Space and Culture

Scares of Communism: 13(4) 436­–454

© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
Architectural and Design sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1206331210374142

Remnants of an Ideology http://sac.sagepub.com

Dak Kopec1 and Natalie Lord2

Abstract
During the rule of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) the built environment
was filled with meaning and ideological communication. Since its collapse, much of Soviet
style architecture and design is being masked over or destroyed. In order to preserve this
significant period in human history the architecture and design must be studied in relation to the
sociopolitical climate of the era in which it was created. Hence, through an understanding of the
sociopolitical culture throughout the USSR’s history and the architecture and design erected
from those periods we can better understand the role of the built environment as a means of
ideological communication.

Keywords
deological communication, Soviet architecture, built environment, sociopolitics, culture,
preservation

Introduction
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) was founded on Marxist principles of communism.
This ideology was based on three precepts of freedom (agent, obstacle, and goal). The agents are
the common/working people; the obstacles are class divisions, economic inequalities, unequal
life-chances, and false consciousness; and the goal is the fulfillment of human needs including
satisfying work and fair share of products (Ball & Dagger, 2006). With the death of Lenin in
1924, Joseph Stalin emerged as the head of the Soviet Communist Party. Stalin, who was moti-
vated by personal ambitions coupled with poor psychological health and paranoid delusions
(Post, 2004), moved his government away from Marxism and toward a hybrid of communism
and dictatorship thus dubbed “Stalinism.” This form of government included the extensive use
of propaganda and symbolic gestures of domination. Much of what we know about Soviet archi-
tecture today comes from the Stalinist age. Like much of the world’s architecture, this period of
design was constructed with symbolism and meaning. In some cases, such as monuments and
statues the meaning was overt. Within architecture and design this meaning is more symbolic
and subject to the interpretations of the observer.
Architecture and design from the former Soviet Union represent and symbolize a profound
period in human history. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, much of the architec-
ture and design are either being torn down or reskinned. These acts result in the obliteration or
1
New School of Architecture and Design, San Diego, CA, USA
2
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:
Natalie Lord, 8441 McDougal Street, Denver, CO 80229, USA
Email: natalie.lord@rsandh.com
Kopec and Lord 437

concealment of one of humanity’s important periods of history. Bartlett’s familiar quotation

sums up the issues associated with the loss of designs created during the rule of the Soviet Union:
“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” Thus we can say with some
certainty the attempt to eradicate the architecture of the period is worthy of serious study and
analysis. Furthermore the design styles created during this period need to be preserved and
studied from the perspectives of architectural history, preservation, and environmental psychology
in order to prevent the future rule of a similar government.
In many respects, architects and designers can be likened to scribes and other professions that
record and document history because designers are often charged with the task of developing
designs that resonate with a given sociopolitical culture (Rapoport, 1982). Much like memorials
that attempt to solidify particular historical interpretations (Young, 1994), the design of the built
environment is a form of interpretation that symbolically reflects the attitudes, values, and beliefs
of a given period of time. This differs from monuments that have been erected after the fact
because most nations tend not to remember the victims of crimes it has perpetrated (Young,
1994). For example, the United States has yet to memorialize the mass genocide of Native
Americans or the enslaved Africans who were either murdered or worked-to-death. In October
1990, Russia did attempt to reconcile past acts by unveiling a memorial to “the millions of vic-
tims of a totalitarian regime” in Moscow (Young, 1994). This memorial was a tribute to the
victims of Stalin’s terror, which included scholars, cultural figures, and dissidents.
As an evolving species, some might contend that it is our duty to preserve our past and learn
from our predecessors so that we may expand on the good and learn from our mistakes. For
individuals and small groups of people, the use of photographs and heirlooms serve as a vehicle
to understand one’s role in one’s family’s history. Larger physical representations, such as infra-
structure (bridges and tunnels), architecture, feats of engineering, and housing from the past are
needed to provide a connection between our sense of who we are and our place within society’s
culture and identity. Similarly, the preservation of historic buildings encourages the knowledge
of and respect for a community’s character, history, and culture (Petroski, 2003). This is because
the distinctive designs contained within historic buildings transform them into important sym-
bols of the society thereby affording a city or country with a unique identity. Government, civic
organizations, and individuals need to ensure the preservation of symbolic buildings and perti-
nent aspects of city infrastructure such as bridges and monuments that have played a role in our
past events or influenced our beliefs and values. The defense or lack of defense for historic
resources, speaks volumes about a society’s awareness and acknowledgement of its identity
(Tyler, 2000). In other words, to destroy or mask an aspect of human history might be regarded
the same as denying a given history all together.

