Dedicated to the 85th anniversary of the State Trust for the Planning of Populated Areas and Civil Engineering "GIPROGOR"
History of Russian urban planning
Hyprogor (1929-1932)
Part I
Organization and people
There are few design organizations in our country that have as long a history as Giprogor. Probably, they are not left at all. The pre-revolutionary design bureaus and offices were liquidated after 1917. The post-revolutionary design bureaus, created under Soviet rule, were so often reorganized and changed their names that today only specialists are able to trace their origins, especially since the restructuring of the 1990s, destroying the national system of design affairs, threw into oblivion the largest Soviet design organizations … Giprogor is one of the few who continues to proudly carry its name.
The Soviet era, despite the fact that its spirit still breathes down the back of our heads, in many ways remains a blank spot in the history of Russian urban planning. We often do not know anything about the problems that the architects of the Land of the Soviets pondered over, about the ideas that guided them, we do not even know the exact dates of some key events.
For example, surprisingly enough, it is still not possible to establish the exact date of birth of Giprogor. It is known that his "parents" were: a) the City Planning Bureau of the Kartopublishing House of the NKVD of the RSFSR and b) Proektgrazhdanstroy.
The city planning bureau of the Kartoizdatelstvo was created in the structure of the NKVD back in 1926 for urgent redevelopment and restoration of the burnt down town of Kotelnich. The bureau employed specialists, many of whom later became famous architects: V. N. Semenov, V. S. Armand, A. A. Galaktionov, V. A. Pashkov, V. V. Semenov-Prozorovsky, D. M. Sobolev, N. S. Conversation, A. S. Mukhin, P. V. Pomazanov, V. S. Popov, B. A. Korshunov, D. E. Babenkov, E. V. Vetrova, A. A. Genkhe, A. A. Zubin, N. G. Kondratenko, A. I. Kuznetsov, I. A. Sergeev, [AS?] Smirnov) and others.[1]
"Proektgrazhdanstroy" - State Joint Stock Company for the Design of Civil Engineering, was established on October 5, 1929 by the NKVD, the People's Commissariat for Education and the People's Commissariat for Health of the RSFSR. It developed standard projects for the construction of residential buildings, school buildings, hospital, medical and balneological buildings, hotels, council houses and other types of civil construction[2]… Chief architect - G. B. Barkhin. Among the designers are architects N. A. Bykova, L. K. Komarova, G. I. Glushchenko, I. V. Gokhman, G. S. Guryev-Gurevich, D. N. Chechulin, G. K. Yakovlev and others.[3]
The historically confirmed date of the founding of Giprogor (according to the discovered documents[4]) should be considered either October 28, 1930 (the date of issue of the decree No. 48 of the ECOSO RSFSR), or August 9, 1930 (the date of the issue of the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR[5]) (Fig. 1).
However, two facts indicate that both the leadership of the People's Commissariat of Communal Services (NKKH) of the RSFSR and the leadership of Giprogor considered 1929, not 1930, to be the year of the foundation of the trust.
The first is Order No. 800 on the NKKH of the RSFSR dated October 23, 1939, which states that in October 1939 the State Trust for the Planning of Populated Areas and Civil Engineering "Giprogor" will be 10 years old (Fig. 2).
The second document is an album published on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Giprogor, which was celebrated in 1949. The first part of the album contained design works from 1929 (Fig. 3), which also testifies to the fact that 1929 was considered the foundation date of the institute.
The main reason for the creation of Giprogor was the adoption of the first five-year plan. In the late 1920s. NKVD RSFSR - the main "subject" of public utilities management in the USSR[6]in an effort to maximize its influence on the implementation of the industrialization plan, develops a number of proposals to optimize the nationwide system of design business. They are aimed, first of all, at the elimination of a kind of dual power that arose due to the fact that housing construction in the USSR was divided between: a) the Supreme Council of the National Economy, responsible for the construction of settlements near industrial new buildings, intended, first, for the builders of factories, and then - for workers of the city-forming and auxiliary enterprises; b) the NKVD, which oversees the municipal housing stock of existing cities. The NKVD, in a report prepared by him for the government entitled "On the state of the communal services and measures to improve it," proposes all the design and construction of new buildings: social cities and social settlements to concentrate in one hands - under the jurisdiction of one state body. The NKVD proposes to appoint itself as such.
