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 II
Ideas and methodology
In conditions when, in order to implement the industrialization program, it was necessary to develop projects for hundreds of new settlements (social cities and workers' settlements) in the shortest possible time, the task of optimization, rationalization and, most importantly, acceleration of the design process arose naturally. "State Institute of Survey and Planning of Cities and Design of Civil Structures" (Giprogor) solves it by following the same path as its main competitor[1] - Design Bureau of Tsekombank, on the basis of which Standardproject was formed in 1931, transformed in 1933 into Gorstroyproekt - planning projects are "assembled" from ready-made standard "planning modules" (quarters). Each such module, based on line buildings (i.e., on the location of houses with their ends to the streets), includes the full range of service facilities prescribed by the standards, a system of boulevards that separated transport from buildings and green linear zones perpendicular to them, in which such objects are located primary services like school, club, etc. (Fig. 1, 2, 3).
This approach made it possible to avoid piecemeal planning of general plans, and instead focus on general design and planning and layout work in relation to the settlement as a whole. Because all the detailed calculations for each typical block and even the grouping of several blocks into a general planning area have already been carried out and "rolled up" into ready-made schemes.
This method - "assemblies from ready-made planning modules" greatly reduced the design time, while allowing, at the same time, to solve the most serious planning problems. First of all, by the fact that it made it possible, without a detailed drawing of the location of houses, without special design work, without drawing perspectives and other "artistry", to quickly sketch out compositions of planning schemes, defining those positions for which builders with shovels in their hands were already waiting for decisions: tracing roads and driveways; location of green areas; location of the main administrative buildings; the boundaries of the fragments, divided into rectangles, of the residential territory would be completely without drawing the location of houses, but, at the same time, with a fixed population size and already "sewn" into them the full required composition of service objects, etc. (Fig. 4). Layout schemes made up of such "blanks" - standard planning blocks, could be easily changed by moving the rectangles to other places and trying more and more new options for their layout as a whole or cutting out new pieces of territory in order to expand the building area as it grew the estimated population of the city.
Giprogor had several branches: Nizhegorodsky (Nizhny Novgorod / Gorky), Belorussky (Minsk), Krymsky (Simferopol), East Siberian (Irkutsk). According to archival materials, the Bashkir branch was opened in 1931[2], and in 1932 it already carried out design work on the design of the village at the Kotloturbinny plant in the Chernikovsky industrial hub, near Ufa[3]… In 1932, organizational work was carried out to open another - Kazakhstan branch[4]… There is information about the presence of Uralgiprogor[5](more precise information is not available). The largest branch was Leningradsky (Lengiprogor): director A. I. Vinogradov, technical director S. O. Ovsyannikov, Civil Engineering Sector: Head of Eng. Rozov, planning sector: head of eng. Klyuev, architects: A. K. Barutchev, A. K. Gilter, A. A. The Hatter, V. A. Gaikovich and others.[6]
In 1932, Giprogor took part in the competition for the design of the Palace of the Soviets. And quite successfully - the project was awarded the 3rd prize[7].
Many fragments of the history of the initial stage of Giprogor's activities are still plunged into the darkness of obscurity. So in the literature on the history of Soviet architecture, in fact, there is no information about the work of the German architect Hannes Mayer (in 1933-34) as part of Giprogor, who, according to available information, not only led the design and planning office No. 7 and was responsible for work on Eastern Siberia and the Far East, but also directly developed plans for the layouts of social cities and, in particular, Birobidzhan[8]… By the way, applying at the same time the Giprogorov method of planning layout of the general plan from standard planning blocks-rectangles (Fig. 5,6). and based on the principles of organizing the system of public and cultural services developed within the walls of Giprogor (Fig. 7).