Preservation
As society evolves, the ideas and concepts that form the premise of historic preservation become
of greater value because it is the architecture that links us to our past. One can argue that in the
United States these ideas and concepts are less than two centuries old. The first known active
case was the architectural preservation of Mt. Vernon, the home of the first U.S. President,
George Washington. A group of women joined together in the late 19th century to save this
structure from demolition. When exactly society as a whole first began to value historic preser-
vation is unknown. One might contend that the reason the great pyramids of Giza along with
several monuments and structures from other ancient cultures survived hundreds of years is that
the succeeding civilizations wanted to remain connected to the past. It is also possible that the
abundance of land coupled with climatic conditions meant that people could just abandon those
sites thus leaving them for future generations to restore and preserve. What is known, however,
is that all humans experience a connection, in one form or another, to the past through physical
remains (Kopec, 2006). However, for one reason or another, the desire to retain this connection
438 Space and Culture 13(4)

can be lost when the past is unpleasant. Theories on why humans form these connections vary
greatly among professionals in the field: to conserve resources, honor ancestors, remember a
period of prosperity/depression/joy/pain, the desire to learn from the past, and so on.
Architectural preservation has grown from a national to a global cause within the past 50 years,
which suggests a shift in societal needs and values to retain and learn from past events and
trends. Organizations from every country around the globe have begun collaborating to preserve
historically significant structures. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Orga-
nization (UNESCO) set up the World Heritage Committee, which specifically focuses on saving
important and culturally significant sites by unifying efforts from around the world. Currently,
there are 21 countries represented on the World Heritage Committee. Among those countries not
represented are Russia and the other former Soviet Union countries (UNESCO World Heritage
Center, 2009). At the Second Congress of Architects and Specialists of Historic Buildings in
1964, UNESCO proposed the establishment of the International Council on Monuments and
Sites (ICOMOS). The purpose of this organization is to establish guidelines and principles as
well as provide training for conservation specialists from around the world. There are more than
30 national committees and 7,000 individual members associated with ICOMOS. Again, neither
Russia nor many of the former Soviet Union countries participate (ICOMOS, 2008). UNESCO’s
World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS, and the World Monuments Fund all work together to
identify and protect significant buildings. It is understood that residents first need education and
training to protect their local heritage.
The World Monuments Fund was established in the 1960s for the intent of providing funding
for preservation projects. So far their efforts have assisted in the preservation of significant struc-
tures in more than 40 countries, including 18 projects in Russia. One of their newest efforts is
“Modernism at Risk.” This project focuses on identifying and preserving modern works of archi-
tecture that are in danger of being lost (World Monuments Fund, 2005).
Preserving buildings of historic significance suggests that our society has reached an evolu-
tionary stage where the value of real estate and the thirst for development is tempered by the
value of history and thirst to know our roots. Unfortunately, there has not been much written in
Western publications regarding Russian preservation efforts particularly of their more recent
past. In response to the urging from around the world, the Moscow Architectural Preservation
Society was founded in 2006. This organization provides a semilegitimate facade of preserva-
tion. Unfortunately, roughly one quarter of the buildings in Russia that were assumed to be pro-
tected have already been demolished. The main obstacles to the preservation efforts within
Russia are an aggressive real estate market coupled with a general lack of support for preserva-
tion and strict government control of information outlets, thus, preventing public outcry. This
control of information could have been a significant factor in March of 2006 when the Konstantin
Melnikov House (see Figure 1), an important Russian architect of the Modernist movement, was
threatened by water damage and land speculation. Although there were many who voiced oppo-
sition to the destruction of the building, the local uproar might have been much greater had the
government not been so controlling of the press and had the event received media coverage
(Cohen, 2007). As it stands today, aggressive real estate speculation and economic development
continue to drive the demolition of many structures from the early 20th century.
With the progress of preservation efforts in Western societies, a major challenge that still
remains are the preservation of buildings, monuments, and bridges from the more recent past. It
is much easier to defend and justify preservation funding and designating those structures devel-
oped prior to the 1920s as historic. Post–World War II developments, on the other hand, are
rarely considered to be of any significance. This tendency to neglect Modernist structures as part
of preservation efforts is not only seen in Russia and former nations of the Soviet Union but it is
also seen throughout Western countries. Modernist Russian architecture faces the additional
obstacle of being virtually unknown to much of the world. This differs from many Western
Kopec and Lord 439

Figure 1. Konstantin Melnikov House

Photo courtesy: Theresa Kayzar

Modernist structures such as the Empire State Building. When this building opened in 1931,
people from around the world were already familiar with its image. Likewise, the construction of
new buildings in London, Paris, Rome, and other cities was publicized in a similar manner. Pub-
licity for Russian architecture during the first half of the 20th century, on the other hand, was
limited to a handful of journal articles by German, French, and English writers.
Tourism is often seen as a significant method to bring about architectural recognition. During
the Stalinist period, tourism throughout the Soviet Union was limited, even for its own citizens.
When tourism was allowed, the tourists were often restricted to certain areas. Even after Stalin’s
death and the advent of fewer restrictions on travel to Russia and the other countries of the Soviet
Union, there were no official guides who could educate people about the unique architectural sites.
Many Russians were unaware of their many Modernist buildings until the 1960s when Soviet
Union and Western European scholars began to study its landscape and history (Cohen, 2007).
This effort is the primary reason that most of the surviving Modernist structures remain today.