Having heard the report of the NKVD, the Council of People's Commissars adopts a resolution on August 9, 1930, and entitled "On the report of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the RSFSR on the state of communal services and measures to improve it"[7]… It transfers all power to the NKVD. In particular, it in a categorical form is prescribed to concentrate in the NKVD: a) general management, control and supervision of urban and rural housing and communal construction, no matter whose jurisdiction they are; b) issues of regulation and planning of housing and communal construction, regardless of the sources of its funding; c) drawing up and submitting to the government of the RSFSR consolidated plans for housing construction for all sectors in a territorial context; d) technical and economic regulation of communal, housing and general civil construction, regardless of who this construction is carried out and financed; f) planning, organizing and supervising experimental housing construction; g) development of norms and standards for pilot construction[8].
However, the NKVD is not satisfied with the ability to "lead, control, observe, regulate, etc." He wants to own a share of public resources allocated under the industrialization program for housing. And for this - to design and then build with the hands of municipal bodies of city executive committees. Therefore, he creates in his subordination a project organization, a truly gigantic - a nationwide scale. It becomes the "State Institute for the Design of Construction and Planning and Survey of Populated Areas" Giprogor ". For the formation of this institute, the project resources of the Bureau of Urban Planning of the Kartoizdatelstvo and Proektgrazhdanstroy are merged.
The aim of Giprogor's activity is the reconstruction of existing and design of new settlements being built near the largest industrial new buildings. That is, in fact, the implementation of the urban planning and housing construction parts of the industrialization program. And also, in fact, an untouched area of professional activity - the development of district planning schemes.
At the end of 1930, two resolutions were issued, which sharply strengthened the formal status position of Giprogor in the national system of design business.[9]… According to them, the Main Directorate of Communal Services (GUKH) is "removed" from the NKVD and incorporated into the structure of the SNK of the RSFSR. This sharply strengthens its political and organizational status, since it turns from a departmental into a nationwide body of the RSFSR to manage the design of a civilian profile.[10]… At his disposal is transferred the entire range of works on urban planning, which was previously under the jurisdiction of the republican NKVD[11]… It is responsible for: a) management of the planning and development of existing and newly emerging cities; b) planning and regulation of communal services, housing, fire protection; c) technical and economic regulation of non-industrial construction (school, hospital, office buildings, etc.), as well as d) management of local authorities of communal services and training of cadres of communal workers[12].
Before Giprogor, who remained subordinate to the GUKKH, a number of tasks are set that fully correspond to that key place in the national system of design business, which seeks to legislatively consolidate for him, which remained virtually the same, the leadership of the GUKKH, only transferred from one subordination (NKVD) to another - SNK RSFSR: a) working out the coordinated execution of all interrelated work on the survey, planning and design of civil structures; b) accumulation and systematization of experience and the field of socialist reconstruction of existing cities and new urban planning; c) cheaper design (including through the creation of the Central Archive of Projects for the purpose of multiple reuse of the best of them); d) development of standard projects and publication of albums based on them; e) training of specialists[13].
Giprogor is loaded with design work in two main directions: a) design of new settlements; b) reconstruction of existing cities. Since the beginning of 1931, Giprogor's portfolio of orders includes works in 50 cities and workers' settlements. Among those surveyed for the purpose of reconstruction: Rybinsk, Rostov-Yaroslavsky, Solikamsk, Yaroslavl, Pavshino, Pokrovskoe-Perm, Penza, Verkhneudinsk. So far, these are only preliminary filming works, but each of them has the prospect of growing into a project one. And most of it really turns into planning work. In the same period, the planning sector designs 57 objects at the same time.[14].
