Some notes on the destruction of Almaty’s Soviet architecture
Recently I went to visit the Soros Center for Contemporary Art and witnessed the beginning of the destruction of this art community center on Tulebaev Street. They were already putting up the synonymous metal walls to hide the destruction.
The Soros Center for Contemporary Art has been housed in this humble constructivist building for almost 10 years close to tramway line number 4. Along with the gallery, another important element to the neighborhood - an elementary school nextdoor- is also being torn down to make room for perhaps a new luxury apartment that only the rich can afford to live in.
Tulebaev street is perhaps one of the gems to Almaty’s Soviet city planning. This is a tree-lined street with pedestrian walkways and narrow automobile streets designed to keep cars from driving fast. It’s an excellent example of the way architecture envelopes a person and makes them feel within the context of their city. A great idea is to walk south to north on Tulebaev street to get an understanding of how well this street was planned. It’s like walking through a garden of apartments and trees. Even on the hottest days the trees keep you cool. Walk along any of the parallel smaller streets - Pushkin, Chokan Valikhanov or Panfilov streets - and you see that this is one of the most well planned segments of the city. This is a neighborhood that was definitely planned for the Soviet elite. Many of Almaty’s most important institutions are within a few minutes walk from this neighborhood. Now this neighborhood is being fractured into something perhaps not imagined in its city planning.
Next to the former site of the Soros Center a new apartment building has been built in the last few years and is terribly out of scale. It doesn’t have the same space relationship to the sidewalk as the other buildings around it. In fact, the building has no relationship with existing architecture and exists in its space as if the Soviet Union never happened. I feel like a lot of this new “International Post-modern Style” architecture suffers from this type of memory loss.
The construction firm has built a large gate with a 24-hour security guard at the entrance placing the building away from the street. There is no apparent walkway for people but only a garage and driveway underneath the building.This building is a prime example of the implementation of the hierarchy of class in architecture (ie. security guard, large gate and building away from the street) during the new era of capitalism in Kazakhstan. Almaty’s new architecture is taking all of its public space and gating it for luxury apartments.
A friend of mine visiting from New York who is working on her masters degree in architecture and city planning at Columbia University was so excited to see all of this Soviet architecture everywhere. When somone pointed out the new architecture being built she stated, “I’ve seen that architecture everywhere, that new stuff doesn’t look interesting. You can find that anywhere in the world: Dubai, Singapore, Dallas or Los Angeles.” In fact she’s right. Much of this architecture today is sort of the type you point and click on in the Internet; tomorrow they ship it in a box and the local construction firm builds it. There’s really no architect/artistic input involved in these projects.
Interesting architecture is best when built and designed by the people who live in the same city. Architecture is the conversation of the street. It is important that buildings relate to each other within a context (ie. same architect, same time period, same architectural style). So, when there is destruction of one building in the neighborhood and replaced with a new one, this destroys the character developed on this street or neighborhood. It’s like tearing a page from a book. It is very difficult to replace history. You can never duplicate something or perhaps even improve the architecture on a well planned street like Tulebaeva. This street was built with much thought in mind, right down to the placement of the trees and the overall lack of parking.
A lot of the public in Almaty is passively moving from their buildings when construction firms come knocking on their doors to pay them (below the market rate) to move out. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard many of my friends here say that they have to move because they are knocking down their building. There are very few people in Almaty who really say I’m not moving from my home - I will fight for my right as a resident of this neighborhood because this is my home. Staying where you live is an important element to maintaining the culture in a city. By displacing people from their apartments, you’re actually displacing a culture unique to a specific place.
Preserving the local architecture for future generations will help fascilitate a better understanding of what has happened here in the past. When people come here for tourism they aren’t looking for the new shiny glass buildings. They’re looking for the history. Tourists want to see those little Russian houses at the edge of town. They want to see where the local leaders watched parades go by over the years in the New Square. They would appreciate seeing these charming two-story apartment buildings from the Stalin period along Shevchenko street.
on June 14th, 2007 at 11:26 am
http://adam-kesher.livejournal.com/258132.html
on June 15th, 2007 at 6:35 am
A few things:
Residents are only offered below-market rates when the city, rather than a developer, demolishes a building through a process that somewhat resembles eminent domain, usually for the construction of a road or other civil project, as was done with the Satpaev extension to Luganskova.