Russian Architecture
Russia was the heart and soul of the former Soviet Union, and as such its unique cultural predis-
positions influenced the other Soviet Union countries. A common theme in Russian architecture
440 Space and Culture 13(4)

is the use of ideological communication to support state domination. By way of contrast,

consider that many European countries throughout the 17th century emphasized the importance
of religious institutions, which was illustrated by the many cathedrals that could be seen from
afar. Russia, from as far back as Boris Godunov, Tsar of Russia from 1598 to 1605, downplayed
the importance of religious structures in the Russian landscape and emphasized the power struc-
ture of the tsars through grand and opulent palaces (Cracraft & Rowland, 2003).
The Russian power structure also has a tradition of reinforcing shifts in political power. Many
Russian political figures began their reign with the destruction of the past and implementation of
their vision for the country’s future. Hence, a common ideology within Russian culture is the
notion of starting over rather than integrating the past with the present and the future. This prac-
tice began in the late 17th century with Peter I (Peter “the Great”). Russia was rooted in many
medieval practices when Peter I came to power. It was his contention that the country as a whole
was clinging too closely to its past and needed to step forward in order to keep pace with the rest
of Europe. Peter I’s “progress” was accomplished by adopting styles and practices from sur-
rounding countries. His success in this endeavor propagated a movement that would lead to a
national revolution in architecture and building practices. However, his aspirations for social and
economic change never happened. Instead, the “Moscow Baroque” style associated with “old
Russia” was banished and replaced with a new modern style of Russia dubbed by the Russian
architectural historian Igor Grabar’ as “St. Petersburg Baroque.”
The architecture that survived Peter I was composed of an amalgamation of Byzantine,
Baroque, Gothic, Persian, Renaissance, Romanesque, and Turkish influences. “St. Petersburg
Baroque” did not necessarily bring one definitive look to the Russian landscape. Peter I was
enchanted by many architectural styles however he leaned heavily toward ancient Rome. He
imported expertise from nearby European countries and the only recognizable similarities between
the buildings of the time were strong classical Roman elements. Peter I’s national revolution not
only influenced the style of Russian architecture but also changed cultural practices related to
scale, materials, and construction techniques. Professionally designed buildings in Russia were no
longer limited to palaces and religious structures; they now included medical and educational
facilities. Peter I was able to establish, with the help of European influences, specialized training
for architects in order to bring about his new style, and many scholars concur that this was likely
the most significant change in architectural practice within Russian history (Cracraft, 2003).
The architectural accomplishments that began with Peter I and continued into the 18th century
amaze many historians because of the relative speed at which architectural transformation
occurred in Russia. Throughout the most prominent European centers, the architectural transfor-
mation that took Russia only one century to accomplish, took three centuries. It is likely, how-
ever, that this speed of transformation resulted from the dominant rule of Russian leaders. The
tsars established laws for Russian architecture that were reinforced by the Senate, the Synod
(church council), governors, and police.
Empress Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great followed Peter I. During their rule, the distinct
Russian style was refined. Elizabeth’s reign saw the transformation of structures constructed
under Peter I. The buildings designed by foreign masters brought in from France, Holland, Italy,
Prussia, Ukraine, and elsewhere by Peter I were altered to conform to her own Russian Baroque
style. As Russian Baroque began to flourish, Catherine the Great came into power.
In the mid-18th century, Catherine the Great established principles that formed the basis for
much of Russian town planning. Also, during her rule the Russian community saw an influx of
classical forms. This period became known as the Russian Enlightenment. Much of the design
that took place during this period were based on ideas gathered by Catherine the Great during her
travels to places such as England, France, Germany, and Italy, which were at the forefront of the
Age of Enlightenment. She tended to favor the architecture styles produced in Greece and France,
but preferred the landscape gardens found in England. Based on these preferences, one could
Kopec and Lord 441