The GUKH under the SNK of the RSFSR strives to lead the design of all residential new buildings and he practically manages to take over a certain amount of such work - Giprogor is entrusted with the design of Sinarstroy, Bobrikov, Dvigatelestroy, Maeneftstroy and other new socialist towns[15]… In his portfolio of orders: Gomel, Alma-Ata, Astrakhan, Bezhitsa, Magnitogorsk, Bryansk, Kerch, Novorossiysk, Samara, Arkhangelsk, Kazan, Makhach-Kala, Minsk, Mogilev, Murmansk, Rybinsk, Yaroslavl and others. Planning sector in 1931 -1932 design work is underway in the cities: Vladivostok, Novosibirsk, Stalinabad and other large industrial centers: Nizhny Novgorod, Tula, Saratov, Dzerzhinsk, Chusovaya; emerging centers of industrial development, for example, Igarka and others; regional planning: Bolshaya Ufa, South Coast of Crimea, Baku[16].
Giprogor, by virtue of its suddenly acquired status - the main state design organization - involuntarily finds itself in the position of an "exemplary" design institute, called upon not only to implement "the plans of the party, the plans of the people"; but also provide examples of design creativity for all other design offices in the country. And therefore, in his activities involuntarily appears and acquires special significance the work on the theoretical and practical-methodological understanding of the provisions of the concept of socialist settlement. The reason is that he is obliged to practically implement the postulates of this concept in his design practice on a daily basis. According to the concept, the impetus for the development of new territories is, first of all, industry, and transport and energy construction, agricultural production inextricably linked with its needs. And they are not only theoretically not worked out, but in the practice of project implementation, they cause a lot of problems.
So, for example, in a broad - territorial-settlement context, the concept requires the formation of new centers of settlement, as the core of the administrative management of new economic regions. But besides the most general postulates, it does not give any specific recommendations on how to distinguish these "areas", according to what principles to trace their boundaries, etc. The concept prescribes to design new settlements (social cities and social settlements) as "industrial and residential complexes", where: a) production, b) housing, c) a system of collectivized cultural and consumer services should be combined. Such a requirement reflects the ideological ideas about the organization of the activities of the population, whose whole life should be subordinated to the task of serving the socialist state. But how to ensure such a "combination", what should be the layout of "production and residential complexes" - the concept does not explain.
The almost complete absence of prospects for the deployment of intra-settlement public transport pushes planners to the most compact allocation of labor resources (optimal in terms of quantity in terms of production needs), to the maximum approach of the residential area to the places of employment. And these decisions immediately come into sharp conflict with the need to move housing as far as possible from environmentally harmful production.
Similar problematic issues are scientifically worked out by the Planning Section of Giprogor. "The development of this problem is intended to give an answer to the acute question about the advisability of the spatial distance of the residential area from production, or about the possibility of the location of dwellings during production, subject to the neutralization of harmful gases"[17]… This task turns out to be extremely important in conditions when the management of the city-forming enterprise - the main developer of housing in social cities-new buildings - is well aware of the real problems with the almost complete absence of buses, trams and other public transport (as well as the weak development of service - factory), necessary for the daily transfer tens of thousands of workers to workplaces, puts pressure on designers, seeking from them such design solutions in which residential areas, in order to ensure pedestrian accessibility, are maximally moved to production. The customer backs up his demands with verbal assurances (and sometimes with written calculations of "specialists") about the mandatory reduction in the very near future of smoke and harmful emissions from the industry. And architects have nothing to object to these assurances in the absence of any scientifically based data and systematically developed design principles. At the same time, the standards of sanitary and hygienic gaps between hazardous enterprises and settlements existing during this period prescribe that the settlement should be retreated from production by 50 m. - for printing houses, carpentry workshops, etc., by 200-500 m. - for machine-building plants., 2 km. - for more harmful metallurgical, etc., which leads to an even greater increase in the size of the residential area and its separation from the industrial area, which turns large fragments of the settlement into pedestrian-inaccessible.
In the design practice of Giprogor and other institutes in the early 1930s, the planning structure of social cities begins to be consciously formed in such a way as to take into account the ability of the street network to collect flows of people and "lead" them to their ultimate goal - through industrial zones. (Fig. 4)
Problems arising at the junction of conceptual and ideological requirements and prescriptions, on the one hand, and the realities of the actual situation and specific design solutions, on the other, force the Giprogor management to direct part of the intellectual efforts of the team in a slightly different direction than drawing out schemes of district planning and general plans - to serious theoretical and methodological, in fact, scientific study of the general provisions of the concepts of social settlement and social city, in order to bring them to the form of specific recommendations for urban planning.
