From the history of Soviet architecture. Based on materials from the Russian State Archives of Literature and Art (RGALI).
On August 30, 1937, Pravda [1], the country's most important newspaper, the organ of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, published an article by L. Savelyev and O. Stapran entitled: “The Life and Work of the Architect Shchusev”, formally, as it were, dedicated to important issue of copyright in architecture. It says that in 1932 the project of the hotel "Moscow", the sole authors of which were L. Savelyev and O. Stapran, won a closed competition, was awarded and accepted for construction by the Moscow City Council, and the authors were appointed chief architects of the building. In the course of the work, A. V. was involved in the construction as a consultant. Shchusev.
The prehistory of this "consultation", a few days later (September 3, 1937), was described by M. V. Kryukov at a meeting of the party group of the Union of Soviet Architects “It is interesting to remember how Shchusev got to the design of the hotel. After all, the design began under Cherkassky. He entrusted this to Savelyev and Stapran, who were still inexperienced architects, they did not have a single construction site and, of course, it was impossible to start designing with such a huge structure. This was wrong and the inexperience of Savelyev and Stapran was immediately revealed when they brought the project to the competition. Lazar Moiseevich (Kaganovich - MM) told them: "You guys are good, but you still need to learn and need someone to help you." For a very long time, Zholtovsky was persuaded to do this, he kept throwing himself out and, in the end, Shchusev took up the construction of the hotel as a consultant, and then there was already an Archplan and several options appeared. Lazar Moiseevich tried to persuade the youth, when she was cockerel, that they should work under the leadership of Shchusev, and Shchusev pointed out that he should only advise”[2].
According to L. Savelyev and O. Stapran, A. V. Shchusev was not satisfied with such a role and demanded "co-authorship in the project, the position of the project manager, unlimited powers and the right of the first signature." His illegal demands were satisfied, but this only led to the fact that A. V. Shchusev began to try to "get rid of the main authors." So, in particular, taking advantage of their absence (being on a business trip abroad), he published, with his first signature, in the magazines "Construction of Moscow" and "Architecture of the USSR" interior decoration projects, made, as L. Savelyev and O. Stapran wrote in the article, exclusively by them. In the same journals A. V. Shchusev only signed sketches for the design of the Moscow hotel restaurant, without indicating that they were made according to the sketches of the artist Matrunin.
Further, the authors of the article in Pravda write that in order to become the “complete” owner of the project, A. V. Shchusev succeeded in liquidating the design bureau of the Moscow Hotel. And he categorically forbade anyone (including L. Savelyev and O. Stapran) to put any information in print. After that, all conversations and articles about the project went only on his behalf and under his signature. In the end, by his direct order, the signatures of the true authors were removed from the projects of the second and third stages, i.e. Savelyev and Staprana. By the way, the article notes that this is not the only such case - shortly before that, in winter, on the direct orders of Shchusev, the signature of his co-author, architect S. Sardaryan, was removed from the Moskvoretsky bridge project in the same way.
This is the essence of the question posed by the authors of the article. The text was accompanied by statements such as: “We, non-partisan Soviet architects, cannot speak without a feeling of deep indignation about Shchusev, known among architects for his anti-Soviet, counter-revolutionary sentiments. It is characteristic that the closest people to him were dark personalities like Luzan, Aleksandrov, Shukhaev, now arrested by the NKVD. These phrases had nothing to do with the essence of the issue and were a reflection of the gloomy structure of stylistics and phraseology typical for denunciations of that time.
At the beginning of the article there was a general reproach to A. V. Shchusev in the fact that he treated his creative work “dishonestly - he took on a lot of all kinds of work and, since he could not do them himself, he actually resorted to an entreprise in architecture …”, and towards the end - a strict reminder to the reader about the fact that architecture in the Soviet Union is "… not a private affair of architects and entrepreneurs …", but a state one …
This, in short, is the content of the article, after the publication of which, the events related to "the life and work of the architect Shchusev" began to develop at a rapid pace. Immediately, just two days later (September 2), again in Pravda, a new article appeared with a selection of letters from readers who reacted to the article by L. Savelyev and O. Stapran [3].