Figure 2. Universal Shop located in Red Square (GUM), Moscow

Photo courtesy: Theresa Kayzar

conclude that Catherine the Great had a romantic view of what Russia could and should look
like. By the end of the 18th century it was difficult to separate the authentic Russian elements
from the new imported styles. Russian architectural design had become a melting pot derived
from a variety of countries (Shvidkovsky, 2003).
In the 19th century, a multicultural collaboration occurred that would change the relationship
between Russia and the rest of Europe. Until this time, very little was known about Russia and
its architecture. This changed in part because Viktor Butovsky, the director of the Moscow
Museum of Industrial Arts, and Natalis Rondot, an economist who cofounded the museum, com-
missioned the French architect Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc to compile a history of Russian
architecture. The text was meant to be a history as well as a sort of pattern book for Russian
architects to follow. Viollet-le-Duc was sent relevant information from Butovsky with instruc-
tions to send all drafts back for verification of facts. The result was a highly censored version of
Russian architectural history. The finished product was more of an exposé of Russia’s previously
unknown history and political policies. The manner in which the history was compiled illustrates
the Russian political landscape and Russia’s relationship to the outside world. The text was
highly contested within Russia because Viollet-le-Duc included information from outside
sources despite his agreement with the Russians. The controversy stemmed from the relative
influence of Asian styles within Russian architecture. German scholars contended that much of
Russian architecture was heavily influenced by Asia. This claim was insulting to the Russian
public because Europeans regarded Asian art of the time as barbarous (O’Connell, 2003).
The last tsar under Russian imperialism was Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov, better known
as Nicholas II. His rule lasted from 1894 to 1917. During the reign of Tsar Nicholas, Russia, like
most developed countries, was moving into the Modernist period. Modernist architecture first
appeared in single-family residences as well as high-rise apartment buildings. This typology was
the first to adopt the Modernist style because the growing middle-class population was moving
into the city, and needed to be housed. In the late 1890s, Russian architects began to experiment
with the Modern by mixing elements of Baroque, Gothic, and Art Nouveau styles. One such
example was the state-run Universal Shop located in Red Square, commonly referred to as the
GUM (see Figure two). This structure was designed by Alexander Pomerantsev and constructed
between 1890 and 1893.
442 Space and Culture 13(4)

After the Bolshevik revolution, the GUM was used for administrative purposes. It then made
a brief resurgence as a mall during the era of the “New Economic Policy” (NEP), but when Stalin
ended the NEP, it reverted back to an office building. In 1953, the building was restored and
reopened as a shopping center.
After World War I, Russia suffered great hardship, which was amplified by the revolution and
civil war that followed shortly thereafter. These events had a significant impact on the architec-
tural progress in Russia because resources were scarce. Hence, an already poorly housed pre–
World War I population realized the situation would soon get worse. As Moscow became the
center of the administered state in 1918, its population swelled. Modern architecture and its tech-
nological demands were too much for Russia to sustain immediately following the war. For
example, the use of concrete created the need for formwork, which was often discarded after
construction. Russia at the time did not have disposable resources therefore it was impractical to
use modern construction techniques. Architects thus reverted back to wood construction because
wood was inexpensive, plentiful, and generated little waste.
Then, in the mid-1920s, architectural experimentation began to revive as a new group of
architects established themselves: the Constructivists. Derived from modern paintings and sculp-
tures, Constructivism aimed to express style through basic geometric forms. By the late 1920s
Russian Constructivist architecture closely resembled the work of Le Corbusier. Moisei Ginzburg,
one of the leading Constructivist architects of the time and Le Corbusier were acquainted, and in
1927 Ginzburg asked Le Corbusier to sit on the board of Contemprary Architecture, a publica-
tion edited by Ginzburg and Alexander Vesnin. Le Corbusier’s involvement in Russian architec-
ture increased in the late 1920s. Many of his projects were never realized; however, one of his
great successes was the design for the Central Union of Consumers Cooperative in 1929 (called
Tsentrosoiuz). This was significant because it was the last Modernist project built in Moscow
under the rule of the Soviet Union. The export of architectural styles to other Soviet cities within
the republic was a result of the influx of architectural students to the educational institutions of
Leningrad (now called Saint Petersburg) and the lack of employment within their respective cit-
ies. Cities such as Kazan, Kharkov, Nizhnii Novgorod (or Gorkii), and Sverdlovsk built several
structures in the Constructivist style. One such building, the Moskovskiy Neighborhood Soviet,
was designed by I. I. Fomin, V. G. Daugul, and B. M. Serebrovskiy and built in the early 1930s
(see Figures 3A and 3B).
A second major movement in Soviet Union architecture was Neoclassicism (1930s-1950s),
also known as “Stalinist Imperial style.” When Stalin and his party members introduced the first
5 years of the 10-year plan to catch up with Western Europe, the idea of a new society required
the creation of a new environment. This not only meant the development of a Soviet Union style
of architecture but also meant that the old buildings had to be removed in order for Russia to
be cleansed of its past. One of the first buildings to be removed was the Church of Christ the
Redeemer designed by Konstantin Ton. Once this symbol of unwanted history had been removed,
Stalin reinforced the new direction of the country by creating an international competition to
design the Palace of Soviets to sit on the church’s site (see Figure 4). The Palace of Soviets was
never constructed because the Soviet Union was forced into World War II. However, the design
that derived from the competition and from the several revisions provided the basis of design for
Stalinist style of architecture. Likewise, buildings constructed throughout the Soviet Union dur-
ing the 1930s revolved around the idea of monumentality.
After WORLD WAR II, the Soviet Union was granted many of the former German occupied
lands, which included Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungry. The neodictatorial government
developed by Stalin was thus thrust upon these conquered lands. While one of the ideals of com-
munism was equal distribution of wealth, a fundamental component of the ideology was function-
ality. Design and its many incarnations—architecture, clothing, interiors, and landscaping—were
Kopec and Lord 443