During 1931, the staff of the institute also analyzed general issues of social resettlement as: a) the administrative-territorial structure of the future city, b) the social structure of the population, c) industry and transport as factors that form a populated place; c) the nature of the relationship between industry, transport and energy. These questions are extremely relevant, especially in conditions when the calculated indicators of the State Planning Commission and, accordingly, the tasks for the design of social cities, not only constantly change, forcing the designers to constantly redo the master plans, but also strikingly do not coincide with the actual population in newly-built cities, which in its reality turns out to be much more than even in the state planning calculations. Designers also have to deal with constant fluctuations in the workforce due to their pendulum migrations, which invariably destroys all forecasting calculations.
Within the walls of Giprogor, a key scientific topic for urban planning is being purposefully and systematically worked out: "The spatial organization of a socialist city." The tasks of this topic are to determine the basic principles and methods of spatial organization of a settlement, the nature of architectonics (the architectural appearance of a populated place), the classification and description of typical elements of social cities as cities of a new type (streets, squares, parks, etc.), as well as the principles of organization residential units (residential complex)[18]… Within its framework, the section of civil structures is developing issues of typology and standardization of residential and public buildings.
The importance of this topic can hardly be overestimated, especially if we consider that during this period there are no unambiguous normative prescriptions on how to design settlements of a new (anti-capitalist) type - “socialist cities”. Designers are groping, by trial and error, to grasp the essence of the “settlements of the new society”. Neither the administration of the city-forming enterprise - the main "owner" of the settlement, nor the leadership of the department in whose area of responsibility the new building is located, nor the state planning bodies, nor the party leadership of the country know what the "social city - the basic unit of a new type of settlement" should be. Disputes and discussions that drew the professional community into an all-Union discussion about social resettlement and powerfully interrupted by the decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks "On the restructuring of everyday life"[19], did not give an unambiguous result. Analytical showdowns and endless examinations of more and more new options for the layouts of social cities, developed in the depths of design institutes, are not able to lead to a common denominator the different points of view on the nature of the new settlement. The question of how to design a social city is decided by each large design organization in its own way. Giprogor strives with all its might to find a solution to the identified problems, since in the case of successful development and further adoption at the national level of the rules, postulates and principles for the design of social cities and social settlement systems developed within its walls, it automatically turns into the main center of urban planning in the country.
The sharp increase in the estimated number of social cities, which occurred at the very beginning of the first five-year plan, caused by an increase in the estimated capacity of industrial facilities, the increasing complexity of complexity, the enlargement of the scale of industrial production and the complication of its technology poses another serious current problem for designers - not only the constant revision of master plans, for an increasing number population, but also the solution of fundamental problems: a) the normative remoteness of the settlement from the places of employment, varying degrees of harm; b) solving the issues of daily movements of the masses of the population from habitats to places of work with ensuring pedestrian accessibility, c) rules for placing service system objects for various functional purposes on the territory of the city, d) developing a preferred typology of housing buildings, etc.
At the same time, the designers are obliged to take into account those fundamental ideological and theoretical postulates of the spatial organization of the new society, which by this time were fixed by the phrase “the concept of social settlement” and partially even already fixed normatively - in the existing legislation. In particular, the concept of social settlement treats a production facility as the main factor determining the emergence of any new settlement in the USSR. It turns industry into the main source of financing for housing construction in the social city, into the center of social and cultural life, into the organizational center of urban everyday life - into the raison d'être of the settlement. This "property" is fixed with the special term "city-forming enterprise", because it is the only reason for the construction of a new settlement in a given place or giving a new impetus to the development of an already existing settlement. In addition to him, many other institutions of a different profile exist and function in the city - accompanying, auxiliary, serving, etc. But it is precisely the city-forming enterprise that is the main reason for the emergence of a new settlement.
The design practice based on this provision is complicated by the fact that if in the early 1920s. the city-forming industrial enterprise was a local, not too large object - a plant, a factory, a power plant, a repair enterprise, a transport center, then by the end of the 1920s. it, in fact, everywhere, turns into a "production unit" - an industrial complex, consisting of a base and several related industries. But already in the early 1930s. this picture is changing dramatically - the "city-forming enterprise" begins to represent a large industrial zone, uniting a number of large cooperative related industries that process several types of raw materials and assuming the obligatory presence of a serious energy base, as well as a large number of technologically inextricably linked auxiliary enterprises.
