From the book by Nikolai Vasiliev and Elena Ovsyannikova "Architecture of Moscow during the NEP and the First Five-Year Plan" (M., Restoration-N, 2012):
“This club is a recognized masterpiece and is included in all international lists of the best buildings of the 20th century. The building was built almost entirely in accordance with the author's idea, while other projects of Melnikov's clubs were greatly changed during the implementation, the architect himself considered this building to be the most significant professional achievement.
The club occupies a very narrow area and has a sector-shaped plan that coincides with the shape of a small auditorium. Three cantilever protrusions hang onto the street, accommodating the stands of the amphitheater (their reinforced concrete structures were designed by engineer V. V. Rozanov). Melnikov made such hanging forms not only to increase the seats for spectators, but also as auditoriums separated by mobile partitions. The transformation of the hall was conceived by mechanized, the mechanic N. I. Gubin.
The capacity of the hall could vary from 250 to 1500 people, occupying only the parterre or an arbitrary number of stands from three naves, two independent tiers in each (for 180 people). The parterre had a very weak slope floor. The middle tier had a flat floor and was primarily to be used for circle work, since there were almost no separate rooms for such classes.
The outer forms of the club resemble a part of a gear, which was immediately noted by eyewitnesses. The uniqueness of the building became the reason for criticism of its architecture, although Melnikov wittily responded to the requests of the customer - the Union of Public Utilities. He placed, as required, the auditorium on the second floor, and took the first floor for office space, skillfully arranging them into a common volume. The entrance to the club was from the bottom, and the exit could be through an external balcony with two ladders attached to it (this way the architect was able to save on the space required for evacuation fire escapes).
At first, Melnikov wanted a free passage under the foyer of the second floor. The hall was made light, with narrow vertical windows (subsequently sealed up). Its construction is very interesting, bearing cantilever amphitheaters. These are openwork metal trusses, deliberately introduced into the interior and forming the letter "M" above the parterre and stage. Between the amphitheaters there are ordinary staircases, duplicated by spiral metal staircases for technical purposes. The same spiral staircase is installed at the back of the stage in a triangular niche (it is this one that is visible from the rear facade in the form of an acute-angled brick turret).
Whereas Andrea Palladio's stage at the famous Teatro Olimpico is divided by permanent decorations into three deep elements, diverging from the viewer, here, on the contrary, the upper tier of the hall of three spatial elements allows the audience's gaze to converge on the stage. That is, Palladio's idea is "turned inside out."
Nikolay Vasiliev, historian of architecture, Secretary General of DOCOMOMO Russia:
“The best, in his own words, building of Konstantin Melnikov - the club of the Union of Communal Workers - was erected for the workers of the Sokolniki tram depot on Stromynka and during the life of the architect underwent serious alterations.
After the war, an extremely complex system of mechanical shutters-screens was dismantled, dividing the hall into smaller rooms, windows were laid on the side facades, depriving the hall of natural light. In the 1970s, marble in the foyer and other little things appeared, but until the end of the 2000s, the building retained its external forms intact (albeit with the loss of the slogans inscribed on the ends of the stands), the metal frames of the windows were also preserved, although the doors were replaced.
In post-Soviet times, the club was occupied by the Roman Viktyuk theater, and, apart from replacing doors and other "cosmetics", not a single ruble was invested in maintaining the club. Eventually, after receiving federal funding, the theater began its restoration. Unfortunately, it is difficult, if not impossible, to call this project a restoration. Against the background of the necessary disclosure of the embedded windows and the recreation of the slogans on the facade (in a very controversial color scheme, as can be seen even from historical photographs), all window frames were replaced with double-glazed windows, very remotely reminiscent of the original. The paint covering the brickwork was never cleaned off, a monstrous structure of air conditioner and exhaust pipes appeared on the rear facade (and this is not just a small "box" of a home split system), on the west facade - a glass parallelepiped of an elevator.
Inside, things are also controversial - just over a hundred authentic wooden chairs have been restored, but nothing more. Initially, the slightly sloping floor of the parterre is leveled, the foyer and wardrobes have not received their original appearance - it seems as if no one was involved in clearing it. The capacity of the hall from the initial almost 1300 people has become only about four hundred - due to the change in the pitch of the rows and chairs in them. Of course, you can forget about the transformation of the hall forever.
In return, we received only a new ventilation system that disfigured the rear façade - perhaps the most spectacular view of the club - and an elevator for access to the disabled room - a necessary thing according to modern standards. But if the elevator appeared on the western facade, distorting its appearance, then why was the air conditioner not placed there?
Further questions only multiply. The main one is why was it necessary to spend state money, hire an unknown architect with no experience in restoration, ignore international (and domestic) expert opinion? In order to get a building that is not too suitable for the People's Artist (which he himself told me and his colleagues in 2010) in fresh painting (which, knowing our quality of work, will crumble in a few years), albeit with the replacement of engineering communications - and lose the masterpiece at the same time world class? The solution, alas, is in the genre - neither ours, nor yours. Exactly as happened with the house-commune in the 2nd Donskoy: - Do the students live? - They live! Is the building no longer a ruin? - Not a ruin! So what else is needed? We need at least one example of preserving a non-secondary monument of the Russian avant-garde while preserving at least one close to its original function. Not to go to the same library in Vyborg all the time."