Here is what Mayer himself wrote about his work within the walls of Giprogor: “The composition of my current planning group in Moscow Giprogor can serve as an excellent example of uniting people with different individual mindsets into one team. The first member of our team, a 23-year-old urban planner, is a Russian who, in self-criticism, says about himself that he is “devoid of imagination” (ie prejudice). He is a well-oriented worker, a skilled draftsman and performer, well acquainted with chemistry and an athletics enthusiast. The second comrade is an athlete and a former Red Army soldier, he is 27 years old, an architect, a Siberian, a good practitioner-builder, his strong point is standardization; he is devoid of "artistic flair" and "dry" as a civil engineer, but very musical. The third is a 47-year-old economist, a type of highly educated Petersburg intellectual of the pre-war period, a methodological researcher, pedantic and conscientious with a critical mind and literary inclinations … "[9]… From archival documents it was possible to find out that on a business trip to the Far East to coordinate the project of the social city of Birobidzhan, G. Mayer came with his Giprogorov colleagues: senior economist I. P. Lebedinsky and engineer-architect D. A. Gandurin[10]… It can be assumed that the “47-year-old pedantic and conscientious economist” is I. P. Lebedinsky, and “the 27-year-old architect, a good practitioner-builder” - D. A. Gandurin.
Russian architectural historiography also completely lacks any information about the participation of Americans in the design work of Giprogor. Soviet architects - employees of Giprogor of those years, did not leave any evidence of a memoir about this. The relevant documents have not yet been found in the archives. However, the German architect R. Wolters, who worked in the early 1930s. in the USSR, wrote about the existence in Moscow of two groups of foreign designers who preached fundamentally different approaches to urban planning. He called these groups "Russo-Americans" and "Russo-Germans." "Ruso-Germans", most likely, were from Standartgorproekt (this is E. May and members of his brigade). And the "Russo-Americans", according to Walters, are from Giprogor. Walters wrote: “Unfortunately, the energy of the architects of Giprogor was not particularly focused on ensuring that the plans of individual villages were functionally interconnected with the city as a whole. Instead, with a frowning forehead, they poked a thick pencil at architectural details. It is known that our Russian-American city planners love beautiful geometric master plans with a rectangular grid of streets, axes, and star-shaped squares. Chicago! One gets the impression that these Americans arrived in Russia through the Bering Strait, knowing nothing about the urban development revolution in Europe that began 30 years ago."
R. Wolters stated his assessment of the influence that the American planning school had on the activities of the Giprogorov designers with extreme toughness: “The Americans brought a stiff school of urban planning to Russia, and it is gaining the upper hand, especially becausethat for all architectural details from the highest authority in Moscow, the "classical style" was prescribed as the only possible one: star-shaped plans and Greek facades! "[11]… He noted the growing tendency to substitute, when making planning decisions, functional priorities, introduced from above by the artistic and stylistic templates of the Stalinist Empire: “I was angry ad infinitum when they told me, like other German urban planners in Russia, that the master plan was undoubtedly functioning. good, but the architecture is bad and boring … "[12].
The range of works performed by Giprogor in the early 1930s. very wide. So, in 1933, the institute accepted for implementation the following types of design, pre-design and related activities:
- By the shooting sector: 1) the production of basic geodetic works in cities, resorts, villages; 2) drawing up estimates for geoworks; 3) drawing up plans based on the customer's materials; 4) printing plans by lithographic method; 5) production of detailed works; 6) transfer of planning projects to nature; 7) expertise on shooting issues;
- by the sector of planning of settlements: 1) drawing up projects of district planning; 2) sanitary and technical and economic surveys; 3) selection of sites for the construction of social cities; 4) planning projects for new social cities, resorts, pioneer towns and reconstruction of existing ones; 5) projects of detailed development of squares, streets, city districts and their architectural treatment; 6) vertical planning projects; 7) parks of culture and recreation; 8) development of scientific assignments on planning issues;
- in the sector of design of civil structures: 1) implementation of technical, working projects and plumbing equipment (heating, ventilation, water supply, sewerage and hot water supply), preparation of preliminary and general production estimates, as well as plumbing work on civil structures: a) public, b) administrative, c) educational, d) housing, e) hospital and sanatorium, f) communal, g) special design of mechanical stage equipment and electric lighting.
Design and estimate orders were accepted for execution "both in individual and in complex design of objects and social cities."