Here is its main content: “Being an undoubted master in the past - wrote a group of architects Lopovok, Tarasevich, Baidalinova, Oleinik, Kastel, Tkachenko and Kutukov, - the architect Shchusev went down the slippery path of unprincipled architecture. In his projects and construction sites, there is no ideological, principled and genuine creativity. " The former party organizer of the Moscow hotel design bureau, architect P. Skulachev, told the general reading public that he knew about Shchusev's “anti-Soviet, counter-revolutionary sentiments, in particular, about his statements about socialist competition:“socialist competition is for diggers, not for architects ". The civil engineer N. Shestopal pointed out that the closure of architectural competitions (apparently, directly through the fault of Alexei Viktorovich) often turned into a distribution of orders between "venerable" and "familiar" architects. The author of the letter with all adherence to principles raised the question of the need to more often hold open competitions "which nominate new cadres of architects and help the overall growth of architectural and social culture."
The article ended with the following paragraph: “Of all those who read the letter, Comrades. Savelyev and Stapran about the life and work of the architect Shchusev, only one person did not understand the meaning of what was published in Pravda - it was the architect Shchusev himself. In response to the letter, he sent a cheeky telegram to the editorial office, in which he tried to deny the obvious facts. In vain. The architectural community will be able to appreciate the work of Shchusev."
Note that only one of the correspondents, Chechulin, spoke on the merits of the issue raised by the article by Stapran and Savelyev: "Infringement of the copyright of young specialists," he wrote, "is unworthy of a real master." This is the only statement related to the topic of the article. Neither other newspaper materials, nor substantive grounds for the analysis of A. V. Shchusev at the meeting, first of the party group of the USSR SSA, and then of the board of the Union of Soviet Architects, the problems raised in the article were absolutely not touched upon. It is curious to note that the article in Pravda managed to sagaciously anticipate the results of discussions on this issue by the party group of the Union of Soviet Architects, which will meet to consider the “Shchusev issue” twice - on September 2 and 3.
The leadership of the Union of Soviet Architects not only personally analyzed A. V. Shchusev, but also invited all its local organizations to do the same: “The Union Party group invites all local organizations, based on the materials published in Pravda, to hold a broad discussion of the activities of the architect Shchusev, decisively exposing the shortcomings and painful phenomena in the work as design organizations in general, and individual architects …”[4]. “We must send a letter to all our organizations so that they discuss the issue of Shchusev in their organizations. … if we are at our best in this work, and we must take such a position, we will also strengthen the Union of Soviet Architects, raise the role and importance of the Soviet architect … "[5].
Key in understanding the course and content of the proceedings in the personal case of A. V. Shchusev in the Union of Soviet Architects (as well as the key in understanding the outcome of this whole "story with Shchusev") is the idea of the goals that the Union set for itself at that time and the tasks that it was solving to assert its exclusive role in organizing the professional community and its status in the system of government bodies as a unified nationwide system of mass design business in architecture and urban planning in the USSR.
For this, the Union of Soviet Architects:
1. He strove to optimize the system of mass design business in the direction of strengthening its production function. He had to consolidate in the minds of the architects who filled it with the understanding that an architect is, first of all, a “civil servant”, and then already a “creative person”. Within the framework of the mass system of design work, the project worker must fulfill the duties assigned to him, and not engage in the discussion of the conditions for their implementation, which was allowed by some "arrogant" masters of Soviet architecture. So, in the resolution of the meeting of the party group of the All-Union and Moscow administrations of the Union of Soviet Architects dated September 2, 1937 on the discussion of material published in the newspaper Pravda about the activities of the architect A. V. Shchusev worked on this topic especially: “The government entrusted Shchusev with a responsible job - the management of the largest design workshop in Moscow. Shchusev not only did not create a creative team from this workshop, but by all means tried to turn it from a state organization into a personal, his own workshop, in which he could act as a full-fledged owner - an architectural entrepreneur”[6].
An architect as a civil servant - a "proletarian of project labor" - had to work in the place indicated to him and receive exactly the same salary as he should receive in this place according to the staffing table. The struggle for strict rationing of the amount of material remuneration for project work was one of the main areas of confrontation between the "old" ("creative") and "new" ("production") approaches to the organization of project activities. And if before - within the framework of the "creative" approach - for the project work performed they were accountable to their immediate supervisor, then the "production" was based on a strict daily routine ("and not as before, when they were going to work at 11 o'clock in the afternoon and worked until deep night "), a fixed salary, a clear staffing table. To ensure this, design organizations had to introduce "factory discipline" [7]. In such a system, the personal determination of wages by the manager, when at the end of the month the manager calculated the personal contribution of each team member and personally handed each a sealed envelope with the salary, was unacceptable.