Figure 3. Moskovskiy Neighborhood Soviet and Lensovet House of Culture by E.A. Levinson
Photos courtesy: Peter Sobolev, http://www.enlight.ru

deemed unnecessary. Thus many ornamental buildings within the cities of the Soviet Union that
were destroyed by war were replaced by the functionalist style of architecture. In many instances
this was done with little regard for the surrounding environment.
Tragically, the influences that threaten preservation efforts in Russian architecture today were
present as far back as the 16th century. For several centuries, Russian rulers have been destroying
444 Space and Culture 13(4)

Figure 4. Architectural render of unknown structure

This file is in the public domain in Russia. It was published before January 1, 1954, and the creator (if known) died
before that date (For veterans of the Patriotic War, the critical date is January 1, 1950). Works belonging to the
former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1, 1954, are also in the public
domain in Russia.

the work of their predecessors in order to leave their own legacy. Through becoming familiar with
Russia’s architectural and political history, one can see that the repeated sociopolitical upheavals
left the country with the need to provide safety and protection for its people. According to
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, safety and protection are among the most basic needs for a person.
Preservation can be regarded as similar to “self actualization,” which is high on Maslow’s pyramid-
shaped hierarchy. Hence, it thus comes as no surprise that popular movements in support of pres-
ervation have been slow to develop in Russia and the former Soviet countries.

The Soviet Union

When Stalin came to power in the Soviet Union, he believed that the country was 50 years behind
the rest of Europe. One of his first goals for the country was to catch up in 10 years. To do this he
Kopec and Lord 445

Figure 5. The Construction and Industry Statue in Lithuania

Photo by Dak Kopec.

needed to funnel resources into the production of manufacturing machinery at the expense of
basic consumer goods such as clothing and other staples of daily life. This left much of the popula-
tion feeling disempowered and demoralized. To combat these issues, Stalin used symbolic mean-
ing to inspire and promote a Soviet ideal. This manifested as monolithic statues such as the
Construction and Industry Statue located in Lithuania. This statue depicts a strong population
working for the good of the country (see Figure 5).
The next leader to have a strong effect on the direction of the Soviet Union was Leonid
Brezhnev, who became the Soviet Secretary General in October of 1964. His administration
promoted a form of centralized control throughout the republics of the Soviet Union. Brezhnev,
who feared a loss of power to scholars and other intellectuals, outright attacked dissidents
from the literary and scientific community. This led to a “brain drain” from the country and a
stagnation of technical and cultural advancements. Also during this time there was inefficient
use of land, labor, and resources. Lenin’s ideal for the Soviet Union was a classless society,
but under Brezhnev’s reign there arose a bureaucratic system in which people were paid for
their loyalty with material goods, thus affording them a better standard of living. Because of
this, officials often placed personal gain above the good of the public.
446 Space and Culture 13(4)

Because of economic pressures and social chaos erupting from the various dictators of the
former Soviet republics, the Soviet Union could no longer retain cohesion and thus fragmented
into many Eastern European republics. Today, many cities throughout Eastern Europe such as
Warsaw, Prague, Kiev, and Budapest are attempting to restore themselves to their pre-Soviet
grandeur. In some cases, such as Poland, an attempt is being made to erase the scars of Soviet
occupation through the reskinning of buildings and in some cases removing Soviet-style archi-
tecture. However, in many respects, architecture and urban planning are among the best “living”
historical records. Buildings and their location within the urban fabric serve as a physical form
that future generations can study as well as a topic for discussion from which oral histories can
be passed from one generation to the next. Be it good or be it bad, it is important to retain ele-
ments from bygone eras if for no other reason than to serve as reminders of the past.

Symbolism and Meaning

Preservation and restoration are the optimal solutions for retaining past designs because many
building and design styles evoke an emotional reaction (Kopec, 2006). In the case of communist-
style architecture and design from the former Soviet Union, the presence of such historic images
is likely to evoke a host of emotions that may not aid the social healing of a society that has
endured a host of atrocities. The salient theme that runs throughout many of the countries of the
former Soviet Union is occupation. Entire countries were, in essence, occupied by a Soviet
regime. The local leaders of these occupied countries often acted on behalf of the Soviet Union
and not on behalf of the will of the country’s people. In such cases, the need for preservation is
in direct conflict with the need for a society to heal. In these situations, historic preservation
through written records and digital media depicting photographs and original schematics may be
the most appropriate means of preserving history for future generations. Because of the profound
effects that the various dictators of the former Soviet Union had on their country, the architecture
and design developed during this period should be studied and catalogued not only in terms of its
design value but also in terms of the symbolic and intrinsic meaning that the design conveys to
the people.
In many respects the role of the built environment within a society is a reflection of culture and
identity. This is because meaning is often contained within the architecture and design of the built
environment. This reflection of culture thus places architecture and design at the forefront of
delivering affective images that serve as cues to social norms and subsequent decisions and behav-
iors (Rapoport, 1982). Notwithstanding, meaning itself is formed in the context of society, and
design serves only to reinforce this meaning. The meaning ascribed to an architectural or design
style can be likened to communication in which design serves as a form of language (Seligmann &
Seligmann, 1977). Just as language differs from region to region (Kopec, 2007), the symbolic
language of architecture lacks uniformity. The two buildings highlighted in Figures 6A and 6B,
for example, are designs inspired by the Art Deco period spanning from about 1925 to 1939. The
Woolworth building designed by Cass Gilbert, can be found in New York City. Moscow State
University located in Russia clearly conveys a neo-Gothic Art Deco infused architectural style
similar to the Woolworth building, the Tribune Tower in Chicago, Illinois, and the Cathedral of
Learning in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Art Deco trend that captured much of Western Europe
and the United States also seeped into the Soviet Union. This is epitomized through the similar
architectural styles that represent divergent incarnations found within the United States and the
former Soviet Union. Because Stalin favored this architectural style, he subsequently commis-
sioned many manifestations of the design not only in Russia but also throughout the countries of
the former Soviet Union. It has since been dubbed “Stalin’s Wedding Cake” and serves as a form
of ideological communication: an abstract meaning ascribed to a building or place (Gifford, 2002).
Kopec and Lord 447