In 1933, in addition to the ongoing projects in Vladivostok, Gorky, Alma-Ata, Novosibirsk and Baku, planning work was added in the cities: Astrakhan, Bobriki, Bryansk, Bezhitsa, Aviagorod No. 124 (for 350,000 people) and Aviagorod No. 126 (for 20,000 people), Birobidzhan, Lipetsk, Khibinogorsk, Kandalaksha, Kostroma, Vologda. Kem, Verkhneudinsk, Veliky Ustyug, Gomel, Derbent, Zvanka, Petropavlovsk, Petrozavodsk, Zelenodolsk, Syktyvkar, Kotlas, Kazan, Nukus, Narofominsk, Novorossiysk, Rybinsu, Perm, Sokol, Sevastopol, Sukhumi, Ulyanovsk, Khodjent,, Yartsevo, Zelenodolsk, Krasnoyarsk, etc. The previous work continued on Sinarstroy, Tula, Bolshoi Ufa, the southern coast of Crimea and Baku, as well as new ones - according to the layouts of industrial units and large factories: the Cheremkhovsky basin (Cherembass), the Buryat steam locomotive and engine-building plants No. С-154[13].
The sector of civil structures in 1933 was working on the design of: a) houses of culture (Sestroretsk), b) hospitals (Murmansk), c) residential buildings and residential areas (Arkhangelsk, Murmansk, Luga), d) bath and laundry plants (Kazan, Bologoye), e) hotels (Makhach-Kala, Luga, Bologoye), f) government houses and council houses, g) culture houses (Engelsk, Zapolyarny, Krasnogvardeysk, Izhora, Sestroretsk), h) museums, and) libraries, k) clubs, l) canteens, l) hostels, n) peasant houses, etc.[14]
The institute was constantly experiencing a shortage of specialists. So, according to the industrial and financial plan for 1932, Giprogor needed 1615 people to carry out the planned work. And the actual number of employees of the institute during this period was only 1230 people, that is, almost a quarter less than necessary. The need for qualified personnel remained very acute all the time. The institute also needed at least 400 specialists, who were simply nowhere to be found. Realizing this problem, the leadership of Giprogor launched its own educational work: “In order to overcome the lack of qualified labor … educational work covered in 1932 606 people, of which 519 people are trained as topographers and technicians, 84 people. - study at MGI and 3 people. are trained in the architectural and construction school "[15]… In general, in 1933 the institute has over 1,500 employees. In 1934, in order to improve the qualifications of employees in Giprogor, they were organized into successfully functioning circles: a) drawing and watercolors, b) styles and compositions, c) advanced training of design technicians and even d) foreign languages[16].
In total in 1933-1934. the institute had about 1000 employees[17]… At the beginning of 1934, within the framework of the nationwide system of measures to “bring design to construction”, the management structures of all design institutes in the country began to be optimized - “intermediate administrative bodies were eliminated”. In the first half of 1934, NKKH abolished the territorial branches of subordinate design institutes and, among other things, liquidated all branches of Giprogor. The remaining Moscow branch of the institute consisted of 13 design and planning offices[18], and in the Leningrad branch, turned into the Leningrad branch, there were 7 design and planning offices[19].