In other cases, residents are well within their rights to refuse or at least wait for a better offer, and a great many do exactly that. Walk a few blocks to the area between Panfilov and Ablay Khan, between Kurmangazy and Shevchenko. This entire area save one parcel is slated for development, yet there are still businesses and residents in some of those buildings, two years after the announcements were made.
Even offers that are “below market value” (difficult to establish in this market anyway) are likely 5 to 10 times higher than what was paid for those same properties as little as five years ago.
And if there are any significant numbers of tourists coming to Almaty to look at architecture, I haven’t heard of it. Even before the demolitions began Almaty had little of interest in this category, as it is a very young city anyway.
Your point about the similarities to many modern construction projects is valid. I’ve read the same criticisms of MUDs in Washington, DC. If the US, Dubai, and other countries around the world are modernizing this way, how is it we expect Kazakhstan to sit down and grind out truly creative and innovative architecture while investors are screaming for more new luxury apartments to buy up and buildings can’t go up fast enough to please everyone?
on June 15th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Thanks for your comments Narcogen.
on June 15th, 2007 at 8:39 am
??????? ?????.
on June 15th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Huh? In my experience, New York City (and many other cities on the eastern seaboard) only recently became aware of and dedicated to preserving the character of neighborhoods and public spaces. In general, though, the rich texture of zany buildings, streets, parks, and public spaces came from mostly unregulated development. That is part of the beauty of the New York Street. One idea or need vanishes and another quickly rises to takes its place. Commerce begets functionality (I think that’s a word of my own creation), style, and character. And if you don’t like that character, then you move on to greener pastures to create a new community. Thus, Park Slope becomes yuppy while Queens or Newark are transformed and colonized.
Soviet architecture, for most, consists of Krushevkas, bleak factories, and numbing 16 story edifices which bring to mind the worst housing projects of NYC or Chicago. Perhaps time and energy is better spent finding ways to make those habitats more livable.
on June 15th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Great post Daniel.
I’m originally from Berlin and we faced similar problems with Soviet-style architecture. Most houses on Karl-Marx-Allee (former Stalinallee) have been renovated now after being in decay for a long time.
They now house extremely beautiful and spacious flats. They were built in the 50s, showing that reconstruction also took place in the East.
Other examples of state-of-the-art Soviet architecture include the House of the Teacher.
While the bleak examples of Soviet conformism and working class paradises are to be found everywhere (especially in the far eastern districts), it was difficult to persuade people that not all GDR-dated buildings are inferior to older buildings or their counterparts of western architecture of the same time.
This blog post here sums it up quite nicely: http://www.krug2ke.com/archives/2004/01/BerlinArchitecture
on June 18th, 2007 at 3:54 am
I agree on the soullessness of the modern glassy architecture. That’s why Astana seems so soulless, with the government buildings built in postmodern.
In my humble opinion, government buildings need to be build in classical style.
on April 10th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Agree with Aldiyar
Modern architecture is now everywhere. For Example Almaty, have you seen it recently? Only construction inside the city! Almaty is trying to be modern, but this modernasation is destroing old historical art buldings like Soros Center.
People of Kazakhstan wake up!
Why destroy the history? Without history we wont be who we are!
Soros Center Community Art Center is something that should be cherished and sponsored by the government. If not the government other charity centers for example Tengri Center. Tengri Center is a new charity center which is focused on helping children, protecting art, encouraging children in art, protecting environment for a better future!
wake up Kazakhstan!
www.tengri-center.org
Leave a message what you think about chnage in Art, Environment problems, or anything else in Kazakhstan on this website.!