheNational,MetropolandMoscowhotelsnearRedSquare.
(Nowitsbadinadifferentway,withmultiplelanesoftrafficshootingthroughenrouteto
somewhereelse,andavastcommercialmallunderground.)AsmySytintoldme,the
illegibilitywastheresultofthewholesaledestructionofthestreetsandhousesthatusedto
makesenseofthespace,theresult,thatis,ofaviolent,apparentlypurposefulactivitythat
wasntinanyrealsenseplanned.ItookthatasametaphorforalotofthingsintheSoviet
Union.
Hatherleyhasatoughmindedapproachtohugeemptyspaces,althoughheacknowledges
thatcrossingthemcanbedaunting.Heviewsmybtenoire,the1960smodernKalinin
Prospekt,withrelativeequanimity,findingitaplusthatitswidepavements,linedby
ridiculouslypriceddepartmentstores,bringinthecrowds.OldArbat,runningparallel,has
keptitsearly19thcenturybuildingsmainlyintactinwhatisnowakitschypedestrianzone
whereforeigntouristsbuymatryoshkadollsanddrinkbeer.The(postStalinist)ruinofthe
ArbatwasagreatcauseofintelligentsiaoutrageinlateSoviettimes,butitstypicalof
Hatherleyssensibilityandframeofreferencethatthisdoesntevenrateamentionitsnothis
formofnostalgia.
Stalinallee(nowKarlMarxAllee)inBerlinismoreinhisline,amonsterthatcaninspire
admirationanddisapprovalatthesametime.Hatherleynailsitasbyitsveryexistencean
indictmentofthevainglory,hypocrisyanddubiousclaimstosocialismoftheSovietbacked
statebutcantdenythateverytimeIhavevisiteditIvefoundithugelyexhilarating.He
comparesittotheParisboulevards,andfindsthatitexpressesasocialismwithreal
generosityandgrandeur,allitshierarchicalfeaturessubordinatedtotheruleofthepublics
footsteps.Thestreetmaybetoowideforpedestriancomfort,butatleastitisastreet,anda
surprisinglyconvincingone.
ImconfusedbyHatherleysperspectiveonstreets.Iwouldhavethoughtthatasamodernist
andanadmirerofcounciltowerblocksinBritain,hewouldhavebeenagainstthem.Buthe
seemstomakeanexceptionfortheSovietblocversionofgrandsboulevards,andsometimes
heevenlikessmallerstreets,including(surprisingly)thoseinEastBerlinsNikolaiviertelor
Warsawsoldtownthathavebeenrebuiltwithmoreorlessfakehistoricbuildings
(MariensztatinWarsawissurelythecutestthingeverimplementedbytheSixYearPlanof
anironfistedStalinistregime).WhereheseemsmostconflictedisonSovietblochousing
estates,whosestreetlessnessisoneofthedepressingthingsaboutthem,especiallyforvisitors
trampingaroundinthedarktryingtofind,say,No.25,block5,entrance3,withoutbenefit
offootpaths,adequatelightingoraclearnumberingsystem.Theproblemisthat,ontheone
hand,HatherleyisboundtorejectthearchitecturalviewsofCharlesWindsor(elsewhere,he
giveshimhistitle)thatsuchhousingestatesareimpersonal,mechanistic,inhumane,boring,
ahistorical.Ontheotherhand,AgataspentpartofherWarsawchildhoodononeofthese