Figure 6. Examples of dominant Soviet architecture

Photos by Dak Kopec.

However, meaning, which is often transferred through oral means of communication, lacks stabil-
ity and continuity particularly when the source of that meaning has been removed or modified.
Another aspect of architecture as a symbolic informer of a society is reflected in the overall
massive presence of buildings and objects. The robust style of design in the Soviet Union perme-
ated the former republics and served to support the ideological stance of strength and domina-
tion. There are many examples of how architectural icons can affect meaning for a society. For
example, there was a competition to redesign the London Bridge in 1840. The framework for the
448 Space and Culture 13(4)

competition was that the bridge expresses the changing social and economic landscape of
London. The bridge’s placement was important; it was the single connection between the city
and the south bank of the Thames for more than 1,700 years. The old London Bridge was a sym-
bol of civic order and authority because it served both as a physical barrier and connection to the
city, and its visually arresting presence anchored and reinforced London’s centrality within England.
Arnold (1999) suggests that contemporary architectural practices of fusing bridges and monu-
ments continually reinforce the symbolic nature of social unity or political preeminence.
Within the Soviet Union, similar connections were depicted through large statues that pro-
moted unity. These statues have symbolic qualities and significance, which makes them iconic.
Sklair (2005) expands this definition to include fame and aesthetic value; qualities attributed to
many Soviet statues. To illustrate this point, consider the statues in Figures 7A, 7B, and 7C. The
first statue is located in Moscow (Russia), and it is an example of the socialist realistic style
depicting the union of agriculture and industry. The second statue is located in Kiev (Ukraine),
and it sits under a massive dull-steel arch. The entire monument is meant to commemorate the
integration of Russia and Ukraine. The third statue is located in St. Petersburg (Russia), and it
signifies the union of the military and civilian population to defend the city during the temporary
German occupation of World War II.
One may look to a society’s urban landscape for architectural symbols and messages because
the built form serves as the representation of the values and ideologies of a society (Rubin,
1979). Willis (1995) believes that the cities of Chicago and New York exist as icons of capital-
ism and the primary function of their tall buildings is to produce rent. The purely functional
aspects of the barren concrete architecture from the Soviet Union was designed and built to
house the people and thus lack color, form, and landscape, but tended to be monolithic in size
(see Figure 8).

Iconography
The hammer and sickle was an icon of the former Soviet Union that symbolized the union of
industry (hammer) and agriculture (sickle). Langer (1953) suggests that a symbol is any device
that draws abstraction (Rapoport, 1970). In Collins’s (1967) book review, he states that Christian
Norberg-Schulz and several others see style as a direct cause of the symbolic system. Icons act
as symbols if the image they portray is somewhat familiar in daily life, but they also imply other
connotations and meanings that are not as obvious (Jung, von Franz, Henderson, Jacobi, & Jaffe,
1964; Sklair, 2006). For example, Figure 9 proudly displays the hammer and sickle on a Brutalist-
style building in Moscow. The term Brutalism was coined in the 1950s, by architects Peter and
Alison Smithson, to describe the style of Modern Architecture that was completely stripped of
all unnecessary elements. Derived from the French term béton brut, meaning “raw concrete,”
the Smithsons found Brutalism to be a direct descendant of artistic trends of the early 20th cen-
tury, including cubism in France, futurism in Italy, and constructivism in Russia (Spellman &
Unglaub, 2005).
Brutalism in Russia arose in the post-Stalin era when an analysis of the economy revealed
severe strain and a housing crisis. This type of architecture appeared throughout many former
Soviet countries not because of aesthetics, but because of the economic situation of the Soviet
Union (Pare, 2007). The premise being that the elimination of unique building ornamentation
and including more standardized elements that could be easily produced, such as precast con-
crete panels, allowed for quick and affordable construction (Brumfield, 2004).
Meaning is contained in symbolism and many symbols become icons within given societies
and cultures. These can be defined as an image, representation, or depiction in solid, such as
a statue. The word icon derives from the Greek word ikon, which literally means portrait
Kopec and Lord 449