Another major topic in terms of scientific work of Giprogor is "District planning" (identifying the principles of planning economic regions and establishing the prospects for the development of a populated area). The relevance of this direction of development is due to the fact that the development of a project for any particular settlement turns out to be practically impossible without understanding the nature of its involvement in the encompassing processes. The experience of the first years of the first five-year plan showed that the departments responsible for the construction of industrial enterprises, when deciding on the location of production, were unable to cover the entire set of various features and characteristics of a particular region. The “sectoral” approach to the development of the territory did not ensure the consistency of planning decisions for production, housing, energy, transport, agriculture, etc. He gave rise to fragmentation and chaos. Design organizations, differentiated by departmental and typological profile, realized narrow departmental interests in their work. And even not so much because, due to their administrative and financial position, they were in a subordinate relation to the leadership of the department (although this also took place), but because they were unable to carry out complex scientific and theoretical work due to a narrow subject orientation their activities.
The concept of social settlement treats new social cities as the nucleus of a new, unified, nationwide, hierarchically arranged production structure that is capable of providing conditions for the entire chain of production processes - from resource extraction to distribution of finished products. It is assumed that such an administrative-territorial structure will allow the parts of a huge country to be held together into an inseparable whole; will ensure the formation of a single nationwide system of administrative and territorial management, covering all aspects of the economy, all functions; will form a complex unified multifactorial space: economic and technological, socio-cultural, scientific and production, organizational and managerial, etc.
Economic-economic zoning is deliberately combined within the framework of the social settlement concept with administrative-political and managerial zoning. It defines the structure of the country's supporting frame, in which the “settlement pattern” is a set of industrial production centers with adjacent agricultural zones that are optimal in size to provide new-built cities with quota amounts of foodstuffs. Administrative-political and, at the same time, "proletarian" (concentrating the proletariat) centers of such new, formed literally from scratch, "industrial-economic" regions are called to act as social cities-new buildings.
But how can all this be expressed in a design way? How can these principles and postulates be embodied in specific decisions on the planning organization of the territory?
Having undertaken, on its own initiative, the solution of general issues of regional planning, Giprogor begins to really claim the role of a nationwide methodological center for the design of social cities. In the course of his research and development, an idea is formed about the purpose of the district planning, as a way to establish a balance between: a) the production capacity of industrial production, processing local raw materials, and the reserves of these raw materials available in the area; b) the need to supply the working population of cities and workers' settlements with agricultural products and sizes, as well as the "productive capacity" of the agricultural territory adjacent to the city; c) the possibilities of counter-supply of agricultural production with the necessary amount of industrial goods and factory services for the production and repair of complex agricultural machinery and equipment and, accordingly, the estimated availability of corresponding production opportunities in social cities; d) the needs of adjacent agriculture in the amount of feed and fertilizers "produced" by the city in the form of waste; e) the balance between the need to replenish the cadres of the working class of the city at the expense of young people attracted from the adjacent rural areas and the number of peasant population fixed in the territories of the region; f) providing the village with the cultural achievements of the city and the range of specialized and qualified services provided by the city (health care, education, vocational education, etc.); g) the capacity of the road transport network, which provides the required volumes of bilateral transportation of raw materials and products, and many other aspects.
Social cities-new buildings, in full accordance with the concept of social settlements, are considered within the framework of these developments as the basic elements of the district planning, inextricably linked with the specific location of raw materials, the prospects for industrial development of the settlement, current and planned transport links, the need for strict regulation of the number of employed labor resources, as a result, the exact initial calculated determination of the total population of social cities and the required housing stock[20].
Another topical topic at that time in terms of scientific work is the topic of "public services". Giprogor is developing both conceptual design and project proposals for the formation of a "social city network service system". This system included all types of economic and cultural supplies: 1) a network of dwellings; 2) communication network (mail, telegraph, radio); 3) power supply network; 4) a network of sanitary and hygienic services; 5) a network of sanitary and technical services; 6) a network of distributors of consumer products; 7) a network of socialist education (socialist education), preschool services for children; 8) polytechnic education network; 9) a network of cultural and socio-political services; 10) a network of sports and tourism services; 11) a network of medical services (dispensaries, hospitals, sanatoriums, resorts), etc.