councilestates,andIdeferto[her]judgment:itwasincrediblydepressinglivinghereand
shewouldneverdosoagainunderanycircumstances.Soheconcedesthatsomethingwent
seriouslywrongwhentheseplacesweremade.TheircurrentWarsawresidence,wherehe
wrotethebook,seemstobeacompromise,strategicallylocatedjustonthebreakpointwhere
the(mostly1930s)housesandstreetsstopandthehousingestatesbegin.Somevisitorsfind
thetowersloomingoutsidetheirwindowintimidating,buttoHatherleytheareahasa
certainbleakbigcityfrissontoit,thefeelingthatyouareinsomeVarsovianremakeofWong
KarWaisHongKong.
HisperspectiveonStalinistarchitectureandaestheticsisalsoabitconfusinginalivelyand
entertainingway.Thisarchitecture,hesays,canbescary,evenevil,unambiguouslyrelated
toStalinistdespotism,withthepsychosesthatcreatedthemeasytoread.OfMoscows
weddingcakebuildings,hewritesthatthecitycentreisliterallyencircledbysixadvancing
skyscrapers,eachwithatowering,scrapingspire,allofwhichbeardownonyou,paranoid
andthreatening,likeanInquisitiontrytoescape,andanotheriswaitingforyou,wings
outstretched,attheLeninHills.ThemeetinghalloftheCzechNationalMemorialinPrague
isoneofthemostmemorable,andterrifying,spacescreatedbyStalinismanywherein
Europe,withitscyclopeanscaleanduseofsomuchredmarblethatyourepractically
irradiatedasyouwalkaround.TheHouseofthePeopleinBucharest(nowPalaceofthe
Parliament),a1980sRomaniandesignedpyramid,iscompellinglyalienandsinister.
Frontedwithadefensiveescarpmentdensewithtrees,itsmonumentalfrontentranceis
impossibletoapproachonfoot.HatherleyandAgatabothinstinctivelyhateit,butthat
reactionworriesthemevidentlytheyarentmeanttobekneejerkhatersofStalinist
monumentalism.Whynot,Iwonder.ButthatbecomesclearwhenwegetbacktoWarsaw,
theircentralpointofreferenceintheSovietempire.
*
WarsawsPalaceofCultureandSciencewasdesignedbytheSovietarchitectLevRudnevin
1952,thelastyearofStalinslife,andcompletedin1955.Once,Hatherleynotes,itwashated,
butnowyoungVarsoviansarepassionatelyattachedtoit.Agatassupportofthebuildingis
unyieldingwhenshesawtheMoscowSeven,sheimmediatelypronouncedtheminferiorto
theirRussoPolishsibling.Itsnotonlythedevoteesofradicalchicwhoareattachedtothe
palacebutalsothecitysPRpeople.Agenerationalshifthashappenedintheappreciationof
thetower,whichnowappearsonmugs,onthecityspromotionalliterature,onhipsterT
shirts,onadverts,onelectioncampaignposters,asubiquitousasStPaulsortheEiffel
Tower.Hatherleyconcedesthatonlythemostdogmaticmodernistormostdevotedanti
communistcouldpossiblyprefertheadjacentofficetowersthatwerebuilttobreakits
emphasisfromthe1960sonwards,andjudgesthebuildingtobeweird,authoritarian,
excessiveandabsurd,whichinhislexiconcomesacrossasfairlypositive.Heonlywishesthat

ithadbeenpossibletodesignsomethingthatisasallencompassingandmagnificent,
terrifyinglydreamlikeasthiswithoutrecoursetomythsandlies.

PalaceofCultureandScience,Warsaw.
ThesavinggraceoftheWarsawPalace,inHatherleyseyes,isthat,incontrasttotheMoscow
Seven,itisasocialcondenser,alabelborrowedfromtheMoscowavantgardeofthe1920s
forpublicbuildingsofferingcitizensarangeofactivities(including,intheWarsawcase,a
multiplexcinema,aswimmingpool,aconcerthall,museumscompletewithdinosaurs,anart
galleryandcafs)andthusinculcatingcollectiveideology.Thepleasuresofbeingsocially
condensedareleftabitvague,probablybecauseAgatawasnotmuchexposedtothemasa
child,buttherearesomeverylikeableriffsaboutPolishmilkbarsthatappeartobepublic
cafeterias(knowninRussianasstolovye)whereyoulineupforfoodanddonttip.Hatherley