Figure 7. Iconic sculptures depicting union between agriculture and industry

Photo A is in the public domain in Russia. Photos B and C by Dak Kopec.
450 Space and Culture 13(4)

Figure 8. Architecture stressed functionality rather than ornament, but maintained monolithic nature
Photo by Dak Kopec

(Pentcheva, 2006; Sklair, 2006). Platonic forms of icons are considered eidos—produced by a
deity or any mortal form or creation thereafter. A reproduction of an eidos would be consid-
ered an eikon (Bayer, 2006). Iconic architecture draws from these references, and its earliest
uses were for the purposes of domination and social control elicited by church and state (Sklair,
2006). However, a more contemporary definition of iconic architecture by the San Francisco
Museum of Modern Art states that in order for a design to become an icon, the design itself
must achieve the following:

  1. provoke “wow,” “cool,” and “hot”

  2. have equal amounts of communication and hype
  3. has no inherent qualities; its look and feel are what are important
  4. is developed equally by content and context
  5. integrates human factors
  6. is monolithic
  7. is smooth and streamlined
  8. has a sense of monumentality
  9. is light and rich
10. exemplifies perfection
11. embodies a sense of otherness

Although seemingly comprehensive, the list itself is highly subjective and raises the ques-
tion of the veracity of the interpretations from the perceiver. Architecture and design can only
Kopec and Lord 451

Figure 9. Hammer and sickle on a Brutalist-style building in Moscow

Photo courtesy Verity Quinn

communicate a cultural or symbolic message that is derived from material selection and use,
color, form, size, and furnishings, and the surrounding landscape (Rapoport, 1990) that pro-
duces meaning to the perceiver. However, communication and meaning are fluid and change
from generation to generation. Ergo, the mere concept of iconic architecture is continually
evolving, and what was once liked or disliked might change because the meaning of the envi-
ronment has either gained or fell out of favor with the general populace (Rapoport, 1982).

Post Soviet Union

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of the former republics, including Russia have
struggled to redefine their identity. In many cases, this recasting of identity involves the eradica-
tion of architecture from the period and denial of past affiliation with the Soviet Union. Today,
much of the architecture and design created during that time is either being torn down or reskinned,
thus obliterating or concealing a significant part of history. Before this era of design is recklessly
discarded, it is imperative that architects and social and political scientists inventory and catalogue
urban and architectural remnants of the former Soviet Union to preserve a significant part of
452 Space and Culture 13(4)

human history. Clearly it is important to promote social and cultural healing after enduring an era
of oppression; however, to break the cycle of history repeating itself, the scars of communism
must be preserved and recorded for future generations to study and analyze. As one alternative to
the dismantling of these buildings, former Soviet countries might consider enveloping buildings
to conceal their overt design or cultural imagery so that they can be preserved future genera-
tions to restore and then study a significant period of human history. Light fabric envelopes with
billboard scale advertising are great temporary skins that can serve a similar purpose as the 1950s
era aluminum siding on Victorian era architecture common throughout the United States. From
the point of view of a preservationist’s dictum of reversibility, these temporary envelopes are
highly effective.
Another solution to the objectionable symbolism and iconography contained within architec-
ture and design is the modification of the urban context. Moscow, for example, has experienced
much growth and new construction that has diminished the once omnipresent and monumentally
scaled Stalinist period structures. The new construction is in effect diluting the visual impact of
any one building or architectural style thereby masking one meaning by creating another layer of
significance.
The promotion of social healing after enduring years of oppression is often seen as more
important than the preservation of architecture and design, particularly when those designs con-
tain ideological reminders of the past. Historic preservation is one way of preserving history for
future generations. Because of the profound effects the various dictators of the former Soviet
Union had on their country, the architecture and design developed during this period should be
studied and catalogued not only in terms of its design value but also in terms of the symbolic and
intrinsic meaning that the design conveys to the people.

Conclusion
Be it good, bad, or indifferent, the architectural and design style of the former Soviet Union
reflects a degree of homogeneity that was idealized as part of the fundamental premise of com-
munism. While some might regard this architecture and design as stale and lacking style, others
might view it as a constant reminder of a time riddled with fear and oppression. Whichever way
it is viewed, the architecture and design of the former Soviet Union is nonetheless a symbolic
representation of a period in humanity’s history that must be preserved.
Within Russia and other former Soviet republics the architecture and design created during
the rule of the Soviet Union is part of humanity’s history, and it conveys much about the socio-
cultural and political environment of that time. To date, much has been and is being written about
the former Soviet Union; however little work is being conducted in the area of recording the
symbolic meaning of the built environment. As an evolving species, some may contend that it is
our duty to preserve history and learn from our predecessors so that we may expand on the good
and learn from our mistakes. In other words, to destroy or mask over an aspect of human history
might be regarded the same as denying a given history all together. Hence, it is imperative that
we continue to study and document the design styles created during the rule of the Soviet Union
if for no other reason than to prevent the future rule of a similar government.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this
article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
Kopec and Lord 453