A three-level public catering network, for example, was developed by Giprogor in the project of the social city of Stalingrad. It provided in each of the social cities that made up the Stalingrad industrial and residential center the presence of: a) a "central food plant", which received products from the surrounding state farms, dairy farms, etc.; b) factories-kitchens in each of the social cities, supplying ready-made meals and semi-finished products to institutions of the lower level; c) canteens-distributors at enterprises, institutions and residential complexes. Giprogor recommended that these canteens be expected to serve 225 people who dine at the same time, planning the total throughput at the rate of 600-700 people. in a day[21].
In the project of social cities of the Stalingrad industrial and residential center Giprogor, a four-level network of sports institutions was also developed, which consisted of: a) a network of small playgrounds at the factories and in blocks, as well as at schools and technical colleges; b) larger stadiums in every district of the city, as well as in businesses; c) a central stadium with a physical education palace in each of the social cities that make up the agglomeration; and finally, c) the main physical education center for the unification and direction of all work - in the central city[22].
A network of health care points for Stalingrad was developed in Giprogor under the leadership of prof. A. N. Sysina[23].
The network of "polytechnic training" in the design of the institute was embodied through the creation of a close connection between educational institutions and production, i.e. with industrial enterprises. This postulate embodied the principles of spatial organization of the processes of "socialist learning" formulated at that time by urban theorists. In particular, during this period N. Milyutin actively promoted the idea of creating so-called "factory-technical colleges" (factory higher technical educational institutions). He proposed to locate vocational and technical educational institutions exclusively at industrial enterprises, thus forming a system "uniting material production and education"[24]… And other secondary and higher educational institutions, except for "factory-technical colleges" in social cities were not supposed to be organized at all. Milyutin suggested doing the same in relation to secondary school.[25]… In the explanatory note of Giprogor to the project of restructuring of the city of Samara developed within its walls, it was indicated, in full accordance with this idea, that "universities will be closer to production."[26]… The radius of action of schools in the project of a network of educational institutions, Giprogor, on the basis of preliminary calculations, was adopted at 650 m[27].
The list of research and design topics that were purposefully developed during this period within the walls of Giprogor is very wide: a) types of residential units in an apartment building (two, three, four rooms); b) types of different healthcare buildings; c) types of individual housing construction; d) optimal number of storeys of residential buildings; e) design of club and cultural construction, etc.[28]… And all of them directly reflected the features of this period of development of Soviet urban planning - the development of design principles for the formation of the planning structure of new-built social cities.
Since 1931, having begun to develop these problems, Giprogor finally abandons the use of the statistical method for calculating the prospective population size, based on taking into account natural migrations of the population, and completely switches to the labor balance method developed by D. I. Sheinis[29], the main unit of account of which is the need of the city-forming enterprise in labor resources[30].
July 20, 1931 The decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR turns the GUKKH SNK of the RSFSR into a separate People's Commissariat - the People's Commissariat of the Communal Services of the RSFSR[31]… And, as a result, on October 11, 1931, the Giprogor Institute acquired a new status, being transformed into the State Institute of Survey and Urban Planning and Design of Civil Structures, subordinate to the NKKH of the RSFSR. It is being enlarged due to the infusion of Giproproject[32].
The composition of the leadership of Giprogor in 1930-1933: Director of the Institute S. Ya. Lazarev, since 1932 - I. O. Movshovich (Fig. 5); from 1933 - [?] Pavlovsky; Deputy (Technical Director), Chairman of the Scientific and Technical Council L. I. Organs (Fig. 5), Consultants: V. A. Vesnin, V. N. Obraztsov, V. N. Semenov, Secretary of the party organization: [?] Kalyuzhny (Fig. 5).