The analysis of the personal case of A. V. Shchusev was aimed not so much at Shchusev as at streamlining the situation in the national system of the project business as a whole. Thus, in the resolution of the expanded meeting of the party group of the All-Union and Moscow administrations of the Union of Soviet Architects, it was generalized: “The materials published in Pravda about the activities of the architect Shchusev expose not only Shchusev, but at the same time are a serious and formidable warning for all who, like Shchusev, continue to work by methods the old architect of the contractor … businesslike … "[8].
During this period, masters of Soviet architecture could afford to "dig into orders" - to choose which ones were interesting to them (including in terms of earnings, and which ones were not.) They could afford to refuse to work on "ordinary orders", which were just The authorities felt an acute need to regulate, establish on a national scale just massive, ordinary, everyday design and strictly restrain the "businessmen from architecture."
2. During this period, the Union of Soviet Architects formed a vertical of creative management within the framework of the system of mass design business. To do this, he had to approve the formal organizational principles of mass project activity: plan, deadline, staff, rates, order, and so on. A project worker had to strictly fit into such an order, no matter at what level of the official hierarchy he worked - as a leader or an ordinary grassroots executor.
Early-mid 1930s in the architecture of the USSR - this is the beginning of the "revolution of generations", when those who were able to organize themselves and others in accordance with state tasks and the ideology of mass design production came to the leadership of the architectural profession and began to take into their own hands party-administrative power. As a result, people who understood the difference between a “private design workshop” and a “state” one more and more came to receive orders, to occupy managerial positions, to design significant objects during this period. Those who were able to meet the formal organizational requirements (plan, deadline, etc.), and not those who were so creatively filled that they were ready to do and redo the project as many times as required by the project theme; as much as was needed to obtain a high-quality result, and not as much as time was allotted according to the work plan of the design institute.
Masters of Soviet architecture - architects of the old school - are accustomed to working in the system of "master" - "apprentices" relations, independently forming creative groups and, if necessary, freely attracting them to one-time specific work (draw a perspective, work out plans, detail the facades of ready-made projects) the performers needed for this project. Already with this alone, they ignored the rules for the functioning of the system of mass project business, which was based on stable labor collectives, on approved states and job descriptions, on payroll funds planned at the end of the previous year, on orders for hiring and approval in positions signed by higher management. They tried to ignore the basic principles of remuneration by providing financial incentives for employees instead of a fixed payment - by distributing to workshop members at the end of the month or after the completion of the work, their salary (which was determined by themselves) in envelopes. They ignored the rules under which the selection of employees is the exclusive prerogative of the triumvirate: 1) the administration, 2) the party cell, and 3) the trade union organization. They ignored the rules under which official posts, benefits, incentives (in particular, getting a prestigious job and, as a result, high wages, bonuses, etc.) were the leading levers of management in the work collective. When the timing of projects was determined not by creative inspiration, but by the timetable. Without strict adherence to these rules, the system lost its “leadership / control” function and, as a result, ceased to be “state”. That is why, in the transcript of a meeting of the party group of the Union of Soviet Architects on the analysis of a critical article by architects Savelyev and Stapran about the activities of A. V. Shchusev, published in the newspaper "Pravda", were tracked, recorded and incriminated to Alexei Viktorovich precisely these moments: "… A. V. Shchusev during the leadership of workshop No. 2 of the Moscow City Council … did not deliver a single project on time. He, as a rule, releases projects with a delay of up to a year”[9].
Project worker, in matters of personnel selection, distribution of project work, etc. must comply with the rules established in the system, and not discuss (and, moreover, not cancel) them. The Union of Soviet Architects as the main structure of leadership of the "creative component" of the system of mass design business was formed, among other things, in order to severely punish those who "were a monopolist in the main issues of the workshop, in the selection of personnel, in the distribution of workload and wages”[10], those who“… recruited people who were not listed in any of the workshop states, at the same time they received a salary, they signed invoices …”[11]. In the minutes of the meeting of the party group, it was noted with indignation that his daughter, son, son-in-law worked in Shchusev's workshop.
At a meeting of the party group of the Union of Soviet Architects on the analysis of a critical article by architects Savelyev and Stapran about the activities of A. V. Shchusev, published in the newspaper "Pravda", A. V. Shchusev was accused of the fact that during the organization of the workshop [12] he declared: “What kind of workshop is this if I don’t have a box with money behind my back, from which I could take money with my own hands and give it to one of my workers who looks bad, give him the opportunity to feed his wife …”[13]. One of the main reproaches was: "Shchusev's method of work … is the same as he worked in the past, he … did not learn anything else" [14].