andAgataparticularlyliketheoneintheBratislavaTradeUnionHeadquarters,where
anyonewhowalksincangetanenormousthreecoursemealforaboutthreeeuros.What
Hatherleyvalues,despitetheabsenceofairsandgraces,toiletsandanyencouragementto
lingeroveryourfood,isthatsenseoffilling,slightlystodgycomfortwhichfeaturessooftenin
thememoriesofthosewhorememberrealsocialism.PerhapsthatssoinEasternEurope,
butImnotsureitshowSovietcitizenswouldrememberstolovye.ForRussiansinlateSoviet
times,filling,slightlystodgycomfortwastobefoundathome,notintheoutsideworld.
Homes,and,forthatmatter,dachas,areabsentfromHatherleyslandscapesofcommunism.
YetwhentheSovietUnioncollapsed,itwastheoldapartment(thetitleofalongrunning
televisionprogrammeofthe1990s)thatwasthefocusofnostalgiaforalostsocialistworld.
HatherleysMemorialchapterincludesBerlinscuriousMuseumoftheGDRontheSpree,
presentingconsumergoodsofthe1970sand1980sinaspiritcombiningOstalgieand
condescension,butnotthenostalgiainfusedoldapartmentmuseumsthatsprangupinsome
Russianprovincialtowns.
Cometothinkofit,thosehomemademuseumscouldalsohavegoneintothechaptercalled
Improvisation.ForHatherley,popularcreativityhastobepartofarealsocialist
environmenthencethechapterbutitturnsouttobequitedifficulttofind.Hehasanice
discussionofkiosks,acharacteristicfeatureoflateandpostSovietbloclifeapparentlyonthe
waneinEasternEuropebutstillaliveandwellinRussia,whereitremainsthebasic
commercialunitinmanysquares,undergroundpassages,andaroundmetrostations.My
senseoftheSovietkioskwasthatithadsquaredcornersandcameindrabcolours,butinthe
EasternBloctheydidthingsbetter:theK67kiosk,massproducedfortheComeconmarket
untilthe1990s,wascreatedinYugoslaviain1966andvisiblyfromthatBarbarellaperiodof
popfuturismwhereeverythingwascurved,brightlycolouredandmadeofwipeclean
surfaces.ThekioskdiscussionmademethinkofthechaoticpostSoviettransformationof
apartmentbuildingcourtyardsintoparkinglotsandthemultiplicationofthoselittlecar
sizedportablegaragesthatlookasiftheycouldbepartofa1920savantgardeprojectfor
modularliving,butthathasntcaughtHatherleyseye.Hedoesgiveusanicedescriptionof
anotherkindofapartmentimprovisation,thefillinginofbalconiesbybuilderscapableof
creatingamonstrousarchitecturaljokebystickingamammothnewroomintothefront
faadeofathreestoreyneoByzantineblock.
Graffiti,somethingnewandshockinginaSovietcontextwhenJohnBushnellsMoscow
Graffiticameoutin1990,isnotoneoftheformsofpopularcreativityHatherleyembraces,
perhapsbecauseitsabsencewas(andremains)suchafeatureoftheMoscowMetro,the
focusofHatherleysgreatestenthusiasm.AfterlovinglydescribingtheStalinistopulenceofits
differentstations,heconcludesthatthesepalacesreallyareforthepeople,thattheyoffera
glimpseofthepracticeofeverydaylifebeingcompletelytransformedandtranscended,with

mundanetaskstransfiguredintoadreamofegalitarianspace.Incontestablybetterthan
theircounterpartsintheWest,theyarethemostconvincingmicrocosmsofacommunist
futureyoucanwalkthrough,smellandtouch,atransformationoftheeverydaythatwent
furtherthananyavantgardeeverdared,eventhough,heconcedes,ademocratically
controlledsocialismmighthaveproducedenvironmentsthatdontfeelquitesoflungin
peoplesfaces,thatarenotquitesomonolithicanddominating.Postcommunistconsumer
capitalismhassheathedthemarblecolumnsintheKievMetrowithgiantadvertisements,a
developmenthedislikes.InMoscow,theonlyadvertisementsareforluxuryproducts,eachin
aneatstandardisedframeonthewallsbesidetheescalators.Allthingsconsidered,theold
socialistpalatialaesthetichassurvivedthetransitionsurprisinglywellthespectacular
cleanlinessandabsenceofgraffitiinMoscowbespeakingunbendingofficialrejectionof
popularcreativity.
ActuallyHatherleyunderestimatestheMetrossocialistpotentialinonerespect,asheseems
tothinkthatpublictransportmoreorlessaccidentallytookthecentralplaceoccupiedby
carsintheWestbecauseoftheSovietUnionsindustrialincapacity.Infact,adecisionforthe
publicovertheprivateformwastakenunderStalinKhrushchevdidhisbesttocontinueit,
until,underBrezhnev,carpressureonthepartofthecitizensprovedirresistible.Hatherley
mighthavegivenmorethoughttothewaypeopleusetheMoscowMetro.Thereistherecent
andratherextraordinaryfactthatthewholethingnowhaswifi,withtheresultthatpeople
sitsmartphonesinhandastheyonce,inSoviettimes,usedtositreadingbooks.Metro
stationsarestillwidelyusedasmeetingplaces,usuallyonadesignatedpartoftheplatform
(ignorantofthisSovietbloclore,HatherleyoncemadethemistakeofwaitingforAgata
outside,neartheticketoffice,whenshe,naturally,wasdownontheplatform).
Hatherleyisobsessedbythesocialistcity,andwhetherpartsofitgotbuilt,oreverwillbe.
Thisidealsocialistcityis,ofcourse,quitedifferentfromtherealsocialistcitythattheSoviet
UnionandtheSovietblocproduced.Itsautopianfuturethatneverarrivedanarchaic
modernism,likeGrandCentralParkwayinNewYork,evokingbriefpangsofnostalgiaasyou
zipouttotheairport.ButtheresanotherpartofHatherleythatcanforgetsocialismand
simplyrevelintheweirdtransmogrificationsoftheStalinistarchitecturalaestheticfor
example,inShanghai,whereLeCorbusiermeetsLevRudnevmeetsneoliberalbling,the
Stalinistcitygonehightech,itspinnaclesandswagsslatheredinneon.
TheChinaexcursion,whichcomesasakindofcodaattheendofthebook,isasurprise,but
underlinesoneofthebooksmostvaluableaspects,itsilluminationofaSovietculturalempire
whoseimperialmotifswererepeated,transposedandsubvertedallalongafarflung
periphery.Thescholarlyworldhasbeenslowtodevelopthistheme.True,theconceptof
empirecametotheforewhentheSovietUnionandSovietbloccollapsedintotheir
constituentnationalparts,butmostoftheensuingscholarshipfocusedonthe