Institute structure:
1. Filming sector.
2. Sector for planning of settlements (head N. Z. Nesis[33]) included separate brigades, including:
The team for the regional planning of Bolshoi Ufa and the Chernikovsky industrial area: M. Ya. Ginzburg (head), planning architects G. G. Wegman, S. A. Lisagor, senior architects for the design of dwellings and public buildings I. F. Milinis, A. L. Pasternak, architects M. O. Barshch, P. K. Bucking, V. N. Vladimirov, G. I. Lutskiy, M. O. Mamulov, A. A. Urmaev, I. A. Egorychev, A. F. Kelmishkite, A. F. Gassenflug; engineer-economists N. P. Pershin M. G. Adlivankin, A. Ya. Pak, Vorobiev A. N.; agronomists B. K. Yurkevich, V. A. Nazarov, M. M. Budyonny; transport group: V. N. Obraztsov, P. D. Kochetygov, P. D. Chebotnikov; consulting engineers Grigoriev, M. V. Kikin, B. Perlov, N. I. Smetnev; water and medical groups: A. I. Shneerov, S. E. Golovenchin, I. D. Yakhnin, P. G. Mezernitsky, N. E. Khrisanfov, Yu. B. Fidman and M. I. Ganshtak. N. A. Korostelev; sanitary doctor A. N. Sysin.
The team for the regional planning of the Absheron Peninsula and the general plan of Baku: V. V. Semenov-Prozorovsky (head), consultant: V. N. Semenov, V. S. Armand, I. A. Sergeev, N. S. Conversation, etc.; engineering and economic group: S. A. Umansky, T. V. Schmidt, H. I. Painter; transport group: I. L. Perlin, M. S. Reichenberg, I. D. Perov.
Other brigades include architects such as D. E. Babenkov, A. A. Galaktionov (foreman) (Fig. 6), A. Zubin, V. A. Pashkov, D. M. Sobolev (foreman) (Fig. 6), S. E. Chernyshev and others.
3. Sector for the design of civil structures. It includes: architects A. E. Arkin, F. Ya. Belostotskaya, Borodin, N. A. Bykova, E. A. Vasiliev, Vlasov, V. I. Voronov, A. I. Kaplun, L. P. Guletskaya, I. S. Gurevich, L. L. Danilov, A. A. Dzerzhkovich, I. M. Dlugach, Z. Egorova, E. L. Yocheles, L. K. Komarova, B. A. Kondrashev, M. K. Kostandi, S. A. Lopatin, I. I. Malts, I. A. Meerson, D. M. Piller, A. I. Repkin, L. I. Saveliev, N. B. Sokolov, A. V. Snigarev, O. A. Stapran, G. R. Sum-Shik, L. E. Rosenberg, O. E. Heeger, A. P. Shvets, M. L. Shliomovich, I. A. Jacobson, Ing. [AS?] Smirnov. The sector also includes a hospital section (N. V. Gofman-Pylaev, A. Yu. Dunaevsky, D. N. Chechulin, sanitary doctor Ya. I. Nekrasov, etc.), etc.
4. Bureau of scientific and experimental work (scientific secretary VP Selivanovsky) (Fig. 6). It includes, in particular, the department of housing construction (headed by NV Markovnikov).
5. Production and economic sector. Manager [?] Triner.
6. Unified state library of non-industrial construction projects
The Institute confidently retains the functions of the leader of Soviet urban planning.
[1] Kazus I. A. Organization of architectural and urban planning in the USSR: stages, problems, contradictions (1917-1933). Diss. for a job. uch. Art. Cand. arch. In two volumes. M. 2001.-- 667 p., S. 590.
[2] SU of the RSFSR. 1930. 2nd. No. 36. Art. 36., C.36.
[3] In the same place. P. 369.
[4] GARF. F. A-314, Op. 1, D. 6958.-- 80 p. Report of the State Institute of Urban Design "Giprogor" for 1934, 1934., L.2.
[5] GARF. F. A-314, Op. 1, D. 6958.-- 80 p. Report of the State Institute of Urban Design "Giprogor" for 1934, 1934., L.2.
[6] Meerovich M. G. On the edge of the clash of titans [electronic resource] / M. G. Meerovich // Architecton: news of universities. - 2011. - No. 1 (33). - Access mode: https://archvuz.ru/2011_1/9 - in Russian. lang.; Meerovich M. G. At the forefront of the titan clash. GUKKH NKVD and VSNKh USSR // Modern architecture No. 2. 2011. P. 132-143.