References

Arnold, D. (1999). London Bridge and its symbolic identity in the Regency metropolis: The dialectic of
civic and national pride. Art History, 22, 545-566.
Ball, T., & Dagger, R. (2006). Political ideologies and the democratic ideal. Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education.
Bayer, T. I. (2006). Art as symbolic form: Cassirer on the educational value of art. Journal of Aesthetic
Education, 40(4), 51-64.
Brumfield, W. C. (2004). A history of Russian architecture. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Cohen, J.-L. (2007). Radical relics: Architecture and politics of modernization in Soviet Russia. In R. Pare
(Ed.), The lost vanguard: Russian Modernist architecture 1922-1932 (pp. 9-23). New York, NY:
Monacelli Press.
Collins, P. (1967). Symbolism and architectural theory. Journal of Architectural Education, 21(3), 8-10.
Cracraft, J. (2003). Peter the Great and the problem of periodization. In J. Cracraft & D. Rowland (Eds.),
Architecture of Russian identity, 1500 to the present (pp. 7-17). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Cracraft, J., & Rowland, D. (Eds.). (2003). Architecture of Russian identity, 1500 to the present. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Practice and principles (3rd ed.). Colville, WA: Optimal
Books.
International Council on Monuments and Sites. (2008). ICOMOS National Committees. Retrieved from
http://www.international.icomos.org/home.htm
Jung, C. G., von Franz, M. L., Henderson, J. L., Jacobi, J., & Jaffe, A. (1964). Man and his symbols.
London, England: Penguin.
Kopec, D. (2006). Environmental psychology for design. New York, NY: Fairchild Books.
Kopec, D. (2007). Designs that protect: Culturally sensitive design for long-term care facilities. Washington,
DC: NCIDQ Monograph Series.
Langer, S. K. (1953). Feeling and form. London, England: Routledge.
O’Connell, L. M. (2003). Constructing the Russian other: Viollet-le-Duc and the politics of an Asiatic past.
In J. Cracraft & D. Rowland (Eds.), Architecture of Russian identity: 1500 to the present (pp. 90-100).
Ithaca, NY. Cornell University Press.
Pare, R. (2007). The lost vanguard. New York, NY: Monacelli Press.
Pentcheva, B. (2006). The performative icon. Art Bulletin, 88, 631-655.
Petroski, H. (2003). The importance of historic preservation. ASCE News, 28(8), 3.
Post, J. M. (2004). Alexander George leaders and their followers in a dangerous world: The psychology of
political behavior. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Rapoport, A. (1970). Symbolism and environmental design. International Journal of Symbology, 1, 1-10.
Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Rapoport, A. (1990). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rubin, B. (1979). Aesthetic ideology and urban design. Annals of the Association of American Geogra-
phers, 69, 339-361.
Seligmann, K., & Seligmann, C. (1977). Notes on a metaphor. Journal of Architectural Education, 30(4),
23-27.
Shvidkovsky, D. (2003). Catherine the Great’s field of dreams: Architecture and landscape of the Russian
enlightenment. In J. Cracraft & D. Rowland (Eds.), Architecture of Russian identity: 1500 to the present
(pp. 51-65). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Sklair, L. (2005). The transnational capitalist class and contemporary architecture in globalizing cities.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29, 485-500.
Sklair, L. (2006). Iconic architecture and capitalist globalization. City, 10, 21-47.
454 Space and Culture 13(4)

Spellman, C., & Unglaub, K. (Eds.). (2005). Peter Smithson: Conversations with students. New York, NY:
Princeton Architectural Press.
Tyler, N. (2000). Historic preservation: An introduction to its history, principles, and practice (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
UNESCO World Heritage Center. (2009). World Heritage Committee, 2007-2009. Retrieved from http://
whc.unesco.org/en/about/
Willis, C. (1995). Form follows finance. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.
World Monuments Fund. (2005). World monuments watch. Retrieved from http://www.wmf.org
Young, J. E. (1994). Germany’s vanishing Holocaust monuments. Judaism, 43, 413-418. Retrieved from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n4_v43/ai_16481905

Bios
Dr. Kopec has a Ph.D. in Environmental Psychology with a concentration in perception and design and two
master’s degrees, one in Architecture and one in Community Psychology. He is an Associate Professor at
the Newschool of Architecture and Design in San Diego, and has written two books that discuss the rela-
tionship between humans and the environments they inhabit. His primary research interests include percep-
tion and the subsequent cognition that people form about their environments.

Ms. Lord has a master’s degree in Historic Preservation planning from Cornell University and a Bachelor’s
degree in Architecture from the Newschool of Architecture and Design in San Diego. She currently serves
as an Aviation Architect for Reynolds, Smith and Hill in Denver. Her primary interests are in historic pres-
ervation with a focus on 19th and 20th century industrial architecture and the role that structures play in
economic development.