The Soviet system did not forgive people who encroached on its essential characteristics, people who rejected the principles of its structure: “… on the instructions of the Soviet Control Commission, we came to the workshop to check how the law on wages was applied … we took the liberty to ask why here, at Kuznetsky Most, in the architectural workshop no state rates are applied and the wages that are required by law are not applied … "[15].
3. The Union of Soviet Architects during this period optimized the system of mass design business in the direction of strengthening its production function. To do this, he had to put the performer in a subordinate position, just as it was done, for example, in the system of industrial production - the state system of design business was just an element of the national mechanism for managing people and in this sense it should not differ in any way from other elements … A project worker should have understood, just as clearly as a collective farmer or a worker on an assembly line, that if he did not fulfill his “production task,” he would be fired and would inevitably lose all means of subsistence, as well as a roof over his head. And this position was supposed to act as the best self-regulator in the choice of the employee of the correct manner of labor behavior and action.
Hiring an employee, keeping him in the service, his dismissal - these are production policy issues that should have been resolved at the level of the director, personnel officer (or a representative of the secret department), party committee, and not the “master of architecture”. These are questions of personnel policy. And some "outstanding Soviet architects" show outrageous willfulness: "Golts does not take a single party member … two Komsomol members working in the workshop, Shchusev called foundlings … he raised the question of removing them from the workshop, since he does not need these people … Burov scolds the communists with square words and all kinds of facial expressions, grimaces, tries to bring bad criticism to them …”[16].
Those "Soviet architects" who do not understand or do not accept the introduced order, who (for the sake of the design business or for personal reasons) try to appropriate the function of making personnel decisions, inevitably become a participant in official conflicts and, as a result, find themselves rejected by the system itself. The transcript of the meeting of the party group of the Union of Soviet Architects recorded several such “outrageous” episodes: “… Shchusev managed to win back three people who were once convicted and exiled by the Soviet regime, and he put them next to him and began to work with them. … As a result, the workshop is now littered with people alien to us. Today we have one prince, seven nobles, two clergymen, one merchant, three personal hereditary citizens, there are former foreign nationals who are now working on very important projects, there are children of former foreign nationals. … Yesterday the party group of our workshop made the following conclusions. We believe that in the light of these data, staying with the workshop management is impossible”[17].
The Union of Soviet Architects is officially called a "public organization", but of course it is not. The SSA seeks to establish its status as a state body, moreover, one that has the exclusive rights of approval for leadership positions of representatives of the professional workshop. Approve a status that allows you to nominate, approve, or reject candidates proposed for nomenclature positions. The status is inviolable even on the part of the local Soviet and party authorities. The chief architects of the leading design workshops, the chief architects of the design institutes, the chief architects of the cities of the territories and regions - the nomenclature of the Union - he and only he, in the final analysis, must decide who is worthy to occupy these positions.
4. The Union of Soviet Architects seeks to arrogate to itself exclusive rights, for example, the right to assess the professional qualifications of an architect. The union must, on a nationwide scale, assert its importance as an instance on which the career and professional position of each particular architect depends. A project worker must work in his place and know that the supreme judge of his professional skills is the Union represented by the board of his local organization. “You must not allow people who are not yet ripe to work on their own,” KS said. Halabyan in his report at a meeting in the Moscow House of Architects "The state of the architectural front and our tasks" [18]. And who can decide this? Of course, only the “creative” Union, which “consists of high-level professionals,” is the only one capable of giving a principled professional assessment of the level of maturity and qualifications of each particular architect. “We must make better use of our qualified personnel, arrange them more correctly” [19].
A project worker should know that the guarantee of his advancement in the career ladder is his involvement in the activities of the Union - one cannot ignore the Union's activities, one cannot ignore the meetings of the board, as A. V. Shchusev, who allowed himself not to appear at board meetings for a year [20]. This, in particular, was reproached by A. V. Shchusev, when analyzing his personal case at a meeting of the party group - "Shchusev ignored the meetings of the Board, refused to participate in its work." Note that this is absolutely true - the archival materials contain attendance records of meetings of the Board of the Union of Soviet Architects (of which A. V. Shchusev was a member), from which it follows that Shchusev (and I. V. Zholtovsky) really ignored the work of the Board [21].