[7] SU of the RSFSR. 1930. No. 37. Art. 474. S. 587-591.
[8] In the same place.
[9] Resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated December 15, 1930 "On the liquidation of the People's Commissariats of Internal Affairs of the Union and Autonomous Republics" (SZ USSR. 1930. № 60. Article 640) and the Resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR dated December 31, 1930 "On measures arising from the liquidation of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the RSFSR and the People's Commissars of Internal Affairs of the autonomous republics "/ Lubyanka: Bodies of the Cheka-OGPU-NKVD-NKGB-MGB-MVD-KGB. 1917-1991. Directory. Ed. acad. A. N. Yakovlev; authors-comp.: A. I. Kokurin, N. V. Petrov. - M.: MFD, 2003.-- 768 p. (Russia. XX century. Documents)., Pp. 528-530.
[10] SU of the RSFSR. 1931. No. 4. Art. 38.
[11] "… to transfer completely the functions of the liquidated People's Commissariats of Internal Affairs for the management of communal services, non-industrial construction, firefighting" (SZ USSR. 1930. No. 60. Art. 640. P. 1157)
[12] SU of the RSFSR. 1931. No. 4. Art. 38., p. 46.
[13] GARF. F. A-314, Op. 1, D. 6958.-- 80 p., L. 2.
[14] Kazus I. A. Soviet architecture of the 1920s: design organization. - M.: Progress-Tradition, 2009.-- 464 p., Ill., P. 155.
[15] Kazus I. A. Decree op. P. 155.
[16] GARF. F. A-314, Op. 1, D. 756.-- 85 p., L. 10-11.
[17] Research work of Giprogor // Communal business. 1931. No. 1, p. 112-114., S. 112-113.
[18] Kazus I. A. Decree. op. P. 113.
[19] Meerovich M. G. Discussion about social resettlement. New materials. Part I. [Electronic resource] 2013. 1.0 pp. - access mode: https://archi.ru/agency/news_current.html?nid=45601; Meerovich M. G. Discussion about social resettlement. New materials. Part II. [Electronic resource] 2013. 1.0 pp. - access mode: https://archi.ru/agency/news_current.html?nid=45614; Meerovich M. G. Urbanism or desurbanism? Discussion about the future of Soviet cities. [Electronic resource] / M. G. Meerovich // Architecton: news of universities. - 2012. - No. 1 (37). - Access mode: https://archvuz.ru/2012_1/13 - in Russian. lang.
[20] In the same place. P. 113.
[21] Meshcheryakov N. About socialist cities M. OGIZ Young Guard. 1931 - 112 p., Pp. 97-98.
[22] Meshcheryakov N. Decree. op. P. 98.
[23] In the same place. P. 98.
[24] Milyutin N. On the problem of the social city // Bulletin of the Communist Academy. 1930. No. 42. p.109-147., P. 109-119., S. 113.
[25] In the same place. P. 113.
[26] Meshcheryakov N. Decree. op. P. 108.
[27] In the same place. P. 98.
[28] Research work of Giprogor // Communal business. 1931. No. 1, p. 112-114., S. 113.
[29] Sheinis D. I. In the struggle for the scientific substantiation of planning projects // Planning and construction of cities. 1934. No. 2 p.8-9., S. 8.
[30] Meerovich M. G. USSR as a Megaproject. Numerical regulations for the artificial formation of the population of social cities [electronic resource] 2008. 0.6 pp. - access mode:
[31] "On the formation of the People's Commissariat of Communal Services of the RSFSR" - Resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR dated July 20, 1931 / Housing laws. A systematic collection of the most important laws of the RSFSR and the USSR, departmental circulars, instructions and explanations of the people's commissariats and the Supreme Court and resolutions of the Moscow City Council. With chronological and alphabetic-subject indexes. Compiled by Bronstein N. I. M.: Edition of the NKKH RSFSR, 1935 - 660 p., Pp. 30-31.
[32] Information about the activities of this organization and its departmental affiliation has not yet been found.
[33] Experience of regional planning in the USSR Proceedings of the Bureau of Experimental Works. State Institute for City Planning Surveying and Civil Engineering Design "Giprogor". Issue II. M., Gosstroyizdat. 1934.-- 164 p., P. 5.