In the second half of 1934, it was decided to merge the central Giprogor (Moscow) and the Leningrad branch of Giprogor. Moreover, with the transfer of the leadership of Giprogor from Moscow to Leningrad. Two of the architectural and planning workshops that operated as part of Giprogor (heads: N. Z. Nessis and V. N. Semenov) were, under the pretext of this decision, removed from its structure and subordinated directly to the NKKH of the RSFSR[20]… Design and planning bureaus of the Leningrad branch of Giprogor during this period were headed by: No. 1 - I. I. Malozemov, No. 2 - N. V. Baranov and V. A. Gaikovich, no. 3 - S. O. Ovsyannikov, No. 4 - V. P. Yakovlev, No. 5 - N. A. Solofnenko, No. 6 - A. K. Barutchev and others.[21]
Despite the reorganization, the transfer of employees from Moscow to Leningrad, and the almost insurmountable difficulties associated with the lack of housing and working space in Leningrad, Giprogor in 1934 managed to pull off a significant amount of planning work. In 88 (!) Settlements[22]… For shooting, these are objects such as: Engelsk, Smolensk, Skopin, Proektzavodtrans, Ramenskoye, UVT, Mosnarpit, Kineshma, State farm of the Upper Volga region, ISO OGPU, Alma-Ata, Irkutsk, Soroka, Dvigatelstroy, Vologda, Chimkent, Sochi, Kurgan, Orsk, Petropavlovsk-on-Kamchatka. According to the layout - such cities as: Zvanka, Kostroma, Pskov, Perm-Molotovo, Yaroslavl, Yarrak, Minsk, Chelyabinsk, Luga, Druzhnaya Gorka, Borovichi, Murmansk, Mogilev, Khibinogorsk, Kandalaksha, Aleksandrovsk on the island. Sakhalin, Petrozavodsk, Bologoye, Syktyvkar, Arkhangelsk, Kazan, Ulan-Ude, Gomel, Rybinsk, Gorky, Ufa, Baku, Birobidzhan, Novorossiysk, Novosibirsk, Smolensk, Sochi, Irkutsk, Sinarstroy, Cherembass, Stalinogorsk, Lipetsk and others.[23]
Carrying out design work, Giprogor was constantly faced with a situation typical for the period of the first half of the 1930s. - the lack of the necessary pre-design data and, in particular, the almost complete absence of systematic information about the "geological structure of the area, the state of soils, the level of groundwater, the direction and strength of winds at different times of the year, the flooding of the banks, their washing, etc."[24]… In the early years of Giprogor's activity (1930/1931), the feasibility study of planning decisions was poorly delivered, in fact, it was simply absent.[25]… They wrote about this openly in those years: “Leafing through the works of those years, you see … here is Izhevsk, where a description of all the natural conditions of the territory is devoted to half a page of the text, where an entire area of the city (District) is characterized as low-lying and swampy, without specifying the nature of swampiness, about its boundaries, about possible and necessary measures for land reclamation. Here is Pavlovo, Klintsy, Balakhna, where issues of geology and hydrogeology, issues of stability of building soils, issues of standing groundwater were either completely out of sight of the surveyors or were covered extremely superficially, generally, without giving almost specific instructions on the planning and arrangement of a populated area, on identification of the necessary technical measures to eliminate unfavorable natural conditions. In the Pavlovo and Klints projects, the economic justification described the current situation, and the development prospects were determined by the applications of the heads of industrial enterprises for the next three years. Here is Mineft, which lacked basic data on the prospects for the development of oil production, logging, tobacco production - the main factors that determine the development of this populated area. In many projects of this period, outside of the projected object for the planner there was an empty space, the unknown City was taken torn off, isolated from the area, from its raw materials, transport conditions … "[26].
The efforts of the institute leadership in the first half of the 1930s were aimed at correcting this shortcoming. Actually, the lack of verified initial pre-design data forced Giprogor to form a powerful film crew, and regularly involve specialized research institutes and individual highly qualified specialists for field surveys.[27].
However, the widespread involvement of specialized scientific research organizations in the design immediately led to the emergence of a new problem associated with the cooperation of specialists in various fields within the framework of complex design work. It was the problem of transferring special knowledge from prospectors to architects-planners and the choice of a method for interpreting natural data to adapt them to direct use in design: “the work of special institutes provided material that was factual, reliable, but overloaded with scientific information, without a certain purposefulness and without specific conclusions and practical instructions necessary for the planning and arrangement of a populated area. Meanwhile, meteorological observations are not needed for planning "in general", but for determining the most expedient location of residential areas in relation to industrial areas (taking into account the prevailing winds), for choosing the most expedient orientation of streets in order to ventilate them, or, conversely, with prevailing strong winds in order to weaken and braking the force of the winds. Geological and hydrological surveys must be carried out for the needs of planning, too, not "in general", but to determine the stability of soils, the level of groundwater, to determine the sources of water supply "[28].