The union strengthens its importance in professional everyday life by the fact that in a rather harsh form it points out to architects that it is impossible to be aloof from its activities - you cannot just do your job well and hope that this alone will ensure a career. This is "bargaining". You need to actively participate in the work of the architectural community, in the multifaceted activities of the Union, you need to be involved in the actions it carries out, you need to be included in the system of formal and informal relations between the members of the Union, you need to prove your rootedness in ideology and take your modest place in the system of "leadership-subordination "And then, perhaps, the name of the name will receive the blessing and support of the Union in promoting it to positions and titles. And without the benevolent attitude of the leadership of the Union, even existing merits and titles are not particularly considered for such. So, in the resolution of the meeting of the party group of the All-Union and Moscow administrations of the Union of Soviet Architects, it was stated: “The architect Shchusev, who received the title of academician in old Russia for designing the construction of churches … approached the solution of creative issues of Soviet architecture superficially …, academician … "[22]. The results of creative activity are not very significant. So, K. S. At a meeting of the party group of the Union of Soviet Architects, Halabyan rather sharply declares: “It is necessary to check people who not only do not show a desire to take part in public life, but, on the contrary, by all means push the architects who stand close to him onto the commercial, mercantile rails (meaning: “They take and fulfill many orders” - MM)”[23].
The right granted by the Union of Soviet Architects to politically and ideologically cancel out the entire previous creative life of any person sounded very menacing. Especially against the background of recent (just six months ago) speeches at the First Congress of Architects, when the speakers sang praises to Alexei Viktorovich and the same K. S. Alabyan in his report "The state of the architectural front and our tasks" [24] spoke about A. V. Shchusev: “AV Shchusev, with his enormous energy, his personal example, his great creative temperament … had a great influence on the growth of Soviet architecture. In addition to the works that we could cite from the activities of these architects (we are also talking about I. V. Zholtovsky - M. M.), and on which young people studied, we could name the young architects who were brought up by these people, and Zholtovsky, and Shchusev.”[25]. Now it turns out that merit is no longer merit, and the disciples, it turns out, are no longer disciples.
The Union co-organizes professional cadres into a single, hierarchically built, centrally controlled mechanism for executing party and government decisions, capable of solving the tasks set by the Soviet government. And at a meeting of the party group of the SSA on September 3, 1937, it was far from Shchusev that was discussed, but, first of all, the state of affairs in the profession. Under the claims hung on A. V. Shchusev, and Zholtovsky, and Golosov, and Fridman, and Burov, and Goltz, and Kolli, and Barshch, and Sinyavsky, and others are included [26]. But no matter who in particular it was, the essence of the matter was not in the personalities. And in the fact that new cadres came to the party-administrative leadership of the profession - those who, at the will of the party, accepted the task of organizing a nationwide system of design business in the country. Who was able to solve this problem on a daily basis, turning the design system into a well-functioning production-type mechanism. Who agreed that the status of an employee of the state system of design business should depend not so much on his skill as (sometimes even more) on the place he occupies in the official hierarchy. Who understood and accepted the position that the administrative position of "director" or "chief architect" is more significant in the project plan than the figure of the author of the project.
Under the guise of a creative public organization (under the guise of a professional club), the Union formed an administrative and managerial structure for managing the activities of industrial architects, a system of ideological and organizational control over performers, capable of implementing a nationwide urban planning and architectural policy. To this end, the SSA creates a system of local organizations, sets the forms of their work, forces all architects without exception to be included in the daily activities of the Union, in one-time and episodic actions (such as consideration in each local organization and adoption of a resolution in connection with the "Shchusev case"), arrogates to itself the right to exercise control on the ground over various aspects of the activities of architects (practice, pedagogy, social activities, administration, etc.).
In Soviet architecture, there is a "revolution of generations" … [1] "Pravda" 1937, no. 239 (7205) [2] RGALI. Union of Architects of the USSR. Transcript of Shchusev's report “On the Tasks of Soviet Architecture at the First All-Union Congress. Transcript of the meeting of the SSA party group of September 3, 1937 on the Shchusev issue, September 1937 - F. 674, op. 2, storage unit 43 - 62 sheets, sheets 17-62, sheet 54. [3] "The life and work of the architect Shchusev" (Review of letters received by the editor) // Pravda, 1937. № 243 (7209) 3 Sept. P. 4.
