HY RU EN
Asset 3

Loading

End of content No more pages to load

Your search did not match any articles

Yerevan: Soviet Idealism to Soviet Reality

By Vrej Haroutounian

Previous Article

 

“You have the five-storey buildings, and then you have the multi-storey social and cultural demise of architecture Khrushchev era buildings. Those buildings show how little and unimportant you are, and how you’re just a part of something big… “

Yerevan Interviewee

 

Contemporary Yerevan is an expression of a multitude of ideas, ideals, and ideologies, and their manifestation, as an ideology, is produced, expressed and reacts to economic, cultural or political influences.

This phenomenon is evident as Yerevan transitions from the idealist Garden City that Tamanyan created during the early idealist Soviet period to a more authoritarian rule of the Stalin Era via City beautiful movement influences and the facadism that create the large government buildings and elements in the urban landscape to increase civic patriotism and remind citizens of state authority. The base layer of Tamanyan’s Garden City changes significantly during the Khrushchev era as economic and housing needs prompt the building of low quality panel buildings in the courtyards of the “Touf” era buildings. This article concentrates on the changes that take place as the Yerevan urban landscape transitions from one period to the next.  (Touf – pinkish volcanic stone).

“Stalin’s era lasted from 1928-1953. Politically, it was an authoritarian government with a state-run economic policy that lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Union.” (Suny, 1994).

“The ‘Great Purge’ took place in this era, with Armenia suffering great losses in intellectual and human resources. First and second-generation communities of Armenian revolutionary Communists were decimated and replaced by apparatchicks that operated on central command. During this period of Soviet Armenia, the Armenians were asked to be Armenian Soviets.” (Dudwick, 1997).

Throughout the Soviet era, the interests of the government came first, followed by the interest of the citizen. Interest in private capital did not exist.

The strong centralized political powers and their economic policies left a dominant imprint on the urban landscape of Yerevan. Socialism, with the government as the main client, created favorable conditions for urban planning.

“If we look at the changes during the Soviet period that were founded on the central planning of the Soviet Union, with local planners making adjustments to suit local needs, but the primary plan was planned centrally.” (Yerevan interviewee). Tamanyan’s Master Plan was mostly carried out during this period, which is defined as the definitive beginning of the building of Yerevan by city residents.

“The buildings of the socialist style coming not from Europe but from Russia with its five-storied buildings of Tufa (touf). That was a period when many songs were written in praise of Yerevan’s fresh air, nice views and cool parks.” (Mutafian, 2008, in Hakopyan, 2008, p.2).

The buildings had large balconies and a communal courtyard in the interior that acted as a park with ample green space. The Tamanyan Master Plan implements aspects of the City Beautiful movement in this era, as visible in the layout of the major squares andbuilding designs of the Stalin period. The intent was simply to show the power of the state through impressive facades in main squares (See previous article on the City of Socialist Man).

“Between the late 1930s and 1940s, two buildings were built in the oval park on the corner of Mashtots and Prospect, leaving the oval park green ring unfinished. Based on Tamanyan’s plan, there were to be no residential buildings in the Oval Park; only playgrounds and small gathering areas, with the river flowing through.” (Yerevan interviewee). “In this period, the skyline was covered by trees. Only Russian churches, Armenian churches, and mosques were visible through the trees.” (Yerevan interviewee).

"The third era of Soviet influence in Yerevan was the Khrushchev era - lasting from 1953-1964 in a political period knows as “the Thaw”. This period made life in Yerevan much more acceptable as people moved from communal to private apartments, living lifestyles closer to those of their counterparts in more developed countries." (Suny, 1993). Economically,the Soviet leadership at this time decided to expand its population, calling for the repatriation of the Armenian diaspora throughout the world and increasing the population to one million.The government’s goal was to provide housing for every citizen.

“In a few years, many buildings were built in Yerevan in order to house large quantities of people.These buildings were built quickly and cheaply, at the cost of design and quality.” (Hakopyan, 2008)  Five-storey temporary buildings were replaced by multi-storey, prefabricated, project-type buildings of this era.

“You have the five-storey buildings, and then you have the multi-storey social and cultural demise of architecture Khrushchev era buildings. Those buildings shows how little and unimportant you are, and how your just a part of something big… you’re nothing, the height of the ceiling is very pressing, the second you enter the flat you feel pressure, and you have no space, the internal planning is inconsiderate of human needs, your bath and your kitchen would be next to each other, so can you imagine the consequences of this positioning.” (Yerevan interviewee)

The Soviet era prefabricated buildings were of questionable quality, especially in a seismically active zone. They were built in the center of the city and would clearly encroach into the communal courtyards of the Tamanyan era buildings, as evidenced in the urban landscape of present-day Yerevan. These courtyards originally had the unique function of providing a green space where people socialized.

According to responses obtained from interviews, these courtyards became a part of the national identity, as they created a unifying effect— people from different classes and walks of life had a place to interact.

 “Courtyards gave old people a place to play cards, and a place for the neighborhood guys to keep an eye on. The communal courtyard made children feel safe and provided them with free green space.” (Yerevan urban planners). “The communal courtyards also created a microclimate for the residents of the buildings to escape the heat of the summer. People would cook there and even sleep outside at times in the courtyard.” (Yerevan interviewee)

During this period, Yerevan started to grow, expanding outwards from the city center with the construction of the suburbs Nor Nork and Adjapnyak. The master plan for Yerevan would be expanded to include the massive, self-sufficient superblocks around Yerevan’s city center.

 

Sources:

Dudwick, N. (1997).  Armenia: paradise regained or lost? In I. Bremmer & R. Taras

            (Eds.), New states, new policies: Building the post-Soviet nations. Cambridge: 

            Cambridge University Press.

Hakopyan, J. (April 1, 2008). Changing for the ages: Yerevan constructs a 21st century

            face.ArmeniaNow.com.  n.p. 

Suny, R.G. (1993). Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in modern history. Bloomington:

            Indiana UP.

Yerevan interviewee: This title is used for one of 20 anonymous experts interviewed during semi-structured interviews conducted in the summer of 2011.

Write a comment

If you found a typo you can notify us by selecting the text area and pressing CTRL+Enter