Linking certain types of work: pre-design, design, engineering, etc. constituted the content of that methodological comprehension of the design process, to which the most serious attention was paid within the walls of Giprogor. And it gave its results. So, in the report to the 16th All-Russian Congress of Soviets, impressive words are given about the activities for three years (from 1931 to 1934) of urban planning organizations that are part of the national system of design business. And a significant role in achieving these results belonged directly to Giprogor: “Over the past three years, a network of design and planning organizations of republican, regional and city significance has been created in the RSFSR, which employs up to 600 highly qualified specialists (architects, engineers) and up to 400 people of average qualifications (technicians, surveyors, etc.). This made it possible to cover up to 240 cities and workers' settlements with planning works. In addition, in the same year, work began on the planning of entire districts: Tagilo-Kushvinsky, Stalin, Orsko-Khalilovsky, Sochi-Matsestinsky, South Coast of Crimea, etc. As a result, the RSFSR has planning materials for 150 cities (139 schemes and 37 planning projects) "[29]… True, published in the same year, an article by S. M. Gorny. brought a touch of realism to the bravura of this report - they grabbed at a lot, but did only a little: “During its existence (that is, from 1930 to 1934 - MM) Giprogor developed planning projects for about 150 cities. Completed 5. Approved one "[30].
* * *
In the first years of its existence, Giprogor turned into the undisputed leader of the nationwide system of design business in the USSR, the flagship of domestic urban planning. The design work of the institute, as a rule, was based on preliminary conceptual-theoretical and methodological studies, carried out on their own or through the involvement of research institutes and individual highly qualified specialists from outside. Giprogor not only created demonstration projects, looked for solutions to very difficult settling problems, set patterns for organizing production activities. But in his daily work on the architectural and planning study of the concept of social settlement, the theory of the social city, the typology of the social housing, he formed that urban planning foundation, without which the practical implementation of the urban planning component of the industrialization program would be impossible.
Developed within the walls of Giprogor, the method for calculating the normative size of the population of social cities and social settlements, called the "labor balance method", became the basis for the entire nationwide system of design institutes for civil engineering.
"Quarter", designed in various versions and schemes, turned into the main unit of the planning structure of social cities, in which the following were calculated and planned, balanced among themselves: a) population size, b) population density, c) composition and capacity of service facilities, d) the area of green spaces, e) the capacity of sports, economic and other zones, etc.
Many ideas, born with the participation of the leadership of Giprogor, remained unrealized. For example, a proposal to create a Central State Archive of Civil and Housing Construction Projects. The creation of such an archive was prescribed back in August 1930 by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR: “… to organize at the said institute (Giprogor - MM) a single project archive of the RSFSR for civil construction, entrusting this archive with collecting and storing projects, supplying developers with the necessary design materials, consultation on the selection of a project, selection for publication of standard and recommended projects, the release of catalogs and publication of the project materials received in the archive "[31]… This prescription was only partially implemented - by the beginning of 1931, an extensive collection of projects had already been formed in Giprogor under the name "Unified State Library of Non-Industrial Construction Projects"[32]… The board of Giprogor and the leadership of the GUKH strove to assign the library the high status of the "Central State Archive" and insisted on giving Giprogor the right to "voluntarily and compulsorily" withdraw, in order to replenish the archive's funds, from all design organizations of the country, actual design materials. Moreover, this initiative found support at the government level - the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR dated March 4, 1931, No. 282 ordered all design organizations to transfer all completed projects to Giprogor "according to his selection" within a 2-decade period, and in the future it is mandatory to provide those to the Central Archives within 10 days after the completion of their development[33]… However, it was not possible to bring this decision to full implementation and the Giprogorov library did not turn into a really functioning nationwide collection of general plans and architectural projects.