recovery/reinventionofthenational.Itsworkslikethisone,closertopopcultureand
addressedtoabroaderaudience,thatmostsuccessfullydemonstratethecultural
commonalitiesthataswiththeBritishandFrenchcolonialempiresoutlivedtheimperial
institutionsthatcreatedthem.
TheSovietculturalempire,however,issomethingofanoddcase,inthattheMoscow
metropolisdidntalwayssucceedinimposingitsaestheticwill,hardthoughittried,because
oftheEasternEuropeansstrongsensethatRussiawasbackwardincomparisonwiththem,
asensethattheRussianintelligentsiatosomedegreeaccepted.Thustheculturaltrafficran
bothways,andsomeroadsintheSovietculturalempirelednottoMoscow,buttoBerlin,
WarsawandPrague.Hatherleydoesntexaminethisinanydepth,buthisWarsawcentred
perspectivemakesitobvious.Hesaysatthebeginningthathisbookisaboutsurfaces,and
aboutthemanypoliticalandhistoricalthingsthatcanbelearnedfromsurfaces,especiallyin
statesasobsessedwithsurfaceasthese.Thatsnotwhollytrue,inthathisanxiousand
ambivalentfeelingsaboutrealsocialismperiodicallyleadhimintodiscussionofpoliticaland
economicdepths,butitstrueenoughtobeawelcomerelief.Imtemptedtosaythatanyone
candodepthsthatis,launchintogeneralisationsandwrestlewithideologywithouttoo
muchfearofempiricalcontradictionbutsurfacesareharder.Ideologicalpreoccupations
aside,Hatherleyhasawonderfuleyeforbuildingsandspace,agoodgraspofthehistorythat
spawnedthem,andadeftwayofdescribingthem.Sometimes,readingthisbook,I
recognisedthingsIdnoticedmyselfatothertimes,heshowedmesomethingIhadmissedor
understooddifferently.Eitherway,Idbettertakehisbook,bigthoughitis,inmybackpack
nexttimeIgotoWarsaw,Lviv,BucharestorelsewhereintheoldSovietempire.Imighteven
throwoutSytinandtakeittoMoscow.
Vol.37No.1530July2015SheilaFitzpatrickAlmostLovable
pages56|3743words

Letters
Vol.37No.1627August2015
SheilaFitzpatrickisrighttoremindushowunpopularStalinsweddingcake
architecturewasinSoviettimes(LRB,30July).ThePolesinparticularhadmorethan
justaestheticgroundsforresentingtheirPalaceofCulture,agiftthrustonthembythe
Russians.Thiswasbroughthometomeduringatourofthatoverpoweringbuildingin
1965.Ourgroupwastakentothepublicobservationplatformatthetop,whereour
officialguideratherdaringlyrecountedajokethendoingtherounds.ARussianvisitor
goesuptoadmiretheviewfromtheobservationplatformandispleasantlysurprised,if
somewhatpuzzled,tofinditjampackedwithPoles.Simple,heistoldoninquiring
whythisshouldbethecase.ItstheonlyplaceinWarsawfromwhereyoucantseethe

PalaceofCulture.
JohnDewey
Wareham,Dorset
ISSN02609592CopyrightLRBLimited2015

^Top