[4] RGALI. Union of Architects of the USSR. Resolution of the meeting of the party group of the All-Union and Moscow administrations of the Union of Soviet Architects dated September 2, 1937 - F. 674, op. 2, storage unit 43 - 62 l., L. 9-12., L.11. [5] RGALI. Union of Architects of the USSR. Transcript of Shchusev's report “On the Tasks of Soviet Architecture at the First All-Union Congress. Transcript of the meeting of the SSA party group of September 3, 1937 on the Shchusev issue, September 1937 - F.674, op. 2, storage unit 43 - 62 l. 17-62., L.61. [6] RGALI. Union of Architects of the USSR. Transcript of Shchusev's report “On the Tasks of Soviet Architecture at the First All-Union Congress. Transcript of the meeting of the party group of the SSA on September 3, 1937 on the issue of Shchusev, September 1937 Resolution of the meeting of the party group of the All-Union and Moscow boards of the Union of Soviet Architects dated September 2, 1937 - F.674, op. 2, storage unit 43 - 62 l., L. 9-12., L.10-11. [7] Kravchuk K. From the history that you need to know. On the 50th anniversary of the commissioning of the Foreign Ministry building on Smolenskaya Square. // Architecture. Construction. Design. [8] RGALI. Union of Architects of the USSR. Transcript of Shchusev's report “On the Tasks of Soviet Architecture at the First All-Union Congress. Transcript of the meeting of the party group of the SSA on September 3, 1937 on the issue of Shchusev, September 1937 Resolution of the meeting of the party group of the All-Union and Moscow boards of the Union of Soviet Architects dated September 2, 1937 - F.674, op. 2, storage unit 43 - 62 l., L. 9-12., L. 10-11. [9] RGALI. Union of Architects of the USSR. Transcript of Shchusev's report “On the Tasks of Soviet Architecture at the First All-Union Congress. Transcript of the meeting of the SSA party group of September 3, 1937 on the Shchusev issue, September 1937 - F.674, op. 2, storage unit 43–62 l., L. 17-62., L. 32, 48. [10] Ibid. L. 29. [11] Ibid. L. 24. [12] It is not clear what kind of workshop we are talking about, since during this period A. V. Shchusev directed several design workshops [13] Ibid L. 29. [14] Ibid L. 29. [15] Ibid. L. 39. [16] Ibid. L.42 - 43, 49, 50, 53. [17] RGALI. Union of Architects of the USSR. Transcript of Shchusev's report “On the Tasks of Soviet Architecture at the First All-Union Congress. Transcript of the meeting of the SSA party group on September 3, 1937 on the issue of Shchusev, September 1937 Art Department comrade Nazarov (letter) dated September 5, 1937 - F. 674, op. 2, storage unit 43 - 62 sheets, sheet 42 - 43, 49, 50, 53. [18] RGALI. Board of the Union of Soviet Architects of the USSR. Secretariat. KS Alabyan's report at the Moscow House of Architects "The state of the architectural front and our tasks." March 22, 1937 - F. 674, op. 3, storage unit 4 - 26 sheets, sheet 12. [19] Ibid. L. 13. [20] RGALI. Union of Soviet Architects. Minutes of meetings of the Presidium and the Board of the SSA with annexes - July 20, 1932 - March 31, 1934 List - F.674, op. 1, storage unit 7 - 211 sheets, sheet 9-ob. [21] Ibid. L.9-ob. [22] RGALI. Union of Architects of the USSR. Transcript of Shchusev's report “On the Tasks of Soviet Architecture at the First All-Union Congress. Transcript of the meeting of the party group of the SSA on September 3, 1937 on the issue of Shchusev, September 1937 Resolution of the meeting of the party group of the All-Union and Moscow boards of the Union of Soviet Architects of September 2, 1937 - F. 674, op. 2, unit. xp. 43 - 62 l., L. 9-12., L. 10. [23] RGALI. Union of Architects of the USSR. Transcript of Shchusev's report “On the Tasks of Soviet Architecture at the First All-Union Congress. Transcript of the meeting of the SSA party group of September 3, 1937 on the Shchusev issue, September 1937 - F.674, op. 2, storage unit 43 - 62 l., L. 17-62., L. 32. [24] Held on March 22, 1937 in the Moscow House of Architects [25] RGALI. Board of the Union of Soviet Architects of the USSR. Secretariat. Report by K. S. Alabyan in the Moscow House of Architects "The state of the architectural front and our tasks." March 22, 1937 - F. 674, op. 3, storage unit 4 - F.674, op. 3, storage unit 4 - 26 p., Sheet 12. [26] RGALI. Union of Architects of the USSR. Transcript of Shchusev's report “On the Tasks of Soviet Architecture at the First All-Union Congress. Transcript of the meeting of the SSA party group of September 3, 1937 on the Shchusev issue, September 1937 - F.674, op. 2, storage unit 43 - 62 l., L. 17-62., L.19, 20, 28, 53, 60.