Another large-scale initiative was the idea of director Giprogor Lazarev to combine all republican filming and planning works in the Giprogor system, as well as to combine the design of residential and public buildings from which planning structures will be assembled during the development of general plans. Realizing this idea, the Board of the GUKH on March 12, 1931 decided to enter the government level with a proposal to transform "planning, design and geodetic bureaus and offices of local, regional and regional communal bodies" into branches of Giprogor. This initiative also failed to come true.
In May 1931, VORS under the NK RFKI USSR, together with the Communist Academy and Giprogor, planned to convene the First All-Union Congress on Socialist Planning and Urban Reconstruction. The congress was canceled due to, as it was officially announced: "unpreparedness for it of some of the main organizations"[34]… The exhibition formed for the congress functioned for a month, and with those delegates who nevertheless came to the congress, conferences were held on a number of objects (Stalingrad, Kuznetsk, Scheglovsk, Tashkent, Moscow)[35]… In November 1931, a decision was made to replace the failed congress to convene an International Congress on Urban Planning in Moscow, inviting about 100 representatives from different countries, union republics, all architectural societies of the USSR, research institutes of the USSR, the Communist Academy, the Academy of Public Utilities. On February 14, 1932, at the All-Union Council for Communal and Housing Affairs under the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, at a meeting with representatives of architectural organizations to discuss the work plan of the congress, three main issues were raised, which in recent years have been actively worked out in scientific and methodological terms within the walls of Giprogor: 1) reconstruction of cities; 2) planning of new cities; 3) district planning[36].
However, the announcement on February 28, 1932 of the results of the second round of the competition for the Palace of Soviets and the release on April 23, 1932 of the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) "On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations", dramatically changed the situation of organizing the congress, because the decision of the Council for the construction of the Palace Soviets under the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, which caused bewilderment of prominent representatives of the Western architectural community and even their indignant letters to the Soviet leadership, questioned the possibility of inviting them to the USSR to participate in the Congress, and the dissolution of creative groups made it impossible to clearly understand who should represent a consolidated opinion communities of Soviet architects. The newly created "Union of Soviet Architects" was not yet ready for this mission - during this period it was just beginning to develop work on the formation of governing bodies, the development of a single "ideology of creativity", the development of statutory and other documents regulating its activities, forms of work with privates architects, etc.
Comprehension of the project experience accumulated by Giprogorm from the first years of its large-scale activity was the basis for the development of a number of instructions and normative documents that subsequently regulated the work of all design organizations in the country. The methodological content of the design process is more developed within the walls of the institute (as well as in another largest organization in the country - Standartgorproekt - a constant competitor of Giprogor, which was subordinate to the Supreme Council of the National Economy)[37]: a) sequence, b) staging, c) the boundaries and content of each of the stages, d) the content of technical and economic notes, etc., formed the basis of the design methodology set forth in the most important regulatory document at that time - NKKH Instructions dated 22.07. 1933.
The methodological postulates, formulated within the walls of Giprogor, formed the substantive basis of the state profession, which was rapidly developing in the USSR - “urban planner”.
[1] For more details see M. G. Meerovich. 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 № 2. 2011. P. 132-143; Meerovich M. G. At the forefront of the titan clash. Giprogor and Standartproekt // Modern architecture No. 3. 2012. P. 158-165; Meerovich M. G. At the forefront of the titan clash. [electronic resource] / Meerovich M. G. // Intellectual Russia. Intellectual Russia (INTELROS). Access mode:
[2] GARF. F. A-314, Op. 1, D. 6958.-- 80 p., L. 2.
[3] Layout of industrial areas. Promstroyproekt. District planning sector. Works 1932-1933 NKTP USSR. ONTI Gosstroyizdat. 1934.-- 64 p., P. 13.
[4] GARF. F. A-314, Op. 1, D. 756.-- 85 p., L. 2.
[5] // Planning and construction of cities. 1933. No. 5.
[6] Kazus I. A. Diss. … Decree. op. P. 652.
[7] GARF. F. A-314, Op. 1, D. 756.-- 85 p. Production and financial plan of the State Trust for the design of civil construction, planning and surveying of populated areas "Giprogor" of the People's Commissariat of the RSFSR for 1932. 1932. Sheet 10.
[8] Iosif Brener. The city that was never built: The Swiss architect Hannes Meyer and his project for a "Jewish socialist city in the Lesser Khingan foothills". Mizrekh. Jewish Studies in the Far East. Iudaika na Dal'nem Vostoke. Ber Boris Kotlerman (ed.) Published by Peter Lang Frankfurt. Peter Lang AG ∙ International Academic Publishers. 2009, - p. 284, p. 117-139., P. 123; Meyer G. How I Work // Architecture of the USSR. 1933. No. 6.
[9] Meyer G. How I Work // Architecture of the USSR. 1933. No. 6.
[10] Brener I. S. The City That Was Not Built: Swiss Architect Hannes Mayer and His Project of a “Jewish Social City” at the Foot of the Little Khingan”The first volume of the collection“Mizrekh - Judaica in the Far East. Series: "Meetings: Studies on Jewish Studies" International Scientific Publishing House Peter Lang. Frankfurt. Germany. 2009.-- 284 p., Pp. 117-139.
[11] Walters R. Specialist in Siberia. Novosibirsk. Svinin and Sons. 2010.-253 p., P. 126.
[12] In the same place. S. 123 - 124.
[13] GARF. F. A-314. Op. 1, D. 6933.-- 9 p. Reports and information on the activities of the Giprogor Institute and its Leningrad branch for 1933. 1933. L. 1-4, 8.
[14] GARF. F. A-314. Op. 1, D. 6933.-- 9 p. Reports and information on the activities of the Giprogor Institute and its Leningrad branch for 1933. 1933. L. 4-6.
[15] GARF. F. A-314, Op. 1, D. 756.-- 85 p., L. 9.
[16] GARF. F. A-314, Op. 1, D. 6958.-- 80 p., L. 16.
[17] GARF. F. A-314, Op. 1, D. 6958.-- 80 p., L. 7.
[18] GARF. F. A-314, Op. 1, D. 756. - 85 p., L. 5. In addition, the organizational structure of Giprogor (Moscow) includes: "auxiliary production enterprises": geodetic service, geobase, carpentry and binding, lithography, photography, glass printing, central archive, architectural planning office (Ibid. L. 5)
[19] GARF. F. A-314, Op. 1, D. 6958.-- 80 p., L. 5.
[20] Kazus I. A. Diss. … Decree. op. P. 652.
[21] In the same place. P. 652.
[22] GARF. F. A-314, Op. 1, D. 6958.-- 80 p., L. 3.
[23] In the same place. L. 10.
[24] 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.
[25] In the same place. P. 8.
[26] In the same place. P. 8.
[27] In the same place. P. 8.
[28] In the same place. P. 8.
[29] Planning of cities for the 16th All-Russian Congress of Soviets // Planning and construction of cities. 1934. No. 10 / s. 1-2., P. 1.
[30] Gorny S. M. On the quality of planning work // Architecture of the USSR. 1934. No. 10 p. 28-31.. S. 30.
[31] SU of the RSFSR. 1930. No. 37. Art. 474. S. 587-591.
[32] Kazus I. A. Soviet architecture of the 1920s: design organization. - M.: Progress-Tradition, 2009.-- 464 p., Ill. C.202.
[33] About the plan of housing and communal construction for 1931 and the measures for its implementation. Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR. March 4, 1931 // Communal Affairs. 1931. No. 2-3. from. 104-107, p. 105.
[34] Khazanova V. E. Soviet architecture of the first five-year plan. Decree. op. P. 156.
[35] // Bulletin of the Communist Academy. 1931. No. 7. P. 71. See also MZ. Towards the first congress on socialist planning and urban reconstruction // Planned economy. 1931. No. 6. p. 3-5.
[36] // Soregor. 1932. No. 1. P. 15.
[37] Meerovich M. G. Methodology of accelerated urban planning design by E. May // Architectural heritage / otv. ed. I. A. Bondarenko. Issue No. 59. - M.: KomKniga, 2013. P. 141-172.
